Pat Tillman's Brother Kevin

[Craig234]

I forgot to ad that Kerry often points to the official Navy records as evidence that he deserved his medals and did everything that was expected of him.

Bush also points to the official records, which also back up his story that he did everything that was required of him.

1. No, they don't. They don't back up that he got the spot without a political power being abused to get him in, they don't back up that he was where he was supposed to be for 6 months during the Senate campaign, they don't back up that he took the physical he was required to take to avoid being grounded, they don't reflect that his missing it was investigated as the rules required he be for missing it, they don't reflect that he showed up to a meeting he was ordered to attend in early October. They suggest he got special treatment and did not have to follow rules.

2. The right attacked Kerry's records all over the place about his medals, and say that these records can be relied on - isn't it hypocritical for you to raise the issue of hypocrisy without criticizing the right?

And let's not forget for all the right's criticizing the memo which the guy's secretary said was accurate about his views, the Bush administration produced a torn piece of paper as a record which didn't even identify Bush and said it was proof, and the right said 'proof!'

 

[maluckey]

So how does this "I hate Bush!" Tirade tie into Pat or Kevin Tillman?

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I forgot to ad that Kerry often points to the official Navy records as evidence that he deserved his medals and did everything that was expected of him.

Bush also points to the official records, which also back up his story that he did everything that was required of him.

Would it not be a little hypocritical to believe one set of records and not the others?

Why can't they find one person who will step up and say he remebers Bush and worked with him at Montgomery ANG?

Yeah, you think they'd remember a party-boy, son of a rich congressman/head of CIA, don't ya???

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I have as many purple hearts and silver stars as you and dare I say just about everyone else on this board.

That may be so, but "just about everyone else on this board" isn't calling down John Kerry or Kevin Tillman, two guys who, unlike YOU, actually did put their lives on the line in the military service of their nation.

I was actually going to be an air rescue swimmer in the Navy, but could not enlist due to curvature of the spin.

Curvature of the SPIN???? Finally, you admit the truth -- You're a SPINE-less, liar, and everything you say comes directly from Karl Rove's SPIN machine. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

And what I said about Kerry stands. He did his duty, but he also did everything he could to stay out of the war and then stay out of combat, and once in combat he went out of his way to get three purple hearts and get his ass home.

Obviously, he wasn't quite as successful as you or your chickenhawk President.

QUESTION: What's the difference between Vietnam and Iraq?

ANSWER: George W. Bush knew how to get out of Vietnam.

Although questions remain about how much special pull it took to get his idiot ass into the Texas Air National Guard, it could have been seen as legitimate service to the nation... if he hadn't ducked out of part of his required service to go play politics in another state.

And before you ask, I put in my full six years, and I didn't duck out of any of my time in the U.S. Army Reserve.

If Kerry hadn't made such a big deal of his Vietnam experience we probably would have never heard of "Swift Boat Vets for Truth.? It is kind of ironic that his attempts to portray himself as a hero and the backlash against such a portrayal may have cost him the Presidency.

There's no irony there, at all. It's called the Karl Rove spin machine:

The big moneyman behind the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is Bob Perry and, not surprisingly, the only visible connection between Perry and Swift Boat accuser John O'Neill is their mutual relationship with Karl Rove. Perry worked with Rove early in the consultant's political ascension. The Houston homebuilder, who has developed into the biggest giver to Republican causes and candidates in Texas, was the finance chairman of the 1986 Texas gubernatorial campaign of Bill Clements. Rove managed that race for Clements and Perry was an important fundraiser, helping Rove generate the donor lists he used to rebuild the Texas Republican Party, and, ultimately, finance the climb of his prize client, George W. Bush.

Rove had already convinced Perry to begin raising money to elect state judges -- funds used to help launch the Texas Civil Justice League. The Civil Justice League was Rove's initial surrogate organization and carried the message that trial lawyers were bad people who were screwing up the business climate with frivolous lawsuits. The chorus singing about the evils of lawyers in Texas was later joined by Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse (an organization that Rove helped grow and with which he maintains close contact today), and yet another front group called Texans for Lawsuit Reform. As they chanted their messages across the state about the horrors of litigation, Rove's political clients were able to publicly acknowledge the concerns of these groups. Thus an entirely artificial movement, conceived and funded by Rove, was used to change the state's judicial system and, of course, became an essential step in Rove's master plan to elect Bush governor and then president.

