[Lerkfish]

http://www.navytimes.com/story.php?f...925-318270.php

Two vets say Swift Boat group misrepresents them

By Andrea Stone
USA Today

Two of John Kerry’s fellow swift boat commanders in Vietnam said Monday that they have been misrepresented by a group of veterans and supporters of President Bush who have attacked Kerry’s war record. The men say they have tried unsuccessfully for two weeks to get the group to change its Web site to reflect their support for Kerry...


...Those credentials have been questioned by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, whose Web site shows a photo of Kerry with 19 officers from his division. The group said only one man in the picture, Skip Barker, supports Kerry. Rich McCann and Rich Baker are among four listed as “neutral.”

But McCann, 60, a consultant from Chagrin Falls, Ohio, said he told the group he was neutral about whether it used his picture. “I was never neutral about (Kerry) as president,” he said. “If the question is whether John Kerry is fit to be commander in chief, my answer is absolutely.”

Baker, 61, now a baker by trade, says he was never contacted by the group, perhaps because he recently moved to Pittsburgh. Kerry is “very well fit for command,” he said. “He was one of the most courageous and aggressive swift boat captains in the division.”

Both men say they voted for Bush in 2000 but won’t again. Neither accompanied Kerry on the missions that led to his two awards for valor and three Purple Hearts for injuries. Both said the men criticizing Kerry could have spoken up 35 years ago. Officers usually debriefed one another after missions before one of them, usually the senior tactical officer, wrote the official after-action report, they said.

The group’s claim that Kerry made up reports of enemy fire during a March 1969 mission when Kerry pulled a Green Beret from a river and won the Bronze Star doesn’t make sense to McCann and Baker.

“The other officers would have had the opportunity to say at the debriefing, ‘No, John, we weren’t under fire,’ “ Baker said.

Members of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have said they were unaware until years later that Kerry had written about the incident.

Jim Russell, 60, of Telluride, Colo., was an eyewitness on a boat behind Kerry’s. In a conference call arranged by the Kerry campaign, he said accusers “couldn’t have seen if he was under fire” because Kerry’s boat was in an ambush zone farther down the river. Russell also said those who say Kerry’s injuries were too minor to merit the Purple Heart don’t understand that Navy regulations required all wounds be reported and treated. “If it got infected, you could be court-martialed for not getting it treated,” he said.

Former senator Bob Dole, who had questioned the severity of Kerry’s wounds Sunday on CNN, told “Wolf Blitzer Reports” that Kerry had called him Monday.

Dole said he was not trying to be mean-spirited in his remarks. “I was just trying to say all these guys on the other side just can’t be Republican liars.”

Kerry surrogates continued Monday to call on Bush to repudiate the group. In the conference call, Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., a West Point graduate and former Army Ranger, compared the attacks to those on Sen. John McCain during the 2000 presidential primaries and then-senator Max Cleland in his 2002 re-election campaign in Georgia. “It’s a slur on everyone who served and who serves today,” Reed said.

McCann said that he had admired many of the Swift Boat Veterans group’s members for 35 years. But their actions now are “suddenly breaking the bonds of our brotherhood,” he said.

McCann said he told Hoffmann a month and a half ago that he wanted nothing to do with his group. He said he sent a letter to the group two weeks ago demanding that it change its Web site. Hoffmann said Monday he would not do so until he heard “directly” from McCann. “I’ve got to get it from him, not from some newspaper,” he told a reporter.

As of last night, the photo on the Swift Boat Veterans’ Web site had not been updated to reflect McCann’s and Baker’s support of Kerry.

The men spoke out as the group prepared a second ad called “Sellout” that includes excerpts from Kerry’s 1971 Senate testimony in which he spoke of “atrocities” committed by U.S. forces in Vietnam.

[vmpaul]

This groups stories are getting thinner every day.

Nice find.

[TETENAL]

Could you consolidate that swift boat stuff into one thread please? You were not coerced to open more than half a dozen threads about the same topic.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
Could you consolidate that swift boat stuff into one thread please? You were not coerced to open more than half a dozen threads about the same topic.

half-dozen?

