Letter to Kerry

[Rob67]

Someone sent this my way via email. Not claiming that these are all truths but I thought it was interesting. I don't have the time to research the validity of some of the claims but his reasoning seems grounded. Thought I would share it for our resident Kerry fans.

Rob :cool:

___________________________________

Open Letter to John Kerry:

My wife had rotator cuff surgery earlier this year, and the recovery is terribly painful. Then, she developed a staph-epi infection, and they had to cut the same scar open and operate on her again. Just thinking about the pain and anxiety of facing that painful surgery a second time in the same wound, makes me cringe. That experience, however pales in comparison to what I am going through right now, in my heart.

The old hurts are surfacing and the feelings of betrayal by fellow citizens, and their leader stirring them up, are breaking my heart again. I am being cut in the same scar. How did we who served in Vietnam suddenly become cold-blooded killers, torturers, and rapists, of the ilk of the Nazi SS or the Taliban? Most of us were American soldiers who grew up idolizing John Wayne, Roy Rogers, and all the other heroes. That was why I volunteered. But for political expediency, John Kerry has rewritten history, again. After spending only four months in the country of Vietnam, John Kerry testified before Congress in 1971 with these exact words about incidents he supposedly witnessed or heard about from other vets: "They personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, b! lown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam."

I was a green beret officer who volunteered for duty in Vietnam and fought in the thick of it in 1968 and 1969 on a Special Forces A-team on the Ho Chi Minh Trail, just for starters. We were the elite. We saw the most action. Everybody in the world knows that. But we did not just kill people, we built a church, a school, treated illnesses, passed out soap, food, and clothing, and had fun and loving interaction with the indigenous people of Vietnam, just like our boys did in Normandy, Baghdad, Saigon, and everywhere American soldiers ever served. We all gave away our candy bars and rations to kids. Our hearts to oppressed people all over the globe.

My children and grandchildren could read your words, and think those horrendous things about me, Mr. Kerry. You are a bold-faced, unprincipled liar, and a disgrace, and you have dishonored me and all my fellow Vietnam veterans. Sure, there were a couple bad-apples, but I saw none, and I saw it all, and if I did, as an army officer, it was my obligation to stop it, or at the very least report it. Why is there not a single record anywhere of you ever reporting any incidents like this or having the perpetrators arrested? The answer is simple. You are a liar. Your medals and mine are not a free pass for lifetime, Senator Kerry, to bypass character, integrity, and morality. I earn my green beret over and over daily in all aspects of my life.

Eight National Guard green berets, and other National Guard soldiers, have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, ! and you totally dishonored their widows and families by lumping National Guard service in with being a draft-dodger, conscientious objector, and deserter, just so you can try to sabotage the patriotism of our President who proudly served as an Air National Guard jet pilot. I have a son earning his green beret at Fort Bragg right now, and his wife serves honorably in the Air National Guard, just like President Bush did, and I am as proud of her as I am my son. I volunteered for Vietnam and have no problem whatsoever with President Bush being our Commander-In-Chief. In fact, I am proud of him as our leader.

John Kerry, you personally derailed the Vietnam Human rights Bill, HR2883, in 2001, after it had passed the House by a 411 to 1 vote, and thousands of pro-American Montagnard tribespeople in Vietnam died since then who could have been saved, by you. Earlier, as Chair of the Senate Select Committee on MIA/POW Affairs, you personally quashed the efforts of any and all veterans to report sightings of living POW's, when you held those reins in Congress. You have fought tooth and nail to push for the US to normalize relations with Vietnam for years. Why, Mr. Kerry? Simple, your first cousin C. Stewart Forbes, CEO, of Colliers International, recently signed a contract with Hanoi, worth BILLIONS of dollars for Collier's International to become the exclusive real estate representative for the country of Vietnam.

"Hanoi John," now that it works for you, you beat your chest about your Vietnam service, but to me, you are a phony, opportunistic, hypocrite. You are one of those politicians that is like a fertilizer machine: all that comes out of you is horse manure, and you are spreading it everywhere.

Medals do not make a man. Morals do.


Don Bendell
Canon City, Colorado

Don Bendell served as an officer in four Special Forces Groups, is a best-selling author with over 1,500,000 books in print, a 1995 inductee into the International Karate Hall of Fame, and owns karate schools in southern Colorado.

[dissention]

:rolleyes:

Those are the experiences of one man. The fact is that American soldiers brutalized and killed women, children, and the elderly during the Vietnam war. They took glee in torturing them and used the excuse that they *might* have been enemies. If he wants to write such a letter, the first thing he must do is acknowledge that those actions took place. Then, he must look at Kerry's comments and use them in the context in which they were orignally used, not morph them to fit his agenda.

:rolleyes:

[dissention]

Here is what he REALLY said:

"I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.

They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

We call this investigation the "Winter Soldier Investigation." The term "Winter Soldier" is a play on words of Thomas Paine in 1776 when he spoke of the Sunshine Patriot and summertime soldiers who deserted at Valley Forge because the going was rough.

We who have come here to Washington have come here because we f eel we have to be winter soldiers now. We could come back to this country; we could be quiet; we could hold our silence; we could not tell what went on in Vietnam, but we feel because of what threatens this country, the fact that the crimes threaten it, not reds, and not redcoats but the crimes which we are committing that threaten it, that we have to speak out."

He was referring to a select group of 150 soldiers.

[Sugar]

I put that quote into Google and found this:

Vietnam Veterans Against the War Statement by John Kerry to the Senate Committee of Foreign Relations

April 23, 1971

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would like to talk on behalf of all those veterans and say that several months ago in Detroit we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged, and many very highly decorated, veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia. These were not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command. It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit - the emotions in the room and the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.

They told stories that at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

We call this investigation the Winter Soldier Investigation. The term Winter Soldier is a play on words of Thomas Paine's in 1776 when he spoke of the Sunshine Patriots and summertime soldiers who deserted at Valley Forge because the going was rough.

We who have come here to Washington have come here because we feel we have to be winter soldiers now. We could come back to this country, we could be quiet, we could hold our silence, we could not tell what went on in Vietnam, but we feel because of what threatens this country, not the reds, but the crimes which we are committing that threaten it, that we have to speak out....

In our opinion and from our experience, there is nothing in South Vietnam which could happen that realistically threatens the United States of America. And to attempt to justify the loss of one American life in Vietnam, Cambodia or Laos by linking such loss to the preservation of freedom, which those misfits supposedly abuse, is to us the height of criminal hypocrisy, and it is that kind of hypocrisy which we feel has torn this country apart.

We found that not only was it a civil war, an effort by a people who had for years been seeking their liberation from any colonial influence whatsoever, but also we found that the Vietnamese whom we had enthusiastically molded after our own image were hard put to take up the fight against the threat we were supposedly saving them from.

We found most people didn't even know the difference between communism and democracy. They only wanted to work in rice paddies without helicopters strafing them and bombs with napalm burning their villages and tearing their country apart. They wanted everything to do with the war, particularly with this foreign presence of the United States of America, to leave them alone in peace, and they practiced the art of survival by siding with whichever military force was present at a particular time, be it Viet Cong, North Vietnamese or American.

We found also that all too often American men were dying in those rice paddies for want of support from their allies. We saw first hand how monies from American taxes were used for a corrupt dictatorial regime. We saw that many people in this country had a one-sided idea of who was kept free by the flag, and blacks provided the highest percentage of casualties. We saw Vietnam ravaged equally by American bombs and search and destroy missions, as well as by Viet Cong terrorism - and yet we listened while this country tried to blame all of the havoc on the Viet Cong.

We rationalized destroying villages in order to save them. We saw America lose her sense of morality as she accepted very coolly a My Lai and refused to give up the image of American soldiers who hand out chocolate bars and chewing gum.

We learned the meaning of free fire zones, shooting anything that moves, and we watched while America placed a cheapness on the lives of orientals.

We watched the United States falsification of body counts, in fact the glorification of body counts. We listened while month after month we were told the back of the enemy was about to break. We fought using weapons against "oriental human beings." We fought using weapons against those people which I do not believe this country would dream of using were we fighting in the European theater. We watched while men charged up hills because a general said that hill has to be taken, and after losing one platoon or two platoons they marched away to leave the hill for reoccupation by the North Vietnamese. We watched pride allow the most unimportant battles to be blown into extravaganzas, because we couldn't lose, and we couldn't retreat, and because it didn't matter how many American bodies were lost to prove that point, and so there were Hamburger Hills and Khe Sanhs and Hill 81s and Fire Base 6s, and so many others.

Now we are told that the men who fought there must watch quietly while American lives are lost so that we can exercise the incredible arrogance of Vietnamizing the Vietnamese.

Each day to facilitate the process by which the United States washes her hands of Vietnam someone has to give up his life so that the United States doesn't have to admit something that the entire world already knows, so that we can't say that we have made a mistake. Someone has to die so that President Nixon won't be, and these are his words, "the first President to lose a war."

We are asking Americans to think about that because how do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam? How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?....We are here in Washington to say that the problem of this war is not just a question of war and diplomacy. It is part and parcel of everything that we are trying as human beings to communicate to people in this country - the question of racism which is rampant in the military, and so many other questions such as the use of weapons; the hypocrisy in our taking umbrage at the Geneva Conventions and using that as justification for a continuation of this war when we are more guilty than any other body of violations of those Geneva Conventions; in the use of free fire zones, harassment interdiction fire, search and destroy missions, the bombings, the torture of prisoners, all accepted policy by many units in South Vietnam. That is what we are trying to say. It is part and parcel of everything.

An American Indian friend of mine who lives in the Indian Nation of Alcatraz put it to me very succinctly. He told me how as a boy on an Indian reservation he had watched television and he used to cheer the cowboys when they came in and shot the Indians, and then suddenly one day he stopped in Vietnam and he said, "my God, I am doing to these people the very same thing that was done to my people," and he stopped. And that is what we are trying to say, that we think this thing has to end.

We are here to ask, and we are here to ask vehemently, where are the leaders of our country? Where is the leadership? We're here to ask where are McNamara, Rostow, Bundy, Gilpatrick, and so many others? Where are they now that we, the men they sent off to war, have returned? These are the commanders who have deserted their troops. And there is no more serious crime in the laws of war. The Army says they never leave their wounded. The marines say they never even leave their dead. These men have left all the casualties and retreated behind a pious shield of public rectitude. They've left the real stuff of their reputations bleaching behind them in the sun in this country....

We wish that a merciful God could wipe away our own memories of that service as easily as this administration has wiped away their memories of us. But all that they have done and all that they can do by this denial is to make more clear than ever our own determination to undertake one last mission - to search out and destroy the last vestige of this barbaric war, to pacify our own hearts, to conquer the hate and fear that have driven this country these last ten years and more. And more. And so when thirty years from now our brothers go down the street without a leg, without an arm, or a face, and small boys ask why, we will be able to say "Vietnam" and not mean a desert, not a filthy obscene memory, but mean instead where America finally turned and where soldiers like us helped it in the turning.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This text is made available by the Sixties Project, sponsored by Viet Nam Generation Inc. and the Institute of Advanced Technology in the Humanities at the University of Virginia at Charlottesville. The Sixties Project is a collective of humanities scholars working together on the Internet to use electronic resources to provide routes of collaboration and make available primary and secondary sources for researchers, students, teachers, writers and librarians interested in the 1960s.

[strandinthewind]

I gotta cry foul on this. It is well proven and very sad that Amercian and other soldiers performed autrocities in Nam. Just because this guy did not see it or will not admit he saw it does not mean Kerry and the 1,000 of others' did not see it. Also, if he is saying Kerry did not behave heroically in Nam, every person that was with Kerry disproves that and this guy was not there. Finally, what the hell does any of this have to do with Bush stupidly and unnecessarily exaggerating/tweaking/whatever WMD information to justify what has turned out to be apparently his unnecessary war in Iraq (Again, W and crew said they "knew" where the weapons were and that SH was getting ready to or could sell them, use them, whatever - now we find out he does not have them and probably has not had them in a long time :shrug: ).

Moreover, this smacks of the slanted and mostly untrue crap my dad sends me all of the time almost all of which turns out to be false a la the one where Target refused to give the local vets charity, the one where Hillary refused to meet with a charitable organization, etc.

In this case, I think I'll let his website speak for him :laugh:

http://www.donbendell.com/

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I gotta cry foul on this.

Good lord, put it in your sig already. :laugh: :wavey:

[CarneVaca]

The evil GOP distortion machine is going full blast already. t

[Rob67]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
The evil GOP distortion machine is going full blast already. t

"Evil GOP distortion" machine? Or, just a guy who finds hypocrisy with John Kerry? Hmmmm....

Rob:cool:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by Rob67
Someone sent this my way via email. Not claiming that these are all truths but I thought it was interesting. I don't have the time to research the validity of some of the claims but his reasoning seems grounded.

Then please don't post a bunch of **** that you have no idea is the truth.:)

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
The evil GOP distortion machine is going full blast already. t

No doubt. This is the biggest load of crap I've seen come out of the $200 million propaganda pig yet. It's only going to get worse.

[strandinthewind]

I wonder if W and his people had a hand in this. I mean it looks like it is just some guy posting his opinion on his site. If that is the case, he is entitled to his opinion no matter how wrong I think he is. He probably sent this letter to all of his far right friends and they sent it to all of their frineds, etc. I cannot imagine the White House would want this in any way traced back to them. :cool:

Note: this does not mean I do not think that both camps are actively at work with crap similar to this. Polictics is just sleazy :laugh:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I wonder if W and his people had a hand in this. I mean it looks like it is just some guy posting his opinion on his site. If that is the case, he is entitled to his opinion no matter how wrong I think he is. He probably sent this letter to all of his far right friends and they sent it to all of their frineds, etc. I cannot imagine the White House would want this in any way traced back to them. :cool:

You're probably right Strand. I can't believe people are stupid enough to fall for this kind of ****.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
You're probably right Strand. I can't believe people are stupid enough to fall for this kind of ****.

That is how the Hillary Clinton thing got started. Here is the site with a link to the organization's site http://hoaxinfo.com/goldstar.htm

The Target one

http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/target.asp

[gldstwmn]

There is no progressive thought or discussion intended to come out of this thread. It's meant to start a flame war. It should be locked.:)

[strandinthewind]

Here is the skinny on the fat given to W:

POLITICAL POINTS | 2.26 5:10 PM
Enron Overtaken as Bush's Top Financial Supporter
By GLEN JUSTICE

Enron is dropping in the rankings, if not from the rhetoric, in this year's presidential race.

The bankrupt energy trader has lost its standing as the top campaign contributor in President Bush's political career, a position it held for years, as company executives gave Mr. Bush $602,625 throughout his tenure as Texas governor and his days in the White House, according to the Center for Public Integrity.

Enron fell to second place in January behind the MBNA, a leading issuer of credit cards. MBNA took the top spot, with its employees giving more than $603,000 to Mr. Bush.

Campaign finance experts say the change symbolizes a continuing shift in the president's financial support, moving away from his usual backers like oil and gas companies and toward financial-services companies that have become increasingly supportive.

``The financial types have been closing fast and they did it: they overwhelmed Enron,'' said Charles Lewis, executive director of the Center for Public Integrity, which tracks the top contributors to presidential candidates over the course of their careers.

Brokerages, credit and accounting companies account for 7 of Mr. Bush's top 10 career contributors through Jan. 31, according to the center. In a similar study during the 2000 election, no major financial-services companies were listed among the top 10.

Mr. Bush has championed several initiatives that were applauded by the financial community, including cuts in the taxes on stock dividends and capital gains.

Among those companies that made Mr. Bush's list in January are Merrill Lynch at about $586,000, PricewaterhouseCoopers at $576,000; UBS AG Inc. at $488,500, Credit Suisse at $485,000, Ernst & Young at $426,000 and Goldman Sachs. The totals count money contributed by company employees and political action committees.

In several cases, company leaders also raised money for Mr. Bush. Several chief executives - Henry M. Paulson of Goldman Sachs, John J. Mack of Credit Suisse First Boston and Stanley O'Neal of Merrill Lynch - were among Mr. Bush's elite six-figure fund-raisers.

Executives at Enron continued to give to Mr. Bush in small amounts, despite the company's bankruptcy filing. The president received $3,000 in 2003 from four people who listed Enron as their employer, according to the center. Enron's collapse amid an accounting scandal gave rise to corporate accountability measures and helped pass the McCain-Feingold campaign finance legislation in 2002. The company was a sore spot for Mr. Bush, who was friends with the company's chief executive, Kenneth L. Lay.

Democrats, including the presidential candidates, have not been shy about trying to connect the company to the president - criticism that is likely to continue. An aide at the Bush campaign declined to comment on the company's change on Mr. Bush's rankings.

``If I'm the White House, I'm really happy,'' Mr. Lewis said. If Enron is your top patron, that's got to be embarrassing.''


________________________________________

Here is another site on this topic

http://www.publicintegrity.org/dtaweb/home.asp

[dissention]

Originally posted by Rob67
"Evil GOP distortion" machine? Or, just a guy who finds hypocrisy with John Kerry? Hmmmm....

Rob:cool:

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :rolleyes:

He took the wrong statement to find hypocrisy with, doll. Have you even bothered to read the entire statement which includes the real context of what Kerry was saying?

I think not.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :rolleyes:

He took the wrong statement to find hypocrisy with, doll. Have you even bothered to read the entire statement which includes the real context of what Kerry was saying?

I think not.

Explain

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by Rob67
"Evil GOP distortion" machine? Or, just a guy who finds hypocrisy with John Kerry? Hmmmm....

Rob:cool:

First of all, the old bugger should be ashamed of himself. He's probably too f***ing nuts to remember anyway, but the atrocities committed by Americans in Vietnam are well documented. Further, he distorted Kerry's words. And lastly, you should know better than to post this evil crap.

I'm not even voting for Kerry, but I can smell a rat hundreds of miles away.

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Explain

Do I really need to? :rolleyes: The "letter" speaks for itself.

He twists the words of John Kerry, takes the statement out of context, and totally trashes Kerry to suit his needs.

For cripes sake, it was a complete misuse of Kerry's words. And it's despicable.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
Do I really need to? :rolleyes: The "letter" speaks for itself.

He twists the words of John Kerry, takes the statement out of context, and totally trashes Kerry to suit his needs.

For cripes sake, it was a complete misuse of Kerry's words. And it's despicable.

Sorry - I thought you were specifically referring to Kerry's testimony in front of Congress on the Vietnam War. I was wondering what exactly did he say. I have looked around for a transcript, but too mny sites come up, etc. :laugh:

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Sorry - I thought you were specifically referring to Kerry's testimony in front of Congress on the Vietnam War. I was wondering what exactly did he say. I have looked around for a transcript, but too mny sites come up, etc. :laugh:

:eek:

Sugar and I posted what he said in the first page of thread, child. :laugh: Go back and read it! :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
:eek:

Sugar and I posted what he said in the first page of thread, child. :laugh: Go back and read it! :laugh:

I read that, butI am talking about the transcript of the whole proceeding. Was this the only time Kerry talked? I thouight I saw him answering questions on a t.v. sniglet of th hearings.

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I read that, butI am talking about the transcript of the whole proceeding. Was this the only time Kerry talked? I thouight I saw him answering questions on a t.v. sniglet of th hearings.

I'll try to get the whole thing for you. :)

[Janet]

It has been brought to my attention that this thread is threatening to some people.

With the election coming up, there will be very strong opnions and maybe even arguments. I think this is ok, because this board maybe the only place people can really state how they feel.

But only state the TRUTH with facts and quotes..please don't start arguments with lies or half truths.

I will keep this up as long as it stays quiet...and just becareful with the cursing and personal attacks because that will only start problems, ok!

:) Thanks!!!!:)

[jwd]

Another opinion on Kerry:


http://www.usvetdsp.com/story10.htm

[dissention]

Originally posted by jwd
Another opinion on Kerry:


http://www.usvetdsp.com/story10.htm

From the US Veteran's Dispatch, no less. Probably the most right-wing of all Veteran groups. I love how they brought up the completely false and slanderous accusations of Kerry committing war crimes. That organization still believes that the Gulf of Tonkin attack was real, so consider your source.

And that op-ed is from '96, doll. Half of the **** in it has been proven to be just that: ****. And let's not forget that he was running for re-election against that asshole Weld (the cockiest, most obnoxious Republican I've ever seen...next to Shrub, that is).

I wish you neocons would actually look into Kerry before posting such tripe. it actually reflects negatively on you. :rolleyes:

[CarneVaca]

I agree. Spreading these lies does nothing for the cause of the neocons. It's contemptible, really.

[jwd]

dissention:

Half of the **** in it has been proven to be just that: ****.

Prove it. I'd appreciate it if you took it point by point and explain to me why you think it's ****. I mean, with the exception that it came from a right wing organization. I really would like to know...seriously.


Joe

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by jwd
Prove it. I'd appreciate it if you took it point by point and explain to me why you think it's ****. I mean, with the exception that it came from a right wing organization. I really would like to know...seriously.


Joe

No. You're the one that came in here with the bull**** charges. If you've got time to sit there and find this ****, then you've got time to look up the truth. Do your own dirty work. You can start here: www.johkerry.com Thanks.:)

[jwd]

gldstwmn:

No. You're the one that came in here with the bull**** charges. If you've got time to sit there and find this ****, then you've got time to look up the truth. Do your own dirty work. You can start here: www.johkerry.com Thanks.

And just what is the truth? I'm sure I'll find all the unbiased and objective information I need at the gospel of St. John Kerry. Thanks for your open dialogue.


Joe

[strandinthewind]

Dodging bullets, I jumo in to say there are some posts about Jerry's record in the Nader thread.

:cool:

[jwd]

Here's an interesting article that show's Kerry's stand on certain issues....or does it? :confused:


http://politics.slate.msn.com/id/2096540/#ContinueArticle




Joe

[jwd]

Another opinion:

http://nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/17337.htm

THE REAL KERRY

By HOWIE CARR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Email Archives
Print Reprint



February 5, 2004 -- BOSTON

ONE of the surest ways to get the phones ringing on any Massachusetts talk-radio show is to ask people to call in and tell their John Kerry stories. The phone lines are soon filled, and most of the stories have a common theme: our junior senator pulling rank on one of his constituents, breaking in line, demanding to pay less (or nothing) or ducking out before the bill arrives.

The tales often have one other common thread. Most end with Sen. Kerry inquiring of the lesser mortal: "Do you know who I am?"

And now he's running for president as a populist. His first wife came from a Philadelphia Main Line family worth $300 million. His second wife is a pickle-and-ketchup heiress.

Kerry lives in a mansion on Beacon Hill on which he has borrowed $6 million to finance his campaign. A fire hydrant that prevented him and his wife from parking their SUV in front of their tony digs was removed by the city of Boston at his behest.

The Kerrys ski at a spa the widow Heinz owns in Aspen, and they summer on Nantucket in a sprawling seaside "cottage" on Hurlbert Avenue, which is so well-appointed that at a recent fund-raiser, they imported porta-toilets onto the front lawn so the donors wouldn't use the inside bathrooms. (They later claimed the decision was made on septic, not social, considerations).

It's a wonderful life these days for John Kerry. He sails Nantucket Sound in "the Scaramouche," a 42-foot Hinckley powerboat. Martha Stewart has a similar boat; the no-frills model reportedly starts at $695,000. Sen. Kerry bought it new, for cash.



Every Tuesday night, the local politicians here that Kerry elbowed out of his way on his march to the top watch, fascinated, as he claims victory in more primaries and denounces the special interests, the "millionaires" and "the overprivileged."

"His initials are JFK," longtime state Senate President William M. Bulger used to muse on St. Patrick's Day, "Just for Kerry. He's only Irish every sixth year." And now it turns out that he's not Irish at all.

But in the parochial world of Bay State politics, he was never really seen as Irish, even when he was claiming to be (although now, of course, he says that any references to his alleged Hibernian heritage were mistakenly put into the Congressional Record by an aide who apparently didn't know that on his paternal side he is, in fact, part-Jewish).

Kerry is, in fact, a Brahmin - his mother was a Forbes, from one of Massachusetts' oldest WASP families. The ancestor who wed Ralph Waldo Emerson's daughter was marrying down.

At the risk of engaging in ethnic stereotyping, Yankees have a reputation for, shall we say, frugality. And Kerry tosses around quarters like they were manhole covers. In 1993, for instance, living on a senator's salary of about $100,000, he managed to give a total of $135 to charity.

Yet that same year, he was somehow able to scrape together $8,600 for a brand-new, imported Italian motorcycle, a Ducati Paso 907 IE. He kept it for years, until he decided to run for president, at which time he traded it in for a Harley-Davidson like the one he rode onto "The Tonight Show" set a couple of months ago as Jay Leno applauded his fellow Bay Stater.

Of course, in 1993 he was between his first and second heiresses - a time he now calls "the wandering years," although an equally apt description might be "the freeloading years."

