The Million Dollar question is: If he needed his very own BLACK pen, why did he use a WHITE pen during the debate? May it be that this is not that innicent a pen, but rather a que pen or something?

A "what" pen?

I was struck by the difference between this video and the other videos I have seen. Goes to show that you should always be skeptical. But, since I'm a cynic, I never cared much about this one so I didn't go through anything frame by frame or anything.

Well, so much for what Kerry had in his RIGHT hand, but what about the other object that he had in his LEFT hand? The thing that he unfolded at the podium just after this pen was photographed in his right hand?

I don't agree that there should be no charges of cheating levied against the Kerry campaign, since, Kerry cheated. He cheated. It's not a half-way thing. He cheated. Either charge, levy or don't. You cheat, you get charged with cheating. You don't cheat, you don't get charged with cheating. Enough of this flip-flopping about the rules and what rules even mean. They mean: do this and if you violate this, you are violating this rule (along with any/all others, respectively), and, if you violate this rule, you'll be judged/evaluated in some critical fashion.

I've just been reading how the Demos are now saying that they are "guilty of black pen" but that's after they've ranted about "the rightwing attack machine" (attacking poor, victim Kerry?).

Kerry is either capable of comprehending the debate rules or he is not. Or, he comprehends them and does not regard not abiding by the rules as being "wrong" as per the Kerry campaign "aides" making this ludicrous statement that I referenced, previous paragraph: that what the Kerry aides regard as Kerry's behavior is somehow a problem because "the rightwing attack machine" complained about Kerry violating the debate rules.

IF Kerry cannot comprehend the rules and is unable to abide by them, then he certainly is questionable for employment in many, if not most, employment situations, as to competency.

If, on the other hand, Kerry did comprehend the rules but violated them anyway, then he indicates poor character to such an extent that he isn't qualified, either, for most if not all employment situations, and most particularly not for the Presidency and/or the Senate.

What I think it is is that Kerry just disregards these details ("rules") as being beneath his concern. He wants a pen from his pocket, despite the rules saying he cannot access that pen, he accesses the pen anyway because...he...wants...the...pen...and he doesn't even hesitate to display before a worldwide audience that he can and will and does access that pen, rules be damned.

He's an arrogant ARSE. Just an arse. He violated the rules, he deserves to be evaluated in some negative something in proportion to the violation. Whatever the rules state as to dealing with violations, should now be applied to Kerry, captured for all posterity violating the debate rules just because he could, wanted to, and without any remorse or hesitation, in fact, with a great deal of display: look at me, ma, top of the podium!

Kerry's a loser. He's just a dishonorable loser.

S -

That is his left hand.

And your rant doesn't sound so good, I'm telling you ...

I'd be interested to hear from university level professors at this point, as to their measure of these rules, applied similarly as many of us are familiar with, to testing processes.

I remember not even being able to wear dark glasses in any university math classes tests, even when I needed them for proper vision...much less my own magic pen and mysteriously disapperaing unfolding object before me.

Honestly, this entire episode, suggesting that Kerry get a pass because he cheated is beyond me. Just TRY this on a test in any random univerity class and see how far it gets you when trying to argue why you should not be expelled from college. Just TRY.

Like I said, you ain't sounding to good.

I think that you need to chill out about this.

Sorry, bill, not ranting. I made a succinct attempt to spell out my opinion and perspectives about this issue.

Sorry I bothered you, if you regard this as "rant" material. I'll go delete a link to your site...but your conclusions about this issue are sad.

I mistyped/misidentified one of Kerry's hands. His Left hand, you are correct, holds what you allege is a pen, as does the Kerry campaign.

In many other vidoe captures, Kerry can be seen holding white or silve object with surface area beyond a pen or writing instrument, that he then "opens" or "flips" at the podium. That's no pen I've ever heard of. So, you have a closeup of one of Kerry's hands: my original point, despite misstating which hand wasn't included in this photo, was what was taking place in the OTHER hand not included in this photo, the one that holds another object?

That's the issue. If you consider that a "rant," sorry for you. It's an important issue to me, as it is to many others.

It was a pen, it violated the rules, but there isn't much advantage in a pen, so it just looks like whining.

So long, INDC. Quite the chilled afternoon, by the way, 65 degrees...some people just don't care for specifics.

Oh Good Christ, Kerry brought an illegal pen to the election. Suddenly the war in Iraq, the War on Terror, health care, the giant sucking sound that is our manufacturing sector, the defecit, and our creaking New Deal programs are moot.

Personally, I'd be much more worried about a President with a tenuous grasp on reality. Thinks are going GREAT in Iraq...just ask the 21 people who died in a car bomb today when insurgents attacked IN THE GREEN ZONE.

They couldn't do that a year ago. There are two explanations:

1. The insurgents are getting desperate.
2. The insurgents are winning.

It was certainly a legitimate question to ask, as Kerry did technically violate the rules, albeit apparently not in a meaningful way. But it was definitlely worth finding that out.

Sorry I bothered you, if you regard this as "rant" material. I'll go delete a link to your site...but your conclusions about this issue are sad.

Ok, I was being polite, but now I'll be frank - you sound like a petulant, fuming child. There are gradiations of the law, and making a huge deal out of a pen beyond noting it as an infraction is bizarre behavior and reflects very poorly on your commentary.

There is also zero, and I man zero possibility that you would be so outraged if Bush had had a pen. Goodbye.

-S-

He used his right hand when he latched onto Bush. I didn't see that hand do anything odd after that.

This has gotten out of hand and isn't worth the effort. It was suspicious looking from the original angle but now it looks like a pen. Take a deep breath and calm down.

I do however like the process that this story has gone through. Just like the fake memos. There is something suspecious and the story is persued until there is a adequate explanation. Now let it rest.

I do however like the process that this story has gone through. Just like the fake memos.

Um, no, no one fought the truth in this case.

S needs a good stiff drink.

Still, let's ask the logical question: why would they quite clearly forbid the taking of items into the debate---including explicit mention that pens must be delivered to the podium in advance?

Simple: precisely to avoid this kind of controversy. If neither candidate pulls anything out of their jacket, then nobody need speculate that they brought in crib notes.

I'm glad this worked out, but I nevertheless commend the diligence of those who fleshed this out. It needed to be done.

Bill,

I was commenting on the process of uncovering the truth. Not the resistance or lack thereof.

In both cases, a suspecious event resulted in an investigation and the facts were evertually found out.

Also, I would assume that the shuffling of papers that we apparently see in the video later is simply the shuffling of the papers that were already on the podium.

In both cases, a suspecious event resulted in an investigation and the facts were evertually found out.

Ain't the new media grand?

>>>Thinks are going GREAT in Iraq...

Are they great compared to Vermont? No.

Are they great compared to Iraq under Saddam? Yes.

I think the people with a "tenuous grasp on reality" are those that question whether Iraq and the U.S. were better off with Saddam.

We've had this argument before. Remember the Cold War? El Salvador? Nicaragua? SE Asia? Eastern Europe? 100 million people died while the left continued to argue Communism really wasn't that bad if you just kept an open mind, and besides other people didn't really want freedom anyway. We're already starting to hear those same bigoted bleatings.

>>>2. The insurgents are winning.

No, the "insurgents" (what are their goals, again? To liberate Iraq from democracy?) are not remotely winning. They lose every battle. They have zero chance of winning militarily. They are allowed to continue existing only because it is not politically expedient for American troops to crush them. When enough Iraqi troops are trained, they will be dealt with, probably before December.

If it was so conclusive, why did Fox only show one still frame and not the whole motion? They apparently have footage from a better angle than anything that has been provided on the web. Judging by the full motion video that has been posted, if you watch closely, Kerry pulls the object out with his left hand, and his right hand comes up and grabs the other side before placing the object on the podium. Typically a motion of someone pulling index cards out of their pocket when they are about to give a speech, not of someone placing a pen on a podium.

Because a still frame shows exactly what it is and video moves and is less obvious. And its probably a quick motion.

But why not show multiple still frames and not just one. They could post the shots on their site, frame by frame, one shot tells nothing in this case.

Ok first off, it wasn't a Video that was shown on Fox, it was a Single Picture. One Frame, that's it.

I would still like to see the whole video form that camera, with stills from the time he smiled at Lehrer, and Lehrer looked away to the time Lehrer looked back at Kerry which is from about 00:1:45 to 00:1:58

Hopefully over the next couple of days, FNC will release the feeds, but I doubt it.

Regards,
Sonar5

Continuing to make hay over this just sounds petty. Bush is still leading in the polls, he still has a lead in the electoral college, and Kerry is still flip-flopping. Let Kerry and Co crow over the debate.

"I think the people with a "tenuous grasp on reality" are those that question whether Iraq and the U.S. were better off with Saddam."

Uh...better off with a failed state that's a breeding ground for terrorists (and a great poster child for Al Qaeda), then a series of sanctions that, though imperfect, effectively contained a dictator and kept WMD out of his hands.

I'm with G.H.W. Bush and Anthony Zinni on this...you cannot go into Iraq because you have an infintesmal chance of getting a better outcome than the status quo. And we don't sent Americans to die for the infintesmal.

"We've had this argument before. Remember the Cold War? El Salvador? Nicaragua?"

Yes...I remember the Contras. And the Mujadheen (remember them? Osama sure remembered us...). Drugs on American streets in exchange for guns in the hands of Right-Wing death squads and the future leaders of Al Qaeda for hostages taken in corrupt governments we propped up. Lets do a count: how many people the democratically elected Sandanistas killed, versus the Contras.

"SE Asia? Eastern Europe?"

Great arguments for containment. We contain Eastern Europe (rather than, you know, invading) and 45 years later the Warsaw Pact collapses and we've gotten some legitimate democracies out of the mix. Minimal American loss of life. We try and go into Vietnam, we end up with 50,000 dead Americans and look like complete jackasses before the 3rd World.

R,

"Judging by the full motion video that has been posted, if you watch closely, Kerry pulls the object out with his left hand, and his right hand comes up and grabs the other side before placing the object on the podium. Typically a motion of someone pulling index cards out of their pocket when they are about to give a speech, not of someone placing a pen on a podium."

The motion also appears consistent with him taking the cap off the pen, flipping the pen, putting the cap on the other end, switching the pen to his writing hand, then putting it down.

"If it was so conclusive, why did Fox only show one still frame and not the whole motion?"

We're talking about Fox News here. They're not going to go out of their way to cover anything up for John Kerry.

"No, the "insurgents" (what are their goals, again? To liberate Iraq from democracy?) are not remotely winning. They lose every battle."

That's funny...American forces never lost a battle in Vietnam, either.

"They have zero chance of winning militarily."

If you're a guerilla leader, you'd have to be an idiot if you were trying to win militarily. These guys are evil, but they're sure not idiots...notice how the Republican Guard "melted" during the invasion.

"They are allowed to continue existing only because it is not politically expedient for American troops to crush them."

Riiiggghhhhttt.....which is why Northeastern Iraq is now a "no-go zone" for US troops.

Hey, the 60s called...it wants it's Groupthinker back...

My God, some of you people are still having problems after that frame with the pen? Now you want full motion video?

I'm almost tempted to ban the next person that keeps ranting that it's not enough.

Paranoia is different from healthy skepticism.

HOLD THE PHONE, STOP THE PRESSES

Fox News and the New York Post reporter and major bloggers ARE FOCUSING ON THE WRONG PORTION OF THE VIDEO. The photo excerpt showing the black pen occurs FIVE (5) SECONDS BEFORE Kerry exposes and unfolds the prohibited notes. FOX and NY Post guys, go back to the tape but keep looking at KERRYS HANDS 5 SECONDS after the pen!

That S is one nutty broad. Interesting piece of trivia, though: she designed the Star Wars logo.

Ok,

If this issue is dead, then let's move on to something more substantive like Iraq, adn foreign Policy, shall we?

Let's compare the "Global Test" quote of 2004, to a Kerry Quote from 1970. Some dems say Kerry made a mistake, but was it, or was it another character flaw exposing the real feelings of Kerry.

I say this is the same kerry we see today, as was self agarandizing himself back then.

Now, for the quotes:

1970 - Crimson Interview
"I'm an internationalist. I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations."

2004 - Presidential Debate
" No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.

But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."

*********

So, in my opinion, this is the same kerry form 1970. He can't help himself, this quote is form his heart, and is similar to his 1970 quote.

If elected, kerry would turn our country over to the United Nations anytime we wanted to do something.

Even France and Germany stated they would not send trooops to Iraq.

But wait, there is more.

How can kerry on one hand state he will have a summit on Iraq and involve more countries, yet when it comes to North Korea, where a Coalition form a Summit stands at six countries, Kerry wants to start Unilateral talks with North Korea.

And what about Iran. kerry says Nuclear Proliferation is an important issue. he said:

LEHRER: New question, two minutes, Senator Kerry.

If you are elected president, what will you take to that office thinking is the single most serious threat to the national security to the United States?

KERRY: "Nuclear proliferation. Nuclear proliferation. There's some 600-plus tons of unsecured material still in the former Soviet Union and Russia. At the rate that the president is currently securing it, it'll take 13 years to get it."

And on Iran:

" I think the United States should have offered the opportunity to provide the nuclear fuel, test them, see whether or not they were actually looking for it for peaceful purposes. If they weren't willing to work a deal, then we could have put sanctions together. The president did nothing."

He actually wants to give them fuel and see waht they do with it. I she serious??

Doesn't he remember North Korea. Former President Carter negotiates a deal with them, an dthey go out and build weapons. Oh yeah clinton was president at that time, so no matter, right?

Wake up folks, plenty of issues from this debate, so let's discuss those.

Any takers?

Regards,
Sonar5

Trained Auditor:

"Fox News and the New York Post reporter and major bloggers ARE FOCUSING ON THE WRONG PORTION OF THE VIDEO. The photo excerpt showing the black pen occurs FIVE (5) SECONDS BEFORE Kerry exposes and unfolds the prohibited notes. FOX and NY Post guys, go back to the tape but keep looking at KERRYS HANDS 5 SECONDS after the pen!"

Wait a minute - the pen is what he pulled out of his pocket. That has been established.

So where did the supposed prohibited notes come from?

Taking the still along with the so-called high-res video from LGF, it's pretty clear that five seconds after pulling the pen out of his pocket, Kerry is busy putting the cap on the back of the pen. Watch it at full-speed so you can judge the motion of his hands.

I didn't see the Fox video--I've only seen the video cap of the pen. Is this a picture taken from the same point in time at which it looked like Sen. Kerry removed something white and rectangular from his jacket pocket? The vid cap itself proves only that at some point Sen. Kerry held a black pen in his hand.

Sonar5, as long as you're pretending that a 34-year-old quote has more meaning than something from this year, I'm not going to bother discussing this with you.

Heck, someone changing their view on the role of the UN over the course of 34 years isn't even remotely a "character flaw".

Is this a picture taken from the same point in time at which it looked like Sen. Kerry removed something white and rectangular from his jacket pocket?

Fox says that it is ... and I can't see why they would lie. I spoke to the Producer.

Heck, someone changing their view on the role of the UN over the course of 34 years isn't even remotely a "character flaw".

No, but someone making other 34 year-old quotes can have permanent character flaws, especially when they don't apologize for them.

I agree the video on LGF is low quality, too low. Hume and Kuntzman have access to the original video. I urge them to look at that video FIVE SECONDS AFTER the shot of the pen -- and share the results with us. Meanwhile, the rest of us can study the video with the blow up originally posted by Bill.

JJ, FOX did not show Video, they only showed a Single Frame Clip. Only 1

And Clancy...

No Surpise. Just another deflection FROM THE TRUTH and an attempt to not discuss the issue. These are Kerry's words, I quoted Both sentences within context and now you object. You know in the other thread you listed the whole quote and I agreed with you.

And I believe they go to his motive for the Global Test statement. He revealed himself, and his quote from 1970 confirms he still has the same feelings. And you refuse to discuss it any further.

Now that is funny. Or is it the fact that the truth cannot be discussed with regards to Kerry's record which no one seems to want to discuss.

You can potentially run away or you can debate. I see you have made your choice on that issue, so let's move-on.. get it... Move-on...

Ok, let's talk about his Voting record in the Senate, shall we.

Let's start with his attendance record in the senate and the Intelligence Committee.

But wait, you mean Kerry served on an Intelligence Committee that saw the same stuff the President did?

Bill,

"No, but someone making other 34 year-old quotes can have permanent character flaws, especially when they don't apologize for them."

Color me obtuse, but I don't getcha.

It is the left that has the utility doctrine for the truth. For us the truth just is. You win some. You lose some. GET OVER IT!

I dunno, that could still be a bunch of note cards viewed on edge, but at this stage the NFL rule probably applies: in the absence of clear video evidence, the play stands. Kerry needs to be more careful, but probably a good no-call

Color me obtuse, but I don't getcha.

"raped, cut off ears, severed heads ... reminiscent of Ghengis Khan ..."

I firmly believe that the use of those tactics in Kerry's testimony speaks to his character.

Bill, thanks for clarifying.

Oh yeah...

Clancy...

I need to know what your term limits are on quotes from kerry.

Please choose a date to properly frame the debate.

Can I use quotes from last week, last year?
2 years ago?
5 years ago?
10 years ago?

What time frame defines a candidate in your Opinion?

Did you feel the same when People discussed President Bush's Guard Record? Can you provide a link backing that up that you did for consistency, or are you just being Partisan? Honest Question.

Also, please let me know what is the appropriate time frame to discuss Kerry's attendence record, and his voting record in the Senate?

Can I discuss 1992, 1997, 1998, 200, 2001, 2002, 2003?

Or only since he attempted to deflect his debate remarks FRIDAY MORNING of last week?

I await....

Que Jeopardy Theme...

Regards,
Sonar5

Clancy, think 1971 Senate testimony.

You Know bill, those quotes are seared, I mean seared into my memory...

"I dunno, that could still be a bunch of note cards viewed on edge"

Not really. If you pulled a bunch of (black?) note cards out of your pocket, you wouldn't hold them like that, not at that angle and not with your fingers in that position. Also, the shadow on his tie shows that the object is narrow, not a wide object held at an angle to the camera.

You can watch most of the Fox Feed the photo is taken from on the Hannity and Colmes from 10/01. It's played during the first segment with Bill Bennett. It's definitely from a different and closer angle than the one broadcast dring the debate.

As much as I dislike (being nice) Kerry, I only saw a black pen. I'll have to go back however and see if it runs 5 seconds beyond the black pen (Tivo).

Sonar5,

You can use quotes from whenever you dang well please, just put them in context. If Kerry said something 34 years ago, and in the present day says that his thinking has evolved from that and he articulates a clear position today (also keeping in mind that the world has changed post 9/11), it is clear that his position is the current one, not the one from 1970.

Did I feel a 'let bygones be bygones' when it came to Bush's National Guard controversy? Sure. I didn't mind if he goofed off back then or used the privilege of his connections to cut his service in the Guard short or whatever. People can do some stupid things in their teens and twenties, but hey, people grow, learn and mature, right?

Ok Clancy,

Explain Kerry's UNILATERAL Stance with regards to North Korea, and compare and contrast that with the Current Summit coalition of six countries who all agree to help in this Issue. And let'a also talk about the agreement that was made by President Carter, and how Madeline Albright was made a fool of which led us into this situation with North Korea that we are currently in.

So, why is Unilateralism ok with Noerth Korae, but a Standing Coalition in Iraq is wrong, even though Kerry voted to approve force in 2002 right before th election, and comapre with quotes made by kerry in 1997-1998 RE: Iraq.

current enough?

Senator Clairborne Pell of Rhode Island (1960 to 1996) use to wear a leather belt that belonged to his father. The belt connected Senator Pell to his past and reminded him that he was dedicated to Public service just as his father was.

If Senator Kerry's Pen had the same sort of Sentimental feeling as that Belt it provided him with a confidence that was unfair.

Bush was denied the opprunity to bring an object that may reminded him of his sense of service.

man, you all are hilarious. thanks for making my night.

Oh, it was Carter who negotiated on the Clinton Administartions behalf with North Korea. And wasn't that a Failure. Why should we go back to something that has already been a failure.

It didn't work then, and I think Kerry wanst it only because it is the opposite position of Bush.

I bet he even supported the plan Clinton had.

"Bush was denied the opprunity to bring an object that may reminded him of his sense of service."

Cheney?

...

So, Ralph, what you're saying is Kerry could bring the pen and wear it as a belt, but couldn't write with it?

If you think Kerry is promoting a unilateral stance with regards to North Korea, then you were only half listening. Kerry wants to have both multilateral and bilateral talks with North Korea. The bilateral talks are actually also in the interests of the other partners in these talks, since they understand that some issues are best resolved directly between North Korea and us, which doesn't preclude a multilateral agreement also being hammered out between the six partners in these talks.

Who said a "Standing Coalition" in Iraq is wrong?

Clancy Asked?
"Who said a "Standing Coalition" in Iraq is wrong?"

hmmm..

I remember some quotes being seared into my memory...

Oh yeah...

