This Might Get Ugly

[Guest MikeSC]

Judicial Watch is, apparently, asking the Dept. of Defense to investigate how deserving Kerry was of his medals. They base their request, largely, upon "Unfit for Command".

 

Now, the media threw away its ability to call Judicial Watch "conservative" when they praised them for demanding Cheney release records of the energy task force (where they went from a "conservative group" to a "watchdog group").

 

Now, what can this do good for Kerry? Judicial Watch, for all of their faults (Klayman is one creepy dude --- he sued his MOTHER, for God's sake) --- they are thorough. And they tend to make briefs that are actually judicially sound.

 

Kerry can't sue anybody over this --- because it gives groups like Swift Boat Veterans for Truth EXACTLY what they want (access to EVERYTHING, thanks to pre-trial discovery). He can't IGNORE it, as it MIGHT lead to an investigation which might disprove everything he has claimed, killing his candidacy and political career dead.

-=Mike

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

I'm so glad that things that happened 35 yrs. ago with both candidates seem to be so important to this election. Why don't we just forget about what Kerry did or what Bush did and focus on relevent things?

[Guest MikeSC]

I'm so glad that things that happened 35 yrs. ago with both candidates seem to be so important to this election. Why don't we just forget about what Kerry did or what Bush did and focus on relevent things?

Because then people would just cry.

-=Mike

[teke184 0]

IMHO, what Kerry did in battle 35 years ago isn't sticking in my craw nearly as much as what he did about 30 years ago by testifying in the Winter Soldier hearing.

 

 

Kerry took the stand before Congress during a war and proclaimed that he and others not only committed war crimes on a regular basis, but that they did so with the full knowledge of the military hierarchy.

 

QUITE a few people dispute that one and, I believe, Kerry has since claimed that he never committed any war crimes. If he has done so, then he purjured himself before Congress and helped destroy the image of the US military at a time when it couldn't afford it.

[Red Baron 0]

Bush lied. Why is he still president?

[Guest MikeSC]

Bush lied. Why is he still president?

You know, I just posted on this yesterday. The incessant personal attacks on the President --- or on Sen. Kerry --- are fucking idiotic, pointless, and quite inaccurate.

 

If you have nothing worthwhile to add, leave.

-=Mike

[teke184 0]

Bush lied. Why is he still president?

Please bring up a specific instance of Bush lying and do NOT say "about the weapons of mass destruction."

 

All intelligence (and not just ours) says that they were there, they were used in the late 1980s in northern Iraq, and recent evidence indicates that the weapons could have been smuggled to Syria right before the most recent Gulf War.

 

Hell, stuff tagged by the UN Weapons Inspectors that Iraq was supposed to destroy has ended up on the black market recently, nearly TEN YEARS after Saddam was supposed to have destroyed this shit.

 

 

 

 

As for Kerry, there is public record that he's since contradicted in which he claimed to have committed war crimes and that the military hierarchy was aware of those actions and supported them. (Kerry is quoted on The Today Show in 1971 as saying he did, in fact, participate in war crimes)

 

If he DID lie about his involvement in war crimes, it means that he lied before the Senate in the 1970s as well, spreading information that the North Vietnamese turned to their advantage. The North Vietnamese tried to coerce at least one POW into signing a confession that he committed war crimes using Kerry and his testimony as part of their interrogation tactics.

 

Hell, a photo of Kerry is contained within the Vietnamese Communist War Remnants Museum in Saigon, along with one of Jane Fonda.

[Red Baron 0]

still, Bush got into a war, without finding anything. Yes documents say this and that, but you know, that could have been done without the lives of nearly 1000 American soldiers and the countless innocent Iraqi civilians.

[teke184 0]

still, Bush got into a war, without finding anything. Yes documents say this and that, but you know, that could have been done without the lives of nearly 1000 American soldiers and the countless innocent Iraqi civilians.