For some of the time, he was, for all practical purposes, homeless. His friends allowed him into a real-estate deal in which he flipped a condo for quick resale, netting a $21,000 profit on a cash investment of exactly nothing. For months he rode around in a new car supplied by a shady local Buick dealer. When the dealer's ties to a congressman who was later indicted for racketeering were exposed, Kerry quickly explained that the non-payment was a mere oversight, and wrote out a check.

In the Senate, his record of his constituent services has been lackluster, and most of his colleagues, despite their public support, are hard-pressed to list an accomplishment. Just last fall, a Boston TV reporter ambushed three congressmen with the question, name something John Kerry has accomplished in Congress. After a few nervous giggles, two could think of nothing, and a third mentioned a baseball field, and then misidentified Kerry as "Sen. Kennedy."

Many of his constituents see him in person only when he is cutting them in line - at an airport, a clam shack or the Registry of Motor Vehicles. One talk-show caller a few weeks back recalled standing behind a police barricade in 2002 as the Rolling Stones played the Orpheum Theater, a short limousine ride from Kerry's Louisburg Square mansion.

The caller, Jay, said he began heckling Kerry and his wife as they attempted to enter the theater. Finally, he said, the senator turned to him and asked him the eternal question.

"Do you know who I am?"

"Yeah," said Jay. "You're a gold-digger."

John Kerry. First he looks at the purse.

Howie Carr, a Boston Herald columnist and syndicated talk-radio host, has been covering John Kerry for 25 years.




Joe

[Johnny Stew]

I'm not a big Kerry fan, but I've said it before and i'll say it again... we desperately need the current bozo out of office.

He's been no good for our country, and another four years isn't going to make it better -- only worse.
Even our republicans on the board haven't really pointed to anything substantial that Bush has done to benefit them either.

I'm not voting against Bush because of party affiliation... I'm voting against the man, because he's been absolutely ineffectual on everything other than his Anti-Terrorism Crusade (and even that hasn't been as successful as they like to make it sound). :nod:

So even though John Kerry isn't perfect, he can't help but be better than Dubya.

[Johnny Stew]

The caller, Jay, said he began heckling Kerry and his wife as they attempted to enter the theater.Ahh, a heckler... yeah, like I'd give regard to anything that guy had to say about someone.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by jwd
And just what is the truth? I'm sure I'll find all the unbiased and objective information I need at the gospel of St. John Kerry. Thanks for your open dialogue.


Joe

Well you ain't gonna find it on the right wing veterans blog you posted or at the New York Post either. My guess is that you're not looking for unbiased information at all.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by jwd
Another opinion:

."

Many of his constituents see him in person only when he is cutting them in line - at an airport, a clam shack or the Registry of Motor Vehicles.
Joe


When was the last time you saw Bush in person?

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
I'm not a big Kerry fan, but I've said it before and i'll say it again... we desperately need the current bozo out of office.

He's been no good for our country, and another four years isn't going to make it better -- only worse.
Even our republicans on the board haven't really pointed to anything substantial that Bush has done to benefit them either.

I'm not voting against Bush because of party affiliation... I'm voting against the man, because he's been absolutely ineffectual on everything other than his Anti-Terrorism Crusade (and even that hasn't been as successful as they like to make it sound). :nod:

So even though John Kerry isn't perfect, he can't help but be better than Dubya.

A ham sandwich would be better than Dubya.

[jwd]

Johnny Stew:

Even our republicans on the board haven't really pointed to anything substantial that Bush has done to benefit them either.

I'm not voting against Bush because of party affiliation... I'm voting against the man, because he's been absolutely ineffectual on everything other than his Anti-Terrorism Crusade (and even that hasn't been as successful as they like to make it sound).

His war on terror IS the most important thing. As commander in chief his main responsibility is defense of the country. Everything else is secondary imo. We haven't been attacked again, Hussein is out of power with the chance of a democracy in the Middle East very much a reality, Khadafi is giving up his weapons of mass destruction, and we are in negotiations with North Korea multi-laterally. Afghanistan is a liberated country with the taliban scattered. I think those are pretty good marks. Anyone can spin it any way they want, but those are the facts.


Joe

[jwd]

Johnny Stew:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The caller, Jay, said he began heckling Kerry and his wife as they attempted to enter the theater.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ahh, a heckler... yeah, like I'd give regard to anything that guy had to say about someone.


Yea.....but presented in the context of the opinion, I think he had a valid point. :)



Joe

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by jwd
His war on terror IS the most important thing. As commander in chief his main responsibility is defense of the country. Everything else is secondary imo.
Joe

Who was in charge during the greatest security failure in the history of the United States?

[jwd]

gldstwmn:

Who was in charge during the greatest security failure in the history of the United States?

Another inherited failure of your beloved Clinton. That's the way I see it. Bush was in office less than 9 months when that happened. Blaming it on him is ludicrous.


Joe

[GypsySorcerer]

Originally posted by jwd
Another inherited failure of your beloved Clinton. That's the way I see it. Bush was in office less than 9 months when that happened. Blaming it on him is ludicrous.


Joe



Who was in charge during the greatest security failure in the history of the United States?

I blame neither Bush nor Clinton for 9/11. Let's face it, no one TRULY saw it coming. But to blame Bush because he was in charge is ridiculous. Lest we forget that Clinton was offered Bin Laden. So THEORETICALLY we could blame him for not having Bin Laden locked up right now. gldstwmn, please tell me how Bush being in charge had anything to do with the greatest security failure in the history of the U.S.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by jwd
His war on terror IS the most important thing. As commander in chief his main responsibility is defense of the country. Everything else is secondary imo. We haven't been attacked again, Hussein is out of power with the chance of a democracy in the Middle East very much a reality, Khadafi is giving up his weapons of mass destruction, and we are in negotiations with North Korea multi-laterally. Afghanistan is a liberated country with the taliban scattered. I think those are pretty good marks. Anyone can spin it any way they want, but those are the facts.But, Joe, it's a completely different ball-game since 9/11.
Anyone in the White House now would have to be "tough on terrorism." There's no choice.

I still don't feel that the Bush Administration has been as effective as they claim.
We're pretty much always in peace negotiations with some country somewhere... that doesn't mean anything will necessarily come from it. So you can cross that off the list of accomplishments.

And nothing changes the fact that the mastermind behind 9/11 is still free, and nothing changes the fact that his al-Qaida organization continues plotting more attacks against our country, to this day (2.5 years after the terror attacks).

The guy they did manage to catch had no weapons of mass destruction (and apparently hasn't had them since 1994 - when Clinton was in office), and didn't play a part in the attacks that cost us thousands of lives (the event that sparked the whole "War On Terrorism" in the first place).

So again, I feel that anyone in office now would have to be tough in regards to National Security... but we need someone who will be effective in additional areas as well. And Bush isn't that guy.
Period.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by jwd
Another inherited failure of your beloved Clinton. That's the way I see it. Bush was in office less than 9 months when that happened. Blaming it on him is ludicrous.It doesn't really accomplish anything to point fingers, true... but it's not an entirely baseless indictment either.
It's been proven that the Bush Administration had plenty enough information to know that an attack was imminent. And someone please correct me if i'm wrong, because I hate unknowingly spreading misinformation, but I believe the Bush Adminstration also had intelligence that specifically pointed to certain dates when attacks were most probable.

That he was "only" in office for 9 months is not an excuse. They had information, and they didn't act on it.
What they've done since is like closing the barn-door after the horse ran away.

[GypsySorcerer]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
It doesn't really accomplish anything to point fingers, true... but it's not an entirely baseless indictment either.
It's been proven that the Bush Administration had plenty enough information to know that an attack was imminent. And someone please correct me if i'm wrong, because I hate unknowingly spreading misinformation, but I believe the Bush Adminstration also had intelligence that specifically pointed to certain dates when attacks were most probable.

That he was "only" in office for 9 months is not an excuse. They had information, and they didn't act on it.
What they've done since is like closing the barn-door after the horse ran away.


Johnny, why don't you mention the fact that Clinton was offered Bin Laden? Also, intelligence pointed to those certain dates BEFORE Bush even took office.

Look, I really am not a Bush fan. He didn't get my vote in 2000 and he won't in 2004. But I feel I must defend him on this area, as I agree with his decisions. You CANNOT blame 9/11 on him, or at least I haven't seen a reasonable argument for this.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by GypsySorcerer
I blame neither Bush nor Clinton for 9/11. Let's face it, no one TRULY saw it coming. But to blame Bush because he was in charge is ridiculous. Lest we forget that Clinton was offered Bin Laden. So THEORETICALLY we could blame him for not having Bin Laden locked up right now.But then, wasn't it our government during Reagan's administration, that trained Bin Laden and his men in the first place?
So the "blame game" goes even farther back than Clinton, no?

