posted on August 6, 2004 11:06:47 AM newHow many vets could be wrong? It just doesn't add up.
It's easy to see who is lying. Some of these same vets smearing Kerry praised his actions IN WRITING during Kerry's heroic service in combat.
John Kerry's vets are for him but the truth vets majority say is untrue.
The "majority" of vets are republican too.
These vets that are going around with Kerry are they getting paid?
Are the lying vets being paid ? Yes they sure are.
If Kerry is so honorable why didn't Sen. McCain take the VP job?
Is this a serious question ? Why wouldn't a republican run on a democratic ticket ?
These chicken sh!t liars are smearing Kerry's record and haven't provided an iota of truth and it is easy to see.
They all were silent or were praising Kerry 35 years ago, and now some of these scumbags have been politically activated by the neocons to spread lies.
And if they are soooo concerned about the "truth" of the potential Commander-in-chief's military record, why aren't they questioning Bush's desertion during a time of war ?
I ahve also spoken to 3 Bush supporters who are vets and will not vote for Bush if Bush doesn't put a stop to these lies immediately. They are even considering starting a 527 to make commercials about Bush's "military" record.
posted on August 6, 2004 11:57:50 AM newNo one can discount the approx. 15 - 20 vets against kerry websites and what they say about him. They have a right to give their side of the story....a right to be heard. Everyone will make up their on mind. But those who served this country should NEVER be silenced from sharing their own experiences about kerry's actions. NEVER....they EARNED that right.
They are easily discounted. Of those that didn't out right praise Kerry 35 years ago, why did they wait 35 years to say anything ? Kerry has been in many elections over 35 years. They all had their chance when Kerry's medals applications were vetted 35 years ago. Any one of them, if they are telling the truth, could have prevented Kerry from getting his medals. The reason nothing was ever said is because they are liars of the worse kind.
And if they're so worried about the military record of a potential president, why are they silent about Bush's military record ?
They DID NOT EARN ANY RIGHT TO SLANDER AND LIBEL A REAL WAR HERO.
posted on August 6, 2004 12:17:31 PM newThey DID NOT EARN ANY RIGHT TO SLANDER AND LIBEL A REAL WAR HERO.
Since when it is Slander or Libel, to state an openion formed when and after observing the actions another. Especially when witnesses by dozens of others.
The real hero's were the men in the Swift Boats that served their ENTIRE tour whithout chickening out after 4 SHORT months.
If kerry doesn't want people to question his actions, he needs to stop running his campaign on the basis of his Viet service.
posted on August 6, 2004 12:18:23 PM new
See who the liars are now ? Bush is the worst president this country has ever had.
Disclaimer: For 12pole and other dolts, Reamond did not write this article.
Veteran Backs Off Attack on Kerry's War Record
Aug. 6, 2004 - John Kerry's commanding officer in Vietnam has backed away from attacks on the Democratic presidential candidate, saying he made a mistake in accusing the U.S. senator of having lied about his wartime record.
George Elliott, who was one of Kerry's superiors in Vietnam when he was awarded medals for heroic actions, had signed an affidavit suggesting Kerry did not deserve the Silver Star.
In the document, Elliott said, "I was never informed that he had simply shot a wounded, fleeing Viet Cong in the back."
But in Friday's Boston Globe, Elliott said: "It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words. I'm the one in trouble here."
Elliott told the newspaper he thinks Kerry did deserve the medal.
"I still don't think he (Kerry) shot the guy in the back," Elliott is quoted as saying in the Globe.
Kerry used his nominating convention in Boston in July to paint himself as a decorated war hero capable of leading the nation in troubled times and a man better qualified to be commander-in-chief than President Bush.
But Elliott and other members of a group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, oppose Kerry.
This week they launched a television advertisement accusing the Democrat of having lied about his service in Vietnam and hurting other veterans by criticizing the war after returning home. Next week the group will publish a book, "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry."
Elliott was not immediately available for comment.
Kerry, arguing his combat experience in Vietnam qualifies him as a strong leader on national security issues, has surrounded himself with other veterans who have said the candidate did heroic deeds to save his own crew mates.
The new attacks on Kerry sparked an angry response from Republican Sen. John McCain, also a Vietnam veteran, who called the attack dishonorable and dishonest and urged the Bush administration to also denounce the ad.
