Swift Boat Veterans For Truth: Are They Going To Sink John Kerry?

Michael Wise wrote:

The relevant passage for that is "ignoring large chunks of his own
country." SF is just one example. NYC is another...that is until 9/11
when Bush all of the sudden seemed to care about the city and people his
admin/campaign had ignored throughout his campaign and well into his
presidency.


This from a guy who's already admitted he has no idea if any past President
visited NYC in his first 8 months. This guy fits nicely into the "Everything
Bush does is bad/wrong" catagory. Had Bush visited NYC in February 2001, this
guy would be arguing that 9/11 happened because Bush was too busy running
around the country.Sad.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

In article ,
(BUFDRVR) wrote:

Can
you prove other Presidents have visited NYC in their first 8 months?


I never really paid attention to it in the past.

So you have no idea if Bush is doing any thing any other President has done.
That settles that!

I never paid attention to it, because I can't recall a time where
presidents avoided major areas. When glancing through newspapers and
such, I have always been accustomed to seeing reports of President
such-and-such in town or in the biggest city.

It's not something one stops to think about...until one notices that a
president is not and has not done so.



Then I took a look around and figured out
he and his administration was snubbing the geographic locations where he
lost big and where he doesn't have a lot of fans.

However, you have no idea if this is buisness as usual for a sitting
President
since you never paid attention to any President but Bush. You may be whining
about Presidential SOP.


Clinton came to SF multiple times; Reagan came to SF; and Bush Sr. came
to SF. All of them also went to NYC. I didn't keep my journal open
waiting for that to happen...it just happened. Bush Jr. brought the
phenomenon to my minds eye by conspicuously shunning the areas which
overwhelmingly voted for his opponent.



It's been nearly four years, and Bush still hasn't been in the financial
capital of the West Coast

I don't believe you need to visit any location to still represent them and
work
in their behalf. So what he never visited San Fran, has he ignored your
issues?

A president needs to rise above that pettiness.


Again, you don't know if your asking Bush to do what every other President in
the past has also failed to do. Doesn't seem fair,...


I do know that the previous three presidents all came here during their
terms. Not too hard to use deductive reasoning to formulate an opinion
why Bush Jr. continues to shun certain areas.



--Mike

Michael Wise wrote:

How could he not know what his citation said? How is it he can say in
the ABC interview your heard (do you know if a written transcript
exists?) that he knew what his citation stated and simply shrugged it
off?

I never claimed he stated he "shrugged it off", just that the impression I got
was that the citation containing enemy fire didn't seem like a surprise to him.

Thurlow said he would consider his award "fraudulent" if coming under
enemy fire was the basis for it. "I am here to state that we weren't
under fire," he said.

Sounds pretty definitive to me. Exactly what has this guy to gain by saying
this? Nothing.

This even further suggests he is claiming that we wasn't aware of what
his citation said...and now that he is aware (after having the text read
to him), he considers his own award to be fraudulent.

Sounds like that to me too.

Naturally, he
doesn't go on to say whether or not be will be petitioning to have his
"fraudulent" award revoked.

Lots of luck on that mission. A 35 year old Bronze Star doesn't jump to the top
of the list of a Board for the Correction of Military Records.

The only way this
is possibe is if he were awarded the Bronze Star after seperating and
received
it in the mail and never read the citation.


Could be. The same article states that Mr. Thurlow claims to have lost
his award 20 years ago. A different article (also in the W. Post, I
believe) stated that he received his award via mail in Kansas after
returning home.

So do you doubt this guy got his citation after seperating and just put it in a
trunk somewhere without reading it? Sounds very likely to me, especially since
he wound up losing it.

Fair enough, seems like an air-tight case of him not being aware of what
his Bronze Star was for. How to you reconcile that claim with his other
claim (which you yourself cite as evidence) that he knew what the award
was for all along and just "shrugged" it off?


I never claimed he made any statement about "shrugging it off", those were my
words. In the ABC interview he did not seem surprised that his award included
what he felt to be inaccurate information.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

In article ,
(BUFDRVR) wrote:

The relevant passage for that is "ignoring large chunks of his own
country." SF is just one example. NYC is another...that is until 9/11
when Bush all of the sudden seemed to care about the city and people his
admin/campaign had ignored throughout his campaign and well into his
presidency.


This from a guy who's already admitted he has no idea if any past President
visited NYC in his first 8 months.


I said nothing of the sort. I said I have not in the past paid
particular attention as to when presidents pay business visits to NYC.
Bush stood out by his conspicuous avoidance of it (as well as
California)...at least until it suited him to mug for the camera with
real heroes at Ground Zero.


This guy fits nicely into the "Everything
Bush does is bad/wrong" catagory. Had Bush visited NYC in February 2001, this
guy would be arguing that 9/11 happened because Bush was too busy running
around the country.Sad.


I have not not now nor have I ever claimed that Bush (or any other US
president, for that matter) has any blame for what happened on 9/11...so
you can pack your straw man up.



--Mike

In article ,
(BUFDRVR) wrote:

How could he not know what his citation said? How is it he can say in
the ABC interview your heard (do you know if a written transcript
exists?) that he knew what his citation stated and simply shrugged it
off?

I never claimed he stated he "shrugged it off", just that the impression I
got
was that the citation containing enemy fire didn't seem like a surprise to
him.


Hmmmm, in the last few posts, you use the word impression...but just
yesterday, in the post this sub-thread was in response to, you wrote:

-----------------------------------------------
"No, he was aware of it when he was awarded it.....it just didn't make
sense to him."
-----------------------------------------------


I don't see any mention there of that being merely your impression.

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...60758fd6.04082
20846.159fedbc%40posting.google.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fsafe%3Dimages%2
6ie%3DISO-8859-1%26as_ugroup%3Drec.aviation.military%26as_usubjec t%3DSwif
t%2520Boat%2520Veterans%2520For%2520Truth%26lr%3D% 26hl%3Den



Thurlow said he would consider his award "fraudulent" if coming under
enemy fire was the basis for it. "I am here to state that we weren't
under fire," he said.

Sounds pretty definitive to me. Exactly what has this guy to gain by saying
this? Nothing.

I wouldn't call attempting to influence the outcome of a presidential
election as "nothing."


This even further suggests he is claiming that we wasn't aware of what
his citation said...and now that he is aware (after having the text read
to him), he considers his own award to be fraudulent.

Sounds like that to me too.

Naturally, he
doesn't go on to say whether or not be will be petitioning to have his
"fraudulent" award revoked.

Lots of luck on that mission. A 35 year old Bronze Star doesn't jump to the
top
of the list of a Board for the Correction of Military Records.


Never the less, do you suppose we can expect the Swift Boat Veterans for
Truth also lobby to have Thurlow's medal revoked? After all, they just
want the "truth"...right?


The only way this
is possibe is if he were awarded the Bronze Star after seperating and
received
it in the mail and never read the citation.


Could be. The same article states that Mr. Thurlow claims to have lost
his award 20 years ago. A different article (also in the W. Post, I
believe) stated that he received his award via mail in Kansas after
returning home.

So do you doubt this guy got his citation after seperating and just put it in
a
trunk somewhere without reading it? Sounds very likely to me, especially
since
he wound up losing it.


No I don't doubt it, but it doesn't reconcile with your previous
contention of:

"No, he was aware of it when he was awarded it.....it just didn't make
sense to him."




--Mike

In article ,
Ed Rasimus wrote:
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 01:10:27 GMT, David Fritzinger
wrote:

What do you want as proof. Bush was in trouble against McCain in the
South Carolina primary in 2000, and suddenly people were making
accusations about McCain's patriotism. Same thing happened in 2002 in
the Georgia Senate race. Unless you are desperate to avoid it, there is
a pattern here.

You seem to have a selective memory. No one ever questioned McCain's
patriotism. What was questioned (and in retrospect, rightly so) was
McCain's conservativism. While he might clearly be acceptable to a
fiscal/traditional conservative, he was not viewed as acceptable to
the social conservative (AKA religious right) of the Republican Party.
He was not strongly pro-life and he was a bit erratic on gun control.


Those would have been fair questions.

What was decidedly not fair was the assertion (in pamphlets) that John
McCain had had a child out of wedlock, of mixed race. In fact he and
his wife had adopted one (and since, two) children from Pakistan.

These assertions were racist, false, and designed to make McCain
unpalatable to many citizens of South Carolina. They succeeded admirably
in that aim.

As a confirmed liberal, I think John McCain is a fine man. I don't often
agree with his politics, but were he running for president, I can easily
imagine voting for him.

What the Bush people did to him was outrageous.

David Derbes

Pointing out an opponent's position on controversial issues isn't
really "smearing", particularly when it is a primary and the opponent
is out of step with the mainstream of the party ideology.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights"
Both from Smithsonian Books
***www.thunderchief.org

Michael Wise wrote:

Clinton came to SF multiple times; Reagan came to SF; and Bush Sr. came
to SF.

So your beef is strictly with SF. Fine. Did any of the other Presidents, within
their first term, fail to visit other "important" cities? How do you a guy from
St. Louis doesn't have a gripe with Clinton or Reagan because they failed to
visit during their first term? Like I said before, its a big country.

I do know that the previous three presidents all came here during their
terms. Not too hard to use deductive reasoning to formulate an opinion
why Bush Jr. continues to shun certain areas.


Faulty logic unless you know every other President has visited every other
major city during their first term. Your data is incomplete.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Michael Wise wrote:

I said I have not in the past paid
particular attention as to when presidents pay business visits to NYC.
Bush stood out by his conspicuous avoidance of it (as well as
California)...at least until it suited him to mug for the camera with
real heroes at Ground Zero.

So because Bush, during his first 8 months, did not visit NYC, he should have
not visted after 9/11? That's a joke and you know it. Had Bush failed to show
up, you would have taken issue with this. Furthermore, you cannot provide any
evidence that every other President visited NYC within their first 8 months in
office. So...as far as you know, Bush's actions, in regards to visiting NYC are
no different than any other President. This is the sad, typical unfairness I
spoke about earlier.

I have not not now nor have I ever claimed that Bush (or any other US
president, for that matter) has any blame for what happened on 9/11...so
you can pack your straw man up.

No, you didn't claim he was responsible, but had Bush, during his first 8
months in office visited NYC and San Fran, you would have complained about his
lack of activity at the White House. As it stands now, you are complaining
about his lack of travel to NYC (within his 1st 8 months) without any proof
that any other President has done that.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Michael Wise wrote:

Hmmmm, in the last few posts, you use the word impression...but just
yesterday, in the post this sub-thread was in response to, you wrote:

-----------------------------------------------
"No, he was aware of it when he was awarded it.....it just didn't make
sense to him."

I should have been more clear, however I never did claim he said anything
specifically. I was giving my impression of the interview.

Never the less, do you suppose we can expect the Swift Boat Veterans for
Truth also lobby to have Thurlow's medal revoked? After all, they just
want the "truth"...right?

The consequences of an "unearned" Bronze Star awarded 30+ years ago is hardly
as relevent (to the Swift Vets) as their percieved concerns about Kerry.
Personally I don't care about either issue and wish they would go away. The
problem is, Kerry won't let them go away.

"No, he was aware of it when he was awarded it.....it just didn't make
sense to him."

Again, my impression, not his words.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

jenn jenn wrote:

failed economic leadership

Many leading economists credit Bush's tax cut plan for minimizing the impact of
the recession (begun in the Spring of 2000) and subsequent recovery. Doesn't
sound like failed leadership to me.

failed military leadership

As someone in uniform, you'll have to provide me an example of this as I cannot
think of 1 incident of failed mlitary leadership. Bush has increased military
pay and nearly undone the damage Clinton did in regards to equipment and
readiness.

abdication in the war on terror

I'm sure you can give me an example of this? No?

left Osama to rebuild his international terror
organization,

Bin Laden hasn't been "left" to do anything. You need to read more on the
subject.

failed to unite allies in a war against terrorist because
Irag was an idee fixee

No matter who was U.S. President, they were not going to unite France, Germany
and Russia which leaves us the alternative of having our national security
policy dictated by other nations. This is one of the clear cut differences
between Kerry and Bush. Kerry will subjugate U.S. security to the U.N., Bush
refuses to do that.

and of course he lied repeatedly to the
American people

Of course he didn't lie once.

and we didn't even mention his failure to make any effort whatsoever to
prevent terrorism in the US making it a low priority

Example?


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"