Quote:

---

I went to the belly of the beast: CBS and CNN polls http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm.

---

Actually, that poll asks "In view of the developments since we first sent our troops to Iraq, do you think the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq, or not?"

That is not the same as should we invade Iraq. If you look at polls on that site that predate the actual invasion (go back to pages 6 and 7), the percentage of Americans who favored sending in US ground troops varied from the high fifties to the low seventies, depending on how the question was asked, and who was doing the asking. I remember the trends from the CNN/USA Today Gallup Poll, which had numbers that hovered in the hi 50s for the most part.

I'll grant that 3 out of 4 is a consensus. But I don't think 5 out of 9 is.

Quote:

---

Your argument (and mine) about the merits of action in Iraq cannot fairly be evaluated yet. This is a historical decision, and it will require that perspective. At any rate, you make the decision on the best information you have at the time. History can only tell us how it works out, not what would have happened had we left Saddam in power.

---

We are in total agreement on that. One of my history professors in colleg opined that if it happened less than 30 years ago, it isn't history, it's current events. but I'm not encouraged by the early returns.

I also agree that you make the best decision you can at the time and move on. I don't fault the President for having made the decision he made based on the information he had. Whether he had the best available information is a matter for another day.

The burning question is not whether we should be there, but what do we do to get out, and how do we facilitate the mission while we're there. At the moment, I'm not sure that either the President or the Senator have a workable plan.

Jokerman - I give you bonus points for having the moxie to continue to post with your screen name, rather than anonymous. How about 1 bonus point for every post you have made...let's see, that makes is 3 to 1166...

Quote:

---

That's a fair point. (What was the date when hostilities began?)

---

The invasion began 3/19. If you back on the poll site prior to that, you can see the difference in the nature of the questions. Whatever consensus there was hasn't held together, and I say that as a Republican who supported the President in 2000 and also supported the invasion of Afghanistan in 2003.

By the way, I think he had and has a consensus on Afghanistan, but it is threatened by events in Iraq.

Quote:

---

Do you think GHWB had a consensus before using force to expel Saddam from Kuwait?

---

He did among the people I knew. Even the people who weren't in favor of the war on general principles recognized the necessity that we stop Hussein from invading Saudi Arabia and restore the government of Kuwait.

I don't recall any kind of poll numbers from that time, though, so I can't speak to a consensus in the country as a whole. But GHWB's apporval numbers went sky high, so even if there was not a consensus before the war, the country jumped on the bandwagon afterward.

I watched the beginning of Kerry's speech (before I fell asleep). What galled me was they way he tried to portary himself as the second coming of John F. Kennedy (who did not mp[ress me).

A swift boat in Nam is not a PT boat of WWII. Kerry may have plucked some guy out of the water but he did not swim through shark infested waters dragging a crewman to safety on an island. Yes they share the same initials but I doubt, based on his record, if John Kerry would ever stand up to any foreign power nor would he ever support a "Bay of Pigs" type invasion by indigenous people to liberate their home.

Kerry was soundly booed when he threw out the first pitch at Fenway Park in Boston, his home city and state, against the Yankees last week.

The sole thrust of the Dems is anybody, anyhow to defeat W.

John Kerry, you are the weakest link. Good bye!

Reporting for scrutiny
August 2nd, 2004


John Kerry’s duty in Viet Nam is the service which keeps on serving him. Flinging those decorations (of disputed ownership) over the fence at the Capitol was the sort of dramatic visual image irresistible to television news directors. He parlayed the publicity of war-hero-turned-protestor into a leadership position in the Viet Nam Veterans Against the War, and later into a political career, first as an anti-war hero, eventually dropping the “anti” part when fashions changed, and portraying himself as a pure war hero.

But Kerry has already passed the point of diminishing returns in proclaiming his heroism, and is navigating his Swift Boat command down the river of self-parody. Even people who don’t pay attention to politics know that those four months of combat far outweigh the twenty years in the Senate, in his self-presentation. If you yawned during his convention acceptance speech, you might have missed the Senate career entirely. Downing a drink every time he mentioned Viet Nam in the speech kept fraternity boys all across America interested in politics last Thursday night, and none of them stayed sober.

Beyond overkill, there is a deeper danger for Kerry in all this emphasis on his Viet Nam months. It legitimizes sustained inquiry into the details of his service. It is one thing to attack an ostensible war hero who modestly mentions his service in a campaign biography, as a bonus factor preceding a long and distinguished political career. Most people would rather not hear criticism of any veteran’s honors. Three Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star and a Silver Star buy a lot of respect, and that’s a good thing.

But when those four months become the very basis of a campaign, overshadowing any real attention to the substance of the subsequent thirty-plus years, they become a legitimate campaign issue open to inquiry. And there are serious questions indeed about Kerry’s tenure as the commander of a Swift Boat.

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is an organization of Kerry’s peers, those who commanded Swift Boats while he was on duty in Viet Nam. Their website contains a devastating picture of the future candidate posing with his fellow commanders. Move the cursor onto the picture, and you will see those who support his candidacy (his “band of brothers”), numbering three. All the other 11 living veterans proclaim him unfit for command.

The Kerry campaign’s use of fellow veterans supporting his candidacy begs the question of how many of those who knew him then actually support him. Having raised the subject, he cannot legitimately disparage those who served with him and formed other judgments as to his character. They too deserve the honor of our respect for their service.

Kerry’s “reporting for duty” opening for his acceptance speech makes much of his volunteering for active duty, and implicitly disparages President Bush’s service in the Texas Sir National Guard, where he flew jet fighters, a duty whose hazards have cost many a pilot his life. But before he signed on to the Navy, Kerry applied for a draft deferment, so he could spend a year studying in Paris. Only when this effort failed did he enlist.

Then there are those medals, the ones his second wife proclaims he won “the old fashioned way.” The documentation released by the campaign on those medals is rather incomplete, it seems. Candidate Kerry could fill out Form 180 and clear up the gaps in the record, by authorizing the release of his complete military records. But he has not done so.

Having chosen to make his campaign rely so heavily on his military record, he cannot escape scrutiny of the complete record. Of course, the old media display no interest in these questions. Twenty years ago, that would be the end of it. But in the era of the internet, talk radio, and proliferating media, the lid will not stay on that pot forever.

The Bush campaign itself should steer clear of these questions, of course. It is up to the rest of us to raise these questions. The billionaires like George Soros and Peter Lewis, supporting moveon.org and other left wing 527 groups have shown how to do it. Support Swift Boat Veterans for Truth with your contribution. And ask questions of your friends and neighbors who support Kerry. This is an issue that must bubble up from below. And, given the three months of campaigning ahead of us, there is plenty of time for it to do so.

Thomas Lifson

The media had been warning that Kerry would get a potentially huge "bump" of 15-20 points in the polls after the Democratic National Convention.

Now that the convention is over and there was no noticable difference in the polls, the media is saying that the reason there is no bump is that most people had already made up their minds, so this accounted for why no actual "bump" occurred.

Not many people outside the "Military Familys" know "Bud" Day but suffice it to say, he is a true Hero of the Vietnam War.
CWM

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






This is short and to the point.

Statement from Col George E. "Bud" Day, USAF, Ret., Medal of Honor Recipient, Former POW in Hanoi, North Vietnam, regarding Presidential election support:

"I am solidly in the camp for the reelection of President George W. Bush.

While opposition to my legal efforts to restore WWII/Korea era earned medical care by the Bush Administration was discouraging, the Kerry Vietnam anti-war movement directly encouraged the vicious torture I received as a POW in the Hanoi Hilton, was demoralizing for other POW's and their families, and provided aid and comfort for North Vietnam to continue the war.

I can think of no action more despicable than false public condemnation of warriors on the field of battle, as John Kerry made under oath.

Senator Kerry is unfit to become President and our Commander-in-Chief."


Col, George "Bud" Day, USAF, Ret., Medal of Honor recipient, Former POW in Hanoi, North Vietnam , 32 Beal Parkway, SW., Ft Walton Beach, FL 32548 850-243-123



The President of the United States
in the name of The Congress
takes pleasure in presenting the
Medal of Honor
to

DAY, GEORGE E.

Rank and organization: Colonel (then Major), U.S. Air Force, Forward Air Controller Pilot of an F-100 aircraft. Place and date: North Vietnam, 26 August 1967. Entered service at: Sioux City, lowa. Born: 24 February 1925, Sioux City, lowa.

Citation:
On 26 August 1967, Col. Day was forced to eject from his aircraft over North Vietnam when it was hit by ground fire. His right arm was broken in 3 places, and his left knee was badly sprained. He was immediately captured by hostile forces and taken to a prison camp where he was interrogated and severely tortured. After causing the guards to relax their vigilance, Col. Day escaped into the jungle and began the trek toward South Vietnam. Despite injuries inflicted by fragments of a bomb or rocket, he continued southward surviving only on a few berries and uncooked frogs. He successfully evaded enemy patrols and reached the Ben Hai River, where he encountered U.S. artillery barrages. With the aid of a bamboo log float, Col. Day swam across the river and entered the demilitarized zone. Due to delirium, he lost his sense of direction and wandered aimlessly for several day! s. After several unsuccessful attempts to signal U.S. aircraft, he was ambushed and recaptured by the Viet Cong, sustaining gunshot wounds to his left hand and thigh. He was returned to the prison from which he had escaped and later was moved to Hanoi after giving his captors false information to questions put before him. Physically, Col. Day was totally debilitated and unable to perform even the simplest task for himself. Despite his many injuries, he continued to offer maximum resistance. His personal bravery in the face of deadly enemy pressure was significant in saving the lives of fellow aviators who were still flying against the enemy. Col. Day's conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty are in keeping with the highest traditions of the U.S. Air Force and reflect great credit upon himself and the U.S. Armed Forces.


Citation Courtesy of www.HomeOfHeroes.com