Posted on 08/23/2004 6:03:24 PM PDT by jwalsh07
In order to work for the dems you have to suspend all belief in honor and integrity. Be willing to slime your enemies if you can't defeat their ideas and be willing to destroy the security of your country for political advantage.
I say it's time to forget about Danny Ortega! ;)
He was in real full Kennedy-mode, then. He still sounds like a Kennedy, but not as much as he did in '71.
It happened. He just totally dismissed what he said in that hearing. He was "young."
This is a man that inspires my trust.
Galanti for President . . . next time :-).
A lot of talent is going to waste out there because the only thing they have going for them is honesty and decency.
I'm not totally gung ho for Bush, but for all the privileged upbringing, silver spoon, etc., he hasn't lost that common touch.
I wish Mel or somebody on our side would step up to the plate and make a movie about him. Galanti. He seems like the real deal. At least about as close to it as it gets in this world.
No, his Reserve status was changed from active to inactive on that date. He remained in the Reserves in inactive status. (I believe it was called the Individual Ready Reserve.)
He was transferred to the Standby Reserve July 1, 1972. I don't know when that status terminated but I believe it was as late as 1978.
He wasn't in uniform even though he was illegally wearing his ribbons on his shirt. He was in a costume that was meant to look like a uniform but it wasn't one.
He was still in the Navy Reserves when he testified. He remained in one sort or another of inactive Reserve status through July 1, 1972 at a bare minimum. That was the date he transferred to the Standby Reserves. I'm not sure exactly when he resigned his commission and left the Reserves but I believe that it was in the late '70s.
You've GOT to be kidding--Galanti not TOUGH enough to take a few questions from Kiss Matthews? What do you think torture means--cramming for a GMAT? Get "Return with Honor" at your video store; and then tell me these guys aren't tough enough to appear under the bright lights.
Wow! What I can't figure out .. how has Kerry gotten away with this all these years ..?? I just don't understand it.
Maybe people just wanted Vietnam, and everything associated with it, to just go away.
The people in MA don't care about what he did in the war, after the war, etc. etc. etc. Look at how they revere their senior senator and his corrupt family.
Hmm. I could have sworn that John Effin' had a brother named "Cashin."
Thank you, ppaul, for the article--hard to believe it came from the Times.
I didn't say Commander Galante wasn't tough enough for anything - I'm sure in every meaningful way he's infinitely tougher than Matthews. Being able to fend off nasty verbal abuse being delivered in rapid-fire fashion, with the clear objective of creating confusion and taking advantage of it, is by no means the same thing as being tough.
I haven't the slightest question that Matthews couldn't hold a candle to any of these men, characterwise. Doesn't mean all of them are trained or equally suited temperamentally to do this kind of battle. Mr. Galante was very thoughtful and measured in his responses, and took his time in answering. That's a good thing - but it can be taken advantage of by a conjob like Matthews.
VERY interesting point! The J-sound (or actually, the jzsh-sound) would be correct if the spelling in the Congressional Record had been correct (according to the Britannica): Genghis Khan. I wonder when the hard G (Gh) took over. Maybe an old Ivy affectation.
I know .. it can be discouraging that some people are so blinded by wealth.
And, of course, they have. McCain's in enough trouble, tho. Someone needs to ask him how he knows swifties are "dishonest and dishonorable." What irony, tho--his campaign law, his face in a Dem ad, his denouncement of swifties. And his staff's not helping.
Yes, I like the reference to 2-3000 in "recrimination," too. But if you watch the O'Neil/Kerry debate on Cavett, he got the Dien Bien Phu recriminations wrong, too (and that's ignorance of history not just absence of judgment). Got a few others tho--all from testimony to the SFRC:
1. (In response to a question by Sen. Aiken) "The war will continue. So what I am saying is that yes, there will be some recrimination but far, far less than the 200,000 a year who are murdered by the United States of America . . ." So much for his staff's claim that Kerry was merely repeating what came out of the Detroit protest.
2. (In response to question by Sen. Fulbright): "If this body [the Senate] could perhaps call for a referendum in the country or if we could perhaps move now for a vote in 3 weeks, I think the people of this country would rise up and back that [cutting off appropriations for Vietnamization]. I am not saying a vote nationwide. I am talking about a vote here in Congress to cut off the funds, and a vote to perhaps pass a resolution calling on the Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of the war . . .:" Cutting off funding to the troops is nothing new for this big spender. (And of course, the people DID rise up in November 1972 with a landslide Nixon victory. So much for Lt (jg) Kerry's finger on the pulse of the nation.)
But the best is 3). (In response to Fulbright): "I have been to Paris. I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government and of all eight of Madam Binh's points it has been stated time and time again, and was stated by Sen. Vance Hartke when he returned from Paris, and it has been stated by many other officials of this Government, if the United States were to set a date for withdrawal the prisoners of war would be returned. . . . I would, therefore, submit that the most expedient means of getting out of South Vietnam would be for the President of the United States to declare a cease-fire, to stop this blind commitment to a dictatorial regime, the Thieu-Ky-Khiem regime, accept a coalition regime which would represent all the political forces of the country which is in fact what a representative government is supposed to do and which is in fact what this Government here in this country purports to do, and pull the troops out without losing one more American, and still further without losing the South Vietnamese." This from a so-called student of history? But, more seriously, this from an unauthorized and commissioned officer: relaying the public relations goals of a foreign enemy power in wartime, recommending the enemy's #1 negotiating goal ("date certain") as a self-proclaimed representative of the U. S. forces in Southeast Asia. If this isn't "aid and comfort," nothing is. (On the lighter side, tho, it gives us a pretty good picture of his future negotiating skills--rule 1 being ACCEDE to demands!
I believe (hope) that it is your number 3 that is waiting in the Swift Boat ads plan for our Senator Kerry.
Prairie
Thank you for that post!
I aim to please. :-}
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.