[GypsySorcerer]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
But then, wasn't it our government during Reagan's administration, that trained Bin Laden and his men in the first place?
So the "blame game" goes even farther back than Clinton, no?

True. We also helped Saddam. We have a tendency to shoot ourslelves in the foot.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by GypsySorcerer
Johnny, why don't you mention the fact that Clinton was offered Bin Laden? Also, intelligence pointed to those certain dates BEFORE Bush even took office.

Look, I really am not a Bush fan. He didn't get my vote in 2000 and he won't in 2004. But I feel I must defend him on this area, as I agree with his decisions. You CANNOT blame 9/11 on him, or at least I haven't seen a reasonable argument for this. I'm not trying to blame anyone here... what happened, happened. And placing blame isn't going to bring back 3,000 lost lives.

All I'm saying is that they did have warning... plenty of warning... and they chose not to act on it.

In regards to Clinton, I don't have enough of the facts on him apparently being offered Bin Laden, and I also don't know the timeline on that... so I can't comment.
But in regards to the intelligence pointing to the plotting of attacks on American soil, that information was coming at the tail-end of his second term in office. So the information was then given to the new president... whose administration chose to ignore that information, and the additional information that came in during his first 9 months in office.

So make of that what you will.

[jwd]

Johnny Stew:

But, Joe, it's a completely different ball-game since 9/11.
Anyone in the White House now would have to be "tough on terrorism." There's no choice.

I still don't feel that the Bush Administration has been as effective as they claim.
We're pretty much always in peace negotiations with some country somewhere... that doesn't mean anything will necessarily come from it. So you can cross that off the list of accomplishments.

And nothing changes the fact that the mastermind behind 9/11 is still free, and nothing changes the fact that his al-Qaida organization continues plotting more attacks against our country, to this day (2.5 years after the terror attacks).

The guy they did manage to catch had no weapons of mass destruction (and apparently hasn't had them since 1994 - when Clinton was in office), and didn't play a part in the attacks that cost us thousands of lives (the event that sparked the whole "War On Terrorism" in the first place).


Brian, you're belittlement of Bush's accomplishments pretty much floors me. To assume that any leader of this country would have accomplished the same thing, well is just that, an assumption. The fact is that Bush did it, no other president. Yet you are not willing to give him credit for it because anyone would have done that. :confused:


When this war on terror started, the administration said it wasn't going to be accomplished over night. It would be a war drawn out over many years. You can't deny that the taliban's center of command was diffused and to this day I'm sure that the government is doing everything they can to thwart terrorism. It'd be illogical to think otherwise.


The jury's still out on the WMD in Iraq. Surely you wouldn't deny that Hussein being out of power is a good thing? Kay even said that he was more of an imminent threat than we originally thought(WMD or not). Is it so illogical to think that he was a threat to the U.S. either directly or indirectly? I think not. I'd venture to say that he'd still be in power if Bush was not in office right now.


I can respect your opinion but I just disagree with it.


Joe

[jwd]

Johnny Stew:

But in regards to the intelligence pointing to the plotting of attacks on American soil, that information was coming at the tail-end of his second term in office. So the information was then given to the new president... whose administration chose to ignore that information, and the additional information that came in during his first 9 months in office.

Was this specific information Brian? I highly doubt that any one knew that planes were going to be flown in to the WTC or the Pentagon. It defies reason to allow it to happen. The taliban had long been known as a threat, as evidenced in what they did in the previous years, before Bush even got in to office. I do agree with both you and GypsySorcerer that that powder keg was created long before Bush and before Clinton. But to blame Bush simply is not right imo.


Joe

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by jwd
Brian, you're belittlement of Bush's accomplishments pretty much floors me. To assume that any leader of this country would have accomplished the same thing, well is just that, an assumption. The fact is that Bush did it, no other president. Yet you are not willing to give him credit for it because anyone would have done that. :confused:

Surely you wouldn't deny that Hussein being out of power is a good thing?
I'd venture to say that he'd still be in power if Bush was not in office right now.Even if I thought George W. Bush was the only person on the face of this planet who could have accomplished the capture of Hussein, and who could have spear-headed this War On Terrorism, it does not change the fact that he has been absolutely ineffectual in ALL other areas.
The economy... the environment... the educational system... civil rights... the list goes on.

I'm not inflexible, so if you want me to give him credit for what has been accomplished in the War On Terrorism, fine... I'll do that.
But I still feel that we need a president who isn't a "one hit wonder," with accomplishments limited to one area.Originally posted by jwd
I can respect your opinion but I just disagree with it.I understand. :) And like we've said before, we don't have to agree with each in order to be friends.
But forgive me for having my fingers crossed that "your guy" loses in November! :laugh:

[jwd]

Johnny Stew:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by jwd
I can respect your opinion but I just disagree with it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I understand. And like we've said before, we don't have to agree with each in order to be friends.
But forgive me for having my fingers crossed that "your guy" loses in November!

Cool. And you're right, friends to the end. I've got my fingers and toes crossed that your guy loses in November. If he doesn't, I'm taking out the money in my 401k to invest in a bomb shelter!! :laugh:

Have a good weekend!


Joe

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by jwd
Was this specific information Brian? I highly doubt that any one knew that planes were going to be flown in to the WTC or the Pentagon. It defies reason to allow it to happen.Someone else might know more of the specifics than I do, but I believe it's been stated that the intelligence they were gathering was in regards to an "aviation-related" terrorist plot.

Of course, I don't think anyone would have ever imagined that they'd fly planes directly into buildings, but we still could have stepped up airport security.

Anyway, hindsight is always 20-20, and again, I'm not trying to point fingers.
Just wanted to discuss another area of apparent ineffectualism.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by jwd
I've got my fingers and toes crossed that your guy loses in November. If he doesn't, I'm taking out the money in my 401k to invest in a bomb shelter!! :laugh:*hehehe* But if "your guy" loses, I might actually be able to afford that bomb shelter!
And I might even be allowed to have a husband to share it with! :laugh:

(By the way, Kerry isn't really "my guy"... but all the money in the world couldn't get me to vote for Bush.)

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
It doesn't really accomplish anything to point fingers, true... but it's not an entirely baseless indictment either.
It's been proven that the Bush Administration had plenty enough information to know that an attack was imminent. And someone please correct me if i'm wrong, because I hate unknowingly spreading misinformation, but I believe the Bush Adminstration also had intelligence that specifically pointed to certain dates when attacks were most probable.



You're right Johnny. It was in his August 6, 2001 presidential daily briefing, issued while he was on his six week vacation clearing brush at the ranch in Crawford. Who knows if he even read it. He won't release it now to the 9/11 commission. He also knoew that a plane had crashed into the WTC before he ever entered Booker Elementary School on 9/11 and failed to act.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by GypsySorcerer
I blame neither Bush nor Clinton for 9/11. Let's face it, no one TRULY saw it coming. But to blame Bush because he was in charge is ridiculous. Lest we forget that Clinton was offered Bin Laden. So THEORETICALLY we could blame him for not having Bin Laden locked up right now. gldstwmn, please tell me how Bush being in charge had anything to do with the greatest security failure in the history of the U.S.

See my reply to Johnny Stew in this thread.:)

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by GypsySorcerer
Johnny, why don't you mention the fact that Clinton was offered Bin Laden? Also, intelligence pointed to those certain dates BEFORE Bush even took office.

Look, I really am not a Bush fan. He didn't get my vote in 2000 and he won't in 2004. But I feel I must defend him on this area, as I agree with his decisions. You CANNOT blame 9/11 on him, or at least I haven't seen a reasonable argument for this.

www.takebackthemedia.org

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
But then, wasn't it our government during Reagan's administration, that trained Bin Laden and his men in the first place?
So the "blame game" goes even farther back than Clinton, no?

Yes it does. Bush was set up in his first oil company partly by Salem Bin Laden. Some of the pilots of the 9/11 planes trained at American military bases. Not nearly enough questions have been asked and the administration is trying to put the 9/11 commission to bed as quick as it can.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by jwd
Was this specific information Brian? I highly doubt that any one knew that planes were going to be flown in to the WTC or the Pentagon. It defies reason to allow it to happen.

Joe

Actually, some people don't think it defies reason. They have a name for it. It's called LIHOP (Let It Happen On Purpose). And yes, the information they had was specific to planes flying into a building and the dates were specific as well. One of the sources was Israeli intelligence. i'd be happy to post the links on all of this if you'd like to read about it.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by GypsySorcerer
Johnny, why don't you mention the fact that Clinton was offered Bin Laden?

