Re: If Kerry is elected...

From: Tom Seim (soar2morrow_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 10/21/04 

Date: 21 Oct 2004 16:52:53 -0700

Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov.> wrote in message news:<Xns9589789AE4094jyanikkuanet@129.250.170.85>...
> Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote in
> news:2sken0pep4njh3dacp9q7igbm8u7a65ieu@4ax.com:
>
> > On 20 Oct 2004 18:50:42 GMT, arthurj@aol.comet.net (James Arthur)
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Jon, the keyword you seek was there, posted just a tad below...
> >
> > With your new prodding I decided to just search for "1971" and found
> > it! Thanks!
> >
> >>>> Searching the transcript for "videotape" will call up the relevant
> >>>remarks.
> >>
> >> The _3rd_ instance (sorry 'bout that) will take you to the text:
> >> "MEET THE
> >>PRESS, April 18, 1971," where John Kerry's comments are transcribed.
> >>
> >>
> >>>> Either this, or perhaps his 6/30/71 debate with John O'Neill:
> >>>>rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/c04/c04_rwh081504.rm
> >>>
> >>>I don't (and won't) install real-audio/video on my machine here.
> >>>This will either have to wait until I can set up a different machine
> >>>for this task. If you can put in the text, that would be great, but
> >>>I'd understand if that's not
> >>>reasonable.
> >>
> >> Googling for "kerry cavett debate transcript" yields a number of
> >> useful
> >>sites, the first of which is:
> >>
> >>http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/index.php?topic=KerryONeill
> >>
> >> Skimming past Mr. Cavett's introduction, O'Neill begins registering
> >> his
> >>complaints
> >>shortly into his opening remarks.
> >
> > I can see that things are somewhat clearer here. I also see that the
> > 'modern' Kerry is saying that there was a good deal of anger, and less
> > accuracy, in words he used earlier. Perhaps understandable, given his
> > age then and far more limited perspective at the time. And as he
> > pointed out on the April 18th, 2004 interview (on the exact
> > anniversary of his 1971 Meet the Press interview, I note), his use of
> > the exact term "War Criminal" was applied to those who ordered and
> > signed off on things, more than others. Waffling? Perhaps.
> >
> > My own feeling about this is that Kerry was obeying orders, as should
> > anyone unless they are absolutely clear that it violates their oath to
> > the US to obey it. It's deadly serious to do otherwise. A life or
> > death kind of thing. The taint of "war crimes" inures more to those
> > who give such orders, as Kerry noted in his reply. Soldiers in the
> > field simply don't have the perspective or the authority to change or
> > disobey orders.
> >
> > Thanks! Much better case that the earlier posters were able to
> > muster! I respect your contribution here and it does make a modest
> > case.
> >
> > Jon
>
> Funny how people are SO forgiving of such things when it's KERRY,but if it
> were Bush,things would be much different.Look at the stuff that's been
> pulled about Bush's Reserve service,for example.(CBS and their 'documents')
> Where's the outcry about that? Even DemocRATs should be calling for CBS to
> fire some of their people.(like Rather)

It's been that way for some time now. When Clintoon was making a
mockery of the White House the typical lib refrain was "That was
between two consenting adults". Compare that to the libs demand that
DeLay resign as Majority Leader because of an "admonishment" by the
ethics committee. Then take the case of Trent Lott, who made the fatal
sin of praising a man who had been a racist, Strom Thurmond. No
apology by Lott could placate the libs, who smelled blood in the
water. Only a resignation would do. And the bastards got it!

Libs are not bothered in the least by an obvious, blatant lack of
balance in their statements and positions. This is the way it is, get
used to it because it ain't gonna change.

Quantcast