Rmiller95747
Contributing Member
Seems to me that if these guys were hammering Bush, we'd be seeing them 24/7.
What do you all think?
What do you all think?
{POL}Why isn't the media interviewing the Swiftboat Vets who say Kerry's lying??
- Thread starter Rmiller95747
- Start date
Gr8DaneDood
Membership Revoked
I dunno, I guess because THEY'RE lying?
BTW, welcome to the asylum.
BTW, welcome to the asylum.
Snipe Hunter
Veteran Member
Do you REALY expect the 2 faced commie liberal media to TELL the truth.....never happen.
Kerry is their boy & they are not going to do anything to upset the apple cart, no mater what the cost.
Just look at all that was covered up & over looked when klintoon was vice president & billery was president.
Kerry is their boy & they are not going to do anything to upset the apple cart, no mater what the cost.
Just look at all that was covered up & over looked when klintoon was vice president & billery was president.
....and considering the networks have supported his election, well....that would just sort of put a damper on the whole thing now wouldn't it????Because they are a bunch of GOP/Bush paid freaks. Come on, people. this is an election year and anything goes. If any of this had been true why did they wait for so many years to bring it out? Why did the government not catch it , if it was not true? Total Bush administration BS as normal. If you still believe in the Iraqie WMD, then you will believe this BS too. Other wise you will see it as the BS that it is.
Ought Six
Membership Revoked
ob:
And that begs the original question; why is the liberal media not interviewing these vets ??? I think we know the answer to that one. It is the same reason that we have yet to hear word one about Lowellgate from that same liberal media. It seems that Kerry's brother-in-law & his crew broke into the offices of Kerry's political opponent. The burglars were caught and arrested. This happened at the same time that the Watergate scandal was big news during the early '70s, but the media was too busy crucifying a Repub and so suppressed the news of a Dem doing precisely the same thing. They are still suppressing that story today.
As hard as the liberal media and Kerry campaign have dug to find it, there is no evidence that the Bush campaign had anything whatsoever to do with these commercials. So it looks like the BS is coming from you, not Bush.
And that begs the original question; why is the liberal media not interviewing these vets ??? I think we know the answer to that one. It is the same reason that we have yet to hear word one about Lowellgate from that same liberal media. It seems that Kerry's brother-in-law & his crew broke into the offices of Kerry's political opponent. The burglars were caught and arrested. This happened at the same time that the Watergate scandal was big news during the early '70s, but the media was too busy crucifying a Repub and so suppressed the news of a Dem doing precisely the same thing. They are still suppressing that story today.
Mike 9 or 10
Deceased
My brother is not a GOP/Bush paid freak.
He tends to vote democratic because he believes that they support Unions more than republicans. He has never been to any type of political rally or protest.
He spent 2 and half years in Vietnam. The last year or so was on a PBR ( Patrol Boat River ) not Swift Boats.
He has never made a big thing about being in Vietnam or the combat he was in. After the war he just moved on with his life.
However, he is so convinced Kerry is unfit to be Commander and Chief at his urging we will be attending the Swift Boat Vets Anti-Kerry rally in D.C. on Sept 12th.
He tends to vote democratic because he believes that they support Unions more than republicans. He has never been to any type of political rally or protest.
He spent 2 and half years in Vietnam. The last year or so was on a PBR ( Patrol Boat River ) not Swift Boats.
He has never made a big thing about being in Vietnam or the combat he was in. After the war he just moved on with his life.
However, he is so convinced Kerry is unfit to be Commander and Chief at his urging we will be attending the Swift Boat Vets Anti-Kerry rally in D.C. on Sept 12th.
old bear said:
The Swift Boat Vets weren't concerned about Kerry's political life as long as he was contained by the Commonwealth of Mass. Once it became clear that he was going for POTUS, they decided to speak up.
And to clear up some misconceptions:
Each swift boat was manned by one officer and five crew. The boats typically operated within close range of each other. So, while not all of the SBVs served *on* Kerry's boat, they were all in the same command (not sure if that's the right word...) Please remember that when someone says "Yeah, they didn't serve on his boat!".
If you knew your neighbor had shoplifted some smokes when he was a teen, and stole $$ from your car, would you be concerned if, 20 years later, he was running for county treasurer? Especially if he kept harping on what an honest guy he is?
Sooth
Veteran Member
old bear said:
Just remember old bear:
President Bush cannot be accused of doing anything wrong in Vietnam.
President George W. Bush never did anything wrong in Vietnam.
President Bush the jet pilot never put in for any medals in Vietnam.
President Bush never tortured anyone in Vietnam.
President George W. Bush has a clean record for HIS Vietnam service.
Sooth
TheRealMuffin
Inactive
I think it's pretty impressive that a republican can even get voted into office with how biased the media is. It just goes to show that not everyone in America has turned into a sheeple.
Muffin
Muffin
data junkie
Membership Revoked
IF the vets are lying, then why is Kerry not threatening to sue them, but instead is threatening to sue tv stations that air their ad?
Why is the DNC saying they are going to release the names, addresses, home and work phone numbers of these vets onto the net, thereby enabling their stooges to harass them and threaten their livelihood?
If the vets were lying, then the DNC wouldn't need to stoop to terrorism to shut them up, as a judge could slap an order on them.
Perhaps the reason the DNC is playing so dirty is because the vets are telling the truth.
Because they are telling the truth, the DNC has no legal recourse against them, so is instead stooping to their usual MO.
Why is the DNC saying they are going to release the names, addresses, home and work phone numbers of these vets onto the net, thereby enabling their stooges to harass them and threaten their livelihood?
If the vets were lying, then the DNC wouldn't need to stoop to terrorism to shut them up, as a judge could slap an order on them.
