Could the Press Grow a Spine?

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On 25 Jun 2004 21:48:12 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

(Snip)

With all due, but flagging respect, I've posted repeatedly in great
detail rebutting Walt's continual repetitive (that's redundant, I
know) assertions.

Now, you, George Z and the ubiquitous and inane Walt, have entered a
circle jerk in which the three of you keep echoing the mindless drivel
of one-liners that have been rebutted in great detail by many of us
here.

Speaking for only myself, I wonder if it occurs to you that I don't really give
a **** either how you characterize what I say on any specific subject or that
you consider your detailed rebuttals at all convincing. Your calling it a
circle jerk seems to imply that we've gotten together to annoy you with our
mindless drivel of one-liners. You know that that is total nonsense....you're
dealing with three unrelated people who independently agree that, on this
subject, you don't know what you're talking about.

I get the point. You don't agree with the President.....

Congratulations. You noticed.

.....You think that Kerry is a hero because he got wounded three times.....

I challenge you to produce one thing I've said that relates Kerry's wounds
(however superficial they may have been) with any event in which he was involved
that resulted in the issuance of awards to him that involved heroism. Produce
one!!!

You neither know me nor do you know what I think about Kerry or much of anything
else.

.....You ignore the Winter Soldier testimony and you accept the fact that all
of us who
fought in Vietnam were war criminals guilty of atrocity.

Wrong again. Produce one thing I've ever posted where I said "all of us who
fought in Vietnam were war criminals guilty of atrocity" (sic).

(Further mind-reading by Rasimus deleted)

At this point I'll let you vote the way you wish, but fervently hope
that you'll wake up tomorrow morning, have a hot cup of coffee, and
begin to engage in meaningful, intelligent dialog. I also hope to win
the lottery this week.

It's very generous of you to allow me to vote however I wish, which fortunately
is somewhat akin to giving me something I already have. It's also nice of you
to wish that I wake up tomorrow morning, and have a hot cup of coffee, neither
of which should put much strain on your wishing capabilities. As for engaging
in meaningful, intelligent dialog, I always do that.....for those who fail to
perceive that, it's their loss. As for the lottery, I've been trying for twice
a week for years, and the best I've ever been able to do by way of winnings is
fifty bucks. I hope you meant a bit more than that.

George Z.

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On 25 Jun 2004 21:48:12 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

(Snip)

With all due, but flagging respect, I've posted repeatedly in great
detail rebutting Walt's continual repetitive (that's redundant, I
know) assertions.

Now, you, George Z and the ubiquitous and inane Walt, have entered a
circle jerk in which the three of you keep echoing the mindless drivel
of one-liners that have been rebutted in great detail by many of us
here.

Speaking for only myself, I wonder if it occurs to you that I don't really
give
a **** either how you characterize what I say on any specific subject or
that
you consider your detailed rebuttals at all convincing.

Numerous detailed rebuttals, by numerous posters, you mean? As opposed to
your (and your new li'l buddy Walt's) "drive by distortions"?

Your calling it a
circle jerk seems to imply that we've gotten together to annoy you with
our
mindless drivel of one-liners.

You have another purpose in getting together?

You know that that is total nonsense....you're
dealing with three unrelated people who independently agree that, on this
subject, you don't know what you're talking about.

Which would point to those three people having a tedious grasp of reality.


I get the point. You don't agree with the President.....

Congratulations. You noticed.

.....You think that Kerry is a hero because he got wounded three
times.....

I challenge you to produce one thing I've said that relates Kerry's wounds
(however superficial they may have been) with any event in which he was
involved
that resulted in the issuance of awards to him that involved heroism.
Produce
one!!!

You neither know me nor do you know what I think about Kerry or much of
anything
else.

Your continual defenses of Kerry vice your continual attacks against GWB
paint a clear enough picture for the observer who possesses even average
intelligence, even if you are not gutsy enough to come right out and declare
yourself--not surprising, given your predilection for using this inane
pseudonym you have concocted.


.....You ignore the Winter Soldier testimony and you accept the fact
that all
of us who
fought in Vietnam were war criminals guilty of atrocity.

Wrong again. Produce one thing I've ever posted where I said "all of us
who
fought in Vietnam were war criminals guilty of atrocity" (sic).

"...what that war had done to the young American men sent to fight it. It
started out with our common view of the native people as "gooks", a form of
sub-human species who feel no pain and deserve no right to
life, much less their own country." 'George Z. Bush' (aka Hal Hanig) on 12
FEB 04.

