I've sailed upon its waters long, this stormy sea of Wreck
I know to not talk Politics but still say, what the Heck
If my dear brother WoodDorkers can't hold themselves in check
I'll jump right in and take a swim with those who have no neck

And neckless be they (some of them) who curse the Constitution
And say that this brief document can't rule an Institution
That is so far and wide and deep and thus prone to Confusion
As to confound Interpreters engaged in Prostitution

The "Nine Old Whores" sit on their Bench, beginning each October
To render their opinions for us folks, who hope they're sober
And their opinions rule our lives, delivered from the Bench
And those both necked and neckless hear, and feel their buttcheeks
clench

Now I don't know what you might say but I have found no cause
To cheer all their opinions in a season, without pause
I find a lot that bothers me and much of it that gnaws
I often wish a better way to verify our laws

But I'll admit that's sour grapes
(I've called those old whores "reckless apes")
I've cursed their thoughts and their decisions
I've cursed their words and imprecisions

I've railed and cursed and vilified
(I may have said I hope they died)
They've burned me up until I fried
But then I take a look inside

And there I find a neckless man
Who curses that Amazing Plan
That's ruled this far-wide-depthless Land
For all these generations

And that is when I know I'm wrong
This Document that's kept us strong
Through Troubles and Nights all too long
That buried other Nations

Has earned its place in my Respect
And so I will try to reflect
On History and its neglect


(And try to lengthen out my neck)





(burma shave)




Regards,
Tom.

Thomas J.Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.)
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1

Thank you, sir.

"Tom Watson" wrote in message
...
I've sailed upon its waters long, this stormy sea of Wreck
I know to not talk Politics but still say, what the Heck
If my dear brother WoodDorkers can't hold themselves in check
I'll jump right in and take a swim with those who have no neck

And neckless be they (some of them) who curse the Constitution
And say that this brief document can't rule an Institution
That is so far and wide and deep and thus prone to Confusion
As to confound Interpreters engaged in Prostitution

The "Nine Old Whores" sit on their Bench, beginning each October
To render their opinions for us folks, who hope they're sober
And their opinions rule our lives, delivered from the Bench
And those both necked and neckless hear, and feel their buttcheeks
clench

Now I don't know what you might say but I have found no cause
To cheer all their opinions in a season, without pause
I find a lot that bothers me and much of it that gnaws
I often wish a better way to verify our laws

But I'll admit that's sour grapes
(I've called those old whores "reckless apes")
I've cursed their thoughts and their decisions
I've cursed their words and imprecisions

I've railed and cursed and vilified
(I may have said I hope they died)
They've burned me up until I fried
But then I take a look inside

And there I find a neckless man
Who curses that Amazing Plan
That's ruled this far-wide-depthless Land
For all these generations

And that is when I know I'm wrong
This Document that's kept us strong
Through Troubles and Nights all too long
That buried other Nations

Has earned its place in my Respect
And so I will try to reflect
On History and its neglect


(And try to lengthen out my neck)





(burma shave)




Regards,
Tom.

Thomas J.Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.)
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1

For those of you who may be interested, the following is the text of Mr.
Rood's account of events. Missing are the photographs which may be
found at www.latimes.com (requires a free sign-up).

FIRST-PERSON ACCOUNT
Officer Recalls Boat Mission With Kerry

By William B. Rood, Chicago Tribune

There were three Swift boats on the river that day in Vietnam more than
35 years ago — three officers and 15 crew members. Only two of those
officers remain to talk about what happened on Feb. 28, 1969.

One is John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate who won a
Silver Star for what happened on that date. I am the other.

For years, no one asked about those events. But now they are the focus
of skirmishing in a presidential election with a group of Swift boat
veterans and others contending that Kerry didn't deserve the Silver Star
for what he did on that day, or the Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts
he was awarded for other actions.

Many of us wanted to put it all behind us — the rivers, the ambushes,
the killing. Ever since that time, I have refused all requests for
interviews about Kerry's service — even those from reporters at the
Chicago Tribune, where I work.

But Kerry's critics, armed with stories I know to be untrue, have
charged that the accounts of what happened were overblown. The critics
have taken pains to say they're not trying to cast doubts on the merit
of what others did, but their version of events has splashed doubt on
all of us. It's gotten harder and harder for those of us who were there
to listen to accounts we know to be untrue, especially when they come
from people who were not there.

Even though Kerry's own crew members have backed him, the attacks have
continued, and in recent days Kerry has called me and others who were
with him in those days, asking that we go public with our accounts.

I can't pretend those calls had no effect on me, but that is not why I
am writing this. What matters most to me is that this is hurting crewmen
who are not public figures and who deserved to be honored for what they
did. My intent is to tell the story here and to never again talk
publicly about it.

I was part of the operation that led to Kerry's Silver Star. I have no
firsthand knowledge of the events that resulted in his winning the
Purple Hearts or the Bronze Star.

But on Feb. 28, 1969, I was officer in charge of PCF-23, one of three
Swift boats — including Kerry's PCF-94 and Lt. j.g. Donald Droz's PCF-43
— that carried Vietnamese Regional and Popular Force troops and a Navy
demolition team up the Dong Cung, a narrow tributary of the Bay Hap
River, to conduct a sweep in the area.

The approach of the noisy 50-foot aluminum boats, each driven by two
huge 12-cylinder diesels and loaded down with six crew members, troops
and gear, was no secret.

Ambushes were a virtual certainty, and that day was no exception.

The difference was that Kerry, who had tactical command of that
particular operation, had talked to Droz and me beforehand about not
responding the way the boats usually did to an ambush.

We agreed that if we were not crippled by the initial volley and had a
clear fix on the location of the ambush, we would turn directly into it,
focusing the boats' twin .50-caliber machine guns on the attackers and
beaching the boats. We told our crews about the plan.

The Viet Cong in the area had come to expect that the heavily loaded
boats would lumber on past an ambush, firing at the entrenched
attackers, beaching upstream and putting troops ashore to sweep back
down on the ambush site. Often, they were long gone by the time the
troops got there.

The first time we took fire — the usual rockets and automatic weapons —
Kerry ordered a "turn 90" and the three boats roared in on the ambush.
It worked. We routed the ambush, killing three of the attackers. The
troops, led by an Army advisor, jumped off the boats and began a sweep,
which killed another half-dozen VC, wounded or captured others and found
weapons, blast masks and other supplies used to stage ambushes.

Meanwhile, Kerry ordered our boat to head upstream with his, leaving
Droz's boat at the first site.

It happened again, another ambush. And again, Kerry ordered the turn
maneuver, and again it worked. As we headed for the riverbank, I
remember seeing a loaded B-40 launcher pointed at the boats. It wasn't
fired as two men jumped up from their spider holes.

We called Droz's boat up to assist us, and Kerry, followed by one member
of his crew, jumped ashore and chased a VC behind a hooch — a thatched
hut — maybe 15 yards inland from the ambush site. Some who were there
that day recall the man being wounded as he ran. Neither I nor Jerry
Leeds, our boat's leading petty officer with whom I've checked my
recollection of all these events, recalls that, which is no surprise.
Recollections of those who go through experiences like that frequently
differ.

With our troops involved in the sweep of the first ambush site, Richard
Lamberson, a member of my crew, and I also went ashore to search the
area. I was checking out the inside of the hooch when I heard gunfire
nearby.

Not long after that, Kerry returned, reporting that he had killed the
man he chased behind the hooch. He also had picked up a loaded B-40
rocket launcher, which we took back to our base in An Thoi after the
operation.

John O'Neill, author of a highly critical account of Kerry's Vietnam
service, describes the man Kerry chased as a "teenager in a loincloth."
I have no idea how old the gunner Kerry chased that day was, but both
Leeds and I recall that he was a grown man, dressed in the kind of garb
the VC usually wore.

The man Kerry chased was not the "lone" attacker at that site, as
O'Neill suggests. There were others who fled. There was also firing from
the tree line well behind the spider holes and at one point, from the
opposite riverbank as well. It was not the work of just one attacker.

Our initial reports of the day's action caused an immediate response
from our task force headquarters in Cam Ranh Bay.

Known over radio circuits by the call sign "Latch," then-Capt. and now
retired Rear Adm. Roy Hoffmann, the task force commander, fired off a
message congratulating the three Swift boats, saying at one point that
the tactic of charging the ambushes was a "shining example of completely
overwhelming the enemy" and that it "may be the most efficacious method
of dealing with small numbers of ambushers."

Hoffmann has become a leading critic of Kerry's and now says that what
the boats did on that day demonstrated Kerry's inclination to be
impulsive to a fault.

Our decision to use that tactic under the right circumstances was not
impulsive but was the result of discussions well beforehand and a mutual
agreement of all three boat officers.

It was also well within the aggressive tradition that was embraced by
the late Adm. Elmo Zumwalt, then commander of U.S. Naval Forces,
Vietnam. Months before that day in February, a fellow boat officer,
Michael Bernique, was summoned to Saigon to explain to top Navy
commanders why he had made an unauthorized run up the Giang Thanh River,
which runs along the Vietnam-Cambodia border. Bernique, who speaks
French fluently, had been told by a source in Ha Tien at the mouth of
the river that a VC tax collector was operating upstream.

Ignoring the prohibition against it, Bernique and his crew went upstream
and routed the VC, pursuing and killing several.

Instead of facing disciplinary action as he had expected, Bernique was
given the Silver Star, and Zumwalt ordered other Swifts, which had
largely patrolled coastal waters, into the rivers.

The decision sent a clear message, underscored repeatedly by Hoffmann's
congratulatory messages, that aggressive patrolling was expected and
that well-timed, if unconventional, tactics like Bernique's were encouraged.

What we did on Feb. 28, 1969, was well in line with the tone set by our
top commanders.

Zumwalt made that clear when he flew down to our base at An Thoi off the
southern tip of Vietnam to pin the Silver Star on Kerry and assorted
Bronze Stars and commendation medals on the rest of us.

My Bronze Star citation, signed by Zumwalt, praised the charge tactic we
used that day, saying the VC were "caught completely off guard."

There's at least one mistake in that citation. The name of the river
where the main action occurred is wrong, a reminder that such documents
were often done in haste, authored for their signers by staffers. It's a
cautionary note for those trying to piece it all together. There's no
final authority on something that happened so long ago — not the
documents and not even the strained recollections of those of us who
were there.

But I know that what some people are saying now is wrong. While they
mean to hurt Kerry, what they're saying impugns others who are not in
the public eye.

Men like Larry Lee, who was on our bow with an M-60 machine gun as we
charged the riverbank; Kenneth Martin, who was in the .50-caliber gun
tub atop our boat; and Benjamin Cueva, our engineman, who was at our aft
gun mount suppressing the fire from the opposite bank.

Wayne Langhoffer and the other crewmen on Droz's boat went through even
worse on April 12, 1969, when they saw Droz killed in a brutal ambush
that left PCF-43 an abandoned pile of wreckage on the banks of the Duong
Keo River. That was just a few months after the birth of his only child,
Tracy.

The survivors of all these events are scattered across the country now.

Jerry Leeds lives in a tiny Kansas town where he built and sold a
successful printing business. He owns a beautiful home with a lawn that
sweeps to the edge of a small lake, which he also owns. Every year,
flights of purple martins return to the stately birdhouses on the tall
poles in his backyard.

Cueva, recently retired, has raised three daughters and is beloved by
his neighbors for all the years he spent keeping their cars running. Lee
is a senior computer programmer in Kentucky, and Lamberson finished a
second military career in the Army.

With the debate over that long-ago day in February, they're all living
that war another time.

*

William Rood is night city editor at the Chicago Tribune; previously, he
was a reporter and an editor at the Los Angeles Times. Both publications
are owned by Tribune Co.


mahalo,
jo4hn

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 15:07:03 GMT, jo4hn wrote:

[refreshing report from someone who was there snipped]

I'm sure there'll be some lame neo-con response that will assert that
because his citation names the wrong river that it must not have been
the same operation. Sheesh, in advance.


- -
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net

"Bob Schmall" wrote in message ...

...

What does military service have to do with being a good president? Mr. Bush
is president yet spent his time serving (?) in the Guards, and IIRC since
1960 only Presidents Kennedy, Carter, and Bush 1 served in the regular
military. Several presidents served in the Civil War, but that was no
indicator of their abilities--in fact Grant, the most famous of them, was a
notoriously poor president.

Grover Cleveland hired a man to take his place in the Army during
the Civil War, a practice that was legal at the time.

Ford served in the Navy, and Reagan in the Army Air Force (motion
picture unit, he made movies for the Army). Johnson was
also a Lt commander in the Navy in WWII, and was assigned in some
capacity to FDR's staff. He received a Silver Star for riding as
an observer in an aircraft that returned to base due to engine
trouble without seing combat.

Clinton was the first non-veteran president since FDR.

--

FF

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 20:01:39 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , "Bob Schmall" wrote:


What does military service have to do with being a good president? Mr. Bush
is president yet spent his time serving (?) in the Guards, and IIRC since
1960 only Presidents Kennedy, Carter, and Bush 1 served in the regular
military. Several presidents served in the Civil War, but that was no
indicator of their abilities--in fact Grant, the most famous of them, was a
notoriously poor president.

Johnson, Nixon, and Ford all served in the Navy during WWII. IIRC, Johnson as
an observer, Nixon in logistics, and Ford on combat ships. Clinton is the only
President in the last sixty years with no military service of any sort.

I'm sorry, which branch did FDR serve in? Assistant Secretary of the
Navy hardly qualifies as "military service;" it's a civilian
appointment. Moreover, the fact that the greatest president in the
20th Century didn't have any military service (just the AsstSecNav
position), yet successfully led us to victory in the mother of all
wars proves the point that it isn't a qualifying distinction.

In fact, to put this in a little better perspective, no president in
the 20th Century from Roosevelt to Roosevelt served in the military. I
wish the chest thumping neo-cons (who have little to brag about in the
phantom national guard record of their standard bearer) would quit
trying to make such a big deal out of military service.


- -
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net

In article , "Bob Schmall" wrote:


What does military service have to do with being a good president? Mr. Bush
is president yet spent his time serving (?) in the Guards, and IIRC since
1960 only Presidents Kennedy, Carter, and Bush 1 served in the regular
military. Several presidents served in the Civil War, but that was no
indicator of their abilities--in fact Grant, the most famous of them, was a
notoriously poor president.

Johnson, Nixon, and Ford all served in the Navy during WWII. IIRC, Johnson as
an observer, Nixon in logistics, and Ford on combat ships. Clinton is the only
President in the last sixty years with no military service of any sort.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

In article , LRod
wrote:

I
wish the chest thumping neo-cons (who have little to brag about in the
phantom national guard record of their standard bearer) would quit
trying to make such a big deal out of military service.

Seems to me as an outside observer that the Democrats were making a
huge deal out of GWB's military record, and that Kerry himself decided
to use his record as reason why he should be POTUS.

Seems to me that now it's somehow dirty pool to ask questions about
Kerry's "seared in my memory" event that now it turns out didn't happen
as he has been saying for decades, and may not have occurred at all...

Seems to me that a couple of missing pay stubs were front page on the
NYT for weeks, and yet there's been virtually no mention of Kerry and
Cambodia (and Kerry's refusal to release his military records) in the
pages of that paper, or the WaPo, or the LAT.

Seems to me that Kerry calls for the FCC to ban the Swift Boat Vets
ads, yet said nothing about moveon.org portraying GWB as Hitler.

Seems to me that the left in the US believes in freedom of speech, as
long as it's speech they like...

Dave Balderstone responds:

Seems to me that now it's somehow dirty pool to ask questions about
Kerry's "seared in my memory" event that now it turns out didn't happen
as he has been saying for decades, and may not have occurred at all..

And you got that where? Check the latest reports.


Seems to me that a couple of missing pay stubs were front page on the
NYT for weeks, and yet there's been virtually no mention of Kerry and
Cambodia (and Kerry's refusal to release his military records) in the
pages of that paper, or the WaPo, or the LAT.

A couple of missing pay stubs? You think the ANG pays biannually?

If there were anything in Kerry's military record to indict him, you can bet
your ass the neocons would have long ago "leaked" them.

Seems to me that the left in the US believes in freedom of speech, as
long as it's speech they like...

I know. That's why Bush Babies pack all meetings and hotel routes with
registered Republicans, why a guy got fired for heckling Bush, why another guy
was led out of a political meeting for Bush in handcuffs. The left really does
believe in controlling free speech. Oh. Ooops. Bush ain't a lefty. He ain't a
righty either. He's a "me-me."

Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 18:01:56 -0500, WD wrote:

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 18:24:53 +0100, LRod wrote:

Of course, neo-liberal will always maintain it's the same regardless, even if
the river is Mississippi!

But it wasn't the Mississippi, although I'm sure some of your ilk will
try to claim otherwise.

What's a neo-liberal?

- -
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net

seems to me only mr Kerry was the one touting military service ...Bush
wasn't ,the only ones questioning that werer Kerry supporters. But in
retrospect it better dropped the congress is filled with lawyers [including
Edwards] who never served.

Zig zag Zell as the democrats call him certainly did.....mjh



"LRod" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 20:01:39 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , "Bob Schmall"
wrote:


What does military service have to do with being a good president? Mr.
Bush
is president yet spent his time serving (?) in the Guards, and IIRC
since
1960 only Presidents Kennedy, Carter, and Bush 1 served in the regular
military. Several presidents served in the Civil War, but that was no
indicator of their abilities--in fact Grant, the most famous of them,
was a
notoriously poor president.

Johnson, Nixon, and Ford all served in the Navy during WWII. IIRC,
Johnson as
an observer, Nixon in logistics, and Ford on combat ships. Clinton is the
only
President in the last sixty years with no military service of any sort.

I'm sorry, which branch did FDR serve in? Assistant Secretary of the
Navy hardly qualifies as "military service;" it's a civilian
appointment. Moreover, the fact that the greatest president in the
20th Century didn't have any military service (just the AsstSecNav
position), yet successfully led us to victory in the mother of all
wars proves the point that it isn't a qualifying distinction.

In fact, to put this in a little better perspective, no president in
the 20th Century from Roosevelt to Roosevelt served in the military. I
wish the chest thumping neo-cons (who have little to brag about in the
phantom national guard record of their standard bearer) would quit
trying to make such a big deal out of military service.


- -
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net

Mike Hide responds:

seems to me only mr Kerry was the one touting military service ...Bush
wasn't ,the only ones questioning that werer Kerry supporters. But in
retrospect it better dropped the congress is filled with lawyers [including
Edwards] who never served.

Uh, you can't tout what you don't have. Most people who have served as regulars
do not consider the '60s and '70s Guard tours as military service.

Different story now, but that was then.

Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary

Charlie Self wrote:

Most people who have served as regulars do not consider the
'60s and '70s Guard tours as military service.

And following 4 May 70 it was some time before a lot of us who'd
served as regulars were able to think of the NG as /any/ kind of
legitimate military.

Different story now, but that was then.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto, Iowa USA

In article , WD
wrote:

...Seems to me.... EVERYONE LIES except, Bush?

Where exactly do you get that from my post?

Seems to me that the American left is just a bit tetchy these days.

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 18:15:51 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:


There were three Swift boats on the river that day in Vietnam more than
35 years ago — three officers and 15 crew members. Only two of those
officers remain to talk about what happened on Feb. 28, 1969.

One is John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate who won a
Silver Star for what happened on that date. I am the other.


Well, that should certainly silence any critics, two absolutely
impeccable witnesses remain, one a politician, the other a reporter. I'm
convinced.

You should be. They were there. You and all the other critics weren't.

So now no further criticism should be leveled since, after all, the
records are going to be rife with error, and only the memories of those who
were there is really all we have to go by. ... and since they are
"strained" memories, who knows who is right or wrong?

My question is, why would someone who wasn't there question it? Can
they offer alternative evidence? No.

I can just see this conversation about 50 years ago when I was old
enough to ask my dad what he did in the war.

LRod: What did you do in the war, dad?

Dad: I flew on 35 missions in B-17s over Europe.

LRod: Yeah, right. Did you get any medals?

Dad: Air Medal with 7 oak leaf clusters, and some others.

LRod: I'll bet. You probably got a couple of those when you were up
slow-timing some engines.

Some fathers would have leveled the child at that point. Mine would
have just looked at me like I was an idiot, thought to himself, "well,
son, I was there; you weren't," and walked away.

I'm looking at you now, I know you weren't there. Good bye.


- -
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 19:19:32 -0500, WD wrote:

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 23:23:58 +0100, LRod wrote:

What's a neo-liberal?

You and all Bush bashers.

I'm with Charlie. When the shrub is redefeated and we get the
Constitution back, you neo-cons will be thankful. You won't admit it,
but you'll be thankful.

I'll say it now: you're welcome.

- -
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 15:07:03 GMT, jo4hn wrote:

For those of you who may be interested, the following is the text of Mr.
Rood's account of events. Missing are the photographs which may be
found at www.latimes.com (requires a free sign-up).

FIRST-PERSON ACCOUNT
Officer Recalls Boat Mission With Kerry

By William B. Rood, Chicago Tribune

There were three Swift boats on the river that day in Vietnam more than
35 years ago — three officers and 15 crew members. Only two of those
officers remain to talk about what happened on Feb. 28, 1969.

One is John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate who won a
Silver Star for what happened on that date. I am the other.


Well, that should certainly silence any critics, two absolutely
impeccable witnesses remain, one a politician, the other a reporter. I'm
convinced.

.... snip



There's at least one mistake in that citation. The name of the river
where the main action occurred is wrong, a reminder that such documents
were often done in haste, authored for their signers by staffers. It's a
cautionary note for those trying to piece it all together. There's no
final authority on something that happened so long ago — not the
documents and not even the strained recollections of those of us who
were there.


So now no further criticism should be leveled since, after all, the
records are going to be rife with error, and only the memories of those who
were there is really all we have to go by. ... and since they are
"strained" memories, who knows who is right or wrong?

.... snip

With the debate over that long-ago day in February, they're all living
that war another time.


... and just *who* brought it up? Yeah, I know, when Kerry or the left
make a statement, no one should question it -- it happened, leave it at
that. The right (or even middle) should have let it alone when Kerry told
everyone he was a war hero and thus fit to lead the country. How dare
anyone question that? ... After all, what is the word of a retired navy
admiral and several retired navy captains in addition to others who served
with him? Why they pale to insignificance vs. the word of a politician and
a reporter.

*

William Rood is night city editor at the Chicago Tribune; previously, he
was a reporter and an editor at the Los Angeles Times. Both publications
are owned by Tribune Co.


mahalo,
jo4hn

Please , pray tell what EXACTLY has been taken from the constitution. mjh


"LRod" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 19:19:32 -0500, WD wrote:

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 23:23:58 +0100, LRod
wrote:

What's a neo-liberal?

You and all Bush bashers.

I'm with Charlie. When the shrub is redefeated and we get the
Constitution back, you neo-cons will be thankful. You won't admit it,
but you'll be thankful.

I'll say it now: you're welcome.

- -
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net

"LRod" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 18:15:51 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:


There were three Swift boats on the river that day in Vietnam more than
35 years ago - three officers and 15 crew members. Only two of those
officers remain to talk about what happened on Feb. 28, 1969.

One is John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate who won a
Silver Star for what happened on that date. I am the other.


Well, that should certainly silence any critics, two absolutely
impeccable witnesses remain, one a politician, the other a reporter. I'm
convinced.

You should be. They were there. You and all the other critics weren't.

So now no further criticism should be leveled since, after all, the
records are going to be rife with error, and only the memories of those
who
were there is really all we have to go by. ... and since they are
"strained" memories, who knows who is right or wrong?

My question is, why would someone who wasn't there question it? Can
they offer alternative evidence? No.

I can just see this conversation about 50 years ago when I was old
enough to ask my dad what he did in the war.

LRod: What did you do in the war, dad?

Dad: I flew on 35 missions in B-17s over Europe.

LRod: Yeah, right. Did you get any medals?

Dad: Air Medal with 7 oak leaf clusters, and some others.

LRod: I'll bet. You probably got a couple of those when you were up
slow-timing some engines.

Some fathers would have leveled the child at that point. Mine would
have just looked at me like I was an idiot, thought to himself, "well,
son, I was there; you weren't," and walked away.

I'm looking at you now, I know you weren't there. Good bye.


- -
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net

"LRod" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 18:15:51 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:


There were three Swift boats on the river that day in Vietnam more than
35 years ago - three officers and 15 crew members. Only two of those
officers remain to talk about what happened on Feb. 28, 1969.

One is John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate who won a
Silver Star for what happened on that date. I am the other.


Well, that should certainly silence any critics, two absolutely
impeccable witnesses remain, one a politician, the other a reporter. I'm
convinced.

You should be. They were there. You and all the other critics weren't.

So one of the OFFICERS is now missing, and thus there are only two OFFICERS
left to testify to the event . What happened to the 15 CREW members, are
they also all gone ? mjh

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 18:15:51 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:

After all, what is the word of a retired navy
admiral and several retired navy captains in addition to others who served
with him? Why they pale to insignificance vs. the word of a politician and
a reporter.

What you have to ask yourself, pilgrim, is if they were lying back in
the war, when they wrote all those glowing accounts of Kerry's bravery and
competence, or if they are lying now, when they say he isn't fit to lead
this country. It has to be one or the other.

Here's an interesting question. If, as they claim, they are not Bush
supporters, just folks who are appalled by the idea of Kerry becoming
President, why didn't they make their charges back in the primary season,
when they could have influenced the Democrats to pick another and more
acceptable candidate? Hmmm? I mean, if they aren't really working for
Bush? In fact, why didn't any of these guys pop out of the woodwork
decades ago during one of Kerry's prior campaigns? No, no, they wait
until Kerry gets into a position where he might defeat Bush. Only then do
they start remembering all the reasons Kerry is unfit to serve the people.

What does that tell you
about their claims of being nonpolitical?

It smells fishy to me.

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 02:01:01 +0100, LRod
wrote:

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 18:15:51 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:


There were three Swift boats on the river that day in Vietnam more than
35 years ago — three officers and 15 crew members. Only two of those
officers remain to talk about what happened on Feb. 28, 1969.

One is John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate who won a
Silver Star for what happened on that date. I am the other.


Well, that should certainly silence any critics, two absolutely
impeccable witnesses remain, one a politician, the other a reporter. I'm
convinced.

You should be. They were there. You and all the other critics weren't.

So now no further criticism should be leveled since, after all, the
records are going to be rife with error, and only the memories of those who
were there is really all we have to go by. ... and since they are
"strained" memories, who knows who is right or wrong?

My question is, why would someone who wasn't there question it? Can
they offer alternative evidence? No.

I can just see this conversation about 50 years ago when I was old
enough to ask my dad what he did in the war.

LRod: What did you do in the war, dad?

Dad: I flew on 35 missions in B-17s over Europe.

LRod: Yeah, right. Did you get any medals?

Dad: Air Medal with 7 oak leaf clusters, and some others.

LRod: I'll bet. You probably got a couple of those when you were up
slow-timing some engines.

Some fathers would have leveled the child at that point. Mine would
have just looked at me like I was an idiot, thought to himself, "well,
son, I was there; you weren't," and walked away.

I'm looking at you now, I know you weren't there. Good bye.


Never said I was there; the other 250 swift boat vets who served with
Kerry have said they were there, numerous eyewitnesses to the various
events being recounted. You weren't there either, how do you know who saw
what, other than the fact that the one (1) reporter who is saying what you
want to hear while the other 250 witnesses, many of them decorated veterans
themselves, aren't saying what you want to hear?

Your analogy not only limps, it was DOA -- I have never claimed to be an
eyewitness to those events. For your analogy to even be close, you should
replace your LROD comment of " I'll bet. You probably got a couple of
those when you were up slow-timing some engines." with "But 15 of your
fellow crewmembers said you really got that medal when you were up
slow-timing some engines." At least that would be halfway close to the
situation being discussed.

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 22:43:39 -0500, ray wrote:

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 18:15:51 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:

After all, what is the word of a retired navy
admiral and several retired navy captains in addition to others who served
with him? Why they pale to insignificance vs. the word of a politician and
a reporter.

What you have to ask yourself, pilgrim, is if they were lying back in
the war, when they wrote all those glowing accounts of Kerry's bravery and
competence, or if they are lying now, when they say he isn't fit to lead
this country. It has to be one or the other.


Well, if you read their accounts, they *didn't* write those glowing
accounts. It seems that Kerry, being PAO (Public affairs officer) wrote a
number of those reports himself. Have you read their website? In
addition,these men all signed affadavits regarding the authenticity of
their accounts and included those affadavits with the package sent to radio
stations so that those stations would air the paid advertisements. Seems
that the same radio stations had no such requirements for other commercials
such as those sponsored by moveon.org.


Here's an interesting question. If, as they claim, they are not Bush
supporters, just folks who are appalled by the idea of Kerry becoming
President, why didn't they make their charges back in the primary season,
when they could have influenced the Democrats to pick another and more
acceptable candidate?

Well, according to several of them, they have been trying for months to
get the press to take an interest in their story -- they approached
numerous media outlets and were rebuffed by all of them. So, maybe if the
media had picked up on this earlier, that might have happened, hmmm?

Hmmm? I mean, if they aren't really working for
Bush? In fact, why didn't any of these guys pop out of the woodwork
decades ago during one of Kerry's prior campaigns? No, no, they wait
until Kerry gets into a position where he might defeat Bush. Only then do
they start remembering all the reasons Kerry is unfit to serve the people.

What does that tell you
about their claims of being nonpolitical?

It smells fishy to me.


Well, perhaps if you had spent time as a POW being tortured to sign a
confession admitting to war crimes and then had John Kerry do that for free
in front of the Senate, maybe you'd have a bit of an axe to grind too.
Seems like these guys aren't so much for Bush, but wanting people to know
what they are getting if they pick Kerry.

In article ,
says...
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 23:23:58 +0100, LRod wrote:

What's a neo-liberal?

You and all Bush bashers.



Coming from a Bush licker I suppose

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 21:46:34 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:


What you have to ask yourself, pilgrim, is if they were lying back in
the war, when they wrote all those glowing accounts of Kerry's bravery and
competence, or if they are lying now, when they say he isn't fit to lead
this country. It has to be one or the other.


Well, if you read their accounts, they *didn't* write those glowing
accounts.

I'll give you just one example:

In the ad by Swift Boat Veterans, George Elliot said: : "John Kerry has
not been honest about what happened in Vietnam."

In 1969, when he was writing Kerry's fitness report, he said: "In a combat
environment often requiring independent, decisive action, LTJG Kerry was
unsurpassed. He constantly reviewed tactics and lessons learned in river
operations and applied his experience at every opportunity. On one
occasion, while in tactical command of a three boat operation his units
were taken under fire from ambush. LTJG Kerry rapidly assessed the
situation and ordered his units to turn directly into the ambush. This
decision resulted in routing the attackers with several KIA. LTJG Kerry
emerges as the acknowledged leader in his peer group. His bearing and
appearance are above reproach. He has of his own volition learned the
Vietnamese language and is instrumental in the successful Vietnamese
training program. During the period of this report LTJG Kerry has been
awarded the Silver Star medal, the Bronze Star medal, the Purple Heart
medal (2nd and 3rd awards)."

Lying then or lying now? You make the call.

It's okay for these men to dislike Kerry for his politics. Who could
blame them? Kerry put a lot of energy into convincing the world that all
their blood and sacrifice was in an ignoble cause. But when they stoop to
claiming the exact opposite of what they once said, on the record, I can't
credit anything they say now. And it's an act that dishonors all veterans.
I spent a year in Vietnam, and I despise what these men have done. It's
sleazy, and it's unfortunately the standard campaigning style of the Bush
team. I still remember with disgust what they did to John McCain back in
2000. It's pretty hard to attack the war record of a man who spent many
years as a POW, so they spread rumors that his mind had been affected by
his terrible experiences in Hanoi. After all, we don't want a lunatic at
the helm of our Ship of State. Or maybe the North Vietnamese brainwashed
him.
Don't want a Manchurian Candidate. Or, the infamous pushpoll in which
likely voters were asked, "would you vote for McCain if you
knew he'd fathered an illegitimate black child?" Turns out he and his
wife adopted a dark-skinned child from Bangladesh, so I guess it wasn't
really a dirty lie.

Sorry if I'm too aggressive about this, but I truly despise liars.

Well, perhaps if you had spent time as a POW being tortured to sign a
confession admitting to war crimes and then had John Kerry do that for
free
in front of the Senate, maybe you'd have a bit of an axe to grind too.
Seems like these guys aren't so much for Bush, but wanting people to know
what they are getting if they pick Kerry.


I like the part where a picture of John Kerry appears in the Vietnamese
museum honoring him for his assistance in helping them win the war against
America. mjh

Dave Balderstone responds:


In article , WD
wrote:

...Seems to me.... EVERYONE LIES except, Bush?

Where exactly do you get that from my post?

Seems to me that the American left is just a bit tetchy these day

I'm not sure ol' WD is on the left. I think he's standing off to one side,
poking the ant hill with a stick to see what scurries out.

Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary

Mike Hide responds:

Well, that should certainly silence any critics, two absolutely
impeccable witnesses remain, one a politician, the other a reporter. I'm
convinced.

You should be. They were there. You and all the other critics weren't.

So one of the OFFICERS is now missing, and thus there are only two OFFICERS
left to testify to the event . What happened to the 15 CREW members, are
they also all gone ? mjh

The crew men on Kerry's boat seem to all agree with his version.

Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary

ray responds (heavily snipped):


It's okay for these men to dislike Kerry for his politics. Who could
blame them? Kerry put a lot of energy into convincing the world that all
their blood and sacrifice was in an ignoble cause.

I have to wonder how closely Kerry's denunciations came on the heels of My Lai
and the screwball Calley. That convinced a lot of people the cause wasn't
noble.

In any case, Kerry wasn't alone, nor the first, nor the worst, nor the
noisiest. It was an insane era brought on by another politician's war.

Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary

Mike Hide wants an explanation:

Please , pray tell what EXACTLY has been taken from the constitution.

You might ask the guy who was drug from a Bush gathering in handcuffs and
arrested for a mild bit of heckling. Or ask the guy who was fired from his
design firm job for heckling Bush at a meeting. Or ask all the people who will
NOT line parade routes and other sites in NY and similar areas because they are
not registered Republicans.

Lockstep. Think alike or get sunk. Keep your mouth shut or get sunk. A little
thing, but our own: freedom of speech.

Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary

Charlie Self wrote:

Mike Hide wants an explanation:


Please , pray tell what EXACTLY has been taken from the constitution.


You might ask the guy who was drug from a Bush gathering in handcuffs and
arrested for a mild bit of heckling. Or ask the guy who was fired from his
design firm job for heckling Bush at a meeting. Or ask all the people who will
NOT line parade routes and other sites in NY and similar areas because they are
not registered Republicans.

Lockstep. Think alike or get sunk. Keep your mouth shut or get sunk. A little
thing, but our own: freedom of speech.

Uh - hang on a second here. What you document is essentially true, but
misses the fact that (iirc) this is EXACTLY the same thing the Clinton
administration did when he ran for reelection...



Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

All this is fine but obviously the one that was arrested and taken away in
handcuffs must have at least posed a threat in some policemans mind . I dont
see that has anything to do with the constitution.

The guy who was fired from his job for heckling Bush was at a private
meeting paid for by the companies major business client who complained about
his conduct. The meeting was not a public affair, discredited the company in
the clients eye, so they exercised the option of firing him. What exactly is
unconsitutional about that?

So you think there will be only registered repubicans on the NY city parade
route.You probably think any old known crank should be allowed there
including the first US suicide bomber with a couple of vials of serin or the
like . So I guess you would like to defend the right of someone to murder
another couple of thousand Americans. what a bunch of crap.

Charlie I am afraid you are living in the past with rose tinted glasses, it
will never be the same as it was before 9-11....mjh




"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...
Mike Hide wants an explanation:

Please , pray tell what EXACTLY has been taken from the constitution.

You might ask the guy who was drug from a Bush gathering in handcuffs and
arrested for a mild bit of heckling. Or ask the guy who was fired from his
design firm job for heckling Bush at a meeting. Or ask all the people who
will
NOT line parade routes and other sites in NY and similar areas because
they are
not registered Republicans.

Lockstep. Think alike or get sunk. Keep your mouth shut or get sunk. A
little
thing, but our own: freedom of speech.

Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose
Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...
ray responds (heavily snipped):


It's okay for these men to dislike Kerry for his politics. Who could
blame them? Kerry put a lot of energy into convincing the world that all
their blood and sacrifice was in an ignoble cause.

I have to wonder how closely Kerry's denunciations came on the heels of My
Lai
and the screwball Calley. That convinced a lot of people the cause wasn't
noble.

In any case, Kerry wasn't alone, nor the first, nor the worst, nor the
noisiest. It was an insane era brought on by another politician's war.

Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose
Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary

Isn't it funny, we have another KerrEy who was on the 9-11 comittee that did
virtually the same as Lt Calley did like John Kerry he is also a US
senator.....

Mike Hide responds:


Isn't it funny, we have another KerrEy who was on the 9-11 comittee that did
virtually the same as Lt Calley did like John Kerry he is also a US
senator.....


Calley's feat was simple: non-leadership and then cover-up. There's a lot of
that going around. Always has been and very likely always will be.

But to say that Bob Kerrey was in charge of troops who killed possibly as many
as 500 civilians is stretching a point more than a little. You need to refresh
your memories of mid-March '68 and the courts martials in '70s.



Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary

Mike Hide ripostes with:

So you think there will be only registered repubicans on the NY city parade
route.You probably think any old known crank should be allowed there
including the first US suicide bomber with a couple of vials of serin or the
like . So I guess you would like to defend the right of someone to murder
another couple of thousand Americans. what a bunch of crap.

Well, in my experience over the years, any old person was allowed. I'm not
exactly sure where you brought sarin into the conversation, but, yeah, I do
think there will be only registered Republicans along the route...at least if
the mayor of NYC, the cops, and the Bush Babies have anything to do with it.

Charlie I am afraid you are living in the past with rose tinted glasses, it
will never be the same as it was before 9-11

I doubt very much I have rose tinted glasses on...you may have as you stare at
your Republican buddies, though.

But, in essence, what you're saying is that the terrorists have already won.
And with that I am sad to report, I agree.

Their aim was to destroy a way of life. That way of life is disintegrating with
modest speed as we look at things "differently" under the President who was
going to "bring us together."

Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary

In article , wrote:
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 20:01:39 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

Johnson, Nixon, and Ford all served in the Navy during WWII. IIRC, Johnson as
an observer, Nixon in logistics, and Ford on combat ships. Clinton is the only
President in the last sixty years with no military service of any sort.

I'm sorry, which branch did FDR serve in? Assistant Secretary of the
Navy hardly qualifies as "military service;" it's a civilian
appointment.

Excuuuuuuuse me, the last fifty-nine and a half years. Picky, picky, picky.

Moreover, the fact that the greatest president in the
20th Century didn't have any military service (just the AsstSecNav
position), yet successfully led us to victory in the mother of all
wars proves the point that it isn't a qualifying distinction.

Ummm... you might be a little confused here. Ronald Reagan was never
Assistant Secretary of anything, but he *did* serve in the Army several
decades prior to leading us to victory over the Sovs in the Cold War.

In fact, to put this in a little better perspective, no president in
the 20th Century from Roosevelt to Roosevelt served in the military. I
wish the chest thumping neo-cons (who have little to brag about in the
phantom national guard record of their standard bearer) would quit
trying to make such a big deal out of military service.

Who's trying to make a big deal out of anything? Somebody said that since
Kennedy, only Carter, Reagan, and Bush I had served in the
active-duty military, and all I did was to point out that Johnson, Nixon, and
Ford also served. And Clinton didn't.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

Dave Balderstone wrote in message stone.ca...

....

Seems to me that Kerry calls for the FCC to ban the Swift Boat Vets
ads, yet said nothing about moveon.org portraying GWB as Hitler.

I just did a text search on the homepage for moveon.org for 'hitler'
and found nothing. Could you be more specific/

Or was that a Godwin?

--

FF

In article , Larry Blanchard wrote:

I'm an "Elder Moocher" who paid 15% of his self-employed income into SS
for many years at or near the maximum rate. Explain to me how I'm
"mooching" if I want to get some of it back? Even without assuming any
interest, just converting what I paid in into todays dollars makes it
clear it'll be a long time before I break even.

Ever stop to think about how much better of you'd be, if the government had
permitted you to keep and *invest* that 15%, instead of taking it from you?

And don't forget that SS eligibility age and average lifespan are very
close to each other. A lot of people never collect or collect for very
few years.

True when Social Security first started.
False now, and has been for a very long time.

Eligibility age is all the way up to, what, 68 now? Average lifespan is quite
a lot greater than that.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 12:46:43 +0000, Mike Hide wrote:

Charlie I am afraid you are living in the past with rose tinted glasses,
it will never be the same as it was before 9-11....mjh

Some folks have decided to capitulate to the terrorists, but I'm unwilling
to give up so easily. As far as I'm concerned they aren't going to
destroy 200 years of freedom and progress with a couple of jumbo jets.
We need to maintain our commitment to the principles that made this
country great, EVEN if it allows the terrorists to hurt us again.
Freedom, we need to remember, isn't free. It has always had a cost. I
hate to think that we Americans have become too cowardly to pay the bill.
My father fought in the Philippines to preserve our liberty; so I think
I can put up with an infinitesimal extra risk. Besides that, there is
no guarantee that voluntarily giving up our freedoms will make us safer.
Even in Red China, where your only right is absolute obedience to the
State, they are currently suffering terrorist attacks. So even if we
become a totalitarian regime, we won't necessarily be any safer. Giving
up freedom for safety? It's a sucker deal.


Putting political opponents in "free speech zones" far away from
campaigning politicians is deeply un-American. Our founding documents
accord us the right to have our grievances addressed publicly. And if the
true value of freedom is too abstract a concept, consider that there are
practical issues as well. When President Bush was asked by Larry King
about the divisive nature of the 2004 campaign, Bush denied that the
country was divided, saying that everywhere he went, all he saw were
people cheering and waving. Now I don't know if he really feels this way,
but it's possible, since the President has admitted that he doesn't read
much and he isn't very interested in the news. If he'd been exposed to
the strong feelings of those who oppose his policies, he might be making
some sort of effort to address their concerns. He would have been a
better President if he could have done a better job of uniting the
American people in these dangerous times. And if he had, he'd probably be
re-elected easily. Instead, he's had to resort to morally odious tactics
like the Swift Boat Veterans.

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 17:49:37 GMT, "Mike Hide"
wrote:

at times it is necessary to relinquish some civil
rights to ensure the security of the country.

Your sentiment is truly frightening. It's no wonder that the
conservatives have so many sheeple in lock step with the radio and
internet loudmouths.

Fortunately, some very bright people who founded this country 200+
years ago have it right:

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

No one likes the patriot act per se on the other hand it gives some
protection.Without it the next hit might well be 30,000 and not 3000 plus

Do you hear yourself? Why not just give up everything and not worry
about anything? I don't want to live in the world you seem to want.

I suppose some people just don't get it do they.

You are at the top of that list.


- -
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net