DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: R.R. on November 05, 2006, 02:00:14 PM
-
and he said what he really thought about our troops.
Here's Swift Vet John O'Neil and his thoughts...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GY-VomLVMug
-
You needn't have bothered, R.R. Most of us can figure out what O'Neill's "thoughts" on Kerry would have been. They're like the "thoughts" of a pit bull when a baby rabbit is thrown into its pen, only a lot more vicious.
-
Kerry is not a victim, Tee. The titular head of the Democrat Party made a very insulting and dumb comment about our troops. He deserves every bit of scorn that he gets. I would advise that you watch the clip of O'Neil. He's spot on.
-
<<Kerry is not a victim, Tee. The titular head of the Democrat Party made a very insulting and dumb comment about our troops. He deserves every bit of scorn that he gets. I would advise that you watch the clip of O'Neil. He's spot on. >>
I was commenting more on O'Neill than on Kerry, R.R. Kerry is dumb, dishonest (he's trying to lie his way out of this) and insensitive, although I don't think he was out to insult the troops. He was a combatant like them and any insult to that status would be an insult to himself. I think that he just wasn't sensitive enough or smart enough to see in time that the "joke" he was about to make to the students would necessarily reflect unfavourably on the troops going to Iraq.
Kerry is certainly not a victim. He's being skewered, as he deservest to be, for his insensitivity and stupidity. But O'Neill is a Kerry-hating opportunist who's milking this little episode for all it's worth and while it might be beneficial to observe the style of his presentation, it's just not worth looking into for content. The content I could put together myself right here at this keyboard.
In the big picture, Kerry's on the right side and O'Neill is on the wrong one.
-
" But O'Neill is a Kerry-hating opportunist who's milking this little episode for all it's worth and while it ...."
And how did Kerrys Vietnam Vet Bunkmates become Kerry Hating ?
-
<<And how did Kerrys Vietnam Vet Bunkmates become Kerry Hating ?>>
Don't forget, Kerry was a whistle-blower - - he really exposed U.S. atrocities in Viet Nam. These guys are probably war criminals. They like Kerry about as much as an S.S. torture chamber operator would like a brother S.S. officer who blew the whistle on him. That's kinda breaking the code.
-
" But O'Neill is a Kerry-hating opportunist who's milking this little episode for all it's worth and while it ...."
And how did Kerrys Vietnam Vet Bunkmates become Kerry Hating ?
None of the Swift Boat for Lies actually served with Kerry
Back to this story | Home
http://mediamatters.org/
Submerging the truth about Swift Boat Vets on Hannity & Colmes, Scarborough Country
Summary:
FOX News Channel's Hannity & Colmes and MSNBC's Scarborough Country both gave free airtime on August 4 to a new, misleading ad sponsored by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a recently formed group dedicated to attacking Senator John Kerry's record during and after his service in Vietnam. Both programs devoted segments to the ad, airing it the day before its scheduled release, but left out key facts that discredit Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
In an August 5 interview with the Associated Press, Senator John McCain (R-AZ), "a former prisoner of war in Vietnam, called the ad criticizing John Kerry's military service 'dishonest and dishonorable' and urged the White House on Thursday to condemn it as well."
Swift Boat Veterans for Truth did not serve alongside Kerry
In the new ad, members of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth claim that they "served with John Kerry." Hannity & Colmes co-host Sean Hannity echoed the false claim, saying that the veterans in the ad are "the people that know him best," and referred to them as "some of his fellow crewmates." Even Pat Halpin, who was filling in for co-host Alan Colmes, called them "some of John Kerry's crewmates." Scarborough echoed Swift Boat Veterans' misleading claim that they "served with John Kerry in Vietnam."
While the veterans attacking Kerry in the ad are veterans of the Vietnam War and may have served at the same time as Kerry, as The New York Times reported on August 5, the Kerry campaign noted that "none of the men had actually served on the Swift boats that Mr. Kerry commanded." Adm. Roy F. Hoffman, one of the veterans in the ad, has even "acknowledged he had no first-hand knowledge to discredit Kerry's claims to valor," the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported on May 6, "and said that although Kerry was under his command, he really didn't know Kerry much personally."
