The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

joebagadonuts wrote:as for john o'neil, didn't he just issue a statement where he said he regrets some of the accusations he made in his book about kerry?

my mistake, it was george elliott, who is quoted extensively in the book.

Ahhh... Joe... so, Michael Kranish got you too, huh? Oh, he's the Boston Globe reporter who reported that Captain Elliott had retracted... except, it was (GASP) NOT TRUE.

http://www.swiftvets.com/Elliottaffidavit08062004.pdf

It's all legal-like, and everything, too. Capt. George Elliott, USN (RET) stands by his story. End of story.

well, if you mean that i believe a reporter AND newspaper who stand by the quote (see link below) then i guess, yes, i've been 'got'.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washi ... its_story/


did you ever consider the possibility that perhaps (GASP) elliott did indeed say those things, then backed off after pressure from svft? i think it doesn't matter much anyway, this is such a small point when there are much much larger fish to fry.

did you ever consider the possibility that perhaps (GASP) elliott did indeed say those things, then backed off after pressure from svft? i think it doesn't matter much anyway, this is such a small point when there are much much larger fish to fry.

I doubt it... first of all, check the date of the affidavit... it was an immediate response to the Globe article. Keep in mind that the Globe has had several recent issues with credibility, including 2 separate plagerism scandals.

Second, the guy retired as a senior Naval officer, and a combat vet... not someone whom could be easily bullied.

And, finally, you call it a small point. I can't understand that. Credibility is on the line, here, including Kerry's. Honor is on the line here. I realize that honor, in particular, may mean more to a soldier than to one who has not had that experience, but I certainly hope that's not a small thing to you. To a soldier or sailor, honor is a qualification for the Presidency. Lack of it is a disqualifier. Kerry has really made his "war hero" status the centerpiece of his campaign, yet he has said virtually nothing of his involvement with VVAW. He was in Vietnam for 4 months. He was a senior member of VVAW for much longer than that. Yet, he says nothing of his experience with them. You say that he may have been well motivated during that time. So, why, then, does it not carry comensurate campaign "weight" with his time in Vietnam? Don't you wonder why he says nothing? Can you seriously say that you don't smell something here? Look, I'm no neutral source.

I guess Kerry just didn't have the luxury of having his daddy the senator get him into the National Guard so he couldn't be drafted and sent to Vietnam.

cville:

Thousands of men and women entered the National Guard and the Reserves at that time. Are you suggesting that they were dishonorable? You do realize that there are over 2000 names of National Guardsmen on the wall at the Vietnam Memorial. You do realize that some of those 2000 names are Air National Guardsmen, including pilots?

And, of course, how many National Guardsmen served during Desert Storm, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq? Are they serving less than "Regular" Army or Air Force.

Of course, you are aware that the Air National Guard has primary responsibility for the air defense of the continental US, and, in fact, did at the time that GWB was flying as well, that it frequently scrambled for intercepts of Soviet patrol bombers testing our borders.


I'd suggest that this line of comment is frought with danger for you. There is a good reason the DNC stopped this line of ionnuendo as well. It was a bad idea.

I didn't say all National Guardsmen are dishonorable.

I didn't even come close to that.

But, you are slamming Kerry for the hard choices he had to make. Choices "W" never had to make. If Kerry had been a child of priveledge and had the power to get out of going to Vietnam, would he have? We know that "W" did.

Edit:
I would point out that, prior to becoming part of the Bush administration, Gen. Powell was a strong opponent to such actions.

i guess what i smell is a man who perhaps wishes he could go back and undo some things he has done in the past. i also smell a politician, like all other politicians, who emphasizes points he feels voters will respond to. i'm no polysci major, but even i would shy away from that area of discussion what with troops in danger every day in iraq.

what i meant by 'small point' was specifically directed towards whether or not elliott says he saw kerry shoot the guy or not. i understand that the gop is placing much emphasis on the supposed inconsistancies in kerry's record, just as kerry is placing emphasis on his supposed heroism. but that point (elliott) seems to be a small one in a larger argument.

not to mention that 10 of the 11 soldiers who served on kerry's boat support his candidacy (the 11th is deceased).

if we are going to talk about honor and integrity, then we should talk about president bush as well, who did not volunteer for vietnam, and, as some would suggest, made a concerted effort to avoid it. this, in my opinion, is way down on the list of dishonorable transgresions he has commited. we should also talk about the vice president, whose drunk driving arrests are minor compared to the accounting practices during his tenure as ceo for which halliburton recently paid a hefty fine.

i'll admit that i'm baffled when bush supporters talk about honor, or criticize kerry's war record, when it seems easy to see that bush has lied and flip-flopped himself many times, and has no war record. i guess it just goes to show that we all (including myself) see what we want to see.

cville

I didn't say all National Guardsmen are dishonorable

But, you did say this:

I guess Kerry just didn't have the luxury of having his daddy the senator get him into the National Guard so he couldn't be drafted and sent to Vietnam

Clearly, the intention is to minimize the risks assumed by National Guardsmen. The liklihood that Bush entered the Guard as a mechanism to avoid the draft is there. OTOH, you have no idea why he joined. My point is that joining the guard was no guarantee of avoiding Vietnam. Additionally, there were far safer slots for an officer to enter than to become an F 106 pilot. My own awareness of the hazards faced by men and women who enter such fields tells me that he did not avoid risk. He simply faced different risks. Your argument is a red herring, and fundamentally dishonest.

You simply can't say "Bush hid from his obligations by running to the Guard", and then say" I don't mean that being in the Guard is hiding from your obligations". Which is it? The Guard is hiding from you obligations? Or is the Guard honorable service? You can't have it both ways. It's an arguement that I find personally insulting, for a number of reasons, most of which are personal, and some of which are painful. If you wish to make this arguement, I will passionately confront it.

But, you are slamming Kerry for the hard choices he had to make. Choices "W" never had to make.

I can only assume that you refer to choices that Kerry made during Vietnam service.
If you would kindly re-read my responses, you will see that at no time have I impugned Kerry's Vietnam record. Your suggestion that I have is ludicrous and insulting. What I have attacked is a huge array of Kerry's choices and behaviors since his return from Vietnam. Choices which were purely optional on his part, and certainly not choices he "had to make". So, you go ahead... point out my criticisms of "Kerry during Vietnam".

I do not have the personal experience to criticise Kerry in combat, Kerry as a naval leader, or Kerry as a warrior. I have been careful to avoid introducing my opinions on that service in this forum.

I will, however, listen to those who do have that experience. I have also defended their right to say what they do. The inconsistency here is that Kerry embraces and draws attention to a small number of veterans who were there with him, and who sing his praises. Yet, he sends lawyers to threaten to sue TV outlets in an effort to quiet the voices of over 200 who say things he doesn't like. He can't have it both ways, and neither can you.


Joe:

i'll admit that i'm baffled when bush supporters talk about honor, or criticize kerry's war record, when it seems easy to see that bush has lied and flip-flopped himself many times, and has no war record.

As I pointed out earlier, I am much more concerned with the CONSISTENCIES of Kerry's record. In particular, his consistent lack of support for needed pentagon project spending and national intelligence spending. You will kindly note, that you have not read any referrence to inconsistent voting records or statements by Kerry (though I feel comfortable saying it would be considerably easier to point those out that it would be for you to point out Bush's). The other fact is that I am not looking to defend Bush. As I noted before, I support Bush because I have more in common with Republican beliefs, values and principles than the Deomocrats.

But my main motivation is similar to that which drives the Swift Boat Vets for Truth. A deep belief that Kerry has historically engaged in a pattern of behavior which fundamentally disqualifies him for Presidential office.
It is a belief that was born when Kerry was offering hideously dishonest testimony of a slanderous nature about his "brothers" in Vietnam, and grew from his behavior since.

Obviously the lens through which you are reading my posts is preventing you from comprehending what I am actually saying, versus what you would like to think I implied.

Bush was born of privelege and used that to not just get into the National Guard, but to shirk his responsibilities therin.

Bush has proven to be dishonest and devious and a poor leader. He has radical right-wing views and is trying to force his religious views onto our Constitution.

The charges SBVT have made have been shown to be untrue, but you choose to ignore that because it supports your view that Bush is honorable and Kerry dishonorable.

Despite what you think of Kerry, this country will be far better off with him in office than with the current administration which opperates on radical conservatism, corportate cronyism and dishonesty. And, might I add, has at the very least, fumbled and bumbled the PR for homeland security and the war on terrorism. More likely the Bushies are fumbling and bumbling more than just the PR as well.

The suggenstion that one can "shirk" responsibilities by joining the Guard ISN'T an insult? And, you live in which dimension?

Bush has proven to be dishonest and devious and a poor leader.

proven to be dishonest... please expound.


proven to be devious... please expound


proven to be a poor leader... well, those who know a great deal about leadership, such as those in the military might disagree, but, please expound.

The charges SBVT have made have been shown to be untrue, but you choose to ignore that because it supports your view that Bush is honorable and Kerry dishonorable.

Untrue? Huh... who knew. Please show me where this has been proven. So, you are saying that these officers are all lying. Where is your evidence?

Besides, I have yet to make a single argument regarding the conclusions reached by SBVT, so, what the heck are you talking about? I have said that the retraction reported by the Globe was a lie, and provided the notarized afidavit as evidence. You now share your opinion as fact, and simply expect me to believe it.

Despite what you think of Kerry, this country will be far better off with him in office than with the current administration which opperates on radical conservatism, corportate cronyism and dishonesty. And, might I add, has at the very least, fumbled and bumbled the PR for homeland security and the war on terrorism. More likely the Bushies are fumbling and bumbling more than just the PR as well.

Oh, man... don't be hatin' Just remember, I can continue to defend, point by point why I don't like Kerry. To you, a lot of it is just history. But, I can vividly remember watching Kerry on the tube, aghast that he was stabbing servicemen who were still under fire in the back, and getting away with it. I listened to his lies. For me, it's not history. It's a vivid memory. A bad one.

Countertrey wrote:Of course, you are aware that the Air National Guard has primary responsibility for the air defense of the continental US, and, in fact, did at the time that GWB was flying as well, that it frequently scrambled for intercepts of Soviet patrol bombers testing our borders.

Countertrey also wrote:Thousands of men and women entered the National Guard and the Reserves at that time. Are you suggesting that they were dishonorable? You do realize that there are over 2000 names of National Guardsmen on the wall at the Vietnam Memorial. You do realize that some of those 2000 names are Air National Guardsmen, including pilots?

Hey Countertrey I think we all understand about the heroism of the Air National Guard. We all know that Bush served in it for......I think it was just under 3 years. So he has lets just say three years of PERSONAL experience in the Air National Guard. He's got to know how fast the planes can scramble, the training of the pilots, and the number of planes scattered throughout the bases in this country.

With all of that knowledge at hand it just completely baffels me that he didn't know to scramble fighters too intercept the commercial airliners on 9/11. I don't know why....maybe he just thought that reading a book with kids was more important at that time. Or maybe he just knew that someone else would step up and do his job. Or maybe he just didn't know what to do. Maybe......we will just never know.

But I do know one thing THAT IS JUST FREAKING DISGUSTING!!!!!!!!!!!

OHHH!!!!! Before I forget....President Bush is the worst President this country has ever had.

Redskins Rule, just out of a curiousity did you hear any of the 9/11 hearings?
I did. And it was my understanding that it took too long to get a grasp on what was going on, not only for the president but for the FAA and all of the other agencies involved.
It just seems to me that what Joe said is true. We can all take what we want out of this and this thread can go on for page after page. It is not accomplishing anything except making Redskin's fans realize we don't all share political views just because we cheer for the same team on Sunday!

Not that I really want to enter this "discussion" but as a 19 year member of the military I can tell you those of us who are close to retirement are grabbing the retirement certificates that are signed by Bush, most don't want Kerry's name on their certificate. What does that tell you?? As a person who takes care of the casualties of war here at Dover, I can’t begin tell you how much it disgusts me that Kerry got purple hearts for his so called “injuries”

RE: RR...

NikiH wrote:Redskins Rule, just out of a curiousity did you hear any of the 9/11 hearings?
I did. And it was my understanding that it took too long to get a grasp on what was going on, not only for the president but for the FAA and all of the other agencies involved.
It just seems to me that what Joe said is true. We can all take what we want out of this and this thread can go on for page after page. It is not accomplishing anything except making Redskin's fans realize we don't all share political views just because we cheer for the same team on Sunday!

amen.

DEHog wrote:Not that I really want to enter this "discussion" but as a 19 year member of the military I can tell you those of us who are close to retirement are grabbing the retirement certificates that are signed by Bush, most don't want Kerry's name on their certificate. What does that tell you??

it tells me what i've already known; most of those in the military vote republican. most blacks vote democrat-does that mean that george bush is a racist? certainly not. it simply means that the majority of a group of people share the values trumpeted by one party or the other.

Hey DeHog.....Thanks for your 19+ years. I'm glad that you are happy with Bush. I don't know the details of Kerry's purple hearts. Everywhere I have looked to find something out about that has been so overly biased that I just have a hard time believing it. In other words, it sounds very similar to the overly biased statements that were made about Bill Clinton on anything and everything that they could think of, which all but one turned out to be bullcrud.

I just have a hard time believing stuff that comes from them. Not only because Bush has lied to us about alot of things, but also because nearly all of the negativity that comes out from Republicans has been proven to be bullcrud at one time or another.

If Kerry really did push his Purple Hearts through the chain of command and get decorated for a medal that he didn't rate to wear and after that protest the war. It really would piss me off!!!! That is pretty darn disgusting. But until I can see actual proof on it and not the usual republican BS....I won't believe it.

Didn't one of Kerry's purple hearts result from him hurting himself? I thought I heard he pulled a pin and didn't throw a grenade far enough from himself. He was too close to the explosion, but I heard that the wound was very minor. After seeing him throw that pitch at the Red Sox game, I have no doubt he has a weak arm and can barely throw.

BTW RedskinsRule, I think it's safe to say that one of our worst presidents was Jimmy Carter. He was a total wuss in dealing with terrorists that held our American's hostage in Iran. His administration gave this country a bad recession, along with double digit inflation.

...not to mention those huge teeth.

joebagadonuts wrote:

NikiH wrote:Redskins Rule, just out of a curiousity did you hear any of the 9/11 hearings?
I did. And it was my understanding that it took too long to get a grasp on what was going on, not only for the president but for the FAA and all of the other agencies involved.
It just seems to me that what Joe said is true. We can all take what we want out of this and this thread can go on for page after page. It is not accomplishing anything except making Redskin's fans realize we don't all share political views just because we cheer for the same team on Sunday!

amen.

DEHog wrote:


Not that I really want to enter this "discussion" but as a 19 year member of the military I can tell you those of us who are close to retirement are grabbing the retirement certificates that are signed by Bush, most don't want Kerry's name on their certificate. What does that tell you??

it tells me what i've already known; most of those in the military vote republican. most blacks vote democrat-does that mean that george bush is a racist? certainly not. it simply means that the majority of a group of people share the values trumpeted by one party or the other.

So who do black military members vote for??

DEHog wrote:So who do black military members vote for??

I got out years ago but when I servered.. Once Dem ..Twice Rep

No I wasn't 1/3 black and 2/3 military I was 100% american so I voted for who I considered the best to lead this great nation not for who or what I represent.

1niksder wrote:

DEHog wrote:So who do black military members vote for??

I got out years ago but when I servered.. Once Dem ..Twice Rep

No I wasn't 1/3 black and 2/3 military I was 100% american so I voted for who I considered the best to lead this great nation not for who or what I represent.

Bingo...I think that saying the military mostly votes Rep is a little outdated I myself have voted both ways.

As the election draws closer...i must reopen this thread by asking the question:

It's football season. Who cares about this thread anymore?

cvillehog wrote:It's football season. Who cares about this thread anymore?

apparently you do, since you're hanging around the lounge during "football season"...