Cross in the Dirt Story. McCain's or Solzhenitsyn's?

[disrupter]

McCain never mentioned the 'Cross in the Dirt Story' in his 1973 recounting of his imprisonment ordeal.

It seems to have appeared in a book co-written in 1999.

Maybe he isn't a bald face liar,
maybe he has just built himself up as more of a legend in his own mind,
his own, old, feeble, confused mind.

Alzheimer's?

Andrew Sullivan:
McCain's "Cross In The Dirt" Story
17 Aug 08
I've now heard it countless times. McCain has used what appears to be an intensely personal moment in a prison camp as a reason to vote for him in a campaign ad. As he tells it today, it was the pivotal moment in his struggle to survive in the Hanoi Hilton. And yet, in his first thorough account of his time in captivity,

in 1973, the story is absent. The story is also

hauntingly like that recounted by Solzhenitsen,

as told in Luke Veronis, "The Sign of the Cross":

Leaving his shovel on the ground, he slowly walked to a crude bench and sat down. He knew that at any moment a guard would order him to stand up, and when he failed to respond, the guard would beat him to death, probably with his own shovel. He had seen it happen to other prisoners.

As he waited, head down, he felt a presence. Slowly he looked up and saw a skinny old prisoner squat down beside him. The man said nothing. Instead, he used a stick to trace in the dirt the sign of the Cross. The man then got back up and returned to his work.

As Solzhenitsyn stared at the Cross drawn in the dirt his entire perspective changed.

I have one simple question: when was the first time that McCain told this story? http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/08/mccains-cross-i.html

The more i hear about McCain the shallower & worse he seems to be.
Maybe he is just a confused old man,
or is that an ego-challenged old gigolo playboy?

The more i look at him the less i see.

Hillary & her sniper fire strike again.
What god-awful egos they must have.

[doctordog]

McCain never mentioned the 'Cross in the Dirt Story' in his 1973 recounting of his imprisonment ordeal.

It seems to have appeared in a book co-written in 1999.

Maybe he isn't a bald face liar,
maybe he has just built himself up as more of a legend in his own mind,
his own, old, feeble, confused mind.

Alzheimer's?

Andrew Sullivan:
McCain's "Cross In The Dirt" Story
17 Aug 08
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/08/mccains-cross-i.html

The more i hear about McCain the shallower & worse he seems to be.
Maybe he is just a confused old man,
or is that an ego-challenged old gigolo playboy?

The more i look at him the less i see.

Hillary & her sniper fire strike again.
What god-awful egos they must have.

I guess two people never experience similar experiences in life, only one kid has won the game for his team in high school on the last shot, or only one soldier has been isnired by another using a similar message. Now this is grasping for something to complain about.:disbelief:

[PhoneMistress]

The problem is that McCain has been caught plagiarizing before this allegation and therefore has little to no credibility against such accusations.

The point is that McCain has never mentioned this story before, the story keeps changing depending on the audience and McCain is quite familiar with Solzhenitsyn’s (http://www.nysun.com/opinion/solzhenitsyn-at-work/83117/) work.

[doctordog]

Obama has used pieces of others speeches as well, I think we are doomed with either candidate

[PhoneMistress]

This is about McCain. Let's have a conversation about this situation without injecting Obama.

[doctordog]

[QUOTE=PhoneMistress]This is about McCain. Let's have a conversation about this situation without injecting Obama.[/QUOTe

why bitch about either if both are guilty

[SeedyROM]

If the guard is alive someone will go out and find him. Who knows if this is true, hard to say. What if the story has been told and the reporter is lying? We all know politicians bend the truth as do Dem and Rep biased media, both groups are destroying American ideals.

[disrupter]

This isn't 'bending the truth'

this is a complete fabrication.

a lie.

another decorated lie fed to gullible religious people who want pretty lies rather than hard truths.

May sanity bless us all.
The facts will help immensely.

McCain is a Fake & a Fraud.

an empty vessel.

[asroc]

It's a losing argument, anything that brings the narrative to McCain's prisoner years is a win for McCain.

The story has been tracked down pretty thoroughly starting back in 99 by Free Republic. This cross in the dirt story is not actually from Gulag, as the McCain's biographer Mark Salter states, but attributed to Solzhenitsen by Christian evangelicals.

The Minister who put it into circulation was Charles Colson and everyone keeps repeating as if it had indeed appeared in Gulag. The point here is that Salter took a very well known evangelical story (which happens to not be by Solzhenitsen whatever they may think) and fused it with McCain's story of being a POW.

McCain's still inventing the story, he's just pulling it from urban legend instead of Solzhenitsen. Even I had heard the apocrypha attributed to Solzhenitsen enough to where my memory had put the incident into Gulag.

[SeedyROM]

So McCain and John Kerry have something in common with war stories and stretching the truth. At least McCain never killed a kid and repeatedly rehearsed a video of it. I have no respect for rich kids going to war just to earn medals and come home and then they hide thier medical files.......Kerry is fake. McCain earned his honor, Kerry lied, begged and scammed to get his!

It doesnt suprise me that democrats are equal liars and as fake as republicans with half true stories. Did McCain make up or add to the story?

People tend to forget as time passes.........how many decades ago?

[asroc]

Not only is Kerry irrelevant to any of this, but nothing you said about Kerry is even true.

Kerry was criticized by SBVTand some media entities for not authorizing independent public access to his privacy protected service records. After the election, on May 20, 2005, he did sign a Standard Form 180[80] allowing full release of all his military service records, including his reserve and discharge [81] records, as well as his medical records, to the Associated Press, the Boston Globe, and the Los Angeles Times. Kerry refused a request from the New York Sun to permit the Sun's reporters to inspect the records. [82]. The Boston Globe reported that the material largely duplicated what Kerry had released during the campaign, and included no "substantive new material". [83]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerry_Military_Service_Controversy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerry_Military_Service_Controversy#Document_r elease

The lack of any substantive new material about Kerry's military career in the documents raises the question of why Kerry refused for so long to waive privacy restrictions. An earlier release of the full record might have helped his campaign because it contains a number of reports lauding his service. Indeed, one of the first actions of the group that came to be known as Swift Boat Veterans for Truth was to call on Kerry to sign a privacy waiver and release all of his military and medical records.

