McCain and Palin - Family Values -

"Doug Reese" wrote in message
...
Tom,

You clearly have a problem with retaining information. Allow me to
make a few comments up here, and then that's it for me.

Doug, we disagree on some things but let me say that I still respect
everything you have to say and your positions.

On Sep 10, 7:14*am, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
wrote:
I may pop in from time to time . . . who knows . . . .

Doug Reese

In all seriousness, many of us feel very fortunate that you've been able to
shine some real light on something that's hard to get a handle on.
Regardless of our varied political leanings. Your efforts to tell the story
are greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Your welcome, Mike . . . . .

Doug

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

"Doug Reese" wrote in message

...
Tom,

You clearly have a problem with retaining information. Allow me to
make a few comments up here, and then that's it for me.

1. John O'Neil did NOT replace Kerry. O'Neill took over the same boat
(not the crew, just the boat) Kerry last commanded, THREE MONTHS after
Kerry left Vietnam. O'Neill never laid eyes on Kerry in Vietnam.

2. Ahh, yes, I have been critical of O'Neill. The reason -- he is a
confirmed, proven liar, that's why.

3. No, people who testified at the Winter Soldier Investigation have
not been proven to be fakes -- not to have been in Vietnam, for
example.

4. No, Kerry did not claim "that the Swift Boats were used to commit
widespread war crimes.".

5. Your last paragraph kinda points out why responding to you further
would be a waste of time:

"Now I'm willing to believe thatDoug Reeseis who he claims to be but
I also want to know just how much he knows about Kerry's actions there
and how he obtained that knowledge. After all, he WAS Army and Kerry
was Navy and I believe they were stationed quite a ways apart except
for one action that was combined."

What I know has been stated in this thread. It is what it is. Yes, I
was Army, and yes, we were not stationed together -- congratulations
on remembering at least that portion of my background. None of it is
relevelant, however, but at least you remembered it.

I may pop in from time to time . . . who knows . . . .

Doug Reese

On Sep 9, 6:15 am, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:



"Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote in message

. ..

Tell me something Doug - when you're told that by your section
commander
do you go and look it up to verify it?

As for "healthy skepticism" - maybe you can tell me what that means? It
would appear to mean that any time someone tells you something you
scream
LIAR in their face and walk off.

My goodness Tom, I think it's time to drop it. The guy was THERE. You've
claimed people were lying about things with far less personal knowledge
of
a situation. If you can't give Doug the benefit of the doubt, if you
can't
even CONSIDER that maybe, just maybe, you might have to take another
look
at this based upon information from someone WHO WAS THERE.

Mike, that jackass Paul G. has been stating that I was lying about the
stuff
on Guam.

An order was issued that the entire Andersen AFB would be treated as
"flight
line". This meant that you would NOT salute officers and was a highly
unusual move. My section chief told us that it was because there were two
NCO's on base that were recipients of the Congressional Medal of Honor
received while taking Guam in WW II and hence the officers didn't want to
have to salute these two guys all the time.

Jackass Paul G. looked it up and stated I was lying because those issued
CMH's on Guam were postumous.

So you tell ME if that meant that the Base Commander didn't know what the
hell he was doing or because the story just got confused and those two
guys
got their CMH's in some other operation?

Also consider this - we had a sargeant that was always given the satin
sheets so to speak. He got all the good jobs and easy duty. He was only an
E-6 meaning that he wasn't that far up the ladder. What's more, he was
pretty old. During one inspection a Major was there who was a paratrooper
at
one time. Paratroopers wear a silver parachute medal on their dress
uniforms. Since this was a General inspection that whole end of the
building
was in dress blues.

Satin sheets was standing at attention with the rest of his section when
that Major jabbed a finger at a Gold Parachute medal he was wearing and
asked what bubblegum machine our Sargeant had gotten that from. Our
Sargeant's eyes got big and he started walking straight at that Major
cussing him out up one side and down the other. Instead of grabbing the
sargeant, they grabbed that Major and got him out of there. The General
himself appologized to our sargeant and the inspection sort of ended right
there.

The word I got was that our sargeant was one of Darby's Rangers and was
one
of the six or so survivors and only those men were awarded the Gold
Parachute. Yet I can't find a single reference to that medal and when I
looked in the Darby's Rangers information they didn't have the exact
number
of survivors and those that were listed didn't have his name. So you tell
me
what's more likely - that the records available on the internet are
screwed
up or that our sargeant was a fake?

You've demonstrated an unwillingness to deal with new evidence contrary
to
what you believe, despite the relevance of the source. In short, you've
lost one heck of a lot of credibility in this thread.

What I demonstrate is a willingness to believe people who claim things.
One
such is our poster hereDoug Reese. Let's remember that he may not be who
he
claims to be. And he has been critical of John O'Neil WHO REPLACED KERRY
ON
THAT SWIFT BOAT AS CAPTAIN. Let's also remember that Kerry spent a great
deal of time claiming that the Swift Boats were used to commit widespread
war crimes. And that's what triggered O'Neil's actions against Kerry.

Now congress looked into that and claimed that Kerry was flat out wrong..
What's more, the majority of the group he was with who were making such
claims were never in Vietnam. And let's remember that Kerry himself
admitted
to "making factual errors" about being in Cambodia and the like. Plainly
Kerry was not too keen on telling the truth himself.

Now I'm willing to believe thatDoug Reeseis who he claims to be but I also
want to know just how much he knows about Kerry's actions there and how he
obtained that knowledge. After all, he WAS Army and Kerry was Navy and I
believe they were stationed quite a ways apart except for one action that
was combined.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -