Expertise's Politics and Sports Blog


Tuesday, August 31, 2004
Alan Keyes insults Cheney's daughter.

I hope Hastert cuts Keyes off for this shit:

Alan Keyes, the Republican candidate for a vacant U.S. Senate seat in Illinois, said Tuesday that Vice President Dick Cheney's daughter Mary is a "selfish hedonist" because she is a lesbian.

His comments came during an interview with OutQ, a satellite radio station.

Keyes said: "The essence of ... family life remains procreation. If we embrace homosexuality as a proper basis for marriage, we are saying that it's possible to have a marriage state that in principal excludes procreation and is based simply on the premise of selfish hedonism."

Asked whether that meant Mary Cheney "is a selfish hedonist," Keyes said: "That goes by definition. Of course she is."

I'm tired of him.  I'm serious; I am sick and tired of him.  I don't think anyone would have thought Alan Keyes would have acted this way before the Republicans asked him to run for the Senate in Illinois. 

He deserves whatever he's got coming to him.  I can't believe Keyes has the gumption to insult another man's daughter like that, much less the vice-president's daughter.  He's an absolute idiot and he's become an embarrassment to conservatives everywhere.

Posted at 11:40 pm by Expertise
Leave a message  

Home

Terrorists murder 12 Nepalese

The Ansar al-Sunna Army, a terrorist organization located in Iraq, murdered 12 Nepalese construction workers in what is sure to be the most grisly murder incident yet:

The video of the Nepalese showed a masked man in desert camouflage apparently slitting the throat of a blindfolded man lying on the ground. The blindfolded man moaned and a shrill wheeze was heard. The masked man then displayed the head to the camera before resting it on the body.

Other footage showed a man firing single shots from an assault rifle into the back of the heads of 11 others. Blood seeped from their bodies into the sand.

Ogrish has the video, and they usually post videos and images of these murders before damn near everyone else.  Believe me when I tell you; that video is not for the faint of heart. 

That "wheeze" that they were referring to happened due to the murderer actually slitting his throat to completely sever the windpipe, and the Nepalese victim actually attempting to gasp for air while dying.  The front of this throat was actually collasping in an attempt for air to be sucked in.

These are not human beings.  These are animals, and people need to realize that.  These appeasers think these fools are just like you and me.  They can be talked to, and bargained with.  They can be reasoned with.  Can you watch that video and honestly tell me that those people can be reasonable?

Here is something Bush stated during a speech that really struck home with me over the summer:

"The terrorists who attacked our country on September the 11th, 2001 were not protesting our policies; they were protesting our existence. Some say that by fighting the terrorists abroad since September the 11th, we only stir up a hornets' nest. But the terrorists who struck that day were stirred up already.

If America were not fighting terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere, what would these thousands of killers do? Suddenly begin leading productive lives of service and charity? Would the terrorists who beheaded an American on camera just be quiet, peaceful citizens, if America had not liberated Iraq?

We're dealing here with killers who have made the death of Americans the calling of their lives, and America has made a decision about these terrorists. Instead of waiting for them to strike again in our midst, we will take the fight to the enemy."

Today's horrific video shows precisely what he was talking about.

On another note:  terrorists were threatening to murder two French journalists.  However, word is that they are planning to release them.

Does this have anything to do with Iraq?  No.  France opposed the war and refuses to aid in it.  However, these terrorists have called for France to repeal their headscarf law.  If they didn't do it in 48 hours, they would have murdered the journalists.  In fact, there was a video of them pleading for their lives out there.  I wonder if someone has a translated transcript?

But it just goes to show that NOBODY is immune to terrorist threats.  And I guarantee you this won't be the last time France is reminded of that.

Posted at 06:19 pm by Expertise
Leave a message  

Home

The media is spinning on Bush "flip-flop"

Kerry and Edwards are trying to milk a single statement by President Bush during an interview with Matt Lauer on the Today Show.

Let's make this real clear:  there was no flip-flop.

Here's what the press is reporting:

“I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world –- let's put it that way."

That's cute, but that's not everything he stated, and they know it.  Here is more of what he and Lauer talked about:

Lauer: “You said to me a second ago, one of the things you'll lay out in your vision for the next four years is how to go about winning the war on terror. That phrase strikes me a little bit. Do you really think we can win this war on terror in the next four years?"

President Bush: “I have never said we can win it in four years.”

Lauer: “So I’m just saying can we win it? Do you see that?”

President Bush: “I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world –- let's put it that way. I have a two pronged strategy. On the one hand is to find them before they hurt us, and that's necessary. I’m telling you it's necessary. The country must never yield, must never show weakness [and] must continue to lead. To find al-Qaida affiliates who are hiding around the world and … harm us and bring ‘em to justice –- we're doing a good job of it. I mean we are dismantling the al-Qaida as we knew it. The long-term strategy is to spread freedom and liberty, and that's really kind of an interesting debate. You know there's some who say well, ‘You know certain people can't self govern and accept, you know, a former democracy.’ I just strongly disagree with that. I believe that democracy can take hold in parts of the world that are now non-democratic and I think it's necessary in order to defeat the ideologies of hate. History has shown that it can work, that spreading liberty does work. After all, Japan is our close ally and my dad fought against the Japanese. Prime Minister Koizumi, is one of the closest collaborators I have in working to make the world a more peaceful place.”

Lauer: “Your daughters are how old now?”

President Bush: “Twenty-two.”

Lauer: “Twenty-two years old. They’re approaching the age, President Bush, [when] they're going to have their own children. And when their kids are teenagers are they going to those kids – your grandchildren – be reading about al-Qaida in the newspaper every day?”

President Bush: “I know if steadfast, strong and resolute — and I say those words very seriously — it's less likely that your kids are going to live under the threat of al-Qaida for a long period of time. I can't tell you. I don't have any … definite end. But I tell you this, when we succeed in Iraq and Afghanistan, it's the beginning of the end for these extremists. Because freedom is going to have a powerful influence to make sure your kids can grow up in a peaceful world. If we believe, for example, that you can't win, and the alternative is to retreat … I think that would be a disaster for your children. I'll tell you why. If al-Qaida and their ideologues were able to secure a nuclear arsenal, then your children would grow up under the threat of nuclear blackmail. I think you would look back and say, ‘Why did George Bush not hold the line?’ We cannot show weakness in this world today, because the enemy will exploit that weakness. It will embolden them and make the world a more dangerous place.”
It's obvious that Lauer knew what he meant, or else he would have followed up on the statement Bush made.  But now Kerry and Edwards are trying to twist it to make it look like Bush is conceding defeat in the war on terror. 

It won't work boys, particularly since Bush made the statement in the last response in this passage, "If we believe, for example, that you can't win, and the alternative is to retreat … I think that would be a disaster for your children."  Now why would Bush call something a disaster that he supposedly advocated a minute or two earlier?

Later, Bush gave an exclusive interview to Rush Limbaugh, and he stated:

Well, I appreciate you bringing that up. Listen, I should have made my point more clear about what I meant. What I meant was that this is not a conventional war. It is a different kind of war. We're fighting people who have got a dark ideology who use terrorists, terrorism, as a tool. They're trying to shake our conscience. They're trying to shake our will, and so in the short run the strategy has got to be to find them where they lurk. I tell people all the time, "We will find them on the offense. We will bring them to justice on foreign lands so we don't have to face them here at home," and that's because you cannot negotiate with these people. And in a conventional war there would be a peace treaty or there would be a moment where somebody would sit on the side and say we quit. That's not the kind of war we're in, and that's what I was saying. The kind of war we're in requires, you know, steadfast resolve, and I will continue to be resolved to bring them to justice, but as well as to spread liberty. And this is one of the interesting points of the debate, Rush, is that, you know, I believe societies can be transformed because of liberty, and I believe that Iraq and Afghanistan will be free nations, and I believe that those free nations right there in the heart of the Middle East will begin to transform that region into a more hopeful place, which in itself will be a detriment to the ability to these terrorists to recruit -- and that's what I was saying. I probably needed to be a little more articulate.

It's quite clear that Bush was talking about terrorism itself, not the ones who perpetrate these attacks.  It makes no sense for him to - on both occasions -  state we couldn't win the war, but then emphasize resolve in seeing it through.

It's stories like these that make the media less and less credible.  The New York Times and the Associated Press is just but a couple of the many media companies and organizations that perpetrate in this kind of distortion.  That's why they are doomed to lose in November.

Posted at 05:18 pm by Expertise
Leave a message  

Home

RNC Notes:

While I got a bit of free time this morning, lemme get a few words in:

- First, the look.  Not bad at all.  But it did seem as if the crowd was a little smaller than it was at the Fleet for the DNC Convention.

- Gillespie should be commended.  They're running a tight ship, but it still allows freedom and expression throughout the convention.  Notice:  There are handwritten signs, unlike the DNC in Boston.  Speakers are allowed to voice their thoughts about the Democrats.  I bet no one approved Ron Silver's speech, or Rudy Guiliani's speech.

- Speaking of Guliani, and I know I'm gonna catch heat for this, but I think he's alright.  He's not the best speaker in the world, but he was honest and seemed genuine when he spoke.  Now if he had cut that speech say, about 10 minutes, then it would have been a really good speech.  However, if he ever plans to run for president, he'll have to work on his public speaking skills.

- I'm not sure whether to give a thumbs up or a thumbs down to the "reporters".  You know, the ones who were running around with mics on the convention floor and who were in the video packages.  It was a nice touch by Gillespie, but some of those people did not do a good job. 

I remember the black woman reporter who was at the Union rally.  She did NOT do a good job at all.  I wanted to tell her to stop marking out on the camera, cuz that's what she looked like she was doing.

But it did put a thought in my mind, though.  It was if the RNC said, "Screw the media; we'll use our own."  Ha.

-  McCain was aiight.  Yeah, he knocked Michael Moore, which always gives whomever does so a couple of cool points, but I fell asleep on the speech (um, I should mention to yall that I watched the replay of the speech on the internet right after Rudy was done.  McCain was speaking when I was well on my way home).  I think Rudy was more entertaining and kept the crowd laughing.

- When Ron Silver came out, all I could think was "They put this guy in there?  On Prime Time?Where's Tancredo?  Where's McConnell?  Hell; go drag Gramm's ole butt from Texas.  If you want an actor, where's Fred Thompson?"

But hey; it turned out to be a pretty good speech.  So I can't complain too much.

- Sorry Molotov.  I think you and Mitchell were wrong.  There were plenty of dots out in the crowd, surprisingly.

In fact, I saw a whole bunch of them wearing cowboy hats.  WTF was that about?

- Tonight I'll be able to watch all of it live.  Last night I was at work until 9:30ish (I was flipping channels at work and caught some of Raw while ole girl from New Mexico was blabbing...speaking of which, was it me or did she seem like she had something caught down her throat?  Hmmm..) so I missed a good part of it.  I should liveblog it, but nah.

Posted at 10:58 am by Expertise
Leave a message  

Home




Monday, August 30, 2004
Tom Daschle, The Republican.

Boy...I get a kick out of stuff like this.

Tom Daschle, the lead obstructionist of the Democrats in the Senate, tried to sneak an ad in his home state of South Dakota for his reelection bid while the Republicans and the media is partying in New York.

I hope someone has the actual ad online sometime tonight.  They probably have it now, but I have to go to work soon and I don't have time to go blog surfing to see who has it. 

But Drudge does have the transcript online:

Sen. Tom Daschle: Tonight, the President has called us again to greatness, and tonight we answer that call.

Male Voice: In our country's hour of need, Tom Daschle made us proud.

Sen. Richard Durbin: Tom Daschle called us together and said, 'we have to keep this nation safe and secure.'  I thought that was one of his finest moments.  He really said in those moments what all of us felt, that before we are Democrats, before we are Republicans, we're Americans.

Sen. Carl Levin: Tom Daschle has a great inner strength and toughness, which is why Tom is such a great leader.

Male Voice: Senator Daschle helped forge a consensus to rebuild our military. 

            Headline: Daschle: Time to Unite Behind Troops, Bush

            On Screen: Daschle and President Bush hug on House floor.

Male Voice: Tom won significant increases in homeland security and helped provide law enforcement new tools to track down terrorists. 

            Headline: Daschle, mayors pitch homeland security

            Headline: Daschle Calls For More Body Armor For S.D. Soldiers in Iraq

Male Voice: And no one has done more to get our troops the equipment they need or ensure our veterans are taken care of when they return home. 

            Headline: Sen. Daschle receives 'Unsung Hero' award from American Legion

Daschle:  I'm Tom Daschle and I approve this ad, because a strong military and a strong America is the best way to fight terrorism.
HA!  I swear...Democrats are TOO funny.  Hell you would think it was Daschle himself who called for the attack on Afghanistan.  You would have thought that Tom Daschle didn't obstruct Bush appointed judges to the Federal Bench, or the one who helped to pass legislation that would have helped military men and women overseas be able to vote easier.  You would have thought Daschle and Bush, just by reading that ad, were good buddies.  Old chums.  Worked together to move America forward without any kind of conflict or opposition.

But here's the thing that jumps out more than anything else:  The number one Democrat in the Senate, the Senate Minority Leader, in the middle of a presidential election in which his party is trying to defeat the incumbent president...has just admitted that the president can be used for him to be reelected.  This gives Bush more credibility in South Dakota (which wouldn't matter because Bush was going to win that state anyway)  but more importantly, throughout the nation.  If this gets out through the mainstream press, the Democrats are gonna have a lot of 'splaining to do. 

The lesson to be learned from this?  Democrats are only Democrats until it's reelection time.  Then they become "centrists" or quasi-Republicans.  And why is that?  Because they know they can't be elected outside of the metropolitan areas any other way.

Posted at 03:36 pm by Expertise
Leave a message  

Home




Sunday, August 29, 2004
Let me jump in on the Confederate Flag issue.

Since Tooley, Barber, and now Booker have placed their five-cents in on the issue.

I was living in Georgia when then-Gov. Roy Barnes, also known as "King Roy", implemented a series of deals with a number of both Democrats and Republicans to get the Georgia Flag changed.

I supported it then and I still supported that now.  That was mainly the only way to get that flag changed and thus place "closure" on the issue.  Now, some people will try to say that led to Barnes's eventual defeat to Sonny Perdue.  However, that was more due to the black vote and city vote (Atlanta's population is equal to the rest of the state) not coming out for Barnes than it did in the rural areas, where alot of people were galvanized by a Bush tour a week or two earlier.

Now Georgia Republicans, as inept as they are ass-backward, changed the flag again.  But even Perdue knew that the trying to change it back to the stars and bars would be a losing battle, since it would all but guarantee that he would be a four-term governor.  Now it looks even uglier than they claimed it to be then when Barnes initially changed it.

If you haven't figured out, I don't like the Confederate flag.  To be perfectly honest, wiping my dog's ass with it is the only possible option if I had to look at it twice.  Now, we've heard the heritage argument and the racism argument a million times before, so there's no need to go into detail about them, other than to make the obvious statement that racism was the southern heritage towards blacks, albeit not exclusively. 

However, this issue has been represented by two extremes.  We already know the "Heritage" advocates, but it isn't like we're going to roll up and die because the flag exists, as the NAACP would like to think if it isn't taken out of public view.  I'd rather not deal with whomever tries to drape myself around the flag, but I'm not going to have a sudden fit of anger or be intimidated every time I see it.

There are plenty of ways to remember your heritage than clinging onto defeatist symbols that symbolized hate and racism.  Neal Boortz, a talk radio show host with the number one radio show in Atlanta, put it best:  If it didn't symbol these things, then why didn't southerners stand up when they were being used by white supremacists and racists?  If what the people who argued that the Confederate flag doesn't symbolize racism is correct, then it's no one's fault but theirs that the flag has been identified this way.

I'll give you the answer why they didn't.  In fact, it's the same thing plaguing Islam today:  no one will step up and lead the charge to denounce their activities in the South itself, as Islamic "moderates" and others won't do in the Middle East now.  To do so would have risked them being alienated within their social circles and would have been intimidated by criminal groups whereever they went had they shown up.

Also, another tidbit:  when the whole flag thing was coming up in Georgia Boortz termed those fools trying to do any and everything to change the flag back when Barnes changed it as flaggots.  Ha.  I think that name is quite appropriate.

Posted at 07:10 am by Expertise
Leave a message  

Home




Thursday, August 26, 2004
Olympic chiefs want Bush to pull ad.

This is absolute garbage:

The U.S. Olympic Committee has asked the campaign to re-elect President Bush to pull an ad that refers to the Olympic Games, the International Olympic Committee said on Thursday.

The ad has angered Olympic officials because they feel it hijacks the Olympic brand -- a registered trademark -- even though it does not display the Games logo.

The U.S. Olympic Committee had asked the Bush election "campaign to withdraw the advertisement they are running," International Olympic Committee spokeswoman Giselle Davies told reporters.

Since when did you ever have to get the USOC or the IOC's permission just to mention the Olympics?  This is utterly ridiculous.

Although Bush won't, he needs to tell them to get over themselves.  Bush created an ad that only mentions two countries that were entering the Olympics as free countries.  That's it that's all.

But it's real easy to tell what this is all about.  This is the internationalist Olympic officials trying to separate themselves from the Bush Administration at all costs.  They should be more concerned with these doping scandals than they are with the Bush ad.

UPDATE:  Bush told them to get lost.

According to ABC News.com's Noted Now:

"We're on very firm legal ground to mention the Olympics, to make a factual point in a political advertisement," said BC'04 spokesman Scott Stanzel... when the olympics is over the campaign will take the ad down, as scheduled.
Wow.  Bush actually stood up to someone other than the terrorists?

Posted at 10:55 am by Expertise
Leave a message  

Home




Wednesday, August 25, 2004
Bush Vets respond with a letter to Kerry.

Well, Kerry continues with his whining and bashing.  Today, he sent Cleland and Rassmann to the Bush Ranch in Texas to send him a letter calling for him to denounce the Swiftboat ads.

What....they couldn't use FedEx?

In the letter, Cleland and other Democratic veteran politicians called on Bush to "specifically condemn the recent attack ads and accompanying campaign which dishonor Senator John Kerry's combat record in the Vietnam War."  However, they specifically want to contrast the difference between the 527 ads and the Swiftboat ads, although they are no doubt the same:

Our outrage over these advertisements and tactics has nothing to do with the tax code or campaign finance reform efforts of this nation. Our pain from seeing these slanderous attacks stems from something much more fundamental, that if one veteran's record is called into question, the service of all American veterans is questioned. This administration must not tacitly comply with unfounded accusations which have suddenly appeared 35 years after the fact, and serve to denigrate the service of a true American patriot. The veterans serving today should never have to expect this kind of treatment, when the wars of their generation have passed into history. We brothers and sisters in arms expect our Commander in Chief to stand up and reject this assault upon John Kerry's honor, the honor of American veterans and that of the United States Navy.

Tough luck, Cleland.  Where were you when not only MoveOn.org but the rest of the mainstream media were questioning Bush's National Guard Service?  I didn't see you opening your mouth then. 

In fact, just as soon as Charles Gibson checked John Kerry over the "ribbons" controversy, what was the first thing that came out of Kerry's mouth?  The very same thing he's done with this incident; he tried to say it was the Bush Administration that was bringing up the controversy through his subordinates (although I doubt Charles Gibson could be considered a Bush subordinate) and then he bashed Bush on his National Guard service. 

In fact, a Kerry campaign advisor bashed Bush's military service three times on Meet the Press, in which the Bush spokesman during that same segment noted.

Anyway, a number of veterans supporting the Bush campaign, mostly consisting of public officials, released their own letter:

...so many veterans are troubled by your vote AGAINST funding for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, after you voted FOR sending them into battle. And that’s why we are so concerned about the comments you made AFTER you came home from Vietnam. You accused your fellow veterans of terrible atrocities – and, to this day, you have never apologized. Even last night, you claimed to be proud of your post-war condemnation of our actions.

We’re proud of our service in Vietnam. We served honorably in Vietnam and we were deeply hurt and offended by your comments when you came home.

You can’t have it both ways. You can’t build your convention and much of your campaign around your service in Vietnam, and then try to say that only those veterans who agree with you have a right to speak up. There is no double standard for our right to free speech. We all earned it.
Precisely.  Kerry trying to silence what they have to say and not directly answering the charges is leaving a very big impression in the minds of all Americans. 

On Monday, the Washington Post called for Kerry to release all of his records:

Indeed, the Kerry campaign ought to arrange for the full release of all relevant records from the time. Mr. Kerry granted historian Douglas Brinkley exclusive use of his wartime journals and other writings; the campaign should seek to be freed from that agreement and to make all the material public. Though the ads are being underwritten by longtime Bush partisans, the Kerry campaign's claim of illegal coordination between the Swift boat group and the Bush campaign is unconvincing.
As far as I know, this is the first major newspaper to call for the Kerry campaign to do this.  Whether he will or not is doubtful.

Posted at 04:26 pm by Expertise
Comments (1)  

Home

Russian jets had hijackers?

It's possible:

If you didn't know, two Russian jets went down almost simultaneously today.

This came in over the AP:

The Russian news agency Interfax reported that a hijacking signal was activated on the second plane before it went missing. The signal came at 11:04 p.m. from the Tu-154 airliner, Interfax quoted the source in Russia's "power structures" as saying.
Of course, you can never really know what happened, as Russia is shrouded in secretcy.  In fact, it was my initial opinion that the Russian govt probably blew up the planes themselves - whether accidentally or on purpose.

And take notice that this Sunday Chechnya has their presidential elections.  Terrorists have been trying to pull a Madrid in order to influence that election, which is to replace the former president who was killed in a bombing.

Keep your eye on this one, folks.

Posted at 12:16 am by Expertise
Leave a message  

Home




Tuesday, August 24, 2004
Media Matters and FactCheck.org distort Purple Heart Qualifications.

Every once in a while I check out Media Matters for America, the brainchild created by David Brock to counter the "conservative media", as he calls it.  We can talk about how conservative it is and how misleading that label is later.

Anyway, Gabriel Wildau posted today that Mort Kondracke was wrong in regards to the requirements of a Purple Heart.  On Special Report with Brit Hume, Kondracke said this:

KONDRACKE: Now, there's questions about the third Purple Heart as well. Because in this exhaustive Washington Post analysis of that incident, this March 13, 1969, incident, where [then-Kerry crewmate Jim] Rassmann got knocked overboard. Part of the story is that the shrapnel that Kerry took in his buttocks was from a grenade that he -- that he threw himself. And therefore, that would not qualify for ...

CONNOLLY: But that's a ...

KONDRACKE: Just a minute. He also got -- he also had a contusion, didn't break the skin apparently. A contusion on his arm, and the Purple Heart was awarded for the two of them combined. Now, if it turns out that the -- that the shrapnel in his buttocks, which did bring blood, was self- inflicted, then he didn't deserve that Purple Heart.

To which, Wildau responded:

The truth is that Kondracke is ignorant of the relevant requirements for awarding a Purple Heart. Annenberg Public Policy Center's Political Fact Check pointed out that the buttock wound alone -- which Kerry sustained while blowing up a cache of rice that was a source of food for the Viet Cong -- would have qualified Kerry for a Purple Heart, even without the arm injury Kerry subsequently sustained in full-fledged combat later that day. A "friendly fire" injury can qualify for a Purple Heart "as long as the 'friendly' projectile or agent was released with the full intent of inflicting damage or destroying enemy troops or equipment," according to the website of the Military Order of the Purple Heart. All agree that rice was being destroyed that day on the assumption that it otherwise might feed Viet Cong fighters."
Wildau is flat out wrong, and it's obvious that he nor FactCheck.org either didn't read the Military Order or they purposely distorted it.  I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt that Wildau was just repeating the charge made by FactCheck, but I'm not willing to give the same benefit to FactCheck themselves.

Here's what the Military Order website actually says:

b) Individuals wounded or killed as a result of "friendly fire" in the "heat of battle" will be awarded the Purple Heart as long as the "friendly" projectile or agent was released with the full intent of inflicting damage or destroying enemy troops or equipment.
This is not "friendly fire", as these were grenades set off by both Kerry and Rassmann themselves.  Friendly fire comes from other members of your unit, not from yourself.  Second, this passage explicitly states "heat of battle", meaning that you have to be engaged by enemy troops.  Now unless you are trying to assert the rice bin was attacking Kerry and Rassmann, then this does not constitute as the heat of battle.

The Military Order also states this:

(5) Examples of injuries or wounds which clearly do not qualify for award of the Purple Heart are as follows:

(a) Frostbite or trench foot injuries.

(b) Heat stroke.

(c) Food poisoning not caused by enemy agents.

(d) Chemical, biological, or nuclear agents not released by the enemy.

(e) Battle fatigue.

(f) Disease not directly caused by enemy agents.

(g) Accidents, to include explosive, aircraft, vehicular, and other accidental wounding not related to or caused by enemy action.

(h) Self-inflicted wounds, except when in the heat of battle, and not involving gross negligence.

(i) Post traumatic stress disorders.

(j) Jump injuries not caused by enemy action.

Now check out (g) and (h).  (g) specifically states:  "Accidents, to include explosive, aircraft, vehicular, and other accidental wounding not related to or caused by enemy action."  Those grenade explosions would constitute as an explosion that was not caused by any enemy action, unless, once again, the rice bin attacked Kerry and Rassmann.

Now having said that, it is possible that an argument could be made that this was "related to" enemy action, considering they did it for the express purpose for hurting the VietCong.  But then you have to decide whether a VietCong rice bin standing by itself bothering no one constitutes an enemy action.  *shrugs*

(h) is the killer.  "Self-inflicted wounds, except when in the heat of battle, and not involving gross negligence."  Do I really need to go into detail about this one?  Does this not sum it up in regards to what actually happened with Kerry, if this account is indeed true?

Media Matters needs to correct their false allegation.  Of course, I know they won't.  But it's always good to hope they had some sort of integrity. 

Posted at 07:24 pm by Expertise
Leave a message  

Home




Next Page



   









Contact Me

If you want to be updated on this weblog Enter your email here:




rss feed

BLOGDRIVE
TEMPLATES

Weblog Commenting and Trackback by HaloScan.com

Blogdrive