But Kerry refused, even though it turned out that the records included commendations from some of the same veterans who were criticizing him.

On May 20, Kerry signed a document called Standard Form 180, authorizing the Navy to send an ''undeleted" copy of his ''complete military service record and medical record" to the Globe. Asked why he delayed signing the form for so long, Kerry said in a written response: ''The call for me to sign a 180 form came from the same partisan operatives who were lying about my record on a daily basis on the Web and in the right-wing media. Even though the media was discrediting them, they continued to lie. I felt strongly that we shouldn't kowtow to them and their attempts to drag their lies out."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/06/07/kerry_allows_navy_release_of_military_medical_reco rds/

[SeedyROM]

Not only is Kerry irrelevant to any of this, but nothing you said about Kerry is even true.





Kerry is relevant to the fact that he nailed as a liar who changed his war stories or added to them. The facts are in, so did he forget or just make up some shit to sell himself. Hillary did it with her story about the trip to Bosnia. They sell themselves and forget that people smarter than they are will check the facts. Idiot!!!!! Kerry is relevant and there's nothing you can do about it, not now, not ever!!!

Everything I said about Kerry is true, Liars want to pretend the man never killed a boy and made a video. Hell the fuck couldn't even tell the truth about war protesting and throwing medals over the gate, oh yea, I forgot he didn't throw them, he changed the story to say he tossed them. What a fucking joke......John Kerry didn't deserve the spot reserved for Howard Dean. Noticed how you didn't even address the MURDER AND VIDEO!! So typical!! But only because was true!!

As for the medical records how fucking stupid are you, seriously???
He allegedly releases records to one group but not the entire media.

Talk about a media favoritism, he only gave access to people who were loyal to him and the party........but what about the rest of the democratic media. Media Scandal, nothing more. Scarecrow Kerry hid the facts, and gave access to only the files he wanted the media to see............cover up........scandal!!!

Any fucking idiot knows the Boston Globe and LA Times are liberal rags hellbent on sucking up. I get my news from neutral media sources.

Asroc, try reading AP News or Rueters online. The rags and internet sites get the news from these neutral sources and re-write to sucker the masses including you. Pick some major stories fro AP News or Rueters, copy the subject line and paste it on Google. Re-read the liberal or conservative version of the political story. They lie to the masses and twist the truth mixing in opinion, the majority of media outlets are doing it. Not just the neocons!! Liberals, neoliberals and conservative media are re-writing the truth to sucker the masses. Neutrals sources are far more reliable than the Globe or the Wacko LA Times.

Kerry had something to hide......those facts are set in stone!!

[asroc]

Yeah, you didn't really read the articles I pasted.

Your complaining about who he chose to release them to is irrelevant, he released them. They are substantiated. The Kerry thing is over, just own it.

http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/lit/election2004/docs.html

The conservative organization Judicial Watch filed a request for Kerry's records with the Navy under the Freedom of Information Act. The Navy provided Judicial Watch with many of Kerry's service records, including those concerning the medals he received, while withholding his personnel records that were exempt from disclosure under the law (but noting that Kerry's website included documents subject to the exemption).

Our examination found that existing documentation regarding the Silver Star, Bronze Star and Purple Heart medals indicates the awards approval process was properly followed. In particular, the senior officers who awarded the medals were properly delegated authority to do so. In addition, we found that they correctly followed the procedures in place at the time for approving these awards.

Conducting any additional review regarding events that took place over 30 years ago would not be productive. The passage of time would make reconstruction of the facts and circumstances unreliable, and would not allow the information gathered to be considered in the context of the time in which the events took place.

Our review also considered the fact that Senator Kerry's post-active duty activities were public and that military and civilian officials were aware of his actions at the time. For these reasons, I have determined that Senator Kerry's awards were properly approved and will take no further action in this matter.

-Vice Admiral Ronald A. Route, the Navy Inspector General, September 2004

Again, this is a non-issue. I keep bringing obvious, glaring facts to you and you only respond with vague accusation and innuendo.

Posted 9/17/2004 7:16 PM
Navy says Kerry's service awards were properly approved

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Navy's chief investigator concluded Friday that procedures were followed properly in the approval of Sen. John Kerry's Silver Star, Bronze Star and Purple Heart medals, according to an internal Navy memo.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-09-17-kerry-navy-awards_x.htm

[Binky]

McCain never mentioned the 'Cross in the Dirt Story' in his 1973 recounting of his imprisonment ordeal.

It seems to have appeared in a book co-written in 1999.

Maybe he isn't a bald face liar,
maybe he has just built himself up as more of a legend in his own mind,
his own, old, feeble, confused mind.

Alzheimer's?

Andrew Sullivan:
McCain's "Cross In The Dirt" Story
17 Aug 08
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/08/mccains-cross-i.html

The more i hear about McCain the shallower & worse he seems to be.
Maybe he is just a confused old man,
or is that an ego-challenged old gigolo playboy?

The more i look at him the less i see.

Hillary & her sniper fire strike again.
What god-awful egos they must have.


Yeah, well, egos reside in men and women of lesser means as well. Egos soar to unknown heights in a large percentage of the population. Where one ego goes, it will always find another.

[SeedyROM]

Yeah, you didn't really read the articles I pasted.

Your complaining about who he chose to release them to is irrelevant, he released them. They are substantiated. The Kerry thing is over, just own it.

http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/lit/election2004/docs.html

Again, this is a non-issue. I keep bringing obvious, glaring facts to you and you only respond with vague accusation and innuendo.



http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-09-17-kerry-navy-awards_x.htm

No Kerry staged a release, the dem media critsized him for not releasing the facts to all media outlets. Coverup and scandal, you bought the sucker story too. Dean should have been nominated, but the sheeps wanted Kerry. The facts are relevant and you will never change the facts to distort your biased opinion of a fucking loser like Kerry, he will die a loser, a loser with money but a loser for life.

You bring nothing obvious to light, only weak and pathietic attempts to protect a child killing, war protesting moron who lost the election because he was not presidential enough. People like you were afraid to support Dean.

You have no glaring facts, all you have is wikipedia and nothing to substantiate the false information presented to the Globe and LA Times.
Kerry staged the eintire event and you are too blind to admit it. You will never change the facts!!! Nothing vague about the truth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! fyi, I did read the links. Kerry is a loser!

[asroc]

How do you stage a release of information, you either release it or you don't.

He made it publically available, through the Navy, as in the public could read it. The 30 or so documents are right there, on the findlaw url I pasted. He put them on his own site as well.

http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/lit/election2004/docs.html

Every single one of the documents is there for you to actually read, right now, they're substantiated by the Navy.

I have determined that Senator Kerry's awards were properly approved and will take no further action in this matter.

-Vice Admiral Ronald A. Route, the Navy Inspector General, September 2004

THE NAVY is saying "Yes, those are the documents. His medals were appropriated rewarded."

Are you saying it's a US military conspiracy, as well?

[SeedyROM]

How do you stage a release of information, you either release it or you don't.

He made it publically available, through the Navy, as in the public could read it. The 30 or so documents are right there, on the findlaw url I pasted. He put them on his own site as well.

http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/lit/election2004/docs.html

Every single one of the documents is there for you to actually read, right now, they're substantiated by the Navy.

THE NAVY is saying "Yes, those are the documents. His medals were appropriated rewarded."

Are you saying it's a US military conspiracy, as well?

Staging the release entails finding Kerry supporters who will agree to his terms and they get whatever info Kerry wants them to see. This was covered by the media back then. Even Katie Couric was asking, why not release the details to the masses? Records can be withheld if yo uhave access to the right people. Senators have those connections.

You continue to tout medals, all I said was the stupid fuck threw them over the fence during a live and filmed event. The changed the story to say he tossed them to soften the war protesting story because he couldn't bullshit his way out of the war protesting film. He apologized days later even after he said he would not apologize, something Kerry is famous for. A few months in Vietnam and he's a war hero for killing a child.....what a joke!!!

You deiviate from my points and attempt to add new info in your replies which have nothing to do with the facts I've posted. Typical weak strategy and it has failed you once again!! LOL :lmao2: Going to the left or right of my posts is not going to work. Stick to the facts!

Try to stay on subject, I've said nothing about who awarded medals. Try to concentrate or re-read the posts. Kerry is a fraud, so what he was awarded medals while good men were bleeding out in the real war, he was being an all day pussy!!! For how many months........4 or??????????????????

So McCain and John Kerry have something in common with war stories and stretching the truth. At least McCain never killed a kid and repeatedly rehearsed a video of it. I have no respect for rich kids going to war just to earn medals and come home and then they hide thier medical files.......Kerry is fake. McCain earned his honor, Kerry lied, begged and scammed to get his!

It doesnt suprise me that democrats are equal liars and as fake as republicans with half true stories. Did McCain make up or add to the story?

People tend to forget as time passes.........how many decades ago?

[asroc]

At least McCain never killed a kid and repeatedly rehearsed a video of it. I have no respect for rich kids going to war just to earn medals and come home and then they hide thier medical files.......Kerry is fake. McCain earned his honor, Kerry lied, begged and scammed to get his!


Please substantiate all of these claims with actual sources or shut up.

Here are the records showing that Kerry did not lie or "scam" his purple heart, silver and bronze star. They were earned in combat:

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/jkerry/jk3phearts.pdf
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/jkerry/jksilverstar.pdf
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/jkerry/jkbronzestar.pdf

I have no idea what relevance "medical files" have with what you're talking about.

The "kid" you keep referring to was a VC holding a ROCKET LAUNCHER, right after his boat was attacked. This is well documented if you WOULD SIMPLY READ:

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/jkerry/jksilverstar.pdf

Usually, in the middle of a firefight, you're supposed to kill the enemy. Isn't that usually how it works?

Would you judge a soldier in Iraq if he shot a teenager with a rocket launcher right after his HUMVEE EXPLODED?

PLEASE, substantiate your claims in the future with some sort of source. Otherwise you are just babbling.

[SeedyROM]

Please substantiate all of these claims with actual sources or shut up.

Here are the records showing that Kerry did not lie or "scam" his purple heart, silver and bronze star. They were earned in combat:

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/jkerry/jk3phearts.pdf
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/jkerry/jksilverstar.pdf
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/jkerry/jkbronzestar.pdf

I have no idea what relevance "medical files" have with what you're talking about.

The "kid" you keep referring to was a VC holding a ROCKET LAUNCHER, right after his boat was attacked. This is well documented if you WOULD SIMPLY READ:

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/jkerry/jksilverstar.pdf

Usually, in the middle of a firefight, you're supposed to kill the enemy. Isn't that usually how it works?

Would you judge a soldier in Iraq if he shot a teenager with a rocket launcher right after his HUMVEE EXPLODED?

PLEASE, substantiate your claims in the future with some sort of source. Otherwise you are just babbling.

You are just babbling, facts are facts!

Maybe you should mke a fake video and reherse it with a kid.

You actually trust the words of ScArEcRowKerry, what a gas!!!!!:lmao2:
The facts are in, you can't prove the rocket story is truthful. Like Is said
you cannot stick to the facts, all you can do is deviate and deceive. It does not work. Get your act together, I don't play into deviate tactics. You can't win a debate with false information that comes from a politician who is known for lying on the record!!!

4 months in combat, is he related to John Wayne or is Scarecrow a Vietnam Rambo!!! I think not!!!:taunt: :lmao2: :taunt:

[asroc]

This is just kind of sad, even for you.

You haven't provided a single scrap of evidence for anything you've claimed. Or to the contrary of anything I've debunked.

I provided you with every scrap of documentation as provided by the US Navy, with further quotes from the Navy Inspector General as to their explicit authenticity. You have nothing. You're claiming a media/political conspiracy involving the Navy, but offer no evidence to prove it.

The "rocket story" is in THE OFFICIAL REPORT OF THE INCIDENT, from THE NAVY, that I have pasted three times. Where is your evidence to the contrary?

You have none.

You just resort to namecalling.

It's difficult to treat you like an adult.

[SeedyROM]

This is just kind of sad, even for you.

You haven't provided a single scrap of evidence for anything you've claimed. Or to the contrary of anything I've debunked.

I provided you with every scrap of documentation as provided by the US Navy, with further quotes from the Navy Inspector General as to their explicit authenticity. You have nothing. You're claiming a media/political conspiracy involving the Navy, but offer no evidence to prove it.

The "rocket story" is in THE OFFICIAL REPORT OF THE INCIDENT, from THE NAVY, that I have pasted three times. Where is your evidence to the contrary?

You have none.

You just resort to namecalling.



Oh yes I do, I'll post later, Scarecrow is not legit. Anyone in the Senate can manipulate the truth. Medical docs can be changed in trade for political favors, job appointments and jobs for family. Bush and his supporters did it. Your the one who brought up the Sec of Navy, not me. You refuse stay on subject and you refuse to accept responsibility for deviating. You can't win a debate by changing the subject. I'm only dealing with what I originally said, not your words, mine. Try to stay on course next time! I never give an inch.

[PhoneMistress]

Kerry? Are you kidding? Don’t get distracted.

McCain has been talking about his POW days since …forever. He wrote a book in 1973. Anyone here read it? The story about the kind “gun guard” is in the book. It was a lesson in humanity. Here’s the kicker. The whole ‘cross’ BS started in 1999 when McCain was running for President. And it resurfaced again December 2007 while McCain was running for President. The story has morphed into this horrible amalgamation of untruths, half-truths and good old fashion pandering.

[SeedyROM]

Kerry? Are you kidding? Don’t get distracted.

McCain has been talking about his POW days since …forever. He wrote a book in 1973. Anyone here read it? The story about the kind “gun guard” is in the book. It was a lesson in humanity. Here’s the kicker. The whole ‘cross’ BS started in 1999 when McCain was running for President. And it resurfaced again December 2007 while McCain was running for President. The story has morphed into this horrible amalgamation of untruths, half-truths and good old fashion pandering.

Politicians stretch the truth to sweeten the story and they can't remember what they said last. Explains why the truth is always the same, so they should stick to the truth and the facts remain constant. A real war hero doesn't need to lie, John Kerry is a spoon fed rich punk who left Vietnam after a few months with more medals than common sense. And he has been caught in many many lies about the war and lies about how he votes on the job. McCain may have lied a little but he earned his place in history, Kerry stole his.

[SeedyROM]

So McCain and John Kerry have something in common with war stories and stretching the truth. At least McCain never killed a kid and repeatedly rehearsed a video of it. I have no respect for rich kids going to war just to earn medals and come home and then they hide thier medical files.......Kerry is fake. McCain earned his honor, Kerry lied, begged and scammed to get his!

Asroc you claim a rocket was in the kids hand and we all know about soliders manipulating stories afterthefact (McCain and Kerry have that in common). Did Kerry stage the killing or find a dead boy and place a weapon in his hands.........no one will ever know for sure.

Was the weapon live or one that had been fired already and worthless? Why would anyone film a kid with a weapon over and over? That is just sick!!!

So he got some medals but the moron wasn't in Vietnam to serve he was there to build up his crediility as a war hero........a fake rich kid from Yale.
Do you know why people who spoke out suggesting Kerry was a fraud flip flopped........money, power and threats from Kerry and his supporters flipped the men back on his side. How many want to fight a system working in favor of a man running for president? Its a no brainer that this story has changed in favor of Kerry.

Threats and manipulation are off the books and away from the prying eyes of the media. Can I prove it, can you or anyone disprove it? No, but we know what happens when a man gets elected.

Now after the election and Kerry losing the accusers are going back to the original story line. No reason to do so except it must be true! They have no benefit now that the election is over, so did they tell the truth and get bullied by Kerry and supporters? Money and power buy a lot of influence!!
The story cuts both ways. Lose the election and the men have nothing to fear, they don't even live in MA.

Would these men risk a law suit from Kerry after the election??? No they have nothing to fear and nothing to hide, the same as thier original statements! The big stink is, as President Kerry could have squashed these men in many different ways. Do you want to be the enemy of the most powerful man in the world.........hell no. Truth or not the story is perplexing and suspicous. I never buy the party story lines because both sides lie so much.

Like I said, Howard Dean would have won, but you people abandoned him!!

http://www.factcheck.org/republican-funded_group_attacks_kerrys_war_record.html
What Elliott said in the ad is that Kerry "has not been honest about what happened in Viet Nam." In his original affidavit Elliott said Kerry had not been "forthright" in Vietnam. The only example he offered of Kerry not being "honest" or "forthright" was this: "For example, in connection with his Silver Star, I was never informed that he had simply shot a wounded, fleeing Viet Cong in the back.

Elliott now feels differently, and says he has come to believe Kerry didn't deserve his second award for valor, either, based only on what the other anti-Kerry veterans have told him. He told the Globe Aug. 6:

Elliott also said he now believes Kerry shot the man in the back, based on other accounts including a book in which Kerry is quoted as saying of the soldier, "He was running away with a live B-40 (rocket launcher) and, I thought, poised to turn around and fire it." (The book quoted by Elliott is John F. Kerry, The Complete Biography, By The Reporters Who Know Him Best.)

Elliott also says in that second affidavit, "Had I known the facts, I would not have recommended Kerry for the Silver Star for simply pursuing and dispatching a single, wounded, fleeing Viet Cong." That statement is misleading, however. It mischaracterizes the actual basis on which Kerry received his decoration.





I was O-4 in the Navy, I awarded many medals to men and women, even recommend 8 Marines for medals whom I served with. A man shooting videos of a kid he claimed to have killed, no that's not what the military is about. We do not award medals just because people ask for them......especially where sick and morbid videos surround the person in question.

[SeedyROM]

Why didn't Kerry release the records before the election? Did someone change the records for political favors? Who knows??? Bush is accused of lieing about Iraq WMD's and a lot of false information and misleading documents have been found. So how hard would it be to get medical records changed?

After the election, on May 20, 2005, he did sign a Standard Form 180[80] allowing full release of all his military service records, including his reserve and discharge [81] records, as well as his medical records, to the Associated Press, the Boston Globe, and the Los Angeles Times.

I'll tell you something I know about the dotmatrix print out showing Bush's so called transfer that kept him out of the war. A dem supporter did not create the paper that Dan Rather and CBS news released. That was neocon 101!
Fake documents are used in espionage all the time. Fake a military transfer as bait to Dems, a not so common propoganda tactic. And we got 4 more years of Bush. The party flip flopped and lost.

[disrupter]

McCain deserted his first wife, when she needed him most.

The only reason he didn't join Bush deserting the US military is because the North Vietnamese prison guards wouldn't let him.

McCain is a shallow FAKE.

He is a gold-digger playboy,
pretending at being a senator.

[asroc]

SeedyROM, considering I pasted all the actual reports, the burden of proof rests on you to prove your claims, not on me to disprove them.

The Navy itself says the medals were awarded properly according to the reports of the incidents, so you are in effect accusing the US Navy of a Democratic political conspiracy. Think about how retarded that sounds for just a second.

If you would read anything I've given you, most of your questions would be answered logically.

But you choose to wallow in nonsensical, clueless speculation. I can't really waste my time continuing to argue about claims you provide no evidence for.

[SeedyROM]

SeedyROM, considering I pasted all the actual reports, the burden of proof rests on you to prove your claims, not on me to disprove them.

The Navy itself says the medals were awarded properly according to the reports of the incidents, so you are in effect accusing the US Navy of a Democratic political conspiracy. Think about how retarded that sounds for just a second.

If you would read anything I've given you, most of your questions would be answered logically.

But you choose to wallow in nonsensical, clueless speculation. I can't really waste my time continuing to argue about claims you provide no evidence for.

Excuse me but http://www.factcheck.org/republican-...ar_record.html
has more detials than the liberal websites you posted. Yes I read your posted links
.
Do I question the medals, I question the story of the men who recanted
thier stories under pressure by Kerry and supporters. Now the men recanted the recanted testimony again saying he did not deserve the medals. They are questioning his honor. The spin does not work with me Asroc.

You want to believe Kerry that's your problem, you get your news from the white washed sources that deny you the full story, even the after-election stories surrounding Kerry. These men spoke out after the elections, that's all I'm saying, spin does not work..........the words of men who were there are important to consider. If you don't beleive then that is a choice, but do not deny it is true that they recanted again, do not deny that it happened, try to be mature and open minded and nonjudgemental, you missed out on the story or you like to pretend it never happened, either way it happened!!

I posted factual reports from a media neutral site, you used a liberal site that left out/edited out pertinant information. Whether these men are telling the truth or not, the story is important in retrospec. The burden of proof is on the men and Kerry, again you spin has failed you!! I provided evidence, I bet you sat on your lazy ass and did not read a thing again ( fourth time, I'm keeping count for now on! lol)........very ignorant and quite a dumb move......typical for people who coast thru life turning a blind eye to new information that you are clueless about or did yo deny the opportunity???:lmao2:

[asroc]

I didn't realize wikipedia and findlaw were liberal websites.

Yawn.

Okay, let's look at factcheck.org then, since you are apparently claiming it to be the end-all-be-all of neutral sources....

Elliott also said he now believes Kerry shot the man in the back, based on other accounts including a book in which Kerry is quoted as saying of the soldier, "He was running away with a live B-40 (rocket launcher) and, I thought, poised to turn around and fire it." (The book quoted by Elliott is John F. Kerry, The Complete Biography, By The Reporters Who Know Him Best.)

Elliott also says in that second affidavit, "Had I known the facts, I would not have recommended Kerry for the Silver Star for simply pursuing and dispatching a single, wounded, fleeing Viet Cong." That statement is misleading, however. It mischaracterizes the actual basis on which Kerry received his decoration.

The official citations show Kerry was not awarded the Silver Star "for simply pursuing and dispatching" the Viet Cong. In fact, the killing is not even mentioned in two of the three versions of the official citation (see "supporting documents" at right.) The citations - based on what Elliott wrote up at the time - dwell mostly on Kerry's decision to attack rather than flee from two ambushes, including one in which he led a landing party.

Elliott had previously defended Kerry on that score when his record was questioned during his 1996 Senate campaign. At that time Elliott came to Boston and said Kerry acted properly and deserved the Silver Star. And as recently as June, 2003, Elliott called Kerry's Silver Star "well deserved" and his action "courageous" for beaching his boat in the face of an ambush:

Elliott (Boston Globe, June 2003): I ended up writing it up for a Silver Star, which is well deserved, and I have no regrets or second thoughts at all about that. . . . (It) was pretty courageous to turn into an ambush even though you usually find no more than two or three people there.

Elliott now feels differently, and says he has come to believe Kerry didn't deserve his second award for valor, either, based only on what the other anti-Kerry veterans have told him. He told the Globe Aug. 6:

Elliott: I have chosen to believe the other men. I absolutely do not know first hand.

This smear campaign has been launched by people without decency," Rassmann said. "Their new charges are false; their stories are fabricated, made up by people who did not serve with Kerry in Vietnam."

Rassmann's Aug. 10 Wall Street Journal article states that Kerry's arm was "wounded by the explosion that threw me off his boat," which would make that wound clearly enemy-inflicted.

http://www.factcheck.org/republican-funded_group_attacks_kerrys_war_record.html

[SeedyROM]

Wikipedia is a mix of every site, some relevant some are edited sites.

Findlaw is liberal based in nature. Like I said, I'm going with the words of others who have spoken out. Why hasn't Kerry sued the men for defation and slander ? There could be some truth to the story, regardless Kerry is a turd who lost the election because the spot had been reserved for Dean.

[asroc]

Please feel free to explain to me what makes findlaw.com a "liberal based" site.

Wikipedia entries are only as biased as the sources cited. It's not innately political one way or the other.

[SeedyROM]

Please feel free to explain to me what makes findlaw.com a "liberal based" site.

Wikipedia entries are only as biased as the sources cited. It's not innately political one way or the other.

The attroneys who founded FindLaw are liberals. Maybe they leave out pertinant facts or maybe they only want to go with the mainstream story? But they left out relevant facts after the election. I do not dislike libs in general but I do not care for cherrypicing of the news when it favors a politician or political party......that is form of bias. You'll find Rep biased sites will leave out Bush lied and they'll edit out his partying young lifestyle too.......more bias and coverup on Bush's part.

FindLaw, a Thomson Reuters business, is the world's leading provider of online legal information and Internet marketing solutions for law firms. FindLaw's roots go back to 1995, when two attorneys compiled a list of Internet resources for a group of law librarians in northern California. The response to the material was so positive they decided to post the information on the Internet.

[asroc]

Still not seeing the decidedly liberal part you're talking about. Unless you're assuming all law librarians or Californians are inherently liberal.

[asroc]

In 1995, Roscheisen co-founded FindLaw, which became the most widely used Internet legal site, for the first time making U.S. case law including all Supreme Court decisions easily accessible to the public.

That pinko commie bastard.

Roland Martin Roscheisen (German: Röscheisen) is an Austrian-American technology entrepreneur and the CEO of Nanosolar, a manufacturer of a new generation of solar electricity cells and panels.

He must do this in between Al-Qaeda meetings, right?

[SeedyROM]

Still not seeing the decidedly liberal part you're talking about. Unless you're assuming all law librarians or Californians are inherently liberal.

Look them up on FindLaw.com both are liberal.

I gave you the facts you asked for and you did not look them up and read till I challeneged you to do so. I'm not going to take a lazy ass seriously because you are too lazy to do so and lie and act as if you did read the links. No one is going to take you serious unless you at least perform the due dilliegence.

[asroc]

How are they liberal, and thus the site? Explain it to me.

http://company.findlaw.com/company_info.html

I clearly did read the factcheck entry.

I pasted relevant quotes from it. Hell, you even pasted quotes from it that were contrary to your claim.

You're plainly not making any sense.

[SeedyROM]

How are they liberal, and thus the site? Explain it to me.

http://company.findlaw.com/company_info.html



You're plainly not making any sense.

Spin doesn't work here

Look them up on FindLaw.com both are liberal.

[asroc]

How are they, and thus the site, liberal, explain it to me.

[SeedyROM]

How are they, and thus the site, liberal, explain it to me.
Look them up on FindLaw.com both are liberal

[asroc]

Look them up on FindLaw.com both are liberal

What, on findlaw.com, specifically, leads you to believe that not only are the founders liberals, but that their political leanings would then make the site "liberal".

Please quote and source something on findlaw.com that leads you to these conclusions. Otherwise you're just blowing smoke.

[SeedyROM]

What, on findlaw.com, specifically, leads you to believe that not only are the founders liberals, but that their political leanings would then make the site "liberal".

Please quote and source something on findlaw.com that leads you to these conclusions. Otherwise you're just blowing smoke.

Talk about blowing smoke!! You wouldn't read it anyway. :taunt: :taunt:

Look them up on FindLaw.com both are liberal:lmao2: :lmao2:

[PhoneMistress]

Findlaw is liberal based in nature.

Findlaw is an excellent service. Some of the most conservative law firms use the service because it is quite good, innovative and neutral.

I am not familiar with the politics of the founders and it is not important as it has nothing to do with the service. Not then and definitely not now.

By the way Roscheisen is not one of the 'attorney' co-founders of Findlaw.

[asroc]

So, I'm just going to assume SeedyROM's got nothing and not respond to him/her anymore.

This was fun.

[SeedyROM]

So, I'm just going to assume SeedyROM's got nothing and not respond to him/her anymore.

This was fun.

You will not read it because you are too lazy and pathetic. The facts are there!!!
Go find it! :lmao2:

[Hog Trash]

The more i hear about McCain the shallower & worse he seems to be.
Maybe he is just a confused old man,
or is that an ego-challenged old gigolo playboy?

The more i look at him the less i see.

Hillary & her sniper fire strike again.
What god-awful egos they must have.Just curious?.....Can you find anything negative to tell about Obama???

[SeedyROM]

Findlaw is an excellent service. Some of the most conservative law firms use the service because it is quite good, innovative and neutral.

I am not familiar with the politics of the founders and it is not important as it has nothing to do with the service. Not then and definitely not now.

By the way Roscheisen is not one of the 'attorney' co-founders of Findlaw.

I never bothered to check, I was taunting for the sport of it. Most law firms are conservative. The Findlaw articles are sourced from other sites. Which Asroc eventually figured out. He took a joke out of context and I had some fun and taught him something new about Kerry and psy ops too.

[disrupter]

Yes, he caved on FISA.

Like McCain flip-flopped on Bush's tax cuts,
flip-flopped on social security,
flip-flopped on his OWN torture bill, upholding Bush's veto.

Could you be more spineless?

but he is just a playboy gigolo in bed with a Felonious Mobster's daughter,
which helped buy him the Senate seat he now occupies.

And like the little insecure chihuahua he is he barks a lot & talks tough,
but will spell the final neocon doom for this nation.

Paris Hilton has a chihuahua,
Cindy McCain has a John.

[asroc]

Findlaw isn't a law firm, and of course the articles are linked off site. I used the site all through school.

"Most law firms are conservative"

What a silly thing to say.

Or is that more "taunting for sport"?

[asroc]

ANYWAY, the actual topic:

We also noticed that the anecdote attributed to Solzhenitsyn was repeated by former Nixon aide and now-famous evangelist Charles W. Colson in his 1983 book "Loving God." In the acknowledgments of the 1996 edition, Colson wrote:

Colson ("Loving God," pg. 254): The story about Alexander Solzhenitsyn and the old man who made the sign of the cross was first told by Solzhenitsyn to a small group of Christian leaders and later recounted by Billy Graham in his New Year’s telecast, 1977 [sic] It has been retold subsequently, most publicly by Sen. Jesse Helms (R-NC).

The Billy Graham Center Archives show that in 1974 Graham met with Solzhenitsyn in Stockholm, where he might have told Graham the anecdote. But when we spoke with Billy Graham spokeswoman Melany Ethridge, she said the archives contain no records of what was said during the private meeting in 1974.

Contrary to Colson's account, neither Graham's 1976 nor 1977 New Years' telecasts made any mention of Solzhenitsyn. But Ethridge provided FactCheck.org with documents that show Graham did tell the anecdote on September 3, 1975, and August 18, 1976. The 1975 telling was broadcast nationwide on November 24 of that year:

Graham (Texas Tech, University, Sept. 3, 1975): Alexander Solzhenitsyn was over here recently, remember? And he toured around the country. And he told a little story that everybody ought to hear, if you didn’t hear it. He said when he was in that prison for so long there came one time, and one time only, when he thought of suicide. He said he was not allowed ever to speak to his cell-mate. For weeks on end, they could not speak to each other. And he said that his cell-mate saw him growing weaker and weaker and more depressed and more discouraged all the time. And he said his cell-mate took a little stick and in the sand, or the dirt, in the cell, he drew a picture of the Cross. And Solzhenitsyn said, “At that moment, the whole purpose of my existence dawned upon me. Because,” he said, “I realized that Jesus Christ shed His blood for me on that Cross.” And he said, “That gave me the courage to live through my imprisonment.

The story changed slightly when Graham told it again in 1976:

Graham (San Diego Stadium, Aug. 18, 1976): Remember that story that Solzhenitsyn told when he was over here in this country some time ago? And he said that he was in the Russian prison camp. And he’d been there for several years. And he was very discouraged. And he said he thought of suicide only once. And he said that at one time a man came and sat by him. He didn’t know who he was—never had said hi before. And he said he didn’t say anything. They weren’t allowed to say anything to each other. He said he took a stick and he drew a picture of the Cross in the sand. And Solzhenitsyn looked at that Cross and then the man took his hand and wiped it out so the prison guards wouldn’t see it. And Solzhenitsyn said, “At that moment I knew that that was the most important thing in all the world; and that God loved me And he said, “It gave me the courage to go on an face the future.” “Be of good cheer; it is I, be not afraid.”

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_mccain_lift_his_cross-in-the-sand_anecdote_from.html

[SeedyROM]

Findlaw isn't a law firm, and of course the articles are linked off site. I used the site all through school.

"Most law firms are conservative"

What a silly thing to say.

Or is that more "taunting for sport"?
Never said Findlaw.com was a firm now did I?

Thanks for taking the bait! :D I told you I'd only deal with the first response. A joke is a joke and you get offended by a joke. Oh well, never get serious over a joke, I can play devils advocate too.

[SeedyROM]

Yes, he caved on FISA.

Like McCain flip-flopped on Bush's tax cuts,
flip-flopped on social security,
flip-flopped on his OWN torture bill, upholding Bush's veto.

Could you be more spineless?

but he is just a playboy gigolo in bed with a Felonious Mobster's daughter,
which helped buy him the Senate seat he now occupies.

And like the little insecure chihuahua he is he barks a lot & talks tough,
but will spell the final neocon doom for this nation.

Paris Hilton has a chihuahua,
Cindy McCain has a John.

Disrupter, Kerry flip flopping, catering to whom? I've been telling people for years that Dems and Reps switch sides on issues when one party becomes the majority party the other party takes the opposing view. The media are document such events including SSI and Education

FISA and NSA wiretapping are two prime examples. Obama is in favor of both or more correctly he is now in favor of wiretapping, some would say he flip flopped and played the masses.

Dems were in favor of wiretapping and FISA when Clinton was President, Reps were against it. Is it pandering for votes and power or what? Now Dems are shifting in favor of wiretapping, Obama has taken the lead. Many Dem arguments will be set aside if Obama wins. And we can expect if Obama wins that Reps will be against FISA and wiretapping.........pandering for votes and whining and no change major change in policy at these entities.

[SeedyROM]

McCain will be caught lieing again, its in his political genes so to speak. People tell stories and they change over time. Graham's story changed based on what, the audience or his desire to capture thier attention or does he have trouble remembering facts? I doubt he'd come clean even though the media are dissecting his words from speech to speech and in the book.
How did the man insert Russians and a Gulag in the story? So obvious even back in the 70's you'd think Colson would no better.

As for McCain this story impeaches his honesty & credibility a little, but the story is small in comparison to the merits of his election goals. Why, the election is about his policy, agenda and leadership skills which do tie into his credibility. We all know politicians lie, nothing new there. To me the story has the same relevance as a sex scandal, worth talking about but hardly a measure of the whole man. This story is another distraction from the main event.

The masses feed on stories like this, if someone chooses not to vote for McCain based on such a story, then his politics and policies had little relevance to such a person. We can question his character and make assumptions on his leadership in the whitehouse if elected. But do you trust McCain a little less or a lot?

[disrupter]

people in power always vote to retrench that same power, because they forget that power will eventually be in some unknown person's hands.

We need people who care about the ideals & long term interests of this nation & not about their personal vanity or 'seeming' quick-fix solutions that will destroy us over the long term.

As for McCain, i sort of went with the unexamined notion that he was some sort of upstanding 'maverick' of the media mythology.
Upon closer & closer examination he gets slimier & slimier.

A maverick actually takes a stand either on sound principles or sheer hard headedness,
McCain has no moral or intellectual compass & keeps changing positions every other week.
Half the time he states his most recent incarnation that contradicts his most recent website statements.

He is incoherent.
Maybe it is age or alzheimer's but damn, it isn't any good in any event.

he is a doddering old fool,
& an angry, frustrated, irritable one at that,

one that will likely take us to the brink of nuclear war.

With McCain, nobodies home.

[Smurf-Herder]

From what I've been hearing on this, it's a complete fabrication by left-wing bloggers that Solzhenitsyn ever told that story.

[disrupter]

Smurfy you LYING LOSER,

from the 1973 TEXT of Solzhenitsyn's 'Gulag Archipelago':
As he waited, head down, he felt a presence. Slowly he looked up and saw a skinny old prisoner squat down beside him. The man said nothing. Instead, he used a stick to trace in the dirt the sign of the Cross. The man then got back up and returned to his work.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-nickolas/did-mccain-steal-his-cros_b_119471.html

Sorry loser,

Elites WIN AGAIN!
:taunt:

now we know why you could never have won in Iraq,
because only the ELITE are winners.
It takes some work.
If it were easy, every would be.

[Smurf-Herder]

Smurfy you LYING LOSER,

from the 1973 TEXT of Solzhenitsyn's 'Gulag Archipelago':
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-nickolas/did-mccain-steal-his-cros_b_119471.html

Sorry loser,

Elites WIN AGAIN!
:taunt:

now we know why you could never have won in Iraq,
because only the ELITE are winners.
It takes some work.
If it were easy, every would be.


I'm telling you what I heard.

And btw, that Huffington Post article links to what a blogger wrote in the Daily Kos.

Let me know when you have a link to the actual Solzhenitsyn quote, from his own work; and not what somebody said he wrote.

[asroc]

http://dcjunkies.com/showpost.php?p=59101&postcount=49

[disrupter]

Bible Oases
Ivor Powell
"... sensed a presence and, looking up, saw an old man whose eyes were without expression. As he watched, the stranger drew a cross in the dirt and, ..."http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/082543520X/ref=sib_dp_srch_pop?v=search-inside&keywords=drew+a+cross+in+the+dirt#

Published in 1994

It seems to also come from Solzhenitsyn's 'Luke Veronis'
The story is also hauntingly like that recounted by Solzhenitsen, as told in Luke Veronis, "The Sign of the Cross":

Leaving his shovel on the ground, he slowly walked to a crude bench and sat down. He knew that at any moment a guard would order him to stand up, and when he failed to respond, the guard would beat him to death, probably with his own shovel. He had seen it happen to other prisoners.

As he waited, head down, he felt a presence. Slowly he looked up and saw a skinny old prisoner squat down beside him. The man said nothing. Instead, he used a stick to trace in the dirt the sign of the Cross. The man then got back up and returned to his work.

As Solzhenitsyn stared at the Cross drawn in the dirt his entire perspective changed.

I have one simple question: when was the first time that McCain told this story?

there is another instance where McCain [basically a non-believer] goes to a bible seminary with Reagan & comes up with some kind of tear jerking religious story. He was all excited because as dull as he is his story actually got a reaction from these stupid, loser religious nuts.
brought tears to their gullible eyes.

McCain is a LIAR FAKE,
suitable only for losers.

Not good enough for elite winners.

There are no fools like gullible old religious fools who eat all that religious sap up.

[Smurf-Herder]

http://dcjunkies.com/showpost.php?p=59101&postcount=49

Even though it's not the actual work itself, I'll accept that.

Now has someone proven that this never happened with McCain?

[disrupter]

The Sign of the Cross

Fr. Luke Veronis
As he waited, head down, he felt a presence. Slowly, he lifted his eyes and saw a skinny, old prisoner squat down next to him. The man said nothing. Instead, he drew a stick through the ground at Solzhenitsyn's feet, tracing the sign of the Cross. The man then got back up and returned to his work.

As Solzhenitsyn stared at the sign of the Cross, his entire perspective changed. He knew that he was only one man against the all-powerful Soviet empire. Yet in that moment, he knew that there was something greater than the evil that he saw in the prison, something greater than the Soviet Union. He knew that the hope of all mankind was represented in that simple Cross. And through the power of the Cross, anything was possible.

Solzhenitsyn slowly got up, picked up his shovel, and went back to work. Nothing outward had changed, but inside, he received hope. http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jim_forest/Cross.htm

reprinted from In Communion (issue 8, Pascha 1997)

McCain didn't steal it until 1999 for his deception book.

eat it bitch! LOL!