Probably because that's an old lie that's been repeated and repeated time and again and now it's accepted as fact. Check your sources.

[dissention]

Originally posted by jwd
Another opinion:

http://nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/17337.htm

THE REAL KERRY

By HOWIE CARR


Yet another right wing publication. :rolleyes: Anyone who doesn't know how conservatively biased the NY Post is shouldn't be reading it, IMO.

There are so many falsehoods in that article that it's funny. Ask anyone from MA and 99% of them would say that isn't the Kerry that they elected; I don't know where he gets this. And it wasn't Kerry who demanded the fire hydrant removed, it was Teresa.

[dissention]

Originally posted by jwd
We haven't been attacked again

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

I can see Shrub now:

"Be glad you're alive, so vote for me." :rolleyes:

Has he forgotten that 9/11 happened on his watch? :confused:

[dissention]

Originally posted by jwd
Another inherited failure of your beloved Clinton. That's the way I see it. Bush was in office less than 9 months when that happened. Blaming it on him is ludicrous.


Joe

Are you forgetting that more than a month before the attacks, Condie Rice gave Shrub the latest intel that said an attack would happen soon? What, was that intel not good enough to trust but the WMD intel was? Puhleaze.

[dissention]

Originally posted by GypsySorcerer
I blame neither Bush nor Clinton for 9/11. Let's face it, no one TRULY saw it coming. But to blame Bush because he was in charge is ridiculous. Lest we forget that Clinton was offered Bin Laden. So THEORETICALLY we could blame him for not having Bin Laden locked up right now. gldstwmn, please tell me how Bush being in charge had anything to do with the greatest security failure in the history of the U.S.

:rolleyes: :laugh:

They saw it coming and they even admitted it; at least, Condie Rice did.

And I thought keeping our country secure was the presidents job?

[strandinthewind]

With all due respect, many people quote from far left sites, etc. So, I think it is okay to quote from a far right site. The important thing for me is read everything and make up my own mind. Also, the 9/11 terrorists started training during Clinton's watch and the govt. had this info. and did not connect the dots. I think blaming Clinton or W by syaing they knew but did nothing about it and gleefully watched all those people die a horrible death for some undisclosed reason is too far fetched for me. Morevoer, the conspiracy would involve too many people, etc. Finally, why would W deliberately let Babrbars Olsen, the wife of the Solicter General and a staunch defender of W, die in the crash if they knew the exact flight, etc. Thus, I do not buy that W or Clinton knew with any specificity the actions of 9/11 and did nothing to stop it. I think it was just a breakdown in intelligence. We need to make sure that does not happen again.

[jwd]

Here's some links about the one and only Bill Clinton. Buy it if you want to or not. The Democrats shouldn't be so quick to point fingers, it may backfire on you.


http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m1282/24_53/80454780/p1/article.jhtml?term=

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/2/24/93348.shtml

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/9/4/03534.shtml

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/brentbozell/bb20030917.shtml


strandinthewind:


With all due respect, many people quote from far left sites, etc. So, I think it is okay to quote from a far right site. The important thing for me is read everything and make up my own mind. Also, the 9/11 terrorists started training during Clinton's watch and the govt. had this info. and did not connect the dots. I think blaming Clinton or W by syaing they knew but did nothing about it and gleefully watched all those people die a horrible death for some undisclosed reason is too far fetched for me. Morevoer, the conspiracy would involve too many people, etc. Finally, why would W deliberately let Babrbars Olsen, the wife of the Solicter General and a staunch defender of W, die in the crash if they knew the exact flight, etc. Thus, I do not buy that W or Clinton knew with any specificity the actions of 9/11 and did nothing to stop it. I think it was just a breakdown in intelligence. We need to make sure that does not happen again.



Generally I agree with that Jason, but I'd put much more of the blame on Clinton and the ineptness of his handling of the war on terror during his 8 yrs. in office.


Joe

[jwd]

dissention:

There are so many falsehoods in that article that it's funny. Ask anyone from MA and 99% of them would say that isn't the Kerry that they elected; I don't know where he gets this. And it wasn't Kerry who demanded the fire hydrant removed, it was Teresa.


Once again, prove it. Or maybe you could just tell us some of the accomplishments of John Kerry that you're proud of. :)


Joe

[gldstwmn]

The Newsmax site is an ultra right wing conspiracy/propaganda site. It is not a credible news source. One of their mian objectives is to print smears of Hillary Clinton and other Democrats.

[estranged4life]

on the US Govt./9-11 I found while searching around the web for the <b>alleged</b> connection of Jose Padilla to the OKC bombing (Which is interesting considering the State trial of Terry Nichols is <b>rumored</b> to pointing to a wider conspiracy with Padilla as a <b>possible</b> major player...And some of the newly discovered FBI files may prove there was indeed a larger conspiracy)

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0%2C8599%2C333835%2C00.html

[dissention]

Originally posted by jwd
Once again, prove it. Or maybe you could just tell us some of the accomplishments of John Kerry that you're proud of. :)


Joe

I could name many, many things, pal.

Shall I make a list for you? There's one thing you don't want to do and it's getting into an argument over Kerry with a liberal from MA who actually had the opportunity to vote for him. ;)

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I think blaming Clinton or W by syaing they knew but did nothing about it and gleefully watched all those people die a horrible death for some undisclosed reason is too far fetched for me. Morevoer, the conspiracy would involve too many people, etc.

Jason, I am not a Clinton defender by any stretch. I can't stand the man. But a review of the facts will quickly show that the Bush administration dropped the ball on this one. Big time. They were handed a plan to tackle terrorism by the Clintonites and they scoffed at it, even saying the Clinton administration was obsessed with bin Ladin.

I am not talking about a conspiracy here. I am talking about arrogance and incompetence. Ask yourself why Tenet hasn't been fired after the inexcusable intelligence failure leading up to 9/11 and after the WMD debacle. Why is he still there? If this is all on his head, any other president would have already fired him.

If you want to talk conspiracy, you might look at other nasty little unexplained details. It is clear that Dubya knew the attacks on the Trade Center had started by the time he started reading to the school children. It is clear that the jets were scrambled waaaay too late, and no reasonable explanation has ever been made. And it is clear that the bin Ladin family was allowed to fly out of the country when American citizens were grounded. I am not implying any conspiracy here, but there are questions that certainly make me wonder. Like, why go out of the way to protect Saudi Arabia in the 9/11 commission report?

[strandinthewind]

Carne, ITA, the Bush adminsitration totally dropped the ball on the work the Clinton administration did on Al-Q. In fact, one of the highest officials in the outgoing Clinton adminsitration whose name I cannot remember right now specifically told high members in W's administration (whose names I also cnnot remember :laugh: ) that Al-Q was the biggest threat, etc. W's adminsitration did not pursue this information or at least did not act enough to connect the fast developing dots leading to 9/11, etc.

As for the delayed reaction immediately after the attacks, I do not take that as ineffectiveness on the part of W. I think after the first plane hit, "they," like many, were unsure of what was happening or whether the initial plane strike was an accident. I also think the delay of getting the Pres. out of the school and into AF-1 was calculated and planned because "they" did not know where to go, the Pres. was secure where he was, etc. I mean Wash. D.C. went into an emergency situation so there is not reason to believe W and his team were not in one as well. I truly believe they did not know where to go and did not want to act until they had more knowledge. But, many see it only as W sat in a classroom and read stories to children while thousands died. I think it is more complex than that. In any event, I think W's policies after 9/11 and to this day are far worse than anything he did then.

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
As for the delayed reaction immediately after the attacks, I do not take that as ineffectiveness on the part of W. I think after the first plane hit, "they," like many, were unsure of what was happening or whether the initial plane strike was an accident. I also think the delay of getting the Pres. out of the school and into AF-1 was calculated and planned because "they" did not know where to go, the Pres. was secure where he was, etc.

Jason, these people have contingency plans for just about every conceivable situation. If they didn't know where to go, they are far more stupid and incompetent than I even give them credit for. I agree that after the first strike, they might have had the information that a lot of us did, which was a plane struck and we don't really know anything else. Most people assumed it was a small craft. But, didn't the FAA at that point know that four planes were hijacked? Two plus two, you know?

Be that as it may, let's assume they are grossly incompetent, which is most likely the explanation, what explains allowing the bin Ladins to flee?

