Swift Boat Vets to set record straight

[Parkbandit]

Senator John Kerry has made his 4-month combat tour in Vietnam the centerpiece of his bid for the Presidency. His campaign jets a handful of veterans around the country, and trots them out at public appearances to sing his praises. John Kerry wants us to believe that these men represent all those he calls his "band of brothers."


But most combat veterans who served with John Kerry in Vietnam see him in a very different light.

The purpose of this photo is to correct the misleading use of our
images -- against our will -- to further John Kerry's campaign.

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has been formed to counter the false "war crimes" charges John Kerry repeatedly made against Vietnam veterans who served in our units and elsewhere, and to accurately portray Kerry's brief tour in Vietnam as a junior grade Lieutenant. We speak from personal experience -- our group includes men who served beside Kerry in combat as well as his commanders. Though we come from different backgrounds and hold varying political opinions, we agree on one thing: John Kerry misrepresented his record and ours in Vietnam and therefore exhibits serious flaws in character and lacks the potential to lead.

We regret the need to do this. Most Swift boat veterans would like nothing better than to support one of our own for America's highest office, regardless of whether he was running as a Democrat or a Republican. However, Kerry's phony war crimes charges, his exaggerated claims about his own service in Vietnam, and his deliberate misrepresentation of the nature and effectiveness of Swift boat operations compels us to step forward.

For more than thirty years, most Vietnam veterans kept silent as we were maligned as misfits, addicts, and baby killers. Now that a key creator of that poisonous image is seeking the Presidency we have resolved to end our silence.

The time has come to set the record straight.

http://www.swiftvets.com

[Ilvane]

Wow, isn't that pathetic.

He had the right to protest the war, no matter what people say. That's his right. It still doesn't take away from the service he did there.

-A

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Ilvane
Wow, isn't that pathetic.

He had the right to protest the war, no matter what people say. That's his right. It still doesn't take away from the service he did there.

-A

What's pathetic is that he's claiming the men he fought with are with him. One is. Hardly what I would consider a "Band of Brothers".

Nothing pathetic about it if those that served with him in Vietnam consider him unfit to be President.

I imagine they would know him better than you or I.

[Parkbandit]

Also from the site.. you can view the commercial. Here's the transcript:

John Edwards: "If you have any question about what John Kerry is made of, just spend 3 minutes with the men who served with him."

Al French: "I served with John Kerry."

Bob Elder: "I served with John Kerry."

George Elliott: "John Kerry has not been honest about what happened in Vietnam."

Al French: "He is lying about his record."

Louis Letson: "I know John Kerry is lying about his first Purple Heart because I treated him for that injury."

Van O'Dell: "John Kerry lied to get his bronze star ... I know, I was there, I saw what happened."

Jack Chenoweth: "His account of what happened and what actually happened are the difference between night and day."

Admiral Hoffman: "John Kerry has not been honest."

Adrian Lonsdale: "And he lacks the capacity to lead."

Larry Thurlow: "When the chips were down, you could not count on John Kerry."

Bob Elder: "John Kerry is no war hero."

Grant Hibbard: "He betrayed all his shipmates ... he lied before the Senate."

Shelton White: "John Kerry betrayed the men and women he served with in Vietnam."

Joe Ponder: "He dishonored his country ... he most certainly did."

Bob Hildreth: "I served with John Kerry ...

Bob Hildreth (off-camera): John Kerry cannot be trusted."

Announcer: "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is responsible for the content of this advertisement."

[DeV]

I agree with Ilvane, it doesn't take away from what he did while he was there. If he didn't earn the medals, blame it on those that gave them to him. If he tossed them, oh well, he didn't earn them anyway right. If he lied before the Senate, someone should have stepped up then and set the record straight. Don't wait until the man makes it all the way to the point of running for President before you bring this stuff to light. It makes them seem all that less believable. If he is unfit for presidency, this is a fine time to let everyone know about it.

Oh, and .... :deadhorse:

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by DarkelfVold
If he is unfit for presidency, this is a fine time to let everyone know about it.Are you serious? When you introduce people, do you mention whether or not they're unfit for the presidency? Or would you perhaps wait until they run for the presidency?

Moreover, Kerry can clear up the entire issue himself. Walk out on stage, say "I didn't earn these particular medals, and here's what really happened", and he'll be fine. Even if it's not his fault he got them, but he should be clear about what happened if he wants to bring his Navy buddies out on stage at the Convention and open his speech with a military salute.

The stuff about him not being capable of leading is a bit much, because c'mon, this is 30 years ago we're talking about. People change.

[Parkbandit]

If I fought with him in Vietnam.. I'd still be bitter towards him as well.

Sorry.. you just don't do the things he did to your "Band of Brothers"

People change.. but I see no evidence that he did.

[Prestius]

Hmm .. interesting indeed. Let's not even forget the absurd hypocracy in someone bashing Kerry when Bush's war record is, shall we say, non-existant at best and criminal at the worst.

Hmm .. the primary financial supporter for SwiftVets is Robert Perry - who donated almost $4 million to Texas Republican candidates in 2000 and has donated to Bush's 2004 reelection campaign.

Two of the guys in the ad actually flew to Boston to support Kerry in his 1996 Senate campaign.

So yeah .. politically motivated fabrications with little corroboration from vets who support someone who didn't gven show up for the war. Yep .. pretty pathetic indeed.

-P

[DeV]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by DarkelfVold
If he is unfit for presidency, this is a fine time to let everyone know about it.Are you serious? Dead serious.

[Ilvane]

Thank you Prestius, I was about to find the info to show Parkbandit, but I'm at work, so it takes time to check on these things.

I really believe that John Kerry would be a better leader than Bush. John Kerry isn't afraid to stand up for what he believes in, even if it isn't a popular opinion.

The protests against the war were not against the veterans. George Bush tries to say that nowadays too, that if you are against the war you are against the troops. In fact, the people protesting the war are *for* the troops and would like to see them out of danger.

-A

[Scott]

Originally posted by Ilvane

I really believe that John Kerry would be a better leader than Bush. John Kerry isn't afraid to stand up for what he believes in, even if it isn't a popular opinion.

-A

I didn't even know John Kerry stood for something. He switches sides so often I have no idea what's he's for and against.

[Ilvane]

Here, you want the story on the ad: Check this out, please. I respect McCain a great deal.


McCain condemns anti-Kerry ads, calls on White House to follow suit
By Ron Fournier, Associated Press, 8/5/2004 12:08

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.''

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.

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.

[pennywise]

So yeah .. politically motivated fabrications with little corroboration from vets who support someone who didn't gven show up for the war. Yep .. pretty pathetic indeed.


So just let me make sure I’ve got your viewpoint on this matter straight. These men are outright liars who are solely motivated by politics in stating that Kerry misrepresented his military record. Is that correct?

[DeV]

Most politicians are outright liars solely motivated by politics.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by pennywise
These men are outright liars who are solely motivated by politics in stating that Kerry misrepresented his military record. Is that correct?

I doubt they're motivated solely by politics. I think they're also stupid pieces of shit who are still angry that Kerry dared spreak out against the war.

I've mentioned the My Lai massacre before. The helicopter pilot who saw whatw as happening, landed, tried to stop it and managed to rescue some of the children who were being killed? And reported it to the military?

He receieved death threats. He was treated like a pariah. He dared tell the truth about innocent men, women and children being killed in cold blood by American soldiers. It didn't matter that it was an atrocity. He broke the "code" and "ratted" out his fellow soldiers. He only just received a commendation for his action: almost thirty years later the military admitted he did a good thing.

So I'm not at all surprised that Kerry is still taking flak from soldiers about daring to speak out against the war. He broke the code of silence. Good for him.

Raven

[Pallon]

A series of old guys making nebulous claims about Kerry without elaborating? I'm convinced!

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Ilvane
Thank you Prestius, I was about to find the info to show Parkbandit, but I'm at work, so it takes time to check on these things.

I really believe that John Kerry would be a better leader than Bush. John Kerry isn't afraid to stand up for what he believes in, even if it isn't a popular opinion.

The protests against the war were not against the veterans. George Bush tries to say that nowadays too, that if you are against the war you are against the troops. In fact, the people protesting the war are *for* the troops and would like to see them out of danger.

-A

The matter isn't whether he served more then Bush.

The matter is why he would have people he served with ON-STAGE at a convention praising his war effort when in fact they are a large minority.

The point is Kerry has what now appears to be less then a quarter of the people he served with up on stage praising his war effort. Kerry is saying 'if you don't know whether I'm fit to lead, ask my fellow crewmates.'

For once it really doesn't matter about Bush. Kerry is the one who told us to ask his swiftboat vets for information on what kind of a leader he is.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Prestius
Hmm .. interesting indeed. Let's not even forget the absurd hypocracy in someone bashing Kerry when Bush's war record is, shall we say, non-existant at best and criminal at the worst.

Hmm .. the primary financial supporter for SwiftVets is Robert Perry - who donated almost $4 million to Texas Republican candidates in 2000 and has donated to Bush's 2004 reelection campaign.

Two of the guys in the ad actually flew to Boston to support Kerry in his 1996 Senate campaign.

So yeah .. politically motivated fabrications with little corroboration from vets who support someone who didn't gven show up for the war. Yep .. pretty pathetic indeed.

-P

Oh little Prestius.. I was waiting for one of you Liberals to talk about that.

Weird how you have no problem with organizations like MoveOn.org or any of the people that spend MILLIONS on ads that bash Bush.

Robert Perry gave $100,000 to this group.. a far FAR cry from the 15-20 million given by a couple of Democrats.

[Ilvane]

Actually the men who are coming out with this ad, they were not on the Swiftboat with Kerry. In Fact, those who were with him did support him.

These are men that served "near" Kerry and were not directly involved in what happened with him. They are speculating that he didn't deserve his medals, when indeed he earned them. They are also upset that he protested the war.

Many of these men are actively giving money to the Republicans.

I ask you, is it believable?

-A

[Hulkein]

Nah, not as believeable as if they were on his boat.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Ilvane
John Kerry isn't afraid to stand up for what he believes in, even if it isn't a popular opinion.


-A

Sorry.. there goes that last bit of respect I had for you. That quote will have to replace Solescape's quote.. because it's even more stupid.

The big hit Kerry always takes is due to his waffling. Even your own party is concerned about that.

At LEAST base your opinions with some sort of facts.. don't simply make shit up that clearly is the direct opposite of the truth.

[Parkbandit]

I find it absolutely funny that if you are a Vietnam veteran and support Kerry.. you are a hero in the media. If you do not support him.. you are an idiot.

Too fucking funny.

You people DO realize that maybe they were there and that they simply want the truth to come out?

[Prestius]

Originally posted by pennywise


So yeah .. politically motivated fabrications with little corroboration from vets who support someone who didn't gven show up for the war. Yep .. pretty pathetic indeed.


So just let me make sure I’ve got your viewpoint on this matter straight. These men are outright liars who are solely motivated by politics in stating that Kerry misrepresented his military record. Is that correct?

Considering that none of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth actually served with Kerry? The closest any others came was to be assigned to the same boat Kerry had skippered - AFTER Kerry had left Vietnam. Yeah .. I think these guys are full of crap.

Look -- this is a stupid point to argue for the Repubs. You can discuss all you want about Kerry's war record, but at least he HAS a war record.

-P

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Ilvane
Actually the men who are coming out with this ad, they were not on the Swiftboat with Kerry. In Fact, those who were with him did support him.

These are men that served "near" Kerry and were not directly involved in what happened with him. They are speculating that he didn't deserve his medals, when indeed he earned them. They are also upset that he protested the war.

Many of these men are actively giving money to the Republicans.

I ask you, is it believable?

-A

Please quote your source of this because I was actually looking to see if all these people in this commercial are Republicans. I had heard that there were just as many Democrats and Independants, but I cannot find a viable source.

Thanks.

[Hulkein]

I see the point. I was never sold on 'he is a great leader' to begin with though. Sorry I just don't get any vibe from him when I hear him speak, watch his mannerisms, nothing about him strikes me as someone who will be steadfast in a tough time.

Heh, I also gotta agree, that Ilvane quote was pretty bad. In fact I think I've seen her exact quote used sarcastically more then once. I don't know how you were serious with that.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Prestius
Look -- this is a stupid point to argue for the Repubs. You can discuss all you want about Kerry's war record, but at least he HAS a war record.

-P

Again.. did it bother you that Clinton didn't have a war record? Oh that's right.. it DIDN'T matter back then.. but now.. now it most certainly does!

How fucking convenient.

[Ilvane]

The waffle comments have been coming from the right, more than the left.

As for the Iraq war, he voted for it because he was given the same info we were that was false on the war.

He voted against body armor, because there were attachments to the bill that would have risen spending ridiculously.

He was for cuts in the military back in the 1990's back when we weren't as concerned about terrorism, and the world is a different place now.

The things that some Republicans bring are greatly out of context. I would bring up some of Bush's issues, but he didn't really have a whole lot of them. His governorship was interesting, though.

What I don't understand about you Parkbandit, is that you say you lose respect for me, because I am disagreeing with you? That doesn't make any sense. I don't agree with you, but I still respect your opinion. At least make it civil.

-A

[Ilvane]

Did you even read the article I posted on McCain, and what was said in it?

I guess not.

-A

[Parkbandit]

John Kerry

"Well, I voted for the war, before I voted against it!"

[Prestius]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
I find it absolutely funny that if you are a Vietnam veteran and support Kerry.. you are a hero in the media. If you do not support him.. you are an idiot.


No PB .. I have no issue with a Vietnam Vet being against Kerry. There are a lot of issues that I can easily see both sides of and can see where many people wouldn't like Kerry for those reasons.

No .. It's the Vets who are bagging on Kerry's Military service when the candidate they are supporting, Bush, got a cushy assignment due to political connections basically hid out the war in Georgia partying and doing political work for his dad.

That's the hypocracy and stupidity.

-P

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Ilvane
Did you even read the article I posted on McCain, and what was said in it?

I guess not.

-A

HOLY SHIT! JOHN MCCAIN SAID SOMETHING!?? Let me just stop what I am doing because he IS the voice of the Republican Party.

Oh wait.. he's not. He's the most liberal republican I know... so his view on this doesn't surprise me.

I imagine that might be why he's still in the Senate and not in the White House.

I also imagine the White House will also denounce this advertising.. though they have to be happy about it.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Prestius

Originally posted by Parkbandit
I find it absolutely funny that if you are a Vietnam veteran and support Kerry.. you are a hero in the media. If you do not support him.. you are an idiot.


No PB .. I have no issue with a Vietnam Vet being against Kerry. There are a lot of issues that I can easily see both sides of and can see where many people wouldn't like Kerry for those reasons.

No .. It's the Vets who are bagging on Kerry's Military service when the candidate they are supporting, Bush, got a cushy assignment due to political connections basically hid out the war in Georgia partying and doing political work for his dad.

That's the hypocracy and stupidity.

-P

Like I said before.. the real stupidity and hypocracy is from those people who 8 years ago said this was a non issue.. now claim that it's the defining issue.

Cake is over there in the corner.. have a slice.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Prestius
No .. It's the Vets who are bagging on Kerry's Military service when the candidate they are supporting, Bush I don't follow. If they don't like Kerry, it's ok with you. But if they don't like Kerry and they like Bush, you're upset?

I'd like to again thank the Republicans who dropped the ball in 2000 and didn't nominate McCain, by the way.

[Prestius]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by Prestius
Look -- this is a stupid point to argue for the Repubs. You can discuss all you want about Kerry's war record, but at least he HAS a war record.

-P

Again.. did it bother you that Clinton didn't have a war record? Oh that's right.. it DIDN'T matter back then.. but now.. now it most certainly does!

How fucking convenient.

Ah yes .. speaking of convienent. The all purpose "I have no leg to stand on so I'll bring up Clinton" line!

Look. The whole military service thing is not a deciding factor. It wasn't when I voted for Clinton, and it won't be when I vote for Kerry. It's in the news because Kerry refuses to let AWOL-Bush do to him what Bush did to McCain in 2000 over his service record.

-P

[Back]

Here is another article to corroborate Ilvane's post. (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5612836/)

Its almost word for word. What I find interesting is that Bush used this exact same tactic against McCain in the 2000 Republican primary. He also called McCain "someone who says one thing and does another." Ole' Bushie hasn't changed his tactics.

Link quoting Bush about McCain. (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/election/jan-june00/negative_2-22a.html)

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Backlash
Here is another article to corroborate Ilvane's post. (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5612836/)

Its almost word for word. What I find interesting is that Bush used this exact same tactic against McCain in the 2000 Republican primary. He also called McCain "someone who says one thing and does another." Ole' Bushie hasn't changed his tactics.

Link quoting Bush about McCain. (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/election/jan-june00/negative_2-22a.html)

Bush didn't produce this ad... so your 'point' is mute.

[Prestius]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by Prestius
No .. It's the Vets who are bagging on Kerry's Military service when the candidate they are supporting, Bush I don't follow. If they don't like Kerry, it's ok with you. But if they don't like Kerry and they like Bush, you're upset?


Oy .. is it all that difficult? There are lots of reasons a person might not like Kerry. But as a Veteran, to hold his Military service against him, when Bush was basicially AWOL - is the height of stupidity.

-P

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Prestius
Oy .. is it all that difficult? There are lots of reasons a person might not like Kerry. But as a Veteran, to hold his Military service against him, when Bush was basicially AWOL - is the height of stupidity.From what I read, what they're holding against him (Kerry) is lying about his military service and getting medals, probably compounded by him then tossing the medals and making up stuff about his fellow soldiers/sailors.

Whether he was lying, tossing, and making is up for debate, certainly, but I don't recall them saying anything like what you propose.

[Back]

Those guys who talk all that shit about Kerry weren't on his boat. The guys who were on that boat with Kerry were at the democratic national convention to support him.

Guess that makes this thread moot.

[Ilvane]

That's what I was trying to say by posting the facts, Backlash, but I guess Parkbandit didn't want to hear it.

I have nothing against opposing views, if they are at least based on facts. These commercials are not fact, they are deceitful. Big surprise.

-A

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Prestius

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by Prestius
No .. It's the Vets who are bagging on Kerry's Military service when the candidate they are supporting, Bush I don't follow. If they don't like Kerry, it's ok with you. But if they don't like Kerry and they like Bush, you're upset?


Oy .. is it all that difficult? There are lots of reasons a person might not like Kerry. But as a Veteran, to hold his Military service against him, when Bush was basicially AWOL - is the height of stupidity.

-P

No.. actually each individual stands on his own merits. You uphold Kerry's 'honor' by saying "Yea, maybe he wasn't so great in the Vietnam War.. but LOOK AT BUSH!!!"

Using that as your focus is actually the height of stupidity.

[Edaarin]

A few things.

1. Did Kerry's shipmates speak out against him when he was being considered for those medals? Or is this a new development? I'm genuinely curious, and too lazy to look it up myself.

2. Parkbandit, change your damn signature. It's ridiculous, not ridicules.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Ilvane
That's what I was trying to say by posting the facts, Backlash, but I guess Parkbandit didn't want to hear it.

I have nothing against opposing views, if they are at least based on facts. These commercials are not fact, they are deceitful. Big surprise.

-A

Please see signature below when discussing things not based on facts.

Thanks.

[Skirmisher]

That the puppet handlers of Bush would keep slamming their head into this wall puzzles me to no end.

They want us to believe that yes, these men simply want the "truth" to come out?

That they would have a tremendously greater amount of respect for a man who's daddy got him a guard job in the states that he didnt even do than someone who went willingly.

Does anyone really believe that?

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Edaarin
A few things.


2. Parkbandit, change your damn signature. It's ridiculous, not ridicules.

Fuck me.. I'm just glad you found it before I had to hear if from Bob.

Of course you COULD have sent it to me via U2U and you didn't. So these pics are for you... bastard:

[Edaarin]

Did you have to make me the construction worker?

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Edaarin
Did you have to make me the construction worker?

It was the only one without the microphone in front of his face. I only have MSPaint here at work.. so my picture 'enhancements' are rather limited.

And you can tell that those are old.. it was back when Edaarin was an archer. (see first pic)

:)

[Edited on 8-5-2004 by Parkbandit]

[DeV]

Originally posted by Edaarin
A few things.

1. Did Kerry's shipmates speak out against him when he was being considered for those medals? Or is this a new development? I'm genuinely curious, and too lazy to look it up myself.
I was wondering the same. If this isn't a new development then I can see the argument. If it is, the claims of those men have to be questioned at least from a political viewpoint.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by DarkelfVold

Originally posted by Edaarin
A few things.

1. Did Kerry's shipmates speak out against him when he was being considered for those medals? Or is this a new development? I'm genuinely curious, and too lazy to look it up myself.
I was wondering the same. If this isn't a new development then I can see the argument. If it is, the claims of those men have to be questioned at least from a political viewpoint.

I don't agree actually... (Big surprise I bet)

Kerry is running for the highest office in the free world. He is constantly referring to his service in the war and parading a couple vets around with him on the campaign trail.

I think it's a viable argument for these people to speak up now.

[Back]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by DarkelfVold

Originally posted by Edaarin
A few things.

1. Did Kerry's shipmates speak out against him when he was being considered for those medals? Or is this a new development? I'm genuinely curious, and too lazy to look it up myself.
I was wondering the same. If this isn't a new development then I can see the argument. If it is, the claims of those men have to be questioned at least from a political viewpoint.

I don't agree actually... (Big surprise I bet)

Kerry is running for the highest office in the free world. He is constantly referring to his service in the war and parading a couple vets around with him on the campaign trail.

I think it's a viable argument for these people to speak up now.

You act like he has them on a leash. Those men do have wills of their own. 5 out of the 6 men who served with him on his boat were at the convention to support him, along with Max Cleland. The sixth one is deceased.

Why those other guys are bringing all this up now is a good question. 30 years after the fact when Kerry is running for President... it has to be political. They didn't bring it up when he ran for Senate did they?

BTW, Cleland's speech. (http://www.dems2004.org/site/apps/nl/content3.asp?c=luI2LaPYG&b=131063&ct=158792)

Watching and listening to him reminded me of Mr. Lebowski.

[Parkbandit]

Kerry running for a Senate seat is a far cry from him being Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.

A far cry.

[Ilvane]

And Bush is more qualified, how? Please, enlighten me.

-A

[Parkbandit]

Ilvane,

We won't change either one's mind about who the best candidate is for President.. so why bother?

Seriously... admit that your vote for Kerry is more a vote against Bush than actually for Kerry and we can actually agree on something.

Do I think Bush is the best President we've ever had? Nope

Do I think Bush has made some mistakes during his Presidency? Yup


There are plenty of things that drive me crazy with Bush.. his throwing religion in my face at ever turn drives me nuts (I'm an atheist).

But if I have to choose which one of these presidents will protect me, my family and my country better.. Bush wins hands down. No contest.

[Kefka]

“Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we,” Bush said. “They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.”

I'm starting to wonder if this is another Bushism or him speaking the truth from his heart.

[Ilvane]

I don't understand why you can't just answer my question. If Bush is so much better, why are we having all these terrorist threats, and we are having elevated levels of security for everything? Are we really safer?

Anyway, I found some interesting things about John Kerry's swiftboat crewmates. I thought you might find it interesting.
(this is regarding an e-mail circulated about the Kerry, by swiftvets.com)

Although the men quoted above are often identified as "John Kerry's shipmates," only one of them, Steven Gardner, actually served under Lt. Kerry's command on a Swift boat. The other men who served under Kerry's command continue to speak positively of him:

"In 1969, I was Sen. Kerry's gun mate atop of the Swift boat in Vietnam. And I just wanted to let everyone know that, contrary to all the rumors that you might hear from the other side, Sen. Kerry's blood is red, not blue. I know, I've seen it.

"If it weren't for Sen. John Kerry, on the 28th of February 1969, the day he won the Silver Star . . . you and I would not be having this conversation. My name would be on a long, black wall in Washington, D.C. I saw this man save my life."

— Fred Short

"I can still see him now, standing in the doorway of the pilothouse, firing his M-16, shouting orders through the smoke and chaos . . . Even wounded, or confronting sights no man should ever have to see, he never lost his cool.

I had to sit on my hands [after a firefight], I was shaking so hard . . . He went to every man on that boat and put his arm around them and asked them how they're doing. I've never had an officer do that before or since. That's the mettle of the man, John Kerry."

— David Alston

"What I saw back then [in Vietnam] was a guy with genuine caring and leadership ability who was aggressive when he had to be. What I see now is a guy who's not afraid to tackle tough issues. And he knows what the consequences are of putting people's kids in harm's way."

— James Wasser

Many of Kerry's Vietnam commanders and fellow officers also continue to speak positively of him:

Navy records, fitness reports by Kerry's commanders and scores of interviews with Swift boat officers and crewmen depict a model officer who fought aggressively in river ambushes and won the respect of many of his crewmates and commanders, even as his doubts about the war grew.

"I don't like what he said after the war," said Adrian Lonsdale, who commanded Kerry for three months in 1969. "But he was a good naval officer."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I don't know what conclusions you can draw about someone's ability to lead from their combat experience, but John's service was commendable," said James J. Galvin, a former Swift boat officer . . . "He played by the same rules we all did."

There are also discrepancies between how some of them described Kerry thirty-five years ago and how they describe him today suggest that their opinions are largely based upon political differences rather than objective assessments of Kerry's military record.

For example, Rear Admiral Roy Hoffman is quoted above, yet the Los Angeles Times reported:

. . . Hoffman and Kerry had few direct dealings in Vietnam. A Los Angeles Times examination of Navy archives found that Hoffman praised Kerry's performance in cabled messages after several river skirmishes.


Just read it, and please try to be openminded.

-A

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Kefka
“Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we,” Bush said. “They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.”

I'm starting to wonder if this is another Bushism or him speaking the truth from his heart. You can't make a (good) defense without knowing what the offense is going to be. Le duh.

Where's Edine's signature when we actually need it: two people, one thing, seen completely differently.

[Meos]

http://johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com/

And, Good post Ilvane.

[Edited on 8-5-2004 by Meos]

[Kefka]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by Kefka
“Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we,” Bush said. “They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.”

I'm starting to wonder if this is another Bushism or him speaking the truth from his heart. You can't make a (good) defense without knowing what the offense is going to be. Le duh.

Where's Edine's signature when we actually need it: two people, one thing, seen completely differently.

Or it could mean he's looking for new ways to harm this country also.

[Slider]

Personally, I don't want either one of them in office. Bush's handling of the war in Iraq was miserable, and his post-war dealings make no sense what-so-ever. I mean, this is a country that makes billions on oil revenues a year, and we give them 75 million to rebuild? And while we are speaking of Vietnam, sure seems like a lot of the mistakes that where made there are being repeated in post-war Iraq.

On the other hand, Kerry, to be quite honest, scares the hell out of me. His plan to put our troops under U.N. control, NOT U.S. mind you, but U.N. leadership seems a sure fire plan for the U.N. to put our people on the ground all over the world, and gives them the right to do so. After 14 years in the military, the thought that i might go from defending my country to doing whatever the U.N. told me to do, and not even being in the U.S. Navy, but the U.N. Navy, well...it's not what i signed on for.

So, for me...i think in this election I will be voting for C...none of the above...

[Kefka]

I think I missed that speech. When did Kerry mention putting our troops under U.N. control?

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Ilvane
I don't understand why you can't just answer my question. If Bush is so much better, why are we having all these terrorist threats, and we are having elevated levels of security for everything? Are we really safer?



I feel Bush took us to Afganistan and Iraq for a reason... to get the enemy where they live and breed and get the threat at the source. Not the most popular decision.. but one I stand by. He does have a duty to protect the citizens from these type of attacks and I believe that he has done everything in his power to ensure we are protected.

Are we safer today than we were on 9-10-01? I believe so. I believe Bush has brought about many changes that 3 years later we simply take for granted today. Does more need to be done? Damn right they do. Ports need to be more secure, trains need bomb detection equipment, large buildings need anti-car bomb barracades put around them, etc...

I simply don't believe someone with the most liberal voting record in the senate will make these necessary changes take place. Liberalists are all about the individual rights above all else.. and I simply don't believe this is the time to worry about hurting someone's feelings right now when we are talking about the security of this nation.

I fully support the Terrorists bill and the broad power given to the US Government right now. If they need this power to make sure my neighborhood won't have a dirty bomb exploded in it next week.. then dammit they should have it. Sorry if a couple of crooks get caught in the process.. boo hoo.

[Prestius]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
[
I feel Bush took us to Afganistan and Iraq for a reason... to get the enemy where they live and breed and get the threat at the source. Not the most popular decision.. but one I stand by. He does have a duty to protect the citizens from these type of attacks and I believe that he has done everything in his power to ensure we are protected.

It's interesting PB, because as far apart as you and I are in the political spectrum in a lot of ways we are not all that far apart. Like you I agree that attacking Afghanistan was a good thing. Where we part company was when Bush took that big wrong turn into Iraq. You think Iraq was about the war on terrorists, I think Iraq was the fulfillment of a long term neocon pipedream that not only had nothing at all to do with terrorists, it actually weakened our fight by taking resources away from the fight we should be fighting. I think it was one of the biggest frauds ever perpetrated on the American people.




Are we safer today than we were on 9-10-01? I believe so. I believe Bush has brought about many changes that 3 years later we simply take for granted today. Does more need to be done? Damn right they do. Ports need to be more secure, trains need bomb detection equipment, large buildings need anti-car bomb barracades put around them, etc...

I'm with you on the need for better security at home. I happen to think that Bush's invasion of Iraq took resources away from that and made us less safe, but I do think that things have been put in place since 9-11 that have made us safer.



I simply don't believe someone with the most liberal voting record in the senate will make these necessary changes take place. Liberalists are all about the individual rights above all else.. and I simply don't believe this is the time to worry about hurting someone's feelings right now when we are talking about the security of this nation.

Your understanding of what a liberal is has obviously been formed by listening to far too many dittohead conservative wacko commentators. Seriously, Rush, Sean, etc wouldn't know an actual liberal if it came and hit them in the head. Suffice it to say that despite them getting it very wrong, radical conservatives have done an excellent job of redefining the definition of what it means to be liberal.



I fully support the Terrorists bill and the broad power given to the US Government right now. If they need this power to make sure my neighborhood won't have a dirty bomb exploded in it next week.. then dammit they should have it. Sorry if a couple of crooks get caught in the process.. boo hoo.

The problem is, PB .. when does it end? The "War on Terror" as it's been defined has no END. Therefore these are not just temporary changes needed in time of war, they are permanent erosions of our personal freedoms.

-P

[Latrinsorm]

One can't be free and safe. The people asked for safety, and it was given to them.

[Parkbandit]

Give me an alternative Prestius. Tell me how we should protect this country and also keep all the same freedoms that we enjoyed prior to 9-11

My freedom wasn't changed essentially... but then again, I'm not a criminal or terrorist.. so I won't notice it.

[xtc]

“Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”

This has been attributed to both Benjamin Franklin and Richard Jackson but most experts agree it was said by Franklin


Al Qaeda wasn’t in Iraq prior the American invasion. The CIA knew and articulated this. The only legal reason to go into Iraq was if Iraq was in violation of UN resolution 1441. The resolution bans Iraq from having weapons of mass destruction and missiles that fly farther then 500 miles. Neither has been found.

Bush is nuts the man thinks he has a mandate from God to reshape the Middle East. Like most fundamentalist Christians he believes that Israel must remain in tact in order for Christ to come again. Yet it is our blind devotion to this theocracy that puts at us greatest risk from Al Qaeda. America is not a safer under George W Bush.

Now Kerry is another cretin, I think his domestic policy stinks. I think he will be bad for the economy. He is far too much of a left leaning liberal for me and the man flip flops like a fish.

Regarding US troops under UN control: It is my understanding that when troops of any nation wear the UN uniform this means they are under UN control. I don’t see what the big deal is. If we expect the other nations to follow the rule of International law isn’t it up to us to set a good example?

As to whom I would vote for? C/ None of the above

[Ilvane]

If Bush was more concentrated on Afghanistan, I would probably have a lot more respect for him. Instead, he tried to find a way to link Iraq to it, on faulty intelligence, and went to war under false pretenses. He also went to finish his fathers business there.

I saw a survey of the senate, by the way PB, that said that John Kerry was 21 or 22 as far as being liberal in the senate. I'll have to find the study, based on his votes.

We are not all a bunch of crazy liberals here in Boston, but as far as social programs, environment, health care and education, I'm proud to be called a liberal.;)

-A

[Back]

Interesting article. Sorry for the length. I just wanted to bold up the points that stood out to me.

Anti-Kerry veterans group releases critical ad (http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/05/kerry.veterans/index.html)

Anti-Kerry veterans group releases critical ad
Bush campaign distances itself from commercial

Friday, August 6, 2004 Posted: 1353 GMT (2153 HKT)
Larry Thurlow is one of the Vietnam veterans featured in an anti-Kerry ad released this week.
(CNN) -- A veterans group that has been sharply critical of Sen. John Kerry launched an ad Thursday that accuses the Democratic presidential nominee of lying about his Vietnam war record.

"John Kerry betrayed the men and women he served with in Vietnam," former Lt. Shelton White, one of the veterans, says in the ad.

Kerry's campaign quickly pointed out that not one of the men featured in the commercial served in the two patrol boats Kerry commanded in Vietnam and that some of them had previously been quoted as praising Kerry.

Kerry's campaign also released material noting that the group has gotten some financial backing from Bob Perry, a homebuilder in Houston, Texas, who is a contributor to the Republican Party. (Texan, GOP donor helps finance anti-Kerry veterans group)

President Bush's re-election campaign distanced itself from the ad. Campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt said the president's re-election effort "has never and will never question John Kerry's service in Vietnam. The election will be about the future."

And, in an interview with The Associated Press, Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona -- a former prisoner of war in Vietnam -- denounced the ad as "dishonest and dishonorable."(McCain condemns anti-Kerry ad)

McCain told the AP the ad was "the same kind of deal they pulled on me" during his 2000 presidential race, when the Arizona lawmaker ran against Bush in the Republican presidential primaries.

At the time, McCain's backers accused Bush allies of using telephone surveys to spread rumors about McCain. The Bush campaign said it knew nothing about the tactics and couldn't do anything about them.

In response to McCain's criticism, the veterans group released a statement saying it had "the right to be heard" and asserting the veterans knew Kerry better than McCain.

The ad comes from a group that calls itself Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. It comprises more than 220 veterans from the naval units in which Kerry served in 1968-69.

Kerry led a pair of high-speed, 50-foot crafts, known as swift boats, that patrolled the Mekong Delta to disrupt Viet Cong supply lines.

In the commercial, former sailors accuse Kerry of lying to receive two of his combat decorations, a Purple Heart and the Bronze Star, and criticize his anti-war activism after he returned home from Vietnam.

Kerry also received a Silver Star for valor in combat and two other Purple Hearts during his service on the swift boats in Vietnam.

Larry Thurlow, a member of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth who appears in the ad, told CNN that Kerry's boat fled from a mine blast that damaged another vessel in a March 1969 incident for which Kerry won the Bronze Star.

"Our boats immediately put automatic weapons fire onto the left bank in case there was an ambush in conjunction with the mine," said Thurlow, a Navy officer in a nearby boat at the time. "It soon became apparent there was no ambush."

But Jim Rassman, the man whose rescue from the water in that incident resulted in Kerry being decorated, said Thurlow "has a very unusual recollection of events."

"I was receiving fire in the water every time I came up for air," said Rassman, who has campaigned for Kerry since January.

The Navy's own letter awarding Kerry the Bronze Star also appears to be at odds with what the anti-Kerry group asserts.

The letter states Kerry exhibited "great personal courage under fire" in rescuing Rassman, an Army Green Beret officer who recommended Kerry for the decoration.

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is registered as an independent "527" committee, named for the section of the federal tax code under which similar groups are organized. Its contributors include several major Republican donors.

Kerry, now a U.S. senator from Massachusetts, has made his Vietnam record a major theme of his presidential campaign.

At a Washington conference of minority journalists Thursday, he said the country needs a president "who understands the test before you send young people to war."

When Kerry accepted the Democrats' presidential nomination last week, 14 of his former crewmates appeared on stage with him, and Rassman spoke of how Kerry had saved his life in Vietnam.

In Columbus, Ohio, where the president was traveling Thursday, Bush spokesman Scott McClellan cast the commercial as a product of "unregulated soft money activity."

"We will not and have not questioned Sen. Kerry's service record in Vietnam," he said. "This is another example of the problem of unregulated soft money."

The president, he said, "thought he got rid of all of this when he signed the McCain-Feingold bill [regulating campaign financing] into law," adding, "This should all be stopped. It does nothing to elevate the discourse."

The Bush press secretary said he "hopes the Kerry campaign will join us in calling for an end to all unregulated ads."

Asked whether the campaign will demand the ad be pulled from the air, he said, "We are calling for a cessation of all unregulated ads and hope the Kerry campaign will join us."

CNN's Jill Dougherty contributed to this report.

[Ilvane]

I'm tired of hearing about Kerry being a flip-flopper when Bush is really good at doing that himself.

This is a good link, from a notable Democratic site. :)
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=42263

-A

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Ilvane
If Bush was more concentrated on Afghanistan, I would probably have a lot more respect for him. Instead, he tried to find a way to link Iraq to it, on faulty intelligence, and went to war under false pretenses. He also went to finish his fathers business there.

I saw a survey of the senate, by the way PB, that said that John Kerry was 21 or 22 as far as being liberal in the senate. I'll have to find the study, based on his votes.

We are not all a bunch of crazy liberals here in Boston, but as far as social programs, environment, health care and education, I'm proud to be called a liberal.;)

-A

Depending on what 'study' you find... most of the reputable ones show Kerry as the most liberal... even bigger than drunk Ted.

[Ilvane]

It was from UPenn, I'll have to look into it later when I get home.

-A

[Back]

Originally posted by Ilvane
I'm tired of hearing about Kerry being a flip-flopper when Bush is really good at doing that himself.

This is a good link, from a notable Democratic site. :)
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=42263

-A

Great link. Yes, its on a Democratic site, but every statement has a source. (the date at the end of each statement0

Thats how Democrats play it for the most part, with facts, not scrounging for things to distort like Republicans do.

[Parkbandit]

Dear Backlash;

You DO realize the Kerry campaign.. with the help of some 527 groups... has 10x the number of commercials putting down Bush.. right?

Tell me you didn't see any of the bullshit MoveOn.org commercials.

Oh wait.. you didn't have a problem with them. Of course not.

I personally believe that all those 527 groups should be banned from any sort of advertising during a Presidential campaign.

[Back]

Dear PB,

Despite what you may think about me, PB, I'm not some noob in the park.

Of course the Kerry campaign has ads that criticize Bush based on FACTS, thats what candidates do. And yes I know about MoveOn.org and their distortions.

I don't mind the "soft money" ads, but I do mind they aren't always factual. Here is a petition (http://whitehousewest.com/) asking the FCC to make sure all political ads, no matter who produces them, be scrutinized for for the truth and not allow decietful ads.

Love and kisses,
Backlash

PS. Don't put words or anything else in my mouth.

[Ilvane]

Moveon.org can go a little too far. I really enjoy the commercials that are issue attacks, because those are fair game, when someone is trying to make a point that they are different than the other canditate. What Bush and some of the Republican groups do is make personal attacks on the one running against them, rather than running on the real issues at hand.

-A

[Parkbandit]

I wish I could play in your little fantasy world where Kerry and his campaign does nothing wrong and Bush does nothing right.

[Kefka]

You forgot this article:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/08/06/veteran_retracts_criticism_of_kerry/


WASHINGTON -- A week after Senator John F. Kerry heralded his wartime experience by surrounding himself at the Democratic convention with his Vietnam ''Band of Brothers," a separate group of veterans has launched a television ad campaign and a book that questions the basis for some of Kerry's combat medals.

But yesterday, a key figure in the anti-Kerry campaign, Kerry's former commanding officer, backed off one of the key contentions. Lieutenant Commander George Elliott said in an interview that he had made a ''terrible mistake" in signing an affidavit that suggests Kerry did not deserve the Silver Star -- one of the main allegations in the book. The affidavit was given to The Boston Globe by the anti-Kerry group to justify assertions in their ad and book.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Ilvane
I'm tired of hearing about Kerry being a flip-flopper when Bush is really good at doing that himself.I'll (can't speak for the other Bush supporters) stop calling Kerry a flip-flopper if you stop calling Bush dumb. Deal?

(p.s: the site would be a lot more effective if more than 24% of it was Bush vs. Bush, as opposed to Bush vs. UCS or Bush vs. Salon)

[Back]

Wanted to post this site, FactCheck.org (http://www.factcheck.org/default.aspx). Been watching it for a while now. I'm pretty confident they are truly non-partisan. They've busted MoveOn.org's ads, as well as some Republican ads.

Check out the archives. They cut through the spin and give you the real deal.

[Ilvane]

I like factcheck.org myself. I use it a lot as a source. And the do go both sides of the issues and call them both on exaggerations, or things that aren't true at all, flat out.

-A

[Slider]

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=222

For those of you that still think that Bush lied in his State of the Union address about Iraq's attempts to get nuclear material from Niger

A British intelligence review released July 14 calls Bush’s 16 words “well founded.”
A separate report by the US Senate Intelligence Committee said July 7 that the US also had similar information from “a number of intelligence reports,” a fact that was classified at the time Bush spoke.
Ironically, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who later called Bush’s 16 words a “lie”, supplied information that the Central Intelligence Agency took as confirmation that Iraq may indeed have been seeking uranium from Niger .
Both the US and British investigations make clear that some forged Italian documents, exposed as fakes soon after Bush spoke, were not the basis for the British intelligence Bush cited, or the CIA's conclusion that Iraq was trying to get uranium.


So, from your own site that you recomend, it sure looked like what Bush said was not a lie, and at the time, was based on good intelligence, both from the CIA and British Intelligence. Or would any of you like to point out wich crystal ball he should have been using to discover the truth?

As far as WMD in Iraq? How 'bout this...go ask the Kurds that he used Saren nerve gas against if he had them, hmmm? Or perhaps the Iranians that he used mustard gas (as well as other Chemical weapons against) if he had them. Remember folks, he had 8+ YEARS after the first war to hide the stuff...i mean, go back and read the news articles about his refusal to let U.N. weapon inspectors into suspected manufacturing sites, that is, untill a convoy of trucks left the site, then it was "sure, come on in and inspect...nothing to hide here". And think about this as well....the border to Syria is how far away? And how many of his Cabinet members where heading there before they got caught?

And one last thing...notice that the WMD not being found has suddenly become a moot point in the News? When's the last time it was brought up? If they where found...oh...lets say...buried out in the middle of the desert somewhere....like some planes that HAVE been found...would you REALLY like it if it was reported in the News that there where such weapons lying around out there...and no one knew where? Al Queda would sure like to get ahold of a few of them i would imagine...and any number of other Terrorist orginizations as well...so suddenly, it becomes a "null issue" in the campaign of both Bush and Kerry...

Maybe i'm being a tad paranoid...but you really want to risk it?

[Warriorbird]

You know, ironically... when I read the real reasons we went to Iraq... I'm not all that against them. I am against the massive game of bait and switch that was pulled on the American public.

[Celtic]

My God, Ilvane... Prestius...

Do either of you even bother to read about something before going on and restating move-on.org's bs?

Swiftboats are a UNIT. You live, eat, play, buy 8mm cameras together. You co-habitate through each of the mobile bases that they create as they go down a river or creek.

These men, all 325 of them at the onset, knew one another intimately. Their commander rose to the rank of rear adm.

I'm telling you all right now. Should Bush some how lose this election, and I havn't lost faith in the American people to think that it would happen, but even a blind squirrel can find an acorn, I am going to remove every penny I have in my investments, sell my house, quit my job, and find a nice little island to live on until someone else is re-elected or the country is destroyed in a nuclear explosion because Kerry is over "being sensitive" HIS WORDS to the needs of those trying to kill us.

Incredible. Why do I read these threads?!?!?

[Warriorbird]

Open yer eyes up a bit. They're both damn well frightening. That makes me sad...but hey, that's politics.

[Back]

Originally posted by Celtic
My God, Ilvane... Prestius...

Do either of you even bother to read about something before going on and restating move-on.org's bs?

Swiftboats are a UNIT. You live, eat, play, buy 8mm cameras together. You co-habitate through each of the mobile bases that they create as they go down a river or creek.

These men, all 325 of them at the onset, knew one another intimately. Their commander rose to the rank of rear adm.

I'm telling you all right now. Should Bush some how lose this election, and I havn't lost faith in the American people to think that it would happen, but even a blind squirrel can find an acorn, I am going to remove every penny I have in my investments, sell my house, quit my job, and find a nice little island to live on until someone else is re-elected or the country is destroyed in a nuclear explosion because Kerry is over "being sensitive" HIS WORDS to the needs of those trying to kill us.

Incredible. Why do I read these threads?!?!?

Democrats want to kill you dead. You love it.

[StrayRogue]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
You know, ironically... when I read the real reasons we went to Iraq... I'm not all that against them. I am against the massive game of bait and switch that was pulled on the American public.

Totally agree. Its good that Saddam was gone now, however, I still disagree totally with the conduct of how the war was started and the false pretenses many people were decieved by in the support of the war.

[Ilvane]

Celtic, I personally find the thought of another 4 years of President Bush entirely as frightening as you do of 4 years of Kerry.

Bush has done so many things to make us look bad, created an immense deficit, employment is down, people are angry at us all over the world, polluters have been given breaks on environmental policies, his mislead us on reasons for going to war with Iraq, has been calling people who don't agree with the war "unpatriotic" and "Un-American", and given tax breaks to the rich.

What I want to know is what is go great about Bush, that he should be re-elected. Whenever I seem to ask that question, no one can seem to answer it. What has he done that has made America better, more safe, and more successful?

-A

[Jack]

Originally posted by Kefka
You forgot this article:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/08/06/veteran_retracts_criticism_of_kerry/


WASHINGTON -- A week after Senator John F. Kerry heralded his wartime experience by surrounding himself at the Democratic convention with his Vietnam ''Band of Brothers," a separate group of veterans has launched a television ad campaign and a book that questions the basis for some of Kerry's combat medals.

But yesterday, a key figure in the anti-Kerry campaign, Kerry's former commanding officer, backed off one of the key contentions. Lieutenant Commander George Elliott said in an interview that he had made a ''terrible mistake" in signing an affidavit that suggests Kerry did not deserve the Silver Star -- one of the main allegations in the book. The affidavit was given to The Boston Globe by the anti-Kerry group to justify assertions in their ad and book.

And you forgot this one.

ANTI-KERRY VETS HANG TOUGH
Fri Aug 06 2004 13:37:12 ET

The following statement from Swift Boat Veterans for Truth concerns an article appearing in morning edition of the BOSTON GLOBE, written by GLOBE reporter and author of the official Kerry-Edwards campaign book, Mike Kranish.

"Captain George Elliott describes an article appearing in today’s edition of the BOSTON GLOBE by Mike Kranish as extremely inaccurate and highly misstating his actual views. He reaffirms his statement in the current advertisement paid for by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Captain Elliott reaffirms his affidavit in support of that advertisement, and he reaffirms his request that the ad be played.

“Additional documentation will follow.

"The article by Mr. Kranish is particularly surprising given page 102 of Mr. Kranish’s own book quoting John Kerry as acknowledging that he killed a single, wounded, fleeing Viet Cong soldier whom he was afraid would turn around.

"Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has more than 250 supporters who are revealing first hand, eyewitness accounts of numerous incidents concerning John Kerry’s military service record. The organization will continue to discuss much of what John Kerry has reported as fact concerning his four-month tour of duty in Vietnam."

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash5.htm

[Slider]

Ilvane, what exactly are you talking about when you keep saying that Bush "mislead" us about his reasons for going to war? Did you bother to read my post at all, or did you just ignore it? Did you read the article that Factcheck.org did on it? Or did you ignore that too as worthless because it doesn't say what you want to hear?


To re-iterate, he had credible intelligence from more than one source that Iraq WAS looking to purchase uranium from Africa...not just one source, but multiple sources. Got it? On top of that, the Senate oversight comittee even agreed that he did...but still you seem to think that Bush has some "pipe dream" as you
call it about conquering Iraq? Why? And you completely ignored the fact that Saddam Hussein HAS in the past used WMD both against the Kurds in northern Iraq, and during the Iran-Iraq war. Again, why? Just because you don't agree with the war is no reason to ignore the facts.

As far as the way America is veiwed i got news for ya, America has been unpopuler all over the world since, hell...FDR? Bashing America seems to be a daily occurence in the European press, and we have never been populer in the Middle East. Oh, and i can say this because for the past 14 years i have been travelling all over Europe, including France, Spain, Germany, and England, not to mention the Persian Gulf and North Africa. But somehow it's all "Bush's fault" Even when he wasn't President. Right?

About the only thing you said that I did agree with was the deficit that we have now and his lack of a decent Domestic policy. And i will even agree with you that his policy decisions in post-war Iraq have been..well...to be honest, moronic. A country that makes BILLIONS a month in oil revenues needs our money to rebuild? I don't think so.


But if you look back at the numbers as far as unemployement goes, and i mean go and look it up, not just take my word for it, or the medias word for it, but go find out for yourself, you might be surprised to see that Clinton's and Bush's numbers are damn near the same on the unemployement rate. Of course, he didn't have a hostile media constantly slamming everything he did, did he?

[Edited on 8-7-2004 by Slider]

[Ilvane]

Clinton actually created jobs in his administration, and he also had been paying down the national debt.

Anyway..I did read your information. Bush was given the 'credible' information, and was also told before he did his State of the Union speech that some of it may not be good intelligence. He chose to use it anyway.

So do I still feel the same way, yes.

-A

[Artha]

Clinton actually created jobs in his administration, and he also had been paying down the national debt.

The tech bubble created jobs during the Clinton administration.

[Ilvane]

So if there was some sort of bubble while Bush was in office, would it not have counted either?

-A

[Artha]

Correct.

[Prestius]

Originally posted by Celtic
My God, Ilvane... Prestius...

Do either of you even bother to read about something before going on and restating move-on.org's bs?

Swiftboats are a UNIT. You live, eat, play, buy 8mm cameras together. You co-habitate through each of the mobile bases that they create as they go down a river or creek.

These men, all 325 of them at the onset, knew one another intimately. Their commander rose to the rank of rear adm.

I'm telling you all right now. Should Bush some how lose this election, and I havn't lost faith in the American people to think that it would happen, but even a blind squirrel can find an acorn, I am going to remove every penny I have in my investments, sell my house, quit my job, and find a nice little island to live on until someone else is re-elected or the country is destroyed in a nuclear explosion because Kerry is over "being sensitive" HIS WORDS to the needs of those trying to kill us.

Incredible. Why do I read these threads?!?!?

Move On, eh? Hey, I know that you Repubs have O'Reilly and CNS to do you thinking for you but I honestly never read it.

But hey .. we can talk Swift Boats and who saw what all you want. Kerry was *there*. He did the kind of call to duty that the Repubs can only dream of. Bush pussed out.

So .. yeah .. maybe Rassman got pulled in from the left side of the boat and not the right .. and maybe the fire came from the other bank of the river - but who cares? While Kerry was in the MeKong delta, what was Bush doing?


-P

[Edited on 8-7-2004 by Prestius]

[Celtic]

Prestius said : "While Kerry was in the MeKong delta, what was Bush doing?"

He was in the national guard. But at least he served. What was Clinton doing? LOL

Dude, I don't give a rats ass what either of them was doing, I am sick and tired of Kerry's proven lies and flip-flops.

Did Bush lie to the American People? From the evidence presented even at the 9-11 commission I concluded that he, BUSH, was misled by Tenent and some of the others in the intelligence community.

I am not a fan of war. But Prestius, I lived in NYC. I saw, with horror the images of these sick people flying our airplanes into the twin towers and those images will forever be in my head. To think of those people on both the planes, in the towers, I thank GOD that HE was able to save as many as he did. 3000 people died that day, and that day I wished every radical muslim dead. I still feel as strongly about it today as I did then.

Did Iraq have something to do with 9/11? Other then allowing training from 1996 through 2000 on their soil, no. Did Iraq have WMD? Yes, and they find more and of the weapons every day. Read Reuters. Not two weeks ago we found 11 missles buried under 6" of concrete all set to receive nuclear devices. Every day we find mortar shells, artillery shells all laced with saren gas.

I will tell you this, if Kerry is elected, we are in serious shit. Our taxes will triple. We will be attacked at will and this guy will be too busy kissing France, Germany's ass and begging permission for us to retaliate.

My god, are you all just blind?

[Kefka]

Originally posted by Jack

Originally posted by Kefka
You forgot this article:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/08/06/veteran_retracts_criticism_of_kerry/


WASHINGTON -- A week after Senator John F. Kerry heralded his wartime experience by surrounding himself at the Democratic convention with his Vietnam ''Band of Brothers," a separate group of veterans has launched a television ad campaign and a book that questions the basis for some of Kerry's combat medals.

But yesterday, a key figure in the anti-Kerry campaign, Kerry's former commanding officer, backed off one of the key contentions. Lieutenant Commander George Elliott said in an interview that he had made a ''terrible mistake" in signing an affidavit that suggests Kerry did not deserve the Silver Star -- one of the main allegations in the book. The affidavit was given to The Boston Globe by the anti-Kerry group to justify assertions in their ad and book.

And you forgot this one.

ANTI-KERRY VETS HANG TOUGH
Fri Aug 06 2004 13:37:12 ET

The following statement from Swift Boat Veterans for Truth concerns an article appearing in morning edition of the BOSTON GLOBE, written by GLOBE reporter and author of the official Kerry-Edwards campaign book, Mike Kranish.

"Captain George Elliott describes an article appearing in today’s edition of the BOSTON GLOBE by Mike Kranish as extremely inaccurate and highly misstating his actual views. He reaffirms his statement in the current advertisement paid for by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Captain Elliott reaffirms his affidavit in support of that advertisement, and he reaffirms his request that the ad be played.

“Additional documentation will follow.

"The article by Mr. Kranish is particularly surprising given page 102 of Mr. Kranish’s own book quoting John Kerry as acknowledging that he killed a single, wounded, fleeing Viet Cong soldier whom he was afraid would turn around.

"Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has more than 250 supporters who are revealing first hand, eyewitness accounts of numerous incidents concerning John Kerry’s military service record. The organization will continue to discuss much of what John Kerry has reported as fact concerning his four-month tour of duty in Vietnam."

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash5.htm

Wow. So you're comparing an official news site to a right wing, straight from the dumpster, blog site?

[Kefka]

<<Did Iraq have WMD? Yes, and they find more and of the weapons every day. Read Reuters. Not two weeks ago we found 11 missles buried under 6" of concrete all set to receive nuclear devices. Every day we find mortar shells, artillery shells all laced with saren gas. >>

http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20040721-081009-2541r.htm

A U.S. military spokesman in Tikrit told United Press International that the report was untrue.

"Nothing's been found. The report is not factual," said Master Sgt. Robert Cowens, a spokesman for the 1st Infantry Division, based in Tikrit.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Celtic
My god, are you all just blind? There's at least 5 staunch Bush supporters besides you. So, that's a "no".

[Jack]

Originally posted by Kefka

Wow. So you're comparing an official news site to a right wing, straight from the dumpster, blog site?

So maybe you'd belive the letter sent by the swift boat vets themselves to various Television stations regarding the article in the Globe? Here it is:

Re: Swift Boat Veterans For Truth

Dear Station Manager:

The Kerry Campaign has continued its effort to prevent our voice from being heard. You were presented with an article from Kerry's hometown newspaper, The Boston Globe, written by Michael Kranish, Kerry's biographer, claiming that Captain Elliott had withdrawn his affidavit and disavowed the ad. This is totally false.

Enclosed is Captain Elliott's affidavit executed this morning after the false Globe story.

Captain Elliott affirms his original affidavit; affirms his ad statement; and adds additional detail. In the ad, Captain Elliott says that Kerry was not honest about his service in Vietnam. This is indisputably true.

The use of a surprise false article to strike pending ads represents a new low in ambush journalism.

Very truly yours,

John E. O'Neill

JEO/cas

Enclosure

http://www.swiftvets.com/article.php?story=20040806153208686

And if that isn't good enough for you, perhaps a signed, and notorized affidavit From Captain Elliott reaffirming his previous statements?

http://www.swiftvets.com/Elliottaffidavit08062004.pdf

[Ilvane]

Celtic, I wish some Republicans would remember that it wasn't Iraq that attacked the world trade center, it was BinLaden and his compadres who are in Afghanistan.

Sorry, but why is it that only after people questioned the weapons of mass destruction did Bush say Al Queda started training in Iraq?? They started coming there when we attacked Iraq and didn't have a plan afterwards. The whole place is filled with terrorists there now, because there is no definitive direction in the government, or sense of safety or law.

Where does it say that John Kerry is going to raise taxes three times? He's actually going to raise taxes on the rich, back to where it was before. They shouldn't be getting tax breaks. The economy is not growing much, no matter what they are saying. The deficit, the war, the slow job growth, it all makes a difference in the economy. We have so many people without healthcare in this country that we have a crisis in America's emergency rooms, and the doctors are forced to charge more and more since there are no protections for them. Bush isn't exactly working on that either. Oddly enough, he's making sure Iraqi's are getting health care. What about our hundreds of thousands in this country in the same predicament?

Okay, here is something else on the Swift boats, I was reading it on factcheck.org.

~~~~~
A Terrible Mistake"

Several of those who appear in the ad have signed brief affidavits, and we have posted some of them in the "supporting documents" section to the right for our visitors to evaluate for themselves. However, one of those affidavits already has been recanted by the man who signed it, Lieutenant Commander George Elliott, who had been Kerry's commanding officer. Elliott was quoted by the Boston Globe Aug 6 as saying he had made a "terrible mistake" in signing the affidavit against Kerry.

George Elliott: It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words. I'm the one in trouble here. . . . I knew it was wrong . . . In a hurry I signed it and faxed it back. That was a mistake.

The statement Elliott now says was wrong had suggested that Kerry did not deserve the Silver Star -- his highest decoration -- which was awarded for an incident in which Kerry beached his boat and then pursued and killed an enemy soldier on the shore. 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.

It was Elliott who recommended Kerry both for the Silver Star and for the Bronze Star, his other decoration for valor. Despite recanting his affidavit regarding the Silver Star, Elliott told the Globe he has come to believe Kerry didn't deserve the second award, based on what the other anti-Kerry veterans have told him.

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

~~~~~

I'm going to rest, I just finished singing at a wedding.

-A

[Edited on 8-7-2004 by Ilvane]

[Latrinsorm]

Ilvane, please read the post directly above yours.

[Ilvane]

I did read it, it seems that Elliot wants to play both sides of the fences.

:shrug:

Why would he recommend him and also give him props in 1996, get in touch with a bunch of guys who didn't serve on the boat with him, and then change his mind? Why wouldn't he talk to the guys who were on the boat with him, that confirmed that he did what was said in his citation?

Hmmm?

Could it be that it's funded by one of the biggest Republican donors in Texas? Couldn't have anything to do with it, huh?

-A

P.S. The source of the Swift Boat group's financing wasn't known when it first surfaced, but a report filed July 15 with the Internal Revenue Services now shows its initial funding came mainly from a Houston home builder, Bob R. Perry, who has also given millions to the Republican party and Republican candidates, mostly in Texas, including President Bush and Republican Majority Leader Tom DeLay, whose district is near Houston.

Perry gave $100,000 of the $158,750 received by the Swift Boat group through the end of June, according to its disclosure report .(Which is located at: http://forms.irs.gov/politicalOrgsSearch/search/Print.action?formId=13244&formType=E72)

Perry and his wife Doylene also gave more than $3 million to Texas Republicans during the 2002 elections, according to a database maintained by the Institute on Money in State Politics . The Perrys also were among the largest Republican donors in neighboring Louisiana, where they gave $200,000, and New Mexico, where they gave $183,000, according to the database

At the federal level the Perrys have given $359,825 since 1999, including $6,000 to Bush's campaigns and $27,325 to DeLay and his political action committee, Americans for a Republican Majority, according the a database maintained by the Center for Responsive Politics.

[Edited on 8-7-2004 by Ilvane]

[Jack]

He isn't playing both sides of the fence. The article in the Boston Globe was full of crap, and to prove it he signed an affidavit reaffirming his position the day after it came out. The author of the article in the the Boston Globe took statements out of context, along with a few minor fabrications to make it seem like Captain Elliot supported his own view point.

Read over the affidavit he signed. it makes things pretty damned clear.

[Edited on 8-7-2004 by Jack]

[Ilvane]

Wait Jack..he came and was campaigning with Kerry in 1996, said Kerry deserved his medal, and then changed his mind and said that Kerry didn't deserve his medal, then said he did deserve his medal, and he had made a mistake, then said he didn't deserve his medal again, and signed another affidafit.

So he's a reliable source, right?

-A

[Scott]

Originally posted by Ilvane
Wait Jack..he came and was campaigning with Kerry in 1996, said Kerry deserved his medal, and then changed his mind and said that Kerry didn't deserve his medal, then said he did deserve his medal, and he had made a mistake, then said he didn't deserve his medal again, and signed another affidafit.

So he's a reliable source, right?

-A

Kerry does the same thing, I guess that means he isn't reliable either?

[Jack]

Read the affidavit. His position never changed. He did not tell the reporter at the Globe that his position changed.

[Ilvane]

I'm sorry all the guys on his boat were there to support him. The one that was not there was not alive anymore. Read about those who were on the boat with him, and the guy who he pulled on board and saved his life..

Whatever you say, you can't take that away.

-A

[Jack]

He shot a wounded man in the back while he was running away, then put himself in for the silver star. Yep, he's a war hero all right.....

[Ravenstorm]

You do realize in a war you're not supposed to let people who want to kill you escape so they can try to kill you again? And if he had let him go? And the wounded, enemy soldier got to cover, turned and opened fire, killing several of them? Had that happened Bush's paid attack dogs would be on Kerry's case for that. Or calling him an enemy sympathizer if the guy had got away. Pathetic.

Raven

[Ilvane]

He shot a man that was running to get more weapons to blow up his boat, and did it to save the lives of his shipmates.

You know, even Bush says he doesn't dispute Kerry's service. Some of these attacks are pathetic and sad, and the simple truth is they are still angry that Kerry came back after the war and protested. Plain and simple.

It's a disgusting way of politics, and well..very similar to what the same group of ad makers did to McCain when he was running for president, questioning his mental stability.

They have nothing else to run on, so they resort to personal attacks.

-A

[Edited on 8-7-2004 by Ilvane]

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
You do realize in a war you're not supposed to let people who want to kill you escape so they can try to kill you again? And if he had let him go? And the wounded, enemy soldier got to cover, turned and opened fire, killing several of them? Had that happened Bush's paid attack dogs would be on Kerry's case for that. Or calling him an enemy sympathizer if the guy had got away. Pathetic.

Raven

Exactly. Take Saving Private Ryan for example. Shows what happens when you let the enemy go.



Originally posted by Ilvane
They have nothing else to run on, so they resort to personal attacks.

If by they you mean the swiftboat vets, then yes, they have nothing else to run on. They are only swiftboat vets, not politicians.

[Edited on 8-7-2004 by Hulkein]

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Ilvane

Some of these attacks are pathetic and sad, and the simple truth is they are still angry that Kerry came back after the war and protested. Plain and simple.

...

They have nothing else to run on, so they resort to personal attacks.

Bingo.

Raven

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Hulkein
Exactly. Take Saving Private Ryan for example. Shows what happens when you let the enemy go.

Never saw it actually. What happened?

Raven

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Ilvane
Wait Jack..he came and was campaigning with Kerry in 1996, said Kerry deserved his medal, and then changed his mind and said that Kerry didn't deserve his medal, then said he did deserve his medal, and he had made a mistake, then said he didn't deserve his medal again, and signed another affidafit.Here's what I see: Captain supports Kerry running for Senate.
Kerry campaigns for the Presidency.
Captain has a chat with a number of other guys who Kerry and he served with.
Captain changes his public stance on Kerry.
Boston Globe article is fabricated, Captain maintains his stance on Kerry.

Seems reliable to me.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
Never saw it actually. What happened?

Raven

They win a battle, kill all of the Germans but one guy, and instead of killing him the one interpreter begs for his life so they release him.

Later in the movie during a battle in a city he sneaks up behind one of the main characters and stabs him to death.

[Edited on 8-8-2004 by Hulkein]

[Jack]

I don't disagree that shooting the man was the best course of action. Writing himself up for a Silver Star for doing so? What is above and beyond the call of duty in this act? Where did he put his own life in danger? He should have been relived of command of his boat for it. He grounded his swift boat, jumped off the bow to chase down a wounded man, and shot him. He went against the standing Orders for Swift Boats by doing so. Grounding your boat, stopping your movement, endangers the boat, and it's crew. A Swift Boat relied on it's speed and manuverability for survival. Grounding the boat eliminates both.

[Ravenstorm]

That's for his superiors to decide. They obviously decided in favor of him.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/service.asp

No, snopes certainly isn't the definitive resource. But it is a handy summary. And who should I listen to? The testimony of people who actually served with him on his boat or the ones who didn't who are angry that he broke the military's equivalent of the 'blue wall of silence'?

I can see how those who support Bush absolutely must believe Kerry didn't do shit in Viet Nam. One of the few ways to make Bush look good is to try to bring Kerry down to a lower level. Gods know there's nothing else in his favor.

Raven

Actually, I'll amend that statement. Bush also did excellently with Afghanistan. And had he stayed on the program in taking down Al Quaeda instead of goign into Iraq, he would probably be a shoe in for reelection. Not that I'd like him but I wouldn't quite loathe him as much as I do.

[Edited on 8-8-2004 by Ravenstorm]

[Ilvane]

From CNN:

Playing golf
Inundated with calls to verify the statement, Elliott grew media shy and said through his wife he would not talk. Earlier in the day, Mrs. Elliott said her husband was playing golf and would call back when he returned in the afternoon.

Elliott later issued another affidavit -- witnessed and notarized -- this time saying he was misquoted by the Globe and reaffirming his belief that Kerry has "not been honest about what happened in Vietnam."

Elliott also wrote: "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."

Martin Baron, editor of The Boston Globe, said in a statement: "Regarding George Elliott's statements on John Kerry's military service, which ran in the Globe this morning, the Globe stands by the article. The quotes attributed to Mr. Elliott were on the record and absolutely accurate."

Next week the group will step up its campaign against the candidate with a book, "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry."

Veterans supporting Kerry called the ad a "smear campaign" and two whose lives were saved by Kerry hit back.

"What these people have said is not true and a lot of it is grossly inaccurate," said James Rassmann, who has appeared at many campaign appearances with the candidate.

"These gentlemen appear to be making this up as they go along and they are not keeping their stories straight," he said.

Fred Short, who also served with Kerry, said the ad shows "The Bush campaign has nothing to talk about, so they resort to these dirty tricks."

Meanwhile Republican Sen. John McCain, another Vietnam veteran, called the attack dishonorable and dishonest.

The Bush administration distanced itself from the advertisement Thursday but did not condemn it. "We have not and we will not question Sen. Kerry's service in Vietnam," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan.

[Parkbandit]

Boston Globe is to Democrats as the Drudge Report is to the Republicans. Neither one should be used as a source.

The difference is.. the Boston Globe actually denies it political affiliation and thus is a bigger fraud.

And Celtic.. you are wasting your breath. Far too many people are living in the 9-10-01 world and are either oblivious or ignorant of the way the world works today.

[Kefka]

George Elliot

Was Elliott Honest in 1996 When He Said This of Kerry?
"The fact that he chased an armed enemy down is not something not to be looked down upon but it was an act of courage. And the whole outfit served with honor..."[T]here was no question that it was above and beyond anything that we had seen down there in that case at that time frame...It just so happened that this one was so outstanding that the Silver Star was eventually awarded." [Kerry Press Conference, 10/27/96]

In 1969, Elliott Wrote This to Describe John Kerry's Fitness as a SWIFT Boat Commander
"In a combat environment often requiring independent, decisive action, LTJG Kerry was unsurpassed. He constantly reviewed tactics and lessons learned in river operations and applied his experience at every opportunity. On one occasion, while in tactical command of a three boat operation his units were taken under fire from ambush. LTJG Kerry rapidly assessed the situation and ordered his units to turn directly into the ambush. This decision resulted in routing the attackers with several KIA. LTJG Kerry emerges as the acknowledged leader in his peer group. His bearing and appearance are above reproach. He has of his own volition learned the Vietnamese language and is instrumental in the successful Vietnamese training program. During the period of this report LTJG Kerry has been awarded the Silver Star medal, the Bronze Star medal, the Purple Heart medal (2nd and 3rd awards)."[U.S. Navy, Officer Fitness Report signed by George Elliott; 18, Dec 1969]

Elliott on Presenting Kerry the Silver Star: He Went "Above & Beyond the Call of Duty."
"The [Silver Star] ceremony [for John Kerry] was meant to be a morale booster,' Commander George Elliot recalled. 'We were trying to pay tribute to Kerry and the others for going above and beyond the call of duty. The Silver Star is always a big deal." [Tour of Duty, 2004, Brinkley; p. 294]

[Kefka]

Louis Letson - "I know John Kerry is lying about his first purple heart, because I treated him for that injury."

Letson Offers NO PROOF He Treated Kerry.
Despite Letson's claims to have treated Kerry, he is not listed on any document as having treated Kerry after the 12/2/68 firefight. Offering only an account of dates and places-which is readily available in Kerry's biography and media accounts-Lester has produced nothing to verify his treatment of Kerry.

Another Doctor Signed Kerry's Sick Call Sheet.
Regarding Dr. Letson's recollection of Mr. Kerry's wound, Michael Meehan, a campaign spokesman, noted that a different person, J. C. Carreon, had signed the "sick call sheet" summarizing treatment of the injury, and asked, "Who is this guy? How do we know that he was the doctor who treated him?" The aides produced several veterans to attest to Mr. Kerry's bona fides. [New York Times, 5/4/04]

Letson Didn't Record His Memories of Vietnam Until Kerry's Emergence in 2003.
"Letson says that last year, as the Democratic campaign began to heat up, he told friends that he remembered treating one of the candidates many years ago. In response to their questions, Letson says, he wrote down his recollections of the time." [National Review Online, 5/4/04]

[Prestius]

Originally posted by Celtic


Dude, I don't give a rats ass what either of them was doing, I am sick and tired of Kerry's proven lies and flip-flops.

As I've said before --- I don't care about it either. The ONLY reason it keeps coming up is because the Bush Campaign keeps BRINGING it up. Bush has a proven track record of doing some pretty nasty thiings to Vets who are running against him - look at the smear campaign used against McCain and Max Cleland. Does a war record from 30 years ago really matter all that much in a presidential election? Not really. Although - since we are currently at war - I'm thinking a guy who has actually seen battle might do a better job of leading the troops than one who spent his time protecting the bar and saloons in Florida, Georgia and Texas.


Did Bush lie to the American People? From the evidence presented even at the 9-11 commission I concluded that he, BUSH, was misled by Tenent and some of the others in the intelligence community.

And you ask me if *I'm* blind? Holy crap Celtic. Bush and his cronies have had a hard on for Iraq and Saddam for YEARS. Try looking up the PNAC sometime - and if you really are interested in how poor Bush got all that bad Intel, Google up "Office of Special Plans" and see what that gets you. Seriously. They wanted Iraq from day 1. 9-11 merely gave them the excuse. It was an unconscionable class-A hijack.


I am not a fan of war. But Prestius, I lived in NYC. I saw, with horror the images of these sick people flying our airplanes into the twin towers and those images will forever be in my head. To think of those people on both the planes, in the towers, I thank GOD that HE was able to save as many as he did. 3000 people died that day, and that day I wished every radical muslim dead. I still feel as strongly about it today as I did then.

Brother I am there wth you. And this is the part that I don't get - what makes you think that I feel any differently? What gives you the impression that the Repubs somehow have the monopoly on outrage over 9-11. I think we *still* should be going after every radical muslim out there right NOW. This is *exactly* why I think hitting Iraq was just the stupidest thing we could have done - shit why didn't we just bomb the fuck out of Mexico while we were at it - they had about as much connnection to al Quaeda and 9-11 as Saddam and Iraq.

I want us to hunt down those bastards just as badly as you do. But .. dude .. Afghanistan? Remember al Quaeda and and the Taliban? They're back! And with porous borders with Pakistan (a country with Nukes, BTW) perhaps we should be paying more attention there? And all the money we spent on getting Saddam - what about protecting our own country? Ports, chem plants, rails, airports, 1st responders, more eyes on the street.


Did Iraq have something to do with 9/11? Other then allowing training from 1996 through 2000 on their soil, no. Did Iraq have WMD? Yes, and they find more and of the weapons every day. Read Reuters. Not two weeks ago we found 11 missles buried under 6" of concrete all set to receive nuclear devices. Every day we find mortar shells, artillery shells all laced with saren gas.

Come on Celtic, you're smarter than that. Tehcnically what you say it true, but we're talking about going to WAR here. Pretty flimsy reasoning there. Osama thought Saddam was an infidel. If there was any training of al Quaeda in Iraq it was at the Northern border in an area NOT controlled by Saddam. That saren gas is *years* old. No what doubts he had it at one time. A bunker? What the hell happened to "they could strike within 45 minutes" - "don't let the smoking gun be a mushroom cloud".

I'm sorry - but it was one big fucking deception.



My god, are you all just blind?

I ask myself the same question about those who buy into the Bush plan.


Originally posted by Parkbandit

And Celtic.. you are wasting your breath. Far too many people are living in the 9-10-01 world and are either oblivious or ignorant of the way the world works today.

Yeah .. you keep saying that Parkbandit. And believe it or not, I'm just as aware of the threats and dangers in the world as you are. Just because I think that Bush and his cronies are idiots (at best) and criminals at the worst for hijacking the memory and woldwide support we had from 9-11 and using it to fulfill some neocon pipedream, doesn't make me any less aware of the stark realities of the world today. I want to get the bastards who attacked us, and who continue to attack us. But, as I've said before, fighting Iraq is NOT fighting terrorism and to me that's the worst sin of all.

-P

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Prestius
Bush has a proven track record of doing some pretty nasty thiings to Vets who are running against him - look at the smear campaign used against McCain and Max Cleland.Putting the blame on Bush for this or the cheap shots taken against McCain is like blaming Kerry for anything moveon.org says.

[Back]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by Prestius
Bush has a proven track record of doing some pretty nasty thiings to Vets who are running against him - look at the smear campaign used against McCain and Max Cleland.Putting the blame on Bush for this or the cheap shots taken against McCain is like blaming Kerry for anything moveon.org says.

OMFG I AGREE WIT LATRINSORM

[Parkbandit]

Part of Saddam's plan was to let the world believe it DID have WMD. He wanted to ensure that countries like Iran, US, England, etc.. thought good and hard before they invaded. There was plenty of 'chatter' that Saddam initiated that made the world believe he did have a large scale WMD programs in place for this reason.

Now.. you can complain about our intelligence departments for falling for this ruse if you like.. you can question whether they really did have WMDs... But I believe George Bush felt that there was an imminent threat from Iraq and a link with the terrorists and he took action to protect this country. It's a great conspiracy theory that he did it because he had to finish his father's work.. or that he heard it from God.. but the truth is he (and most of Congress) did it to pre-empt an attack on us.

I personally believe if Kerry were in that position 4 years ago, we would still be asking the world if we can put sanctions against Afganistan. I simply don't believe that he has what it takes to get the job done... that he would rather bargain for peace than to do what needs to be done.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Backlash

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by Prestius
Bush has a proven track record of doing some pretty nasty thiings to Vets who are running against him - look at the smear campaign used against McCain and Max Cleland.Putting the blame on Bush for this or the cheap shots taken against McCain is like blaming Kerry for anything moveon.org says.

OMFG I AGREE WIT LATRINSORM

OMFG! I AGREE WITH BACKLASH!:wow::wow::wow::wow::wow::wow::wow:

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
Now.. you can complain about our intelligence departments for falling for this ruse if you like..

Selective memory? You've forgotten about the report that says the intelligence community did not fall for anything? The conclusion was quite clear: 99% of the so-called evidence that Iraq was a threat was, in effect, manufactured.

One - one - single incident was mentioned as having been reasonable to suspect Iraq might be seeking uranium. All the rest? Were twisted, skewed, and manipulated. They deliberately set about creating a situation where Iraq looked like it posed a threat on paper while ignoring every single contradictory piece of evidence.

And the commission still has not commented on whether or not Bush and his flunkies 'encouraged' this to give him the justification he wanted. To say this is Saddam's fault is ridiculous. And you all claim Democrats are blind? Talk about the pot and the kettle.

Raven

[Edited on 8-9-2004 by Ravenstorm]

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm

Originally posted by Parkbandit
Now.. you can complain about our intelligence departments for falling for this ruse if you like..

Selective memory? You've forgotten about the report that says the intelligence community did not fall for anything? The conclusion was quite clear: 99% of the so-called evidence that Iraq was a threat was, in effect, manufactured.

One - one - single incident was mentioned as having been reasonable to suspect Iraq might be seeking uranium. All the rest? Were twisted, skewed, and manipulated. They deliberately set about creating a situation where Iraq looked like it posed a threat on paper while ignoring every single contradictory piece of evidence.

And the commission still has not commented on whether or not Bush and his flunkies 'encouraged' this to give him the justification he wanted. To say this is Saddam's fault is ridiculous. And you all claim Democrats are blind? Talk about the pot and the kettle.

Raven

[Edited on 8-9-2004 by Ravenstorm]

Actually, they did comment and say that there was no evidence of such a conspiracy... though I imagine that would fuck up your continued belief that George W just wanted to go to war for his Daddy.

[Ravenstorm]

No. They said that there was no evidence Bush ordered them to produce the results he wanted. They did NOT answer whether or not Bush put pressure on them and encouraged the falsification.

Raven

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
No. They said that there was no evidence Bush ordered them to produce the results he wanted. They did NOT answer whether or not Bush put pressure on them and encouraged the falsification.

Raven

:lol:

Then there's still hope for your conspiracy theory!? CONGRATS RAVEN!

I also heard there was a press release about Area 51 and you know what? They never once mentioned that there was NOT aliens there.

[Ravenstorm]

Sorry, I'm not into conspiracy theories. Neither is the bipartisan commission - you know, the one with the Republicans on it? - that refused to issue a report on that question until after the election.

Not that I expect it would make any difference to you or the rest of the 'blind'.

Raven

[Parkbandit]

:shit:

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
:shit: That PB, always elevating the discourse.

(8.5 hours to Clinton!)

[Parkbandit]

I don't know.. after reading the bullshit from Raven.. it seemed appropriate.

And what's channel is Clinton hawking his book on now?

[Wezas]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
I don't know.. after reading the bullshit from Raven.. it seemed appropriate.

And what's channel is Clinton hawking his book on now?

I think he's on the Daily Show tonight. Turns out he passed up on the SNL offer.

[Prestius]

Folks .. it's not a conspiracy theory. It's not some secret cabal with secret handshakes and the vindication of George the 1st as its primary goal.

Large numbers of people currently in power made absolutely NO SECRET of their desire to go get Saddam and attempt to establish U.S. hegemony in the middle east - all this LONG LONG before 9/11 or even before Bush the 2nd was in office. Seriously. Go to http://www.newamericancentury.org/ ... and look at the signatories on the Statement of Principles from 1997. I'm sure there will a couple of familiar names there. Then .. hit the Iraq/Middle East section and look at the 1997-2000 area and you will see that our current VP, our Sec of Defense, our Asst Sec of Defense, the President's brother, and a bunch of other people that are in the Administration have been advocating what we've done in Iraq for YEARS. 9/11 was just a convientent excuse.

And look .. I don't necessarily disagree with everything they say. But the bottom line is that they wanted to finish the job in Iraq and they used 9/11 as the excuse. There are a lot of reasons to attack Iraq but none of the real reasons are/were politically tenable so they used 9/11 terrorism and WMD's as the excuse - and squandered worldwide goodwill and support for the fight on terrorism in the process.

-P

[Latrinsorm]

While I am unaware of former President Clinton's motives, he will be appearing on Comedy Central (channel 75 if you live near me, or maybe if you don't). Show starts at 11:00 PM, interview usually starts in the 11:15-11:20 range, but Jon usually doesn't have former Presidents on.

edit: aka what Wezas said.

[Edited on 8-9-2004 by Latrinsorm]

[DeV]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
Not that I expect it would make any difference to you or the rest of the 'blind'.

Raven Sad, but true.

[Ravenstorm]

Bullshit? You laid the war completely at Saddam's feet based on one report. I pointed out the other 99% of the deliberate misinformation that failed to even consider anything contradictory. You also fail to acknowledge that there's still a legitimate concern as to whether or not the Bush administration let the intelligence community know what it wanted them to say. You might consider it a conspiracy theory but even your own elected Republicans believe it worth looking into: just, unfortunately, not before the election.

Bullshit? You ignored facts and got called on it. Just admit you don't care whether or not Dubya knew Iraq was no threat or not and deliberately lied to the country.

You did say one thing right though earlier in the thread... There's absolutely no point in wasting time debating with the blind.

Raven

[Scott]

Originally posted by DarkelfVold

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
Not that I expect it would make any difference to you or the rest of the 'blind'.

Raven Sad, but true.

The same can be said for you and Raven. Personally I think there are people here who like Bush so much, they fail to see any faults, however I also see people who hate Bush so much they fail to see the good things Bush has done, and the bad things Kerry has done.

The political debates that happen here are nothing more then Google wars. The selection of Politcal canidates there year suck. Kerry and Bush are both morons that have no place in the white house. However your statements are absolutely ridiculous, because I see the same in both of you.

[Kefka]

Bush did good things?

[Scott]

Originally posted by Kefka
Bush did good things?

I enjoyed my tax cut. I was a college student working at the time, so no, I didn't fall into the "rich" category either.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Gemstone101
The same can be said for you and Raven. Really? I think for myself and do not continually back up points where I have been proven wrong more than once. I find fault in Democrats and Republicans alike. I claim no political party as Bush just may end up getting my vote in Nov., if Kerry doesn't get his act together. I call it as I see it. You are wrong on this one.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Gemstone101
The same can be said for you and Raven.

Oh, I've always readily admitted I absolutely despise Dubya. I consider him the absolutely worst president of the century but it goes way beyond just Iraq. I hate his stance on civil rights, human rights, and religion. I hate the way he uses my country to bully the world. I think he's an imbecile: it's not just that he can't pronounce 'Abu Ghraib' but that in the same speech he said it wrong three different times in three different ways.

My reasons for hating him are legion. Despite this, I think he did an excellent job with Afghanistan and said as much recently. I am far from being a pacifist and was very glad to see Al Quaeda and the Taliban bombed into rubble. And had Bush actually continued to fight Al Quaeda instead of ignoring them in favor of Iraq, I'd have one less reason to hate him. As it is, I hold him in the utmost contempt.

So yes, he did one thing right. That doesn't make up for everything else.

Raven

[Edited on 8-9-2004 by Ravenstorm]

[Parkbandit]

I wouldn't call DarelfVoid one of the blind Democrats believing that Kerry does nothing wrong and Bush does nothing right. That category would be filled with:

Ilvane
Backlash
Ravenstorm
Kefka

Prestius is in this group as well... but to a slightly lesser extent. I see some hope in him, be it ever so small.

[Ravenstorm]

As has been proven, you have a very selective memory. Kerry does lots of things wrong. I don't particularly like him. I've said this several times in various threads.

However, I believe Kerry will fuck up the country less badly than Bush will. It's as simple as that.

Raven

[Parkbandit]

I apologize then Raven.. maybe there IS hope for you afterall.

:)

[Kefka]

A lil music for the blind

http://www.tbtmradio.com/geeklog/public_html/staticpages/index.php?page=20040606205339801

[Hulkein]

Not impressed.

[Kefka]

Can't expect everyone to like Mozart, I guess.

[Ilvane]

I'm voting for Kerry because he stands more for what my thoughts on things are than Bush. Truthfully, I would have preferred John Edwards as the Presidental candidate.

I don't like Bush's tactics, sneaky-ness, his stupidity, his policies on taxes, healthcare, the environment, the war in Iraq, his social issues, his need to get involved in personal matters with gay marriage and abortion, his choice in judges, his wanting to force religion on people when we have freedom of religion in this country, he labelling people who don't believe in the war in Iraq as "Unpatriotic", his dirty campaign tricks, his twisting of war intelligence, his education plans, and his vice presidents hands in the cookie jar with Haliburton and the oil companies.

I don't just blindly dislike Bush. I'm a smart woman, and don't just listen to everything I hear and take it at face value. If you haven't noticed, I research things to see the truth in them. I have done plenty of research on Bush, and I will not vote for him. I have many reasons, as listed above, and they are too numerous to list in one small post.;)

-A

[Edited on 8-9-2004 by Ilvane]

[Parkbandit]

Bush is smarter than you are Ilvane.

Please provide proof that it's not true. I find it laughable that you would even call someone else stupid.

Thanks.

[Kefka]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
Bush is smarter than you are Ilvane.

Please provide proof that it's not true. I find it laughable that you would even call someone else stupid.

Thanks.

http://www.majorityreportradio.com/weblog/archives/Bush%20-%20Tribal%20Sovereignty.mp3

Is this good enough?

[Edited on 8-10-2004 by Kefka]

[Scott]

Originally posted by Kefka

Originally posted by Parkbandit
Bush is smarter than you are Ilvane.

Please provide proof that it's not true. I find it laughable that you would even call someone else stupid.

Thanks.

http://www.majorityreportradio.com/weblog/archives/Bush%20-%20Tribal%20Sovereignty.mp3

Is this good enough?

[Edited on 8-10-2004 by Kefka]

Not really. I don't know about you but even when I know the answer to something, when you're put on the spot, sometimes things don't click. I've been in a board room doing a presentation and someone asked me how this will help the company, and I completely forgot the whole reason why it would help us make more money. It was a stupid moment, it happens.

[Slider]

What I can never understand is people's insistance the the President needs to "finish off" Iraq because George the first couldn't. Folks, seriously, if we had wanted to take Iraq for real back then, WTF could he do to stop it? His forces where running away from us for Gods sake. The goal there was simple, we wanted Iraq out of Kuwait, and beleive it or not folks, that goal had the backing of the UN!! wow..what a concept, huh? We never once said we where there to conquer Iraq, we never made an attempt to do so, if we had, we would have done so, period. Get this through your heads, at the end of that "war" his forced we're surrendering to unmanned drones...does that sound like a force that could have stopped us from taking the fucking country had we really wanted to? Show me ONE, one single instance that George the first EVER said we where there to conquer Iraq? Anyone? Just one?

Oh wait....what am I talking about...this is about "those evil Bush people"...where do facts fit into it...silly me

[Kefka]

Originally posted by Slider
What I can never understand is people's insistance the the President needs to "finish off" Iraq because George the first couldn't. Folks, seriously, if we had wanted to take Iraq for real back then, WTF could he do to stop it? His forces where running away from us for Gods sake. The goal there was simple, we wanted Iraq out of Kuwait, and beleive it or not folks, that goal had the backing of the UN!! wow..what a concept, huh? We never once said we where there to conquer Iraq, we never made an attempt to do so, if we had, we would have done so, period. Get this through your heads, at the end of that "war" his forced we're surrendering to unmanned drones...does that sound like a force that could have stopped us from taking the fucking country had we really wanted to? Show me ONE, one single instance that George the first EVER said we where there to conquer Iraq? Anyone? Just one?

Oh wait....what am I talking about...this is about "those evil Bush people"...where do facts fit into it...silly me

Please get it right. People say he was after Saddam, not Iraq. People were saying he was trying to get Saddam because his daddy couldn't. It was Saddam, not Iraq, that threatened Bush Sr.

Now that they have Saddam, they proceeded to Operation Iraqi Liberation. Codenamed O.I.L.

[Slider]

Oh...uhmm...I see....and the big difference is? Everyone is STILL saying we went to war not because of, oh..the 17 or so UN resolutions condeming Saddam...or the fact that he has used WMD in the past...or the fact that he has supported terrorism...or anything else that are factual reasons...no, we do it because his Daddy got threatened by Saddam.

For the more historically minded of you, might i point out that one of the reasons that the US went to war with Germany in WW2, and started the Manhattan Project as well, was because the US intelligence thought that Germany MIGHT be devoloping nuclear weapons...of course, after the war, we found out that Germany was no-where near to completing any such weapon (thanks to Albert Einstein). But of course...i guess that means that we never should have gotten involved in that war either...right? Or that FDR "lied" to the US about why we went to war with Germany ...right? I mean, Japan i can see...but Germany never attacked us did they? So i say we all condemn FDR for lying to us, dragging us into a war that cost hundreds of thousands of US lives, and in general that we should never have gotten involved in.

[Kefka]

Originally posted by Slider
Oh...uhmm...I see....and the big difference is? Everyone is STILL saying we went to war not because of, oh..the 17 or so UN resolutions condeming Saddam...or the fact that he has used WMD in the past...or the fact that he has supported terrorism...or anything else that are factual reasons...no, we do it because his Daddy got threatened by Saddam.

For the more historically minded of you, might i point out that one of the reasons that the US went to war with Germany in WW2, and started the Manhattan Project as well, was because the US intelligence thought that Germany MIGHT be devoloping nuclear weapons...of course, after the war, we found out that Germany was no-where near to completing any such weapon (thanks to Albert Einstein). But of course...i guess that means that we never should have gotten involved in that war either...right? Or that FDR "lied" to the US about why we went to war with Germany ...right? I mean, Japan i can see...but Germany never attacked us did they? So i say we all condemn FDR for lying to us, dragging us into a war that cost hundreds of thousands of US lives, and in general that we should never have gotten involved in.

I guess you missed the part where it says Germany and Italy declared war on the U.S. soon after we declared war on Japan. And so you know, it wasn't resolutions that Bush was spouting on a daily basis. It was wmd's. Resolutions wasn't gonna cause that mushroom cloud. Resolutions didn't put us in imminent danger. Bush sold the war based on stockpiles of missiles.

[Chyrain]

Originally posted by Slider
Oh...uhmm...I see....and the big difference is? Everyone is STILL saying we went to war not because of, oh..the 17 or so UN resolutions condeming Saddam...or the fact that he has used WMD in the past...or the fact that he has supported terrorism...or anything else that are factual reasons...no, we do it because his Daddy got threatened by Saddam.

I don't know about you, but every single political show on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, BLOWMETV are talking about every single reason you listed except the fact that "daddy got threatened" by Saddam. Not to mention the domestic and foreign news press. I've maybe heard it mentioned, but if I were to tally that reason against the others, it would be such a minor % that I would have to come back here to ask you who the hell you're listening to?

i don't like it when people make comments like that but can't prove it. Show me where everyone is talking about a war daddy didn't finish and not about anything else and then I'll concede a point to you.

seriously folks, don't get involved in political discussions if you're going to be retarded about it. it does no good for your cause.

[Kefka]

Originally posted by Chyrain

Originally posted by Slider
Oh...uhmm...I see....and the big difference is? Everyone is STILL saying we went to war not because of, oh..the 17 or so UN resolutions condeming Saddam...or the fact that he has used WMD in the past...or the fact that he has supported terrorism...or anything else that are factual reasons...no, we do it because his Daddy got threatened by Saddam.

I don't know about you, but every single political show on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, BLOWMETV are talking about every single reason you listed except the fact that "daddy got threatened" by Saddam. Not to mention the domestic and foreign news press. I've maybe heard it mentioned, but if I were to tally that reason against the others, it would be such a minor % that I would have to come back here to ask you who the hell you're listening to?

i don't like it when people make comments like that but can't prove it. Show me where everyone is talking about a war daddy didn't finish and not about anything else and then I'll concede a point to you.

seriously folks, don't get involved in political discussions if you're going to be retarded about it. it does no good for your cause.

That's why they call it 'Hidden Agendas'. It's not one of those things you let people know when you're trying to get them to support you. Do you think you'd ever hear a speech saying that Iraq's oil would be better served under our control?

[Parkbandit]

Chyrain > Kefka

Dear Kefka, please reread Chyrains post.. especially this part:

"Seriously folks, don't get involved in political discussions if you're going to be retarded about it. It does no good for your cause. "

Thanks.

[Prestius]

Funny .. I think tha using the term "retarded" in any politcal discourse does no good for your cause.

Anyways .. I don't ascribe to the theory, but to say it wasn't bandied about as a reason for Bush the 2nd to go after Saddam and dismiss it out of hand is to not have been paying attention. It's based on two things:

First off at the end of Gulf I there were a LOT of people in the Bush Administration at the time who wanted to keep going and get Saddam. There were a lot of reasons not to - but the decision haunted many in the Administration. They won the war but Saddam was able to keep his regime. Sect'y of Defense at the time - Dick Cheney.

And then there's this statement by Bush: "There's no doubt he can't stand us. After all, this is a guy that tried to kill my dad at one time."

So .. there was a conventional wisdom that said that part of Bush's motivation was to "finish the job" in Iraq that his dad left undone.

Again - I happen to not ascribe to this particular line of reasoning, but it's not exactly the "nothing" you make it out ot be.

-P

[Kefka]

But if it's reputable news outlets you need:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3068684/

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-06-15-oplede_x.htm

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/27/bush.war.talk/

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/WorldNewsTonight/bush_saddam030318.html

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/18/elder.bush.saddam/

http://www.sundayherald.com/27735

[Latrinsorm]

Chyrain, I think Slider was talking about prevailing winds on this board, not necessarily in the world at large. On this board, allusions are often made to Bush II going to war on account of his father.

[Chyrain]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
Chyrain, I think Slider was talking about prevailing winds on this board, not necessarily in the world at large. On this board, allusions are often made to Bush II going to war on account of his father.

My bad. Everyone doesn't really mean EVERYone. Just the few people here. Gotchya.

But still if you're retarded* about the way you handle your side of the argument, then you'll never let anyone see the validity of your point.

* retard: To put off; hinder; impede; obstruct.

apologies to anyone who thought I was calling anyone a retard

[Ilvane]

I tend to think when people start degrading the conversation into calling each other idiots or retarded, it's gone too far.

Of course, when we are talking about the candidate it's different, but the people we are debating with, it's not necessary.

-A

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Ilvane
I tend to think when people start degrading the conversation into calling each other idiots or retarded, it's gone too far.

Of course, when we are talking about the candidate it's different, but the people we are debating with, it's not necessary.

-A

Ah.. so we can call Bush stupid and retarded.. just not any of the posters of this forum? How is it we can do this? Because we know George Bush SO MUCH better than we know each other?

How convenient and hypocritical.

[Prestius]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by Ilvane
I tend to think when people start degrading the conversation into calling each other idiots or retarded, it's gone too far.

Of course, when we are talking about the candidate it's different, but the people we are debating with, it's not necessary.

-A

Ah.. so we can call Bush stupid and retarded.. just not any of the posters of this forum? How is it we can do this? Because we know George Bush SO MUCH better than we know each other?

How convenient and hypocritical.

No .. the POINT .. you moronic fucking gasbag .. is that when you attack the poster instead of the ideas .. you facist toadlicker .. you lose any hope of any sort of intelligent discourse and exchange of ideas .. you shitheaded douchetray.

Make sense?

<snicker>

-P

[Edited on 8-10-2004 by Prestius]

[Kefka]

:lol:

[Ravenstorm]

Here's a little article (well documented) on the co-author of the Swift Boat Vets book that's coming out. It's really quite informative. A very interesting choice they made. What's that phrase? You are known by the company you keep?

Just who is Jerome Corsi? (http://mediamatters.org/items/200408060010)

Raven

[Ilvane]

O'Neil was on Hannity and Colmes tonight. I found a few things interesting:

1) He never actually served *with* John Kerry. He took over his boat when he left. He was not a first hand witness.

2) Most of the men that he quotes in his book, they did not serve directly with John Kerry.

3) The commanders initially recommended him for his awards. Now they are saying things about he was disgraceful for testifying about what happened in the war, and for being against it(to me this is the bottom line of what they are doing)

4) James Rassman, the man who John Kerry saved his life, is a registered Republican. He only came out when Kerry was under attack by men like O'Neil.

There were lots of other things I wanted to post, but I have to get to work..maybe later.:)

-A

[xtc]

I don't Bush understood history and the part of the world that he was getting involved with when he invaded Iraq.

Fact: Only legal reason to invade Iraq was if Saddam had weapons of mass destruction or missles capable of flying beyong 500 miles UN resolution 1441.

Fact: Saddam & Iraq at no time prior to the invasion had anything to do with 9-11 or Al Qaida

Fact: Saddam was once a friend of the US, who gave Iraq biological weapons in the 80's? CIA (source 60 minutes)

Fact: Iraq was not a theocracy before this war and Christians were free to practice their religion. The majority of people in Iraq are Shia Muslims, Shia is a denomination of Islam like being a Baptist is a denomination of Christianity. Saddam was a Sunni (like Catholic, original faith). The majority of Muslims in Iran are Shia Muslims, the Shia's in Iraq are talking with the Shia's in Iran. Bush may have just created an Iran/Iraq alliance.

Fact: Cost of War in Iraq $ 127, 093, 620, 000 as of this post
http://costofwar.com/

Fact: Bush has said he believes he was chosen by God to be President and that he has a mandate by God to change the Middle East. Thanks for electing a born again Christian.

[Wezas]

Another Republican pwned by BBcode. In his sig, no less.


Originally posted by Parkbandit
[img]http://forum.gsplayers.com/image.php?iid=357


That is all :saint:

[Back]

Go to Google (http://www.google.com) and type in “weapons of mass destruction.”

Then hit the “I'm feeling lucky” button.

LOL

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Prestius

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by Ilvane
I tend to think when people start degrading the conversation into calling each other idiots or retarded, it's gone too far.

Of course, when we are talking about the candidate it's different, but the people we are debating with, it's not necessary.

-A

Ah.. so we can call Bush stupid and retarded.. just not any of the posters of this forum? How is it we can do this? Because we know George Bush SO MUCH better than we know each other?

How convenient and hypocritical.

No .. the POINT .. you moronic fucking gasbag .. is that when you attack the poster instead of the ideas .. you facist toadlicker .. you lose any hope of any sort of intelligent discourse and exchange of ideas .. you shitheaded douchetray.

Make sense?

<snicker>

-P


Ok... now wait just a god damn minute...






What exactly is a douchetray?

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by xtc
Saddam was once a friend of the USSo was Japan. Now they are again.
Cost of War in Iraq $ 127, 093, 620, 000 as of this post Gee, sounds like a big number. Except when you compare it to the size of the U.S. GDP.
Thanks for electing a born again Christian.Well, I didn't, but I'll be happy to re-elect him.

I don't really understand what ANY of that has to do with the Swift Boats ad, but maybe you can clear it up for me.

[xtc]

After 7 pages the thread of the conversation has changed somewhat. The relevance to the Swift Boat Ads is that those ads are about question Kerry's ability to lead based on what they say he did 30 years ago. My post is about who is fit to lead based on what they did 3 within the past 3 years.

My point about Saddam was America was reponsible in large part in his rise to and remaining in power when it was convenient to them.

If $127 Billion doesn't sound like a lot of money to waste to you, you need to give your head a shake. Any figure compared to the US GDP would seem small but that is irrelevant.

I don't think you really are going to vote for Bush I think you enjoy being contrary.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by xtc
After 7 pages the thread of the conversation has changed somewhat.Fair enough.
If $127 Billion doesn't sound like a lot of money to wasteHow is it wasted? I think you'd have a much stronger case if you threw up how many people got killed.
I don't think you really are going to vote for BushI'm 65% sure I will.
I think you enjoy being contrary.:whistle:

[xtc]

lol, I think I have your number on the contrary thing. Don't get me wrong I am no fan of Kerry, but I would vote for him over Bush.

Re: Casualities/deaths in Iraq
http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/

[Back]

Don't forget Iraq Body Count (http://www.iraqbodycount.net). They are counting civilian deaths, not Iraq army or insurgents, civilians. People like you and me who go about their daily lives just like we do.

Back to SwiftVets, Rasserman recently said (http://www.factcheck.org/MiscReports.aspx?docID=235), “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.”

[xtc]

Today I heard that John Kerry is a hero in North Korea and that he is honoured in their war musuem along with the likes of Mao. I also heard a man who fought in a battle with Kerry says Kerry is a cowarded and that he was fleeing a battle other US boats were still in when one of his troops fell overboard and Kerry "saved" him. Let me say this I don't trust John Kerry but I trust Bush less

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Backlash
Don't forget Iraq Body Count (http://www.iraqbodycount.net). They are counting civilian deaths, not Iraq army or insurgents, civilians. People like you and me who go about their daily lives just like we do.



11,000 people killed. How many were killed under Saddam's government? How many Kurds did he have killed in norther Iraq? Let's not even count the troops Saddam sentenced to death by his invasion of Kuwait.

Any loss of life is tragic, but Iraq will be better off without Saddam in power. The Iraqis weren't able to oust him.. so we helped them.

The world is a safer place with Saddam out of power.

[Jack]

John Kerry was a big war hero to the people of North Vietnam. His picture is indeed hanging on the wall of heros in a museum in Hanoi, for his work after the war. His war recrod is questioned because he made it one of the center points of his campaign. He's lied about it quite a bit, most speccifically, his claims that he was in Cambodia on Christmas Eve of 1968. No swift boats ever operated in Cambodia. He was never in Cambodia, on Christmas Eve of 1968, or any other time. He was wounded by his own grenade, applied for a Purple Heart, and his CO turned him down. In the end, he pushed the application through himself, and recieved his first purple heart for a scratch he recieved after firing an M-79 grenade launcher far short of the target. He recieved the shrapnel wound on his arm from that. At no time did his boat come under fire. He recieved a Silver star after beaching his boat, and shooting a wounded man in the back. He recieved the Bronze Star, and his third purple heart after fleeing the scene of a battle, then returning after it was over and pulling a man out of the water.

The only defense I've heard for this, is the ones making the accusations did not serve on his "Ship". A swift boat is a feaking boat, not a ship. It has a crew of 8 I believe. They did not operate independently. Swift Boats operated in groups, a single boat would be quickly destroyed, a group of boats supporting each other, however, were very effective in combat. So those who weren't on his "Ship" were on the boat next to his. The book, "Unfit For Command" is a collection of eye-witness reports from the men who served with John Kerry. They may not have been on his boat, but they were on the boat next to his. John Kerry has paraded a few men who served on his boat in front of the public durring his campaign. Sixty men who served alongside John Kerry, who bunked with John Kerry, who witness John Kerry's Actions, contributed to the book, "Unfit for Command." Personally, I'll belive the words of sixty men, over the words of 9 or 10.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by xtc
Today I heard that John Kerry is a hero in North Korea and that he is honoured in their war musuem along with the likes of Mao. I also heard a man who fought in a battle with Kerry says Kerry is a cowarded and that he was fleeing a battle other US boats were still in when one of his troops fell overboard and Kerry "saved" him. Let me say this I don't trust John Kerry but I trust Bush less

You know.. I really have no issue with Kerry serving in Vietnam and supposedly running away. It's all heresay anyway and unprovable at this point in time.

I do have an issue with a guy who claims he can keep this country safe from harm.. but has spent the last 20 years doing far from that.

I have a problem with a guy who says he can make a difference, yet didn't take that opportunity in the past 20 years.

I have a problem with a guy who makes promises that are out of his control.

I simply believe Kerry is not trustworthy.

[xtc]

lol I always love the argument that the world is a safer place without Saddam. Who made this man? America. Guess what the world isn't a safer place now. The new Government will be make Saddam look like a kitten. There will be an alliance with Iran. No offense but most Americans don't understand the history of the region or the tribes or the variations of Islam there. You have to understand this before going off half cocked unilaterally charging into Iraq.

The Kurds were promise their own country by the UN in I think it was 1921 or so. It hasn't happened, none of the countries in the region want a Kurdistan. Some experts believe it was Iran that gassed the Kurds. Do you think a Shia Muslim Government working in concert with Iran is going to be nice to the Kurds? The Iranians hate the Kurds as much as the Iraqies. Iran/Iraq alliance do you understand what this means? The Muslim seat of power right now is held in Saudi Arabia by Sunni Muslims. An alliance of Shia Muslims in Iran and Iraq could threaten that. The world is a much scarier place now

[Ilvane]

Did you not see the guy who is heading this charge, he was on Fox..said he never actually served with Kerry..he took over his boat when he left.

So tell me, how many of those 60 guys really served with him, or like O'Neil, didn't serve at the same time, but were around in the same era?

How much of this is politically motivated, it's all of it!

-A

[Back]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by Backlash
Don't forget Iraq Body Count (http://www.iraqbodycount.net). They are counting civilian deaths, not Iraq army or insurgents, civilians. People like you and me who go about their daily lives just like we do.



11,000 people killed. How many were killed under Saddam's government? How many Kurds did he have killed in norther Iraq? Let's not even count the troops Saddam sentenced to death by his invasion of Kuwait.

Any loss of life is tragic, but Iraq will be better off without Saddam in power. The Iraqis weren't able to oust him.. so we helped them.

The world is a safer place with Saddam out of power.

Here comes the bleeding heart thing again, its such bullshit, especially coming from conservative republicans. If we were so concerned over the welfare of Iraqis, why didn't we do something back in the 90s? Uh, it was because we were all of a sudden so concerned about Kuwatis?

Spin it up all you want. It would almost be funny, if it weren't so tragic.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Ilvane
Did you not see the guy who is heading this charge, he was on Fox..said he never actually served with Kerry..he took over his boat when he left.

So tell me, how many of those 60 guys really served with him, or like O'Neil, didn't serve at the same time, but were around in the same era?

How much of this is politically motivated, it's all of it!

-A

Well no shit it's politically motivated. If Kerry simply went home and worked at the local supermarket.. no one would even care.

Unfortunately, he is running for the highest position in the world and with that comes this type of scrutiny.

Do I think every one of the 60 Swift vets are telling the absolute truth about the 4 months Kerry served? Hardly.

Do I think Kerry is telling the truth about the 4 months he served? Hardly.

And please save your fingers the pain of typing out the sentence "Yea, well at least he served! Look at George Bush! HE DIDN'T!!". I understand that is the fall back response to anything brought up about Kerry's service. I get it. Over and out. Thanks alot. Buh Bye.

[Kefka]

Yea, well at least he served! Look at George Bush! HE DIDN'T!!

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Backlash

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by Backlash
Don't forget Iraq Body Count (http://www.iraqbodycount.net). They are counting civilian deaths, not Iraq army or insurgents, civilians. People like you and me who go about their daily lives just like we do.



11,000 people killed. How many were killed under Saddam's government? How many Kurds did he have killed in norther Iraq? Let's not even count the troops Saddam sentenced to death by his invasion of Kuwait.

Any loss of life is tragic, but Iraq will be better off without Saddam in power. The Iraqis weren't able to oust him.. so we helped them.

The world is a safer place with Saddam out of power.

Here comes the bleeding heart thing again, its such bullshit, especially coming from conservative republicans. If we were so concerned over the welfare of Iraqis, why didn't we do something back in the 90s? Uh, it was because we were all of a sudden so concerned about Kuwatis?

Spin it up all you want. It would almost be funny, if it weren't so tragic.

When we liberated our ally Kuwait from the Iraqi invasion, there were many in the administration that said just that.. we should move on to topple the Iraqi government and get Saddam out of power. George Bush is said to have believed that by destroying much of the Armed forces, the country would be ripe for it's citizens to rise up and overturn the government themselves. This never took place as Saddam wasn't as weak as we predicted he was and quickly squelched the unrest with an iron fist.

If we knew then, what we knew later.. I'm sure we wouldn't have hesitated to just keep on going.

Hindsight is always 20/20. Foresight rarely is.

I say the same thing to Republicans when they say "Clinton could have killed Bin Laden YEARS before 9-11.. and he's such a pussy not to have done so."

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Kefka
Yea, well at least he served! Look at George Bush! HE DIDN'T!!

Fuck.. I never thought of that comeback. Damn you Kefka.:wow:

[Ravenstorm]

I'd have to say that Bush's service record - or lack of one in this case - is fairly significant in relation to this debate and the election in general. For someone who avoided a war and any possibility of injury or death, this 'war president' was certainly quite willing to risk the lives of others with an unnecessary war in Iraq.

So since Republicans keep bringing up Kerry's perhaps dubious record, they also need to bring up Bush's cowardice and hypocrisy.

Fair is fair after all.

Raven

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
For someone who avoided a war I was talking to my dad (who was 18 in 1970) about this. His sentiment: the idea that Bush somehow snuck into the National Guard because he was connected is hogwash. Bush's record once joining the Guard is spotty at best, but blaming him for his lack of combat service is inaccurate.

[Ilvane]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
For someone who avoided a war I was talking to my dad (who was 18 in 1970) about this. His sentiment: the idea that Bush somehow snuck into the National Guard because he was connected is hogwash. Bush's record once joining the Guard is spotty at best, but blaming him for his lack of combat service is inaccurate.

It's not hogwash, it was true. How do you think he got into the National guard? His stellar academics, or his high scores on his military tests?

-A

[Jack]

George W. Bush voluntarily joined the Texas Air National Guard. It wasn't preferential treatment, it wasn't his Father's influence. He volunteered. Since he was allready voluntarily part of the military, as an officer and pilot in the National Guard, he wasn't drafted into active duty service. The plane he flew was sent to Vietnam for a very short period of time, but it had a dismal record against the Soviet built migs. It was designed as a long range bomber escort, rather than a dogfighter ready to go head to head against nimble fighters.

George W. Bush was not AWOL, he did not Desert, and those who claim he did do so because they are ignorant of military law as it applies to the National Guard. If a guardmember misses drill for a month, or even three or four, as long as he has checked in with his commander, and at some point makes up the missing drill dates, there is no charge of AWOL, or Desertion. There is nothing illegal about it.

The records show that Mr. Bush earned sufficient drilling points to earn an honorable discharge. They also show he drilled two days in October 1972 and four days in November 1972 when he had transferred to the Alabama Guard unit.

That said, the reason why George Bush's lack of a war record is mostly irrelevant to me, is that he is not making it a center point of his campaign. He is not claiming to be a War Hero.

[Axhinde]

The fact that he joined the Air National Guard speaks for itself. Wuss.

[Jack]

How many National Guard members are forward deployed right now while you sit safe at home?

[Back]

Originally posted by Jack
stuff...


Still, with all that said, I'd trust a man who was on the front lines, rather than a man with missing records, with being a more competent commader in chief.

This whole thread was over long ago for me. The fact that the man he helped, and his crew, all vouch for him, along with the Navy awarding him those medals, convinces me of the validity of his service.

[Jack]

John Kerry hasn't made his records available to the public. What makes you want to trust him then?

[Kefka]

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5761856

In May 1972, Bush moved to Alabama to work on a political campaign and, he has said, to perform his Guard service there for a year. But other Guard officers have said they have no recollection of ever seeing him there.

Bush was the son of a U.S. congressman at a time when National Guard service was seen as a way for the privileged to avoid being drafted for Vietnam War duty.

[Back]

Originally posted by Jack
John Kerry hasn't made his records available to the public. What makes you want to trust him then?

He has. Look it up. I'm tired of this argument already.

[Jack]

If you want to have a google war, so be it.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040211-121217-6595r.htm

In 1972, Mr. Bush left Texas to work on the Senate campaign and transferred to a squadron in the 187th Tactical Reconnaissance Wing in Montgomery. He apparently missed drills during the election campaign, and that is why he returned later in November.
He would have held a desk job at the 187th because he was not qualified on the wing's reconnaissance jets. "It's quite common for a pilot and other Guard members to go to another unit in another state," Mr. Campenni said. "We can 'pull drills' there and get credit for your duty in your state."
Mr. Bush left the Guard six months early to attend Harvard business school and was honorably discharged in October 1973.

[Jack]

Originally posted by Backlash

Originally posted by Jack
John Kerry hasn't made his records available to the public. What makes you want to trust him then?

He has. Look it up. I'm tired of this argument already.

The records that would completely prove or disprove most of the claims against his Purple Hearts are not released. He has yet to release his medical records.

[Back]

This is all George W. Bush (http://www.georgewbush.com/Bios/GeorgeWBush.aspx) has to say on his site about his military service.


He received a bachelor's degree from Yale University in 1968, then served as an F-102 fighter pilot in the Texas Air National Guard.

This is what John Kerry (http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_kerry/service.html) has on his site about his military service.

This site (http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/lit/election2004/docs.html) compares the two.

Yes, I Google (http://www.google.com).

[edited to fix GWB link. LOL]

[Edited on 8-12-2004 by Backlash]

[Kefka]

Originally posted by Jack
If you want to have a google war, so be it.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040211-121217-6595r.htm

In 1972, Mr. Bush left Texas to work on the Senate campaign and transferred to a squadron in the 187th Tactical Reconnaissance Wing in Montgomery. He apparently missed drills during the election campaign, and that is why he returned later in November.
He would have held a desk job at the 187th because he was not qualified on the wing's reconnaissance jets. "It's quite common for a pilot and other Guard members to go to another unit in another state," Mr. Campenni said. "We can 'pull drills' there and get credit for your duty in your state."
Mr. Bush left the Guard six months early to attend Harvard business school and was honorably discharged in October 1973.

If you must google something, at least use an article that's more up to date. The article you posted was one given around the time this whole AWOL thing reached the forefront. In February he gave his records. In July, those records were discovered to have huge gaps.

[Jack]

And again, I'm going to have to point out the way the National Guard works. If you miss drills, you have to make them up at a later date. If you don't, you won't be honorably discharged, and you will be charged with AWOL, or in extreme cases Desertion. George W. Bush recieved an Honorable Discharge, and was charged with niether AWOL, nor Desertion. So lets say he missed six months worth of drills. That's a total of 24 duty days. In order to have recieved his Honorable Discharge, he would have had to make up those days at some point. Given that he recieved an honorable discharge, it is obvious that he did just that. The whole Bush is a Deserter thing has been disproven time and time again. Those who bring it up over and over again, are those that refuse to understand that the National Guard, and Active Duty Military play by different rules.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Ilvane
It's not hogwash, it was true. How do you think he got into the National guard?The same way a (small) number of my dad's pals did. None of them had a father at the head of the CIA.
Originally posted by Axhinde
The fact that he joined the Air National Guard speaks for itself. Wuss.For clarity's sake, are you saying that because of the National Guard part or the Air part (or both)?

Finally, if people are going to question Bush getting an honorable discharge, I don't see how they can point at the Navy giving Kerry medals as proof.

[Kefka]

<<Finally, if people are going to question Bush getting an honorable discharge, I don't see how they can point at the Navy giving Kerry medals as proof.>>

Besides Kerry being there to actually receive them? Besides one person he saved, a registered republican, requesting that Kerry receive one of those medals? Besides his medical report showing shrapnel injuries? Starting to wonder if people need to die in war or go AWOL to be considered fit for command in a neocon's eyes.

[Latrinsorm]

Easy there, chief. I was pointing out that people can't say "Well, the Navy gave him medals, therefore it must be legit" if they're going to turn around and say "No, stupid National Guard, Bush still sucks".

[Back]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
Easy there, chief. I was pointing out that people can't say "Well, the Navy gave him medals, therefore it must be legit" if they're going to turn around and say "No, stupid National Guard, Bush still sucks".

You are now, officially, Far-Left-hand-field-sorm.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
I'd have to say that Bush's service record - or lack of one in this case - is fairly significant in relation to this debate and the election in general. For someone who avoided a war and any possibility of injury or death, this 'war president' was certainly quite willing to risk the lives of others with an unnecessary war in Iraq.

So since Republicans keep bringing up Kerry's perhaps dubious record, they also need to bring up Bush's cowardice and hypocrisy.

Fair is fair after all.

Raven

Being a soldier is not a prerequisite for respecting the value of life. Did you serve in the armed forces Raven? If you didn't, then I can assume by your logic that you have no problem with killing people or sending people to die needlessly?

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Backlash
You are now, officially, Far-Left-hand-field-sorm. And I play right field in softball, too. Guess it's back to the bench, or EP.

[Ravenstorm]

There's a difference between not serving and ducking active service during a time in war. And if you want to bring me into it, I applied to the naval reserves in 85 but was turned down.

Raven

[xtc]

John McCain for President.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
There's a difference between not serving and ducking active service during a time in war. And if you want to bring me into it, I applied to the naval reserves in 85 but was turned down.

Raven

You used the logic that someone who fights in a war would understand better the value of human life. Since you didn't serve your logic dictates that you do not value human life.

Makes your logic stupid, does it not? I know I never served in the armed forces.. I must have been too much of a coward to do it... but I know I value human life.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by xtc
John McCain for President.

2008. He will beat Hillary Clinton.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
You used the logic that someone who fights in a war would understand better the value of human life. Since you didn't serve your logic dictates that you do not value human life.

Makes your logic stupid, does it not?

No, not at all. You're changing the issue. I said nothing about military service being relevant to the understanding of the value of human life. Since it seems it was a bit subtle, I'll try to be more clear:

Bush shit himself at the idea of risking himself when our country was at war and ducked active duty. And yet he's more than willing to risk others for his personal crusade. It's not about any underlying, theoretical principle. It's about Bush's actions.

Raven

[xtc]

Hillary Clinton 2008......shudders. Below is a list of people I would vote for before Hillary

Atilla the Hun
Josef Stalin
George Bush JNR & SNR
Bill Clinton
Genghis Khan
Jacques Chirac
Idi Amin
Musolini
Chowchesku

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
Bush shit himself at the idea of risking himself when our country was at war and ducked active duty. And yet he's more than willing to risk others for his personal crusade. It's not about any underlying, theoretical principle. It's about Bush's actions.

Raven

You make alot of assumptions without any facts to substantiate your claims. And I find your logic flawed and thus your point far from reality.

I also find most people who respond to questions about Kerry's service with the "Yea, but look at BUSH!!" response to be laughable.

Here's yours: :lol:

[Ravenstorm]

Feel free. I find it laughable (read that as pathetic) that people who try to discredit Kerry excuse Bush for ducking active service. Especially when they most likely were down on Clinton for doing it.

Raven

[Hulkein]

Can't you see that Bush isn't using it as a main point for his campaign while Kerry is? Wouldn't that be reason for Kerry to be under much for scrutiny for his service than Bush?

After all, as Backlash posted


Originally posted by Backlash
This is all George W. Bush (http://www.georgewbush.com/Bios/GeorgeWBush.aspx) has to say on his site about his military service.


He received a bachelor's degree from Yale University in 1968, then served as an F-102 fighter pilot in the Texas Air National Guard.

This is what John Kerry (http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_kerry/service.html) has on his site about his military service.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Bush needs more pictures of his girls on his website.

[Ilvane]

George Bush *can't* run on his military service. John Kerry earned that right when he volunteered for Vietnam and served there. He also came back and told what was going on. That is the bottom line of why the "Swift Boat Veterans" is doing.

That he protested the war when he came home does nothing to diminish his service, nor does it change what he did there.

-A

[GSTamral]

This whole argument is retarded.

To believe it from John Kerry and his one veteran supporter from his crew, John Kerry single-handedly saved the lives of countless people under heavy fire, he successfully policed his own and reported every case of rape and child killing to his superiors, and he strategically planned out the destruction of many evil people.

To hear it from other people in his camp, none of whom really served under him, he was an ineffective buffoon who lied and faked injuries, and then turncoated on them after he returned from war.

The truth quite obviously lies somewhere in the middle here, but any thinking man can make certain assumptions.

1) Swift boat captains were not often placed in situations of heavy fire. Basic Military Doctrine would suggest that one can rarely expect to secure more land by capturing the river.
2) John Kerry probably did save a person or three in his time, but that does not distinguish him from any other veteran who served. Furthermore, my own personal belief is that he has never done so under heavy fire. That type of activity is usually performed only by the rarest type of devout patriot or friend, something no politician is capable of.
3) John Kerry was a low ranking officer in the military. Hate to break this news to anyone, but he wasn't a general. Low level officers micromanage. A president cannot do this. If anything, whatever military experience in combat he has (an advantage over Bush) is likely wiped out by his never having witnessed or been a part of strategic thinking. A low level officer is a pure tactician, micromanaging people underneath. This is no way qualifies a strategic leader.
4) The swift boat captains are basing 40-50% of their allegations on hearsay from the camp, 50% are pure lies, and the remaining 0-10% is actual witnessed truth.
5) John Kerry is exaggerating all of the good things he did, forgetting about the bad, and neglecting to mention that he made and/or ordered precisely 0 arrests during his tenure there, thereby implying one of the following. 1) He either never actually witnessed any of the rape or child-killing and said it after he returned for political gain or 2) He selectively chose to do nothing about it at the time, and waited until he got home. Neither road acquiesces to traits of leadership.
6) John Kerry's military record is better than Bush's. As much as I personally believe it is very likely he fabricated some of the stories, and quite possibly fabricated or exaggerated injuries to come home, that he served in war is still better than not serving in war from a moral standpoint.

The reality is quite simple. When you fabricate and exxagerate your own heroics, there are people who will naysay. I don't think the swift boat story should have any bearing on ability as a leader, because neither side is even close to the truth on the true nature and details on Kerry's service. One side embellishes a war hero, the other screams blasphemy.

People like John McCain and Bob Dole actually suffered in the war, and suffered for their country, yet continue to love their country to this day. That doesn't make either one of them immediately qualified for presidency. It equally says the same for Kerry. Votes should not be cast based on those assumptions.

[Ilvane]

Uh, Tamral, get your facts straight.

Everyone who was on Kerry's swiftboat with him was up there supporting him at the convention. The only one that didn't was no longer alive.

None of those in the attack ad by the Swift Boat group actually served on Kerry's boat. And their statements are contrary to the accounts of Kerry and those who served under him.(http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=231)

So, anyway..

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
Feel free. I find it laughable (read that as pathetic) that people who try to discredit Kerry excuse Bush for ducking active service. Especially when they most likely were down on Clinton for doing it.

Raven

I'm glad I held the belief that Clinton's lack of service meant shit about being President... so at least I can't be accused of being a hypocrite.

Is your conscious that clean Raven? Did you believe that George Bush or Robert Doyle would make a better President than Clinton due to his military record?

That's right.. I didn't think so.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
Bush needs more pictures of his girls on his website.

I completely agree.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Ilvane
That he protested the war when he came home does nothing to diminish his service, nor does it change what he did there.

-A

I disagree. The way he went about it was a slap in every soldier's face and many felt betrayed by one of their own.

Now he wants to lead them.

[GSTamral]

Ilvane, you miss my point entirely, but ok. If you want to believe the John Kerry personally won the war, go ahead. If you want to believe he is some sort of superhero, and did any more than a McCain or a Dole, feel free. I personally don't, but I don't believe the swift boat vets any more than I do him.

However, in terms of ability to lead and make strategic decisions, low level officers in a war do not handle such matters. How one performs in a tactical sense has little bearing on their abilities as strategic leaders. I personally don't think Kerry's service was any more heroic than anyone else, and that he served is a measure beyond Bush's not having served.

However, had he been a true man of action and willing to show leadership and qualities of heroism, he would have stood up for what was right when it mattered. Had he witnessed child-killing or rape, he does not prevent the rape, or more rape by sitting on his laurels. He would do so by immediately arresting the person who committed the atrocity. He did not. He had precisely 0 soldiers arrested during his tenure in Vietnam. It is very easy to sit back and wait on such an issue had it been as rampant as he claimed. A true man of moral would have stepped up and done something to save the children and women as opposed to waiting until the time of greatest personal gain to have said something about it.

The true dichotomy of the whole matter is that people are arguing that military service makes him more viable to lead the military. Had he been a general, or a colonel, perhaps it would have been more appropriate to say. At best the way it is being presented right now, it is pure propaganda from both sides of the fence.

[Kefka]

The fact is noone here has the facts. Only speculation. His commanding officers thought he did a well enough job not to make it an issue. The people who awarded him those medals didn't think of it as an issue. How well he did in Vietnam shouldn't even be the case. The fact that he was there says alot more about Kerry than Bush's record.

[Parkbandit]

:lolwave::break:

[Kefka]

:rock: :eatme:

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Ilvane
George Bush *can't* run on his military service. John Kerry earned that right when he volunteered for Vietnam and served there.Ok, I'm totally with you up to this point.
He also came back and told what was going on.But c'mon, Kerry did everything short of taking a whiz on the Vietnam Memorial, and if it was around then, I'd put good money on him doing so. "told what was going on" is a bit of a stretch.
Originally posted by GSTamral
John Kerry is exaggerating all of the good things he did, forgetting about the badHeh, sounds like Clinton on the Daily Show. At least Clinton was convincing about it, though (which I suppose can be seen as a good thing or a bad thing).

[Kefka]

Shame on the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush

By Jim Rassmann, Wall Street Journal

I came to know Lt. John Kerry during the spring of 1969. He and his swift boat crew assisted in inserting our Special Forces team and our Chinese Nung soldiers into operational sites in the Cau Mau Peninsula of South Vietnam. I worked with him on many operations and saw firsthand his leadership, courage and decision-making ability under fire.

On March 13, 1969, John Kerry's courage and leadership saved my life.

While returning from a SEA LORDS operation along the Bay Hap River, a mine detonated under another swift boat. Machine-gun fire erupted from both banks of the river, and a second explosion followed moments later. The second blast blew me off John's swift boat, PCF-94, throwing me into the river. Fearing that the other boats would run me over, I swam to the bottom of the river and stayed there as long as I could hold my breath.

When I surfaced, all the swift boats had left, and I was alone taking fire from both banks. To avoid the incoming fire, I repeatedly swam under water as long as I could hold my breath, attempting to make it to the north bank of the river. I thought I would die right there.

The odds were against me avoiding the incoming fire and, even if I made it out of the river, I thought I'd be captured and executed. Kerry must have seen me in the water and directed his driver, Del Sandusky, to turn the boat around. Kerry's boat ran up to me in the water, bow on, and I was able to climb up a cargo net to the lip of the deck. But, because I was nearly upside down, I couldn't make it over the edge of the deck. This left me hanging out in the open, a perfect target. John, already wounded by the explosion that threw me off his boat, came out onto the bow, exposing himself to the fire directed at us from the jungle, and pulled me aboard.

For his actions that day, I recommended John for the Silver Star, our country's third highest award for bravery under fire. I learned only this past January that the Navy awarded John the Bronze Star with Combat V for his valor. The citation for this award, signed by the Commander of U.S. Naval Forces, Vietnam, Vice Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, read, "Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry's calmness, professionalism and great personal courage under fire were in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service." To this day I am grateful to John Kerry for saving my life. And to this day I still believe that he deserved the Silver Star for his courage.

It has been many years since I served in Vietnam. I returned home, got married, and spent many years as a deputy sheriff for Los Angeles County. I retired in 1989 as a lieutenant. It has been a long time since I left Vietnam, but I think often of the men who did not come home with us.

I am neither a politician nor an organizer. I am a retired police officer with a passion for orchids. Until January of this year, the only public presentations I made were about my orchid hobby. But in this presidential election, I had to speak out; I had to tell the American people about John Kerry, about his wisdom and courage, about his vision and leadership. I would trust John Kerry with my life, and I would entrust John Kerry with the well-being of our country.

Nobody asked me to join John's campaign. Why would they? I am a Republican, and for more than 30 years I have largely voted for Republicans. I volunteered for his campaign because I have seen John Kerry in the worst of conditions. I know his character. I've witnessed his bravery and leadership under fire. And I truly know he will be a great commander in chief.

Now, 35 years after the fact, some Republican-financed Swift Boat Veterans for Bush are suddenly lying about John Kerry's service in Vietnam; they are calling him a traitor because he spoke out against the Nixon administration's failed policies in Vietnam. Some of these Republican-sponsored veterans are the same ones who spoke out against John at the behest of the Nixon administration in 1971. But this time their attacks are more vicious, their lies cut deep and are directed not just at John Kerry, but at me and each of his crewmates as well. This hate-filled ad asserts that I was not under fire; it questions my words and Navy records. This smear campaign has been launched by people without decency, people who don't understand the bond of those who serve in combat.

As John McCain noted, the television ad aired by these veterans is "dishonest and dishonorable." Sen. McCain called on President Bush to condemn the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush ad. Regrettably, the president has ignored Sen. McCain's advice.

Does this strategy of attacking combat Vietnam veterans sound familiar? In 2000, a similar Republican smear campaign was launched against Sen. McCain. In fact, the very same communications group, Spaeth Communications, that placed ads against John McCain in 2000 is involved in these vicious attacks against John Kerry. Texas Republican donors with close ties to George W. Bush and Karl Rove crafted this "dishonest and dishonorable" ad. Their new charges are false; their stories are fabricated, made up by people who did not serve with Kerry in Vietnam. They insult and defame all of us who served in Vietnam.

But when the noise and fog of their distortions and lies have cleared, a man who volunteered to serve his country, a man who showed up for duty when his country called, a man to whom the United States Navy awarded a Silver Star, a Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts, will stand tall and proud. Ultimately, the American people will judge these Swift Boat Veterans for Bush and their accusations. Americans are tired of smear campaigns against those who volunteered to wear the uniform. Swift Boat Veterans for Bush should hang their heads in shame.
-----------------------------------------------
Mr. Rassmann, a retired lieutenant with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, served with the U.S. Army 5th Special Forces Group in Vietnam 1968-69.

[Latrinsorm]

For a guy who's not a politician, that guy sure puts the blame pretty squarely on Bush.

[Back]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
For a guy who's not a politician, that guy sure puts the blame pretty squarely on Bush.

Ok, Left-field-sorm, are we reading the same article? Where does Rasserman blame Bush?

[Prestius]

Originally posted by Backlash

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
For a guy who's not a politician, that guy sure puts the blame pretty squarely on Bush.

Ok, Left-field-sorm, are we reading the same article? Where does Rasserman blame Bush?

If yer not fer us yer agin us?

;-)

-P

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Backlash
Ok, Left-field-sorm, are we reading the same article? Where does Rasserman blame Bush? Look at the name of the people he's condemning. It isn't Swift Boat Vets for Truth, is it? Now go back to the first page of the thread, and look at the pic Parkbandit has in the first post. Finally, watch the ad again, and take a gander at the text at the end, specifically the part where the Swift Boat vets claim sole responsibility for the ad, exonerating all candidates (incl. Nader).

I'd put money against the name in the article being a typo, as it happens like 5 times, yes? :)

[Ilvane]

They claim sole responsibilty, yet the man who funded it was the biggest Republican donor in Texas..and a big supporter of Bush.

Think it might be political? I would think so.

-A

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Ilvane
Think it might be political?There's no doubt in my mind its political, but putting Bush's name on it is flagrantly wrong.

[Back]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by Ilvane
Think it might be political?There's no doubt in my mind its political, but putting Bush's name on it is flagrantly wrong.

Ahhh, I see what you are saying now. My bad. Could be a typo. Could be Rassmann got it wrong.

[edited because I posted something, then thought about it, then realized made no sense.]

[Edited on 8-13-2004 by Backlash]

[Ravenstorm]

What are the odds this billionaire Texan financing them is not a Bush family friend? Slim, I think. And what are the odds the Bush family, including Dubya, didn't know what was going to be happening? Equally slim. And what are the odds that Bush said 'No, I don't approve of this. Don't do it.' Non-existant.

That doesn't mean he's responsible for it but it does mean he condoned it. That's pure speculation of course but there's not much doubt in my mind that's true.

If he swore under oath that he knew nothing about it, I might change my... Oh, wait. He doesn't testify under oath about anything. Nor without his babysitter. Never mind.

Raven

[Parkbandit]

Please look up who the biggest contributors to the Democratic 'causes' like Moveon.org and other such groups.

Then come back here and continue to spout your ignorance that it's all the Republicans and the Democrats are innocent pawns in this big mean conspiracy.

Let me help you with the math:

100K < 5 million.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Ilvane
They claim sole responsibilty, yet the man who funded it was the biggest Republican donor in Texas..and a big supporter of Bush.

Think it might be political? I would think so.

-A

NEWSFLASH FOR ILVANE: OF COURSE IT IS POLITICAL... IT'S A PRESIDENTIAL RACE. ANYTHING COMING FROM ANY 527 GROUP IS POLITICAL REGARDLESS OF THE MESSAGE.

Thanks.

[Ilvane]

At least try and tell the truth in the ads, rather than outright lie. The guy who is leading this, O'Neil, he's being going after John Kerry since the 70's.

It's about time he let his personal vendetta go. He didn't even serve with him.

Oh, and PB, I could swear and shout at you like Cheney, but I won't. Might want to tone down the caps.;)

-A

[Edited on 8-13-2004 by Ilvane]

[xtc]

Hey love or hate Cheney at least you know where you stand with the man.

[Back]

Originally posted by xtc
Hey love or hate Cheney at least you know where you stand with the man.

Yeah, and I sure as hell won't be bending over in front of him!

[xtc]

lol you have been for four years. You know as much as I hate Bush's Foreign policy I am not sure I like Kerry.

[Wezas]

Amusing for a minute or two (click me) (http://www.tropicalglory.com/downloads/13dwvdqbebb/bushsound.swf)

[Edited on 8-14-2004 by Wezas]

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Ilvane
At least try and tell the truth in the ads, rather than outright lie. The guy who is leading this, O'Neil, he's being going after John Kerry since the 70's.

It's about time he let his personal vendetta go. He didn't even serve with him.

Oh, and PB, I could swear and shout at you like Cheney, but I won't. Might want to tone down the caps.;)

-A

[Edited on 8-13-2004 by Ilvane]

I didn't say fuck off.. so I'm not sure where you get how I am like Cheney.

:P

[PeaceDisturbance]

>Please look up who the biggest contributors to the Democratic 'causes' like Moveon.org and other such groups. <

HAHAHAHA

That's funny. But Moveon.org isn't in trouble for violating election laws...

Damn fanatical partyliners.... You would blow yourselves up if your party asked you to :headbutt:

Only thing I can say is. Kerry isn't getting our kids sent home in body bags. My brother is being sent over. He mans a .50 caliber gun ontop of a hummer. Sorry but I am going to vote for the devil that will bring him home. I don't care if it was a lie or truth. They shouldn't be there anymore.