1. That still does not constitute a lie.

 

2. We MIGHT have been willing to do this without going to war if UN Weapons Inspector Hans Blix hadn't been doing everything he could do to prevent an invasion.

 

It's one thing if he didn't find any NEW weapons. It's another entirely if he couldn't get the Iraqis to produce documentation that they had destroyed the weapons the UN *PERSONALLY TAGGED* during previous inspections.

 

 

Considering the amount of material that the UN tagged in the early 90s inspections, it's a BIG red flag if Saddam can't prove that he got rid of it in compliance with UN sanctions and guidelines.

[Red Baron 0]

but Bush wasn't going into Iraq to find "Documents" he was going to find "Weapons of Mass Destruction".

 

You didn't need to go into Iraq to find out about the "Documents" they had about WMD, did they?

[NoCalMike 0]

I still love the notion people are trying to toss around, that Kerry kind of just asked for a medal for no reason and his commanding officer just said, "sure, kid, now run a long and play" It's not like Kerry was anyone special or recognizable at the time to where anyone would have felt any extra pressure to give him a medal.

[teke184 0]

but Bush wasn't going into Iraq to find "Documents" he was going to find "Weapons of Mass Destruction".

 

You didn't need to go into Iraq to find out about the "Documents" they had about WMD, did they?

You're deliberately misunderstanding me...

 

 

The fact that Saddam couldn't produce documentation about what happened to the weapons indicated one of several things.

 

1. He still had them

 

2. He sold them to another country and/or a terrorist organization

 

or

 

3. He disposed of them in an improper and sloppy manner knowing FULL WELL that the UN Weapons Inspectors were looking over his shoulder and that sanctions against Iraq were staying in place until he could prove he disposed of them properly.

 

 

 

Take a look at those three choices and tell me which of them could be eliminated using common sense.

[Guest MikeSC]

I still love the notion people are trying to toss around, that Kerry kind of just asked for a medal for no reason and his commanding officer just said, "sure, kid, now run a long and play" It's not like Kerry was anyone special or recognizable at the time to where anyone would have felt any extra pressure to give him a medal.

That, basically, IS charged in the book. One of the charges is that, I believe, his Silver Star was not even awarded by his C.O at the time of the mission. The charge, in essence, is that he sought out a higher up to award him a medal based solely on his word.

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

I still love the notion people are trying to toss around, that Kerry kind of just asked for a medal for no reason and his commanding officer just said, "sure, kid, now run a long and play"  It's not like Kerry was anyone special or recognizable at the time to where anyone would have felt any extra pressure to give him a medal.

That, basically, IS charged in the book. One of the charges is that, I believe, his Silver Star was not even awarded by his C.O at the time of the mission. The charge, in essence, is that he sought out a higher up to award him a medal based solely on his word.

-=Mike

ok, well are they showing that there is a precidence for this in the military with other cases to prove this, or are they just simply claiming Kerry asked and the higher up delievered. Also, wouldn't this look down more on the higherup and the system then Kerry himself?

[Guest MikeSC]

I still love the notion people are trying to toss around, that Kerry kind of just asked for a medal for no reason and his commanding officer just said, "sure, kid, now run a long and play"  It's not like Kerry was anyone special or recognizable at the time to where anyone would have felt any extra pressure to give him a medal.

That, basically, IS charged in the book. One of the charges is that, I believe, his Silver Star was not even awarded by his C.O at the time of the mission. The charge, in essence, is that he sought out a higher up to award him a medal based solely on his word.

-=Mike

ok, well are they showing that there is a precidence for this in the military with other cases to prove this, or are they just simply claiming Kerry asked and the higher up delievered. Also, wouldn't this look down more on the higherup and the system then Kerry himself?

Haven't finished the book yet, so I can't say.

-=Mike

[Red Baron 0]

Ya, I'm pretty sure the Iraqi civilians loved that. You know that they had no WMD, and that the States should have went searching into Saudi Arabia or Iran, instead of Iraq, you'd probably have a better chance of finding WMD.

 

I'm sure the Iraqi people loved it when one day they are playing soccer, the next day there house is blown up. And this "liberating" thing. Wow...I'm sure the Iraqi people loves it better now since they can't risk going outside without being shot at.

 

How about North Korea? We know they have WMD, why didn't USA invade them? Overthrow the power there. I'm sure North Korea is in better shape than Iraq was last year, before USA invaded them.

 

What the hell is WMD mean anyways, just some fancy term that the Bush Administration just decided to make up one day.

 

"They have Weapons of Mass Destruction"

 

No shit, you guys gave it to them, of course they had Weapons of Mass Destruction, since you guys gave it to them in the 80's under Daddy's permission. If anything Saddam would be smart and used it all already. Iraq does not even have the facilities to create WMD, let alone harbour them. Where are they going to hide it? Under a sand dune?

[Guest MikeSC]

Ya, I'm pretty sure the Iraqi civilians loved that. You know that they had no WMD, and that the States should have went searching into Saudi Arabia or Iran, instead of Iraq, you'd probably have a better chance of finding WMD.

So, out of curiosity, what WAS used against the Kurds --- since, apparently, you think it wasn't WMD?

I'm sure the Iraqi people loved it when one day they are playing soccer, the next day there house is blown up. And this "liberating" thing. Wow...I'm sure the Iraqi people loves it better now since they can't risk going outside without being shot at.

Just because Michael Moore said so, it does not mean that Iraq was even CLOSE to being idyllic under Saddam.

 

At least now, they are far less likely to be taken from their house, tortured, and killed because they didn't smile broadly enough for Saddam's tastes.

Well, provided Human Rights Watch wasn't, you know, lying for last, oh, 20 years or so.

How about North Korea? We know they have WMD, why didn't USA invade them? Overthrow the power there. I'm sure North Korea is in better shape than Iraq was last year, before USA invaded them.

What do you know of North Korea's conditions? Does the fact that people flee to CHINA for political protection tell you anything?

What the hell is WMD mean anyways, just some fancy term that the Bush Administration just decided to make up one day.

Yup, that term did not exist anywhere until Bush decided to make it up.

 

Your irrational hatred of Bush is fucking idiotic, you know.

No shit, you guys gave it to them

Actually, the moment we learned of them using anything on the Kurds, the U.S stopped.

 

France, however, did not.

of course they had Weapons of Mass Destruction, since you guys gave it to them in the 80's under Daddy's permission.

You know we stopped sending them anything LONG before Bush I took office, right?

If anything Saddam would be smart and used it all already. Iraq does not even have the facilities to create WMD, let alone harbour them. Where are they going to hide it? Under a sand dune?

Let me guess, they're too backwards to do it, right? Funny that nobody else agreed or agrees with that assessment.

 

You've become a broken record.

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

I still love the notion people are trying to toss around, that Kerry kind of just asked for a medal for no reason and his commanding officer just said, "sure, kid, now run a long and play"  It's not like Kerry was anyone special or recognizable at the time to where anyone would have felt any extra pressure to give him a medal.

That, basically, IS charged in the book. One of the charges is that, I believe, his Silver Star was not even awarded by his C.O at the time of the mission. The charge, in essence, is that he sought out a higher up to award him a medal based solely on his word.

-=Mike

ok, well are they showing that there is a precidence for this in the military with other cases to prove this, or are they just simply claiming Kerry asked and the higher up delievered. Also, wouldn't this look down more on the higherup and the system then Kerry himself?

Haven't finished the book yet, so I can't say.

-=Mike

jesus chrimminey.......you bought the book?

[Guest MikeSC]

I still love the notion people are trying to toss around, that Kerry kind of just asked for a medal for no reason and his commanding officer just said, "sure, kid, now run a long and play"  It's not like Kerry was anyone special or recognizable at the time to where anyone would have felt any extra pressure to give him a medal.

That, basically, IS charged in the book. One of the charges is that, I believe, his Silver Star was not even awarded by his C.O at the time of the mission. The charge, in essence, is that he sought out a higher up to award him a medal based solely on his word.

-=Mike

ok, well are they showing that there is a precidence for this in the military with other cases to prove this, or are they just simply claiming Kerry asked and the higher up delievered. Also, wouldn't this look down more on the higherup and the system then Kerry himself?

Haven't finished the book yet, so I can't say.

-=Mike

jesus chrimminey.......you bought the book?

Why shouldn't I have?

-=Mike

[teke184 0]

Ya, I'm pretty sure the Iraqi civilians loved that. You know that they had no WMD, and that the States should have went searching into Saudi Arabia or Iran, instead of Iraq, you'd probably have a better chance of finding WMD.

 

I'm sure the Iraqi people loved it when one day they are playing soccer, the next day there house is blown up. And this "liberating" thing. Wow...I'm sure the Iraqi people loves it better now since they can't risk going outside without being shot at.

 

How about North Korea? We know they have WMD, why didn't USA invade them? Overthrow the power there. I'm sure North Korea is in better shape than Iraq was last year, before USA invaded them.

 

What the hell is WMD mean anyways, just some fancy term that the Bush Administration just decided to make up one day.

 

"They have Weapons of Mass Destruction"

 

No shit, you guys gave it to them, of course they had Weapons of Mass Destruction, since you guys gave it to them in the 80's under Daddy's permission. If anything Saddam would be smart and used it all already. Iraq does not even have the facilities to create WMD, let alone harbour them. Where are they going to hide it? Under a sand dune?

Saudi Arabia and Iran are IRRELEVANT. Iraq DID have WMD at the time that the UN inspectors were kicked out in the mid-90s and the UN had specifically sanctioned Iraq on this subject but did little to back it up.

 

 

You may paint a rosy picture on pre-invasion Iraq but it was not all sunshine and lollipops.

 

The Iraqi soccer team, which was featured in an article today proclaiming that if they were not in the Olympics that they'd be part of the insurgency, used to get tortured by Uday and Qusay Hussein when they did not perform up to the standards they expected.

 

The average Iraqi was also getting starved out because Saddam was screwing around with the UN Oil-For-Food fund which was SUPPOSED to be used to feed his people. Investigations are still ongoing in that case but there were MILLIONS in the account that were never used to buy food for his people.

 

 

Oh, BTW, Clinton and his administration made QUITE a few comments about the weapons that Saddam had and the airstrikes he ordered in 1998 WERE against suspected chemical sites in Iraq.

 

Clinton also advocated a position that something had to be done about Saddam but, frankly, he wasn't in a position to do much of anything at that time.

[Vyce 0]

Mike appears to be reading the book, and I've read some, and frankly, if half the shit they say in that is proven true, then Kerry's got a serious problem.

 

Normally, none of us would - or should - care about that shit, but if it's proven that he fabricated or exaggerated his activities in order to obtain these medals / accolades, then it sort of undercuts the heart of his whole "I would make a better President to fight the War on Terror because of my military service" message.

 

As for your question, Mike, what can Kerry do? Apparently just blame Bush for secretly being behind the Swiftboat ads, since he hasn't really addressed the actual charges brought forth by the Swiftboat veterans.

 

Honestly, I don't even think this would be an issue if Democrats / liberals hadn't made an issue about Bush's National Guard service. I think that pissed off the wrong people, who decided to give it back in return.

[teke184 0]

IMHO, Bush's National Guard service would have been a legitimate issue if they'd stuck to the fact that he was in a unit that was never deployed while Kerry was a combat veteran.

 

 

However, they decided to go down the "He went AWOL" road and it got dirty when they refused to accept anything that came out to the contrary.

 

Example- Accusations that Bush's records were "conveniently" lost in the mid-90s when the military reported that a bunch of archived 30-year old payroll records were damaged

[NoCalMike 0]

Example- Accusations that Bush's records were "conveniently" lost in the mid-90s when the military reported that a bunch of archived 30-year old payroll records were damaged

well that isn't an accusation though, that is the truth. The accusation is that they were destroyed on purpose because they were pretty much THE documents that would settle all of this once and for all.

[Red Baron 0]

So, out of curiosity, what WAS used against the Kurds --- since, apparently, you think it wasn't WMD?

 

Chemicals that United States gave them. Thats the mid 90's. What did they have in 2003?...Please tell me.

 

Just because Michael Moore said so, it does not mean that Iraq was even CLOSE to being idyllic under Saddam.

 

At least now, they are far less likely to be taken from their house, tortured, and killed because they didn't smile broadly enough for Saddam's tastes.

Well, provided Human Rights Watch wasn't, you know, lying for last, oh, 20 years or so.

 

How often did this actually happen? I mean Iraqi people WANT TO LIVE WHERE SADDAM WAS IN POWER THAN WHATS GOING ON NOW.

 

What do you know of North Korea's conditions? Does the fact that people flee to CHINA for political protection tell you anything

 

Obviously Mike doesn't know sarcasm, or I was joking about it. Really, I did not know people fled to China. Breaking revelation Mike, North Korea is controlled by Communism, I bet you didn't know that.

 

Yup, that term did not exist anywhere until Bush decided to make it up.

 

Your irrational hatred of Bush is fucking idiotic, you know

 

You need some oxygen Mike? I don't think George can take it anymore.

 

Actually, the moment we learned of them using anything on the Kurds, the U.S stopped.

 

France, however, did not.

 

But you still gave WMD to the Iraqi's, thats the point, and France. France is a great country, considering France is a big part of the American history. (This can be argued for another day.

 

You know we stopped sending them anything LONG before Bush I took office, right?

 

Ya, when Reagan was in power, but Geroge H. Bush was Reagan's go to guy, and him and Rumsfield was looking over the Middle East.

 

Let me guess, they're too backwards to do it, right? Funny that nobody else agreed or agrees with that assessment.

 

You've become a broken record.

 

Considering that most post here are pretty right-wing, I expected no one would agree with me.

 

But I guess that I don't look at any fundalmentalist right-wing american bullshit crap, that makes me inferior.

 

 

See Mike, I can tear apart posts and make myself look smart.

[Guest Jar_of_Dirt]

For god's sake teke, a little empathy.

 

Let's say some country that you hate(and since you're American, I'm going to assume you hate France) comes along and decides to "Liberate" America of Bush. Because Bush did something that France didn't like.

 

How would you feel if one morning, even if you hated Bush and agreed he needed to go, if you woke up and saw tanks on your lawn? How would you feel if, for what the French army said was "for the good of the world", all your family, all your friends, all your neighbours, had been killed. How bout if the French bombed your town hall or shopping mall, because Bush may have been there? And then how do you think you'd feel when French President Jacques Chirac came on the news and said "You owe us huge. We did you a favour by liberating you".

 

You might be grateful that Bush was gone, but shit, you'd feel pathetic. Helpless that you couldn't get rid of your leader on your own, or even with several thousand of you. And you feel anger towards the French troops who killed everyone you cared about.

 

That's why this war was a mistake. The fact remains that Saddam was ousted, like you wanted, and maybe Iraqis are happier without him...on the whole. But shit, put yourself in their shoes. You'd be furious at France. I'd rather have a shitty Prime Minister who was Canadian(where I proudly hail from) than someone chosen for me by an outside country.

 

 

XBOX GamerTag: Twigs9904

[NoCalMike 0]

Mike appears to be reading the book, and I've read some, and frankly, if half the shit they say in that is proven true, then Kerry's got a serious problem.

...and if none of it is proven true then what? So far I really haven't seen anything of substance from these guys. They all just seem very angry and betrayed by Kerry's actions post-vietnam tour, and possibly rightfully so, that isn't MY judgement to make since I wasn't in vietnam, however it does seem like they are just a group of bitter men that don't want Kerry as President, and someone on the right threw them a wad of cash to help things along not caring if there was any truth to the accusations, but rather knowing that this would be damaging to Kerry whether the accusations were proven true or not.

[teke184 0]

For god's sake teke, a little empathy.

 

Let's say some country that you hate(and since you're American, I'm going to assume you hate France) comes along and decides to "Liberate" America of Bush. Because Bush did something that France didn't like.

 

How would you feel if one morning, even if you hated Bush and agreed he needed to go, if you woke up and saw tanks on your lawn? How would you feel if, for what the French army said was "for the good of the world", all your family, all your friends, all your neighbours, had been killed. How bout if the French bombed your town hall or shopping mall, because Bush may have been there? And then how do you think you'd feel when French President Jacques Chirac came on the news and said "You owe us huge. We did you a favour by liberating you".

 

You might be grateful that Bush was gone, but shit, you'd feel pathetic. Helpless that you couldn't get rid of your leader on your own, or even with several thousand of you. And you feel anger towards the French troops who killed everyone you cared about.

 

That's why this war was a mistake. The fact remains that Saddam was ousted, like you wanted, and maybe Iraqis are happier without him...on the whole. But shit, put yourself in their shoes. You'd be furious at France. I'd rather have a shitty Prime Minister who was Canadian(where I proudly hail from) than someone chosen for me by an outside country.

 

 

XBOX GamerTag: Twigs9904

My empathy towards the people of Iraq is at a low point today after hearing the members of the Iraqi soccer team speak to the press.

 

A guy who would have been looking at certain torture by Uday and Qusay if they were still in power talking about how he'd be an insurgent if he wasn't competing in the Olympics makes me sick to my fucking stomach.

 

 

 

If it was a common citizen saying this, I'd feel sympathetic.

 

A pampered athlete who used to be under threat of torture, mutilation, and death for their performance in international competition shouldn't be biting the hand that freed them.

[Vyce 0]

Mike appears to be reading the book, and I've read some, and frankly, if half the shit they say in that is proven true, then Kerry's got a serious problem.

...and if none of it is proven true then what? So far I really haven't seen anything of substance from these guys. They all just seem very angry and betrayed by Kerry's actions post-vietnam tour, and possibly rightfully so, that isn't MY judgement to make since I wasn't in vietnam, however it does seem like they are just a group of bitter men that don't want Kerry as President, and someone on the right threw them a wad of cash to help things along not caring if there was any truth to the accusations, but rather knowing that this would be damaging to Kerry whether the accusations were proven true or not.

If it's not proven true, then this backfires HUGE, and Kerry has a hell of a libel (and slander) case against them.

[Guest MikeSC]

So, out of curiosity, what WAS used against the Kurds --- since, apparently, you think it wasn't WMD?

 

Chemicals that United States gave them. Thats the mid 90's. What did they have in 2003?...Please tell me.

Can you prove we gave them to Iraq? Do you have the tiniest iota of evidence that the US --- and not, say, France and Russia --- both of whom were markedly closer to Saddam --- gave them anything?

 

And, you admit they had WMD. So, what happened to it? There is ZERO evidence --- absolutely NONE --- that Saddam destroyed it.

Just because Michael Moore said so, it does not mean that Iraq was even CLOSE to being idyllic under Saddam.

 

At least now, they are far less likely to be taken from their house, tortured, and killed because they didn't smile broadly enough for Saddam's tastes.

Well, provided Human Rights Watch wasn't, you know, lying for last, oh, 20 years or so.

 

How often did this actually happen? I mean Iraqi people WANT TO LIVE WHERE SADDAM WAS IN POWER THAN WHATS GOING ON NOW.

Again, just because Moore said it --- Iraq was NOT an idyllic place.

 

And how often did it happen? Again, according to Human Rights Watch, pretty darned often. It was not exactly a RARE occurence.

QUOTE]What do you know of North Korea's conditions? Does the fact that people flee to CHINA for political protection tell you anything

Obviously Mike doesn't know sarcasm, or I was joking about it. Really, I did not know people fled to China. Breaking revelation Mike, North Korea is controlled by Communism, I bet you didn't know that.

So, you cannot do sarcasm OR relevance?

 

In case you've missed it --- China is basically a human rights hellhole --- and it's BETTER than N. Korea in that area.

Yup, that term did not exist anywhere until Bush decided to make it up.

 

Your irrational hatred of Bush is fucking idiotic, you know

 

You need some oxygen Mike? I don't think George can take it anymore.

Now, should I be crude and ask how you manage to find Moore's manhood to pleasure him? Does it ALWAYS involve flour?

Actually, the moment we learned of them using anything on the Kurds, the U.S stopped.

 

France, however, did not.

 

But you still gave WMD to the Iraqi's, thats the point, and France.

We stopped sending them ANYTHING when the Kurd attack occurred. We stopped EVERYTHING.

 

Can you prove that we sent them WMD? Go ahead.

You know we stopped sending them anything LONG before Bush I took office, right?

Ya, when Reagan was in power, but Geroge H. Bush was Reagan's go to guy, and him and Rumsfield was looking over the Middle East.

Actually, Bush wasn't in on most executive-level decisions according to ANYBODY who worked in Reagan's White House --- including his critics.

 

And, again, world of difference between giving guns and nerve gas.

Let me guess, they're too backwards to do it, right? Funny that nobody else agreed or agrees with that assessment.

 

You've become a broken record.

 

Considering that most post here are pretty right-wing, I expected no one would agree with me.

The libs are shying away from you.

 

That's not a coincidence.

But I guess that I don't look at any fundalmentalist right-wing american bullshit crap, that makes me inferior.

No --- you being wrong on so many different thing makes you inferior. You buying into every conspiracy theory that Moore spews out just makes you a little sad.

France is a great country, considering France is a big part of the American history. (This can be argued for another day.

BWA HA HA.

 

France WAS a nice little imperial power (you know, what they like to falsely claim America is). NOW, they are horribly irrelevant.

 

We owe France nothing, so expecting a heck of a lot of "Well, they helped us in the Revolution" doesn't really get too much mileage.

See Mike, I can tear apart posts and make myself look smart.

No, you really can't. Sorry.

and if none of it is proven true then what? So far I really haven't seen anything of substance from these guys. They all just seem very angry and betrayed by Kerry's actions post-vietnam tour, and possibly rightfully so, that isn't MY judgement to make since I wasn't in vietnam, however it does seem like they are just a group of bitter men that don't want Kerry as President, and someone on the right threw them a wad of cash to help things along not caring if there was any truth to the accusations, but rather knowing that this would be damaging to Kerry whether the accusations were proven true or not.

You're right --- it COULD all be quite false.

 

HOWEVER, Kerry hasn't disproven anything they've said. Not one thing. And he's already had to change his long-told Cambodia story. And he could call their bluff and release his journals and records --- but chooses not to.

 

Not that I blame him.

 

However, there is not a lot of reason to assume that they are completely erroneous.

 

And, Jar, I do appreciate your views. Honestly.

 

However, you're mistaken.

 

Imagine that France had twenty years of intel from every single country --- including all of his neighbors (as Tommy Franks has said) --- that he had them.

 

Now, imagine, the U.S refuses to go along with your action. They're ALL for passing resolutions all day long --- but action is beyond the pale. Oh, and just to make it better, let's imagine that it turns out that the U.S. was on the take with the dictator in question.

 

Would the US refusal to assist be a good thing?

-=Mike

[teke184 0]

Oh, BTW...

 

At least one of the gases that Saddam used was Phosgene Gas, which is based on a mixture of chlorine and ammonia.