In contrast, many of the veterans who have appeared on the campaign trail with Kerry did serve alongside him. The Wall Street Journal's Albert R. Hunt noted in his August 5 "Campaign Journal" column, titled "Sham Charges Against a War Hero" (subscription required): "Indeed, 10 of the 11 men who served on his two swift boats all have sworn by John Kerry; nine living members were in Boston [for the Democratic National Convention]."
Swift Boat Veterans for Truth's Republican ties
As Media Matters for America previously noted, on May 4, Salon.com's Joe Conason detailed Swift Boat Veterans for Truth's ties to the Republican Party. In addition to pointing out that the group's founder, John O'Neill, has long-standing ties to the GOP that can be traced back to the Nixon administration, Conason also reported that among the people behind Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is "veteran corporate media consultant and Texas Republican activist Merrie Spaeth, who is listed as the group's media contact."
As MMFA has documented, both Hannity & Colmes co-host Alan Colmes (on May 28) and FOX chief political correspondent Carl Cameron (on May 4) reported the group's Republican ties on FOX News Channel; on May 4, Scarborough mentioned criticism of O'Neill's "dirty tricks" for the Nixon administration. While Scarborough did mention on August 4 that the group was part of the "Republican counteroffensive" "prepar[ing] to release blistering attacks in John Kerry's Vietnam record," Hannity completely ignored the group's ties to the GOP.
Swift Boat Veterans for Truth doctor did not sign Kerry's medical record
Neither Hannity nor Scarborough bothered to note that Dr. Louis Letson, who is featured in the ad claiming to have treated Kerry for the wound that earned him his first Purple Heart and claiming that it was undeserved, was not the medical official who signed Kerry's medical records for the wound. The Kerry campaign noted this fact in a report in The New York Times and a report in the Los Angeles Times that surfaced when Letson first unleashed this attack in May.
In criticizing the ad, McCain told the Associated Press, "'It was the same kind of deal that was pulled on me'... referring to his [McCain's] bitter Republican primary fight with President Bush," according to the AP. As Conason reported on May 4, "The 'swift boat' veterans attacking John Kerry's war record are led by veteran right-wing operatives using the same vicious techniques they used against John McCain four years ago." Conason explained that Spaeth (the group's media contact) participated during the 2000 Republican primary contest in TV ads that "falsely attack[ed]" McCain's environmental record in California, New York, and Ohio.
McCain might have been referring as well to attacks on his military record by Ted Sampley and Thomas Burch, both Vietnam veterans, during the 2000 primary season. As Media Matters for America previously reported, Sampley hounded McCain as a "Manchurian Candidate" -- suggesting that the decorated veteran and former prisoner of war was a brainwashed communist agent -- and was convicted for misdemeanor assault related to an attack on one of McCain's legislative aides. Sampley is the leader of a group called Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry. During the 2000 Republican primary in South Carolina, Burch, according to a February 22 report in the Chicago Tribune, "stood with George W. Bush at his side and accused Sen. John McCain of Arizona of opposing health care for Persian Gulf war veterans and blocking efforts to locate POW-MIAs, saying the former prisoner of war "came home from Vietnam and forgot us."
— K.B. & N.C.
Posted to the web on Thursday August 5, 2004 at 4:08 PM EST
http://mediamatters.org/items/printable/200408050007
-
Hey, good post, Knute. It figures - - if these guys are war criminals, they'd also have to be accomplished liars and bullshit artists as well. They probably have enormous experience lying with a straight face and a convincing manner which would be invaluable to the RNC and gets them lots of media attention.
-
Hey, good post, Knute. It figures - - if these guys are war criminals, they'd also have to be accomplished liars and bullshit artists as well. They probably have enormous experience lying with a straight face and a convincing manner which would be invaluable to the RNC and gets them lots of media attention.
Yeah, well, Knutty is not so familiar with the truth either. Stephen Gardner (one of the members of the group) served on Kerry's crew.
-
The Swift Boats were not fitted out with long term bearthing.
All of the Officers lived together in a sort of Dorm most of the time.
-
The Swift Boats were not fitted out with long term bearthing.
All of the Officers lived together in a sort of Dorm most of the time.
Are you claiming they had "pillow talk" in which Kerry admitted not deserving his medals. Even the one loser who did briefly serve with Kerry, Steve Gardner admitted not being there when he did what he did to earn his medals.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200408240001
-
The Swift Boats were not fitted out with long term bearthing.
All of the Officers lived together in a sort of Dorm most of the time.
Are you claiming they had "pillow talk" in which Kerry admitted not deserving his medals. Even the one loser who did briefly serve with Kerry, Steve Gardner admitted not being there when he did what he did to earn his medals.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200408240001
I am saying that he was not isolated from the other swift boat crews .
They did know each other well and only seldom operated as a single boat.
I don't think that any of them were bothered by Kerry untill he appeared before the Senate to lie his head off.
-
Ami <<Yeah, well, Knutty is not so familiar with the truth either. Stephen Gardner (one of the members of the group) served on Kerry's crew.>>
Knute: << Even the one loser who did briefly serve with Kerry, Steve Gardner admitted not being there when he did what he did to earn his medals.>>
heh-heh. looks like Knute knows enough to expose these lying bastards for what they are.
Ami: <<I don't think that any of them were bothered by Kerry untill he appeared before the Senate to lie his head off.>>
Expose their fucking war crimes is more like it. That'd piss me off, too - - if I were a war criminal.
-
Expose their fucking war crimes is more like it. That'd piss me off, too - - if I were a war criminal.
Kerry is a War criminal?
Kerry was lieing , these lies were the foundation of his career.
-
The actual LIAR was Sockpuppet Juniorbush, who lied about his being a DESERTER.
The Swiftboat assholes are a bunch of Fascist clowns still whimpering about their losing in Vietnam. They swallowed all the JBK Nixon propaganda and still think that there was some reason for them to have been suckered into a losing, unwinnable war by elist sumbitches who stayed out and saved their worthless butts, like Rove, Juniorbush and Cheney.
The US had nothing to win in Vietnam. They didn't deserve to win, either.
But the one clear winner was the Arms Industry, currently personified by the cowardly Dickhead Cheney.
-
heh-heh. looks like Knute knows enough to expose these lying bastards for what they are.
If he knew, then why did he claim "None of the Swift Boat for Lies actually served with Kerry"? After all, "none" implies, well, "none."
Ami: <<I don't think that any of them were bothered by Kerry untill he appeared before the Senate to lie his head off.>>
Interesting that you would mis-attribute yet another comment to me. Pattern of lies on your part?
-
Ami: <<I don't think that any of them were bothered by Kerry untill he appeared before the Senate to lie his head off.>>
Interesting that you would mis-attribute yet another comment to me. Pattern of lies on your part?
Well I find it flattering
-
<<Kerry was lieing , these lies were the foundation of his career.>>
You got it all wrong, plane. Kerry told the truth about those bastards, their war crimes and their atrocities against the civilian population. All of it. That's why they hate him so much that they're willing to lie about his record. He breached a code, in the military you are not supposed to rat on your brother officers even if they are Nazi-like scumbags who behave like the S.S. and worse. Kerry had a conscience, he couldn't stomach any longer what they had been doing to the people of Viet Nam, and he finally went public with it. And for that, they never forgave him. He did the unthinkable. He blew the whistle.
-
Kerry was an opportunist who turned on his brothers for his own political advancement.
-
<<Kerry was lieing , these lies were the foundation of his career.>>
You got it all wrong, plane. Kerry told the truth about those bastards, their war crimes and their atrocities against the civilian population. All of it. That's why they hate him so much that they're willing to lie about his record. He breached a code, in the military you are not supposed to rat on your brother officers even if they are Nazi-like scumbags who behave like the S.S. and worse. Kerry had a conscience, he couldn't stomach any longer what they had been doing to the people of Viet Nam, and he finally went public with it. And for that, they never forgave him. He did the unthinkable. He blew the whistle.
But he was lieing with every word.
Because he was claiming to be a witness to all of these things , which he was not , neither had he ever met anyone who was .
He was the second level of Hearsay and should not have been poseing as a witness.
-
<<Kerry was an opportunist who turned on his brothers for his own political advancement. >>
His "brothers" happened to be a bunch of fucking war criminals.
-
His "brothers" happened to be a bunch of fucking war criminals.
Exceppt that none of the people he served with were ever accused of the atrocities he described. He was just repeating hearsay.
-
<<Exceppt that none of the people he served with were ever accused of the atrocities he described. >>
Oh, well that makes them all innocent, doesn't it? I'm sure they're a fine bunch of humanitarians.
-
Oh, well that makes them all innocent, doesn't it?
Well you know the old saying " Innocent until proven guilty"
Canadians have that saying too, don't they?
-
<<Well you know the old saying " Innocent until proven guilty"
<<Canadians have that saying too, don't they?>>
Yeah, but we know where to use it - - in the criminal courts, when a man's conviction could result in jail time, heavy fines, and the stigma of a criminal record. Where an acquittal does NOT mean that the man is innocent, only that guilt has not been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. That's a legacy of an earlier time in the laws of England where there were over 250 offences that carried the death penalty and the courts wanted to be absolutely certain beyond reasonable doubt that they weren't hanging an innocent man.
None of us would be so foolish as to apply that standard anywhere outside the criminal courts.
-
<<Exceppt that none of the people he served with were ever accused of the atrocities he described. >>
Oh, well that makes them all innocent, doesn't it? I'm sure they're a fine bunch of humanitarians.
That is not what it does .
What it does is make it certain that Kerry is a liar.
No more than that.
-
<<Well you know the old saying " Innocent until proven guilty"
<<Canadians have that saying too, don't they?>>
Yeah, but we know where to use it - - in the criminal courts, when a man's conviction could result in jail time, heavy fines, and the stigma of a criminal record. Where an acquittal does NOT mean that the man is innocent, only that guilt has not been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. That's a legacy of an earlier time in the laws of England where there were over 250 offences that carried the death penalty and the courts wanted to be absolutely certain beyond reasonable doubt that they weren't hanging an innocent man.
None of us would be so foolish as to apply that standard anywhere outside the criminal courts.
Would it be foolish to apply this standard to witnesses and accused before the Seante?
-
<<That is not what it does .
<<What it does is make it certain that Kerry is a liar.
<<No more than that.>>
In the same way that the failure to prosecute lynch mobs made liars out of the people who claimed that their loved ones were lynched, so according to you does the failure to prosecute war criminals make liars out of their accusers.
You're sick, plane. You're a sick man in a sick society in a sick country. You can justify the most vile atrocities and villify those who speak out against them. You should read your own fucking Bible sometime: "Woe to those who call good evil and who call evil good." You can slander Kerry all you like, he's the whistle-blower and the Swift Boat vets are the war criminals.
-
<<That is not what it does .
<<What it does is make it certain that Kerry is a liar.
<<No more than that.>>
In the same way that the failure to prosecute lynch mobs made liars out of the people who claimed that their loved ones were lynched, so according to you does the failure to prosecute war criminals make liars out of their accusers.
You're sick, plane. You're a sick man in a sick society in a sick country. You can justify the most vile atrocities and villify those who speak out against them. You should read your own fucking Bible sometime: "Woe to those who call good evil and who call evil good." You can slander Kerry all you like, he's the whistle-blower and the Swift Boat vets are the war criminals.
Must you call him a whistle blower when he is lieing?
I am not speaking now about whether it is or isn't true that there was atrocity in Vietnam , that is a diffrent subject .
But Kerry was presenting himself as a witness , which he was not.
-
<<But Kerry was presenting himself as a witness , which he was not.>>
Oh, please, plane, stop it already. You've virtually admitted that there were atrocities in Viet Nam, and now you're attacking Kerry, a man who did his part to bring those atrocities to the attention of the American people, on the grounds that he claimed to be a witness when he wasn't a witness. How petty can you get? What's next, that he was inappropriately dressed when he addressed Congress?
-
<<But Kerry was presenting himself as a witness , which he was not.>>
Oh, please, plane, stop it already. You've virtually admitted that there were atrocities in Viet Nam, and now you're attacking Kerry, a man who did his part to bring those atrocities to the attention of the American people, on the grounds that he claimed to be a witness when he wasn't a witness. How petty can you get? What's next, that he was inappropriately dressed when he addressed Congress?
I might as well be such a witness myself , I know of an atrocity that is so far unreported .
But it is an atrocity that I heard of from someone who was not there himself .
So I do not feel like a real witness , why did Kerry?
-
<<So I do not feel like a real witness , why did Kerry?>>
Who knows? Probably Kerry was a lot closer to the source than you. First hand or at most second hand
I think we all heard atrocity stories from Nam. We all know, unless we're in the media, that nobody gives a shit and if we tried to go public, nothing would happen. It's like the Germans - - they all claim they didn't know anything, but with the scope of the killing, they all must have known something. America's a much more open society than Nazi Germany, we all know what happened but none of us has the courage to say anything. A guy like Kerry steps forward like the hero that he is, and the war criminals, who wanted all their crimes hushed up, rush to piss all over him.
.
-
" A guy like Kerry steps forward like the hero that he is, and the war criminals, who wanted all their crimes hushed up, rush to piss all over him."
So it isn't that he lied , but that he lied heroicly.
-
<<But Kerry was presenting himself as a witness , which he was not.>>
Oh, please, plane, stop it already. You've virtually admitted that there were atrocities in Viet Nam, and now you're attacking Kerry, a man who did his part to bring those atrocities to the attention of the American people, on the grounds that he claimed to be a witness when he wasn't a witness. How petty can you get? What's next, that he was inappropriately dressed when he addressed Congress?
I might as well be such a witness myself , I know of an atrocity that is so far unreported .
But it is an atrocity that I heard of from someone who was not there himself .
So I do not feel like a real witness , why did Kerry?
By gum, you are right! If that is tre maybe that is why the Swift Boat Liars Against Truth felt they could make up shit about Kerry not earning his medals. THEY werent there either!
http://mediamatters.org/items/200408240001
-
By gum, you are right! If that is tre maybe that is why the Swift Boat Liars Against Truth felt they could make up shit about Kerry not earning his medals. THEY werent there either!
Kerry doesn't like it when others use his tactics against him?
-
<<So it isn't that he lied , but that he lied heroicly.>>
You're really focused on the lies, aren't you? The fact that he blew the whistle on torture and massacre and murder is some minor little detail in the background, but the fact that in telling the story, he claimed (or so you say) to have eye-witnessed things he only heard about, invalidates everything the guy did. Why it's positively monstrous.
I don't think you're as focused on honesty as you claim to be. For example, Ronald Reagan, whom I have never heard you criticize yet, gets a pass on lying - - even though he falsely claimed to have been present when the Allied armies liberated the concentration camps in Europe. He was probably "exaggerating" to make a point.
I personally don't know that Kerry lied at all, and frankly, I strongly doubt it. He couldn't possibly have witnessed every single atrocity that he claimed had happened in Viet Nam, I have read some of his testimony and never got the impression that he claimed to have been an eye-witness to all of it, which would have certainly raised eyebrows at the time as he would have had to be literally everywhere to have seen it all. So in all likelihood, the accusation of him lying is probably itself a false accusation, but that's not even the main thing here - - the main thing is the hypocrisy of somebody who claims to be offended at Kerry lying whereas Reagan (to say nothing of Bush) gets a pass on real whoppers.
You don't give a shit about the lying itself - - the most offensive thing about it (to you) is that it came from Kerry. What you're really pissed off about is that he blew the whistle on a bunch of fucking war criminals who could otherwise have pranced around for the rest of their lives pretending to be heroes, as if they were WWII vets, and Kerry spoiled their whole little charade. They never forgave him and you never forgave him. That's why they lie about Kerry's record while you desperately search for any little smidgen of mud that you can throw at a real American hero and hope it'll stick. Pathetic.
-
"- - the main thing is the hypocrisy of somebody who claims to be offended at Kerry lying whereas Reagan (to say nothing of Bush) gets a pass on real whoppers."
Yes, this is why President Bush "lieing" bothers you and Seantor Kerry Lieing does not.
He was telling lies that you liked.
-
<<Yes, this is why President Bush "lieing" bothers you and Seantor Kerry Lieing does not.
He was telling lies that you liked.>>
Well, assuming that Kerry was in fact lying, which I still have not seen demonstrated by anyone yet, you're on the right track.
Kerry was saying things (you call them lies, that remains to be proven) in the course of exposing the terrible war crimes and atrocities committed by U.S. troops against the people of Viet Nam. Bush was telling lies, the consequences of which were the deaths of 600,000 people.
Quite simply, I consider it a good thing when American war criminals and their atrocities are exposed to the public view and a bad thing whem American war criminals kill 600,000 people.
-
<<Yes, this is why President Bush "lieing" bothers you and Seantor Kerry Lieing does not.
He was telling lies that you liked.>>
Well, assuming that Kerry was in fact lying, which I still have not seen demonstrated by anyone yet, you're on the right track.
Kerry was saying things (you call them lies, that remains to be proven) in the course of exposing the terrible war crimes and atrocities committed by U.S. troops against the people of Viet Nam. Bush was telling lies, the consequences of which were the deaths of 600,000 people.
Quite simply, I consider it a good thing when American war criminals and their atrocities are exposed to the public view and a bad thing whem American war criminals kill 600,000 people.
Why , would you blame all of the deaths of the Civil War on Abrham Lincon , or all the death of WWII on FDR?
If you wouldn't you are going tyo have to explain the diffrence.
At this point most of the dying are being killed by the insurgency , which remains blamless ?
-
<<Why , would you blame all of the deaths of the Civil War on Abrham Lincon ,>>
No, because Lincoln had no choice - - preserve the Union or permit the secession
<< or all the death of WWII on FDR?>>
No, because the Axis Powers attacked the U.S.A., not the other way round.
Bush CHOSE to take the U.S.A. to war, and when many other countries advised against it. He started a war with no legal or moral justification that was NOT necessary to the defence of American interests. I naturally blame him for all the resultant deaths. He and he alone chose the path of war when he didn't have to.
<<If you wouldn't you are going tyo have to explain the diffrence.>>
I just did.
<<At this point most of the dying are being killed by the insurgency>>
They are fighting the invaders and the collaborators of the invaders. When an invasion is resisted, I blame the invaders and not the resistance for the deaths that result. No invasion, no resistance, no deaths. Couldn't be simpler.
-
He and he alone chose the path of war when he didn't have to.
Not true!
-
<<Not true! [that Bush and Bush alone chose the path of war when he didn't have to]>>
Well obviously the little twerp didn't have the knowledge and wisdom to decide the issue on his own. He had "advisers" (handlers is more like it) like Cheney, who is front man for a lot of nameless oilpatch and national-security types, the guys who are basically calling the shots in this administration, and Bush does as he's told, but it's his call in the end. It's always been within his power to tell them all to go fuck themselves and do what he wants to do if he has the balls. Although practically speaking, I'm sure he is appropriately mindful of the examples of JFK and RFK which show that there are some people you are better off not saying "no" to.
-
<<Why , would you blame all of the deaths of the Civil War on Abrham Lincon ,>>
No, because Lincoln had no choice - - preserve the Union or permit the secession
<< or all the death of WWII on FDR?>>
No, because the Axis Powers attacked the U.S.A., not the other way round.
Bush CHOSE to take the U.S.A. to war, and when many other countries advised against it. He started a war with no legal or moral justification that was NOT necessary to the defence of American interests. I naturally blame him for all the resultant deaths. He and he alone chose the path of war when he didn't have to.
<<If you wouldn't you are going tyo have to explain the diffrence.>>
I just did.
<<At this point most of the dying are being killed by the insurgency>>
They are fighting the invaders and the collaborators of the invaders. When an invasion is resisted, I blame the invaders and not the resistance for the deaths that result. No invasion, no resistance, no deaths. Couldn't be simpler.
No, because Lincoln had no choice - - preserve the Union or permit the secession ....This is not a choice?
They are fighting the invaders and the collaborators of the invaders. When an invasion is resisted, I blame the invaders and not the resistance for the deaths that result. No invasion, no resistance, no deaths. Couldn't be simpler.
...........Killing almost anyone is justified by an invasion? By your standard a very strong majority of Iraq is colaborationist , even the French Resistance did not kill randomly.
-
Well obviously the little twerp didn't have the knowledge and wisdom to decide the issue on his own.
Then why did you say he did? You flip flop worse than Kerry sometimes.
And you keep forgetting about that joint house senate resolution that gave him permission to topple Saddam.
Conveniently.
-
<<Then why did you say he did [make the decision to invade Iraq]? You flip flop worse than Kerry sometimes. >>
Not at all. The ultimate decision was his. As I made plain in my post, he could have told his advisers that he was going to reject their advice. But he chose not to.
And in answer to plane's point, about Lincoln also having a choice, I don't blame him because the choice was between an acceptable alternative and an unacceptable alternative. The Union was preseved, albeit at a terrible pricee. I blame the South and not Lincoln for forcing the choice upon him. There are times when one must choose war.
-
Not at all. The ultimate decision was his.
Doubtful. Without the resolution he wouldn't have toppled Saddam. Now if you are saying Congress has no say in the matter why all the rhetoric about a new dawn, lights at the end of the tunnel , elect dems and end the war?