The mask fell off John Kerry

[Plane]

<<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?

[Michael Tee]

<<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.

.

[Plane]

 " 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.

[Mucho]

<<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

[Amianthus]

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?

[Michael Tee]

<<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.

[Plane]

"- - 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.

[Michael Tee]

<<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.

[Plane]

<<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 ?

[Michael Tee]

<<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.

[BT]

He and he alone chose the path of war when he didn't have to.

Not true!

[Michael Tee]

<<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.

[Plane]

<<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.

[BT]

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.

[Michael Tee]

<<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.