_BiB_

So, I take that to be a no? Thank you for clearing that up. You CAN rationalize Mr. Kerrys comments being used to coerce American POWs. Just wanted to know where you stood. This one isn't grey, RCow. This one is pretty black and white.

Do you, or do you not consider it an issue that statements made by John Kerry were used as leverage by NVA interrogators to force Americans to sign war crimes confessions?

Then what do you mean to imply by this statement? Remember now, you consider M. Moore a credible documentary film maker. Read my other posts in context as well. The assertion is, what these folks have to say should be ignored because it doesn't support John Kerry. These guys, and many more were the ones in the cells. You dismiss them out of hand. Where is there any evidence in Mr. Kerry's testimony that he gave one hoot about the POW's? His concerns came much later.

You've lost it. Pretty well gone over the edge.

I have no idea how they are working it, but it could be logistical. The weapons issued at the training facility are on the books for that facility. They don't go with the soldier. It is common practice to issue individual weapons upon arrival to a unit. you see our folks getting off the plane with weapons, as they were issued by the unit in the states before they flew.

I'd prefer the root canal.

You need to have a talk with Happy Bunny. Oh yeah, that's right! We killed him and ate him.

I'd love to take the bait, but I can't compare my experiences to Kerrys. Apples and oranges. They are also somewhat private.

Yes, my allegience is to the United States. Yours is to the United Nations. Also, nothing in this answer is related to my point. You guys just can not answer the question. "Is it acceptable to you, that J. Kerry's testimony was used as a tool by N. Vietnamese interrogators to help extract confessions from American POW's?" Yes or no?

As an aside, you mention TR in your Avatar line. Have you ever looked up TR's human rights positions? Were you aware that considered genocide of the American Indians to be an honorable and worthy cause? Let alone people of other nations and races. Do a little reading on our activities in the Phillipines. Just curious.

That's OK. The bad part is that people believe him.

Maybe we aren't on the same page. Although I plan to, I didn't see the show in question, but I have seen/read transcripts by both POW's and their former interogators that clips of JK's testimony were played to some POWs as proof of their war crimes, and they were abused for not signing documents confessing to their participation in the "atrocities" admitted to by JK.

He didn't say that. He said he would win the war on terror, which I guess amounts to the same thing. Great. Will anyone share just how he plans to do it? There's a whole bunch of us, some having been in the business 30 years and more, that would really like to know.

The moral of the message here, to me at least, is that if something is said by the people who were actually there that doesn't reflect kindly and heroically on John Kerry, they are considered bought and paid for liars. That, to me, is kind of-well, real sad. Instead of thinking, "well, if this is true, that's pretty bad" or even "if it's true, it doesn't matter" some of you will immediately leap to the "they are lying because Kerry has three purple hearts and Bush was AWOL from the guard". It doesn't matter now anyway. We're a week or so out. Everyone knows what they are going to do. We'll all have to live with our choices.

So I guess you folks are saying, that any story of Kerry's speeches being used as a leverage tool to get American POW's to sign false confessions must be a total fabrication both on their part, and by the Bush campaign. Thank you for clearing that up for me. I'm all better now.

PS. I swear to God, I wish there were some way to sit you across the table from some of these "handful of POW's" and watch you explain your position. I'd pay good money to see it.

I almost can't believe you wrote that, then I considered the source. You really DON'T have a clue, do you? Somehow, because you "like" Kerry or don't "like" Bush, or something in between, you can rationalize a guy being hauled out of his tiger cage and getting beaten because he won't agree to what Mr. Kerry was saying about the war. And you think Kerry is the hero here. There's a thing within the military known as the Code of Conduct. It's a formal thing, you get refreshed on it annually. You don't capitulate. It's not about John Wayne stuff, it's because it's been a time honed technique that if you can break a few people, you have leverage on the rest. There is unity in strength. Nothing like having videos of Mr. Three Purple Hearts telling Congress about war crimes, playing in front of an emaciated, physically injured A-6 pilot being beaten because he won't sign a "confession". You, and people like you just-don't-get-it. And you want him as Commander in Chief. He was aware of the implications to those held captive when he did his grandstanding, as he received the training. He didn't care. Those in the Hanoi Hilton were expendable to him in his interests of running for public office in Mass.

I didn't think they looked bad in pre-season. Back when everyone called this a gimme (when the Bills were going 11-5, remember?) I didn't think this was an auto-win. Now, playing Alden Central isn't an auto-win.

When I met Darlene I was alerted for Korea. Since I didn't have orders yet, I managed to manipulate the system somewhat because of the Gulf One confusion (everyone was pretty well just getting back from the sandbox, but stop loss was still in effect) and got Hawaii instead. There were poor bastards who pretty well went from the desert straight to Korea. She would have come over with me, but I couldn't see that as a smart way to start a marriage. Hawaii was much better. I was at the end anyway. Two year honeymoon, then retire.

I guess I put that out wrong. Start doing the homework on changes that favor JP. Give it a couple-three weeks to re-do the plays. Then, put the boy into an offensive scheme that favors him. Don't put him into an offense built for Bledsoe. I honestly don't see the Bills setting Bledsoe down and starting Matthews. If you're going to sit him down start Losman. The other thing I was thinking, is what kind of psychology and signal does that give the team? I'm asking, don't really know the answer.

It would be nice to drop the term "insurgent" and call a spade a spade. It would help to clear up a lot of things just to call them terrorists.

And THEN throw his incompletion. What was Gibbs thinking?

The season is through. What's to gain except more grief? Either play Losman for experience, or go with Bledsoe so Losman has an upright back-up. What's to gain? You'd think Matthews was going to get the Bills into the playoff hunt. This team has too many problems. Bledsoe has screwed them this far, run him till he drops. Start working JP in down the road. JP is going to mandate a different kind of offense. These clowns haven't figured out the one they have, and you want to toss in a new playbook?

You're from DC and you're picking Brunell? Wow, don't let the Skins fans hear you.

For us it's ready, fire, aim.