Join 3,512 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


John Kerry's Official Naval Records
August 5, 2004 8:20 AM   Subscribe

John Kerry's Official Naval Records Time to put to rest the nonsense coming out of the hate groups. And when you hear about the Swift Boat group who have put out an ad and now a book denouncing Kerry, then turn to this URL to find out about that group of patriots http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Swift_Boat_Veterans_for_Truth
posted by Postroad (103 comments total)

 
Not only is the new ad hateful, its a lie. None of those guys in the smear ads actually served with Kerry on his boat.

How much lower will Bush stoop to try and scare people into voting for him?

And its funny but all of these ads attacking Kerry are lies about Kerry but are the truth about Bush. Funny in a pathetic and soul sucking way.

My response to the new ads? Run some ads with vets talking about their service and then mention Bush with the tag line, "He didn't go." Over and over and over again.
posted by fenriq at 8:23 AM on August 5, 2004


Great link. If I were looking for totally objective and reliable information about John Kerry, including the good and the bad, then JohnKerry.com is the one place I'd certainly trust.
posted by wackybrit at 8:28 AM on August 5, 2004


Story A meet Story B.

As a son/brotherX2 of a veteran(s), I give verterans no more ethical leeway than any other group.

Both sides in this debate are pathetic. America deserves them both.
posted by Dagobert at 8:29 AM on August 5, 2004


BTW, I propose a new term, "proll" for a political troll.
posted by Dagobert at 8:29 AM on August 5, 2004


Run some ads with vets talking...

You've made a core mistake -- these people don't actually care about military service, they care about political affiliation. The fact that GWB skipped out on duty is irrelevant, while the fact that Kerry did not skip out on duty is ALSO irrelevant.

The only thing that matters is that GWB is Republican, and Kerry is Democrat. The rest is merely ammunition, or irrelevant.

This is, coincidentally, why the US is doomed.
posted by aramaic at 8:30 AM on August 5, 2004


Wackybrit, are you suggesting that these records are suspect because Kerry is releasing them himself?

Talk about having an axe to grind.
posted by Epenthesis at 8:31 AM on August 5, 2004


here's the actual ad, and CNN just announced as i was googling for it that McCain has condemned it and called on Bush to have the group pull it. Since CNN itself just ran it, and i'm sure other networks will too, the point is moot. If Bush had actually served even one day in Vietnam, he'd have a point but this just looks to me like they're afraid, because Kerry actually went to Vietnam, and that scores points with voters, especially now that we're in an endless "war"-- one that's not succeeding.
posted by amberglow at 8:36 AM on August 5, 2004


No, I'm just saying that JohnKerry.com is a great source of information about the man. GeorgeWBush.com is also a great source of information about the President.
posted by wackybrit at 8:43 AM on August 5, 2004


aramalc, hate to break the news to you but we're all doomed. Not a one of us is getting out of this life alive.

And people wouldn't care about the military service issue if Bush would let it drop. But he won't or can't and the merry-go-round keeps spinning.
posted by fenriq at 8:47 AM on August 5, 2004


Kerry actually went to Vietnam, and that scores points with voters, especially now that we're in an endless "war"-- one that's not succeeding.

Why should Kerry's enthusiasm to fight in an even more useless war score points with voters? The current 'war' is irrelevant in this argument anyway, since Kerry voted for Bush's Iraq resolution in the first place.

At the end of the day it doesn't matter which of these clowns wins, they're puppets controlled from the back rooms of Washington. Just vote for whichever one you think has the nicest voice or smile. (Or vote for someone who'll actually make a change like Badnarik, Brown, or Nader.)
posted by wackybrit at 8:49 AM on August 5, 2004


McCain condemns anti-Kerry ad
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 8:52 AM on August 5, 2004


"Jim Rassmann, an Army veteran who was saved by Kerry, said there were only six crewmates who served with Kerry on his boat. Five support his candidacy and one is deceased."
posted by xammerboy at 8:57 AM on August 5, 2004


No, I'm just saying that JohnKerry.com is a great source of information about the man. GeorgeWBush.com is also a great source of information about the President.

That's funny, wackybrit, I couldn't find George Bush's service records on his website. Do you have them?

(Actually, GeorgeWBush.com is also a great source of information about John Kerry, what with it mentioning him more often than Bush)
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 9:00 AM on August 5, 2004


I still can't believe chimpy McAwol has the balls to bring up Kerry's service record. Well, what I can't believe is that that the patriots who supported the war in Vietnam let him get away with it. Fucking hypocritcal scumbags all.
posted by 2sheets at 9:01 AM on August 5, 2004


At the end of the day it doesn't matter which of these clowns wins, they're puppets controlled from the back rooms of Washington.

Different rooms. It does matter.
posted by petebest at 9:09 AM on August 5, 2004


Why should Kerry's enthusiasm to fight in an even more useless war score points with voters?

Well I'd say it's debatable which "war" (Iraq II vs. Viet Nam) was more "useless." But you have to realise Kerry was a 22 year old kid, the son of a vet, and wanted to serve. He wasn't a politician making policy decisions. I'm not saying the end analysis showed Viet Nam was any less of a waste - but the information the public had at the time was as full of lies as the info we get about Iraq. Plus, Kerry returned after 4 1/2 months and became a leader of the Anti-War movement. And he did so with first-hand knowledge.

This was the attitude of a lot of people back in 2000 towards Bush and Gore. I don't know too many people today who would say "there's no difference." Of course you are right - there will not be sweeping changes with a Dem
The current 'war' is irrelevant in this argument anyway, since Kerry voted for Bush's Iraq resolution in the first place
.
Well, wackybrit, he voted to authorize force against Saddam Hussein- which was to wipe out Saddam's alleged WMD capacity. It was presented as a specific threat and not originally part of the endless "war" on terrorism to which amberglow refers. Of course they tried to say later it was "kinda sorta" part of the war on terrorism, since there were no WMDs - but that was not what the Senate originally voted on.
At the end of the day it doesn't matter which of these clowns wins, they're puppets controlled from the back rooms of Washington. Just vote for whichever one you think has the nicest voice or smile. (Or vote for someone who'll actually make a change like Badnarik, Brown, or Nader.)
Well, that was the attitude of a lot of people back in 2000 with Bush vs. Gore. I don't know too many people today who say "there is no difference." Of course you have a valid point - having a Dem President won't mean we'll see sweeping changes. But hoping for a Badnarik, Brown, or Nader is really just a pipe dream. If you really believe it doesn't matter if Bush gets a second term, I'd encourage you to take a second look at the situation. Consider four more years of Ashcroft. Consider four more years of current environmental policies. Consider the chances at least one Supreme Court Justice will retire soon.
posted by sixdifferentways at 9:15 AM on August 5, 2004


McCain condemns anti-Kerry ads, calls on White House to follow suit
posted by psmealey at 9:21 AM on August 5, 2004


Hipsters
Circle I Limbo

Creationists
Circle II Whirling in a Dark & Stormy Wind

General asshats
Circle III Mud, Rain, Cold, Hail & Snow

Republicans
Circle IV Rolling Weights

George Bush
Circle V Stuck in Mud, Mangled

River Styx

Objectivists
Circle VI Buried for Eternity

River Phlegyas

Scientologists
Circle VII Burning Sands

Uday Hussein
Circle IIX Immersed in Excrement

Qusay Hussein, Osama bin Laden
Circle IX Frozen in Ice

Design your own hell


posted by Slagman at 9:23 AM on August 5, 2004


At the end of the day it doesn't matter which of these clowns wins, they're puppets controlled from the back rooms of Washington.

.... which is, of course, a neat and tidy way to absolve yourself of any sense of responsibility in the matter of what happens in the coming 4 years.

But then, since you're probably not a citizen, what do you care anyway? We don't have that luxury.

Slagman: Cool, but where's Uday's and Qusay's "Big Daddy"?
posted by lodurr at 9:49 AM on August 5, 2004


In one of Satan's three mouths, presumably.
posted by nicwolff at 10:06 AM on August 5, 2004


Hate groups? Really? Oh the hyperbole!
posted by loquax at 10:09 AM on August 5, 2004


Jeeze, I'll take ice over excrement.

lodurr -- Big Daddy got acquitted on a technicality.
posted by Krrrlson at 10:18 AM on August 5, 2004


Five support his candidacy and one is deceased


Umm, xammerboy I don't know where you go that info, but not all of the people who served on Kerry's boat and are still breathing support him.

From the July 12th issue of National Review:
Journalists at the Boston Globe landed the first serious blows. Brinkley claimed to have interviewed "every single one" of Kerry's swift-boat crewmates. It turns out he missed a guy named Steven Gardner, who happens to be the one fellow who is less than worshipful of his former commander. "I would have talked to Gardner, but I couldn't find him," Brinkley explained. When others did reach Gardner this spring, Brinkley scrambled to catch up. Instead of interviewing him, however, Brinkley warned Gardner against criticizing Kerry in public. Then, in an article posted on Time magazine's website, he accused Gardner of inventing stories and playing "politics."
From the March 11th edition of The Boston Globe:
Steven Michael Gardner served side by side with John Forbes Kerry in Vietnam, was wounded under Kerry's command, and was manning twin .50-caliber machine guns on a night that has forever haunted Kerry -- the night his crew killed a young boy in a sampan.

But unlike many of Kerry's crewmates, Gardner has not appeared at Kerry's side at campaign rallies, and his view of Kerry at war is far different from the heroic view presented by others. "He absolutely did not want to engage the enemy when I was with him," Gardner said in a recent interview. "He wouldn't go in there and search. That is why I have a negative viewpoint of John Kerry."


Gardner's view is dramatically at odds with that of many other crewmates whom the Globe interviewed, who praise Kerry's leadership and say he was one of the most aggressive skippers in the Navy at the time. Gardner, who said he intends to support President Bush for reelection, clashed with Kerry on one of the most memorable and haunting nights that the two sailors spent together in Vietnam

...

On Saturday, a Kerry campaign official told the Globe he had learned that the newspaper had spoken to Gardner for a forthcoming biography of Kerry.

Later, Gardner said, a campaign official working with Kerry's crewmates contacted him to sound him out on his views about Kerry. Then historian Douglas Brinkley, who did not interview Gardner for his recent book about Kerry's Vietnam service, "Tour of Duty," called Gardner over the weekend. Brinkley told him there would be a firestorm if he went public, and the two discussed Gardner's views on Kerry's Vietnam service, Gardner said.

Brinkley then wrote an article, published on the website of Time magazine Tuesday night, in which he said Gardner's criticism was politically motivated. "After interviewing Gardner for over an hour, it essentially boils down to one word: politics," Brinkley wrote. "Gardner is sickened by the idea of Kerry as president."

The story quoted Gardner as saying Kerry is another "Slick Willy," a reference to former President Clinton.

Kerry, who has declined numerous interview requests this year to talk about his Vietnam experiences, was quoted in Brinkley's article as saying Gardner's stories "are made up. It's sad, but that's the way it goes in war, and especially in politics."

Gardner, in his interviews with the Globe, said he was upset with Brinkley's portrayal of him and said his memory of Kerry in Vietnam has nothing to do with his political views. "Absolutely not. I never made the first call to anyone," Gardner said. "Until somebody called me, I kept it to myself." With Gardner's name and viewpoint made public in the Time story, the Globe decided to publish this article, which is based on material in a forthcoming book, "John F. Kerry: The Complete Biography." The book is written by three Globe staff members and based on a seven-part series that ran last June.

Gardner said yesterday that he wonders whether speaking critically about Kerry led to his losing his job as a home inspection field manager. The Brinkley story said Gardner "claims he works at Millennium Services." Within hours of the publication of the article on Time's website, Gardner said, he was fired from his job as a home inspection field manager.

