2004 US Presidential Election
July 14, 2004
Kerry | Kerry Upsets 9/11 Families
Kerry upset some families of 9/11 victims yesterday by turning a private memorial dedication into a campaign event. The Boston Herald reports:
From California Yankee.
Posted by Dan Spencer at July 14, 2004 12:53 PM | TrackBack
God, this guy is full of it…
Posted by: BallsDeep at July 14, 2004 01:17 PM
Posted by: TexasGal at July 14, 2004 01:33 PM
Like he gives a rodent’s butt. In his view, the heroes of 9/11 are the ones who prevent the “equalization” of the USA with the rest of the world, especially with the surrender monkeys of Europe.
Posted by: gus3 at July 14, 2004 01:57 PM
The issue that JK has to overcome is his rep as a real user of the good old DYKWIA (don’t you know who I am?).
Yes a candidate is going to try to get his face in front of as many cameras as possible, but there are limits and I really doubt that JK has good instincts about this.
Posted by: skip at July 14, 2004 02:46 PM
What else can you expect from a Charter Member of the “cheese-eating Surrender Monkeys team?
Posted by: leaddog2 at July 14, 2004 03:35 PM
I know for one that ‘foreign leaders’ here in Spain are VERY anxious that Kerry wins in November. All the more reason to vote for W.
Posted by: V-Man at July 14, 2004 03:36 PM
If he hadn’t shown up, y’all would have complained that he didn’t.
But the cameras caught him while he was there. Aw gee — what should he have done? Not come, because the cameras were there? Told them Not to take picture of him? Think that’s possible?
Presidential candidates are News. What they do is News. There is no way the cameras weren’t going to tape his presence.
So, you complain about that.
No way to Win here, is there? No way even just to break even.
Posted by: Don at July 14, 2004 05:56 PM
Don: Read the article again, especially the very first sentence:
“Kerry upset some families of 9/11 victims yesterday by turning a private memorial dedication into a campaign event.” (emphasis mine)
Mr. Kerry has no sense of decorum, not even for other peoples’ grief. He could have left with little or no comment, but he chose instead to turn it into a campaign opportunity. The narcissism is becoming thick enough to gag a goat.
Posted by: gus3 at July 14, 2004 06:14 PM
‘Don’——If he hadn’t shown up, y’all would have complained that he didn’t.
From what I can tell, he has his own little group of 9/11 mourners. Didn’t he have them as a part of his traveling show for awhile? That was enough to alienate any sensible survivors.
To his demise.
‘Don’——-But the cameras caught him while he was there. Aw gee — what should he have done? Not come, because the cameras were there? Told them Not to take picture of him? Think that’s possible?”
I don’t know. Maybe he should have been there when the others were there instead of making his own ‘scene’. His real intentions wouldn’t have been so obvious.
‘Don’ ——-Presidential candidates are News. What they do is News. There is no way the cameras weren’t going to tape his presence.”
Since they all seem to be following him, I guess you’re right.
‘Don’ ———So, you complain about that.”
I don’t think they are complaining. I think the folks at the ceremony were just sickened. Expecially since he has already made fools out of some of them. If they hadn’t been grieving, they might have been a little more vocal.
‘Don’ ——-No way to Win here, is there? No way even just to break even.
If you’re talking about the upcoming election, I think you’re probably dead on, from what I see. George Bush couldn’t even thank a shipload of troops returning from Iraq without the folks that don’t like him trying to make him look like Satan. I was personally moved by the President that day. The only thing this Kerry fella is doing is making my stomach queasy.
Posted by: No Party at July 14, 2004 06:41 PM
Mr. Kerry, judging by his history, doesn’t care if he upsets grieving families if it can get him his desired publicity. Look at what he did to the grieving families that had people they loved serve in Viet Nam. It got his picture in the papers, on the tv and on the walls in communist countries. Our enemeys would surely do anything they could to get this man elected. To this day, I don’t understand why one of those Vets hasn’t exacted revenge for their brothers that suffered from his lies.
Posted by: No Party at July 14, 2004 06:47 PM
NP — why is it you think that All the 911 families are or should be monolithic? Is there Any other group, other than the RRR, that is?
Don’t be silly!
Still and all, whatever else Kerry may have done, it wasn’t Nearly as much of a Staged Photo Op as was the aircraft carrier “Mission Accomplished” fiasco.
If Dubya wants to say hello to a shipload of returning troops, that’s a Photo Op too. I have no problem with it, and don’t plan to complain about it. Those who do are merely silly and unrealistic.
Rather like those who complain about the 911 family thing — Just like, in fact.
This is Politics — not tiddlywinks. Those who are part of a newsworthy event are going to have to get used to the Fact that the meeja are going to treat them that way.
Posted by: Don at July 14, 2004 06:48 PM
Don: There was no pretense about “Mission Accomplished” being anything other than a rah-rah session for the ship’s crew. And as their CiC, it was entirely his perogative to congratulate them in person.
Apples and oranges. Try again.
Posted by: gus3 at July 14, 2004 07:57 PM
Oh, and as far as the 9/11 families being monolithic, nobody said they were. As a matter of common decency, he could at least have asked permission before turning it into a WKF (World Kerry Federation) smack-down tournament.
“Common decency”? What am I thinking? Monsieur Kerry isn’t a commoner, no matter how much he may say otherwise.
Posted by: gus3 at July 14, 2004 07:59 PM
If he hadn’t shown up, y’all would have complained that he didn’t.
Maybe someone will so moral foundations would NOT have, “arrived after most other pols - such as Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Rep. Martin T. Meehan, and Attorney General Tom Reilly - had all left.”
And Kerry stayed much longer than the other leaders, shaking hands, posing for photos before he left with just as much commotion.
But then as you point out the media was there.
You know what if TED KENNEDY could refrain from making it a media circus you might think the JUNIOR Senator from MA might follow his lead. ;-)
“If the race is long enough class will show”
Posted by: Dan Kauffman at July 14, 2004 08:56 PM
Gus3/1: It was a Photo Op, pure and simple. The meeja types were prepositioned long Before Dubya got there. And Dubya’s words were Not just about the crew. Try again.
Posted by: Don at July 14, 2004 09:43 PM
This is Politics — not tiddlywinks. Those who are part of a newsworthy event are going to have to get used to the Fact that the meeja are going to treat them that way.
Posted by: Don at July 14, 2004 06:48 PM
A memorial service for grieving families
Posted by: Dan Kauffman at July 14, 2004 11:23 PM
I just want to reiterate for Don’s sake the nature of this event:
a private memorial dedication
Posted by: TexasGal at July 14, 2004 11:45 PM
Opportunism is not an attractive, vote getting characteristic.
Posted by: thedragonflies at July 14, 2004 11:52 PM
You are once again nothing but spin, please read - CAREFULLY:
“private memorial dedication in a sirened motorcade and glad-handed as though he were on the campaign trail.”
Family members said “Press were kept away”
“the Kerry campaign allowed television crews to film over the Public Garden fence - capturing video of Kerry with grieving family members”
Now - put the pieces together once again with the word PRIVATE and what do you get - A CLASSLESS ELITIST SNOB desparately seeking political advantage at any cost!
Can you say that the intellectual John F’n Kerry can’t quite comprehend private, quiet, low-key memorial?
I also resent comparing an act of the CiC done to inspire our fighting forces and our country to political actions at a private somber event. Man, what you people won’t drag up to try and change topics and just criticize our president. Why don’t you go get some polling numbers from servicemen and women who approve or disapprove of the carrier speech! After you find that 95% appreciated it, maybe you can reassess your criticism. Oh wait, you lefties want the president to rally the the people behind the troops like LBJ did instead! Give it some some serious thought, it might hurt, but that’s a good sign - for you!
Posted by: I collect political items at July 15, 2004 01:36 AM
Learn not to believe everything you read. And don’t take such after-the-fact pronouncements all that seriously either.
A presidential candidate is News. What a presidential candidate does is News. The Press follows News, even intrusively. It just goes with the territory. Whining about it afterwards is what lacks Class.
Posted by: Don at July 15, 2004 10:35 AM
Once again we are treated to the not so sound advice of Don.
Tell me: do you really find such a patronizing interpersonal style to be helpful in your day to day life?
Posted by: skip at July 15, 2004 11:14 AM
I “believe” Kerry’s campaign scheduler worked in the stop by the PRIVATE ceremony just so Kerry could pay his respects to the 9/11 families gathered there..
Posted by: TexasGal at July 15, 2004 11:48 AM
If the Kerry campaign folks are inside, and the Press is outside, is there some way they could have been prevented from looking over the fence? don
Kerry campaign allowed television crews to film over the Public Garden fence article
they apparently got permission to do just that. maybe i need more practice at this disbelieving what i read.
Posted by: wafflestomper at July 15, 2004 12:03 PM
and private does not mean ‘not wanting political types in attendance’. your definition of “not private” needs work.
its either that or explain how congress can hold private sessions.
Posted by: wafflestomper at July 15, 2004 12:18 PM
I can understand your desire to deffend the presidential candidate you are voting for, but I think you’re desire is clouding your perseption.
The article, while probably slanted, very clearly states that Kerry turned the memorial into a photo op. His very actions back up this claim, as do his past actions. Pointing fingers and saying, “Well he did it too” is both childesh and pointless. The fact of the matter is that Kerry did exactly what the article said he did. Like it or not.
Posted by: Amadeaus at July 15, 2004 03:00 PM
Everything a presidential candidate does is a photo op. Noozemeeja folks recognize them when they see them, and are always looking for the More Real stories that are not obviously staged.
Kerry didn’t stage the memorial.
He was invited to it.
It wasn’t Private.
He didn’t control the noozemeeja types.
He came late, but stayed longer.
There’s less here than meets the eye. The coverage wasn’t all that big a deal either.
Posted by: Don at July 15, 2004 03:33 PM
Kerry is Kerry. He is classless and self-absorbed. The dems/liberals/media are trying to make a silk purse out of the proverbial cow’s ear. You’re stuck with him.
Let’s just HOPE and WORK to ensure that the rest of us ultimately are NOT!
Posted by: Jim at July 15, 2004 03:52 PM
LOL. Absolutely hilarious.
OK, so let me see if I have this straight:
Presidential candidates AND everything they do is a photo op. The news media readily recognize them (the candidate) and they (the news media) are constantly in tow looking for the “real stories” that are “obviously not staged”.
Wouldn’t they therefore, by definition preclude any “real stories” as anything and everything the candidate DOES is therefore “staged”…unless you are suggesting that Kerry is UNAWARE of this sensation!?! I well realize that he is clueless about MANY things, however capitalizing on photo ops would not be amongst them.
Further, no one suggested that Kerry staged the memorial. Nice Red Herring though. What IS sad is that you apparently think that it is acceptable to STAGE (by your own definition) the PHOTO OP. Moral relativism at it’s finest (ALTHOUGH, “the coverage wasn’t all that big a deal either” comes in a close second. Guess that depends upon whether YOU had a family member in the memorial service or not, huh.)
I guess YOU got the invitation too, huh Don?!
Guess someone wanted a patio built.
Posted by: DevilDoc at July 15, 2004 04:04 PM
What Don does bring to the discussion is a quick review of how the left will respond.
No matter what the issue, we can count on Don to display the spin du jour. Whether it’s this, or the NAI gaffe or what have you. Don will show us exactly how the liberals will support their guy.
Posted by: skip at July 15, 2004 04:50 PM
“It wasn’t Private.”
What’s your source for that???
The Boston Herald Lead-in Line says:“Sen. John F. Kerry [related, bio] upset some families of 9/11 victims yesterday when he arrived - late - to a private memorial dedication in a sirened motorcade and glad-handed as though he were on the campaign trail.”
“He didn’t control the noozemeeja types.”
Them danged ‘noozemeeja’ types! A quote from the Herald Article: “Others said they were disturbed that the Kerry campaign allowed television crews to film over the Public Garden fence - capturing video of Kerry with grieving family members in the midst of his presidential campaign.” (Emphasis my own).
The italicized portion (except for the Herald quotes)Posted by: Don at July 15, 2004 03:33 PM
Posted by: Cap'n DOC at July 15, 2004 04:50 PM
CptD: Look at the memorial service. See how it was handled. It became “private” only after the fact — not before. If folks want a truly Private memorial, they don’t make a big deal out of it, and invite every politico in the neighborhood to it. Nor do they inform the Meeja that it’s happening. They did both of those things on this occasion. In fact, they don’t publicize it At All. That’s how Private is handled.
Presidential candidates travel in motorcades. The Secret Service pretty much requires it any more. If they are late — and campaigns oftimes are — then sirens are the way to get through traffic faster. It works that way in just about any jurisdiction out there.
If the Kerry folks are inside the fence, and the teeveenoozecrooze are outside, what do You think they are going to do? Here’s my guess:
They are going to hoist their cameras up over the fence and tape what’s going on inside. See how that works?
What could the Kerry folks have done to stop them? Nothing. Nor should they have done so. That’s just part and parcel of that whole Free Press thing when you put it into operation.
Once again, this is a tempest in a teapot. The coverge wasn’t that good, certainly wasn’t at all persuasive to anyone important, and wouldn’t be an issue At All save that the Wingnut contingent wants something else to rag on Kerry about, other than he actually breathes air.
Posted by: Don at July 15, 2004 06:21 PM
Skip: There are those who do not suffer Fools gladly.
I don’t suffer them at all.
Deal with it or don’t. Your choice.
Posted by: Don at July 15, 2004 06:22 PM
and what do you suppose keeps the media outside the fence? (seeing how this was a public affair and all)
Posted by: wafflestomper at July 15, 2004 06:28 PM
The fence. That’s what fences do.
The cameras were lifted up over it. Anyone inside the fence can’t prevent someone outside the fence from doing that.
That’s what folks are whining about.
Posted by: Don at July 15, 2004 07:13 PM
The cameras were lifted up over it. Anyone inside the fence can’t prevent someone outside the fence from doing that.
Yes they can, if those cameras are recording sound. If done without the consent of those recorded, or without a warrant for same, it could be a violation of federal wiretap law.
I’ve pointed that out to news crews that have gotten in my face. They do not, and never will, have my consent to record me.
Posted by: gus3 at July 15, 2004 11:22 PM
***Learn not to believe everything you read. ***
Can you believe that Don said that?
Don, you wonder why the people mourning were a little disgusted, to put it mildly? Well, let’s say that your father was killed on 9/11. Let’s say he was one of those that had to jump off the roof of the building and from time to time you’ve seen the footage on tv. The leader of your country, after grieving the deaths of our citizens, makes the decision that we shall not rest until all that partake in, condone, or fund terrorism are eliminated. This doesn’t bring your father back, but it might give comfort knowing we are doing something to see that it might not happen to others and punish those that do this type of atrosity. Then some goofy politician, that rallies for the UN, that did everything possible to undermine your CiC, has been badmouthing your CiC while he works tirelessly to bring terrorists to justice, comes along and exploits some of the surviving families for political purposes. You are smart enough to know that the CiC is doing a wonderful job and you have to see and hear some fool lie about him and degrade him, not only to you and your fellow citizens, but to the very people that took your father in such a horrible way.
It’s kinda like the Viet Nam Vet wanting to escort Kerry AWAY from ‘The Wall’.
Do I need to continue, or can you comprehend yet?
Posted by: No Party at July 16, 2004 01:07 AM
I don’t wonder at all why some of the folks at the ceremony were a little disgusted. Question is, at whom should they properly direct their after-the-fact publicity and media attempts at expressing their collective ire?
At Kerry? No — he was invited. It’s not as though he crashed the gate.
Because he showed up Late? Perhaps — but Late is the usual way that campaigns operate — inevitably behind schedule. The act of Hurrying means sirens and flashing lights, pretty much across the board. Not to use them is to be even more late.
At the Secret Service, for requiring Kerry to travel in a proper motorcade, just like all presidential nominees inevitably do? Well, OK — if they insist, but it seems off-track somehow.
At the noozemeeja types? Well, maybe — but they Did stay outside the fence, and merely lifted their cameras high enough to tape what was going on inside. They get to do that — it’s part of their job. If they don’t, they get fired, especially if another station gets the tape and they don’t. No candidate either “allows” or “forbids” them from doing what it is they normally do. It wasn’t Kerry’s call to tell them No, nor would they have obeyed such a directive if he had tried to do so. (If you’ve ever been in a Press Mob at a scene, you’ll get the idea pretty quickly.) Nor was it Kerry’s call to request them to do the taping — and there is no indication whatsoever that he did so. The press cameras were on the scene Before he ever got there, after all.
One of the hallmarks of all politicos, and especially presidential candidates, is that their daily schedules are released the afternoon previous, and the same is also true of elected officials at the state level.
Not to know that is to be Clueless when dealing with public matters involving public officials.
So — what sort of actual Blame is appropriate here, and at whom should it be directed?
If folks undertaking a quasi-“private” event, to which they seem to have invited every local politico under the sun don’t understand how the noozemeeja types react, then they have some Very Serious Learning to do, seems to me.
If they wanted a truly Private event, that would have been easy enough to do. Simply don’t invite public officials with public schedules, and do a phone tree to the families without alerting the noozemeeja. But they didn’t do that. They wanted the sort of public involvement that They preferred, seemingly without understanding that Public means Public right across the board — they don’t get to pick and choose what the noozemeeja will do.
Only after the fact do some of them choose to whine about the outcome. Tough luck! That’s what happens when dealing with public officials and noozemeeja — they don’t play the game that folks might prefer.
But once again, the coverage was No Big Deal at all. In fact, there’s more coverage of the whining afterwards than there was of the original event.
Which is, I suspect, precisely what a bunch of the folks wanted, and certainly is what a bunch of Bush supporters are trying to make happen.
It’s just all part of the Political Danse Macabre. I wouldn’t advise getting all het up about it.
(But don’t volunteer as a Press Secretary for a political campaign — ever. Competent PS types require Much more understanding of the interplay between politicos, schedulers and noozemeeja than folks hereon are demonstrating.)
Posted by: Don at July 16, 2004 11:59 AM
“…The coverge wasn’t that good, certainly wasn’t at all persuasive to anyone important, and wouldn’t be an issue At All save that the Wingnut contingent wants something else to rag on Kerry about, other than he actually breathes air.”
See… That’s what I like about someone as pompous as you are, Don! You sooner or later step over the line and say something really stupid - like referring to anyone (including the family members involved) who finds fault with Kerry’s utter disrespect or compassion as a WingNut!
I’ll be Christian, Don… That statement that is attributed to you is really stupid.
The italicized portion Posted by: Don at July 15, 2004 06:21 PM
Posted by: Cap'n DOC at July 16, 2004 03:24 PM
Don - you truly need to be more careful - you are clearly getting flamed on all threads, but continue to try to spin with nothing but hot air. It is fire season and as and avid leftist, you should know the danger here. Please reduce the risk of fire - keep the fuel down and certainly control all of those swirling gusts of hot air. Your cooperation in this matter would be greatly appreciated!
Posted by: I collect political items at July 16, 2004 03:24 PM
ICPI: Please try to understand — my being “flamed” may be important to you. I am entirely indifferent to it. I’ve stood against better folks on far more important matters than this little piece of the blogosphere.
Try not to worry yourself on my account. It’s pretty much a waste of your time.
CptD: I calls ‘em as I sees ‘em. Whatever ragging on Kerry is happening, it ain’t hardly coming from the Moderate side of things.
Posted by: Don at July 16, 2004 07:45 PM
Yeah Don, you are indifferent to a lot of things, facts, logic, sound reasoning - you let nothing stand in the way of the the liberal talking points surrounded by a bunch of meaningless words, especially all of those wonderful exaggerated spellings (insert gagging sound here) like “noozemeeja”, “teeveenoozecrooze”. They truly show the intellect behind all of the patronizing tone!
Posted by: I collect political items at July 16, 2004 10:10 PM
Wow. Another Donism - “CptD: I calls ‘em as I sees ‘em. Whatever ragging on Kerry is happening, it ain’t hardly coming from the Moderate side of things.”
Yup. That’s why all those folks are voting for Kerry - ANYBODY but Bush. Says a whole lot about Kerry, don’t it?
BTW - What the Hell is a ‘Moderate’?
The italicized portion Posted by: Don at July 16, 2004 07:45 PM
Posted by: Cap'n DOC at July 16, 2004 11:45 PM
ICPI: Allow me to inform you of something that really is important. It is decidedly Not the case that If It Is Conservative, it is therefore also Logical and Reasonable.
And if you don’t enjoy the fun I am having with the language and its several conventions, try not to be too upset. I don’t care if you do or not.
That’s not Patronizing.
CptD: The folks out here who are supporting Kerry are not necessarily ABB types. While that’s a perfectly good reason for some, defensible on its face, it is by no means the Only reason that folks take the stances they do.
A Moderate is, by inspection, one who holds to Neither the extreme positions of the Radical Right or the Looney Left. Strange you have such difficulty with the concept. Most reasonable folks get it easily enough.
Posted by: Don at July 17, 2004 01:39 AM
“The folks out here who are supporting Kerry are not necessarily ABB types.”
What ‘type’ are they then? BTW. I‘m getting really curious - What ‘type’ is Kerry?
” While that’s a perfectly good reason for some, defensible on its face, it is by no means the Only reason that folks take the stances they do.”
I take it that you find the ABB stance defensible. All right then, defend it. If the Dems decided to run Hillary (“from each according to their ability, to each according to their need”) Clinton, would that be cool? How about, say, Reverand Moon?
“A Moderate is, by inspection, one who holds to Neither the extreme positions of the Radical Right or the Looney Left.”
I consider myself neither a Democrat (which I was 30 years ago until Senator Kerry made me see the error of my ways) nor a Republican. I would consider myself an Independent. Am I a ‘Moderate’ by your definition? By your inspection?
“Strange you have such difficulty with the concept.”
I was just curious about your PoliticalReality, Don. I haven’t quite figured out whether or not the SoreLosers are a part of the LooneyLeft. How do you see yourself?
“Most reasonable folks get it easily enough.”
See… You’re sorta implyin’ I don’t ‘get it’, when all I asked was what the Hell a Moderate was.
The italicized portion Posted by: Don at July 17, 2004 01:39 AM
NOW! We get to return to the raison d’ etre for this little dance into ModerateLand…
“I’ve stood against better folks on far more important matters than this little piece of the blogosphere.”
Yup. Dismissiveness because you stand far above the mere mortals in this small corner of PoliticalReality, Right?
“I calls ‘em as I sees ‘em. Whatever ragging on Kerry is happening, it ain’t hardly coming from the Moderate side of things.”
So. Let me get this straight: I ‘rag’ on Senator Kerry because he PERJURED himself 33 years ago, so I ain’t a Moderate. I ‘rag’ on Sen. Kerry because he called me a Monster 33 years ago, called those of My Brothers whose names appear on the Wall Monsters, and those whom were still in Vietnam Monsters, so I ain’t a Moderate. I ‘rag’ on Senator Kerry because he is Pro-Abortion, and claims he is a Faithful Catholic, so I ain’t a Moderate. I ‘rag’ on Senator Kerry for plotting the deaths of seven Congressmen, so I ain’t a Moderate.
So. The Silent Majority - are they Moderate? Are those the folks that are goin’ to vote for ABB?
The italicized portion Posted by Don at July 16, 2004 07:45 PM
Posted by: Cap'n DOC at July 17, 2004 08:29 AM
To answer your questions in order:
I inevitably take the Long View on political matters. If you wish to check the archives, for example, you’ll find that back before the Iraq War started, I was pretty much by myself in predicting that we would find No evidence of WMDs, No operational alliance with al Qaeda, that we would Not be greeted as Liberators, that the aftermath of the war would Not be a rosy scenario, that Iraqi oil would Not pay for the reconstruction, and that the “insurgents” were composed of far more than the relatively few Baathist Thugs that folks hereon were asserting was the case at the time. On matters political, there were those making direct predictions that this year’s election was essentially over, that Dubya had Such a commanding lead in the polls that the Ds should hardly even bother to field any candidate at all, and that the outcome of the election would be a landslide Victory for the Rs. I took issue with those statements, and said so directly.
Time has proven my stance more substantially correct than those who were so Utterly Certain a few months ago that their view of Reality™ would inevitably prevail. But it wasn’t as though I didn’t, in good faith, warn them what was coming. I did.
Interestingly, as their earlier predictions have fallen one by one, they simply segue to the next set of predictions, rationales, excuses and such to Explain to the world why their earlier certainty was not really at fault — it was the (noozemeeja, the UN, the French, — pick your Raison du jour and insert here) that were at fault. Never Them.
OK — that works for me. I find it highly amusing to note it, and even more amusing to find those who were so very incorrect earlier getting all het up over having their errors noted hereon.
Truly, there is no end of entertainment out here in the blogosphere. It is a target-rich environment.
If having someone who is capable of uttering some takes on Political Reality™ that are somewhat heterodoxic to yours bothers you, think of it as a Personal Problem — and not a problem with Reality™.
You would like folks to believe that precisely None of the Winter Soldier discussions were true. You are wrong. Other Viet Nam vets — and I am one, and I know a bunch of others as well with the same memories — know their own bits and pieces of the way in which we treated the Vietnamese when we were there. That the US Military was competent in its coverup at the time doesn’t really change that. And now, some 36 years later, it don’t mean nuthin’ anyway. The world has moved on. Just not everyone in it.
If you feel somehow Personally victimized by all of that, you have precisely the appropriate Personal defense to assert: “I didn’t do such things.”
If you wish to say that, I’ll take you at your word. Neither did I. But I know other American soldiers who did. I spoke with them back when the VA was still trying to come to grips with the problems of returning VN vets in the 70’s. I knew them during the 2o months I was in-country. I know that the Chain of Command knew — and preferred not to Make Waves. It’s just how things were.
As for Kerry being Pro-Choice, so what? If you have a personal problem with that, the appropriate stance for you to take is Never to get an abortion.
If the Holy Mother Church wishes to insinuate itself into the Political philosophy of its members, it may do so at its peril. Even more perilous is demanding certain behavioral stances by threatening their members with Eternal Damnation — or at least not getting to take communion. That practice has already weakened its previous powers, spiritual and temporal, rather severely. Self-destruction of a religious sect is an historically often repeated phenomenon, and frankly it’s sorta fun to watch.
I’d take the HMC a Lot more seriously had it had its own staff members controlling their own sexual proclivities better under control during the past several decades. At the moment, the local archdiocese has declared bankruptcy, rather than face the legal penalties for the past misdeeds of its personnel. I am likewise not bothered with that.
Most American Catholics don’t hew to each and every statement that the HMC promulgates. But then, neither do most church members of any sect. Fact of the matter is, most Catholic families practice birth control — and Humanae Vitae proscribes that in the same language with which it proscribes abortion. It just doesn’t get quite as much press. But good little horny Catholic girls are Far more likely to take The Pill or require a condom than merely playing Vatican Roulette, as they used to do decades ago. So it all washes out.
If that offends you, the Holy Tome has the appropriate recommendation. “If thine eye offends the….”
Your preference for intellectual and philosophical lockstep appears to transcend mere Politics and overlaps into Religion. Consider it merely a Personal Preference, and not a Philosophical Requirement. Nor is it particularly surprising that in your Anyone But Kerry zeal, you wander off from the merely ridiculous into the clearly sublime, and get into Deep Conspiracies with no reasonable foundation.
There is a good reason why some of the more colorful terms used to describe folks on the Radical Fringe of the Right Wing have come to fore. Your utterances hereon are oftimes a good demonstration of why that is so.
Posted by: Don at July 17, 2004 10:54 AM
Don The VVAW (of which Senator was a very active member), discussed the assasination of seven Congressmen. It is documented, and the fact Kerry claims he was not at the meeting, is refuted by those who were.
He perjured himself. That is documented. He claimed atrocities occurred that never occurred (testimony of someone who was not even in the military), and he now claims his testimony (Kerry’s) was “over the top”. That is a quote.
Does ‘over the top’ mean he lied but won’t say the ‘L’ word? YES. It does.
Maybe you ought to check your Webster’s for the the definition of Perjury.
That you would label me a “Wingnut” I’ve already addressed, just as you labeled those family members involved in the subject of this very thread.
I take great exception with that. Personally.
“As for Kerry being Pro-Choice, so what?”
I did not say he was Pro-Choice, you just did. I say he is Pro-Abortion. Don’t diddle with Semantics with me. Abortion is and always has been deemed to be MURDER by the Roman Catholic Church. Authority within the Church was granted to it by its Founder. If a Local Ordinary knows that an individual is an Unrepentent Sinner, in public, that Ordinary has the right and responsibility to deny the Sacrament of Communion to that person.
Granting Communion to such a person causes Scandal, which is just where Kerry has placed himself. It is the responsibility of Church Authorities to uphold the Laws of the Church.
“Most American Catholics don’t hew to each and every statement that the HMC promulgates. But then, neither do most church members of any sect. Fact of the matter is, most Catholic families practice birth control — and Humanae Vitae proscribes that in the same language with which it proscribes abortion. It just doesn’t get quite as much press. But good little horny Catholic girls are Far more likely to take The Pill or require a condom than merely playing Vatican Roulette, as they used to do decades ago. So it all washes out.”
You are either a lax and fallen-away Catholic, or delusional. What all ‘washes out”? That ‘good little horny Catholic girls’ choose to sin?
What sin could be greater than MURDER? ARTIFICIAL Birth Control (the pill, condoms, etc.) are no less an offense against God than Abortion. That the pill is an early abortive method makes it no less a sin than abortion itself.
John Moore who posts here occasionally can provide many more substantive arguments regarding Senator Kerry’s Vietnam experience and his post-Vietnam activities.
He’d prolly wear your “Wingnut” label about as well as I do.
Posted by: Cap'n DOC at July 17, 2004 12:34 PM
You know Don, I just caught this, and I’m not letting it pass…
“You would like folks to believe that precisely None of the Winter Soldier discussions were true.”
There were no ‘discussions’. The particular issue was Senator Kerry’s ‘TESTIMONY’, and with the rare exception, the acts which he testified to were and are proven to be false. Got that? I could give a rip what your Vietnam experience involved, but for the following:
“You are wrong. Other Viet Nam vets — and I am one, and I know a bunch of others as well with the same memories — know their own bits and pieces of the way in which we treated the Vietnamese when we were there.”
Then you are no more or less guilty than those who acted in some way that could have been deemed a WarCrime or Atrocity. YOU.
Are you one of those hundreds of thousands of Monsters that Kerry claims we all are?
I’m just kinda curious where YOU draw the line, Don.
Posted by: Cap'n DOC at July 17, 2004 01:21 PM
If some of Winter Soldier testimony was valid, then why was a friendly congressional investigation, which guaranteed immunity, unable to verify a single case?
Kerry knew it was lies and carefully prepared propaganda. Kerry had previously met with the enemy in Paris (which was a violation of the law). His speech was full of falsehoods. And it wasn’t hundreds of thousands - he claimed that milllions of us are monsters because of what we were allegedly forced to do in Vietnam. Since only about 500,000 Americans ever engaged in combat in Vietnam, that claim is obvious nonsense. He also said that there were war “crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.”
Ignoring the fact that there was no way he could have determined this, it is still an outright lie. It is still used by the communists today. THIS ARTICLE, from the communist Vietnamese propaganda outlet, on June 11, 2004 (yes, TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR) quotes Kerry by name with that phrase. The Vietnamese communists also want Kerry to win the presidency, while several of our POWs have come out against him.. Perhaps the VC are the mysterious foreign leaders he claimed support from.
How does it feel to support a man whose most famous statement is still being used today by a totalitarian regime, which he helped install?
How does it feel to support a man who, after meeting with the enemy, and joining an organization which maintained laison with the enemy, gave exactly the enemy propaganda line in speeches all around the country?
How does it feel to support a man who recommended unconditional surrender, and speaking for the enemy, guaranteed safe passage?
How does it feel to support a man so useful to the North Vietnamese that even today his picture hangs, near Jane Fonda’s, in their war museum in a room dedicated to those who helped defeat America?
How does it feel to support a man whose words were so negative that they were used by the torturers of the POWs in Hanoi?
How does it feel to support a man whose lies are to this day part of the negative myths of Vietnam:
How does it feel to support a man whose entire chain of command - all direct commanders and their superious up through CINCPAC, this year signed a letter calling him unfit for command? A total of over 250 Swift Boat Veterans signed that letter. See <a href=”http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/index.php?topic=SwiftVets”here (link may not last long and Swift Boat Veterans For Truth. Has anyone ever heard of this kind of thing happening before? I believe it is a historical first in America.
blacks provided the highest percentage of casualties
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.
One reason his fellow Swift Boat veterans (and their command) were and are so upset with him while he was in Vietnam was his refusal to accept guidance that he was not to shoot at anything that moved. Swift Boat veterans who lost friends because they were being careful to not fire until an enemy was positively identified hate Kerry. Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, at the time, suggested he should be in a strait-jacket. How does it feel to support a guy whose former commanders came forth, 34 years later, to condemn his character?
We fought using weapons against “oriental human beings,” with quotation marks around that. 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 or let us say a non-third-world people theater
This is part of the North Vietnamese plan to have the war painted as racist. One wonders just what weapons he has in mind. It’s true that we had plans to use nuclear weapons against Europeans (Russians) that we didn’t plan to use against Vietnam. But that’s the reverse sense. Kerry’s statement is North Vietnamese propaganda and is a total and complete lie. How does it feel to support a liar? Do you think you can trust him to do what he says?
But the issue, gentlemen, the issue is communism, and the question is whether or not we will leave that country to the communists or whether or not we will try to give it hope to be a free people.
But the point is they are not a free people now under us. They are not a free people, and we cannot fight communism all over the world, and I think we should have learned that lesson by now.
Here’s the deep wisdom on foreign affairs Kerry was giving the Senate. Years later, his first action in office was to visit that wonderful paradise of Sandinista ccontrolled Nicaragua, where he plotted how to thwart the US efforts to stop another Cuba from forming in Central America. This guy’s a real patriot, isn’t he?. And one should note that the “not free” Vietnamese didn’t have boat people, but when the communists took over, an estimated 1,000,000 fled by boat. Kerry seems to think that communism is preferable, ignoring the many examples of people voting with their feet or boats.
the hypocrisy in our taking umbrage in 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, the killing of prisoners, accepted policy by many units in South Vietnam.
We were more guilty than anyone else of Geneva Convention violations. Got that?
We are also here to ask, and we are here to ask vehemently, where are the leaders of our country? Where is the leadership? We are here to ask where are McNamara, Rostow, Bundy, Gilpatric and so many others. Where are they now that we, the men whom they sent off to war, have returned? These are commanders who have deserted their troops, and there is no more serious crime in the law of war. The Army says they never leave their wounded.
Now this is really insane. I mean do you want a guy who uses this sort of logic in charge of a parking lot? The reason those people weren’t there is they were part of the Johnson Administration, which had left power over two years previously.
Do you feel good voting for a guy who is nuts?
A summary of information about the real John Kerry (with links) is here.
If you are interested in helping remove the stain from those of us slandered by Kerry, and from our nation, please visit Vietnam Vets for the Truth
Posted by: John Moore ( Useful Fools ) at July 17, 2004 03:45 PM
Don I correct myself on the charge of perjury, because it cannot be verified that Kerry swore an oath before giving his ‘testimony’. How it is possible that he was not required to swear an oath I can’t ascertain, but such is the case.
Posted by: Cap'n DOC at July 17, 2004 04:03 PM
So that’s why the NY Times retract a portion of an article several months ago suggesting that the Republican National Convention in NY will be timed to coincide with 911 memorial events in Sept —which is now indeed the case.
Posted by: lasty at July 17, 2004 11:30 PM
Here are the incumbent RNC’s since 1972. I wonder why 2004’s is scheduled for almost 2 weeks later than it has been for the past 32 years ?
Aug. 21, 1972 Republican Miami Beach
Aug. 20, 1984 Republican Dallas
Aug. 15, 1988 Republican New Orleans
Aug. 17, 1992 Republican Houston
Aug. 30, 2004 Republican New York City
Posted by: lasty at July 18, 2004 12:13 AM
lasty What’syerpoint? Seems to me that the Convention ends about 9 days shy of ‘coincidence’. Methinks you are about 9 days late and 9 dollars short of a PerfectTenSpot.
Posted by: Cap'n DOC at July 18, 2004 09:15 AM