"...the young American men..."? You did not say *some* of them...

In the same post, you said: "Much has been made of his part in the so called
"Winter Soldier Investigations",
where "fabricated testimony of U.S. war atrocities was presented." In point
of
fact, Kerry was not the one who actually made those charges; those charges
were
made as sworn testimony to a Congressional Committee by the individuals who
committed those atrocities. Kerry merely summed them up or referred to them
in
providing his own testimony to the Congress. If that testimony was
fabricated,
it was fabricated by the individuals who confessed to having committed them.
Indeed, why would anybody in his right mind confess to having done such
awful
things in sworn testimony if he had not done them?"

Ignoring the actual FACT that no, Kerry was not referring to sworn testimony
in his own sworn testimony--WSI was not an official investigation, and
ignoring the fact that in his own testimony Kerry did indeed apply a
broadbrush attack that impugned *all* of the officers of his rank and higher
with being implicated as war criminals. As to why they confessed--well, the
subsequent attempts by the military to corroborate that WSI testimony
revealed that either the individuals in fact had no first hand knowledge of
such atrocities, contrary to what they had said in their "sworn"
(giggle-snort) WSI testimony, or in some cases had never even been in combat
as they had "testified".

On 25 FEB you said, regarding Kerry's testimony: "He did not claim that he
had done those things or that he had personal knowledge of them having been
done....merely that he had heard other veterans testify that they had
actually
done those things."

Wrong again. He did indicate that he participated in "war crimes", or
observed them himself--go back and read his congressional testimony. He went
on, as I indicated above, to indict the *entire* chain of command for said
"crimes". His words were, "with the full awareness of officers at all levels
of command." The relevant quotes have been presented to you before--but you
just keep ignoring them....

You even went so far as to claim that Ed bore personal responsibility for
the subsequent actions of those fake Vietnam combat vets who make up the
majority of the more publisized cases of PTSD, when you said on March 7:
"You may wish to deny it, but you still have to accept responsibility for
turning
those young Americans into the liars and poseurs you obviously despise.
They
didn't arrive in Nam that way for the most part. All I do when I look at
them
and what happened to most of them is to count my blessings that something
like
that didn't happen to me. A little bit of that kind of humility might stand
you
is some good, if you'd allow it to."

22 FEB you came out and supported another posters extremely widespread
condemnation of alleged US "atrocities" in Vietnam: "Too many reports from
too many sources all to be wrong. Too many
news photos of dead VN civilian bodies piled up in ditches to have been
posed by
a press that had been religiously supporting the government's line up to
that
point. There's nothing that Jack said that sounded like the ravings of an
idiot. On
the contrary, they had a ring of truth to them."

Again, doesn't take a genius to devine your intent with all of the above.


(Further mind-reading by Rasimus deleted)

At this point I'll let you vote the way you wish, but fervently hope
that you'll wake up tomorrow morning, have a hot cup of coffee, and
begin to engage in meaningful, intelligent dialog. I also hope to win
the lottery this week.

It's very generous of you to allow me to vote however I wish, which
fortunately
is somewhat akin to giving me something I already have. It's also nice of
you
to wish that I wake up tomorrow morning, and have a hot cup of coffee,
neither
of which should put much strain on your wishing capabilities. As for
engaging
in meaningful, intelligent dialog, I always do that.....

LOL!

Brooks

for those who fail to
perceive that, it's their loss. As for the lottery, I've been trying for
twice
a week for years, and the best I've ever been able to do by way of
winnings is
fifty bucks. I hope you meant a bit more than that.

George Z.

Walt, pay attention, Ed did NOT belittle Kerry. He simply pointed out that
you
keep repeated things about Bush's service record that he has refuted.

No one can refute the chronilogical record of service of Bush's that is now
part of the public record.

I was in the reserves myself. I know how this works. Every member has a
chronilogical record of service. It's a "standard" page in the SRB/OCR or
whatever the equivilent is in the Army/Air Force.

Donald Segretti, Nixon's agent of "Dirty Tricks" (for which he served time in
prison) cannot refute it. His assistant, Karl Rove (and current White House
communications director) cannot refute it. No one can come forward -now- and
say they saw Bush then-- when the record from -then- dictates that he DID NOT
accrue any points for service as required by law.

Strictly speaking, Bush is a deserter -- that case could be made legally. And
there is no statute of limitations on desertion.

Walt

The Republicans and their junior college instructor lackey's have a long
history of belittling those who served well while exaggerating the
military records of their, more prudent, candidates.

Can anyone remember the 1972 election? During WWII Richard Nixon ran a
Navy fruit drink stand at some South Pacific backwater supply base while
George McGovern was leading groups of B24s in daylight attacks on Nazi
Europe. AFter the war McGovern used the GI Bill to get a Ph.D., while
Nixon used slush funds to finance red baiting.

By election time in 1972 the Republican propaganda machine convinced the
weak minded and ignorant that Nixon was the warrior and McGovern the dodger.

They're trying to pull the same trick in 2004.


Yes.

I have only briefly heard any of the Hoopla around Clinton's book.

I did hear him say one striking thing:

After Carter won in 1976 and was then defeated by Reagan in 1980, the
Republicans -seriously- thought that no Democratic candidate could -ever- be
elected again. Not given their dirty tricks organization they installed in
1972. Clinton's election they saw as a break in the "natural order of
things."That dirty tricks organization is going great guns even now, and has
convinced some otherwise wonderful Americans that Bush -- the clear shirker --
who declined to volunteer for overseas service, is more worthy than a man who
not only volunteered for combat duty, but even requested an even more dangerous
assignment.

This dirty tricks organization went full tilt in an effort to keep Clinton
from governing. They did this with the White Water scandal -- nothing there.
And Vince Foster -- nothing there. As President Clinton said, Ken Starr was
determined to drive him out of office regardless of the facts -- to -negate-
the decision of the voters.

The Republicans appear to have a full grasp of Orwell, even if some college
professors who often post here do not.

Walt

I can remember the 1972 election, but I sure don't remember what you
described. I think you fabricated it.



A Republican operative named Donald Segretti served jail time for his
activities in disrupting Democratic Party activities.

You can look it up.

Or perhaps you have heard of Nixon's "Plumbers", or maybe you are familiar with
a little contretemps known as Watergate.

Walt

A LOT of wasted bandwidth.
1. Stop slanging each other. The 'Ad Hominem'"argument" just wstes
every one's time. (I say bring back the Code Duello and that would
help cut it down.)
2. Lying to the media is really really dumb and should give y'all a
very good idea of the person's character and social intelligence.
Cheney's been caught twice in the past week, so far. I wonder what
else lies in the hearts and minds of Cheney and his ilk? Sorry, I'm
not the Shadow.
3. I was taught very early on in the service that 'taking care of the
troops' was a priority. So why do we have hungry children and worthy
people who are homeless? I note that Reagan was the one who closed
many insane asylums and turned the patients loose to fend for
themselves as best they could.
From the Bible - "Am I my brother's keeper?"
4. Medals don't necessarily mean much - a lot depends on how good the
writer was and what kind of reception the recommendations got at HHQ.
I remember our Group Co saying once that the squadron I was in didn't
have any outstanding pilots - they were just doing their job, hence no
AF Commendation Medals. At the same time he wasn't qualified in the
aircraft - never did qualify in it - and had no idea what we did as
ADC F102 pilots. OTH I know a troop who as Awards and Decs Officer for
his outfit loaded himself and his squadrons up with gongs.
5. FWIW most aircrew nowadays get Purple Hearts posthumously. F4 was
totally lacking in armor, except for the center windshield, which was
thick glass - and failed to stop the 51 cal that nailed one of my
friends. The pitter brough the bird back to Cam Ranh Bay.
6. Now let's show a little more civility to each other. Or, agree to
meet in the morning and settle it personally, to keep the heat down.
7. Get your ass out and vote!
Walt BJ

"WalterM140" wrote in message
...

A Republican operative named Donald Segretti served jail time for his
activities in disrupting Democratic Party activities.

You can look it up.

Or perhaps you have heard of Nixon's "Plumbers", or maybe you are
familiar with a little contretemps known as Watergate.


I'm familiar with those things, but I'm not familiar with any attempt by
Republicans to portray Nixon as a warrior and McGovern as a draft dodger. I
don't believe it happened. I believe Mike Dargan fabricated it just like
you fabricated your assertions about Bush.

"WaltBJ" wrote in message
m...

3. I was taught very early on in the service that 'taking care of the
troops' was a priority. So why do we have hungry children and worthy
people who are homeless?


Military dependents are hungry and homeless?

I believe Mike Dargan fabricated it just like
you fabricated your assertions about Bush.

The record shows a 16 month break -at least- in Bush's service. He just blew
off his commitment.

Walt

What, in the name of all that is holy does, this have to do with their
plotical [sic]
histories?

Well, strictly speaking, Bush is a deserter.

Walt