I still can't believe chimpy McAwol has the balls to bring up Kerry's service record.

"McAwol" has as much control over "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" as Kerry does over MoveOn.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 10:22 AM on August 5, 2004


Oh, and if Kerry doesn't want to "get in to this" I would suggest that he stop bringing it up.


posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 10:24 AM on August 5, 2004


Bush won't talk about one year of his life and your argument is that Kerry has nothing to show for himself over thirty?

And how many bills did Congressman Cheney pass, again?
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 10:35 AM on August 5, 2004


Steve (crossfire yesterday): "Dick Cheney was in the house for over a decade. How many bills did he pass?"

The Republican Strategist paused, looked physically ill, then tried to change the subject by saying "Well, he was aknowledged as a leader."

There was laughter in the crowd.

But Brazille didn't let him go. She leaned forward  and very calmly told the truth.

"2 bills".

2 bills for Cheney. 57 for Kerry.
-- transcript here

Try again.
posted by amberglow at 10:35 AM on August 5, 2004


'Okay. Now, about this preiod between 1970 and 2003.'

1985-86: Exposed Iran-Contra scandal
posted by homunculus at 10:38 AM on August 5, 2004


"He absolutely did not want to engage the enemy when I was with him," Gardner said in a recent interview. "He wouldn't go in there and search. That is why I have a negative viewpoint of John Kerry."

I'm not sure but I don't recall commanding officers being part of search and destroy missions. They usually have to stay behind and command, ya know?

From the Boston Globe:
Republican Sen. John McCain, a former prisoner of war in Vietnam, called an ad criticizing John Kerry's military service ''dishonest and dishonorable'' and urged the White House on Thursday to condemn it as well.

The White House declined.
posted by fenriq at 10:43 AM on August 5, 2004


and try Iran-Contra for starters Diaries, e-mail, and memos of Iran-contra figure Oliver North, posted today on the Web by the National Security Archive, directly contradict his criticisms yesterday of Sen. John Kerry's 1988 Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee report on the ways that covert support for the Nicaraguan contras in the 1980s undermined the U.S. war on drugs.

on preview, what homunculus said.
posted by amberglow at 10:43 AM on August 5, 2004


"He absolutely did not want to engage the enemy when I was with him," Gardner said ''

Of course, that time period was very short. Gardner served on Kerry's boat *after* Kerry was transferred away. At best, they knew each other for days.

Gardner never, ever, *ever* served on a combat mission with Kerry, and his claim that he can judge Kerry's abilities in combat is plainly fraudulent. He did not serve with him, nor was he in command with him. Indeed, they may have never met.

Personally, I'll take Kerry's CO's evaluations, as well as his decorations, as evidence of Kerry's abilities to lead.

I'm not sure but I don't recall commanding officers being part of search and destroy missions.

In the Navy, the CO goes where the boat goes. In Vietnam, the small riverboat that Kerry commanded was very much in the thick of the action. For these sailors and officers, Vietnam was unlike any other war the Navy had ever fought -- indeed, they acted more like "infantry on water" rather than sailors.

I find it very typical that Kerry is accused of not doing much in his many years in Congress and the Senate, while Shrub's resume was one term as Texas' governor -- one of the weakest gubernatorial officers out there. And that Kerry's honorable military service is called into question, when we can't even prove that Shrub was honorably discharged. (No DD-214, no proof.)
posted by eriko at 10:54 AM on August 5, 2004


I don't recall commanding officers being part of search and destroy missions.

Your lack of understanding of the Military is showing. Kerry was a Lieutenant, or the "Skipper" of his boat. Generals and Admirals "stay behind and command," Lieutenants do not. Lieutenant are in the thick of it with their men in the field. A Lieutenant is the lowest ranking officer, with enlisted men directly below them on a platoon size level.

It was Kerry duty and mission as a Lieutenant to "go in there and search."

2 bills for Cheney. 57 for Kerry.

Hey, lets here Kerry start to talk about those 57 bills! Like the ones where he attempted to cut the military budget, and cut weapons systems like the Apache Helicopter program, and the bills where he attempted to cut Intelligence spending. Let's hear it Kerry!
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 11:01 AM on August 5, 2004


57 Bills and Resolutions John Kerry Sponsored

Let's see the whole 2 that Cheney sponsored in his decade in service, shall we?

And let's examine Bush's record during those 30 years, shall we? This is a losing game, Steve, and you should know it. You guys made a big mistake in trying to bring up the past to discredit Kerry.
posted by amberglow at 11:10 AM on August 5, 2004


Jocks
Circle I Limbo

PETA Members
Circle II Whirling in a Dark & Stormy Wind

The Pope
Circle III Mud, Rain, Cold, Hail & Snow

McDonald's
Circle IV Rolling Weights

Creationists
Circle V Stuck in Mud, Mangled

River Styx

Republicans
Circle VI Buried for Eternity

River Phlegyas

Rednecks
Circle VII Burning Sands

Banks
Circle IIX Immersed in Excrement

George Bush
Circle IX Frozen in Ice

Design your own hell


posted by Grod at 11:12 AM on August 5, 2004


Which is it Steve, do you want Democrats to put a control on spending or let it go unchecked?
posted by jonah at 11:12 AM on August 5, 2004


At the end of the day it doesn't matter which of these clowns wins, they're puppets controlled from the back rooms of Washington.

Different rooms. It does matter.


Washington? You mean New Haven, CT, right?
posted by loquax at 11:13 AM on August 5, 2004


Correcting myself. Gardner does claim to have served under Kerry. A quick search show no proof or disproof, so I can't state that he did not serve with Kerry.
posted by eriko at 11:13 AM on August 5, 2004


Oh, and if Kerry doesn't want to "get in to this" I would suggest that he stop bringing it up

what a perfect, perfect definition of mafia tactics. you learn fast.
also, why did McCain talked about Vietnam so much in 2000? better smear him quick with the mental illness rumors, the black-kid out of wedlock revolting lie, the "fag army" leaflets.
you guys just look so ugly when your makeup begins to melt away. one can see all the rottenness underneath.

at this point you only have lies and false accusations to try to cover your guy's (criminal) record. lying about the other guy is a desperate man's weapon.
unfortunately, one has to bear the weight of one's sins, finally.

no matter how much you guys spend smearing Kerry, you can't change the fact that your *snicker* "War President" stayed home. didn't go to Vietnam. he. just. didn't. go.
his rich daddy bailed him out, you know.

squeal all you want, you can't change the fact that Kerry on the other hand did go. unlike War Vice President Cheney, too.

ah, the delicious irony of 1992-1996 Rethuglicans whimpering about Clinton dodging the draft. but since 2000 dodging the draft became a very honorable thing, apparently -- at least if you're a Republican. a leader's choice.

Let's hear it Kerry!

you lost 57-2, Stevie. give it up.
Cheney will be remembered as the fake-wmd-evidence, Saddam-did-911, Abu Ghraib draft-dodger Halliburton guy.
try to live with that fact. I know that any topic is better than Iraq, any topic. but Iraq is there, it's the bloody tortured elephant corpse in the room. nobody will ignore it, neither now nor in November. no matter how loud you scream against Kerry.
posted by matteo at 11:14 AM on August 5, 2004


Why should Kerry's enthusiasm to fight in an even more useless war score points with voters?

"I will bring back this nation's time-honored tradition: The United States of America never goes to war because we want to; we only go to war because we have to. That is the standard of our nation."
posted by thomcatspike at 11:16 AM on August 5, 2004


What other tags are open?
posted by thomcatspike at 11:17 AM on August 5, 2004


Hey, lets here Kerry start to talk about those 57 bills! Like the ones where he attempted to cut the military budget, and cut weapons systems like the Apache Helicopter program, and the bills where he attempted to cut Intelligence spending. Let's hear it Kerry!

Hey, let's hear about Cheney voting to slash Head Start! And his opposition to intelligence reform!

This is FUN, Steve!
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 11:18 AM on August 5, 2004


Hmm, my fix - the thread being wacked did not work.
posted by thomcatspike at 11:19 AM on August 5, 2004


(closing small tags are good)
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 11:19 AM on August 5, 2004


A Lieutenant is the lowest ranking officer, with enlisted men directly below them on a platoon size level.


No it isn't. That would be Ensign. A Naval Lieutenant j.g. is equivalent of an Army First Lieutenant, both are O2.
posted by Snyder at 11:19 AM on August 5, 2004


S@L, did Kerry author the Apache Helicopter program bill or just vote against it? Not unlike Dick Cheney voted against it as well?

Try to stay on those bills that Kerry actually authored rather than voted on.

And it looks like eriko above you talks about Gardner's "insight" into John Kerry's ability to lead. Yes, my knowledge of the military is, thankfully, lacking.

Of course, the Bush camp wouldn't publicize that Kerry outed them on Iran Contra.
posted by fenriq at 11:24 AM on August 5, 2004


But then, since you're probably not a citizen, what do you care anyway? We don't have that luxury.

You know, I'd agree with this if it weren't for the international media ramming this stupid election down all our throats too. It seems that the government of the United States encourages more feeling, more movement, and more opinion outside of its borders than within. I guess, as someone outside of the US.. I'd rather have a President with a little charisma on the news all the time rather than someone with a monotonous voice and no new ideas. Oh well :-) At least Bush can be fun to watch.

On the Republican vs Democrat issue, attacks on Iraq didn't magically stop when Clinton came into office. In fact, Clinton (and I must say I really liked the man) ordered attacks on Serbia, a country which, like Iraq, was being run by a brutal dictator who was murdering his own citizens. Bush (who I like less than Clinton, but still find charismatic) did pretty much the same with Iraq, but with one minor difference.. the WMD intelligence. Does this make Bush in Iraq much more of an issue than Clinton in Serbia? I would say not.
posted by wackybrit at 11:25 AM on August 5, 2004


That would be Ensign
Second Lieutenant?
posted by thomcatspike at 11:28 AM on August 5, 2004


'Okay. Now, about this period between 1970 and 2003.'

Yeah, let's hear about how he got elected to the Senate, then re-elected three more times. Clearly, he was doing a shitty job there, getting absolutely nothing done, and the voters called him on it.

Bush, on the other hand, did manage to get re-elected as Governor of Texas, but couldn't even be bothered to finish his second term before going for the White House. Yes, clearly a man who values his constituents.
posted by mkultra at 11:39 AM on August 5, 2004



On the Republican vs Democrat issue, attacks on Iraq didn't magically stop when Clinton came into office. In fact, Clinton (and I must say I really liked the man) ordered attacks on Serbia, a country which, like Iraq, was being run by a brutal dictator who was murdering his own citizens. Bush (who I like less than Clinton, but still find charismatic) did pretty much the same with Iraq, but with one minor difference.. the WMD intelligence. Does this make Bush in Iraq much more of an issue than Clinton in Serbia? I would say not.


It's called international support. Some people think it's important. Others just want someone entertaining on t.v.

Your dime.
posted by The God Complex at 11:46 AM on August 5, 2004


Oh, and that guardian piece about Kerry from July 22nd was really good. I completely missed it--thanks homunculus.
posted by The God Complex at 11:49 AM on August 5, 2004


Yeah, but what about Kerry being a rich, privileged man? (Just trying to fill in for the other side, since they have grown so silent.)
posted by strangeleftydoublethink at 12:15 PM on August 5, 2004




Eriko: Gardner served on Kerry's boat *after* Kerry was transferred away. At best, they knew each other for days.

S@L: Your lack of understanding of the Military is showing. ...It was Kerry duty and mission as a Lieutenant to "go in there and search."

Steve: It was also a standing practice (though not a policy) to keep people out of combat situations when they were very "short" -- and I'd say days away from shipping stateside qualifies as being short enough. This wasn't a matter of being charitable -- it was a matter of being safe. Men who were short tended to make mistakes. In the case where the "short" man is a Lieutenant, that probably (and quite undersandably) translates into somwhat more conservative behavior...

OTOH, I guess there are some folks who are just f*cking gung-ho every minute of the day...
posted by lodurr at 12:27 PM on August 5, 2004


International support? What's the definition of that again? My dime says the US had "international support" in Iraq. Or is an essential, non-negotiable component of international support France and Germany?

As for Kerry, he's fine if you're voting against Bush. So is Nader. So is LaRouche. So is a sockpuppet. Does he really inspire any of you? Honestly? I think you're kidding yourself if you think Kerry is a real catalyst for change in America, or if you think his naval record makes one bit of difference 30 years later. The best you can hope for is kicking Bush out. If that's good enough, Kerry's your man.
posted by loquax at 12:29 PM on August 5, 2004


You know, loquax, I always love hearing the pitch for why George Bush should be president come out as "none of you like John Kerry." I can't think of a bigger sign of desperation than convincing people that they're all wrong when you can't explain why you're right.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 12:43 PM on August 5, 2004


loquax: I find a sock puppet far more inspiring than George Bush and voting "that bastard out of office" is a time honored American tradition.
posted by nathan_teske at 12:48 PM on August 5, 2004


They have Britain and dozens of other small countries they threatened with "reconsidered trade" if they didn't comply, which is why even with so many countries American troops make up for most of the force and most of the deaths in Iraq. That's not international support--it's international political strong-arming, and it's results are being shown in the handing out of contracts in Iraq. France, Germany, Candada, Russia, and other countries aren't involved, and Canada, despite it's small military, has a history of strong peacekeeping and is almost always involved in the cleanup in these situations, just not when gung-ho america goes in without real cause.

As for Kerry, he's fine if you're voting against Bush. So is Nader. So is LaRouche. So is a sockpuppet. Does he really inspire any of you? Honestly? I think you're kidding yourself if you think Kerry is a real catalyst for change in America, or if you think his naval record makes one bit of difference 30 years later. The best you can hope for is kicking Bush out. If that's good enough, Kerry's your man.

He helped uncover the contra scandal. He headed the anti-war movement after Vietnam. He gave a very progressive speech as far as the environment is concerned, all things. It's amazing how talking points take hold when people don't really care to do anything themselves. Tell the American public enough that John Kerry is boring and won't change things and eventually they believe it as fact. If he can't be the catalyst for change, where did his groundswell of support come from in the primaries? Obviously there were some people who liked what they heard.

As an outsider to America, but one who follows its politics with some interest (especially now), I can say I found him wholly underwhelming the first few times I saw him. The more I find out about him, however, the more I like the guy. I don't care if he's exciting when he gives speeches; he's a guy that's genuinely stood up to powerful groups in washington before and perhaps if he gets into office he won't turn into a simpering moron like most American presidents.

There was an interesting article in Harper's this month about how the progressive movement has been dead for 30 years now and how the progressive left needs a leader that will appeal to the moderate republicans in order to spur a change and help progressive sieze control of the nation again, before the right-wingers drag it down any further. Perhaps Kerry is that man. He's certainly running a campaign like he wants those voters anyway. We'll see.
posted by The God Complex at 12:52 PM on August 5, 2004



Second Lieutenant?


No, he's correct, the lowest echelon officer in the NAVY as opposed to the other three branches of the armed forces is Ensign, an O-1. Then Lieutenant Junior Grade, Lieutenant, Lieutenant Commander, Commander, Captain, and on to the Admirals (Rear Lower, Rear Upper, Vice and Admiral).
In the other three it goes Second Lieutenant, First Lieutenant, Captain, Major, Lieutenant Colonel, Colonel and then through the Generals (Brigadier, Major, Lieutenant, and General).

A Lieutenant is the lowest ranking officer, with enlisted men directly below them on a platoon size level.
Incorrect in two ways, not only is the lowest ranking officer Ensign as opposed to Lieutenant, but the Warrant Officer ranks are between the officer and enlisted men.

Your lack of understanding of the Military is showing.
If you're going to be smarmy, at least know what you're talking about.
posted by tetsuo at 1:02 PM on August 5, 2004


It's not a pitch for Bush, I just think *some* people are confusing John Kerry the man with their desire to see Bush go. Which is fine and understandable, but it can be intellectually dishonest, the same way many people are intellectually dishonest when defending some of the actions of the Bush administration. It's no great victory for democracy or "the people" to elect the lesser of two evils, and it's not verboten to admit that Kerry sucks and you'd never vote for him unless he was up against Bush (or Cheney, etc). How many current Kerry supporters on metafilter supported him during the primaries? Maybe I'm wrong, maybe Kerry has a magnetism and a profound appeal to the common American that I haven't noticed yet. But this reminds me more of McGovern vs. Nixon in 1972, when the Democratic party asked people to vote for McG to punish Nixon, and America promptly replied that they'd have to do better than that (with the same kind of nudging from the RNC that they'll receive in 2004).

TGC: The campaign in Kosovo was NATO only (AFAIK), consisting of a much narrower support base. Being a Canadian, you and I both know that an inability to contribute was in no small way part of Canada's decision to stay out. Claiming that Russia's absence is significant is incorrect. It would have been remarkable had they participated. And anyways, why would the US want such an oppressive regime as an ally? In Gulf War 1, as in Serbia, the US made up the vast majority of troops, and in both conflicts (as in 2003) there was political horse trading in order to obtain support. But Italy, the UK, Poland, Ukraine, the Netherlands, Australia, Denmark, South Korea, Japan, and many others were there, for whatever reasons. That *is* international support.
posted by loquax at 1:05 PM on August 5, 2004


the only thing more sickening than an american bush supporter is a non-american bush supporter.
posted by mr.marx at 1:18 PM on August 5, 2004


I just think *some* people are confusing John Kerry the man with their desire to see Bush go. Which is fine and understandable, but it can be intellectually dishonest, the same way many people are intellectually dishonest when defending some of the actions of the Bush administration. It's no great victory for democracy or "the people" to elect the lesser of two evils, and it's not verboten to admit that Kerry sucks and you'd never vote for him unless he was up against Bush (or Cheney, etc).

Most of us can hold more than one thought in our heads concerning the election. We want Bush out, and Kerry's a good guy, who has grown on us. It will be a great victory for democracy if Bush is gone, because he's shown no respect for the constitution, or what the people he works for think about anything, including Iraq. He lies to us continually, and that's no good for democracy either. We know Kerry won't do that, which is a giant plus, to start with. We know Kerry is educated. We know Kerry has done good in the Senate. We know Kerry won't start wars and lie to us about it, over and over. We know Kerry will be accountable to us, the american people. We will be voting Bush out, and a good guy in.
posted by amberglow at 1:19 PM on August 5, 2004


The best you can hope for is kicking Bush out. If that's good enough, Kerry's your man.

You're goddamn right it's good enough right now.

While I generally agree with the sentiment that "At the end of the day it doesn't matter which of these clowns wins, they're puppets controlled from the back rooms of Washington," I think this is different. But I think George W. Bush is, like, dangerously insane. If he gets reelected I can see him absolutely mauling social services and the environment in the name of bigger tax cuts for the top 1%, Ashcroft trying harder and harder to kill the personal freedoms of sodomites and dope smokers, and Bush trying his damnedest to bring about Christian Armageddon in the Middle East, while the news proclaims his leadership in the war on terror and reports celebrity trials instead.

I think it'll be a while before we see real progress-- for one thing we've got to break free of the military-industrial complex-- but Bush isn't just a conservative, he's an extremist, ultrarich fundamentalist who lacks the concept that he might be wrong and blusters forward, calling it "leadership" and "vision".
posted by nath at 1:39 PM on August 5, 2004


Oh, one more thing:

John McCain can condemn these ads all he wants. But he knows the Bush team is willing to play really dirty; hell, he experienced it himself in 2000.

And yet he's still supporting Bush.

So fuck him.
posted by nath at 1:45 PM on August 5, 2004


You know, loquax, I always love hearing the pitch for why George Bush should be president come out as "none of you like John Kerry."

All right, will you have something more interesting to say on the subject if I tell you I'm not making it as a pitch for Bush but as an observation on the election?

We know Kerry will be accountable to us, the american people.

No you don't.

the only thing more sickening than an american bush supporter is a non-american bush supporter.

It *is* sickening to see dissenting opinion, especially here, isn't it?

It's funny -- if Kerry is the centrist he's trying to make himself out to be, I suspect he'll be just fine in office. Nor am I a staunch Bush supporter, and his ultra-religious inclinations creep me out quite a bit. It's the ways that people here choose to make an argument on either candidate that, for me, range from the ridiculous to the repugnant.
posted by Krrrlson at 1:46 PM on August 5, 2004


We know Kerry will be accountable to us, the american people.

No you don't.

Yes, we do--We remember what was done to Clinton (another centrist) for 8 years. We know that Democratic presidents undergo extreme scrutiny (scrutiny that should be applied to Bush, but isn't) from both the other branches of government and the media. We know that we Democrats, along with the other side, will be holding Kerry accountable. We're not like Republicans, who let their presidents harm this country. We hold our presidents to a higher standard than other people, maybe because we have ideals, and want this to be a better place, and not just a place that enriches some.
posted by amberglow at 1:56 PM on August 5, 2004


It *is* sickening to see dissenting opinion, especially here, isn't it?

yawn

btw, Krrrlson, how come you almost always wait until a thread is nearly dead before you comment in it? some kind of "get the last word" tactic?
posted by mr.marx at 1:56 PM on August 5, 2004


If you're going to be smarmy, at least know what you're talking about.

Same to you. You are dead wrong about where Warrant Officer fall in to the ranks.


And as to Ensign vs Lieutenant, an Ensign would not be given command of a unit of men.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 2:14 PM on August 5, 2004


And as to Ensign vs Lieutenant, an Ensign would not be given command of a unit of men.

Oh, really?

"A typical Ensign is at specialty training for up to two years after receipt of the commission, depending on specialty, and after that is a division officer, leading a group of non-commissioned officers and enlisted personnel in a Division."
-from wikipedia.org

And as to the question of Warrant Officers, I fail to see how Tetsuo is incorrect. Maybe you can tell us how?
posted by Snyder at 2:40 PM on August 5, 2004


Oh, and even if, for some reason, Ensigns are never placed in command positions, it dosen't make Lt. j.g.s "the lowest ranking officer."
posted by Snyder at 2:42 PM on August 5, 2004


steve, go hug your little dog and play with your plastic army men.
posted by quonsar at 2:44 PM on August 5, 2004


Hey Steve, hate to break it to you, but... when I was an Ensign, I had direct control of 80 enlisted men.

Also, in the Navy, the Warrants are in fact legally somewhere between the enlisted and officer ranks. That's why midshipmen are considered equivalent to Warrant Officer while underway, and all Ensigns outrank all Warrants, regardless of their years in service.

Did you ever serve in the Navy? If you did, your recall is cloudy. If you didnt, STFU about things you don't understand.
posted by Irontom at 2:46 PM on August 5, 2004


The AP reports that at least 2/3rds of the money raised by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth comes from one man: "wealthy Texan and prolific Republican donor ... Houston homebuilder Bob J. Perry."

"The effort is reminiscent of a 2000 effort that helped drive George W. Bush's then-rival John McCain from the presidential race." But I'm sure that's just a coincidence...
posted by pmurray63 at 3:04 PM on August 5, 2004


Irontom, thanks for the clarification. And I think I want a shirt that says I went to STFU!
posted by fenriq at 3:26 PM on August 5, 2004


someone needs to do a padding-left:70px;
posted by republican at 3:28 PM on August 5, 2004


Same to you. You are dead wrong about where Warrant Officer fall in to the ranks.

And as to Ensign vs Lieutenant, an Ensign would not be given command of a unit of men.


First, I never said an Ensign would be command of a unit of men, but you're wrong yet again as Irontom points out (hoorah Sir). Second, as to where a Warrant Officer falls, you simply could not be more wrong. I'll make sure to advise the Warrant Officer who is my Division Officer, the Ensign who is the assistant Dept. Head he reports to, and the Lieutenant Department Head he reports to about this revelation in the command structure. I'll ask Irontom's question again..did you ever serve in the Navy? Did you ever serve in any branch? If not, don't assume to instruct those of us who do serve, especially when you're flat out dead wrong.

If you can't even get simple facts of rank structure correct, I don't see why anyone should even consider listening to you on issues that require some analytical skill and reasoning. Sometimes I don't disagree with you, for example:

"McAwol" has as much control over "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" as Kerry does over MoveOn.

But you're only straining your credibility by attempting to speak on matters of which you apparently don't have any knowledge. Stick to your right-leaning jibes, it keeps the left honest and you won't be exposed as a prevaricator. At least you can defend those as your honest opinions.
posted by tetsuo at 3:37 PM on August 5, 2004


According to Salon's Joe Conason (here and here) John O'Neill, one of the guys at the head of the Swift Boats thing, has been doing this since 1971, when Charles Colson hired him to perform a simliar role-- namely, discrediting Kerry-- for the Nixon administration.
posted by nath at 3:41 PM on August 5, 2004


nath, And some people don't think that life is cyclic!

Funny how so many people keep trying to discredit the man and yet, here he is, the frontrunner for the presidency!
posted by fenriq at 4:02 PM on August 5, 2004


We're not like Republicans, who let their presidents harm this country. We hold our presidents to a higher standard than other people, maybe because we have ideals, and want this to be a better place, and not just a place that enriches some.

I don't know how you can stand living in a country where, according to you, close to half the population is devoid of standards, ideals, and generally supports "evil" while opposing the idea of making the country they live in a better place. Come over here, to Canada! You should also post an FPP about this. (Free tip on this juicy tidbit for you, amber, before someone else finds it!)

yawn

btw, Krrrlson, how come you almost always wait until a thread is nearly dead before you comment in it? some kind of "get the last word" tactic?


Yawn indeed. Hey, that reminds me -- how come your comments are almost always pointless one-liners, often derogatory and offensive? Some kind of uh... tactic?
posted by Krrrlson at 4:20 PM on August 5, 2004


(Free tip on this juicy tidbit for you, amber, before someone else finds it!)
Too late, CNN's been reporting it all afternoon.

...and generally supports "evil" ...
You really shouldn't call people "evil," Krrrlson, unless you know for sure they're reponsible for invading other countries for false reasons and stuff like that. I didn't use that word--another example of you trolling, I guess. (And most of the Canadians here are actually decent people. You're bringing the curve way down.)
posted by amberglow at 4:39 PM on August 5, 2004


Bush vs. Kerry
posted by homunculus at 4:44 PM on August 5, 2004


We're not like Republicans, who let their presidents harm this country. We hold our presidents to a higher standard than other people, maybe because we have ideals, and want this to be a better place, and not just a place that enriches some.

This is probably the best expression of why I could never vote Republican...bravo.
posted by tetsuo at 4:57 PM on August 5, 2004


thanks tetsuo--i never understand why people say there's no difference.
posted by amberglow at 5:50 PM on August 5, 2004


just curious to see if the small tag was ever fixed. i guess not ... or was it?
posted by mrgrimm at 6:08 PM on August 5, 2004


You really shouldn't call people "evil," Krrrlson, unless you know for sure they're reponsible for invading other countries for false reasons and stuff like that. I didn't use that word--another example of you trolling, I guess.

All right, so by your version the administration is evil and those who support them support evil. How am I wrong here?
But if you prefer - "close to half the population is devoid of standards, ideals, and opposes the idea of making the country they live in a better place." Is that a better version of your thoughts?

(And most of the Canadians here are actually decent people. You're bringing the curve way down.)

If decent means agree with you, then you are right.
posted by Krrrlson at 6:23 PM on August 5, 2004


"close to half the population is devoid of standards, ideals, and opposes the idea of making the country they live in a better place." Is that a better version of your thoughts?

That's not even close.
posted by amberglow at 6:45 PM on August 5, 2004



Just trying to fix the small tag thing...
posted by bashos_frog at 6:46 PM on August 5, 2004


Whoever is next president will be appoint not one but two people to the supreme court...if that does not matter than you know very little about the history of this country, its lawmaking, and the process by which the consitution is upheld or placed in jeapardy...as an aside: Sandra Day O'Connor said that if Bush won--a Republican--she would then feel it was time to retire...4 years have passed and she has not done so. Wonder why?
posted by Postroad at 6:47 PM on August 5, 2004


I don't know how you can stand living in a country where, according to you, close to half the population is devoid of standards, ideals, and generally supports "evil" while opposing the idea of making the country they live in a better place. Come over here, to Canada!

Actually, I don't live there anymore. I've spent six days out of the last 2-1/2 years in the U.S., and I am anxiously awaiting November to see if it might be worth moving back.

You're damn right it's hard to stand being in a country where half the population are mouth-breathin', McDonald's eatin' , fire-and-brimstone preachin', foreigner bashin', ig'nant motherfuckers. I wish the red states would just fucking secede already and stop leeching off the rest of the country. The coasts, and the heavily populated states would be much better off without 'em sucking at the government tit. Let them go sink in their own excrement while the more enlightened parts of the country prosper. Maybe the Blue states can offer asylum to those unfortunate liberals living in the wrong place.
posted by bashos_frog at 6:56 PM on August 5, 2004


as an aside: Sandra Day O'Connor said that if Bush won--a Republican--she would then feel it was time to retire...4 years have passed and she has not done so. Wonder why?

was it guilt over all that Florida shit?
posted by amberglow at 6:58 PM on August 5, 2004


Posted in another thread, but relevant to what amberglow said:

September 25, 2000


GWEN IFILL: General McPeak, you have endorsed Governor Bush. Can you tell us why?

GENERAL MERRILL McPEAK: Well, I support him in general. I think he's right on the issues.

July 28, 2004

GENERAL MERRILL McPEAK: "I'm a registered independent, but I like and admire John Kerry. He simply has a great record of brave and skillful service to the country. He is sure to be a fine Commander-in-Chief, one we can all be proud of, and proud to follow."

I think many people have regretted their decisions of 4 year ago.
posted by bashos_frog at 7:06 PM on August 5, 2004


That's not even close.

Here it is again, amberglow: you vs. "them."

We're not like Republicans, who let their presidents harm this country. We hold our presidents to a higher standard than other people, maybe because we have ideals, and want this to be a better place, and not just a place that enriches some.
posted by Krrrlson at 7:13 PM on August 5, 2004


amberglow didn't say Bush supporters have no standards - they just have much lower standards for Republicans than they do for Democrats.

He did imply that Republicans are generally cynical, greedy and selfish - and in that, I think he is right on the money.

This goes only for republicans of the last dozen years or so, even during Reagan/Bush there were still many in the party with integrity, but they have been pushed aside in a putsch that would make you-know-who proud.

Teddy Roosevelt (to mention Lincoln) remains one of my favorite presidents. How far they have fallen.
posted by bashos_frog at 8:06 PM on August 5, 2004


err . "not to mention Lincoln" , of course.
posted by bashos_frog at 8:08 PM on August 5, 2004


Swift Boat Veteran John O'Neill has been trying to discredit John Kerry for three decades. He'd be more believable if he'd stop telling bald-faced lies on national TV.
posted by homunculus at 8:10 PM on August 5, 2004


Reasons for despair
posted by homunculus at 8:32 PM on August 5, 2004


Testing alignment fix

posted by republican at 8:53 PM on August 5, 2004

Unless there is a money trail to follow on these guys, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.
posted by WLW at 9:08 PM on August 5, 2004


Regardless, I'm still voting for Bush
posted by WLW at 9:09 PM on August 5, 2004


This goes only for republicans of the last dozen years or so, even during Reagan/Bush there were still many in the party with integrity, but they have been pushed aside in a putsch that would make you-know-who proud.

And, unfortunately, you may be right. In my opinion, however, so many fringe extremists lurk among and are often embraced by today's democrats, that that party's integrity has gone to shits as well. As far as I can tell, this began happening after (maybe towards the end of) the Clinton years, at a time when I would have been utterly ashamed to utter a single word of support for the republicans. The fact that today I am not certain which is the lesser evil is upsetting.

As for amber, I am at odds with the naive/deceptive (depending on how you want to take it) statements that Kerry can somehow be blindly trusted and with the sweeping statements on a large portion of the population.
posted by Krrrlson at 9:09 PM on August 5, 2004


Krrrlson, I agree with you that neither side can be blindly trusted. Apparently there are quite a few people that blindly trust the current President, and for whatever reason aren't willing to examine that trust. This election is a referendum on his record as President. I didn't vote for Bush, nor did I vote for Clinton. I'm one of the "swing voters" that both these guys are campaigning for. When it comes to trust, Bush has had enough time to try to earn mine, but he's completely betrayed it. The thing is, I don't pay a lot of attention to campaign rhetoric, and concern myself more with the record of the politicians running. (Not owning a television sure is an advantage during campaign season). An "R" or a "D" next to a name isn't an automatic guarantor of my vote, and to some that means I don't believe in anything. I keep hoping for a viable grass-roots third party to come up and slap some sense into the current two, but alas it hasn't happened yet. Kerry might not be the most compelling candidate, but in my eyes he certainly is worthy of my vote and a chance to run this country, especially considering the competition.
posted by Eekacat at 10:24 PM on August 5, 2004


WLW: I'm assuming that you're voting for Bush because you feel he is positively contributing in some way to making your life better.

I'd like to ask you, in all seriousness, how has Bush made your life better over the last 4 years? Did you do better economically, do you feel safer, are you happier - what? I really am trying to understand why anyone would support the man. For me he is the epitomy of incompetence, ignorance, deceit, and failure.

So help me out, Bush folks - why are you supporting him?
posted by bashos_frog at 10:59 PM on August 5, 2004


goddamn it, republican. it was all fixed. did you do that?
posted by mrgrimm at 10:34 AM on August 6, 2004


goddamn it, homunculus. i can't believe that Savage dude is still on the air anywhere. he's probably just pissed off he doesn't have a station in SF anymore. that's some seriously fucked up shit.
posted by mrgrimm at 11:09 AM on August 6, 2004


Unless there is a money trail to follow on these guys ...

are you fucking blind?

According to tax documents, of the $158,700 the group collected between April and June, $100,000 was donated by Bob Perry, a Texas home builder and longtime Republican donor.

Perry and his wife, Doylene, each gave Bush the maximum individual contribution of $2,000 in July 2003. Perry also has given more than $900,000 to outside campaign groups supporting Republican causes since 2000, including $300,000 to the Majority Leader's Fund, a group run by former Rep. Dick Armey, R-Texas, and $165,000 to Texans for a Republican Majority, a group affiliated with House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, according to the Center for Public Integrity, a Washington, D.C.-based campaign finance watchdog group.

posted by mrgrimm at 11:14 AM on August 6, 2004


Bush-Cheney '04: Regardless, I'm still voting for Bush

classic!
posted by mrgrimm at 11:40 AM on August 6, 2004


« Older A few months after his first (donated) statue, "Dr...  |  West Sunset... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments