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

"Michael Wise" wrote in message
...

Your imagination does not translate into reality. The Democrats have
know reason not to focus on record.


Of course they have a reason, they want to win the election. Focus on
Kerry's record and Bush wins in a landslide.



Really? It most certainly has and continues to happen.


You need to find better sources of information.




Q. When did Bush become president?
A. January 2001

Q. When did Bush first set foot in NYC after becoming president?
A. a few days after 9/11


Bush visited a lot of places (all of which coincidentally supported him)
during his campaign and after his entry into office...but yet couldn't
find the time to visit the largest city and the financial capitol of
this country (NYC) until after it was attacked. Then you couldn't stop
him from mugging for the camera with his arms around a firefighter. WTF
was Bush in NYC prior to 9/11?

A second bonus question....

Q. San Francisco is a fairly large urban city on the West Coast. In
terms of population, it's not the largest, but it is the financial
center as well as the most urban city on the West Coast. When was the
last time Bush came to SF since becoming president?

A. Never.



The fact is the Bush regime has established a pattern since Day 1 of
ignoring those who did not support them while showering all attention on
those who did. Is that representing the entire country? Is that
fulfilling of the job and moral responsibilities of the presidential
office?


Okay. That confirms it. You're a loon.

In article ,
(BUFDRVR) wrote:

but don't you find it odd for a sitting president to
not make even a short stop in the LARGEST city of the country he is
stewarding?

If he had gone 4 years without a visit I'd find that odd, but not 8 months.
Can
you prove other Presidents have visited NYC in their first 8 months?


I never really paid attention to it in the past. Living in SF, I noticed
that Bush avoided (and continues to avoid) facing 3/4 of million people
he is supposed to represent. 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.


It's been nearly four years, and Bush still hasn't been in the financial
capital of the West Coast, although he has come as close as 50 miles
from here (San Jose) and then conspicuously avoided coming to NorCal's
real urban center. Do you find that not odd?

A president needs to rise above that pettiness.

And once
again, I don't believe you ignore a part of the country just by not visiting
there


Not just by that, but couple it with actions like Bush saying nothing
and refusing to get involved while his buddies at Enron were royally
fleecing California on electrical power.



--Mike

"david raoul derbes" wrote in message
news
In article .net,
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"david raoul derbes" wrote in message
...

There is nothing wrong with you, Mr. Galanti or whoever opposing Kerry,
obviously, indeed it's a duty to do so if you don't like him as a
candidate. The new ads are in my opinion more of a problem for Kerry,
in that it is video of him testifying in Congress. No one disputes that
he did so. Previously, there were disputes as to whether or not there
was gunfire, and so on; here we have a videotaped record.

That said, I want to make three points.

First, the testimony of Kerry saying that atrocities were committed
has been to a small extent taken out of context. He was quoting what
_other_ people said. He did not say that he, Kerry, had witnessed
decapitations or rapes or other war crimes, but that others had, and
had told him that.


Kerry did say that he had committed atrocities himself.

"I committed the same kinds of atrocities as thousands of others in that
I
shot in free fire zones, used harassment and interdiction fire, joined in
search and destroy missions, and burned villages. All of these acts were
established policies from the top down, and the men who ordered this are
war
criminals."

John Kerry, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, April 1971

What you've posted is not completely contradictory to what I said. The
sorts
of things I was writing about (rapes, decapitations) and the sort of
things
you're talking about are, in my opinion, the differences between
misdemeanors
and felonies. I think that Kerry's calling these things "atrocities" was
a weird way of trying not to smear his fellow soldiers, i.e., I'm just
as guilty as you are. It was dumb, and he regrets some of the language
that he used.


You said the testimony of Kerry saying that atrocities were committed was to
a small extent taken out of context, that he was "quoting what _other_
people said." He said he committed atrocities himself.



My guess is that many, many soldiers of the last century fired randomly
into places out of fear, anger or were ordered to do so. This is a very
different thing from rape.


Yes it is, but I don't recall Kerry mentioning rape.

In article t,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

Your imagination does not translate into reality. The Democrats have
know reason not to focus on record.


Of course they have a reason, they want to win the election. Focus on
Kerry's record and Bush wins in a landslide.


We'll see who is saying that after the first debate.



Really? It most certainly has and continues to happen.


You need to find better sources of information.


I live in SF and I can tell you Bush has never been here since becoming
president. What better source of information is there demonstrating me
to be incorrect???


The fact is the Bush regime has established a pattern since Day 1 of
ignoring those who did not support them while showering all attention on
those who did. Is that representing the entire country? Is that
fulfilling of the job and moral responsibilities of the presidential
office?


Okay. That confirms it. You're a loon.


I see your pattern of resorting to insults when you are incapable of
responding with facts (an all too frequent occurrence) is alive and well.


Why bother even jumping in on a thread when you have nothing to add but
juvenile retorts and insults?


--Mike

"Michael Wise" wrote in message
...

I live in SF and I can tell you Bush has never been here since becoming
president. What better source of information is there demonstrating me
to be incorrect???


You wrote:

"And that record will not include the loss of 2+ million jobs; starting a
war based on lies; ignoring large chunks of his own country; and generally
being unfit to lead a Boyscout pack...much less the country."

What in hell has any of that to do with living in San Francisco?

In article t,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:


I live in SF and I can tell you Bush has never been here since becoming
president. What better source of information is there demonstrating me
to be incorrect???

"And that record will not include the loss of 2+ million jobs; starting a
war based on lies; ignoring large chunks of his own country; and generally
being unfit to lead a Boyscout pack...much less the country."

What in hell has any of that to do with living in San Francisco?



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.


--Mike

"Michael Wise" wrote in message
...

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.


It is irrelevant to what we were discussing. Follow the thread.

In article ,
(BUFDRVR) wrote:


And he said in an interview 2-3 days ago (I'm sorry, but I can't
remember the source) that he always thought he had received the Bronze
Star for saving the mined boat and that he did not know the citation (as
well as the post op reports) stated that he had done so under fire.


That was not the impression I got from the interview and I doubt your version
of it simply because it's ridiculous.


You are trying to say that a man just
realized what the text of his citation read after 35 years.

I just located the source I got the info from: Washington Post,
08.19.04, Michael Dobbs

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Aug18.html

Here are some relevant excerpts:

------------------------------------
...."It's like a Hollywood presentation here, which wasn't the case,"
Thurlow said last night after being read the full text of his Bronze
Star citation. "My personal feeling was always that I got the award for
coming to the rescue of the boat that was mined. This casts doubt on
anybody's awards. It is sickening and disgusting."...
------------------------------------

Seems to me he's claiming he always believed his award was for coming to
the rescue of the mined boat and the fact that his citation states in
numerous instances that he was under fire.

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?


But it gets better...

------------------------------------
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.
------------------------------------

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



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.

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?


He's claiming the whole under fire thing for his citation is a current
surprise to him

That's not the impression I got from the ABC interview and it seems absurd no?


It seems absurd until confronted with Mr. Thurlow's own words.



--Mike

Michael Wise 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!

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.

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, but I've come to expect that
from the anti-Bush crowd.


BUFDRVR

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

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

Or just watch Bush's tv commercials. Every one I have seen
in the Philadelphia area has been completely negative.


"Negative" does not mean "smear".

Well, the DNC has broadened the term considerably this election. Any mention of
Kerry's senate voting record is considered "going negative".


BUFDRVR

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