Try seventeen.

He's really worried about four more years of Dubya.

[Dr.HermanG.]

Just seventeen? Do a search for all the Lerk threads in the past month. Ridiculous.

[Spliffdaddy]

seventeen are on the first page - which represents 3 days of active threads.

I didn't even check page 2.

[LoganCharles]

Here's your prize Lerk.

[Lerkfish]

a valid point is to consolidate some of the swift boat liar thread into one. I have no problem with that. You guys choose which one should be the host thread for all the debunking of the liars for hire.

[Dr.HermanG.]

Swift boat vets have you really upset there if you have to devote so much attention to supposed "liars for hire."

[mikellanes]

when the spin is going the other way you idiots are all over it, when he posts something you either don't agree with or you can't come up with a stupid comment right away you just attack him personally... there is a pattern here...

you kerry haters are so transparent :-p

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
Swift boat vets have you really upset there if you have to devote so much attention to supposed "liars for hire."

you guys are callling Kerry a liar, which has yet to be conclusively proven, But two of the swifties have recanted or been found to have lied, so in MY case, I'm using a proven modifier.

next question?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by mikellanes:
when the spin is going the other way you idiots are all over it, when he posts something you either don't agree with or you can't come up with a stupid comment right away you just attack him personally... there is a pattern here...

you kerry haters are so transparent :-p

rather pathetic, isn't it?

[Dr.HermanG.]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
you guys are callling Kerry a liar, which has yet to be conclusively proven, But two of the swifties have recanted or been found to have lied, so in MY case, I'm using a proven modifier.

next question?

Sure, because two swifties might have lied, therefore, ALL of them lied?

Kerry has lied. Over and over and over and over. He changes his story so much now that we don't know where he stands.

[Dr.HermanG.]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
rather pathetic, isn't it?

No, what is pathetic is seeing one or more new threads every day started by you because of your vile hate for one person or one group of people.

Get help before you slash your wrists.

[Timo]

I'm OK with lots of threads on the topic. After all, there's a lot to talk about.

How about getting back to the facts? Two vets say Swift Boat group mispresents them. Not at all surprising, given that the whole bit was an exercise in misrepresentation: perhaps it's too obvious to mention, but the cutting, editing and juxtaposition of the various "testimonials" suggest one thing, but the contexts out of which there testimonials were pulled are something entirely different. In my viewing it was easy to see that fully half of the criticisms of Kerry in the video, maybe more, come from folks who didn't approve of his post tour-of-duty criticism of the war, symbolic and otherwise. In short, the criticisms don't have much to do with the specifics of the Swift boat time.

This part of the article caught my eye:

Both men say they voted for Bush in 2000 but won’t again.

I saw somewhere that the military vote, which Bush had sewn up in 2000, is today evenly split -- something often neglected in these discussions, where the implication is that veterans either do or should speak with one voice.

[Lerkfish]

What was the purpose of the SBVT? Even they will admit its to discredit Kerry. Some are even more honest and include its because of his post-war activism.

So, what does that mean? does that mean that those who oppose Kerry's anti-Vietnam politics would prefer that the vietnam war were still going on? Or does that mean that those who fall in line with the SBVT don't believe that the Vietnam war was a horrible war?
Do they not believe that atrocities ever occurred in "Nam? If so, what was Mai Ling all about?

I'm perplexed that these people act like the last 30 years never occurred, that there is no historical review and hindsight analysis of the Vietnam war that bears out the anti-war position. I'm amazed that they act as if Kerry testified before congress yesterday instead of thirty years ago.

What would they prefer? Would they rather we STILL be in Vietnam, siphoning off our young at a 50,000 corpse count clip?

[Spliffdaddy]

what is the purpose of Move-on.org?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
what is the purpose of Move-on.org?

Obviously, to have the country move on from Bush to rational and less dangerous leadership. I wish them well.

Back to my question: Do the SBVT want us to return to Vietnam? Why have they harbored this grudge for 30 years? And if they object to Kerry, who DID serve, why do they embrace Cheney who deferred and Bush who never served in Vietnam.
Obviously, they are offended at his testimoney before congress, and if they were mad THEN, it would be understandable chronistically. I DOESN"T make sense NOW to be upset about objection to a war that in the intervening decades has pretty much been agreed to have been a bad idea, or at best poorly executed.