[strandinthewind]

I know. But, I am saying keeping W in a secure area was the plan. But, we will never know and alot of people feel the way you do, etc. So, I could be wrong - hell I've been wrong before :laugh:

I think they sent the BL's home beacuse W is beholden to big oil and big oil insisted on it.

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
As for the delayed reaction immediately after the attacks, I do not take that as ineffectiveness on the part of W. I think after the first plane hit, "they," like many, were unsure of what was happening or whether the initial plane strike was an accident. I also think the delay of getting the Pres. out of the school and into AF-1 was calculated and planned because "they" did not know where to go, the Pres. was secure where he was, etc. I mean Wash. D.C. went into an emergency situation so there is not reason to believe W and his team were not in one as well. I truly believe they did not know where to go and did not want to act until they had more knowledge. But, many see it only as W sat in a classroom and read stories to children while thousands died. I think it is more complex than that. In any event, I think W's policies after 9/11 and to this day are far worse than anything he did then.

Oh. My. God.

Let's dissect this:

You're the president. Seconds before you are about to read a storybook to some kiddies at school, you are told that a plane has hit the WTC. However, you decide that you are still going to read to the children. A little while later, as you are reading to the dolls, one of your staffers whispers into your ear that another plane has hit the second tower of the WTC. However, you decide to continue reading. Twenty minutes later, you politely excuse yourself and leave.

Meanwhile, many, many miles and miles away, your father is having breakfast with the bin laden family on a luxury aircraft.

Not long after, the American people are told that Osama bin Laden is responsible for the attack that killed 3,000 innocent Americans.

Meanwhile, you think to yourself "Gee, I wonder if they took some good shots of me reading to those brats. I hope I looked presidential enough when the second attack was whispered into my ear."

[strandinthewind]

Spin and you know it :laugh:

Again, does anyone here know what the plan was? If not, then go ahead and chastise W and his crew all you want. But, do not assert that him staying right there in a secure location until a second secure location could be determined was not the plan, when none of us know that for sure. I mean, it could have taken that long for the SS to recheck the secureness of the path from the school to AF-1. Moreover, they probably had to recheck AF-1 for a bomb, etc. But to say W was just meandering along for a photo op. while 1,000 were dying is gross speculation, esp. when everyone in Wash. D.C. was acting under a security plan.

Bush I was laready on the aircraft and in the air with the BL's when the WTC were struck?

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Spin and you know it :laugh:

The last sentence, maybe. The rest? Not at all.

The fact is, they never had a plan because they weren't prepared and they ignored valuable intel that told of attacks.

And if they did have a plan, by golly, they never once disclosed to the American people what it was. Surely they could do so now, it has been almost three years since the attack. :rolleyes:

And the argument that they didn't know what kind of plane, if it was an accident, blah blah blah, doesn't hold water. it isn't everyday (or ever) that a PLANE hits the WTC. And when it does, you don't read stories to kiddies. And then, when a second plane hits, you don't continue to do so for TWENTY MORE MINUTES!

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I mean, it could have taken that long for the SS to recheck the secureness of the path from the school to AF-1.

Hmm... SS, hey? Interesting slip, there, buddy.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Hmm... SS, hey? Interesting slip, there, buddy.

You know enough of my darker than most sense of humor by now than to think that was a slip :cool::wavey:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by estranged4life
on the US Govt./9-11 I found while searching around the web for the <b>alleged</b> connection of Jose Padilla to the OKC bombing (Which is interesting considering the State trial of Terry Nichols is <b>rumored</b> to pointing to a wider conspiracy with Padilla as a <b>possible</b> major player...And some of the newly discovered FBI files may prove there was indeed a larger conspiracy)

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0%2C8599%2C333835%2C00.html

This is a great article Brian. Thanks for posting it.:)

[jwd]

Hey Brian(estranged4life)

Nice article, thanks for posting. An excerpt from that:

"This was, after all, a White House plan, which means it was resented from the moment of conception. "When you look at the Pentagon and the cia," says a former senior Clinton aide, "it's not their plan. The military will never accept the White House staff doing military planning." Terrorism, officials from the State Department suggested, needed to be put in the broader context of American policy in South Asia. The rollback plan was becoming the victim of a classic Washington power play between those with "functional" responsibilities-like terrorism-and those with "regional" ones-like relations with India and Pakistan. The State Department's South Asia bureau, according to a participant in the meetings, argued that a fistful of other issues-Kashmir, nuclear proliferation, Musharraf's dictatorship-were just as pressing as terrorism. By now, Clarke's famously short fuse was giving off sparks. A participant at one of the meetings paraphrases Clarke's attitude this way: "These people are trying to kill us. I could give a f___ if Musharraf was democratically elected. What I do care about is Pakistan's support for the Taliban and turning a blind eye to this terrorist cancer growing in their neighbor's backyard."

It was Bush who broke the deadlock. Each morning the CIA gives the Chief Executive a top-secret Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) on pressing issues of national security. One day in early spring, Tenet briefed Bush on the hunt for Abu Zubaydah, al-Qaeda's head of international operations, who was suspected of having been involved in the planning of the attack on the U.S.S. Cole. After the PDB, Bush told Rice that the approach to al-Qaeda was too scattershot. He was tired of "swatting at flies" and asked for a comprehensive plan for attacking terrorism. According to an official, Rice came back to the nsc and said, "The President wants a plan to eliminate al-Qaeda." Clarke reminded her that he already had one.

But having a plan isn't the same as executing it. Clarke's paper now had to go through three more stages: the Deputies' Committee, made up of the No. 2s to the main national-security officials; the Principals' Committee, which included Cheney, Rice, Tenet, Powell and Rumsfeld; and finally, the President. Only when Bush had signed off would the plan become what the Bush team called a national-security presidential directive.

On April 30, nearly six weeks after the Administration started holding deputies' meetings, Clarke presented a new plan to them. In addition to Hadley, who chaired the hour-long meeting, the gathering included Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis Libby; Richard Armitage, the barrel-chested Deputy Secretary of State; Paul Wolfowitz, the scholarly hawk from the Pentagon; and John McLaughlin from the cia. Armitage was enthusiastic about Clarke's plan, according to a senior official. But the CIA was gun-shy. Tenet was a Clinton holdover and thus vulnerable if anything went wrong. His agency was unwilling to take risks; it wanted "top cover" from the White House. The deputies, says a senior official, decided to have "three parallel reviews-one on al-Qaeda, one on the Pakistani political situation and the third on Indo-Pakistani relations." The issues, the deputies thought, were interrelated. "They wanted to view them holistically," says the senior official, "and not until they'd had three separate meetings on each of these were they able to hold a fourth integrating them all."

END ARTICLE


Indicative of some of the channels a "plan" has to go through before being executed. Clearly some of the delay can be blamed on the transition from the Clinton administration to Bush's. Bush was ready to take action against al-Qaeda(eliminate them), albeit too late, given what happened on 9/11. If only Clinton had the balls to take real action against this "imminent threat", 9/11 and others would never have happened.


Joe

[Rob67]

Originally posted by dissention
Do I really need to? :rolleyes: The "letter" speaks for itself.

He twists the words of John Kerry, takes the statement out of context, and totally trashes Kerry to suit his needs.

For cripes sake, it was a complete misuse of Kerry's words. And it's despicable.

As opposed to the "twisting of (insert any conservative here)'s words, taking their statements out of context, and totally trashing (insert any conservative here) to suit their needs" kind of crap that goes on this board???? :rolleyes:

Why do liberals get so bent out of shape when a conservative disagrees with them? Just curious....

Rob:cool:

[Rob67]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
No. You're the one that came in here with the bull**** charges. If you've got time to sit there and find this ****, then you've got time to look up the truth. Do your own dirty work. You can start here: www.johkerry.com Thanks.:)


:laugh: :laugh: :rolleyes:

Rob:cool:

[Rob67]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
There is no progressive thought or discussion intended to come out of this thread. It's meant to start a flame war. It should be locked.:)

Isn't that what usually happens when someone disagrees with a liberal?:confused: :D

Rob:cool:

[Rob67]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Who was in charge during the greatest security failure in the history of the United States?

Uh...FDR! Or Bill Clinton for not doing something about Bin Laden after WTC '93!

Rob:cool:

[dissention]

Originally posted by Rob67
Uh...FDR! Or Bill Clinton for not doing something about Bin Laden after WTC '93!

