Re: New Republican Slogan

On Jul 10, 5:07 am, BAR <sc...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Doug Reesewrote:
On Jul 9, 7:50 pm, BAR <sc...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
William A. T. Clark wrote:

In article <V_2dnXL1nP36PunVnZ2dnUVZ_rDin...@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
 BAR <sc...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
William A. T. Clark wrote:
In article <np1874t87c733fpf0l1ott742sh6kcf...@xxxxxxx>,
 Jack Hollis <xslee...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 15:50:17 -0700 (PDT),Doug Reese
<dougrees...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Excuse me for saying this -- maybe it's because it's early over here
(5:45am), or maybe because this just hits a nerve, but . . . . . do
you make these statements because YOU are politically biased, or just
because you're ignorant?
Look Doug, I don't know you or anything about you.  You could be
telling the truth or you could not be telling the truth.  You could be
telling the truth as you saw and still be wrong.  
As I've said, I really don't care about this one way or the other.
In your case, however, there is no doubt. You are an outright,
dishonest, liar, who has the gall to impugn the integrity of someone who
actually was present at the event Jack so pompously pontificates about.
You don't care because you have been shown up yet again, for the
low-life you are. You give "cut and run" a whole new meaning.
The guy driving the get-a-way car was present at the robbery but, he
wasn't in the bank and didn't see the actual robbery take place.
Being present at an event and being an eye witness to an event are two
different things.
It is certainly orders of magnitude more likely to be correct than the
blathered biased opinions of those who were many (in some cases,
thousands) of miles away. But that doesn't seem to bother those
"experts" and I don't see you weighing in to criticize them. Name me one
signatory to the SBVT lies that was closer to the action than Doug -
just one.
And what is wrong with taking Doug's description of events as honest?
You and Jack are essentially calling him a liar, motivated purely by
politics. For you that may be your motivation (for Jack, absolutely it
is), but I find it despicable that you cavil at his account simply
because it doesn't fit your GoP model.
Nobody is calling him a liar. We are saying that his view of the events
does not mean that is exactly how it happened.

You posted this as I was replying to another comment of your's. Now
you're making it clearer.

Where did I ever come across as saying that? I didn't. I have
commented, in detail, over the years, specifically what I did, and did
not see. Some of that was in the post I made a few minutes ago.

Your subsumed minions are saying that in your abscense. You need to
straighten them out.

But, as it appears that you have something in common with Jack (not
reading that link/letter), I can say that absolutely, for sure, the
sum total of guys at that event DO know exactly what happened. That
letter was signed by 10 of us, nine of whom were present that day. A
number of others who did not sign it, have made public comments about
the event, all in support of Kerry, and proving various claims by the
Swift Boat Veterans for "truth", and/or the book Unfit for Command, to
be flat out false.

Kerry's problems have to do with his own utterances. Throwing his medals
over the fences. Him being ordered by Nixon, before Nixon took office,
into Cambodia. Kerry seeing babies being killed by soldiers. Kerry
refusing to release his medical records to verify his wounds which he
received his purple hearts.

Ahh, when all else fails, fall back on Cambodia. I've seen this dozens
of times.

The letter shows the blatant lies told by the SBV"t", but you can't
seem to face/admit that, can you?

Doug Reese

PS. Verify his wounds? My God man, people were with him for ALL of
those incidents! He does NOT have to verify his wounds.

PPS. I'm done replying to your posts. Honest questions, comments, are
welcome. Unfortunately, your's do not fall in that category.

The SBVT are about Kerry's problems, not you or the other signatories to
the letter.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

.

Loading