Defeatocrats acknowledge surge is working, but...

I agree Earl's post was great... As was your response...

 

Thanks TK.

Just wanted to highlight this again. GTech talks a great game about not hating your nation, about not tearing down America to defend the enemy, and here he blatantly uses the autobiography of a man who was orchestrating the death of Americans to indict a citizen.

Now you readers tell me, is GTech more interested in using any source at his disposal to attack democrats and anyone not aligned with the neo-con military complex or is he really a patriot and defender of American liberty and freedom?

In my mind, he's starting to sound a lot like a small minded windbag with flexible morality. The kind of person who thinks that "We the people" is really just whoever can agree with his extremist views.

 

I was just admiring one of your posts created for nothing more than partisan picking at GWB. For someone who likes to use that word often, I'm surprise you can see something in others, but not yourself.

...snip a bunch of personal opinion to lead up to where we can discuss facts.

Again, personal opinion. Personal opinion does not trump fact. This is what General Giap wrote in his memoirs that were published. He thanked organizations like kerry's VVAW for their help in securing a NVA victory. His words are right there. You may not like them, but they are true.

This notion presumes the intelligence community knew what was going on in his mind. The fact remains, Gen. Giap wrote about this in his memoirs. I'm sure it's painful for democrats to see all the harm they caused then, not unlike they are doing now. But I really don't think democrats care. It's all about them and their hatred for Bush.

Again, this is personal opinion. Had Clinton not utterly gutted the military during the 90s, we wouldn't have been short when the time came.

I don't content any such thing. The reason I do not, is because...like you...I cannot substantiate this as anything more than personal opinion. What I can source and have sourced, is the General who controlled the NV Army and what he wrote in his memoirs regarding such. It's very clear what he wrote.

That must be why kerry was honored at the Ho Chi Minh City museum for his work during that time.

Incorrect. It's nice that you defend him, but we've been down this road before. I was searching through google and msn for that famous debate we had in the past, where I documented many of kerry's crimes. Then I realized, I've sourced it numerous times in the same circular arguments we've had since and they never seem to set in. If kerry were Bush, you'd probably agree with me.

Kerry was a huge player. Perhaps you forgot how he sold out Veterans with deliberate lies at the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations? Teeny small players don't get these opportunities. This is really beneath dishonesty, earlpearl. You've defended this traitor many times, but this is just turning dishonest now.

Completely false. What possible reason would Giap have for thanking groups like kerry's and admitting such in his memoirs? Partisan rhetoric, earlpearl.

Kerry was exposed as the traitor he was. He made Benedict Arnold look like a Patriot. Swift Boat Veterans were railroaded by the media, who was also biased against Bush. Still, the truth came out.

Four million South Vietnamese lost their lives to slaughter because of that pullout.

Non responsive. Doesn't dismiss the fact that kerry sold out our country and visited with the enemy in Paris while still an officer of the US Navy. This, is treason. Period. Point blank treason.

I don't recall saying any Vietnamese were running the government.

Vietnam is still controlled by the communist party.

This is truthful. Surprisingly.

Darfur is rich in oil too. As is Alaska.

So Bush partisanship is ok, but pointing out how democrats have repeatedly called for surrender (harry reid actually stood up and declared defeat for our country on his own) is not appropriate, despite that it's true?

Perhaps we should hold ourselves to the same standards we subscribe for others?

 

According to Gtech, USA won the Vietnam war and all the history books that claim USA lost the Vietnam war are just conspiracy theories by Alex Jones supporters that are repeated by angry low IQ young people who are either terrorist or pro-terrorist.

 

but the funnyest part is that he presents the quote from the vietnamese leader as fact but when it comes to his own president, the one he probably voted for himself he doesn't thrust him when he sais there were no WMDs in Iraq ). I guess this guy just picks the "facts" that are convenient to him

 

I went back and sourced to types of history to see just how truthful and accurate these documents about Kerry were.

I have no great love of Kerry. He ended up being the Democratic nominee for President in 2004. He didn't do a great job. He obviously made mince meat of himself in his infamous flip-flop on supporting the war in Iraq then opposing it...or whatever he said. He gives off the flavor of being an aristocrat and married into great great wealth.

Nevertheless he is a respectable Senator entitled to his views.

He fought in the war in Vietnam. He later got his first taste of fame in Spring of 1971 when he was a spokesman for the Vietnam Veterans Against the War in Vietnam.

The timing of this participation speaks to how the articles you cite are some sort of partisan fabrication that was probably developed to make Kerry into some sort of villanous enemy of the Political Right.

Here is a summary of the history of US bombing during the Vietnam War. I pulled extracts from this site...http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/vietnam/index.html

It is a long chronology of important dates and events that occurred during the war in Vietnam including battles, international events, domestic responses, American governmental reactions, increases in American troop involvement, etc.

It is very comprehensive.

Serious American military involvement in Vietnam started in 1964 after the Gulf of Tonkin attack and subsequent Congressional dictate as a response to this attack on US ships.

Serious American bombing of Vietnam started in March of 1965 and lasted for 3 years until 1968. It was named Operation Rollling Thunder. During that period the US dropped dramatically more bombs on Vietnam than in all of World War II.

A review of the chronology makes several points:
1) Most of the bombing was in South Vietnam in an effort to stem the flow of North Vietnamese soldiers infiltrating into South Vietnam
2.) US bombing in North Vietnam was focused on Military and strategic resources to try and stem the development of North Vietnamese strategic resources.
3.) US bombing of Hanoi was specifically minimized so as not to encourage the Chinese to enter the War.
4.) Over the three years the North Vietnamese fairly successfully decentralized their strategic military resources to counter the effect of the bombing.

During the 3 years the US government ceased the bombing for periods of time to try and draw the North Vietnamese into peace talks. It obviously didn't work.

Operation Rolling Thunder ended in 1968.

In 1970, with Nixon in office, he resumed serious bombing in Vietnam. In February 1970 he resumed serious bombing along the Ho Chi Minh trail. In August 1970 he resumed bombing in along the demilitarized zone.

Kerry, made his entry into the public arena in Spring of 1971 when the Vietnam Veterans against the war organized a series of events in Washington and around the country. He testified before Congress and became the visable spokesperson for this group at that time.

By 1971 there had been so much rising anti-war fevor in the United States that Kerry was one of hundreds of anti-war spokespeople. Most of the fervor for the war had taken place during the 1960's. By 1968 the anti-war fevor was so serious that it convinced Johnson not to run for a second term as President. Nixon ran and won and part of his campaign was a "secret plan" to end the war in Vietnam.

By 1971 Nixon was already reducing troops in Vietnam. There were and continued to be serious reductions in American troops.

By the time Kerry hit the public eye American troop involvement in Vietnam was already diminishing....and ended by 1973.

The claims that Kerry was a chief source at ending bombing moments before the "so called collapse" of North Vietnam are totally false.

That article is a complete misstatement of history.

I can only suggest that however it was developed and circulated it was done with an effort by partisan Americans to turn Kerry into a villain.

Kerry's participation had nothing to do with bombing of Vietnam, had nothing to do with the "so-called" almost collapse of Vietnam, had nothing to do with massive bombing of Hanoi--there wasn't any, had nothing to do with operation Rolling Thunder--because it ended in 1968, had nothing to do with resumptions of bombing in 1970--which wasn't aimed at Hanoi, and had nothing to do with any of those incidents.

Kerry didn't publicly gain notice before the American public as a spokesperson against the war until 1971.

Whether you like Kerry or don't like him....those articles you cite are some sort of made up partisan propaganda to turn him into a villain in the eyes of Americans.

The articles have nothing to do with truth or real history.

 

How credible are the memoirs of General Giap? are they corroborated anywhere else?

It's ludicrous that we're convicting our veterans based upon the unconfirmed, totally subjective diaries of our enemies.

Wouldn't you say so GTech?

Because if you're for General Giap's version, perhaps 20 years from now you will be quoting Bin Laden when trying to further advance your partisan agenda.

 

Interesting thread. I do like the Vietnam = 'pending victory' for the U.S. - only spoilt by anti-war liberals at home. By that reckoning the American War of Independence was a 'pending victory' for the British. If only those pesky, unpatriotic Whigs hadn't been so openly pro-American Parliament would have voted more funds for the continuation of hostilities. Especially if we could have cut some deals with the other anti-French nations.

Speaking of the American W. o. I., I'm sorry but we (the British) are fast approaching a 'Yorktown' moment in Iraq. There's no political will to continue and we don't want to throw good money after bad.

 

to pull this thread back in a little bit....looks like now the defeatocrats are revamping their strategy, and actually trying to make Iraq look good, all in thanks to the great job our boys are doing over there...now I just need to find that post I made where I said the defeatocrats only want to take credit for the good things....FOUND IT, over here!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/21/AR2007082102025_pf.html

Make sure you read this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/21/AR2007082102025_pf.html

 

If anyone even tries to make Iraq look good then that person must be even a bigger moron than you are.

 

can someone tell me, is gworld talking to himself again? I love that ignore function....

 

He was actually talking to you. You might have to take a "sneak peek" to see what he said.

 

Judging his previous posts, I rather doubt that his posts are worth looking..


PS: Now wait till Gworld pops his head again and talk about his gayis obsession with coolies, rickshaw pullers and all short of poor people from India, then thinks he actually succeeded in insulting me or in hurting my ego..

 

The more I looked into this....the clearer it became that this paragraph is a big lie;

Do just a little research and it becomes evident that this paragraph appears to be an outrageous lieing document.

Its only use is to target someone the angry Right Wing Partisans hate....and turn that hatred into a big lie smearing someone they can't stand.

Its one thing to hate somebody else. It is an entirely different thing to lie about him....and then use that lie to twist American lives, policy, resources, etc. into a partisan policy.

1. I researched a time line on the history of the Vietnam War from this source; http://www.historyplace.com/unitedst...nam/index.html

2. During the build up to the war and its most active fighting major bombing efforts by the US occurred during 1965-1968 and later for a short period in 1970. I didn't mention above, but a last large bombing effort occurred in Dec. 1972 during Peace Negotiation efforts and after the Americans had withdrawn hundreds of thousands of troops.

3. I researched Kerry's history. He served in the military from 1966 - to the beginning of 1970. After he left the military he joined the Vietnam Veterans Against the War.

He made a splash in the public in Spring, 1971 when he was the first Vietnam War Veteran to testify before Congress against the war.

In December, 1972 when the last bombing effort was made, Kerry had just lost his first effort/run for a seat in Congress and was preparing to attend law school

The simple fact is that John Kerry had nothing to do with cessation of bombing, limiting of bombing or anything else having to do with initiating, limiting, or ending bombing. He simply was never involved, never public on the issue.

Then I researched General Giap and this "book".

1.)First off, General Giap was the leader of the Vietnamese forces for many many years. He evidently came up with the strategy that defeated the French at Diem Bien Phu in the mid 1950's and later led the North Vietnamese during most of the period of the war against the Americans and the South Vietnamese.

The one thing he is most credited with is developing an "insurgent/guerilla" strategy that involved not engaging the enemy directly for long periods; trying to gain polical alliances with the population; and then engaging the enemy when his troops had the power.

He was a guy who evidently NEVER NEVER acknowledged any kinds of losses. During two decades of war from the 50's to the 70's his troops suffered immeasurable losses .....and he never let those losses move him off a strategy of patience.

2. There is NO evidence of this so-called book or writings exist OTHER than from Conservative Right Wing writers.

(GTech: if there is such a book find the book....not excerpts)

I checked his biography, writings on him, reference to books he wrote....and this passage doesn't seem to exist .....other than in the writings of Conservative Right Wing Partisans.

The paragraph is described as an "Urban Myth".. I would call it a lie.

1.)There is no corelation with Kerry's testimony to Congress and participation with the VVAW and the timing of large scale bombing.
2.) In two decades of fighting larger better armed forces....Giap was never ready to surrender. Never.

Finally, as it regards this lie; if there was any validity to this paragraph it would have been used in the 2004 Presidential campaign.

It wasn't. It is too easy to debunk. Instead the anti-Kerry forces came up with something else, the Swift Boat attacks on his character.

So this document floats around in the underground, and is used to intensify hatred toward Kerry....but it doesn't have the legs to stand up to public scrutiny.

If anything it increases my suspicion of right-wing partisan efforts. It appears they will manufacture total lies about those they deem enemies and do or say anything to discredit these enemies.

Its a big problem for America with 2 wars going on, thousands of American soldier deaths, tens of thousands of injuries, hundreds of billions of dollars being spent on these wars and severe consequences for the present and the future.

Now I'm not attacking GTech. I am attacking his source of information. (Astonishingly, I agreed with him recently with regard to this post at DP-http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=4124484&postcount=85)

At this point, I couldn't care less if a lot of Islamic fundamentalist anti-west fanatics killed one another. I acknowledge there is a clear danger to the West and the world from fundamentalist terrorists who want to gain dangerous weapons and use them against everyone.

I do believe that the war in Iraq is a mess for America, we went into it under a false sales job from the administration, we are fighting in the country with insufficient forces to create peace and so-call "win" .

I also believe that current conditions suck for America...and that virtually any policy change to reduce forces there will have suck consequences for the US.

The biggest thing, in my mind, is to take a sharp look at American and realisticly world interests.....

These include;

Protecting against terrorism against the West and other nations
Protecting against the control of dangerous weapons (nuclear, chemical, and others) by dangerous terrorist groups or a dangerous country
Protecting the flow of oil for the world economy

All other issues are bull shit.

Now finally, when a thread starts with the word "defeatocrats" you know it is coming from someone who either can't deal with the most serious issues, thinks partisanship is more important than life, death, freedom, opportunity and prosperity, and shows a simplistic tendency to buy into lies rather than argue or think through complex difficult issues. Basically, that is someone whose opinion isn't worth a plumb nickel.

 

What's really interesting is, those that normally hate our nation, tear down America and sometimes actually defend the enemy are suddenly defending someone who actually did so. Think about that one.

Ah, calling for forum support...from those that normally spend all their time hating on America. Classic!

The source stands on it's own merits. Using dishonesty to rewrite history the way earlpearl is doesn't make it the right thing to do. I'm actually shocked at earlpearl. But then again, this isn't the first time I have to correct his dishonesty. If john kerry were GWB, this wouldn't be an issue for him, or the others that normally spend all the time tearing down America.

Having said that, it doesn't change kerry's actions. He met with the enemy in Paris to discuss ways to help THE ENEMY. This is treason. Even worse, he was still in the Navy Reserves at the time.

Personal opinion. I don't mind the dishonest digs at me personally for being aware of treasonous behavior. In fact, I find it rewarding that those who represent and defend treasonous behavior use such.

I've covered this many times before. The irony here is, anti-American nuts like yourself who call Bush a liar and don't trust him, suddenly trust when he says we didn't find the stockpiles expected. Still, we did find *some* wmd, yet partisan hacks filled with blind hatred spend enormous amounts of energy denying the reports that confirm such. Talk about blind partisan hatred!

Really? Can we see those mystery sources? I haven't even begun to dig out sources on Kerry.

...snip of a even more personal opinion and filler/diversionary material to shield a traitor from his crimes.

1971 was an important year for kerry and I'm glad you raised this issue for several reasons. One, he met with the enemy of our country at the time. Not once, but twice.

Earlpearl, can you tell me what date kerry's discharge is? Just the year. I'll give you a hint...it was six years AFTER the date above. Can you tell me who signed it and ordered it? I can. I can also relay the story behind it. Why would someone who was discharged in 71, have a discharge date in 1977?

Am I to understand correctly that you didn't want to talk about how kerry was honored by the NV communist in their museum for helping them? Nah, it's probably best to sweep that one under the carpet, eh?

kerry was in the spotlight. Trying to pawn him off as a small player is just flat out dishonest. Earlpearl...can you tell me which group was later discovered to have planned assassinations of US Senators and who was the leader of that group?

No one that I'm aware of has made this claim. This is just honest to suggest someone has.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41106

So you believe it was a conspiracy then? Personal opinion? Kerry had a history of working with the enemy. The enemy honored him at their museum for his service, a General thanked groups like his and says that without their help, NV would have surrendered. And somehow, this is a conspiracy against kerry?

How many purple hearts did john kerry put himself in for and how long did he stay in country before he used the "three purple heart" awards to return home? Earlpearl, do you know the answer? I do

No one has suggested otherwise. You are arguing a point for the sake of arguing a point that no one has made. I suspect, to avoid the harsh realities I continue to source.

Really? That's awful alex jonesie of you to say so. Despite clear evidence to the contrary. Can we say "partisan?" Cup of denial?

You can order his book from Amazon. You could also pretend he was GWB.

There is a difference between a Veteran and a Traitor. Giap's comments are just icing on the cake. Kerry's documented actions, meetings with the enemy, promoting of enemy propaganda, lying before the Senate and many other things over the years have long since convicted him of selling out America.

Of course, some people believe "selling America out" is patriotism

Shall we talk about Christmas in Cambodia? Here's the story. Kerry claimed he was sent on a secret mission during Christmas into Cambodia. Of course, this would be a bad thing if it were true, because we were not supposed to be in Cambodia during the time. For years and years, kerry talked about this memory being "seared" into his mind. It was a story created to make America look bad. In 2004 though, we learned this was all a fabricated lie...that he was never in Cambodia. In essence, kerry created a story to bring discredit upon his country and stuck by that story for years and years, reminding others often how it was "seared into his memory." Turns out, it was just one big lie.

Lying, once again, to make his country look bad in the eyes of others. That is treason. Disgraceful.

Bin laden admitted to the attacks on our country. Still, there are some that trying to suggest he didn't and defend him.

It's amazing how facts can show something and others will pretend they don't exist, deny them, pretend it's a big conspiracy, ignore them, and just outright lie about the history, to protect a man that sold out America.

Contrast that with the fact that the same people will make up lies out of thin air to prosecute a current president, say the vilest of things that have no bearing in reality and just outright lie to vilify him. Yet have the nerve to call another that clearly sources materials a partisan

Someone fetch me some coffee. Two drops of hypocrisy please.

 

He would have find all excuses not to serve in the war, be a drunk, snort coke and bankrupt companies that were set up for him by his daddy and his Arab partners money.

 

For the moment getting back to the original original thread and link reference...here is link from an article at Fox describing Warner's comments a scant 3 days later....http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,294321,00.html

Evidently, Warner's views were very mixed.....he acknowledged some signs of military progress and signs of no political progress. And so he proposes an initial small withdrawal of troops with subsequent actions dependant on actions from within Iraq and from its neighbors. It is one effort at a different path for the US, albeit taking small steps.

I still stand by what I said in post 18 above;

D I'll be back later with more fascinating findings about the misleading character of that quote referencing General Giap and what I've learned about the Vietnamese War Remnants Museum in Saigon (Ho Chi Minh city)) (It seems it costs less than $1 to get in there/there is a lot of good food in Saigon/ but it is confusing for tourists) Too bad it costs a lot and takes a lot of time to get over there. )

 

I look forward to it, earl. There are some issues I pointed out in numerous posts here that haven't been addressed.

Just a general observation, but it seems like the routine is becoming such, that I present clear and concise evidence about kerry, you generally ignore it, and insert a ton of red herring filler to divert the conversation away from these issues.

Would you agree that's a fair interpretation of the debate so far?

 

All previous posts aside, how could you insult people who just don't want others to get hurt. Even the most right wing nazi (not calling you one) should recognize the government has done bad things before, and has the power to lie if they want to. Why would people support someone(thing) like that in getting more power?

We don't intervene in a Rwandan genocide, but don't hesitate to jump into a place with oil. It's obvious what the government's priorities are, money, not saving humans from oppression.

Please don't cite any other examples because I didn't read all the previous posts and don't assume I have any political affiliation and insult them, if you're going to insult something, insult me.

If you can give me good reasons for those points I mentioned please do, but just try not to be insulting as I have tried not to be also.

oh pm me if you can I'm not sure I'll remember to check back on here.

 

I may be a nut but I'm not anti-american at all...I'm just pro-peace, which of course in your view, must mean I hate americans. I trust Bush on this matter because there's no evidence WMDs were found in Iraq. The inspectors sent there haven't found any and all the so called "evidence" of WMDs found you keep presenting are just articles from various sources. Oh, and again, why do you trust what a vietnamese leader said but don't trust the president you probably voted for?