Kerry said:
"When they talk about a coalition--that's the phoniest thing I ever heard,"

At the time of the quote, the facts revealed we had:

In addition to Italy, Britain still has 8,000 troops in Iraq, Poland has 2,400, Ukraine 1,500, the Netherlands 1,400, Romania 700, and South Korea 600.

Kerry Also Said:
"A Coalition of the coerced and bribed"

Kerry sure seems to change his mind a lot huh?

I find that disturbing, and it goes to his character.

And you still haven't stated a Kerry Position on North Korea. What would he do differently?

Why would talks directly between our Country and North Korea work this time when the EXACT same attempt under Clinton, Albright, and Carter as the go between Failed leading to North Korea's building of Nuclear Weapons which is the current situation now?

Answer me that one.

I believe it's more of a character flaw to not change your mind over a period of 34 years. Changing one's mind is fundamental to learning and at the core of business strategy. Evaluate > decide > re-evaluate > correct. This process is circular and ongoing. Beliefs and values are modified as one's life goes on. How many people here can say that their perception of the world has not changed in the past 34 years?

Kerry's ill feelings were directly targeted at the government, and not at his peers. Kerry realized that his overly zealous behavior was taken as an attack against soldiers (mostly due to mis-quotes) and he attempted to make amends to those willing to listen (not just hear). For those of you who have never bothered to read his book or senate testimony -- read it. Try to understand his words within the context of the times. He was an activist, and he spoke harsly of the war in Vietnam. However, he had good intent -- he wanted to convince the goverment to end the war.

Feel free to attack me for not conforming to your opinions.

And I have another one.

Why after the first World Trade Center Bombing did kerry not show up for a Full Year to the Intelligence Committee he was serving on?

Source:
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=241
Annenburg Political fact Check

"The Bush ad also says Kerry was absent for every single Intelligence Committee meeting during the year "after the first terrorist attack on the World Trade Center." That's true. The official records list four public hearings in 1994 -- the year after terrorists set off a truck bomb in the Trade Center's underground garage -- and Kerry is listed as attending none of them."

"Official records show Kerry not present for at least 76% of public hearings held during his eight years on the panel, and possibly 78% (the record of one hearing is ambiguous)."

*********

Wow, there is a guy who cares about terrorism...

It's his record, Clancy, so let's talk about the record.

Regards,
Sonar5

Sonar5,

Wow, you get all kinds of stuff seared into your memory, don'tcha? So how do those quotes that you dredged up from your no doubt seared memory add up to a "Standing Coalition" being wrong? Kerry's point was that a coalition is needed, but the existing one is highly inadequate, since America bears the vast bulk of the burden of it.

"And you still haven't stated a Kerry Position on North Korea. What would he do differently?"

Did you somehow miss my previous post, which you'll find immediately above yours? Did you miss the presidential debates? Lehrer specifically even had the two candidates go back over that point, to make sure that it was clear.

Please try to read up on the history of North Korean nukes and the Agreed Framework of 1994. Here's an article that might be helpful: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0405.kaplan.html

I'm late adding my .02 worth, but that's just par for the course in my day.

When I first read about this over here, it didn't matter to me what it was that Kerry pulled out of his pocket, and my reaction had NOTHING to do with the results of the debate. My whole issue is that there are rules in place, he agreed to said rules, and yet he breaks them. No big deal? I only posted about it as I see it as yet another glimpse into his character. And the character of my President matters to me. I hope it matters to others as well.

Case solved, yes. Matter forgotten? No, I'll file this in the rolodex of my mind. Just for reference.

Thanks for following up on it.

The agreed Framework was a failure, something you and kerry seem to forget and not want to discuss.

It was that framework that Albright kept believing what he NK's were telling her.

I don't need to read it again, I already have.

So post what he would do. Educate the masses here.

Post Kerry's Plan. I really would like to see what you think he would do.

Sonar5,

I don't have a clue why Kerry didn't attend those meetings. Maybe he was practicing his debating stance in front of the mirror at home, or conniving ways to outsource the production of fine tomato ketchup. I suspect we'll never know, eh?

I don't even know what a normal Senate attendance record looks like. What's average? 40%, 50%, 80%, 100%? No idea. You?

Tammi,

Make sure you don't forget the outrage of Bush speaking out of turn in clear violation of the rules he agreed to. I mean, what kind of profound insights does that give you about the man's character, seriously?

I know it's not as bad as Kerry having the gall to bring a pen to the debate, but still, rules are rules.

I don't agree that there should be no charges of cheating levied against the Kerry campaign, since, Kerry cheated. He cheated. It's not a half-way thing. He cheated. Either charge, levy or don't. You cheat, you get charged with cheating. You don't cheat, you don't get charged with cheating. . . .

Kerry's a loser. He's just a dishonorable loser.

Kerry is "dishonorable" for using his own PEN? What in the hell is wrong with you people?

All this yammering about brining a freaking PEN? Laughable. Seriously laughable, and disturbing. (I guess the death penalty is the appropriate response to the twins' underage drinking, using your absurd yardstick.)

Sorry, but the posters here have irreperably damaged their credibility in my mind. What a disaster -- for the Kerry haters.

Anonymous -

(lame nome de plume, btw)

Kerry's ill feelings were directly targeted at the government, and not at his peers.

It's irrelevant, they had an impact that was irresponsible, and his words were based on inaccurate testimony from the Winter Soldier's Conference. He has never fully owned up to the destructive nature of his actions, a if he did, trutrh be told, it might not be that big of a deal at this point.

His willingness to give that testimony to make his point was callous and manipulative, and I can't easily forgive him for it.

And yes, I am aware of the full context of his testimony.

Sonar5,

The Agreed Framework was not perfect, sure. Read the article I gave you a link to, and you may find that Bush's leadership in dealing with North Korea was a little less than excellent as well. You claim you've read it before, but it appears you didn't sear it into your memory like you do some of this other stuff.

I don't happen to have Kerry's plan on me right now, as (a) I don't happen to be a Kerry aide and (b) I happen not to be a mindreader. I merely restated what the man quite clearly said in the debate, which is very different from what you chose to remember.

And if you are going to post Partisan Opinions on North Korea, Like Washington Monthly, here is one from the other side:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/12/30/160746.shtml

Incidentally, do you think it would be wise for Kerry to detail specifically and in public right now exactly how he would plan to approach those bilateral negotiations with North Korea?

"lame nome de plume, btw"

Bill, thanks for the comment on my "nome [sic] de plume". But, I don't really see that it's relevant to poke fun at my pen name.

"[Kerry's] words were based on inaccurate testimony from the Winter Soldier's Conference"

Bill, Bush's invasion of Iraq was based on inaccurate data on WMDs. There have been 1,000+ soldiers lost because of his actions. Which is worse?

Interesting article, Sonar. It makes some interesting concessions, including that the Bush 43 administration knew for two years that North Korea had embarked on a program of enriching uranium before they moved to do anything about it.

It also adds this interesting detail that the Clinton administration inherited the problem from the Bush 41 administration: "Just before the '92 elections in the U.S., IAEA inspectors discovered some hinkiness in North Korea's initial report on its nuclear program and asked for clarification on the amount of reprocessed plutonium."

And maybe Under kerry we would have rewarded Iran for Enriching Uranium like North Korea did under CLINTON's Watch....

Do you get that. They violated the agreement on Clinton's watch, Bush discovered it, the NK's got caught, and then they want to extort things from us for stopping what they said they were not doing....

Please.....

This didn't start under Bush's watch, it was discovered under Bush's watch, and he was not about to reward NK for breaking it.

That is Kerry's Doctrine. Reward bad behavior. he even wants to reward Iran by giving them Nuclear fuel. Do you even understand the ramifications of that?

Kerry's Doctrine on these issues is plain wrong, with a Capital W.

Kerry is wrong on North Korea - favors a Failed Policy

Kerry is Wrong on Iran - Wants to provide them with Nulcear Material.

Kerry is wrong on Iraq - No one supports our troops by stating Wrong war, wrong place, wrong Time. That is tantamount to speaking with the enemy which Kerry did with North Vietnam.

That is tantamount to his testimony to Congress which was used in torture against our POW's In vietnam.

Regards,
Sonar5

Oh no, we can't expand this argument to WMD's that's too big ...

Kerry was aware of the same intelligence as the Pres, and had a similar position before he wanted YOUR vote.

Beyond the fact that I disagree with your judgment about Bush's decision, and whether you have a much greater problem with Bush, your hope that Kerry is really a better or more viable representative for your position and concerns is in vain.

Really. He'd invade mainland China if it was politically beneficial.

And I just get annoyed with the "anon" posters - it's a common pseudonym and it's indicative of serious aversion to what - an identifying web handle?

These aren't comments run by blogger.

Just a thought, but it appears that Kerry could be palming something? The pen could be used to distract any iquistive bloggers from anything else he grabbed out of his coat jacket. What I don't understand is what did he unfold?

I don't have a problem with this story dying off, but I agree that due-diligence has not been done until the white object can be explained--with supporting facts. It might be an envelope or notes that never left Kerry's coat pocket, or perhaps an open auditorium door. Since it's inconsistent with light flare, I'm convinced it wasn't the pen--but what was it? I hope there is some industrious reporter with access at Fox to eventually answer that question, and definitively say it was only a pen that came out of Kerry's pocket, nothing else. In the meantime, I'm OK with it being a minor missed call.

Stereotypical indc blog participant:

"Yes, it's true, Kerry is finished. He imploded during the debate.

You haven't heard? Oh my gawd, wait till you hear THIS. You W I L L
N O T B E L I E V E I T.

That dishonorable cheater Kerry brought a pen to the debate. See, I told you you'd never believe me. But there's this video. . . . Yeah, see it now? SEE! I TOLD YOU!

Yes. A PEN TO THE DEBATE! It's freaking unbelievable . . . a pen, A Pen, A PEN, yes a PEN . . . . wait, something's happening, oohh, no, wait, stop, stop,
aaaaaaaggggggghgggggghhhh . . . . I'm melting, get that PEN away from me, Lord Jesus, it's KERRY's PEN, he stole the debate, and now the pen, the Pen, the PEN, he CHEATED, aaaaaggggghhhh, I'm melting . . . agggghhhhhh aggggghhhhhh . . . . PEN

"speaking with the enemy which Kerry did with North Vietnam"

Sonar5, it's unclear what you are suggesting here. When did Kerry side with the Viet Cong? Please elaborate.

"That is tantamount to his testimony to Congress which was used in torture against our POW's In vietnam."

Sonar5, can you please explain this to me? I think you are suggesting that Kerry's Senate testimony was later used to torture POWs. Is this correct? If so, where are you getting this information?

I read your last post after I posted.

That is the Whole Point.

North Korea cannot be trusted by anyone, and Kerry thinks he can be any better than Bush 41, Bush 43, or Clinton 42.

Do you know how absurd that sounds?

Do you honestly think that Extortion would win the day, because that is what NK will demand. And I think Kerry would cave, and that would be a terrible precedant on Foreign Policy.

And you think Kerry should not spell out what his policy should be...

Oh, we should just trust him right?

That is absurd on its face, and I would think better from you.

The Problem with Kerry is he hides from his record, deflects all criticism and just basically says trust me, I can do better, I won't tell you how, and I have no real record in the Senate to show for it, and I won't talk about my record, but I will do it better.

That is just plain silly, and the people know it who actually bother to research this stuff.

That is the biggest problem about last week's debate. Lehrer, the supposed objective Moderator asked NOTHONG about Kerry's 20 year record in the senate, Not one single question of Intelligence or the Committe in the Senate he served in, nothing....

Talk about biased, no questions on Kerry's record, just what woule you do.

Most of the Debate was about this.

Why did you do this Bush?
What would you do differntly kerry?

It was hogwash.....

That wasn't a debate on Foreign Policy by my standards, and by many others.

Maybe the next two will actaully explore what kerry has done, but I am suspect.

Regards,
Joe

Anonymous. These are common facts.

Go google some research, and then come back an I will be happy to answer some quesions, but I am not going to do all your research for you.

Start here:
http://www.google.com

Try the following search terms

1) Kerry talks with North Vietnam
2) Kerry's words played back to POW's
3) read Kerry's testimony

good luck on your quest.

>>>"I think the people with a "tenuous grasp on reality" are those that question whether Iraq and the U.S. were better off with Saddam."

>>>Uh...better off with a failed state that's a breeding ground for terrorists (and a great poster child for Al Qaeda
LOL A "breeding ground" for terrorists? I don't thkin they're exactly breeding there. More like a "kill-magnet" for terrorists. Kind of like the bug-zappers people hang outside in the summer. I don't think freedom, respect for human rights, and elections in Iraq is exactly a great recruiting poster for Al Qaeda, either. The only failed state here is the defeatist state of mind you're in.

>>>then a series of sanctions that, though imperfect, effectively contained a dictator and kept WMD out of his hands.
Hello? Have you forgotten the sanctions were ENDING? That no one but the U.S. and Britain supported keeping them? That it took 150,000 troops on Saddam's doorstep to get inspectors back in? That Saddam was shooting at our planes every week?

"We've had this argument before. Remember the Cold War? El Salvador? Nicaragua?"
>>>Yes...I remember the Contras. And the Mujadheen (remember them? Osama sure remembered us...).
So you think because our allies weren't perfect, surrrendering them to the mass-murdering Communists was better? That's the kind of thinking that led to 100 million people being butchered. But at least our hands are squeaky-clean, right?

"SE Asia? Eastern Europe?"
>>>Great arguments for containment. We contain Eastern Europe (rather than, you know, invading) and 45 years later the Warsaw Pact collapses

Gee, and all it cost was 100 million lives and 50 years of brutal oppression for billions of people. Let's hope all our victories work out so well!

>>>>We try and go into Vietnam, we end up with 50,000 dead Americans and look like complete jackasses before the 3rd World.

News flash for you buddy: the part where we looked like jackasses was not when we were fighting. We looked like jackasses when, after winning every battle, we let the Left trick us into thinking Tet was a defeat and the war was "unwinnable," then stabbed our S Viet allies in the back and the Communists take over and slaughter hundreds of thousands when all it would have taken to keep them as free as S Korea still is today was a modest commitment of air support to enforce the Paris Accords.

Just throwing this out there but W said, for no apparent reason in the middle of one of his responses, "let me finish." There has been speculation that he was being fed answers through an earpiece.

"And I just get annoyed with the "anon" posters - it's a common pseudonym and it's indicative of serious aversion to what - an identifying web handle?"

Bill, I think my words are enough. I'm not averse to discussion of any kind. I just don't need to come up with a clever pseudonym. Really, isn't everyone "anonymous" in this forum? I don't see many people posting authentic e-mail addresses. BTW - I do like YOUR commentary, otherwise I wouldn't bother posting to this mostly right forum.

Anonymous,

You stated above:
"For those of you who have never bothered to read his book or senate testimony -- read it. Try to understand his words within the context of the times. He was an activist, and he spoke harsly of the war in Vietnam. However, he had good intent -- he wanted to convince the goverment to end the war."

And then you state you have no idea of what I'm talking about...

yeah... Ok....Sure.....

Like I said, do some research an dthen I'll answer you.

I am not a conspiracy nut - far from it. But I have questions.

1. The angle IS wrong (maybe just a little), and the distance to the podium/mic is off as well unless that shot is REALLY foreshortened.

2. As another poster mentioned earlier, why is Kerry later writing with a WHITE pen?

3. I see no way that the white rectangular object from the rear angle shot is explained away. - and it is NOT a video artifact.

I know everyone wants to bury this, especially the MSM, but I reserve the right to continue to doubts. Something smells here.

Actually Anon,

Many of us do not HIDE in the anonymity of the net.

I look at it as an Integrity Issue.

If one signs in with a bogus address, or goes anonymous, I rarely take them seriously.

It goes to Integrity and if they lie about that, they have likely lied before.

I have my Integrity.

Sonar5,

"Do you get that. They violated the agreement on Clinton's watch, Bush discovered it, the NK's got caught, and then they want to extort things from us for stopping what they said they were not doing...."

Maybe you didn't read the article you posted: The NoKo's violated the agreement between NK and the US on Bush 41's watch, the IAEA discovered it, the NoKo's got caught, Clinton negotiated the Agreed Framework to contain the problem (which didn't start on his watch, but on Bush 41's). In 2000, Clinton and Albright tried to negotiate a deal, but ran out of time, in part due to Clinton concentrating on trying to broker peace in the Middle East. Bush 43 takes over, his administration (Powell and Rice) is briefed. Powell was enthusiastic about the state of diplomacy at this point, but was called back by Bush 43.

And that is where the matter stayed for almost two years, without any progress... and a few steps back.

It's the same as with Bush's counter-terrorism efforts before 9/11. You can think Clinton left everything in a shambles, but still not point to Bush doing anything to improve it until something blew up in his face (9/11, North Korea admitting to uranium enrichment).

"And you think Kerry should not spell out what his policy should be...

Oh, we should just trust him right?"

He has already said what his policy would be - but to go into detail on hypothetical future negotiations would be absurd and unwise.

"The Problem with Kerry is he hides from his record, deflects all criticism and just basically says trust me, I can do better

Substitute 'Bush' for 'Kerry' and it's really not that far off...

moebius:

"No, the "insurgents" (what are their goals, again? To liberate Iraq from democracy?) are not remotely winning. They lose every battle."

>>>>That's funny...American forces never lost a battle in Vietnam, either.

Yeah-- and as I pointed out earlier, we shouldn't have betrayed our allies and given up the country to mass murderes in that conflict either. We gave up because defeatists like yourself convinced people Tet was a defeat and the war was "unwinnable," just like you're now trying to do with Iraq.

"They are allowed to continue existing only because it is not politically expedient for American troops to crush them."

>>>>>Riiiggghhhhttt.....which is why Northeastern Iraq is now a "no-go zone" for US troops.

LMAO A "no-go" zone? More like a "we don't go there because slaughtering the insurgents there upsets everyone" zone. Remember all the bleating over the last Fallujah siege? There is NOWHERE our troops could not absolutely own in a week if they wanted to. We are simply waiting until Iraqi troops are trained for political reasons.

If it helps put this to rest, I will explain one more time when Bush pulls out his pen.

Candidates walk out, shake hands, and circle their lecterns. As Bush comes around the side of his lectern, with his back to the camera, he raises his right hand to his body (not over the rail of the lectern), then lowers it. Hand is briefly visible and appears to be holding something. Camera switch. Bush brings his hands together, separates them, starts writing.

I can't believe a few people are still clinging to the cheat-sheet theory with something as dumb as "He's not CLICKING a pen." Duh.

"Many of us do not HIDE in the anonymity of the net. I look at it as an Integrity Issue. If one signs in with a bogus address, or goes anonymous, I rarely take them seriously. It goes to Integrity and if they lie about that, they have likely lied before. I have my Integrity."

Sonar5 - My e-mail address is valid -- it's just my handle that Bill was complaining about. You know, since you are so open about your life, you should give me your phone number and we'll chat about my integrity.

Also, Capitalizing Words Does Not Make Them More Meaningful It Just Makes Them Harder To Read.

West,

"1. The angle IS wrong (maybe just a little), and the distance to the podium/mic is off as well unless that shot is REALLY foreshortened."

The camera for this angle would, I presume, be in the aisle behind/next to the audience diagonally opposite to Kerry, so actually a considerable distance away, with a telephoto lens, which would lead to hefty foreshortening.

"2. As another poster mentioned earlier, why is Kerry later writing with a WHITE pen?"

If you look at the picture here - http://americablog.blogspot.com/archives/2004_10_03_americablog_archive.html#109690608330802330 - it looks like Bush has a pad on his lectern with what looks like a white or silver metallic pen. Assuming that Bush didn't also smuggle a nefarious pen to the proceedings, it seems logical that these were the pens left out for the candidates to use.

My theory goes as follows: Kerry also had one of these (white/silvery) pens on his lectern, and he had his own (black) pen in his jacket pocket. Having a million other things on his mind than worrying that his own pen would be a problem for anyone (and I hardly think that that is what the campaigns had in mind when they negotiated the agreement), Kerry walks up to the lectern, takes out his own pen out of habit (and perhaps a touch of nervousness) and fiddles with it. Maybe he likes fiddling with this pen. And then he sees that there's another pen already on the lectern, waiting for him.

So during the debate, he takes notes with this white/silvery pen, either instead of or in addition to his black pen.

3. I see no way that the white rectangular object from the rear angle shot is explained away. - and it is NOT a video artifact.

A couple of options:

a.) It is a video artifact, along with a combination of the position of his hands and the poor image quality caused by high video compression.

b.) The still that Fox News showed was from a completely different part of the debate, which would mean that Kerry did bring in a nefarious artifact (index cards/notepad) as well as a black pen, which he pulled out of his pocket at some completely different time during the debate, and the NYPost reporter reviewing the tape and the Brit Hume producers both independently and accidentally skipped to this other part of the debate.

c.) Kerry did cheat, and Fox News is involved in an elaborate cover up to make sure this doesn't get found out.

"Like I said, do some research an [sic] dthen I'll answer you."

Sonar5, actually I was curious about your sources. You speak of events like you are referring to a fact sheet. I just want to see your fact sheet, that's all. I'm a scientist Sonar5, what can I say?

I use capitals for emphasis, and I don't talk about your spelling or anyone elses, so you really should look inward before being critical of my use of Grammar.

You know, the whole do as I say, not as I do thing and all.

How is that Google Search going since you know so much about Kerry's statements at that time as alluded to in your prior posts?

Anon...

oooh, a scientist, should I be impressed.... Because I'm not....

Sources, hmmm...

Start Here.

THE INTERNET. Did you know Al Gore invented it.

Then Google all those terms, and you will have your answers.

Fact: Kerry admitted meeting with the North Vietnames Twice.

Fact: Kerry testified before congress, and let's just say he embellished just a bit, which he has yet to apologize for.

Fact: POW's have stated for the record that Kerry's statements were played back to them while they were POW's.

Fact: I never said Kerry sided with Vietnam, Those were your words, not mine.

I said he spoke with the enemy which he has freely admitted to doing.

C'mon guys, both of you, don't let an otherwise decent argument devolve into personal attacks on grammar, ad hominems, etc.

I apologize for participating in a deflection technique purportrated on me, and responding in kind.

I should have known better.

Regards,
Joe

Clancy - nicely refuted, but I still can question.

1. If I whipped out my nice Mont Blanc (or any other pen nice enough to have a cap that has to be taken off & reversed), I would use it - it really does write a LOT nicer than a crappy Bic.

2. I am right handed & I keep my Mont Blanc in my LEFT jacket pocket - but I will allow for personal variation.

3. Will somebody show me the video sequence where he puts the pen BACK into his right jacket pocket? Then I will be happy to shut up. I scanned my capture of the event - I do not see it.

FOX had the video, I don't think the POST guy could have done anything but report what FOX supplied.

I don't trust FOX any more than I trust CBS, they are just another source, whose evidence shall be weighed in my own court of prudent skepticism.

I'd say that all odds point to it having been a pen - but one still shot does not clear everything up 100%.

Hey, even if Kerry did do better than he might have unassisted, that does not explain Bush's weak presentation - but I like to have all the facts, that's all.

West, I am left handed, and I keep my pens in my left pocket.

Here is a logical reason why.

Most men's shirts have a breast pocket on the left side. It's habit to put a Pen in that pocket when not wearing a suit.

Which does seem odd to me, that Kerry would use his left hand, but hey being a Senator who refuses to talk about his record... But I digress...

Anyway, A senator wears a suit quite a bit more I think, so maybe that is why he used his left hand. Who Knows. I am not convinced yet either, but I am willing to discuss other issues instead of this one.

Regards,
Sonar5

Sonar5, like I said, I am willing to ascribe placement of the pen on the right to personal variation.

But now I have something else that looks REALLY fishy.

I just folowed your link & saw the full FOX shot on your site - Can anyone explain to me the 6:32 ET timestamp? This all happened at about 8:00 EST plus 2 or 3 minutes - and I live in the east. So what's with the timestamp?

Even if it were an hour off, that does not explain the 32 minute part?

Hmmmm???

Sonar5: I just wanted to know if you were talking about the quotes from Cordier and Galanti regarding Kerry's testimony and torture? I'm sure you know this, but Cordier was an unpaid adviser to the campaign on veterans' issues for Bush. He resigned in August because of his involvement with the Swift Boat group. Galanti and Cordier are lifelong friends and former Vietnam POWs with Republican ties. The credibility of both of these men has been brought into question, along with the whole Swift Boat group. I cannot take the words of these men as fact -- they seem like partisan hacks.

"don't let an otherwise decent argument devolve into personal attacks on grammar"

Bill, point taken. I do apologize.

I see that the timestamp is explained by this being a snapshot from a rebroadcast of the sequence from another night.

In theory.

Enough on this though, even if JFK had really pulled out an aircraft carrier, no one is wiling to carry this forward, the conservatives are too proud to risk being called whiners, and liberals would just say "It was just a [i]little[/i] aircraft carrier, and was not really against the rules".

There are enough other fully substantiated items to snag Mr "Do you know who I am?" John F-in Kerry on.

West,

The timestamp is today's timestamp from the program, not from the debate.

That pic was from Brit Humes Special report program, and they only showed this pic, and no video.

They first showed the pic without the highlight and then with the highlight.

*********

And Anonymous,

Based upon your first post to me above where you claimed I needed to elaborate, and then you seem to know an aweful lot about a subject all of a sudden.

Maybe if you were honest with me from the start, instead of what you first had written, I might play along, but you chose the path.

And I'll take the words of 250+ Veterans who did serve with Kerry, over kerry's lies any day of the week.

Stating they did not serve with Kerry, is like stating those who crossed the delaware with General Washington didn't serve with him either.

Kerry fled downstream, and dumped Rasmussen into the river, while th eother boats stayed behind. Tell Kerry to sign his Form 180, and maybe I'll believe him.

Until then, he is a liar, who Ran from Vietnam, being the ONLY Swift vet Sailor to leave vietnam early who was not seriously injured or killed.

You want to talk about Vietnam, let's do it, shall we? Bring It On!

Cambodia, Christmas 1968. Kerry Lied. Refute it.

Regards,
Sonar5

It just does not pass the smell test. Smells like 3 day old fish on a humid and sunny day. All I still want is the original video, but in raw form. Of course I trust Fox, just like I trust CBS.

RAW VIDEO RAW VIDEO RAW VIDEO RAW VIDEO RAW VIDEO RAW VIDEO RAW VIDEO RAW VIDEO RAW VIDEO RAW VIDEO RAW VIDEO RAW VIDEO RAW VIDEO RAW VIDEO RAW VIDEO RAW VIDEO RAW VIDEO RAW VIDEO RAW VIDEO RAW VIDEO RAW VIDEO RAW VIDEO RAW VIDEO RAW VIDEO

NOT A STILL SHOT WITH NO FRAME OF REFERENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And Anonymous,

Funny how you call Kenneth W. Cordier, a real hero and Former Vietnam POW a Partisan Hack.

What does that Make Kerry who Never served in a POW Capacity?

You have seriously affected any debate tactic you have attempted here, and your attacks on a real hero, vs. Kerry who Lied about Vietnam, and never was a POW, is Just simply sad.

You can be Political all you want, but if you think Kerry is a hero for what he did, or if you think a POW is not is very sad indeed.

I'm dissapointed you took that tact in this debate, and sank to that type of level.

Sonar5

Oh, and why believe Hundreds when you only have to believe 6 or seven, huh?

You want to talk about credibility.

What do these veterans, POW's, and those that actually served their full tour in Vietnam gain if Kerry Loses. NOTHING...

What do Kerry's group gain if kerry wins? hmmm.... Makes me wonder.

Also, please explain Kerry's DD 214 lists a Silver Star with a combat “V” (for valor). The “V” is never awarded with the Silver Star.

He is the first. Wow, I wonder how that happened, huh?

The Silver Star is for Galantry,(Statutory term) and would not make sense to then award it for valor, which is what the V represents.

Explain how Kerry got that one, since he won't explain it.

Tell Kerry to sign his Form 180.

Regards,
Sonar5

Sonar5,
By your logic wouldn't the entire Republican party's "debate tactic(s)" be "seriously affected" by the deliberate slander of veterans and POWs like Max Cleland and John McCain? Not to mention a new one:
"GOP mailing claims Democratic candidate, an Iraq vet, weakening' terror war"

http://www.dailypress.com/news/local/virginia/dp-va--2nddistrictrace1004oct04,0,556733.story?coll=dp-headlines-virginia

Guess we shouldn't listen to what they have to say anymore, either.

Sonar5,

The original membership list has 238 members. According to Fox (which is always fair and balanced, right?) "Only 101 names on the letter match names of officers or enlisted men on the rolls of Kerry's units in Vietnam when he was there, from November 1968 through March 1969." There seems to be a 110 person discrepancy. Hmmm. Let me continue. Of the 110 men, 30 served a year after Kerry left Vietnam. That means we now have 80 men, right? How could men who never served with Kerry know anything about Kerry? Shelton White was in one of the Swift Boat commercials. He said, "John Kerry betrayed the men and women he served with in Vietnam." But, Mr. White, you were in Vietnam a full year after Kerry. How do you know so much about him? Mr White knows Kerry because he listened to what Cordier and Galanti had to say about Kerry. It's so clear that this group is involved in partisan politics. Suffice to say, there's a serious lack of integrity surrounding this group.

Every person who served in Vietnam should recieve a medal (my opinion), and those who debate the medals of any soldier who was honorably discharged should be looked down upon. The conservatives have shown utter disrespect for the military's system of honoring it's soldiers. It's a shameless partisan attack.

Sorry, I don't want to get into a debate about Vietnam with you. The men that served there deserve to be honored.

ummm....

You think it is the entire Republican Party that did that.

Now that is a Stretch. Perhaps you may want to rephrase that.

And Slander is a Legal term.

Show me the Lawsuit that shows they did that please.

I'll be waiting patiently while listening to the Jeopardy Theme.

**********

As for Ashe. I see no problem with the article as written, as it seems to state truths.

And if ashe said:
"When I was walking around Iraq wearing 25 pounds of body armor, I thought I was pretty good on the war in Iraq," Ashe said."

Didn't Kerry vote against Providing additiomnal Armor to our troops and veterans Like Ashe who Served? Now, How did Ashe get that Armor? Hmmm.... Not by Kerry's actions, In my Opinion.

Great for Ashe for serving, he should be commended, but I agree that a kerry Presidency would weaken our war on terror.

The ad allegedly stated:

From:
http://www.dailypress.com/news/local/virginia/dp-va--2nddistrictrace1004oct04,0,556733.story?coll=dp-headlines-virginia

"weakening the war on terror," the flier says "Democrat David Ashe is working hard to make John Kerry the commander in chief of our armed forces." Then it accuses Kerry of wavering in his positions on Iraq, of opposing money to pay for the war and of opposing better pay for troops."

Kerry has wavered.
Kerry has Voted against paying for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan
Kerry did oppose better pay for troops.

Sorry, but I don;t see the problem. If this Veteran attaches himself to Kerry's views as he allegedly did in this article, he is Fair Game.

Maybe you can get me a Full copy of the ad, you know for Fair and balanced and all that. Good Luck with that.

Regards,
Sonar5

Anonymous -

Bill, point taken. I do apologize.

It's cool. I actually like the contrary views that aren't kooky (as many commenters have been lately), which is why I want it civil, so y'all will learn to argue comfortably and stick around.

Come on Anonymous Scientist,

You like Clancy don't want to debate a serious issue once your deflections are mitigated.

You brought up the Swift Vets, not me, scroll up and see.

The Swift vets have nothing to do with Kerry's statemnet that He was in cambodia on Christmas eve, 1968.

The Swift vets have nothing to do with Kerry getting an undeserved combat V, which whomever did that was in violation of law.

The Swift vets had nothing to do with Kerry running down river and dumping Rasmussen off his boat while fleeing his fellow boat crews.

These are Kerry's doings, and your inability to debate these just shows what you are really about.

And then you say that you don't want to get into a debate about Vietnam with me, and all those who served should be honored.

Well, I just scrolled up, and I see no honor from you. Let's se what you said about some POW's... Oh yeah...

You Said:
"The credibility of both of these men has been brought into question, along with the whole Swift Boat group. I cannot take the words of these men as fact -- they seem like partisan hacks."

Yeah, that is honoring them.

And how did you react to the Bush national Guard stories and memo's?

Was your position consistent with what you are saying now?

Maybe you can point me to some posts where you Honored that service?

Regards,
Sonar5

I should not have said seen no honor from you. I was thinking ahead one sentence, which is wht that sentence doesn't make sense.

I should have said, I didn't see you honoring those whom you wrote about above by calling them partisan hacks.

"Funny how you call Kenneth W. Cordier, a real hero and Former Vietnam POW a Partisan Hack."

Sonar5: Great attempt at trying to defame me by using errors in logic.

Lesee here...

Appeal to Emotion is trying to elicit an emotional reactions from people and then using that reaction to get them to agree to the conclusion. By your logic: I am a bad person for calling a former POW a partisan hack. I guess former POWs cannot be involved in partisan politics?

Relevance fallacies make use of premises which are logically irrelevant to the final conclusion. By your logic: POWs are more truthful than non-POWs.

Sonar5, you and I both promised to avoid Ad Hominem attacks. By your logic: there is something objectionable about Anonymous. Therefore, Anonymous's claim is false.

Why don't you just call me unpatriotic and get it over with?

Well, my response to most of that would be that the Republicans, who are so proud of their commitment to a unified message, are all using the same playbook, so, no I don't think the entire Republican Party put out those ads but yes, I do think we can categorically disregard their message by your logic of them (as a rule) dishonoring veterans and POWs. As for the slander, I don't know if there have been any legal cases in that area, so I admit I chose the wrong word there (I would replace it with dishonor, which I don't think would change anything). And as for Ashe being attached to Kerry's views, the only person in the article claiming that is his Republican opponent and her GOP flyers, not that it would be strange, considering he's a democrat. But in essence, you're point is, if I understand it correctly, American "heroes" who defend their country in battle are off limits and can not be called things like "partisan hack", unless they are democrats, in which case any amount of lies you want to tell are fine? How is Ashe "weakening" America? By being a democrat? Is this where we are in this country? The Republicans are for safety and security and the Democrats want to disband the armed forces and surrender to the jihad? If this is what passes for reasonable discourse we are in trouble indeed. Back to the original point though, I think a liar is a liar, be he SwiftVet or Presidential candidate, regardless of his/her military service. To declare certain people off limits to scrutiny simply because they wore a uniform 35 years ago is inane.

Your words, not mine.

And I did not attempt to defame you, I'm trying to look for any consistency in your words, and I simply asked for clarifications.

You however, keep trying to deflect the debate into who knows where, instead of concentrating on the statements That Kerry has said or the actions that Kerry has taken, you deflect back to me, instead of my views.

You have refused to debate on Vietnam after being called out about Kerry and his actions, but you have no problem calling POW's Partisan Hacks.

That is inconsistent with your Alleged views of honroing those who served in Vietnam.

Well, I'm off to bed anyway, perhaps you can scroll up, copy and paste all my views on kerry, and show me where they are incorrect or false.

I'll check back in the morning.

Regards,
Sonar5

Mantis,

I saw an Interview with Ashe on a Cable network where he does support Kerry and stated so, and they mentione that he was a Veteran who is opposed to Iraq.

Not sure if a Transcript exists, but one may. I'll look tomorrow if you want me to.

And it was Kerry who brought up all this Vietnam stuff. Kerry had no problem with Clinton's non-service in 1992, and said so.

But now that it Vietnam suits him he trumps it out as fact, and that is what caused all of this. I think he did it to deflect form his Senate record, which he has successfully done, thus far anyway.

Maybe he should have just shut up, which many dems would have been content with, but Kerry brought it out.

I would be content with talking about his Senate record, but Kerry won't fess up to it.

Regards,
Sonar5

Maybe I'm crazy but you can't see what is in his hand (duh!). I'd be interested to see the tape when he appears to be shuffling or unfolding something. I missed the Fox bit on it.

Now, I am not saying he had something else, but that shot doesn't rule it out, does it?

All it establishes is that he had a pen. Now, if I were cheating, bringing in notes, I might bring in something innocuous like a pen as a cover story.

But I didn't see the video Fox show, so maybe it showed more than just that shot. OK, now I expect to be chastised now, but isn't it true, in that shot you can't tell if there is anything in his hand, right?

OK, so the issue now seems to be that Kerry VIOLATED THE RULES (and thus MUST NOT BE ELECTED -- that's the logic I'm seeing in some places)...

but what about President Bush's violation of the rules? Section 9(a)(iii) (concerning "Staging") says:

"For the September 30, October 8, and October 13 debates, the candidates shall enter the stage upon a verbal cue by the moderator after the program goes on the air, proceed to center stage, shake hands, and proceed directly to their positions behind their podiums or their stools in the case of the October 8 debate."

President Bush clearly went well beyond center stage to shake Kerry's hand. It was obviously an attempt to gain dominance in the debate and thus he MUST NOT BE RE-ELECTED. Or something.

I think the penalties offset, and it is now second down.

Sonar5,

"Kerry has Voted against paying for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan"

You are aware that President Bush threatened to veto this $87 billion appropriations bill, right?

By your logic, does that make him unfit to be Commander in Chief, treating our soldiers' funding like that? I'm sure you have a good reason why you don't see it that way, but something tells me you'd make an outraged federal case out of this if it had been a Democratic President doing this.

Sonar5,

"You like Clancy don't want to debate a serious issue once your deflections are mitigated."

That's rich, seeing as, last time I checked, you were the one that walked away from the argument.

I did say upthread that I would not debate you as long as you pretended that someone's views from 34 years ago trumped their views today, regardless of what growth they have gone through in the meantime, and insisting on such a stance would have made it impossible to discuss much of anything with you.

I see by your ongoing contributions that you seem quite obsessed with what Kerry did in Vietnam back in the day. Let me guess, you didn't think it was fair or relevant when the lefties went on and on about Bush's National Guard service, right? Just despicable partisan politics, something like that?

His left hand held a pen, while his right hand held a square white object.
Clearly seen here:

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-10/845968/ferry11.jpg

Ash,

Someone thought that was a pen earlier. It looks like something but Kerry had just used that hand to shake Bush's hand, so when did he grab it between the handshake and the snapshot? Unless he had it up his sleeve. But that seems a bit much. It's just too hard to tell what the hell he was doing without a better quality video. But I am not convinced the black pen is the end of the story. That said, those who pursue this story further should do so responsibly.

To those who think this is a huge deal if he really just had a pen, it's not. It does show he broke the rules, and that he probably has little respect for playing by the rules, but it is possible he did it entirely by accident. I think that is unlikely given the importance of this moment for him, which is why I remain suspicious, but it's still possible. Did Fox show the video or just this still shot of him with the pen? That said, I believe he has surrendered some of the deference that would normally be given to most in such a situation because he broke very clear, very easily understood rules. Why? Was it really just an accident? Maybe, maybe not. While it is clear from the photo he had a black pen, it is not clear (at least to me) that is all he had. Am I wrong?

Palooka, regarding: "It does show he broke the rules, and that he probably has little respect for playing by the rules, but it is possible he did it entirely by accident."

Read the post from Dan Someone:

"OK, so the issue now seems to be that Kerry VIOLATED THE RULES (and thus MUST NOT BE ELECTED -- that's the logic I'm seeing in some places)...

but what about President Bush's violation of the rules? Section 9(a)(iii) (concerning "Staging") says:

"For the September 30, October 8, and October 13 debates, the candidates shall enter the stage upon a verbal cue by the moderator after the program goes on the air, proceed to center stage, shake hands, and proceed directly to their positions behind their podiums or their stools in the case of the October 8 debate."

President Bush clearly went well beyond center stage to shake Kerry's hand. It was obviously an attempt to gain dominance in the debate and thus he MUST NOT BE RE-ELECTED. Or something."

So Palooka, is it a big deal that Bush violated the rules as well?

These "debate" rules were candidate fabricated and imposed. It's not like the rules were handed down from the mountain on stone slabs. And neither candidate committed such egregious violations as to be considered unviable candidates. That's why this argument seems so shallow and whiny. Sure rules matter. But do these particular violations of the rules matter? I say no. There are far more important things to debate about, and I cannot wait for the Veep debate to wash all of this wasted thought down the drain.

PS Sonar5. You were distracting me from the point, and attempting to draw me into a battle of morality and ethics. I'm replete with both of these, and I don't need to prove it to you.

Tall Dave:

"Yeah-- and as I pointed out earlier, we shouldn't have betrayed our allies and given up the country to mass murderes in that conflict either. We gave up because defeatists like yourself convinced people Tet was a defeat and the war was "unwinnable," just like you're now trying to do with Iraq."

The funny thing about Vietnam is, Ho Chih Minh asked US for help in the 50s. But we couldn't turn our backs on our buddies the French, so they went to the Russkies instead.

Funnier still, once China and Cambodia stopped trying to invade Vietnam, they turned into a responsible nation, so responsible that a generation later we're trading with them and pretending the whole thing never happened.

The Vietcong were nationalists...the whole point was they wanted everyone out of their country, in the name of national-self determination. The Vietnamese insurgents were never "mass murderers" (beyond killing collaborators and so forth, which is SoP for insurgents). Let's compare the number of civilians killed by the Vietcong with the number killed by US forces.

We have FUBARed Iraq. It's going to take a generation to sort it out, if not longer.

Do you read the news? Do you read the intelligence estimates coming out of the CIA, the National Intelligence Estimates? Best case-scenario: semi-failed state, a little like what we have in Columbia. Right now, we're a long way off from even that outcome.

Man, what a bunch of progressive "defeatists."

Ash,

"His left hand held a pen, while his right hand held a square white object."

While he walks toward the podium, there are a few frames where it looks like there might be a square, very bright object in his hand, but at this resolution it can also be his hand.

First - this is the hand with which he just now shook Bush's hand. (Did Bush palm him some cash, perhaps to throw the debate? Just kidding.)

Second - if you look at the file JFKCheat.mov - which has been linked to a few times on these threads - it's the one showing Kerry in split-screen, enlarged on the left:

Go to the point at which Kerry is facing the lectern, and his right hand comes up and disappears behind his left. Then go back frame by frame from there - there is nothing in that hand, and his thumb and fingers do not meet.

Third, if you're suggesting that Kerry had some index cards up his sleeve and chose this moment to drop them into his hand... well if Kerry did indeed have index cards up his sleeve, when exactly would be the best time to get them onto his lectern, with minimal chance of being seen? Think about it.

Anonymous Scientist,

First, you need to actually read posts before you respond. I said if it was just a pen, it wasn't a big deal. Though I find it difficult to believe it's an accident, and still question if that is all he had, it is of course possible it was all just a mistake. Intentional or not, if ALL he had was a pen it is not a big deal. Comprehend?

Secondly, I never said somebody should not vote for Kerry because he brought a pen to the podium. Again, read where I said it's not a big deal.

Kerry's mistake was more of a violation because it raises other questions--what else did he bring. The possibility that he didn't just have a pen is why pens and pencils can't be brought in the first place.

Center stage? It doesn't say exactly center stage, does it? And such a violation, if it occurred at all, is more understandable then bringing a pen when NO tangible objects were allowed.

Hey, loving your guys flip flopping on the ICC and the "global test"? We are! Yeah, who won that debate? Time will tell....

"It doesn't say exactly center stage, does it? And such a violation, if it occurred at all, is more understandable then bringing a pen when NO tangible objects were allowed."

Palooka, first, don't try to re-interpret center to mean something other than the 1/2 way point of the stage (it's kinda like debating the meaning of "is"). Second, I can only assume you didn't watch the debate because you said "if it occured at all". What? Finally, I read your post. You insinuated a character flaw on Kerry's part when you said "he probably has little respect for playing by the rules". But, you failed to acknowledge that Bush also broke the "rules", which by your logic means that Bush also "has little respect for playing by the rules."

Palooka:

"Yeah, who won that debate? Time will tell...."

Time already DID tell. I'm pretty sure the basically unanimous polling that showed Kerry won the debate by a two-to-one margin in public opinion.

Now, I won't confuse "debate" with "election." Kerry only bumped his chances of winning from 10% to 20% with that debate.

The real question is why your guy, who's been prosecuting the war for 18 months, doesn't know what the hell he's talking about or what the actual situation is on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan. I guess he's not so hot without one of the neo-cons operating his puppet-hole.

And what part of "center" do you not understand? What part of "do not interrupt?"

Kerry and Bush both violated the rules, but all of those violations were pretty petty. The REAL story was Bush getting his ass handed to him on his home turf.

Palooka, you are trying to revise history.

1. "And such a violation, if it occurred at all" - You are trying to debate with me whether he went to the center of the stage! Huh? He didn't!

2. "Yeah, who won that debate? Time will tell..." Seriously, have you looked at the post-debate polls regarding this issue? There are very few people who believe that Kerry won the debate.

Three strikes, and you lose all respect from me (which I'm sure you care so much about).

"There are very few people who believe that Kerry won the debate."

Correction: There are very few people who believe that Bush won the debate.

Don't bother posting lame comments about my error.

Palooka,

It doesn't really count as a flip-flop if one position belongs to one candidate and the other position is a misrepresentation peddled by the other candidate.

>>>Do you read the news?
Yeah, bad news sells. Good news is ignored. Check out www.iraqthemodel.com.

>>>Do you read the intelligence estimates coming out of the CIA, the National Intelligence Estimates? Best case-scenario: semi-failed state, a little like what we have in Columbia. Right now, we're a long way off from even that outcome.
Maybe when they say it's a "slam-dunk case" and not an "estimate" I'll take them a bit more seriously. What do you suppose their "best-case scenario" was for the Soviet Union in 1985? The "best case" in Iraq is a stable democracy that spreads freedom throughout the entire Mideast.

>>>Man, what a bunch of progressive "defeatists."
Damned straight.

>>>Funnier still, once China and Cambodia stopped trying to invade Vietnam, they turned into a responsible nation
Wow, and all it took was the slaughter of millions and decades of oppression! What a great turnaround! Maybe Stalin had the right idea!

OK, buddy, let's face some facts here re American intervention vs. non-intervention:

China: We let the Commies take over with no resistance from us, because Kai Shek had some shortcomings. Result: 60+ million dead, 1 billion enslaved. Strategic defeat.
Grenada, El Salvador, Nicaragua: Despite the shortcomings of our allies, we supported them. Result: A few thousand killed, but they're now free countries. strategic victory.
Korea: The S Koreans have their peccadillos, but we support them anyway. Result: tens of thousands killed in the war, but S Korea remains free. Millions are slaughtered and starved in the North, but at least the South is spared their fate and we have a base in Asia. Strategic victory.
Vietnam: We support the South for a while, but ultimately we decide a Communist takeover won't be too bad so we withdraw and watch as all the SE Asia dominoes fall. Result: millions slaughtered, tens of millions enslaved. Strategic and moral defeat.
Cuba: Bay of Pigs. Kennedy chickens out and provides no air cover. Result: Revolutionaries are slaughtered by Fidel. Soviets giggle with glee as they use Cuban Missile Crisis to force American concessions, then move missiles there later anyway. Strategic defeat.
Iran: We decide the Shah, a staunch ally for 35 years, is flawed and so we let some religious nuts take over. result: A gov't that brutally represses it's people, and is the foremost sponsor of state terror in the world. Strategic defeat.
Afghanistan: We support the mujahideen. After four years, they battle back from near-extinction to force the Russians out and help end the Cold War. Strategic victory. We turn our backs for 20 years, wackos take over, and 9/11 happens.

I could go on. The point is obvious: intervention works, even when it's to support less-than-perfect regimes.

>>>We have FUBARed Iraq.
No, Saddam FUBARED Iraq. We liberated it. We gave them hope for freedom, democracy, and a better future.

"We liberated it. We gave them hope for freedom, democracy, and a better future."

TallDave: It doesn't really matter that we gave them all of these things. They never asked for it, they don't want it, and they don't understand it. You know the old adage, "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink." We need to face facts, our horse doesn't want to drink.

Besides, when did everybody in this forum become compassionate? Do you really care about giving a bunch of "towel heads" (not my words) freedom from oppression? People here talk about freedom for the oppressed, then talk about lobbing nukes on them in the next sentence. So what is it -- fry them or free them?

If you believe that Bush & Co care about freedom for Iraqis, then you've swallowed the lure little fishy.

Hate to be picky but a better scan would be:

If the object write, you cannot indict!

Perhaps it is a given that the s is silent.

I agree that any petty charges applied to a Dem will only increase their sense of superiority. Double standard types who can laugh off stuffing top secret docs into your pants are not going to get worked up about a pen or even a cheat sheet.

such is life.

Anonynous Scientist:

Your bigoted comment that Iraqis "don't understand" democracy aside, many of them are asking for it (the name Al-Sistani ring a bell?) and pretty much everyone very clearly DOES want it, EVEN IN FALLUJAH!! (see my blog for link to news reports on this).

It's not about compassion, it's about what's right. My belief is that EVERY human being deserves freedom and representative gov't, and I hold this truth to be self-evident.

I could really care less about the lunatic fringe that uses racial slurs and advocates genocide; their ignorance speaks for itself.

I also don't particularly care about Bush, except as a means to an end. I'm probably more libertarian than conservative. I guess I was a neocon before they were called neocons; when I first heard Wolfowitz speak, it was like the answer to a prayer. Finally, something more optimistic and daring would replace the first Bush's shortsighted, Cold-War-relic realpolitik that left Hussein in power after the Gulf War and favored stability over freedom.

>>>The "best case" in Iraq is a stable democracy that spreads freedom throughout the entire Mideast.

Not if you're the CIA, or any analyst except the know-nothing neo-con talking heads. Did you catch Paul Bremer today, telling the Administration to grab their ankles over their crappy post-war planning?

>>>OK, buddy, let's face some facts here re American intervention vs. non-intervention:

Hmm...your history seems to be a bit spotty; must be the ideological blinders.

>>>China:

Yeah, America intervening in a country of 500 million people would have really been successful. Nope, no insurgency there...(/sarcasm)

>>>Grenada, El Salvador, Nicaragua.

Yes, let us not forget that hotbed of Communism and mass murder, Grenada (/sarcasm). And yes, El Salvador and Nicarauga are free countries today, but only AFTER we stopped funding the right-wing death squads responsible for deposing a legally elected government and killing up to 25% of the populations in those countries (yes, those damn insurgent Communist nuns...we killed them all in the name of freedom!).

>>>Vietnam: We support the South for a while, but ultimately we decide a Communist takeover won't be too bad so we withdraw and watch as all the SE Asia dominoes fall.

If by "ultimately decide" you mean "were beaten and retreated," then yes, you're correct. We intervened, made things worse and killed tens (hundreds?) of thousands of Vietnamese civilians, then left. Real good job of intervention.

And the "falling dominoes" had nothing to do with Communism, and everything to do with Khmer and Vietnamese nationalism. Why do you think the Khmer, Chinese, and Vietnamese Communists be at war with one another 5 years later?

And how about intervention to "free" SE Asia, which is now a trading partner with the US. Oh wait...didn't happen. We just waited them out.

>>>Cuba: Bay of Pigs. Kennedy chickens out and provides no air cover.

Cuba's no paradise, but it's hardly been El Salvador. Peaceful regime change in the next twenty years is a certainty. We're just waiting until Castro dies to save face for how stupid he's made us look.

>>>Iran: We decide the Shah, a staunch ally for 35 years, is flawed and so we let some religious nuts take over.

If by "let" religious nuts take over, you mean covertlyed support the corrupt Shah and his Stasi, SAVAK, inflaming the people and throwing them into the arms of the only group who could enact regime change, then you are correct.

>>>Afghanistan: We support the mujahideen. We turn our backs for 20 years, wackos take over, and 9/11 happens.

Yeah, real strategic victory. How many Americans died in the Cold War post-79? How many died on 9/11? In Afghanistan? In Iraq? How many are going to die in Syria? In Iran?

And of course, you've conveniently forgotten other examples of American "intervention" or "non-intervention."

Angola: We fight a proxy war against Cuban forces for nearly 20 years. Countless dead, and the country is still a mess.

Eastern Europe: What are they? 100 million people? 200 million? We sit there for 45 years. Thousands are killed, but only a few hundred Americans die. In 1989, the Iron Curtain collapses, without a single American military intervention (beyond minor CIA nonsense).

And all we had to do was sit there.

>>>>(the name Al-Sistani ring a bell?) and pretty much everyone very clearly DOES want it, EVEN IN FALLUJAH!! (see my blog for link to news reports on this).

Do you even know who Ali Al-Sistani is? Do you know what his agenda is? Basically, the best thing we can hope for in Iraq (and it's not even a realistic scenario, according to our own NIHs) is democracy, Iranian style...

Sure, MANY Iraqis want to be free. 60% want to be free of Saddam (the Shiites), but they also want to be free of the United States, the latest in a long line of colonizers. They'd be perfectly happy with democracy, Iranian-style...which I bet the US won't accept without more CIA bullshit. We want to give other nations the freedom to choose, but only if they choose our boy. "Where there's oil, there's a way..."

Most of the Sunnis don't want a democracy, because that destroys the traditional Iraqi hierarchy (which they would no longer be at the top of).

The Kurds want to be free...of Iraq. They'd like nothing more than their own state.

>>>>No, Saddam FUBARED Iraq. We liberated it. We gave them hope for freedom, democracy, and a better future.

We took a crappy situation where a dicator ruled a nation in fear, and turned it into anarchy; more terrorist attacks, more places for terrorists to hide, a good recruitment tool for Al Qaeda, and a diversion from the real threat (Osama, nuclear proliferation).

Are you safer than you were four years ago?

There's an idea in Economics that you shouldn't do something worse than the status quo (ie you have reached "equilibrium"). Saddam was bad, but if you don't have a better plan for a post-Saddam Iraq, you don't go in. And blindly hoping democracy will emerge in Iraq, contrary to all pre-war evidence, is NOT a better plan.

"Your bigoted comment that Iraqis "don't understand" democracy aside"

TallDave: To clarify. Most of the Iraqis we are fighting don't understand democracy. Really, how could they? They have never had it.

Ooops...sorry for the spamming, but I thought I'd sneak in three more examples of "intervention/non-intervention":

Korea: Hmm...can we classify defending the S. Koreans from N. Korean attack an "intervention?" I don't know. What I DO know is that we added two years and hundreds of thousdands of casualties to the war by crossing the border into China. At the end of our "intervention"...nothing had changed.

Libya: Could be argued that our "intervention" in Afghanistan led them to give up their nuke program. Or they could have just been acknowledging reality. Or the sanctions work. I honestly don't know enough to say.

Russia: Yup, nothing like watching the Big Red One roll through Red Square in Moscow...oh wait, that didn't happen did it? Because we DIDN'T intervene...

Now, I have no problem against intervention in a foreign country...IF it meets the critera for a "Just War":

-You are attacking someone in self-defense (World War II).

-You are coming to the defense of a party who has asked for your aid (Gulf War I, Korea pre-War with China).

-You are able to conclusively prove another party's intent to attack you (this happens infrequently and is the hardest to prove...and its standards were certainly not met in Iraq).

>>>The "best case" in Iraq is a stable democracy that spreads freedom throughout the entire Mideast.
>>>>>>Not if you're the CIA, or any analyst except the know-nothing neo-con talking heads. Did you catch Paul Bremer today, telling the Administration to grab their ankles over their crappy post-war planning?
Yeah, the CIA has *SUCH* a great track record on predicting the future. /sarcasm

>>>OK, buddy, let's face some facts here re American intervention vs. non-intervention:
>>>>>>>Hmm...your history seems to be a bit spotty; must be the ideological blinders.
You seem to find inconvenient facts "a bit spotty." I guess that fits your name: you see only one side.

>>China
>>>Yeah, America intervening in a country of 500 million people would have really been successful. Nope, no insurgency there...(/
You mean, as opposed to letting a country of 500 million be seized by Communists without lifting a finger? Nope, no problem there! Tens of millions dead? No problem!
We didn't have to invade and conquer them, just support the Nationalists against the Communists.

>>>Grenada, El Salvador, Nicaragua.
>>>>>>Yes, let us not forget that hotbed of Communism and mass murder, Grenada (/sarcasm). And yes, El Salvador and Nicarauga are free countries today, but only AFTER we stopped funding the right-wing death squads responsible for deposing a legally elected government and killing up to 25% of the populations in those countries (yes, those damn insurgent Communist nuns...we killed them all in the name of freedom!).
LOL 25%? Your math is a wee bit off. The so-called "death squads" were never even close to as brutal as the Communists. The allies weren't perfect, but it certainly beat the alternative.
We rescued Grenada BEFORE the Communist purges could happen. Gee, what a novel notion!

>>>Vietnam: We support the South for a while, but ultimately we decide a Communist takeover won't be too bad so we withdraw and watch as all the SE Asia dominoes fall.
If by "ultimately decide" you mean "were beaten and retreated," then yes, you're correct. We intervened, made things worse and killed tens (hundreds?) of thousands of Vietnamese civilians, then left. Real good job of intervention.
LMAO We "were beaten?" Name ONE battle we lost, Mr. Defeatist. All we had to do was continue to provide air support, and the Paris Accords would still be in force today, just like the armistice in Korea.

>>>And the "falling dominoes" had nothing to do with Communism, and everything to do with Khmer and Vietnamese nationalism. Why do you think the Khmer, Chinese, and Vietnamese Communists be at war with one another 5 years later?
Yeah, they just happened to be Communists that took over. It had nothing to with Communism. And water has nothing to with being wet.

>>>Cuba: Bay of Pigs. Kennedy chickens out and provides no air cover.
>>>>>>>>>Cuba's no paradise, but it's hardly been El Salvador.
Sure, just don't criticize Castro or he'll have you flayed.

>>Peaceful regime change in the next twenty years is a certainty. We're just waiting until Castro dies to save face for how stupid he's made us look.
LBJ said the same thing. So did Kennedy.

>>>Iran: We decide the Shah, a staunch ally for 35 years, is flawed and so we let some religious nuts take over.
>>>>>>If by "let" religious nuts take over, you mean covertlyed support the corrupt Shah and his Stasi, SAVAK, inflaming the people and throwing them into the arms of the only group who could enact regime change, then you are correct.
The Shah wasn't great, but he was an ally. You can't seriously think the religious nuts are better.

>>>Afghanistan: We support the mujahideen. We turn our backs for 20 years, wackos take over, and 9/11 happens.
>>>>>>>>>>Yeah, real strategic victory. How many Americans died in the Cold War post-79? How many died on 9/11? In Afghanistan? In Iraq? How many are going to die in Syria? In Iran?
So, winning the Cold War wasn't a victory because NOT ENOUGH AMERICANS DIED???? Now you've descended into moonbattery.

>>>Do you even know who Ali Al-Sistani is?
Yeah, he's the guy demanding elections.

>>>Most of the Sunnis don't want a democracy
BZZZZZZZZZZT! WRONG! Even in Fallujah, polls show most people favor elections. Only the few at the top benefit from the kleptocacy. Sorry, try again.

>>>We took a crappy situation where a dicator ruled a nation in fear, and turned it into anarchy
Anarchy? More like democracy. Hundreds of local elections have already been held. National elections WILL be held in January.

>>>>And blindly hoping democracy will emerge in Iraq, contrary to all pre-war evidence, is NOT a better plan
Yes, blindly hoping for democracy would be a bad plan (but it seems to be your plan with "containment"). However, working to create a democracy is an excellent plan.

>>>Korea: Hmm...can we classify defending the S. Koreans from N. Korean attack an "intervention?"
Hmmm, you seem to contradict your earlier point about defending S Vietnam from N Vietnamese attacks.

>>>Now, I have no problem against intervention in a foreign country...IF it meets the critera for a "Just War":
>>>-You are coming to the defense of a party who has asked for your aid (Gulf War I, Korea pre-War with China).
We came to the defense of the Iraqi people, many of whom did ask for our help. Also, Saddam was shooting at our planes and Russia was repeatedly warning us they planned attacks.

>>>TallDave: To clarify. Most of the Iraqis we are fighting don't understand democracy. Really, how could they? They have never had it.

On the contrary, the ones fighting us understand it only too well, and they know what a democratic Iraq would mean for their movement.

Re Iran:

Carter abandoned ths Shah, citing the same reasons you just did, then said of Khomeini "In 20 years, I think he'll be remembered as a saint."

So, do you think Khomeini was a saint?

Hey TallDave...still not dealing with Eastern Europe, I see...

>>>>Yeah, the CIA has *SUCH* a great track record on predicting the future.

Especially when you have the neo-cons pressuring them to give the answers they want. Still lookin' for those WMD, TallDave...

>>>>We didn't have to invade and conquer them, just support the Nationalists against the Communists.

What do you call our unilateral support of Taiwan, when virtually no one else in the world would recognize them as the Chinese government? The Nationalists were going to lose one way or another, because their regime was far less legitimate than anything the Communists were proposing.

We'll never know how many millions of dead a Nationalist regime would have ended in, but we sure know they would have given it the old college try, considering the 40 years of Fascist rule they set up on Taiwan (Fascist in the Italian sense...ask any American Political Scientist who has studied the area, and this is how they will categorize Taiwan until the late 80s).

I thought you were a lover of Democracy, TallDave, but it turns out you'll just support anyone who's not the Red Menace.

>>>>LMAO We "were beaten?" Name ONE battle we lost, Mr. Defeatist. All we had to do was continue to provide air support, and the Paris Accords would still be in force today, just like the armistice in Korea.

Not to be Ad Hominem...but have you been in a cave for forty years? In a coma, perhaps? Or are you just HIGH? We WON in Vietnam, but got tired of the conflict so we went home, "letting" the Communists win?

I doubt you'll find supporters even on THIS board for the truly bizzare argument that we won Vietnam. And no, S. Vietnam and S. Korea were not the same thing. S. Korea was an internationally agreed to regime set up after 1945, that at least nominally had the independent support of its citizens. S. Vietnam was a puppet regime with zero legitimacy, kept in power through Western aid.

>>>Yeah, they just happened to be Communists that took over. It had nothing to with Communism. And water has nothing to with being wet.

Have you ever heard of Nasserism? Have you every studied Africa, or any country in the Third World? Communism, like "Americanism," were convenient shells nationalist leaders assumed during the Cold War to play the big boys off one another. Whether their ideological convictions were pure or not is case by case...it just means the Soviets or Chinese or Cubans gave them a better offer. Ho Chi Minh and the Vietcong weren't that enamored with Communism...until the US refused to aid them in the 50s.

>>>>Latin America: LOL 25%? Your math is a wee bit off. The so-called "death squads" were never even close to as brutal as the Communists. The allies weren't perfect, but it certainly beat the alternative.