Letters to the Editor
-
More attacks on the military
C_COOK:
So you're calling Col. Holmes, a Bataan survivor and former POW, a liar?
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/761.html
You're disgusting.
-
Groenhagen Spinning
The issue is hypocrisy, not credibility. Blumenthal failed to serve in unifirm during Vietnam. Rather failed to make it through Marine Corps boot camp.
I see. Blumenthal and Rather are journalists, and as such, it's their job to report current events. However, according to you, because they were not soldiers prior to becoming journalists, they should not be allowed to report on whether or not the president went AWOL. Have I got that right?
"This story is about an upcoming court case, wherein all the facts will be evaluated, under oath and probably before a jury. The case will look at various documents, and determine whether or not a major media outlet actively suppressed a potentially damaging story about a sitting president. Dan Rather could be shagging Larry Craig in a bathroom stall, and Sidney Blumenthal could be molesting interns with Foley, and none of that would make a damn bit of difference about the facts at hand."
That statement shows how little you respect the facts
Please explain that. I'm saying that a court of law is going to look into all the facts, at which point this story will not be about either Rather or Blumenthal. Why is that at odds with the facts? Wouldn't it be more accurate for you to say "I can't contest that, so I'm just going to mutter something insipid instead?" Or better yet, just to keep yourself from looking so stupid, you could have just ignored it.
How many times does it have to be noted that Clinton's deferment was conditional, i.e., that Clinton would avoid the draft if he served in the ROTC? Clinton failed to keep his commitment, and that is why Col. Holmes accurately called Clinton a draft dodger. Cheney's deferments came with no such conditions.
Wow, all this spinning in favor of one draft dodger over another, coming from a supposed Marine? I'm lovin' it!!
Regarding Cheney's efforts to evade the draft, he languished in college for an extra 2 years to evade the draft. Finally, when he had to leave college (I'm sure his parents were telling him to shit or get off the pot), he made sure he was married to grant him protection from the draft. But that didn't last either. On Oct. 6, 1965, the Selective Service lifted its ban against drafting married men who had no children. Nine months and two days later, Cheney's first daughter, Elizabeth, was born.
Face it: like Clinton, Cheney did everything in his power to avoid going to Vietnam. I don't criticize him for this; that was an unjust war, and there was no justification for fighting it. However, if you're going to criticize Clinton for being a draft dodger, and if you don't want to appear to be a hypocrite (a big IF, granted), you need to also criticize Cheney.
(Honestly, I don't expect you to suddenly discover some personal integrity at this point. Rather, I'm just putting one more nail in your coffin.)
-
You want to throw links around?
Here ya go then:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030411.html
Nothing your Colonel says contradicts any of the facts I outlined in my first post.
Try again.
-
One last thing...
We're losing sight of the point of the article.
Let's just find out, based on the findings of this suit, what there really is to Bush's purported AWOL status.
And again, can you neocon idiots ever make a point without resorting to Clinton?
It's pathetic. And you're all a bunch of hypocrites.
-
@CJGClark...Greg Palast
Thanks for keeping this citation alive. It seems we are the only ones aware of Greg Palast's work on many of the Bush stories. Yes, he is the one who broke the FL 2000 and OH 2004 election distortions. I have access to the database used to disenfranchise FL voters and can tell you that the data contained is so flawed that it is no wonder the results were so inaccurate. Phony/incorrect birthdates, criminal records and name misspellings, to name a few, are endemic. Greg's book, Armed Madhouse, was in the hands of Andrew Meyer at the U of FL when Kerry spoke, and is the source of the statements and questions posed by the questioner to Kerry on that occasion. As to Andrew Meyer's behavior on that occasion: how does it differ from that of such esteemed "journalists" as O'Reilly and Limbaugh and Coulter when "interviewing" people with dissenting viewpoints? How many times has O'Reilly cut a mic or told a subjet to "Shut up" or even threatened one with physical harm? I could go on, but I think I have made my point. It is best to balance inquiry with a broad viewpoint of the subject being discussed. If you want to accuse Clinton of misbehavior, be willing to look at Bush with the same discernment. Were Clinton's lies more or less damaging to the United States and its citizens? How many people is he responsible for killing, directly or indirectly by his policies? And, I am no fan of his since I do not support war for any reason. And, for what it is worth, I am a VietNam vet, 1968, and I can prove it. US56701250 is my dogtag #.
peace,
st john
-
Offensive Posture
Yes, the offensive posture came five years too late. If it have been enacted in, say, 1998, 9/11 could have been prevented.
Can you please explain or in some way substantiate this "offensive posture"? Because, I'm looking at Bush's behavior leading up to 9/11, and the only thing I see that's offensive is his jaw-dropping stupidity (which no doubt looks like genius to you). For example, as this "offensive posture" must have really been ramping up, he gets a memo that says bin Laden is determined to strike inside the US. And what is the reply of our warrior in chief?
“All right, you’ve covered your ass now.”
Damn, now that is a tough response!! Patton had nothing on this guy, eh?
Now, further inspection of your pathetic double-standard:
Clinton had more than three months to respond to the bombing of the USS Cole.
...and...
[Bush] was in office barely seven months
Okay. So you're pissed off that Clinton didn't do in 3 months, what Bush didn't do in 7 months. Have I got that right?
And, please, save the "transition" excuse. Wasn't Bush running for president? Are we to believe that once he got the job, he was completely ill-prepared to get his head around his duties? Look at Truman: had he had the luxurious "orientation period" you're so willing to grant Bush (whom you also claim was inaugurated during time of war), we may well have lost the war to Japan!
Double-standard? Let's see. Clinton killed 567,000 Iraqi children through sanctions on Iraq, dramatically increased the number of U.S. troops on the Arabian peninsula, which led bin Laden to tell CNN in 1997 that he would send Clinton "messages with no words" in retaliation.
Yep. That's a fine double-standard you've got there. Because it ignores that Bush has presided over the deaths of nearly a million Iraqis, dramatically increased the number of US troops in the Middle East, and has enacted policies that have swollen the ranks of Al Qaeda (according to our own NIEs) in ways that Clinton could never have dreamed of.