- - ex - - wrote:
William Warren wrote:

(unatributed rant snipped)



This explains the source of the article, FWIW. Drop them a line and
maybe they can direct you how to locate the person who wrote it so that
you can personally assess his credibility.
http://frontpagemagazine.com/article...e.asp?ID=12272

-BM

"- - ex - -" wrote in message
...
- - ex - - wrote:
William Warren wrote:

(unatributed rant snipped)


This explains the source of the article, FWIW. Drop them a line and
maybe they can direct you how to locate the person who wrote it so that
you can personally assess his credibility.
http://frontpagemagazine.com/article...e.asp?ID=12272

-BM

I've never read "Front Page Magazine", and it's qualifications as an "Non
partison (but extremely cynical) newsletter for investors..." remain open to
question. The appeals for money on the splash page leave me to wonder which
investors it's appealing to, but for the sake of argument, let's assume they
really are an actual magazine with a meaningful readership.

The story you cite begins with the line

"The following was sent to a Marine chat net by a retired Marine Master
Sergeant
who was in S-2, 3rd Bn, 1st Marines, Korea in 1954."

But, from there, it is a copy of the smear attributed to a "Rear Admiral" in
your original post. I don't believe it was actually posted by a Marine,
either: there's too much wrong with it.

1. The gratuitous reference to Korea, and the way in backfires on the PR
man:

I don't know if being in the "3rd Bn., 1st Marines" has some cachet amoung
Marines, but it smells like FUD put in to catch the eye of a key swing
vote - older veterans. Anyone in Korea in 1954 would have to be at least 68
years old now, and I have never seen anyone of that age group participating
in something as new as a "chat net".

2. "I know the tactics and the doctrine used, and I know the equipment. ".

This doesn't make sense: why would a Marine be trained in small boat
tactics? What "doctrine" is he talking about? How would a Marine learn about
Swift boats or PBR's, when the Marines pride themselves on being combat
infantrymen and not "Rust pickers"? Don't forget, he'd have been an Sergeant
at the time of Vietnam, only ~30 years old: hardly an age or rank that would
be expected to cross-train with Navy boat crews. More to the point, how many
Marine Corps Master Sergeants would write like that?

3. Finally, the coup-de-grace that reveals this to be just more
disinformation: "The details of the event for which he was given the Silver
Star make no sense at all."

If whoever wrote that was actually a Marine, and had actually been in
combat, he'd know that nothing ever goes according to the book. When the
shooting starts, men revert to their most basic capabilities, and if Kerry
chose to confront an attacher directly, instead of running away ("put your
stern to the action and go balls to the wall") that speaks volumes about the
fact that he put himself first in the line of fire. I don't doubt for a
second that it wasn't the correct "Standard procedure", but procedures are
designed by statisticians who want commanders to do what will give the
greatest probability of success in an average encounter. Kerry threw away
the book and did it himself instead of risking his men's lives: that's why
he got the medal.

This all smells: second and third-hand slander, without a name attached,
without confirmation (something a real "magazine" would be expected to do
routinely). I don't believe it.

Of course, the Republicans hope it doesn't matter: having thrown the manure
in front of the fan, they're hoping that it will stick to Senator Kerry and
he'll be too busy cleaning it off for anyone to trace it back to the source
before the election.

Concerning your earlier post:

You're not real fond of opposing opinions are you?

I welcome opinions of all sorts, whether or not they support my viewpoint.
So long as the sources are available, I'll accept quotes without prejudice,
too.

Mostly, I'm "not fond of" Shrub's attitude that not being caught in a lie is
the same thing as telling the truth. What I am especially "not fond of" is
unattributed slander, quotes-out-of-context (as you did to me), nameless and
unverifiable attacks, or the attitude some people take that it's OK to
question Senator Kerry's courage while forgetting George Bush, Junior's
cowardice.

Bill Warren

(My email address must be modified in an obvious way for direct replies)

William Warren wrote:


Mostly, I'm "not fond of" Shrub's attitude that not being caught in a lie is
the same thing as telling the truth. What I am especially "not fond of" is
unattributed slander, quotes-out-of-context (as you did to me), nameless and
unverifiable attacks, or the attitude some people take that it's OK to
question Senator Kerry's courage while forgetting George Bush, Junior's
cowardice.

Ok, then, take Kerry's own quotes and ask why he refuses to release his
military medical records to the pundits to 'prove' the PHs that got him
out of Nam in four months.

And while you're at it, see if you can find a copy of his book - you
know, the one with the upside-down American flag on the cover.

What we don't need in the White House is another liar or hypocrite and
his self-proclaimed "war hero" status raises some serious concerns about
his integrity.

You're having way too much fun with this topic and clearly you have the
ability to rant much better than I so I'm going to bow out now. Maybe
Stinson will continue to give you more rant opportunities. I think
you're a nut and I'm going back to messing with radios.

-Adios,
Bill M

"- - ex - -" wrote in message
...
[snippage]
You're having way too much fun with this topic and clearly you have the
ability to rant much better than I so I'm going to bow out now. Maybe
Stinson will continue to give you more rant opportunities. I think
you're a nut and I'm going back to messing with radios.

-Adios,
Bill M

If expecting those who write here to back up their posts with facts,
attribution to verifiable names, and/or citations from reputable sources is
insane, then call me a nut. If I'm having fun exposing GOP FUD for what it
is, then I'll keep laughing while the voters - you really _can't_ fool all
the people all the time - send the junior Bush back to the farm.

Just remember that I didn't start it, have never pretended to be anything I
wasn't, and have never started ad hominem attacks on those not in the
limelight. Please feel free to come back and stand on the soapbox anytime
you can support yourself with resonable and well-researched argument.

I'd say I support your right to do so, but I think that's already obvious.

Bill Warren

"William Warren" wrote in message
newsFs3c.510102$I06.5567389@attbi_s01...
"- - ex - -" wrote in message
...
[snippage]
You're having way too much fun with this topic and clearly you have the
ability to rant much better than I so I'm going to bow out now. Maybe
Stinson will continue to give you more rant opportunities. I think
you're a nut and I'm going back to messing with radios.

-Adios,
Bill M

If expecting those who write here to back up their posts with facts,
attribution to verifiable names, and/or citations from reputable sources
is
insane, then call me a nut. If I'm having fun exposing GOP FUD for what it
is, then I'll keep laughing while the voters - you really _can't_ fool all
the people all the time - send the junior Bush back to the farm.

Just remember that I didn't start it, have never pretended to be anything
I
wasn't, and have never started ad hominem attacks on those not in the
limelight. Please feel free to come back and stand on the soapbox anytime
you can support yourself with resonable and well-researched argument.

I'd say I support your right to do so, but I think that's already obvious.

Bill Warren



So why do you think an ad hominem attack against a public figure is
acceptable?

Ed
wb6wsn

On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 12:28:11 -0400, - - ex - -
wrote:

William Warren wrote:


Mostly, I'm "not fond of" Shrub's attitude that not being caught in a lie is
the same thing as telling the truth. What I am especially "not fond of" is
unattributed slander, quotes-out-of-context (as you did to me), nameless and
unverifiable attacks, or the attitude some people take that it's OK to
question Senator Kerry's courage while forgetting George Bush, Junior's
cowardice.

Ok, then, take Kerry's own quotes and ask why he refuses to release his
military medical records to the pundits to 'prove' the PHs that got him
out of Nam in four months.


Taking a page from Shrub, maybe? Bush wants all kinds of
"transparency" and "accountability" for everyone except the swells who
surround him. Try getting transcripts of Cheney's meetings with the
energy industry when our national enregy policy was being written.
That's at least as relevant to his fitness to govern as whatever went
on thirty years ago.