[Spliffdaddy]

So it's OK for misleading anti-Dubya rhetoric to be spewed from a $17million sewer pipe - but a small trickle of tainted water directed at Kerry keeps you up all night?


"Joe Sandler, a lawyer for the DNC and a group running anti-Bush ads, MoveOn.org, said there is nothing wrong with serving in both roles at once."

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
So it's OK for misleading anti-Dubya rhetoric to be spewed from a $17million sewer pipe - but a small trickle of tainted water directed at Kerry keeps you up all night?

I have other things that keep me up at night: worrying about Bush using air strikes against Iran as his "October Surprise" for one.

I suggest you be more impartial. That advice was given to me because I was too partisan. I pass it on to you in the same spirit it was given to me.

[Spliffdaddy]

Hell, *I'm* partisan - but not to the point where I wont stop until everyone agrees with me.

There's nothing wrong with being partisan. This forum would be exceedingly dull if we all agreed. No. wait. This forum wouldn't even exist if we all agreed.

Seperate yourself from your opinions, that's all. I've been wrong many times (Obama joins Republicans / WW2 bombing campaigns) - but I don't feel personally attacked because others pointed out that I might be wrong. The only time I learn is when something doesn't go the way I though it would.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Hell, *I'm* partisan - but not to the point where I wont stop until everyone agrees with me.

There's nothing wrong with being partisan. This forum would be exceedingly dull if we all agreed. No. wait. This forum wouldn't even exist if we all agreed.

Seperate yourself from your opinions, that's all. I've been wrong many times (Obama joins Republicans / WW2 bombing campaigns) - but I don't feel personally attacked because others pointed out that I might be wrong. The only time I learn is when something doesn't go the way I though it would.

thanks for the advice, however its misplaced. I do not expect people to agree with me, and I do not feel personal attacked when someone disagrees with my points. I feel personally attacked when I am personally attacked --funny, eh?

[Dr.HermanG.]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I have other things that keep me up at night: worrying about Bush using air strikes against Iran as his "October Surprise" for one.

I suggest you be more impartial. That advice was given to me because I was too partisan. I pass it on to you in the same spirit it was given to me.

Why don't we start talking about positive issues instead of it being "Bush did this" or "Kerry lied about this" all the time?

I for one would be willing to drop the partisanship if others such as yourself will too. Partisanship gets us all nowhere.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Timo:
I saw somewhere that the military vote, which Bush had sewn up in 2000, is today evenly split -- something often neglected in these discussions, where the implication is that veterans either do or should speak with one voice.

Polls taken around the time of the DNC convention showed it evenly split. Polls since then show the veteran vote as pretty solidly for Bush. I don't have the link handy, but from memory, it was something like 56% - 37% with the rest undecided. I may be off on the numbers, but they were something like that (with in addition, all the usual caveats about polls).

Even 30 some odd % is quite a large vote for the Democrats. You are right to point out that veterans are not a monolith and do not speak with one voice. However, you might also like to remember that the next time Kerry trots out some general who endorses him. I think some people when they see that tend to assume the very thing you criticize -- namely that every military person is a partisan Republican, and that therefore every one that endorses Kerry is somehow a defector from the other side to their cause. The fact is, quite a lot of career military people are and always were Democrats. That includes some generals. But overall and on balance, veterans lean right.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
Why don't we start talking about positive issues instead of it being "Bush did this" or "Kerry lied about this" all the time?

I for one would be willing to drop the partisanship if others such as yourself will too. Partisanship gets us all nowhere.

sorry, I will not allow you to shape how I post. Nice try...

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Obviously, to have the country move on from Bush to rational and less dangerous leadership. I wish them well.

