Text 16645, 234 rader
Skriven 2005-12-18 09:57:54 av JOHNJWILSON (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av ED HULETT
Ärende: Truth or consequences
=============================

->  JJ>>> If apologies are in order for being a fake a liar and a dumb ass,
->  JJ>>> you must lead a life of contrition...

->  ->> and read some of his *biography*.
-> 
->  J> And cherry-picked. And you think this justifies calling Murtha
->  J> a liar and a fake and a dumb ass.
-> 
-> No justification is necessary. This *IS* a free country is it not? The
1st
-> Amendment protects free speech, does it not?
->
A case for truth should be defended.
A depiction known to be untrue should be refuted.
I certainly did not and would not inhibit or try to thwart his
freedom to express his unjustifiable opion. :-)
-> 

-> 
-> So, service in the reserves counts but service in the Texas Air National
-> Guard is dodging the draft? Interesting.
->
Please note:
I have never, ever accused anyone of dodging the draft.
 

->  J> That three months of inttensxive training. A lot of 'em don't make
it...
-> 
-> Very few don't make it through OCS.
-> 
ok. My undestanding is dated (to 1951)
->
 
->  ->> He volunteered for Vietnam in 1966\67 (thats *one* year)
-> 
->  J> That's a long time.
-> 
-> Longer than Gore or Kerry.
->
three disparate experiences. Time is largely irelivant when you
consider how little of it is neccary for a bullet to reach you.
 
->  J> , won a Bronze Star
->  ->> with Combat `V', two Purple Hearts
-> 
->  J> This dumb'ass, fake did that did he?
-> 
-> Yes, he did. Intelligence isn't a prerequisite for a Bronze Star or
Purple
-> Hearts. Being awarded such does not make one smart.

But should make one respected.

 
->  J> , and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry
->  ->> (which were passed out by Vietnamese generals like confetti).
-> 
->  J> Perhaps so. I have no idea. I wonder if you know this.
-> 
-> The person you replied to is a vietnam vet.
->
Which does not quell my wonder in the least. 
-> 

-> 
->  J> After that time in Congress and with his ties made and recognized
->  J> (and which caused Bush to become furious at militart critisism of
the
->  J> Commander-in-chief...)
-> 
-> When did bush get furious at military critisism?

In their first responce comparing Murtha to Moore.
(Later, the responce from the President on YV was respectful.


 Military officers are not
-> allowed to make political commentary.
-> 
Murtha spoke of military maters.

Congress critters are prob'ly exempt from that law/rule/tradition/good idea
:-)

-> 
->  ->> Well......I suppose a person who's been in a war would have
"first-hand
->  ->> knowledge" of military affairs. But I wonder if I wouldn't have
made
->  J> just as
->  ->> good a "military adviser to presidents" as he...
-> 
->  J> Wonder not. :-)
-> 
-> Why?
->
If you gatta ask ... :-)
 
->  J> Yeah, I know you were kidding. Bad point recognized. :-)
-> 
-> How do you know he is kidding? He *WAS* in the same war as Murtha, so
were
-> John Hull,  Vern Humphry (as a company commander), and a few others in
-> here...

None in the same league as Murtha, efrontery to imagine otherwise.

That's why I knew he was joking. 


 Why should people listen to murtha and not Tim, Vern,john, or anyone
-> else who is a Vietnam vet?
->
People can listen to whomwver  they want. Choices muct be made.

 
 
->  J> More a defense of Murtha. I care very little about your opinions.
-> 
-> Then, why should you care anymore about Murtha's opinions?
->
I will spare you a long and detailed answer.

Do you really care about mine? :-)
 
 
->  J> To cll him a liar, to impune and belittle his service
->  J> to his country suffices to confirm my scornful reply.
-> 
-> Who cares about your opinion?
->
There! That answers my question! :-)

His congressional promotion) 

-> Only meaningful in that he voted for bills beneficial to the military.
->
And for that he should not be wilitarily rewarded? 
-> 
-> 
->  J> His medals are all the resume I need to refute your immeiate above.
-> 
-> So, you are impressed with medals?

Yes, sir, I am.

 I can buy them by the handful down the
-> road at the local military surplus store.
-> 
That's a silly statement. 

->  J> His speech, which arouses the administrations ire
->  J> is what was important. The Reality will be recorded by historians,
->  J> I'll not depend on your judgment.
-> 
-> No one will depend on yours, either.

Perhaps not. Some have claimed so, but it is
of little moment. Cartainly not expected HERE :-)

.
-> 
-> many others...want to inflate his importance...

Or recognize it. Bit I grant that inflation is possible,
his opinios toward an impending war on China is something
I haven't examined in any detail...

 
-> 
-> why should ANYONE take his opinions seriously?

For exactly the reasons the President stated in his respectful response.
General admiration in Washinton from all sides toward him...

 You take it serious only
-> because it fits with your own opinion.
->
nooooo, I believe it a seriousissue, this is a serious man
not known to be otherwise, who is concerned with the way
the adminisration is leveling with the public.

I do admit with no shame that I have a tendency to be suspicious
about the honisty of this administration.

"Trust me" on domestic spying?

I don't think so....
 
->  J> 'cut and run' are not his words not proposed in his speech,
->  J> and it's complex and involves oner time, redeployment...et cetera.
-> 
-> His first comments were that we should pull the troops out immediately. 

He did NOT say immediatly. Over a period of six months...which within a few
months the administration IS going to do. "Stay the course" is a mantra
that
can not continiue for ten, fifteen years...the army is being streched...
the public is not (yet) ready for a draft...
The two billion dollar cost of Wolfowitz has blossemed into 
houw many hundred billion?


He
-> then sponsored a bill that would call for a time frame for pulling out
the
-> troops. He then voted against his own bill. Why should anyone believe
him
-> or take his opinions serious?
->
Y'know, I feel in my bones that there is more to the story than that.
Riders, amendments, all kinds of procedural thinges... what did HE
say about it? 

------------- 
 
-> Really? So, pointing out that Murtha isn't who he and his supporters
claim
-> is "clouding the issue?"
->
Yes. It is addressing the man instead of the issue. Do you not see that?

 
->  J> On the whole I think my assessment of you is more correct than
your's
->  J> of him: The God's will decide, my consciousce is clear.
-> 
-> Your assessment of others in fido has no bearing on reality.
->
That's your opinion; you're welcome to it :-)
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
 * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140)