Perhaps the reason the DNC is playing so dirty is because the vets are telling the truth.
Because they are telling the truth, the DNC has no legal recourse against them, so is instead stooping to their usual MO.
BugoutBear
Membership Revoked
It might be due to the fact they never actually served with Kerry 1x1 on a swift boat, therefore they have a credibility problem. That, and the fact the guy who's funding their commercials is a political ideologue hack. . .the same one who went after Sen. John McCain in the exact same manner. . .but that's what U.S. politics has become these days.
BugoutBear
PS: This is not to suggest support for Kerry. . .
BugoutBear
PS: This is not to suggest support for Kerry. . .
BugoutBear
Membership Revoked
[For Education/Discussion Purposes and Fair Use]
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/05/kerry.mccain.ap/index.html
McCain condemns anti-Kerry ad
Calls on White House to follow suit
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Republican Sen. John McCain, a former prisoner of war in Vietnam, called an ad criticizing John Kerry's military service "dishonest and dishonorable" and urged the White House on Thursday to condemn it as well.
"It was the same kind of deal that was pulled on me," McCain said in an interview with The Associated Press, referring to his bitter Republican primary fight with President Bush.
The 60-second ad features Vietnam veterans who accuse the Democratic presidential nominee of lying about his decorated Vietnam War record and betraying his fellow veterans by later opposing the conflict.
"When the chips were down, you could not count on John Kerry," one of the veterans, Larry Thurlow, says in the ad.
Thurlow didn't serve on Kerry's swiftboat, but says he witnessed the events that led to Kerry winning a Bronze Star and the last of his three Purple Hearts.
Kerry's crewmates support the candidate and call him a hero.
The ad, scheduled to air in a few markets in Ohio, West Virginia and Wisconsin, was produced by Stevens, Reed, Curcio and Potham, the same team that produced McCain's ads in 2000.
"I wish they hadn't done it," McCain said of his former advisers. "I don't know if they knew all the facts."
Asked if the White House knew about the ad or helped find financing for it, McCain said, "I hope not, but I don't know. But I think the Bush campaign should specifically condemn the ad." (Special Report: America Votes 2004)
Later, McCain said the Bush campaign has denied any involvement and added, "I can't believe the president would pull such a cheap stunt."
The White House and Bush-Cheney campaign did not address McCain's call that they repudiate the spot, though a Bush spokesman said the campaign does not question Kerry's highly decorated war service. McCain is co-chair of Bush's campaign in Arizona.
'Old wounds'
In 2000, Bush's supporters sponsored a rumor campaign against McCain in the South Carolina primary, helping Bush win the primary and the nomination. McCain's supporters have never forgiven the Bush team.
McCain said that's all in the past to him, but he's speaking out against the anti-Kerry ad because "it reopens all the old wounds of the Vietnam War, which I spent the last 35 years trying to heal."
"I deplore this kind of politics," McCain said. "I think the ad is dishonest and dishonorable. As it is, none of these individuals served on the boat (Kerry) commanded. Many of his crew have testified to his courage under fire. I think John Kerry served honorably in Vietnam. I think George Bush served honorably in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War."
McCain himself spent more than five years in a Vietnam prisoner of war camp. A bona fide war hero, McCain, like Kerry, used his war record as the foundation of his presidential campaign.
The Kerry campaign has denounced the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, saying none of the men in the ad served on the boat that Kerry commanded. Three veterans on Kerry's boat that day -- Jim Rassmann, who says Kerry saved his life, Gene Thorson and Del Sandusky, the driver on Kerry's boat, said the group was lying on all fronts.
They say Kerry was injured, and Rassmann called the group's account "pure fabrication."
The leader of the group, retired Adm. Roy Hoffmann, said none of the 13 veterans in the commercial served on Kerry's boat but rather were in other swiftboats within 50 yards of Kerry's. The group claims that there was no gunfire on the day Kerry pulled Rassmann from a muddy river in the Mekong Delta and that Kerry's arm was not wounded, as he has claimed.
"What we have is a fabrication that led to Kerry getting his Bronze Star and his last Purple Heart," said Thurlow, who said he commanded a swiftboat near Kerry's.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/05/kerry.mccain.ap/index.html
McCain condemns anti-Kerry ad
Calls on White House to follow suit
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Republican Sen. John McCain, a former prisoner of war in Vietnam, called an ad criticizing John Kerry's military service "dishonest and dishonorable" and urged the White House on Thursday to condemn it as well.
"It was the same kind of deal that was pulled on me," McCain said in an interview with The Associated Press, referring to his bitter Republican primary fight with President Bush.
The 60-second ad features Vietnam veterans who accuse the Democratic presidential nominee of lying about his decorated Vietnam War record and betraying his fellow veterans by later opposing the conflict.
"When the chips were down, you could not count on John Kerry," one of the veterans, Larry Thurlow, says in the ad.
Thurlow didn't serve on Kerry's swiftboat, but says he witnessed the events that led to Kerry winning a Bronze Star and the last of his three Purple Hearts.
Kerry's crewmates support the candidate and call him a hero.
The ad, scheduled to air in a few markets in Ohio, West Virginia and Wisconsin, was produced by Stevens, Reed, Curcio and Potham, the same team that produced McCain's ads in 2000.
"I wish they hadn't done it," McCain said of his former advisers. "I don't know if they knew all the facts."
Asked if the White House knew about the ad or helped find financing for it, McCain said, "I hope not, but I don't know. But I think the Bush campaign should specifically condemn the ad." (Special Report: America Votes 2004)
Later, McCain said the Bush campaign has denied any involvement and added, "I can't believe the president would pull such a cheap stunt."
The White House and Bush-Cheney campaign did not address McCain's call that they repudiate the spot, though a Bush spokesman said the campaign does not question Kerry's highly decorated war service. McCain is co-chair of Bush's campaign in Arizona.
'Old wounds'
In 2000, Bush's supporters sponsored a rumor campaign against McCain in the South Carolina primary, helping Bush win the primary and the nomination. McCain's supporters have never forgiven the Bush team.
McCain said that's all in the past to him, but he's speaking out against the anti-Kerry ad because "it reopens all the old wounds of the Vietnam War, which I spent the last 35 years trying to heal."
"I deplore this kind of politics," McCain said. "I think the ad is dishonest and dishonorable. As it is, none of these individuals served on the boat (Kerry) commanded. Many of his crew have testified to his courage under fire. I think John Kerry served honorably in Vietnam. I think George Bush served honorably in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War."
McCain himself spent more than five years in a Vietnam prisoner of war camp. A bona fide war hero, McCain, like Kerry, used his war record as the foundation of his presidential campaign.
The Kerry campaign has denounced the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, saying none of the men in the ad served on the boat that Kerry commanded. Three veterans on Kerry's boat that day -- Jim Rassmann, who says Kerry saved his life, Gene Thorson and Del Sandusky, the driver on Kerry's boat, said the group was lying on all fronts.
They say Kerry was injured, and Rassmann called the group's account "pure fabrication."
The leader of the group, retired Adm. Roy Hoffmann, said none of the 13 veterans in the commercial served on Kerry's boat but rather were in other swiftboats within 50 yards of Kerry's. The group claims that there was no gunfire on the day Kerry pulled Rassmann from a muddy river in the Mekong Delta and that Kerry's arm was not wounded, as he has claimed.
"What we have is a fabrication that led to Kerry getting his Bronze Star and his last Purple Heart," said Thurlow, who said he commanded a swiftboat near Kerry's.
John O'Neill was a Navy vet who railed against Kerry back in 1971 in a famous interview done by Dick Cavett one evening on his talk show. Here's a little cut from the link below.
This is just some background info .........it's all a very complicated issue and people believe what people believe.
John O'Neill is still going strong with this issue in this latest SwiftBoat thing and these arguments have been going on between these two men and their two camps for a very long time. Now upon reaching the political race, it again becomes front line news.
http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/061703.shtml
The White House found a better way to go after Kerry. Colson had seen a press conference featuring a young Navy veteran named John O'Neill, who served in the same swift boat division as Kerry shortly after Kerry left Vietnam. O'Neill, like many swift boat veterans, was outraged at Kerry's claim of US atrocities.
In short order, O'Neill became the centerpiece of the Nixon White House strategy to undermine Kerry. O'Neill, now a Texas lawyer, stresses that he did not receive any payment from the White House and was acting on his own because he thought Kerry's statements were unconscionable lies.
For weeks, Colson had been accusing Kerry of ducking a debate with O'Neill. On June 15, Colson wrote to another White House aide: "I think we have Kerry on the run, he is beginning to take a tremendous beating in the press, but let's not let him up, let's destroy this young demagogue before he becomes another Ralph Nader. Let's try to move through as many sources as we can the fact that he has refused to meet in debate, even though he agreed to do so and announced to the press he would."
The next day, O'Neill arrived at the White House to meet with Nixon. The two men bonded; a brief "grip and grin" session turned into an hourlong meeting, with Nixon bucking up O'Neill for the fight against Kerry.
'We've got to change'
Kerry's 1971 book later became the focus of controversy because of the cover photo which showed of veterans hoisting an upside-down US flag.
Two weeks later, on June 30, the much anticipated debate took place. Kerry, who had been studying debate since he was about 14 years old, appeared with O'Neill on "The Dick Cavett Show." At 6 feet 4 inches, Kerry towered over Cavett and O'Neill. With his thick dark hair, dark blue suit, and lean features, he cut a striking figure.
O'Neill came out swinging. Visibly angry from the start, wearing a light suit, short hair, and white socks, O'Neill used words seemingly intended to taunt his opponent.
"Mr. Kerry is the type of person who lives and survives only on war-weariness and fears of the American people," O'Neill said. "This is the same little man who on nationwide television in April spoke of, quote, `crimes committed on a day-to-day basis, with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.' Who was quoted in a prominent news magazine in May as saying, `War crimes in Vietnam are the rule, not the exception."'
Where O'Neill was red-hot, Kerry sought to look calm and intellectual, toting a hefty briefing book. He said the veterans weren't trying to tear down the country, but instead say to the country: "Here is where we went wrong, and we've got to change. What we say is, the killing can stop tomorrow."
"On the question of war crimes, it is really only with the utmost consideration that we pose this question," Kerry said. "I don't think that any man comes back to say that he raped, or to say that he burned a village, or to say that he wantonly destroyed crops or something for pleasure. I think he does it at the risk of certain kinds of punishment, at the risks of injuring his own character, which he has to live with, at the risk of the loss of family and friends as a result of it. But he does it because he believes intensely that people have got to be educated about the devastation of this war. We thought we were a moral country, yes, but we are now engaged in the most rampant bombing in the history of mankind."
Again and again, the question was asked: Did Kerry commit atrocities or see them committed by others? Kerry stuck to his script.
"I personally didn't see personal atrocities in the sense I saw somebody cut a head off or something like that," Kerry said. "However, I did take part in free-fire zones, I did take part in harassment and interdiction fire, I did take part in search-and-destroy missions in which the houses of noncombatants were burned to the ground. And all of these acts, I find out later on, are contrary to the Hague and Geneva conventions and to the laws of warfare. So in that sense, anybody who took part in those, if you carry out the application of the Nuremberg Principles, is in fact guilty. But we are not trying to find war criminals. That is not our purpose. It never has been."
O'Neill for years has declined to talk about the experience, partly because he says he became disillusioned with politics and government after the fall of Saigon in 1975.
But in a telephone interview from Texas, where he is a trial attorney, O'Neill made it clear he still harbors resentment at the way Kerry accused veterans of atrocities.
"The primary reason I got involved was I thought the charges of war crimes were irresponsible and wrong," O'Neill said. "I thought they did a real disservice to all the people that were there. I thought they were immoral."
The bitterness remains. Asked whether he agrees with the view of some observers that Kerry was forever altered by the war, O'Neill responded: "The war didn't change [Kerry]. I think he was a guy driven tremendously by ambition. I think he was that way before he went and is that way today."
Some Vietnam Veterans Against the War leaders also viewed Kerry as a power-grabbing elitist, a source of internal friction within the antiwar movement. "There was no question but that the rift existed," said Butler, who was with Kerry at the time and remains a close friend. "A wing of the VVAW were pushing so hard to the left that they were almost Maoist. Every time John did something useful like raise money or speak in front of the Foreign Relations Committee or give an interview, he was criticized for being a media whiz."
This is just some background info .........it's all a very complicated issue and people believe what people believe.
John O'Neill is still going strong with this issue in this latest SwiftBoat thing and these arguments have been going on between these two men and their two camps for a very long time. Now upon reaching the political race, it again becomes front line news.
http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/061703.shtml
The White House found a better way to go after Kerry. Colson had seen a press conference featuring a young Navy veteran named John O'Neill, who served in the same swift boat division as Kerry shortly after Kerry left Vietnam. O'Neill, like many swift boat veterans, was outraged at Kerry's claim of US atrocities.
In short order, O'Neill became the centerpiece of the Nixon White House strategy to undermine Kerry. O'Neill, now a Texas lawyer, stresses that he did not receive any payment from the White House and was acting on his own because he thought Kerry's statements were unconscionable lies.
For weeks, Colson had been accusing Kerry of ducking a debate with O'Neill. On June 15, Colson wrote to another White House aide: "I think we have Kerry on the run, he is beginning to take a tremendous beating in the press, but let's not let him up, let's destroy this young demagogue before he becomes another Ralph Nader. Let's try to move through as many sources as we can the fact that he has refused to meet in debate, even though he agreed to do so and announced to the press he would."
The next day, O'Neill arrived at the White House to meet with Nixon. The two men bonded; a brief "grip and grin" session turned into an hourlong meeting, with Nixon bucking up O'Neill for the fight against Kerry.
'We've got to change'
Kerry's 1971 book later became the focus of controversy because of the cover photo which showed of veterans hoisting an upside-down US flag.
Two weeks later, on June 30, the much anticipated debate took place. Kerry, who had been studying debate since he was about 14 years old, appeared with O'Neill on "The Dick Cavett Show." At 6 feet 4 inches, Kerry towered over Cavett and O'Neill. With his thick dark hair, dark blue suit, and lean features, he cut a striking figure.
O'Neill came out swinging. Visibly angry from the start, wearing a light suit, short hair, and white socks, O'Neill used words seemingly intended to taunt his opponent.
"Mr. Kerry is the type of person who lives and survives only on war-weariness and fears of the American people," O'Neill said. "This is the same little man who on nationwide television in April spoke of, quote, `crimes committed on a day-to-day basis, with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.' Who was quoted in a prominent news magazine in May as saying, `War crimes in Vietnam are the rule, not the exception."'
Where O'Neill was red-hot, Kerry sought to look calm and intellectual, toting a hefty briefing book. He said the veterans weren't trying to tear down the country, but instead say to the country: "Here is where we went wrong, and we've got to change. What we say is, the killing can stop tomorrow."
"On the question of war crimes, it is really only with the utmost consideration that we pose this question," Kerry said. "I don't think that any man comes back to say that he raped, or to say that he burned a village, or to say that he wantonly destroyed crops or something for pleasure. I think he does it at the risk of certain kinds of punishment, at the risks of injuring his own character, which he has to live with, at the risk of the loss of family and friends as a result of it. But he does it because he believes intensely that people have got to be educated about the devastation of this war. We thought we were a moral country, yes, but we are now engaged in the most rampant bombing in the history of mankind."
Again and again, the question was asked: Did Kerry commit atrocities or see them committed by others? Kerry stuck to his script.
"I personally didn't see personal atrocities in the sense I saw somebody cut a head off or something like that," Kerry said. "However, I did take part in free-fire zones, I did take part in harassment and interdiction fire, I did take part in search-and-destroy missions in which the houses of noncombatants were burned to the ground. And all of these acts, I find out later on, are contrary to the Hague and Geneva conventions and to the laws of warfare. So in that sense, anybody who took part in those, if you carry out the application of the Nuremberg Principles, is in fact guilty. But we are not trying to find war criminals. That is not our purpose. It never has been."
O'Neill for years has declined to talk about the experience, partly because he says he became disillusioned with politics and government after the fall of Saigon in 1975.
But in a telephone interview from Texas, where he is a trial attorney, O'Neill made it clear he still harbors resentment at the way Kerry accused veterans of atrocities.
"The primary reason I got involved was I thought the charges of war crimes were irresponsible and wrong," O'Neill said. "I thought they did a real disservice to all the people that were there. I thought they were immoral."
The bitterness remains. Asked whether he agrees with the view of some observers that Kerry was forever altered by the war, O'Neill responded: "The war didn't change [Kerry]. I think he was a guy driven tremendously by ambition. I think he was that way before he went and is that way today."
Some Vietnam Veterans Against the War leaders also viewed Kerry as a power-grabbing elitist, a source of internal friction within the antiwar movement. "There was no question but that the rift existed," said Butler, who was with Kerry at the time and remains a close friend. "A wing of the VVAW were pushing so hard to the left that they were almost Maoist. Every time John did something useful like raise money or speak in front of the Foreign Relations Committee or give an interview, he was criticized for being a media whiz."
Regardless of what these swift boat vets say - there was a thread on the board a couple days ago about Kerry's FITREP reports, and how bad they were. I'll take the word of his superiors AT THE TIME over the word of potentially politically-motivated men 30 years later. Those FITREPS were BAD, and called his judgement and leadership ability into question. That's reason enough for me to NOT vote for him as prez (among a plethora of OTHER reasons)...
blah blah blah
People who will be voting for Kerry could not care one bit that he was in Vietnam, that was a charade at the DNC Convention as the standard Dem constituent is not likely to be found in a military uniform in any case.
People will vote for him because they like the idea of having the most leftist, socialist, France-hugging Senator as President.
People who will be voting for Kerry could not care one bit that he was in Vietnam, that was a charade at the DNC Convention as the standard Dem constituent is not likely to be found in a military uniform in any case.
People will vote for him because they like the idea of having the most leftist, socialist, France-hugging Senator as President.
"People who will be voting for Kerry could not care one bit that he was in Vietnam, that was a charade at the DNC Convention as the standard Dem constituent is not likely to be found in a military uniform in any case.
People will vote for him because they like the idea of having the most leftist, socialist, France-hugging Senator as President."
NO. Many of us will be voting for him because Bush is worse that just about any other possible choice. A vote for either is NOT a vote for America, but at least maybe Kerry won't start a global nuclear war if he in in the whitehouse. For those that still have some hope left there is always voting third party. The last "Viet Nam" was 30 years ago. Neither Bush nor Kerry are the same person that they were then. Both have aged and hopefully grown some since then. Right now, today we have another "Viet Nam" in the works and it is called Iraq. We got there the same way we got into Viet Nam, by a pack of lies. We had no real business being in either war. We claimed to be there to help "The people" of each country. The politicians claimed that we were making the countries into a "Democracy", but it never realkly happened. In both cases American troops paid for the politicain's lies with their lives. The Viet Nam "action" deeply devided this country. The Iraqie "Action" is even now deeply deviding this country.
Both Bush AND Kerry see the US being in Viet....I mean Iraq for at least another 5 years. Both want the Mexican border left wide open and more Mexicans coming in to keep wages down for Americans. Both are not for Second Amendment rights. (Check out Bush's record while in the Whitehouse and his wanting Clinton's gun ban extended). A vote for either of them is not a Vote for America.
People will vote for him because they like the idea of having the most leftist, socialist, France-hugging Senator as President."
NO. Many of us will be voting for him because Bush is worse that just about any other possible choice. A vote for either is NOT a vote for America, but at least maybe Kerry won't start a global nuclear war if he in in the whitehouse. For those that still have some hope left there is always voting third party. The last "Viet Nam" was 30 years ago. Neither Bush nor Kerry are the same person that they were then. Both have aged and hopefully grown some since then. Right now, today we have another "Viet Nam" in the works and it is called Iraq. We got there the same way we got into Viet Nam, by a pack of lies. We had no real business being in either war. We claimed to be there to help "The people" of each country. The politicians claimed that we were making the countries into a "Democracy", but it never realkly happened. In both cases American troops paid for the politicain's lies with their lives. The Viet Nam "action" deeply devided this country. The Iraqie "Action" is even now deeply deviding this country.
Both Bush AND Kerry see the US being in Viet....I mean Iraq for at least another 5 years. Both want the Mexican border left wide open and more Mexicans coming in to keep wages down for Americans. Both are not for Second Amendment rights. (Check out Bush's record while in the Whitehouse and his wanting Clinton's gun ban extended). A vote for either of them is not a Vote for America.
Bearded Weirdo
Inactive
Old Bear,
Just curious, how many global nuclear wars have been started by Bush since he has been in the whitehouse?
Just curious, how many global nuclear wars have been started by Bush since he has been in the whitehouse?
ioujc
MARANTHA!! Even so, come LORD JESUS!!!
OK....
Originally posted by Mdance, and was a quote from a news article:
http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/...ry/061703.shtml
FAIR USE APPLICATION
"I personally didn't see personal atrocities
BUT that's NOT what his other testimony says!
in the sense I saw somebody cut a head off or something like that," Kerry said.
"However, I did take part in free-fire zones, I did take part in harassment and interdiction fire, I did take part in search-and-destroy missions in which the houses of noncombatants were burned to the ground.
And all of these acts, I find out later on, are contrary to the Hague and Geneva conventions and to the laws of warfare.
SORRY....just CAN'T buy this one either....EVERY soldier was given a Geneva Conventions card that was suppossed to be carried THROUGH OUT the time they were in combat. If there was ANY question about an act....the card spelled out acceptable military actions. Also...EVERY soldier recieved EXTENSIVE training on this information...it was part and a LARGE parcel of combat training! Oh, but mr. kerr only found out it was illegal AFTERWARDS!! AMAZING!!!!! WHAT A CROCK!!!!
So in that sense, anybody who took part in those, if you carry out the application of the Nuremberg Principles, is in fact guilty. But we are not trying to find war criminals. That is not our purpose. It never has been."
And ALL this doesn't even address the testmony and PUSH he put out to ABANDON our POWs and MIAs....which he DESTROYED evidence he KNEW PROVED they were there!!!!
Originally posted by Mdance, and was a quote from a news article:
http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/...ry/061703.shtml
FAIR USE APPLICATION
"I personally didn't see personal atrocities
BUT that's NOT what his other testimony says!
in the sense I saw somebody cut a head off or something like that," Kerry said.
"However, I did take part in free-fire zones, I did take part in harassment and interdiction fire, I did take part in search-and-destroy missions in which the houses of noncombatants were burned to the ground.
And all of these acts, I find out later on, are contrary to the Hague and Geneva conventions and to the laws of warfare.
SORRY....just CAN'T buy this one either....EVERY soldier was given a Geneva Conventions card that was suppossed to be carried THROUGH OUT the time they were in combat. If there was ANY question about an act....the card spelled out acceptable military actions. Also...EVERY soldier recieved EXTENSIVE training on this information...it was part and a LARGE parcel of combat training! Oh, but mr. kerr only found out it was illegal AFTERWARDS!! AMAZING!!!!! WHAT A CROCK!!!!
So in that sense, anybody who took part in those, if you carry out the application of the Nuremberg Principles, is in fact guilty. But we are not trying to find war criminals. That is not our purpose. It never has been."
And ALL this doesn't even address the testmony and PUSH he put out to ABANDON our POWs and MIAs....which he DESTROYED evidence he KNEW PROVED they were there!!!!
uh huh
"Check out Bush's record while in the Whitehouse and his wanting Clinton's gun ban extended"
I'm sure you'll be pointing out those draconian gun control measures, as I could not seem to find them.
I keep to my original proposition. People will be voting for Kerry because they are hoping for more government entitlements - the whole Vietnam sham is just that - a diversion.
"Check out Bush's record while in the Whitehouse and his wanting Clinton's gun ban extended"
I'm sure you'll be pointing out those draconian gun control measures, as I could not seem to find them.
I keep to my original proposition. People will be voting for Kerry because they are hoping for more government entitlements - the whole Vietnam sham is just that - a diversion.
BugoutBear
Membership Revoked
Rmiller asked a simple question as to why the media wasn't giving the "anti-Kerry" vets more exposure, and now, as per usual, it's broken down into anti-kerry v. anti-bush. . .
Oh well. One thing's for sure: this is not an election to vote for a candidate as much as an election to vote against a candidate.
AFAIC, choose and lose. . .they both suck.
In the end, that's exactly where we'll get it.
BugoutBear
Oh well. One thing's for sure: this is not an election to vote for a candidate as much as an election to vote against a candidate.
AFAIC, choose and lose. . .they both suck.
In the end, that's exactly where we'll get it.
BugoutBear
Vector
Veteran Member
Mike 9 or 10 said:
Although my father will be unable to attend the Anti-Kerry Rally, he too served in Vietnam. Did three tours, 11-14 months each. Shot down twice (he flew helicopters for the Army). Two Purple Hearts, Bronze Star, had to hike out of Cambodia after being shot down the second time. Does not like to talk about it much. I've only began to get him to open up about it in the last ten years or so. He is a big time Democrat, voted for every Democrat Presidential candidate from Harry S. Truman to Al Gore. He takes a certain almost perverse pleasure in debating his conservative Republican son, me, and pointing out how wrong the GOP is for our country and how stupid I am for supporting them. He is; however, absolutely resolute in his conviction that Senator John Kerry is categorically (his word) unfit to be Commander-In-Chief. He says he will not be voting for him.
I take a certain not-so-perverse pleasure in that.
homepark
Resist
In our Army unit in Vietnam, you got to know people throughout the local command structure. Some of this was because that as people rotated out at the end of their year tour of duty, folks were shifted around to cover the missions. My understanding of the Swift Boats was that they did something similar, as well as several boats going on the same mission.
You tend to remember the extremes. The real assholes and the really good NCO's/Officers. Seems like a lot of folks remember him. NOT a good sign. If he had a good enlisted following, it would be reflected in his FITREPs.
You tend to remember the extremes. The real assholes and the really good NCO's/Officers. Seems like a lot of folks remember him. NOT a good sign. If he had a good enlisted following, it would be reflected in his FITREPs.
intothatgoodnight
. . .
Nealz Nuze ^ | 8/9/04 | Neal Boortz
Posted on 08/09/2004 6:56:22 AM PDT by Elkiejg
SORRY, BUT IT'S THE RECORD HE'S BEEN RUNNING ON
Sorry, folks, but I just don't get it. Senator John McCain, Wall Street Journalist lefty Al Hunt; they're all saying what a terrible terrible thing it is to raise any questions about John Kerry's military service. Just one question: Why?
This really isn't all that hard to understand. Since the very first day that John Kerry began his active quest for the presidency he has focused on one thing; his record of service in Vietnam. Well before the New Hampshire primary Kerry's repeated focus on his Vietnam war record became somewhat of a joke. Many media figure I've talked to simply cannot remember one single campaign appearance where Kerry did not use his Vietnam record as evidence of his qualification to serve as commander in chief.
OK ... so if Kerry wants to present this evidence to the great voting jury out there, then the other side gets to present their evidence also. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are doing just that. They have a story to tell, and it seems a lot of people are interested.
There are always two sides to a story. People like the Wall Street Journal's Albert Hunt are making the assumption that anything that a veteran who supports John Kerry says is the undeniable truth; and any utterance from a veteran who does not support John Kerry is a damnable lie. Neither Kerry's veteran entourage nor the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth would end Diogenes' quest. The rational voter will listen to both sides, perhaps engage in a bit of personal research, and make a decision. Perhaps some voters will be somewhat surprised by the intensity and viciousness of the response from the Kerry crowd to the SBVT charges. Maybe they'll remember that it's the stuck pig that squeals the loudest.
The truth about John Kerry lies somewhere between two extremes. On the one hand the Kerry entourage may be right in their presentation of Kerry as a courageous war hero who's boldness in action led to three Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star and a Silver Star in just four amazing months. On the other hand, the charges set forth in the current Amazon.com bestseller "Unfit for Command" might be a more accurate portrait. John Kerry may indeed have been a manipulative schemer who's primary purpose in volunteering for duty in Vietnam was to build a war record on which to pursue a political career. Perhaps, as charged, Kerry did complain endlessly to his superiors when he felt that his assignment might be a bit too dangerous. Maybe he did manipulate the system to gain at least one, maybe two Purple Hearts from self-inflicted wounds.
The story that seems most plausible to me is that Kerry did volunteer for duty in Vietnam to enhance his political portfolio, and that he did push the envelope in his search for Purple Hearts. I also believe that he probably did act with gallantry when he saw some of his fellow Americans in danger. I would like to know more about the Purple Hearts. There's reason to believe that Kerry made up his mind to get those three Purple Hearts as quickly as he could in order to take advantage of the Navy's "three and you're out" rule. Right now I think the Bronze and Silver Stars were honorably earned.
Not so honorable, however, were the actions last week of Kerry's lawyers in their attack on various members of the SBVT. Particularly outrageous was their treatment of Dr. Louis Letson, the physician who treated Kerry for the wounds leading to his first Purple Heart. Last week Democratic Party and Kerry votes sent letters to television stations in battleground states threatening their very licenses if they dared to run the SBVT ads. In that letter they referred to Dr. Letson as a "phony" doctor and to his corpsman as a "physician." Dr. Letson served in Vietnam treating our wounded. Kerry saved lives? So did Dr. Letson, and to refer to him as a "phony" doctor seems to me to be every bit as outrageous as questioning Kerry's medals. Don't expect any outrage from John McCain or Al Hunt on this one, though.
Now ... here's a way that John Kerry can divert attention from his four months in Vietnam. He can cite some other accomplishments from his life that he believes would impress the voters. He can tell us of the great and wonderful things he did as the Lt. Governor of Massachusetts. He can regale us with some war stories from his days as a prosecutor. Hell, he might even tell us how he managed to seduce two incredibly rich women into his (marital) bed. I'm sure that there are a lot of young men just out of the service would love to learn that little stunt. Then ... for a real stretch, Kerry can tell us all of the great and wonderful things he accomplished in his 20 year Senate history. He's campaigning on the theme of a "Stronger America." Perhaps he can explain how all of his votes against funding for intelligence gathering and against the very weapons systems we're using today to kill terrorists in the Middle East made America stronger.
In the meantime ... someone owes Dr. Louis Letson an apology. We'll be placing calls to the attorneys who sent those threatening letters every single day until we find someone to talk to. Stay tuned.
THIS IS RATHER ODD, DON'T YOU THINK
Swift Boat Veterans for Truth run an ad attacking John Kerry's Vietnam war record. In that ad a man named George Elliott, a retired Navy Lt. Commander, said that he made a terrible mistake when he signed the documents for Kerry's Silver Star. After that ad surfaced a story appeared in the Boston Globe written by Michael Kranish saying that Elliot had recanted his story.
Then things got curious.
After the Kranish story about Elliot's retraction ran, Elliot reportedly stepped forward and said that the Kranish article was wrong and that he had not, in fact, retracted his statement contained in the Swiftees' ad. It was also reported that Michael Kranish was somewhat of a Kerry insider, having written an introduction to the Kerry-Edwards campaign book entitled "Our Plan for America." That led to this story in the Globe written by Susan Milligan. Milligan said that the Globe was standing by it's reporting, and that Kranish did not have any connection to the Kerry campaign and did not write any introduction to Kerry's book.
Then things got even more curious.
Did Kranish write an introduction to the Kerry-Edwards campaign book or not? Has he been exposed as a Kerry supporter bringing his bias to his news reporting? Or has there been a simple misunderstanding.
Let's just say if you had searched Amazon.com or PublicAffairsBooks looking for the Kerry-Edwards book last week you would have seen a reference to an introduction written by Michael Kranish. Later, after the Kranish article about Elliot's supposed retraction appeared in the Boston Globe, the web pages for the campaign book suddenly dropped the references to Kranish and his introduction.
Interesting
Posted on 08/09/2004 6:56:22 AM PDT by Elkiejg
SORRY, BUT IT'S THE RECORD HE'S BEEN RUNNING ON
Sorry, folks, but I just don't get it. Senator John McCain, Wall Street Journalist lefty Al Hunt; they're all saying what a terrible terrible thing it is to raise any questions about John Kerry's military service. Just one question: Why?
This really isn't all that hard to understand. Since the very first day that John Kerry began his active quest for the presidency he has focused on one thing; his record of service in Vietnam. Well before the New Hampshire primary Kerry's repeated focus on his Vietnam war record became somewhat of a joke. Many media figure I've talked to simply cannot remember one single campaign appearance where Kerry did not use his Vietnam record as evidence of his qualification to serve as commander in chief.
OK ... so if Kerry wants to present this evidence to the great voting jury out there, then the other side gets to present their evidence also. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are doing just that. They have a story to tell, and it seems a lot of people are interested.
There are always two sides to a story. People like the Wall Street Journal's Albert Hunt are making the assumption that anything that a veteran who supports John Kerry says is the undeniable truth; and any utterance from a veteran who does not support John Kerry is a damnable lie. Neither Kerry's veteran entourage nor the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth would end Diogenes' quest. The rational voter will listen to both sides, perhaps engage in a bit of personal research, and make a decision. Perhaps some voters will be somewhat surprised by the intensity and viciousness of the response from the Kerry crowd to the SBVT charges. Maybe they'll remember that it's the stuck pig that squeals the loudest.
The truth about John Kerry lies somewhere between two extremes. On the one hand the Kerry entourage may be right in their presentation of Kerry as a courageous war hero who's boldness in action led to three Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star and a Silver Star in just four amazing months. On the other hand, the charges set forth in the current Amazon.com bestseller "Unfit for Command" might be a more accurate portrait. John Kerry may indeed have been a manipulative schemer who's primary purpose in volunteering for duty in Vietnam was to build a war record on which to pursue a political career. Perhaps, as charged, Kerry did complain endlessly to his superiors when he felt that his assignment might be a bit too dangerous. Maybe he did manipulate the system to gain at least one, maybe two Purple Hearts from self-inflicted wounds.
The story that seems most plausible to me is that Kerry did volunteer for duty in Vietnam to enhance his political portfolio, and that he did push the envelope in his search for Purple Hearts. I also believe that he probably did act with gallantry when he saw some of his fellow Americans in danger. I would like to know more about the Purple Hearts. There's reason to believe that Kerry made up his mind to get those three Purple Hearts as quickly as he could in order to take advantage of the Navy's "three and you're out" rule. Right now I think the Bronze and Silver Stars were honorably earned.
Not so honorable, however, were the actions last week of Kerry's lawyers in their attack on various members of the SBVT. Particularly outrageous was their treatment of Dr. Louis Letson, the physician who treated Kerry for the wounds leading to his first Purple Heart. Last week Democratic Party and Kerry votes sent letters to television stations in battleground states threatening their very licenses if they dared to run the SBVT ads. In that letter they referred to Dr. Letson as a "phony" doctor and to his corpsman as a "physician." Dr. Letson served in Vietnam treating our wounded. Kerry saved lives? So did Dr. Letson, and to refer to him as a "phony" doctor seems to me to be every bit as outrageous as questioning Kerry's medals. Don't expect any outrage from John McCain or Al Hunt on this one, though.
Now ... here's a way that John Kerry can divert attention from his four months in Vietnam. He can cite some other accomplishments from his life that he believes would impress the voters. He can tell us of the great and wonderful things he did as the Lt. Governor of Massachusetts. He can regale us with some war stories from his days as a prosecutor. Hell, he might even tell us how he managed to seduce two incredibly rich women into his (marital) bed. I'm sure that there are a lot of young men just out of the service would love to learn that little stunt. Then ... for a real stretch, Kerry can tell us all of the great and wonderful things he accomplished in his 20 year Senate history. He's campaigning on the theme of a "Stronger America." Perhaps he can explain how all of his votes against funding for intelligence gathering and against the very weapons systems we're using today to kill terrorists in the Middle East made America stronger.
In the meantime ... someone owes Dr. Louis Letson an apology. We'll be placing calls to the attorneys who sent those threatening letters every single day until we find someone to talk to. Stay tuned.
THIS IS RATHER ODD, DON'T YOU THINK
Swift Boat Veterans for Truth run an ad attacking John Kerry's Vietnam war record. In that ad a man named George Elliott, a retired Navy Lt. Commander, said that he made a terrible mistake when he signed the documents for Kerry's Silver Star. After that ad surfaced a story appeared in the Boston Globe written by Michael Kranish saying that Elliot had recanted his story.
Then things got curious.
After the Kranish story about Elliot's retraction ran, Elliot reportedly stepped forward and said that the Kranish article was wrong and that he had not, in fact, retracted his statement contained in the Swiftees' ad. It was also reported that Michael Kranish was somewhat of a Kerry insider, having written an introduction to the Kerry-Edwards campaign book entitled "Our Plan for America." That led to this story in the Globe written by Susan Milligan. Milligan said that the Globe was standing by it's reporting, and that Kranish did not have any connection to the Kerry campaign and did not write any introduction to Kerry's book.
Then things got even more curious.
Did Kranish write an introduction to the Kerry-Edwards campaign book or not? Has he been exposed as a Kerry supporter bringing his bias to his news reporting? Or has there been a simple misunderstanding.
Let's just say if you had searched Amazon.com or PublicAffairsBooks looking for the Kerry-Edwards book last week you would have seen a reference to an introduction written by Michael Kranish. Later, after the Kranish article about Elliot's supposed retraction appeared in the Boston Globe, the web pages for the campaign book suddenly dropped the references to Kranish and his introduction.
Interesting
BugoutBear
Membership Revoked
ioujc said:
Doesn't excuse the people running these "soft money" ads against Kerry from their scummy, sleaze, hyperbole attacks and lies against JOHN McCAIN when he was running against G.W.
For Gods sake, when McCain ran against Bush these exact same people who produced these commercials against Kerry had a phone bank in SC calling voters telling them McCain had a black child. . .
That's just scum ideologue screed. . .
I’m sorry you don’t recognize it for what it is.
BugoutBear
DISCLAIMER YET AGAIN: I don't give a hang about Kerry, and I think the canidates we have to choose from suck. I just don't like liars and scum bags.
Ought Six
Membership Revoked
I am really surprised that Bush-haters would actually vote for a commie like Kerry because they are so consumed with thier hatred for GW. Since you guys are now firmly in the liberal camp, perhaps you would feel more comfortable among the enemy you are actively giving aid and comfort to. I am sure they will welcome you with open arms over at Democratic Underground.
If you want to make a statement, vote third party. But if you join the liberal commie enemy, then you *are* the enemy. The sheeple have the weak excuse of being ignorant. You guys do not. You are knowingly joining the Kerry/Clinton/Teddy Kennedy/Jesse Jackson camp. Traitors!
If you want to make a statement, vote third party. But if you join the liberal commie enemy, then you *are* the enemy. The sheeple have the weak excuse of being ignorant. You guys do not. You are knowingly joining the Kerry/Clinton/Teddy Kennedy/Jesse Jackson camp. Traitors!