The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is nothing more than another example of Rove's tactic of using surrogates to do his candidate's dirty work and there is a clear, bright line running from the current headlines back to Texas. When it came time for an organization like SBVT to magically appear, Rove already was the acknowledged master of the third-party surrogate slur. As he was rebuilding the Republican Party in Texas, Rove developed a template for smearing opponents. The goal was to have his candidates hover above the fray while urging their opponents to concentrate on issues, thereby constantly putting them in a position of having to play defense and deny unfounded accusations. Eventually, the Rove client, according to the script, would step out to demand an end to the ugliness. Of course, Rove wrote the narrative of these plans in such a way that calling for a truce would not occur until the damage had already been done to his opposition.

That's the same network of liars that smeared Max Cleland, a veteran who lost both legs and an arm in Vietnam, as soft on national security in his Senate race against Republican Saxby Chambliss:

Cleland defeated by conservative

By Andrea Stone, USA TODAY

Few believed Republican Saxby Chambliss could paint Sen. Max Cleland, a veteran who lost both legs and an arm in Vietnam, as soft on national security. But that's just what the conservative congressman did to score a surprising victory over the one-term Democrat.
.
.
Chambliss even ran a TV ad picturing Cleland with Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.
.
.
Bush repaid Chambliss for his support. The president made campaign visits to Georgia three times, most recently on Saturday. Chambliss credited the weekend trip to helping to win over late undecided voters.

The race was one of the most expensive in state history. The candidates spent about $25 million, much of it on negative ads.

That's the same network of liars that smeared John McCain, in his primary race against Bush:

Bush's campaign strategists, including Karl Rove, devised a push poll against John McCain. South Carolina voters were asked "Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?". They had no interest in the actual percentages in the poll, the goal was to suggest that he had. This was particularly vicious since McCain was campaining with his adopted Bangladeshi daughter. The sight of the little dark skinned girl made the seed planted earlier grow and John McCain lost South Carolina, effectively ending his run for the presidency.

That same network of liars includes lying pissant neocon sycophants like YOU! tthumbsdown; :frown: :thumbsdown:

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: daveymark

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: daveymark

Originally posted by: Pabster
"Kevin wrote on Truthdig.com, which purchased his work."

Truthdig is a well known left extremist site.

Form your own opinions on his writings, just know the credibility (or, in this case, lack of) of the source.

well said. Say what you will about Tillman's opinion, but the fact that he was paid to have his views slathered on a left wing extremist site makes one think about the site's own motives.

If truthdig is such a reputable upstanding, unbiased site, why do they need to pay army rangers to express their opinions? should they change their name to dollardig? It's not hard to dig for the "truth" when you have a fistful of cash in your hand.

Are you suggesting that the Tillman's really don't believe what they wrote?

Are you suggesting truthdig is unbiased?

No I'm not and I'll take your word they are. The only article that I ever read that was on that site was Tillman's and I actually read it over at SI.Com. Now what's that have to do with Tillman's article being true? Are you calling Tillman a liar?

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I forgot to ad that Kerry often points to the official Navy records as evidence that he deserved his medals and did everything that was expected of him.

Bush also points to the official records, which also back up his story that he did everything that was required of him.

Would it not be a little hypocritical to believe one set of records and not the others?

Why can't they find one person who will step up and say he remebers Bush and worked with him at Montgomery ANG?

Yeah, you think they'd remember a party-boy, son of a rich congressman/head of CIA, don't ya???

Exactly. I've read some interviews of the pilots at the Montgomery ANG and they all knew there was a VIP party boy coming to the base and were looking forward to meeting him, so what happened?? Nobody remembers him? Fat chance.

Even if your willing to give GWB the benifit of the doubt and accept that he was there and did do his duty, he still didn't take his physical and continue his flying even though the govement spent over a million dollars training him.

Yeah, no preferential treatment here. :roll:

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Harvey
That's the same network of liars that smeared Max Cleland, a veteran who lost both legs and an arm in Vietnam, as soft on national security in his Senate race against Republican Saxby Chambliss and the same network of liars that smeared John McCain, in his primary race against Bush:

Bush's campaign strategists, including Karl Rove, devised a push poll against John McCain. South Carolina voters were asked "Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?". They had no interest in the actual percentages in the poll, the goal was to suggest that he had. This was particularly vicious since McCain was campaining with his adopted Bangladeshi daughter. The sight of the little dark skinned girl made the seed planted earlier grow and John McCain lost South Carolina, effectively ending his run for the presidency.

At some point you have to blame the Sheeple, they have to either grow a brain or suffer the consequences.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
At some point you have to blame the Sheeple, they have to either grow a brain or suffer the consequences.

I disagree. You can't blame the "sheeple" for their present state of ignorance and stupidity. I most certainly fault any politician who intentionally attempts to exploit that ignorance and stupidity as a means to spread lies about an opponent for political advantage.

There's no way to instantly raise the social and political awareness of an uninformed population, but the Bushies have shown they have no interest in doing so. It would only get in the way of their ability to disseminate their lies and deceptions. Why do you think they continually underfund, under-impliment and obstruct any attempts to improve education? :roll:

 

[Craig234]

I think it's all of the above - we need to fix the system, so that people like the republifascists are not able to abuse it. They've gradually over decades built up a "right-wing noise machine" with coprorate money funding right-wing think tanks creating propaganda for the right-wing media to spread; this was not the case, say, under FDR.

Between education of the public, reform of the system etc. we need to fix democracy before it's destroyed. The republican followers don't seem to realize that in the long run, the ultra wealthy and democracy are on a collision course, and the public had better damn well be prepared for the battle - and they're not.

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: daveymark

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: daveymark

Originally posted by: Pabster
"Kevin wrote on Truthdig.com, which purchased his work."

Truthdig is a well known left extremist site.

Form your own opinions on his writings, just know the credibility (or, in this case, lack of) of the source.

well said. Say what you will about Tillman's opinion, but the fact that he was paid to have his views slathered on a left wing extremist site makes one think about the site's own motives.

If truthdig is such a reputable upstanding, unbiased site, why do they need to pay army rangers to express their opinions? should they change their name to dollardig? It's not hard to dig for the "truth" when you have a fistful of cash in your hand.

Are you suggesting that the Tillman's really don't believe what they wrote?

Are you suggesting truthdig is unbiased?

No I'm not and I'll take your word they are. The only article that I ever read that was on that site was Tillman's and I actually read it over at SI.Com. Now what's that have to do with Tillman's article being true? Are you calling Tillman a liar?

How can you know Tillman is a liar? What specifically has he lied about? Moreover, what does this have to do with considering truthdig as an unbiased site?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Harvey
That may be so, but "just about everyone else on this board" isn't calling down John Kerry or Kevin Tillman, two guys who, unlike YOU, actually did put their lives on the line in the military service of their nation.

I never called Tillman down. Re-read my post. I'll have done is point out that his views are WAY out of the mainstream.

Yet another example of Harvey being a lying pissant liberal sycophant :thumbsdown: :frown: :thumbsdown:

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ProfJohnI never called Tillman down. Re-read my post. I'll have done is point out that his views are WAY out of the mainstream.

The OP's thread is about Kevin Tillman's article, and per your own statement, all you have done is "point out that his views are WAY out of the mainstream." And how does that differ from any other form of "calling him down?"

Here's a clue -- CNN reports that2/3 of Americans don't support Bush's war of lies:

Poll: Support for Iraq war at all-time low

POSTED: 2:07 a.m. EDT, October 17, 2006

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A poll conducted for CNN over the weekend suggests support among Americans for the war in Iraq is dwindling to an all-time low. Just 34 percent of those polled say they support the war, while 64 percent say they oppose it.

Women led the opposition, with seven in 10 saying they oppose the war. Twenty-eight percent say they support it, which is the lowest support among women in any CNN poll taken since the invasion more than three years ago.

Support among men is stronger, with 40 percent supporting the conflict and 58 percent opposed to it.

This comes as the nation's top general acknowledged the overall strategy in Iraq is under review. Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told CNN that military plans, including the linchpin of U.S. exit strategy -- reliance on Iraqi forces to take up the fight -- is being reviewed.

Troop withdrawal is a key condition for ending the insurgency, according to one of Iraq's most visible insurgent groups. A man believed to be the spokesman for the Islamic Army of Iraq issued a videotaped message Sunday reiterating interest in negotiating with U.S. forces.)

However, President George W. Bush personally assured the Iraqi prime minister Monday that he has no plans to pull U.S. troops out and that there is no U.S. timeline for Iraqi forces to take over.

Thirty-four percent of those polled approve of how Bush is handling the war, with 64 percent disapproving.

The telephone poll of 1,012 adult Americans was conducted by Opinion Research Corporation Friday through Sunday.

Its sampling error was plus-or-minus 3 percentage points.

One does have to wonder how much of a "mainstream" that cesspool you've been swimming is. :shocked:

Yet another example of Harvey being a lying pissant liberal sycophant :thumbsdown: :frown: :thumbsdown:

LMFAO!!! Very good. Since you also spell like a middleschool dropout, I'll assume you cut and pasted the word, sycophant. Can you define it without looking it up? :laugh:

Since you're now trying to hijack what I've called you, a lying pissant neocon Bushwhacko sycophant, and pin it on me, I guess I could post a poll to let others tell you about your credibility vs. mine, but I won't waste the time or forum space.

Go ahead and rant on. I and others have busted your lies with credible links to the truth far too many times, and you've never been able to refute any of my posts with anything more than lame denials, distractions and changes of subject. Nothing I could say about you does a better job of shredding your credibility than the continuing onslaught of your own lies. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Yeah, no preferential treatment here. :roll:

I have never denied that Bush may have gotten special treatment. But see below and see that there were a lot of people getting special treatment, including the sons of the Democratic Texas governor and Senator.

However, most of your accusations are full of holes.
1. the commanding officer that Bush was supposed to report to at Montgomery says he never showed up.
Facts link The commander to whom Bush was supposed to report, retired Brigadier General William Turnipseed, said four years ago that he had no recollection of Bush appearing at his unit. But Turnipseed recently backed off that statement a bit, according to the a Washington Post story on February 4. Turnipseed said "he could not recall if he had been on base much at that time," the Post reported.
So the guy who made the statement you are talking about admits that he wasn't there much at the time either. So much for that accusation.
More facts about Bush and Alabama.
1. The records show Bush was paid and credited for drills on October 28 and 29, just days before the 1972 election. The records don't show where the service was performed, but this would have been toward the end of his time in Alabama(see #2). Bush was also paid and credited for four days November 11-14, 1972, around the time his aides say Bush was in Alabama briefly following the election.

2. The Washington Times reported that a woman who had dated Bush during the summer of 1972, Emily Marks Curtis, says she "distinctly remembers" Bush returning to Montgomery after the election to fulfill his Air National Guard commitment. "I can say categorically he was there, and that's why he came back," the Times quoted her as saying. She added that Bush rented an apartment for a two-week stay and that she met him for dinner several times. While she did not claim to have witnessed him doing Guard duty, according to the Times she said, "He told me that was why he was in Montgomery. There is no other reason why he would come back to Montgomery."

3. And in fact, Bush was at Dannelly Air National Guard base in Montgomery as late as Jan. 6, 1973, according to a document released by the White House Feb. 11. The document is a record of a dental examination of Bush on that date. The payroll records released two days earlier show Bush received pay and credit for service for Jan. 6 and for five other days closely clustered between Jan. 4 and Jan. 10

4. John W. ?Bill? Calhoun was quoted by the Washington Post and others as saying he saw Bush sign in at the base eight to 10 times for about eight hours each from May to October 1972. (Look someone saw him)

Now on to what Craig said.
1. "They don't back up that he got the spot without a political power being abused to get him in" There is no proof that "power" was abused. This is the weakest of your statements because a few Democrats have come out and said that they would have done the same thing, and that everyone with connections was doing it as well. Also note the following: "Serving in that unit with Bush were the sons of three prominent men: Democratic Governor John Connally, Democratic Senator and future Vice-Presidential nominee Lloyd Bentsen, and Republican Senator John Tower, as well as seven members of the Dallas Cowboys professional football club"-wikipedia

2. "they don't back up that he was where he was supposed to be for 6 months during the Senate campaign" There is no evidence that Bush was anywhere during that six months, however read the following: "The records show that National Guard officials credited Bush with enough points to meet minimum requirements for the 12-month period ending May 26, 1973, the period of the original alleged "gap" in his records. An Air Force "Reserve Personnel Record Card" shows Bush received a total of 9 points for active duty training, 31 points for inactive duty training, and 15 points awarded for his membership in the reserves. The points total 56, exceeding the 50-point requirement for satisfactory service during the period, though barely." So he did put in enough time during that 12 month period, which is what the National Guard goes by, so the six month gap is meaningless.

3. "they don't back up that he took the physical he was required to take to avoid being grounde" I already admitted that everyone agrees on this fact, he missed the physical, have never seen an explanation why. Bush claims he did not need to take one because he was no longer flying. His statement is wrong, but that is what he said.

4. "they don't reflect that his missing it was investigated as the rules required he be for missing it" answer "The Boston Globe reported Feb. 12 that Bush?s suspension from flight duty while he was in Alabama ?should have prompted an investigation by his commander? in Houston under Air Force regulations in effect at the time. The Globe also said ?It is unclear whether Bush's commander, Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian, ordered any inquiry, as required.? Killian is deceased." So there is no evidence either way on this. Not sure if Bush has ever spoken about it. I guest ion whether there would even be a record of any investigation, if there was one. It has been noted that this happened in 1972 as the war was coming to an end and apparently a LOT of people were doing things similar to Bush.

5. "they don't reflect that he showed up to a meeting he was ordered to attend in early October" Is this what you are talking about? "Bush requested permission to "perform equivalent duty" at the 187th Tactical Recon Group in Alabama "for the months of September, October, and November." He quickly received approval to do so, and was told to report to Lt. Col. William Turnipseed, the base commander, for drills on October 7 and 8, and November 4 and 5 (the September drill dates of the unit had already passed). Bush's grandfather, former U.S. Senator Prescott Bush, died of cancer on October 8th, and Bush served as a pallbearer at the funeral in Greenwich, Connecticut. (Bastard skipped guard duty so he could be a pallbearer for his grandfather, burn him at the stake!!!) Turnipseed has said that he could not recall whether Bush reported on those occasions. Bush's records do not list any service on those dates, but they do show that he was paid for service on October 28 and 29, a weekend; on November 11 and 12, also a weekend; and November 14 and 15, a Tuesday and Wednesday. The location of the service and the duties performed are not described in any released records."

So, did I miss any allegations? I think I covered them all. Looks like there is an explanation for most of the charges you have leveled against Bush. To me it looks like you both heard the initial round of accusations on the news, but missed the later explanations.
If you don't want to believe the explanations then there is nothing I can do about that.


BTW: I'll admit that I was wrong about his dad at that time, I thought he was still in congress, but he was an ambassador by then, my bad, still doesn't change the facts that I post above though.
My sources
New Evidence Supports Bush Military Service (Mostly)
and
George W. Bush military service controversy

 

[Harvey]

ProfJohn -- Now that you're in full distraction mode, why don't you tell us exactly what Bush's excellent adventure in the Texas Air National Guard has to do with Kevin Tillman's credibility, the validity of his service or his right to voice his opinion?

While you're at it, you can tell us once again how far "out of the mainstream" he and 2/3 of the American people who agree with him are. :roll:

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: ProfJohnI never called Tillman down. Re-read my post. I'll have done is point out that his views are WAY out of the mainstream.

The OP's thread is about Kevin Tillman's article, and per your own statement, all you have done is "point out that his views are WAY out of the mainstream." And how does that differ from any other form of "calling him down?"

I am so tired of responding to your BS Harvey.

But here is proof he is WAY out of the mainstream.
From his article Actual article from Truthdig, not a summary via ESPN.
Notice that ESPN leaves out the following things said by Tillman.

"Somehow back at home, support for the soldiers meant having a five-year-old kindergartener scribble a picture with crayons and send it overseas, or slapping stickers on cars, or lobbying Congress for an extra pad in a helmet. It?s interesting that a soldier on his third or fourth tour should care about a drawing from a five-year-old; or a faded sticker on a car as his friends die around him; or an extra pad in a helmet, as if it will protect him when an IED throws his vehicle 50 feet into the air as his body comes apart and his skin melts to the seat. "

and

"Somehow American leadership, whose only credit is lying to its people and illegally invading a nation, has been allowed to steal the courage, virtue and honor of its soldiers on the ground.

Somehow those afraid to fight an illegal invasion decades ago are allowed to send soldiers to die for an illegal invasion they started.

Somehow faking character, virtue and strength is tolerated.

Somehow profiting from tragedy and horror is tolerated.

Somehow the death of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people is tolerated.

Somehow subversion of the Bill of Rights and The Constitution is tolerated.

Somehow suspension of Habeas Corpus is supposed to keep this country safe.

Somehow torture is tolerated.

Somehow lying is tolerated.

Somehow reason is being discarded for faith, dogma, and nonsense.

Somehow American leadership managed to create a more dangerous world.

Somehow a narrative is more important than reality.

Somehow America has become a country that projects everything that it is not and condemns everything that it is. "

Now please dig up some poll that shows that the majority of America agrees with ANY of the things I just posted above.
Finally, my favorite

So don?t be shocked when our grandkids bury much of this generation as traitors to the nation, to the world and to humanity. Most likely, they will come to know that ?somehow? was nurtured by fear, insecurity and indifference, leaving the country vulnerable to unchecked, unchallenged parasites.

Notice he didn't imply that Bush and Co were traitors to the nation, he said "much of this generation" so Tillman is saying a large part of America is full of traitors. And you don't see that as being out of the mainstream?

Why don't you find a poll that asks Americans if they believe that they are traitors to the nation the world and humanity?

 

[will889]

Harvey don't bother asking for explanations. There is no correlation between the right - or for that matter the left that has anything to do with love of country or excellent military service and devotion of said. There are people that serve side by side that have views on both extremes, but when the bullets fly they're one, and when they go home they're still one, and party lines and the beliefs of those parties melt away into a dissolving of mere memories of having the privilege of serving for it's own sake and taking care of buddies and just coming home. Not for any presidents agenda be it right - left - middle - or extremes.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I am so tired of responding to your BS Harvey.

Aww... Is the little boy tired of having all of his lies busted? :shocked:

You have yet to disprove anything I've posted, but there's a quick fix for your problem -- STOP POSTING! You never post anything but lies, distraction and dissembling, anyhow. You won't be missed. :laugh:

Why don't you find a poll that asks Americans if they believe that they are traitors to the nation the world and humanity?

I read original article, and the problem with your post is, everyone of his Somehow's is true, and somehow, your gluteal cheeks have blinded you to reality I don't have time or space to validate all of them, one by one, but here are a few links and thoughts:

[*]Somehow profiting from tragedy and horror is tolerated.

• 
  Halliburton exec for defrauding the US military of more than $3.5m for fuel in Iraq.
  
  Crony Capitalism: Halliburton Gets $70 Million Bonus Despite Fraud

[*]Somehow subversion of the Bill of Rights and The Constitution is tolerated.

• Senate Rejects Habeas Corpus in Interrogation Bill
  
  That warning comes from Republican Arlen Specter, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He believes that new military tribunal legislation that has moved through Congress contains a grievous error: It limits habeas corpus, the right that terror suspects would have to challenge the legality of their imprisonment in court.

Congress passed the Military Commission?s Act, and now, at his sole dictatorial discretion, Bush has the "right" to name ANY American citizen as an "enemy combatant" who can be detained indefinitely without access to counsel or the right to know the charges on which he is being held.[/list]

[*]Somehow torture is tolerated.

The same bill leaves it to Bush's sole dictatorial discretion to define what constitutes torture. I trust him about as far as I can throw either of you from where I'm typing this reply.

I already posted a link to a credible poll showing that YOU are the one who is out of touch with the mainstream. I can only surmise that you're holding the source of YOUR miniscule mainstream when when you're pissing into that intellectual cesspool you share with the rest of the lying neocons.

 

[UberNeuman]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Talk about a softball question. Let me hit this one out of the park

Of course it was a softball. I knew that you'd return with your special brand of intellectual dishonesty...

You did not fail on that front...

My apologizes to everyone for taking this topic off track.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Craig234
John Kennedy and John Kerry fit this, as vets who saw the horror of war and grew to hate it.

The same John Kerry who tried to tell us he spent Christmas in Cambodia 1968 right? :laugh:

And the same one who came back to accuse his comrades of war crimes and dispose of his medals?

I'm disgusted you would use Kerry as a basis for anything after all the lies that SOB told us.

I'd like you to close your eyes a moment and imagine being in a small water craft going up narrow rivers in the pouring rain... can't see but a few meters.. on either side are all manner of 'gooks' with all manner of top of the line weapons aimed at your boat... then they fire.. and you fire.. at what or where don't matter you just fire cuz you're scared to death.. rounds hitting all about ....

This is the role of the PBR.. a smaller boat than a Swifty but same duty.. John Kerry was there doing just that kind of thing... every day or two he was in Vietnam he was in jeopardy... of death.. that is what they do in war.. they kill you... remember that...

When folks come home.. what they say is what they feel... they say what is inside that screams to come out... and finally it does.. in newspapers or to congress.. what ever.. what folks in jeopardy feel is beyond being able to describe.. but it is real... this dying crap..

EDIT: Christmas of '68... hmmmm I can't recall where I was on that day.. they all sorta merged together... Coulda been DaNang.. Christmas lasted for days really... you'd celebrate when you could, if you could.. As I seem to recall..
But ... Kerry was there... and that is the one fact that remains not in dispute.. and was in battle .. and did get hit.. hell everyone got some kinda hit.. of some sort.. even bitten by snakes.. hehehe or tigers

 

[Gaard]

I'd still like to know if repeating what others have told you is slander.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: daveymark

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: daveymark

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: daveymark

Originally posted by: Pabster
"Kevin wrote on Truthdig.com, which purchased his work."

Truthdig is a well known left extremist site.

Form your own opinions on his writings, just know the credibility (or, in this case, lack of) of the source.

well said. Say what you will about Tillman's opinion, but the fact that he was paid to have his views slathered on a left wing extremist site makes one think about the site's own motives.

If truthdig is such a reputable upstanding, unbiased site, why do they need to pay army rangers to express their opinions? should they change their name to dollardig? It's not hard to dig for the "truth" when you have a fistful of cash in your hand.

Are you suggesting that the Tillman's really don't believe what they wrote?

Are you suggesting truthdig is unbiased?

No I'm not and I'll take your word they are. The only article that I ever read that was on that site was Tillman's and I actually read it over at SI.Com. Now what's that have to do with Tillman's article being true? Are you calling Tillman a liar?

How can you know Tillman is a liar? What specifically has he lied about?

I don't believe he is a lair and I take it from your wording that you don't either.

Moreover, what does this have to do with considering truthdig as an unbiased site?

What does the bias of truthdig have to do with what Tillman wrote?

 

[BoberFett]

Oh boy, more dodging, weaving and deflection by both sides. :roll:

To the topic at hand (the real one, not the yelling by the usual morons), what does this author have that the rest of America doesn't? A celebrity brother who was killed in the line of duty? Sorry, that doesn't give his opinion any more weight than anybody else. It's tragic, yes. But his is no different than the bitter anti-Bush diatribes posted by thousands if not tens of thousands of people daily. Do we need to post every single one of them? We get it. You're against the war. You'll have your chance again in November.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Oh boy, more dodging, weaving and deflection by both sides. :roll:

To the topic at hand (the real one, not the yelling by the usual morons), what does this author have that the rest of America doesn't? A celebrity brother who was killed in the line of duty? Sorry, that doesn't give his opinion any more weight than anybody else. It's tragic, yes. But his is no different than the bitter anti-Bush diatribes posted by thousands if not tens of thousands of people daily. Do we need to post every single one of them? We get it. You're against the war. You'll have your chance again in November.

What gives his opinion weight is that he was there in both Afghanistan and Iraq, right in the middle of the sh!t.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Oh boy, more dodging, weaving and deflection by both sides. :roll:

To the topic at hand (the real one, not the yelling by the usual morons), what does this author have that the rest of America doesn't? A celebrity brother who was killed in the line of duty? Sorry, that doesn't give his opinion any more weight than anybody else. It's tragic, yes. But his is no different than the bitter anti-Bush diatribes posted by thousands if not tens of thousands of people daily. Do we need to post every single one of them? We get it. You're against the war. You'll have your chance again in November.

What gives his opinion weight is that he was there in both Afghanistan and Iraq, right in the middle of the sh!t.

Again, one of a multitude. What gives his opinion any more weight than anybody elses? Should there be a thread started for every separate soldiers opinion? Or only the ones that agree with the anti-Bush, since I'm sure the soldiers in support of the war will be shouted down with calls of "brainwashing" and "Bushgodfanboi" or some other tripe. Let's face it, this forum is a wasteland of groputhink. Why I bother reading, I'll never know. A glutton for punishment I guess.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Oh boy, more dodging, weaving and deflection by both sides. :roll:

To the topic at hand (the real one, not the yelling by the usual morons), what does this author have that the rest of America doesn't? A celebrity brother who was killed in the line of duty? Sorry, that doesn't give his opinion any more weight than anybody else. It's tragic, yes. But his is no different than the bitter anti-Bush diatribes posted by thousands if not tens of thousands of people daily. Do we need to post every single one of them? We get it. You're against the war. You'll have your chance again in November.

What gives his opinion weight is that he was there in both Afghanistan and Iraq, right in the middle of the sh!t.

Again, one of a multitude. What gives his opinion any more weight than anybody elses? .

Because this Administration used his brother death as propaganda.