Gary, have you seen this?

[al j]

not that I see you in step with these guys, but you might find it interesting.

http://www.usvetdsp.com/jf_kerry.htm

[bostontricky]

Funny how these guys don't seem to be interested in tackling W.'s military history...

[Gary Sisco]

Tricky -- Doesn't seem like anyone wants to seriously check into Dubbaya's record -- which is there in his service record. All he has to do is produce it. It will have a record of every day he served and in what capacity and what his marks were and etc., like anyone else in the country. It's not much of a research project, really. I don't understand the generalized reluctance to face up to the reality of his non-service.

Christmas -- Interesting but I don't dislike Kerry for the same reasons, though mine are also VVAW related, where he first revealed his opportunist and chameolian-like self. And VVAW, to which I have belonged in the past, was not and isn't "pro-communist." That's ridiculous. It was and is anti-imperialist. It's also the oldest and longest-lived of all the Viet vets organizations. (1967, if my memory serves.) I won't be voting for him because he cannot be trusted in any sense. His words don't matter in the slightest to him, when compared to his actual political behavior. Therefore, nothing that he has to say matters in the slightest way to me. Politicians will do or say anything to get elected, and we all know it. And it's very revealing that Gephardt endorsed Kerry, since they dislike each other very much. It's because Kerry is a member of the club and recognized by all as such. So the clubber of clubbers endorsed another. That tells me all I need to know as well, as I loathe Gephardt.

I'm not a member of any organization today except the NRA, and the American Legion (who helped me out, really, really helped me out, with the VA and its alleged medical care system) so I'm not with or aligned with VVAW anymore and don't even know what stand they're taking today on things. Haven't been in communication since the 80s, at all.

The vets that gather around Hackworth are a worthy crew pretty much, I think. And Hack often speaks my mind for me -- and his standing as the war's most decorated combat officer allows him to it loudly, and in public. I rarely disagree with him on vet's issues (which are many and vociferous and largely ignored by non-vets and the media) or on strictly military issues. I doubt I'd agree with him on his political solutions, but I'm with him almost always on his critique. Many times I've cheered him on out loud to myself. Hack's cool. And he's walked the walk, many many many times.

[al j]

I'm always interested in your opinions on this stuff. What do you not trust about Kerry, specifically, things he has said?

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/021004_bushmil.pdf

I don't understand the generalized reluctance to face up to the reality of his non-service. - Gary

Would that be actual reality? Or your version of it?

[Gary Sisco]

Dolan: When he produces the records (which always exist) of his service in the *Alabama* Guard (to which he was transferred after not being allowed to fly anymore, in Texas, for his last 17 months), which are easily had and normally nothing any guy or gal'd be ashamed to show anyone, you might have a point. So far, he has not, and the people who did serve there at the time, officers and enlisted both, have zero memory of serving with him at the time. Now that's not something one, never mind many, are likely to forget, serving with a guy who later became president, let's face it. So far he's produced nothing but words about that 17 months, but every military force has a paper trail, and all vets have separation papers that record exactly how many days of service one had, whether overseas or not, whether combat or not, and etc., right to the day. Most vets have those papers ready to hand as you can't deal with the VA without them.

I don't trust any politician's words alone, but especially not one whose career is based upon layers of lies and deception in the first place.

Christmas -- It's a long story but his days in VVAW (Kerry) were not popular with VVAW because he pretty much, with the help of the media, pronounced himself a leader of the organization, which he was not. His famous tossing of his medals over the White House fence was bogus because he tossed medals he'd bought for the purpose, not his own legit decorations (for which I don't slight him, obviously, as they are impressive) -- very similarly to the many, close to most, guys who burned their library cards and pretended to burning their draft cards, in those days. A lot of hypocrisy and chameleon behavior in addition to the normal for any politician opportunism.

Second, he's going out of his way to distance himself from the dreaded "l" word (liberal), which of course he has been for the bulk of his career. That's nothing but pandering, and for me, pandering to exactly the wrong mentality. There's nothing wrong with being a liberal, if that's what one is, and anyone who's ashamed for some reason of their politics and wants to deny it, probably has a good reason to, it seems to me. Finally, no one his age, as I've said many times about Dean, changes his spots all that much. It's just not normal for a guy well into his 50s to change all that much, even given the I guess natural progression to a more conservative stance as one ages (I've done it myself). I don't buy it. I won't buy it.

Third, he hasn't been particularly helpful or vocal in his long time in power as far as vets' issues go, which are many, and very serious. Indeed, the alleged socialist in Congress, Bernie Sanders, has, ironically in America, been perhaps the A-1 guy there on these issues, all along. Even the VT VFW endorses him for election, regardless of his alleged socialism, because he's the main vet backer. Kerry's not even in the discussion, until now. That tells me something, too, and ought to factor into your own thinking, given your career. Someday you're going to want to collect on the benefits that the government owes you and has denied to millions of guys so far. Indeed, my father, a man as conservative as any other, died believing that the government was purposefully just letting the old guys die off, esp the huge WW2 generation of vets (not so huge anymore of course), so they could be done with hearing about their betrayal, or from their vets' groups, and just be done with it. Those are my father's thoughts (not mine) I'm reporting, and also my mother's, who is also a Korea vet, as my father was. My mother, hugely conservative and deeply Christian, told me a few weeks ago that as far as she's concerned Bernie Sanders is the only elected person in DC who gives a damn about vets or the elderly or regular working people out there struggling. Those comments would include the entire Bush admin, by the way. She said that because Sanders has stepped up to the plate and will play as long as necessary, not just during a campaign where everyone in the country believes they all say and do whatever they have to do to get elected, knowing that it will mean nothing once elected, again, so far as actions go. When you hear people like my folks, who spent more than full time hours on vets' issues ever since discharge, and my mother still today, talking like that, it's very significant, politically.

Fourth, there is the Second Amendment litmus test (for me). He doesn't pass it. Neither did Dean, once he didn't have to be elected in VT again. That kind of shit I can't deal with, and don't have to.

Anyway, it's a long story and perhaps you had to be there, but I won't be voting for him. Or Bush.

[Jimmy Cantiello]

DD-214, baby..............

Silly me, all this time I thought that since Bush obtained the proper amount of points each year meant he actually WAS serving his time.

So let me ask all of you liberla's and fantasy mongers out there a question. Did you ever stop to think that this whole Bush/National Guard thing is just a election year hoax?

I mean, think about it. It came up during the 2000 election, but nothing was proven. Why was it suddenly dropped? Then it resurfaces again now? Sounds more to me like something that the opposition can put out there in the media to sway people, yet offer absolutely zero proof to back their claims. Kind of like what Sisco does sometimes.

It's quite easy to say something like this and have people believe it. But thats because they want to believe it, not because it's been proven to them. Kind of similar to Sisco's "fact" that Rush Limbaugh is guilty of 20+ felonies and will face federal charges.

Whatever.

Oh, and I already know that Bush and his gang of thugs are using the Patriot Act to hide documentation that would prove that he went AWOL, so you good folks don't need to hit me over the head with that sad lie.

Wild Billy didn't serve at all. But you folks thought he was just great. He deserted his country during Vietnam. But nary an eyebrow was raised about that. Now you want to quibble over this idiotic bullshit?

[Root Doctor]

What Jimmy said.

[al j]

Dolan, time will tell just how idiotic the issue is. I suggest you do some more research on military records, the privacy act, and the relationship between the two. FWIW, I'm hardly a liberal AND think there is plenty ground for suspicion toward Bush's military record.

Please don't be casting aside the current investigation as something the Dems are doing simply to sway people through the media (though I have no doubt it's a tactic). Your Republicrew will be pulling their own tricks before too long, as if it hasn't begun already.

I hear you, Joe.

I'm not saying that there is no grounds for suspicion. But goddammitt, follow through or don't fucking bother. Because using something in the first election and then forgetting about it once all was said and done seems a bit suspicious. But after dropping it like a hot potato in 2000 only to bring it back up now is downright transparent.

Shit or get off the fucking pot. Have you at least stopped to think that maybe there IS nothing to this? Maybe thats why it was so quickly dropped after the first go round?

And I am not a Republican, I am a Conservative. I will not be fully represented in this upcoming election, so don't just lump me in with Republicans.

[walto]

FWIW, this issue is very thoroughly hashed out in today's Boston Globe. Naturally, there's something to both sides' claims.

[Bill Ashline]

The reason this issue is coming up again is because Bush has engaged in two wars since he was "elected" in 2000, and he's likely to compete against an actual Vietnam Vet this time. Military service is going to be much more of in issue in this election because the US is engaged in an actual military occupation of another country and people are debating the actual merits of this occupation. Many people feel that this administration is completely out of touch with regard to actual military operations. Most of the neocons never served in the armed forces all the while they script various military engagements around the globe. On the left, we call them "chickenhawks." If you're going to call on men and women to go die for their country, you should have a very clear idea of what that demand entails, and first hand experience is what is necessary. On this score, Kerry has Bush by the balls, whatever one thinks of Kerry otherwise. So no, this issue is not going to go away. Not until Bush comes with it on his military record. And this suspiciously secretive regime doesn't come with it on anything.

Another issue that's going to come up in this election is Bush's reduction in benefits for veterans.

Heres David Corn on all of this.

[Gary Sisco]

Why the "gaps" in the record if he was so busy being gallant? Why did he fail to appear for the crucial physical that forced his removal as a pilot? Why was he transferred to the Alabama Guard? Etc.

Answer: Rich boy draft dodger a la Quayle and almost every prominent conservative and liberal in power in DC today.

[Gary Sisco]

Dolan's a True Believer on a scale with any Stalinist or Islamist. No sense even bothering.

Gary, you truly ARE a genius. At least thats what you've convinced yourself of.

I've already spoken out against Bush for many of the things he's done. Have you been paying attention?

I just see this as a classic example of partisan politics in an election year. Part II no less!!

Boring............

At this point I can honestly say that I would be inclined to vote against President Bush in the upcoming election. He's been great in the war on terrorism, but thats about it. Maybe it's simply time for some fresh ideas.

Not bad for a true believer, eh Gary?

[Chaz Longue]

I will not be fully represented in this upcoming election, so don't just lump me in with Republicans.

the Bush/CHENEY ticket isn't conservative enough for you?

Just curious, Scott - who would you vote for?
J. Edgar Ashcroft? Harold Stassen? Jesse Helms? Donald Wildmon? Pat Robertson? Mona Charen?


Seriously though, who'd get your vote, Scott?

the Bush/CHENEY ticket isn't conservative enough for you?

Tell me Chaz, what makes them so conservative? Other than their stance on National defense, and maybe one or two smaller issues.

Big government, copious spending, incomprehensible immigration policy, billion dollar trips to the moon and Mars. Give me a break, there is very little conservatism on display.

I don't know who would get my vote at this point. I certainly couldn't vote for someone like Kerry. Edwards maybe, but not Kerry.

I may end up sitting this one out, I don't know. Even my father, the hardcore, right wing christian is calling the upcoming election a choice between the lesser of two evils.

As much as I appreciate what Bush has done for the security of this country, I believe it may be best for him to go.

[jazzfiend]

Always knew you'd come around, Mo.

Way to go, dude!

Come around to what?

I'm no different now, I haven't "seen the light", or any other bullshit.

Edwards and Liebermann are the only two that I could live with myself for voting for. Edwards being the only one that still has an outside shot of winning the nom. I will not vote for Kerry, period.

If Kerry gets the nom, I'll likely go third party this year.

Or maybe write in Dennis Kucinich. He's just too goddamn funny NOT to vote for.

[Gary Sisco]

Sheesh. Dolan's more reasonable than I'd imagined, even to articulate his last, never mind to follow through on it. I happen to agree with him that there's nothing "conservative" about this bunch at all. What they are in fact is rightist-corporatist revolutionaries, verging at least on fascism (without the funny suits and all that), and some of them indeed cross the line (but only some).

A Goldwater, for example, would think them lunatic.

[Salvador Dali Lama]

go for it scott, i've never voted for anything but third parties... save one democrat. and that was just to unseat a hideous local incumbant (cynthia mckinney...)

I'm going to vote for Kucinich in the primary, if he's still around when that time comes. if not, I'm going to do a write in for "ballot box."

I thought I'd just vote against bush, but damn, I don't know how I'd feel about myself if I voted for a tool like Kerry.

I wish there was a "none of the above" option. maybe that's what I'll write in.

I hear you Sal. Sending even more American jobs over seas was likely the straw that broke the camels back for me. No matter how it is "rationalized", it does nothing positive for the American economy.

And Kerry is someone that I simply could not vote for. But Kucinich is a blast, he's been on Scarborough Country a few times recently, and although I think he would make the all time worst President ever, he seems like he'd be a hell of a guy to go out drinkin with. He's really a pretty funny chap.

And at this point, thats good enough for me. If Edwards doesn't get the nom, I'm writing Dennis in!!! Just because I plain ole like the confused little bastard.