What I find "Interesting", is that ANYBODY who would DARE oppose GDubbya, would be castigated and dishonestly attacked by people such as you, who accept the bullshit tactics of a scared and failed President who cannot run on his "Record Of Accomplishments", so he delivers, by the barrel-full, lies and innuendo, false-hopes and inflated rhetoric, in an attempt to make HIM look "Good", and make the other guy look like a TRAITOR.
I've never once castigated Kerry's serving nor W's. Kerry served and for that I salute him. It's a matter how he conducted himself when he got home. Bush didn't go meet with the communists, write a book mocking Iwo and join a radical group like VVAW. That's the issue.
Fact Is, Gdubbya is THE dumbest, most failed President of the last 100 years, and he has put us all in MORE danger, NOT less. Yet you love the guy.
No I don't love him. I disagree with him on many issues. I agree with Kerry on even less. More danger as opposed to what? You mean if we had stayed out of Iraq the jihaidiots would now be leaving us alone ? Get real.
IMHO this war on terror is going to last a generation, but it needs to be fought.
THX, we agree, except that I think it'll take longer, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that our Iraqi adventure has been the jihadists' best recruitment program. It also doesn't take a rocket sacientist to figure out that a lot of the war on terror has to be an intelligence operation, and we can't do that without the cooperation of our traditional allies. Unfortunately the current administration seems to feel cooperation is something that can be compelled.
THX, we agree, except that I think it'll take longer, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that our Iraqi adventure has been the jihadists' best recruitment program. Nonsense.It also doesn't take a rocket sacientist to figure out that a lot of the war on terror has to be an intelligence operation, and we can't do that without the cooperation of our traditional allies. They are in as much danger as the US. It was in their citizens interests to join the coalition. It was in certain special interests in France, Germany and Russia not to join.Unfortunately the current administration seems to feel cooperation is something that can be compelled. No they know that certain countries aren't looking out for the common good. If you believe all the nonsense you just wrote, you are part of the problem, too.
HA!!!!!!!!!!!! You call the man a fraud, that he lied about his service record, that those who served "Directly" with him have all said he's a liar...etc., etc., etc. That Is Called "Castigating Him".
I'm castigating his actions when he got home. And why do you think many of the guys who served with him and in the same units not to mention other vets think he's a liar? Oh that's right, the thousands of Vets who are offended by it all must be part of the republican attack machine.
"Bush didn't go meet with the communists".
Fucking-A Right He Didn't...! As a matter of fact, he used every trick he could use, to NOT go "Visit" with them, yet Kerry volunteered to do so, with a GUN in his hands.
He had a gun in his hands when he illegally met with the communists in Paris ?
By the way... Besides the upside-down flag on his book(and I have never read it), how exactly did he MOCK the guys that fought and died to raise that flag on IWO JIMA...??? I mean, can you quote his exact words for me?
If you don't see how reenacting the flag raising with it upside down is mocking it and disrespectful, then I can't help you. Shame on you for not realizing it.
You're right though Bill, He was helpful, that's why there isn't any vets except those part of the vast right wing conspiracy attack machine that are upset with him and have been for years. Saying we murdered 200,000 Vietnamese a year was helpful, Comparing us to Gegnghis Kahn and saying "We went to kill communists and instead killed women and children" Really endeared himself to vets. But because he said it it's o.k, Of course if someone else said it about Vets you'd rightly go after them.
If you don't see how reenacting the flag raising with it upside down is mocking it and disrespectful, then I can't help you. Shame on you for not realizing it.
you realize that the original picture was staged, right?
and the Kerry-Fonda pic was a fraud too, right?. the list grows. If a liberal is in a pic, it's staged/false/not true. It's almost to the point of being funny.
BTW. A book called Flags of our Fathers was written about the men in the now famous photo. It chronicled the battle, how they ended up being in the newer picture and thier life afterwards. Ira Hayes is the most famous.
As Crabs said the pic taken was of a larger flag. One that was visible to those below still fighting. The guys in the pic were part of a small group that made it to the top and happened to be there. They had been given a flag by an Admiral I believe. It was a morale boost to the men who went into that meat grinder and meant alot to those boys on the beach who fought inch by inch and had 75% casualties. It's symbolic and meaningful (to some).
The photo showing Kerry and Fonda sharing a microphone is a fake. The one showing him sitting about three rows back of her at the same rally is not; the genuine photo, however, was taken about two years before her infamous visit to North Vietnam.
As Crabs said the pic taken was of a larger flag. A guy named Rosenthal took the picture. Who was he?
Rosenthal was the AP photojournalist who was four hours late for the raising of the original, smaller flag (which in itself was a photo op for the Marine Corps mag Leatherneck.)
Accounts differ on if the marines decided to re-enact the raising by raising a larger flag or if Rosenthal requested that they do so in order for him to get the picture he had been too late for.
Everything I've read on it was that they wanted a larger flag up there so it would be visible to the Marines below. The reporter went up there to recored the new one being raised.
All the available evidence backs up Rosenthal. The man responsible for spreading the story that the picture was staged, the late Time-Life correspondent Robert Sherrod, long ago admitted he was wrong. But still the rumor persists.
Time was to retract the story within days and issue an apology to Rosenthal. He accepted it, but was never able to entirely shake the taint Time had cast on his story.
Four of the Flag Raisers (Bradley, Hayes, Sousley & Strank) appear with their jubilant buddies. Strank, Sousley and many of these boys would soon be dead.
That picture always had a moment-in-time quality to it for me. Now I'll never see it in the same way.
It was while the battle was still going on. It was done so it was more visible to the men down below Mt Surabachi. It gave those poor souls a much needed boost.
It was while the battle was still going on. It was done so it was more visible to the men down below Mt Surabachi. It gave those poor souls a much needed boost.
Bingo!
Like the caption said for the one photo I just posted: "Strank, Sousley and many of these boys would soon be dead.".
My Gramps told me how after the Japanese surrender, there was still fighting from Japanese soldiers who either didn't know, or didn't care that the war was over.
My Gramps told me how after the Japanese surrender, there was still fighting from Japanese soldiers who either didn't know, or didn't care that the war was over.
The last of 'em came out of the Phillippine jungle several decades after the war. Hiroo Onada.
Wierd that they would hang on that long. They were definatly fanatical.
My Grandpa told me a story when they were on the island of Tinian.
The Island had just been secured but there was still a few Japanese soldiers hiding etc so they had some security concerns. They were all asleep one night when a large explosion shook them out of bed. Everybody ran for cover and grabbed their rifles and waited for the worst. Then nothing else happend. Finally the all clear sounded and they went back to bed.
The next morning revealed the damage. The quartermaster tent was shredded yet still standing somewhat. Upon further inspection they went in to discover little sticky black things hanging to the walls and ceiling of the tent. They turned out to be rasins. It seems one of the more ingenious of our lads had decided to make a still out of some parts the Japs had left behind and some rasins. Well they did a fine job in the construction and it worked very well, except one problem. They forgot to open the pressure releif valve. And after a day or two she blew sending Marines and soldiers scampering into the mud at night in their skivvies. Thus what was donned the great rasin offenisve on Tinian island 1944.
The Washington Cathedral portion of Reagan's week is over and he will soon rest in peace. His family has endured 10 years of hardship, something no one deserves. A terrible illness has claimed another innocent victim.
I never cared for his politics and I don't now. He helped make the term "liberal" a perjorative. I think it paved the way the polarized society we have now. I hope yearly the term will be revived with pride. It deserves better.
I don't begrudge him is presidential years. His departure was solemn and decent.
One failure of his that makes me very happy: He did not take the part of Ricky Blaine in "Casablanca." He was supposed to star with Anne Sheridan, who played Bogart's part time girlfriend.
I'm not saying that to be a schmuck. It's just that you've got some wacko's on your side of the aisle that I could never come to a consensus with.
I'm sure my side has the same. Actually, I know my side has the same, but I can't even seem to agree with a reasonable guy like you Rick, or my Father.
What hope does that give us?
We just see things so totally different.
btw: Took the family to the Twins game tonight. It was a fun game, until the end when they got whopped on.
I think all of us need to not take the statements of the fringe on either side as the position of the majority on that side. Personally, I see the right as being more prone to this than the left, but I'm sure you see it differently.
It was a clarification of my previous post. Perhaps both sides do it (stereotyping) equally, but over and over I see all the spokesmen from the right side of the aisle pushing the meme of the day on the news/interview shows, and I don't see the same from the left.
I think every side has it's extremes. I also think that the "net" cable, talk shows etc. make it more interactive, immeidate and personel to some. Terms like liberal and conservative are probably too broad becaue there's differing beliefs even within those.
I personally don't think Reagan was what polarized people. Reagan seemed to me to be able to debate vigorously and even vehemently disagree but yet go have a beer at the end of the day. There are politicians and people from both sides that still seem to be able to do that. Politics is emotional because they are your own personal beliefs of what's right and wrong. Sometimes politics can't get separated from the person. Maybe that's good, maybe that's bad I don't know.
One other thing re: Reagan. I thought Margaret Thatcher was very elegant and gave a wonderful euulogy. They were all good IMHO. But Lady Thatcher was quite eloquent.
I think all of us need to not take the statements of the fringe on either side as the position of the majority on that side.
Maybe I didn't phrase my post very well. For example, I don't lump Rick in with the group over at TAPA.
What I'm trying to get at is, I can't even agree with Liberals that are what I call reasonable, decent, not hateful... Such as you, Rick, my Father....
We just don't agree on just about every issue I can think of.
We agree on some, THX, and unless all of us work on those areas where we agree, the politics of this country are going to get ever more mean-spirited and spiteful, which does not bode well for the future of the Republic.
<edit> The other day I made some remark about the middle-of-the-road folks who actually make up the majority. I think that divisive rhetoric is the main reason a huge number of people don't bother to vote. If we're going to survive and prosper, we need to briong those people back to the table, so to speak. And this started me thinking about the War on Terrorism, specifically Islamic terrorism. Unless we actively court the Muslim middle-of-the-road, we can't win. What do you think?
What do you mean ?
I forgot what I heard 10 minutes after I heard it, and even if I remembered it, I wouldn't repeat it.
What ?
I forget!
I would say that in the short term, Dubya has put us in "more danger", but in the long run he's making us safer.
IMHO this war on terror is going to last a generation, but it needs to be fought.
Then why don't we fight The WOT, and got the fuck OUT of IRAQ?
I agree. We should have eliminated Osama before Saddam.
In fact, why did we HAVE to go there at all?
We eventually had/have to go there.
But we DID, Because Gdubbya's handlers WANTED IT THAT WAY.
I prefer to look at it as he had the balls to do it, whereas Clinton was too busy balling interns.
Chances are good, based upon his actions in Lebanon, that Ronnie wouldn't have gone into IRAQ. Clinton surely would not have.
Given the same circumstances, I believe Ronnie would have gone into Iraq. Especially when Kuwait was invaded.
But GDubbya, dragged-along by those Neo's who advise him, DID.
Yeah, anyone that isn't a flaming liberal, is a "Neo".
I've never once castigated Kerry's serving nor W's. Kerry served and for that I salute him. It's a matter how he conducted himself when he got home. Bush didn't go meet with the communists, write a book mocking Iwo and join a radical group like VVAW. That's the issue.
No I don't love him. I disagree with him on many issues. I agree with Kerry on even less. More danger as opposed to what? You mean if we had stayed out of Iraq the jihaidiots would now be leaving us alone ? Get real.
Like Sunday morning.
Fact Is, Gdubbya is THE dumbest, most failed President of the last 100 years....
Really? Let me see there was Taft, Harding, Hoover, Johnson, Nixon, Carter and Bush I. I think GW has been much more successful than all of them.
THX, we agree, except that I think it'll take longer, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that our Iraqi adventure has been the jihadists' best recruitment program. It also doesn't take a rocket sacientist to figure out that a lot of the war on terror has to be an intelligence operation, and we can't do that without the cooperation of our traditional allies. Unfortunately the current administration seems to feel cooperation is something that can be compelled.
THX, we agree, except that I think it'll take longer, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that our Iraqi adventure has been the jihadists' best recruitment program. Nonsense.It also doesn't take a rocket sacientist to figure out that a lot of the war on terror has to be an intelligence operation, and we can't do that without the cooperation of our traditional allies. They are in as much danger as the US. It was in their citizens interests to join the coalition. It was in certain special interests in France, Germany and Russia not to join.Unfortunately the current administration seems to feel cooperation is something that can be compelled. No they know that certain countries aren't looking out for the common good. If you believe all the nonsense you just wrote, you are part of the problem, too.
You deleted that post last Nov. 11th, fold. Forget again???
Jethro did post it however.
Drown me in Como? Beat me with a walking stick? Ring any of your lying bells?
Como?
Theres not even a beach there... you'd get arrested for going into the water.
I'm castigating his actions when he got home. And why do you think many of the guys who served with him and in the same units not to mention other vets think he's a liar? Oh that's right, the thousands of Vets who are offended by it all must be part of the republican attack machine.
"Bush didn't go meet with the communists".
He had a gun in his hands when he illegally met with the communists in Paris ?
If you don't see how reenacting the flag raising with it upside down is mocking it and disrespectful, then I can't help you. Shame on you for not realizing it.
You're right though Bill, He was helpful, that's why there isn't any vets except those part of the vast right wing conspiracy attack machine that are upset with him and have been for years. Saying we murdered 200,000 Vietnamese a year was helpful, Comparing us to Gegnghis Kahn and saying "We went to kill communists and instead killed women and children" Really endeared himself to vets. But because he said it it's o.k, Of course if someone else said it about Vets you'd rightly go after them.
My God you're dense, fold. You wrote it. You find it. You have the date.
Fold is in full deflection today, Luv.
you realize that the original picture was staged, right?
you realize that the original picture was staged, right?
So?
Exactly. It's the sacrifice and triumph that is symbolizes it. Ask a WW2 vet how they feel about it.
Staged? -- Oh, man!
If the picture was taken by a photojournalist, he violated ethics, galore.
actually, it's "staging" was simply replacing a smaller flag with a larger one.
just wanted to see if you guys knew what you were talking about.
and the Kerry-Fonda pic was a fraud too, right?. the list grows. If a liberal is in a pic, it's staged/false/not true. It's almost to the point of being funny.
Yep, knew it Crabby. But thanks.
BTW. A book called Flags of our Fathers was written about the men in the now famous photo. It chronicled the battle, how they ended up being in the newer picture and thier life afterwards. Ira Hayes is the most famous.
Rick 6/11/04 10:46am
As Crabs said the pic taken was of a larger flag. One that was visible to those below still fighting. The guys in the pic were part of a small group that made it to the top and happened to be there. They had been given a flag by an Admiral I believe. It was a morale boost to the men who went into that meat grinder and meant alot to those boys on the beach who fought inch by inch and had 75% casualties. It's symbolic and meaningful (to some).
The photo showing Kerry and Fonda sharing a microphone is a fake. The one showing him sitting about three rows back of her at the same rally is not; the genuine photo, however, was taken about two years before her infamous visit to North Vietnam.
A guy named Rosenthal took the Iwo Jima picture. He was Associated Press and won the Pulitzer Prize for it.
I'll be damned.
Rosenthal was the AP photojournalist who was four hours late for the raising of the original, smaller flag (which in itself was a photo op for the Marine Corps mag Leatherneck.)
Accounts differ on if the marines decided to re-enact the raising by raising a larger flag or if Rosenthal requested that they do so in order for him to get the picture he had been too late for.
Everything I've read on it was that they wanted a larger flag up there so it would be visible to the Marines below. The reporter went up there to recored the new one being raised.
I'll be damned.
Lots of ethically questionable characters have won the Pulitzer.
http://www.pulitzer.org/
Interesting article on Rosenthal, and how it wasn't staged.
http://www.ap.org/pages/rosenthal.html
All the available evidence backs up Rosenthal. The man responsible for spreading the story that the picture was staged, the late Time-Life correspondent Robert Sherrod, long ago admitted he was wrong. But still the rumor persists.
Time was to retract the story within days and issue an apology to Rosenthal. He accepted it, but was never able to entirely shake the taint Time had cast on his story.
That picture always had a moment-in-time quality to it for me. Now I'll never see it in the same way.
Four of the Flag Raisers (Bradley, Hayes, Sousley & Strank) appear with their jubilant buddies. Strank, Sousley and many of these boys would soon be dead.
It was while the battle was still going on. It was done so it was more visible to the men down below Mt Surabachi. It gave those poor souls a much needed boost.
It was while the battle was still going on. It was done so it was more visible to the men down below Mt Surabachi. It gave those poor souls a much needed boost.
Bingo!
Like the caption said for the one photo I just posted:
"Strank, Sousley and many of these boys would soon be dead.".
My Gramps told me how after the Japanese surrender, there was still fighting from Japanese soldiers who either didn't know, or didn't care that the war was over.
I like the one in 6003.
The last of 'em came out of the Phillippine jungle several decades after the war. Hiroo Onada.
Wierd that they would hang on that long. They were definatly fanatical.
My Grandpa told me a story when they were on the island of Tinian.
The Island had just been secured but there was still a few Japanese soldiers hiding etc so they had some security concerns. They were all asleep one night when a large explosion shook them out of bed. Everybody ran for cover and grabbed their rifles and waited for the worst. Then nothing else happend. Finally the all clear sounded and they went back to bed.
The next morning revealed the damage. The quartermaster tent was shredded yet still standing somewhat. Upon further inspection they went in to discover little sticky black things hanging to the walls and ceiling of the tent. They turned out to be rasins. It seems one of the more ingenious of our lads had decided to make a still out of some parts the Japs had left behind and some rasins. Well they did a fine job in the construction and it worked very well, except one problem. They forgot to open the pressure releif valve. And after a day or two she blew sending Marines and soldiers scampering into the mud at night in their skivvies. Thus what was donned the great rasin offenisve on Tinian island 1944.
Final thought on Reagan
The Washington Cathedral portion of Reagan's week is over and he will soon rest in peace. His family has endured 10 years of hardship, something no one deserves. A terrible illness has claimed another innocent victim.
I never cared for his politics and I don't now. He helped make the term "liberal" a perjorative. I think it paved the way the polarized society we have now. I hope yearly the term will be revived with pride. It deserves better.
I don't begrudge him is presidential years. His departure was solemn and decent.
One failure of his that makes me very happy: He did not take the part of Ricky Blaine in "Casablanca." He was supposed to star with Anne Sheridan, who played Bogart's part time girlfriend.
And he didn't get Minnesota in '84.
He helped make the term "liberal" a perjorative.
I think Liberals have done a lot too.
I'm not saying that to be a schmuck. It's just that you've got some wacko's on your side of the aisle that I could never come to a consensus with.
I'm sure my side has the same. Actually, I know my side has the same, but I can't even seem to agree with a reasonable guy like you Rick, or my Father.
What hope does that give us?
We just see things so totally different.
btw: Took the family to the Twins game tonight. It was a fun game, until the end when they got whopped on.
I think all of us need to not take the statements of the fringe on either side as the position of the majority on that side. Personally, I see the right as being more prone to this than the left, but I'm sure you see it differently.
pieter b 6/11/04 9:15pm
I see both sides as equally prone to it. But that's just my opinion.
I see the right as far more effective in disseminating that sort of thing, myself. Maybe that's what I meant.
pieter b 6/11/04 10:03pm
Maybe that's what I meant.
Maybe that's what you meant? Are you saying that you are not sure about it?
It was a clarification of my previous post. Perhaps both sides do it (stereotyping) equally, but over and over I see all the spokesmen from the right side of the aisle pushing the meme of the day on the news/interview shows, and I don't see the same from the left.
I think every side has it's extremes. I also think that the "net" cable, talk shows etc. make it more interactive, immeidate and personel to some. Terms like liberal and conservative are probably too broad becaue there's differing beliefs even within those.
I personally don't think Reagan was what polarized people. Reagan seemed to me to be able to debate vigorously and even vehemently disagree but yet go have a beer at the end of the day. There are politicians and people from both sides that still seem to be able to do that. Politics is emotional because they are your own personal beliefs of what's right and wrong. Sometimes politics can't get separated from the person. Maybe that's good, maybe that's bad I don't know.
One other thing re: Reagan. I thought Margaret Thatcher was very elegant and gave a wonderful euulogy. They were all good IMHO. But Lady Thatcher was quite eloquent.
Yah, OKAY... Translation, Luv wacked me again.
Find your deleted or jethro's re-post yet, foldo. Still waiting.
I think all of us need to not take the statements of the fringe on either side as the position of the majority on that side.
Maybe I didn't phrase my post very well. For example, I don't lump Rick in with the group over at TAPA.
What I'm trying to get at is, I can't even agree with Liberals that are what I call reasonable, decent, not hateful... Such as you, Rick, my Father....
We just don't agree on just about every issue I can think of.
We agree on some, THX, and unless all of us work on those areas where we agree, the politics of this country are going to get ever more mean-spirited and spiteful, which does not bode well for the future of the Republic.
<edit> The other day I made some remark about the middle-of-the-road folks who actually make up the majority. I think that divisive rhetoric is the main reason a huge number of people don't bother to vote. If we're going to survive and prosper, we need to briong those people back to the table, so to speak. And this started me thinking about the War on Terrorism, specifically Islamic terrorism. Unless we actively court the Muslim middle-of-the-road, we can't win. What do you think?
The other day I made some remark about the middle-of-the-road folks who actually make up the majority.
That's probably true.
Unless we actively court the Muslim middle-of-the-road, we can't win. What do you think?
I agree totally. Without them, it's all pointless.