Not quite:

What is MoveOn all about?
MoveOn is working to bring ordinary people back into politics. With a system that today revolves around big money and big media, most citizens are left out. When it becomes clear that our "representatives" don't represent the public, the foundations of democracy are in peril. MoveOn is a catalyst for a new kind of grassroots involvement, supporting busy but concerned citizens in finding their political voice. Our nationwide network of more than 2,000,000 online activists is one of the most effective and responsive outlets for democratic participation available today.
[...]
Who started MoveOn?
MoveOn was started by Joan Blades and Wes Boyd, two Silicon Valley entrepreneurs. Although neither had experience in politics, they shared deep frustration with the partisan warfare in Washington D.C. and the ridiculous waste of our nation's focus at the time of the impeachment mess. On September 18th 1998, they launched an online petition to "Censure President Clinton and Move On to Pressing Issues Facing the Nation." Within days they had hundreds of thousands of individuals signed up, and began looking for ways these voices could be heard.

The MoveOn Peace campaign was founded independently by Eli Pariser, a Maine native and recent graduate of Simon's Rock College of Bard. In the days following September 11th, 2001, he launched an online petition calling for a restrained and multi-lateral response to the attacks, which was quickly signed by more than half a million people. Eli joined forces with MoveOn soon afterward, and is now MoveOnPAC's Executive Director (see www.moveonpac.org).
[...]

Long story short - it's purpose is to encourage small liberal donors to do what they can. Traditionally, the Republicans have kicked the Democrats' butts in the small donor category. Not anymore (also fun).

Back to my question: Do the SBVT want us to return to Vietnam? Why have they harbored this grudge for 30 years? And if they object to Kerry, who DID serve, why do they embrace Cheney who deferred and Bush who never served in Vietnam.
Obviously, they are offended at his testimoney before congress, and if they were mad THEN, it would be understandable chronistically. I DOESN"T make sense NOW to be upset about objection to a war that in the intervening decades has pretty much been agreed to have been a bad idea, or at best poorly executed.

In the long NYT piece on the subject, they made it seem like the catalyst was the portrayal of a certain admiral in Kerry's biography. Until that incident, the man praised Kerry. After that, he played a central role in organizing this mess.

BlackGriffen

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
Why don't we start talking about positive issues instead of it being "Bush did this" or "Kerry lied about this" all the time?

I for one would be willing to drop the partisanship if others such as yourself will too. Partisanship gets us all nowhere.

What we need to do is start giving Lerkfish a little respect (Me included)! It is easy to look at some of his posts and immediately call it a conspiracy theory...but many times he offers a valid opinon and POV. Above all, he starts thought provoking threads that most either vehemenently disagree or agree with.

How many members here have offered opinion pieces, supported by current events, articles and sometimes facts? I don't think his 3 prongs are valid...but our POV are on different ends of the spectrum and we will disagree on 99.9999999% of the issues. The point being is that lerk provides us with thought provoking material. Some of us may disagree with him and may think that some of his theories are extreme...but at least he is intelligent - no matter how wrong he may be

Just my 2 cents. This place would be dull without lerkfish

[Spliffdaddy]

That's what I meant to say.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
you guys are callling Kerry a liar.

I just want Kerry to sign form 180 and authorize release of ALL his military records. After all, he claims that his Vietnam service is his main qualification to be President.

Once the records are released, then I (and the American people) will be better equipped to determine whether he has been completely truthful or not.

I'd also like his wife to make her income tax statements public, since much of his initial campaign funding was sourced from mortgages on her properties, and most of his declarable income was a result of his reselling some of his wife's art collection. Laura makes her tax records public.

The left constantly bitches and whines that Bush is deceitful. But ask them to release the same documentation that the Bushes have, and all we get in return are hackjob smears.

Sure smells like deceitfulness to me.

[Dr.HermanG.]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
sorry, I will not allow you to shape how I post. Nice try...

Then there's no need to compromise. We can just sit here spinning wheels and get nowhere since it's what you prefer.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
Then there's no need to compromise. We can just sit here spinning wheels and get nowhere since it's what you prefer.

You're assuming we are debating on equal footing or that what I have to say depends entirely on your acceptance of it.
You highly overvault your own importance, certainly to me.