Rob:cool:

:laugh: :rolleyes:

It's just like a conservative to compare Pearl Harbor and 9/11. To say that the Pearl Harbor attack was a bigger security failure than 9/11 is an utter joke and you know it. As for Bill Clinton, "when all else fails, blame Bubba." :rolleyes: You sound like the mouthpiece of the White House and you don't even seem to realize it. Say all you want about Clinton, but his family members didn't do business and socialize with the Bin Laden's. ;)

[dissention]

Originally posted by Rob67
As opposed to the "twisting of (insert any conservative here)'s words, taking their statements out of context, and totally trashing (insert any conservative here) to suit their needs" kind of crap that goes on this board???? :rolleyes:

Why do liberals get so bent out of shape when a conservative disagrees with them? Just curious....

Rob:cool:

We don't have to twist Coultergeist's words or Shrub's words or Hannity's words or O'Reilly's words; their words speak for themselves.

The fact is that you posted an inflammatory piece of smut about John Kerry that just didn't have any basis in fact.

As for the question about why liberals get so bent out of shape when a Repug disagrees, gimme a break. The same thing happens when liberals disagree with Repubs, but in that instance, the Repugs call us "traitors" and "treasonists." ;)

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
:laugh: :rolleyes:

It's just like a conservative to compare Pearl Harbor and 9/11. To say that the Pearl Harbor attack was a bigger security failure than 9/11 is an utter joke and you know it. As for Bill Clinton, "when all else fails, blame Bubba." :rolleyes: You sound like the mouthpiece of the White House and you don't even seem to realize it. Say all you want about Clinton, but his family members didn't do business and socialize with the Bin Laden's. ;)


With all due respect, I think Rob as just posting that letter for discussion and not asserting it as fact. I have seen all of us do that with different articles, etc.

Also, no one can prove that OBL is the same as his family. Other than the rumors that they see each, they are estranged. Also, Billy C.'s administration and his donors certainly did business with the Saudi's and many made money and keep making money off of them. W's family is not alone in that boat.

Also, FDR via the US sold scrap metal to Japan and refused to ask to deply what it was for.

Also, I do not see how anyone can argue against the argument that Clinton lobbed a few missles over to the Middle East, but refused to deal with OBL or the Saudis and tht inaction contributed to 9/11. Yet, people somehow think that persecuting Clinton gives W credibility. I am not one of those people :laugh:

In the end, I think finger pointing at this point is irrelevant as long as someone takes action to correct the perception of the US' by the Middle East. Unfortunately, taking action means in the end going to war with the Saudis and, therefore, the Middle East. Is any one really for that? I really do not see any way around this because the people in the Midle East HATE the West because of our centuries of abusing them and their leaders' centuries of keeping them uneducated and in fear of religion.

So, I think that W's plan o establishing a Democracy in Iraq is at least something even though I do not support or blieve in the way he got to this point. If anyone has any bettr suggestion, I am all ears because up until now no administration has done a anything significant to better our relationship. In fact, the US' blind support for and creation of Israel was a leap in the wrong direction IMO. Note: I am not saying the Jewish people should nt have their own state. I am just saying the US is not responsible for fighting their battles for 60 years and then letting them dictate to us how the cow chews the grass.

[jwd]

GOOOOOOOOO ROB! :laugh:

strandinthewind:

Yet, people somehow think that persecuting Clinton gives W credibility.

Well that wasn't my intention. I think W's credible enough without pointing to Slick Willy's f*** ups. Reviewing Clinton's record just helps one understand how we got to where we did with weak or no response to one terrorist attack after another, ultimately leading to 9/11.


Joe

[strandinthewind]

Oops :sorry: Joe. I was speaking in general and not at anyone in particular. Again, I think the finger pointing is pretty much usless now as both Clinton, W, Reagan, an Bush I all made massive mistakes IMO and as long as we have learned from these mistakes they are in the past my book. The focus I think should be on how to solve the problems we currently face. Will the concept of a free and democratic Iraq work? Who knows and the odds are against it. But, at least something is bieing done, even though and again I do not agree with W's tactics for going to war to establish this state.

[jwd]

Isn't that sorry emoticon one of the coolest. I think we should use it more often, not that you really had to. No problem Jason, and I definitely agree with your moving forward and learning from our past mistakes sentiment.


PEACE


Joe

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
With all due respect, I think Rob as just posting that letter for discussion and not asserting it as fact. I have seen all of us do that with different articles, etc.

Then he shouldn't get so bent out of shape when someone makes him see that the article is rooted in falsehoods. :rolleyes:

If the article is bull****, he should have no problem with people posting the truth. And it's probably highly suspect whether he actually read the real testimony that we posted.

[Rob67]

Originally posted by dissention
The fact is that you posted an inflammatory piece of smut about John Kerry that just didn't have any basis in fact.

As for the question about why liberals get so bent out of shape when a Repug disagrees, gimme a break. The same thing happens when liberals disagree with Repubs, but in that instance, the Repugs call us "traitors" and "treasonists." ;)

No...I posted an article written by a guy who disagrees with John Kerry. I even said I wasn’t sure how accurate it was and I have never flamed anyone. I just threw it out for discussion.

And you are correct, the far right is also guilty of some of the same things…that’s why you both are kooky!!!:wavey: :laugh:

Rob:cool:

[dissention]

Originally posted by Rob67
No...I posted an article written by a guy who disagrees with John Kerry. I even said I wasn’t sure how accurate it was and I have never flamed anyone. I just through it out for discussion.


Yeah, like I said, you posted an inflammatory piece of smut about John Kerry that just didn't have any basis in fact.

:wavey:

[Rob67]

Originally posted by dissention
:laugh: :rolleyes:

It's just like a conservative to compare Pearl Harbor and 9/11. To say that the Pearl Harbor attack was a bigger security failure than 9/11 is an utter joke and you know it. As for Bill Clinton, "when all else fails, blame Bubba." :rolleyes: You sound like the mouthpiece of the White House and you don't even seem to realize it. Say all you want about Clinton, but his family members didn't do business and socialize with the Bin Laden's. ;)

As opposed to when all else fails, blame Bush???

I would disagree with you about Pearl Harbor, I wrote a pretty thorough paper regarding the Intelligence errors leading up to Pearl Harbor that concludes that there were multiple mishaps and failed actions leading up to the attack. It was one of most important events in our history and a complete security fiasco. And interestingly there were those who accused FDR about knowing of the attack and not doing anything so the US would be drawn into the war. I think that was and is a load of horsesh*t and I feel the same way about the current administration’s involvement with 9/11.

Peace out,

Rob:cool:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
Yeah, like I said, you posted an inflammatory piece of smut about John Kerry that just didn't have any basis in fact.

:wavey:

That is not exactly true. The letter posted is this guy's version of what he saw in Nam and he says what he saw contradicts the testimony of Kerry. So, this could not be anything more than opinion just like Kerry's version is his opinon of what he saw, heard about, etc.

Note: I am not saying this guy's letter is correct. In fact, I think he is wrong and clearly pandering to the right perhaps for attention. I am just saying I think Rob posted it to promote discussion and did not assert it as fact. I mean Rob stated

"Someone sent this my way via email. Not claiming that these are all truths but I thought it was interesting. I don't have the time to research the validity of some of the claims but his reasoning seems grounded. Thought I would share it for our resident Kerry fans.

Rob "

Then, everyone jumps all over him as if he did :shrug:

[Rob67]

Originally posted by dissention
Then he shouldn't get so bent out of shape when someone makes him see that the article is rooted in falsehoods. :rolleyes:

If the article is bull****, he should have no problem with people posting the truth. And it's probably highly suspect whether he actually read the real testimony that we posted.


Now, now. Remember what happens when you make assumptions!

I am not, nor have I ever, been “bent out of shape” by anything ever said on this board. It takes a lot more then political talk, honey, to get me riled up.
I always view radical statements with a humorous curiosity…that’s about it.

Cheers!

Rob:cool:

[Rob67]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
That is not exactly true. The letter posted is this guy's version of what he saw in Nam and he says what he saw contradicts the testimony of Kerry. So, this could not be anything more than opinion just like Kerry's version is his opinon of what he saw, heard about, etc.

Note: I am not saying this guy's letter is correct. In fact, I think he is wrong and clearly pandering to the right perhaps for attention. I am just saying I think Rob posted it to promote discussion and did not assert it as fact. I mean Rob stated

"Someone sent this my way via email. Not claiming that these are all truths but I thought it was interesting. I don't have the time to research the validity of some of the claims but his reasoning seems grounded. Thought I would share it for our resident Kerry fans.

Rob "

Then, everyone jumps all over him as if he did :shrug:

I was just getting ready to quote myself...uh...myself!

Thanks!

Rob:cool: