OT For Louie From Bob Kerrey

"I believed then, just as I believe now, that the best way to support
the troops is to oppose a course that squanders their lives, dishonors
their sacrifice, and disserves our people and our principles."
-- John Kerry, April 22nd, 2006 in Boston

------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Louie,

When we were in the Senate together, John Kerry and I shared a lot more
than a last name. We both came to public service after having served our
country in Vietnam. And that experience caused us to make a fifteen year
effort to bring peace to Cambodia, resolve the POW-MIA issue, write a
road map to normalization with our former enemy, and follow that road
map until a former prisoner of war returned as our ambassador in 1998.

That diplomatic voyage was long and very contentious. It began with
President George Herbert Walker Bush and ended with President Clinton.
It was not possible without the courageous leadership of Senator John
McCain and many other Vietnam veterans who served in Congress. It was
angrily opposed by many and reignited many of the bitter, personal
debates surrounding the war itself.

It's among my proudest accomplishments. We were able -- Republicans and
Democrats together -- to achieve a great foreign policy success at the
site of our worst foreign policy mistake. We stood shoulder to shoulder
for peace and reconciliation. Millions of Cambodians and Vietnamese are
better off today because of it. For me this was an effort worthy of our
sacrifices and reflects my strongest desire for America's destiny as a
peace maker.

For those who have fought in war, decisions about war and peace and how
you send men and women to war become personal in a hurry. Wars -- even
when we agree they are necessary -- are not the result of our successes;
they are the result of our failures.

Something more, though, was seared into both John and me by our Vietnam
experiences. Half of the names on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall are
the names of Americans who died after the policy makers knew our nation
was on the wrong course, after both political parties called for
expeditious withdrawal. And yet the war dragged on for five more years.

"How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"

Thirty-five years ago, John Kerry asked that question as a recently
returned Vietnam veteran testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee. He acted because he believed it was right to dissent from a
war he believed was wrong -- and he was willing to endure the attacks of
the Nixon Administration which hated John for saying what he believed.

This testimony provoked more than partisan attacks. Even many of his
fellow veterans were angry and some never forgave him. I remember this
well because I nearly lost my first race for Governor because people
thought I was John.

Say what you want about the content of that testimony, it was an act of
profound courage. And say what you want about that testimony, there is
little doubt that Vietnam and the United States would have been spared
tens of thousands of its youth had John's advice been taken.

Ten days ago, in a powerful speech on Iraq and dissent at Boston's
Faneuil Hall, John made it clear that those who disagree with President
Bush's course in Iraq have a right and an obligation to challenge a
President who they believe is wrong, a policy they believe is wrong, and
a war in Iraq they believe weakens our nation.

John stood up and defended the dissenters -- whether retired generals or
our fellow Vietnam veteran Congressman Jack Murtha.

In an age where those who speak out are too often vilified or worse,
John spoke out about and acted on the real meaning of patriotism: having
the courage to speak your mind, heart, and gut even when it's unpopular.

I urge you to watch this vitally important speech and to forward it to
as many people as possible.

VIEW HIGHLIGHTS OF THE FANEUIL HALL SPEECH ON DISSENT AND IRAQ:

http://www.johnkerry.com/

We're at a big moment here - one where each and every one of us must
reject attempts to silence criticism of the rudderless course Washington
has charted, one in which each of us must absolutely refuse to let
soldiers and civilians die to save face for politicians unwilling to
admit their mistakes or change course.

I urge you to watch this speech and to join with John Kerry in speaking
out and doing everything possible to make 2006 the year that we did
what's right for our soldiers in Iraq, our nation's foreign policy
values, and our national security.

Sincerely,

Senator Bob Kerrey

Make a contribution:

https://contribute.johnkerry.com/form.html?sc=7052

On Mon, 01 May 2006 17:04:51 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

"I believed then, just as I believe now, that the best way to support
the troops is to oppose a course that squanders their lives, dishonors
their sacrifice, and disserves our people and our principles."
-- John Kerry, April 22nd, 2006 in Boston

Ah, yes, good old "I voted against the war before I voted for it." or
some such nonsense by Scarey Kerry.

You just don't give $300 a year to charity when you make $300K.

You don't get a PH for wounding yourself with your own grenade.

You don't get a PH for rice penetrating your buddocks from your own
grenade.

You don't get a PH from "action" that didn't happen.

You don't a Bronze Star from picking up a man whom YOU caused to go
overboard while running from action at the fishing weir.

You don't get a SS for hazarding your vessel to chase a wounded
teen-ager into the jungle and shoot him in the back.

You do not help your fellow veterans by returning home and telling
lies about their actions.

You do not go to Paris and converse with the PRoVN peace negotiators
while you are still on active duty.

You definately do NOT get a discharge from the US Navy signed by a
"board of officers" as stated on his web page. Sec Nav signs it.

Of all that, I think giving a measly $300 to charity when he earned
over $300,000 the best indicator of a **** poor character.

OTT, he does marry well, doesn't he?

Louie
(who sez ya better take him up on the Lakewood trip before he cancels
your ass.) d;o)

Dave LaCourse wrote:
On Mon, 01 May 2006 17:04:51 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:


"I believed then, just as I believe now, that the best way to support
the troops is to oppose a course that squanders their lives, dishonors
their sacrifice, and disserves our people and our principles."
-- John Kerry, April 22nd, 2006 in Boston


Ah, yes, good old "I voted against the war before I voted for it." or
some such nonsense by Scarey Kerry.

You just don't

.... deliberately turn down several opportunities to kill terrorist Abu
Musab al-Zarqawi in the lead-up to the Iraq war, just to appease the French:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems...5/s1627197.htm

"Mr Bush had Mr Zarqawi in his sights for almost every day for a year
before the invasion of Iraq and he didn't shoot because they were wining
and dining the French in an effort to get them to assist us in the
invasion of Iraq."

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

On Mon, 01 May 2006 18:34:01 GMT, rw
wrote:

"Mr Bush had Mr Zarqawi in his sights for almost every day for a year
before the invasion of Iraq and he didn't shoot because they were wining
and dining the French in an effort to get them to assist us in the
invasion of Iraq."

--

So sez your side. The world knows that Clinton refused to take
custody of Osama Bin L. from the Sudanese. THAT might have prevented
the 9/11 attacks.

Dave LaCourse wrote:
On Mon, 01 May 2006 18:34:01 GMT, rw
wrote:


"Mr Bush had Mr Zarqawi in his sights for almost every day for a year
before the invasion of Iraq and he didn't shoot because they were wining
and dining the French in an effort to get them to assist us in the
invasion of Iraq."

--


So sez your side.

It's the story of a former top CIA spy. Mike Scheuer headed the CIA's
bin Laden unit for six years before resigning in 2004.

The world knows that Clinton refused to take
custody of Osama Bin L. from the Sudanese. THAT might have prevented
the 9/11 attacks.

That's just another false right-wing talking point.

From the 9-11 Commission report: "Former Sudanese officials claim that
Sudan offered to expel Bin Ladin to the United States." But the report
immediately continued: "Clinton administration officials deny ever
receiving such an offer. We have not found any reliable evidence to
support the Sudanese claim."

While addressing the Long Island Association's annual luncheon, Clinton
said he "pleaded with the Saudis" to accept Sudan's offer to hand bin
Laden over to Saudi Arabia. Sudan never offered bin Laden to the United
States, and Clinton did not admit to the Sudan offer in that speech or
anywhere else.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

rw wrote:
Dave LaCourse wrote:


The world knows that Clinton refused to take
custody of Osama Bin L. from the Sudanese. THAT might have prevented
the 9/11 attacks.


That's just another false right-wing talking point.

From the 9-11 Commission report: "Former Sudanese officials claim that
Sudan offered to expel Bin Ladin to the United States." But the report
immediately continued: "Clinton administration officials deny ever
receiving such an offer. We have not found any reliable evidence to
support the Sudanese claim."

While addressing the Long Island Association's annual luncheon, Clinton
said he "pleaded with the Saudis" to accept Sudan's offer to hand bin
Laden over to Saudi Arabia. Sudan never offered bin Laden to the United
States, and Clinton did not admit to the Sudan offer in that speech or
anywhere else.

BTW, Dave, what might have prevented the 9/11 attacks is if Bush had
taken seriously the PDB (Presidential Daily Briefing) titled "Bin Laden
Determined to Strike in US," and if the terrorism "task force" that
Cheney chaired had met even once.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

On Mon, 01 May 2006 19:06:45 GMT, rw
wrote:

Dave LaCourse wrote:
On Mon, 01 May 2006 18:34:01 GMT, rw
wrote:


"Mr Bush had Mr Zarqawi in his sights for almost every day for a year
before the invasion of Iraq and he didn't shoot because they were wining
and dining the French in an effort to get them to assist us in the
invasion of Iraq."

--


So sez your side.

It's the story of a former top CIA spy. Mike Scheuer headed the CIA's
bin Laden unit for six years before resigning in 2004.

The world knows that Clinton refused to take
custody of Osama Bin L. from the Sudanese. THAT might have prevented
the 9/11 attacks.

That's just another false right-wing talking point.

If you mean the Sudanese offer, you're flat-out wrong. If you mean "it
might have prevented..." that's probably debatable. As to the Sudanese
offer, it happened, and your cut-n-paste below doesn't begin to cover
it. Moreover, the 9/11 Commission report doesn't explain why it didn't
particularly look for evidence or why the evidence presented wasn't
"credible" (such as White House logs, letters, etc.). And if someone
had put forth this about anyone in Bush White House:

"President Clinton in a February 2002 speech to the Long Island
Association, said that the United States did not accept a Sudanese offer
and take Bin Ladin because there was no indictment."

and

"But the President told us that he had "misspoken" and was, wrongly,
recounting a number of press stories he had read. After reviewing this
matter in preparation for his Commission meeting, President Clinton told
us that Sudan never offered to turn Bin Ladin over to the United States.
Clinton, meeting, Apr.8, 2004."

you'd **** a kitten.

From the 9-11 Commission report: "Former Sudanese officials claim that
Sudan offered to expel Bin Ladin to the United States." But the report
immediately continued: "Clinton administration officials deny ever
receiving such an offer.

Er, right - they didn't have Sudanese relations with that ambassador...

We have not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim."

And I have found no reliable evidence that Idaho isn't controlled by
Martians. OTOH, I've found no reliable evidence that it is, either. Of
course, if I cared to look, I might find some evidence one way or the
other...

While addressing the Long Island Association's annual luncheon, Clinton
said he "pleaded with the Saudis" to accept Sudan's offer to hand bin
Laden over to Saudi Arabia. Sudan never offered bin Laden to the United
States, and Clinton did not admit to the Sudan offer in that speech or
anywhere else.

See above.

Now all that said, does it mean that Clinton didn't care what bin Laden
did? Of course not - it means that sometimes, things go wrong and what
seemed like a number of downside issues to accepting him (or, um,
otherwise, er, dealing with bin Laden) wasn't worth it, given the
overall picture as it was known at the time. But yeah, at the end of
the day, Clinton, Berger, and Albright could have called the shots
(pardon the pun...or not) as to bin Laden's future...or lack thereof.

And BTW, you REALLY need to quit getting your positions from one-sided
sites you manage to Google up.

Dave LaCourse wrote:
[a lot of venomous slander]


You gotta do whatever you can to bring him down
to your level, eh ?

wrote in message
oups.com...

Dave LaCourse wrote:
[a lot of venomous slander]

You gotta do whatever you can to bring him down
to your level, eh ?

It's just a good thing there's no liberals out there pimpin' *their* ride,
eh? ;-)
--
TL,
Tim
who sees these exchanges as the gift that keeps on givin'.
-------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

"Tim J." wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...

Dave LaCourse wrote:
[a lot of venomous slander]

You gotta do whatever you can to bring him down
to your level, eh ?

It's just a good thing there's no liberals out there pimpin' *their* ride,
eh? ;-)

Pimpin' one's ride ain't exactly the same thing as being the number one
slanderer of decorated combat veterans in ROFF, eh?

TL,
Tim
who sees these exchanges as the gift that keeps on givin'.

The trouble is that all too few people give any indication that they
appreciate what they're getting.

Wolfgang