At the moment, you're just serving as an annoying gadfly.
Your first attempts to derail me were personal attacks, then cute little frog images, then jumping into every thread and merely slinging non-sequitors.
then, you abandon that somewhat and try to outargue me.
Then, when you finally realize that you're outmatched, you revert back to personal attacks with a new twist: hoping i'll slit my wrists.
you're transparent and ineffectual.

I have no intention of compromising with you, as your views are diametrically opposed to mine, and mine are the only views which fit my moral standards: that a president should not lie to preemptively invade, for example.

I'm getting where I want to go. You can tag along if you wish, but you're not in my way nor do I desire your help.

clear enough?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by dcolton:
What we need to do is start giving Lerkfish a little respect (Me included)! It is easy to look at some of his posts and immediately call it a conspiracy theory...but many times he offers a valid opinon and POV. Above all, he starts thought provoking threads that most either vehemenently disagree or agree with.

How many members here have offered opinion pieces, supported by current events, articles and sometimes facts? I don't think his 3 prongs are valid...but our POV are on different ends of the spectrum and we will disagree on 99.9999999% of the issues. The point being is that lerk provides us with thought provoking material. Some of us may disagree with him and may think that some of his theories are extreme...but at least he is intelligent - no matter how wrong he may be

Just my 2 cents. This place would be dull without lerkfish

thanks.

[Lerkfish]

actually, what I'd really prefer is people merely discuss the topics and issues they wish to, and take a pass on those they dont'. Who I am should not be part of the discussion. Certainly, not liking me does not constitute a valid argument against whatever point I'm making.

Although we are all guilty and victim of this from time to time, it really is my preference to debate the topic only.

[mo]

Originally posted by dcolton:
What we need to do is start giving Lerkfish a little respect (Me included)! It is easy to look at some of his posts and immediately call it a conspiracy theory...but many times he offers a valid opinon and POV. Above all, he starts thought provoking threads that most either vehemenently disagree or agree with.

How many members here have offered opinion pieces, supported by current events, articles and sometimes facts? I don't think his 3 prongs are valid...but our POV are on different ends of the spectrum and we will disagree on 99.9999999% of the issues. The point being is that lerk provides us with thought provoking material. Some of us may disagree with him and may think that some of his theories are extreme...but at least he is intelligent - no matter how wrong he may be

Just my 2 cents. This place would be dull without lerkfish

Well said. Hug?

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Do they not believe that atrocities ever occurred in "Nam? If so, what was Mai Ling all about?

I think you mean My Lai. Mai Ling was a girl I once sorta dated.

[Capt.McDuff]

Of course atrocities occurred in Vietnam. Atrocities take place in all wars. But when the entire military gets blamed for atrocities and it affects our view of our men and woman in uniform then someone must be held accountable if they lie about the extent of those atrocities.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Capt.McDuff:
Of course atrocities occurred in Vietnam. Atrocities take place in all wars. But when the entire military gets blamed for atrocities and it affects our view of our men and woman in uniform then someone must be held accountable if they lie about the extent of those atrocities.

and you don't think 35 years is enough time to view that through a wiser filter?

[KaBlooey]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
"We are ready for an unforeseen event that may or may not occur."
--Al Gore

Mr. Spliff, your sig contains a quote directly from the brain and lips of Dan Quayle, not Al Gore. Google it.

[Capt.McDuff]

It would be very helpful if Senator Kerry apologied for what he did.

The problem I encounter with many Vietnam veterans is that people still think of them as being murderers, baby killers, etc. because of the work of the anti-war protesters of the time.

[constrictor]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
No, what is pathetic is seeing one or more new threads every day started by you because of your vile hate for one person or one group of people.

Get help before you slash your wrists.

But be sure to go to a real doctor.

[Timo]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Even 30 some odd % is quite a large vote for the Democrats. You are right to point out that veterans are not a monolith and do not speak with one voice. However, you might also like to remember that the next time Kerry trots out some general who endorses him. I think some people when they see that tend to assume the very thing you criticize -- namely that every military person is a partisan Republican, and that therefore every one that endorses Kerry is somehow a defector from the other side to their cause. The fact is, quite a lot of career military people are and always were Democrats. That includes some generals. But overall and on balance, veterans lean right.

No argument and well spoken.

[lurkalot]

Originally posted by Capt.McDuff:
It would be very helpful if Senator Kerry apologized for what he did.

The problem I encounter with many Vietnam veterans is that people still think of them as being murderers, baby killers, etc. because of the work of the anti-war protesters of the time.

The anti-war protesters helped expose those who actually murdered, killed babies, etc during that conflict. Helped expose the rotten apples in the lot.
Those who commit war crimes are the enemies of us all, regardless of the side they were on in past conflicts or the uniform they wore and disgraced. If Senator Kerry committed acts like that he should apologize or even be punished but for speaking out and giving publicity to the atrocities committed during the Vietnam conflict he should be applauded.

Kerry apparently worked to get the Khmer Rouge trials going and he supports the ICC. Combined with his testimony about Vietnam I hope those are solid indications that he as a CiC won't tolerate the kind of behavior that truly tarnishes the reputation of veterans and the armed forces. It is an all too common fallacy to blame the whistle blowers but they were not the ones who committed the crimes that give Vietnam vets a bad reputation. Those Vietnam vets have their comrades in arms who committed the actual atrocities to blame for that. Not that that justifies generalization or collective punishment.

[mo]

Here is an unexpected take on the controversy from the Weekly Standard, of all places:

Yet in 2004, Republicans find themselves supporting a candidate, George W. Bush, with a slender and ambiguous military record against a man whose combat heroism has never (until now) been disputed. Further--and here we'll let slip a thinly disguised secret--Republicans are supporting a candidate that relatively few of them find personally or politically appealing. This is not the choice Republicans are supposed to be faced with. The 1990s were far better. In those days the Democrats did the proper thing, nominating a draft-dodger to run against George H.W. Bush, who was the youngest combat pilot in the Pacific theater in World War II, and then later, in 1996, against Bob Dole, who left a portion of his body on the beach at Anzio.

Republicans have no such luck this time, and so they scramble to reassure themselves that they nevertheless are doing the right thing, voting against a war hero. The simplest way to do this is to convince themselves that the war hero isn't really a war hero. If sufficient doubt about Kerry's record can be raised, we can vote for Bush without remorse. But the calculations are transparently desperate. Reading some of the anti-Kerry attacks over the last several weeks, you might conclude that this is the new conservative position: A veteran who volunteered for combat duty, spent four months under fire in Vietnam, and then exaggerated a bit so he could go home early is the inferior, morally and otherwise, of a man who had his father pull strings so he wouldn't have to go to Vietnam in the first place.

[LoganCharles]

Here is the first half.

FOR THE PAST couple weeks Republican activists have bent themselves to the task of proving that John Kerry, who was awarded five medals during four months of service in the Vietnam war, isn't a war hero, and the marvelous intensity of their exertions started me thinking.

As normal Americans lose interest in politics, and as their moderating influence fades from the general conversation, politics has become increasingly the plaything of obsessives. And what obsessives bring to politics, unsurprisingly, are their own obsessions, rooted in the uneasiness and insecurities that we all share to one degree or another. Punditry may not be a branch of psychopathology--not yet, anyway--but in some cases the most penetrating political analysis should follow the method of Bertie Wooster's valet, Jeeves: "The first essential is to study the psychology of the individual." Both Bertie and Jeeves, by the way, were paleocons.


It's amazing, the mysteries that can be illuminated by the psychological approach. Consider the recent self-presentation of the Democratic party. The party as we know it today was founded in 1972, when its old guard was swept away by the McGovernite revolution. The party's purpose and image were unambiguous. It was the peace party. And it remained such through the rest of the Cold War, even when--as in '72--it nominated a decorated war hero as its presidential candidate.


Over the years a few Democrats have objected to this reputation, of course, and the cleverest polemicists have even flipped their party's peacenik image against their opponents in the


war party. Beginning in the 1980s, Democrats have delighted in scolding various Republicans as "war wimps"--public officials and think-tank types who advocate the use of military force and who did not themselves serve in the military.


On the kindest interpretation, the "war wimps" charge is based on a non sequitur, linking two things that have nothing to do with each other (military service as a young man, on the one hand, and sound judgment in geopolitical affairs, on the other). On a not-so-kind interpretation, it entails the repudiation of a crucial democratic principle: civilian control of the military. After all, if only men with military experience are justified in ordering other military men into combat, then national security has been ceded to an unsupervised warrior class--something that Democrats used to warn us against. And besides, by this definition, several of the country's wartime presidents, including Democrats Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt, were war wimps.


As an argument, then, the war-wimp charge is incoherent, even illiberal. It's also inexplicable--until you realize that it isn't an argument at all, but a sign of severe psychological frustration, a means by which a desperate Democrat might overcompensate for years of being called a peacenik wimp. The same frustration led directly to the bizarre outcome of this year's primaries, when Democrats nominated a charmless and undistinguished candidate whom no one seemed to like very much and who displays a dazzling lack of the most elementary political skills, such as being able to deliver a speech without boring half his audience into paralytic catatonia.

But he had a single qualification that overwhelmed his many shortcomings. John Kerry is a war hero. John Kerry fought Charlie in 'Nam. John Kerry wore the brown bar and ate the chop-chop. John Kerry was in the **** and came out alive. (Democrats can speak the lingo too, you know.) So who you calling a "peace party" now? Huh?

Hence the Boston convention--a celebration of hairy-chested militarism that would have made Generalissimo Franco blush. A press release outlined a theme for each night of the convention. Monday: "The Kerry-Edwards plan to make America stronger . . ." Tuesday: "John Kerry's lifetime of strength . . ." Wednesday: "Creating a stronger, more secure America . . ." If you listened close you heard Sousa marches tucked between the rap music interludes. On Thursday night, there was the Parade of Generals and Admirals, each warrior marching across the convention stage to riotous applause. (They had the decency to wear civilian clothes.) Finally, the war hero himself appeared, greeted by a phalanx of former soldiers. He climbed the stage and promptly gave a military salute. He said he was "reporting for duty." Juntas have taken power with less pomp.

The vets in formation, the generals strutting the stage, the teary-eyed tributes to those fallen in battle, even the nominee himself--it is difficult to explain any of this martial bluster except as a function of psychological necessity: Democrats need to reassure themselves they aren't wimps.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
half-dozen?

Try seventeen.

He's really worried about four more years of Dubya.

Many of us are worried about four more years of Bush.

[:dragonflypro:]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Many of us are worried about four more years of Bush.

Another sound-byte echo-head reason.

He's the President, not the King.

You do realize that there are actually 535 individuals that pretty much give the green light to the policies he pursues and llike wise can red-light it at any time, right?

Jeez, the hate is so thick anymore it is beyond rational discussion.

T

[LoganCharles]

Wiskedjack isn't even American so I'm not sure why he cares so much.

In fact I don't know why so many non-Americans here care. Must be boring there.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by LoganCharles:
Wiskedjack isn't even American so I'm not sure why he cares so much.

In fact I don't know why so many non-Americans here care. Must be boring there.

I care because of the massive international impact that the US has. Bush has made the World a more dangerous place.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by dcolton:
What we need to do is start giving Lerkfish a little respect (Me included)! It is easy to look at some of his posts and immediately call it a conspiracy theory...but many times he offers a valid opinon and POV. Above all, he starts thought provoking threads that most either vehemenently disagree or agree with.

How many members here have offered opinion pieces, supported by current events, articles and sometimes facts? I don't think his 3 prongs are valid...but our POV are on different ends of the spectrum and we will disagree on 99.9999999% of the issues. The point being is that lerk provides us with thought provoking material. Some of us may disagree with him and may think that some of his theories are extreme...but at least he is intelligent - no matter how wrong he may be

Just my 2 cents. This place would be dull without lerkfish

That was good kharma. Dharma it is called. I take my hat off for you.

[LoganCharles]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
I care because of the massive international impact that the US has. Bush has made the World a more dangerous place.

How has he made Canada any more dangerous? Seriously. Point out in some way with some facts to back it up.