The administration distanced itself from the advertisement on 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.
posted on August 6, 2004 12:23:43 PM new
Reamond - It's a known fact that Kerry asked McClain to be the VP candidate. Where does it say both candidates for either party have to have that party affliiation. When voting or choosing a running mate you chose that person that would do what is best for the country's needs
There are some people that do not believe in parts of what the platforms of the parties stand. We are supposed to vote for the best candidate not whether he is Republican or Democrat. You have to see what the leaders bring to the table and see if you agree. But, I don't think that is the real world as we have blinders on and only see Republican or Democrat.JMHP
posted on August 6, 2004 12:40:24 PM newReamond - It's a known fact that Kerry asked McClain to be the VP candidate.
No it is not a known fact.
Where does it say both candidates for either party have to have that party affliiation.
Umm... the rules of the party state that.
When voting or choosing a running mate you chose that person that would do what is best for the country's needs
Not for the two main parties.
There are some people that do not believe in parts of what the platforms of the parties stand. We are supposed to vote for the best candidate not whether he is Republican or Democrat.
What does this have to do with a republican running on a democratic ticket ?
posted on August 6, 2004 12:50:27 PM newSince when it is Slander or Libel, to state an openion formed when and after observing the actions another. Especially when witnesses by dozens of others.
They were not stating opinions, they were asserting facts.
The real hero's were the men in the Swift Boats that served their ENTIRE tour whithout chickening out after 4 SHORT months.
Kerry earned the right to go home after being wounded 3 times. But if you really feel this way Bear then you certainly can not support Bush based on his military record.
If kerry doesn't want people to question his actions, he needs to stop running his campaign on the basis of his Viet service.
You can question his service all you want, but that doesn't mean you can libel and slander his service.
Kerry was a war hero that went into combat when he could have done otherwise.
Bush was was chicken who couldn't even honor his commitment to a national guard unit he never should have been allowed into in the first place.
Well Bear, based on your own beliefs and positions, you should be actively supporting Kerry and voting for him too.
posted on August 6, 2004 12:56:27 PM new
Reamond, this is something I just don't get from these flag waving neocons like Linda and Poobear.
They are willing to slander a vet who served his country IN COMBAT but they will never answer why bush is a better president because he was too scared to even show up for a medical exam much less combat.
It's hard to believe they will honor a man who aided and abetted the enemy by refusing to fight and slander a United States Veteran who served!
posted on August 6, 2004 12:56:35 PM new
Sen. McCain Open to Being Kerry's VP
Yahoo ^ | 3/10/04
Posted on 03/10/2004 10:29:03 AM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
Republican Sen. John McCain allowed a glimmer of hope Wednesday for Democrats fantasizing about a bipartisan dream team to defeat President Bush (news - web sites).
McCain said he would consider the unorthodox step of running for vice president on the Democratic ticket — in the unlikely event he received such an offer from the presidential candidate.
"John Kerry (news - web sites) is a close friend of mine. We have been friends for years," McCain said Wednesday when pressed to squelch speculation about a Kerry-McCain
ticket. "Obviously I would entertain it."
Someone is upset because the mayor of St. Paul is a democrat and is voting republican.
But McCain emphasized how unlikely the whole idea was.
"It's impossible to imagine the Democratic Party seeking a pro-life, free-trading, non-protectionist, deficit hawk," the Arizona senator told ABC's "Good Morning America" during an interview about illegal steroid use. "They'd have to be taking some steroids, I think, in order to let that happen."
McCain gained a reputation as a party maverick who appeals to independent voters during his 2000 race against Bush for the Republican nomination. This year, McCain has campaigned for the president and said he would continue to do so.
Unlike some other Republican senators, he hasn't railed against Kerry, a fellow Vietnam veteran. McCain called the Kerry-Bush contest "the nastiest campaign so far that we have seen" and said he preferred campaigning for candidates instead of against their opponents.
posted on August 6, 2004 01:01:25 PM newMcCain said he would consider the unorthodox step of running for vice president on the Democratic ticket — in the unlikely event he received such an offer from the presidential candidate.
But McCain would also have to change his party to democrat to run on the ticket.
But this is speculating on the near impossible situation that McCain would be asked to run as a democratic VP.
posted on August 6, 2004 01:05:25 PM newThey are willing to slander a vet who served his country IN COMBAT but they will never answer why bush is a better president because he was too scared to even show up for a medical exam much less combat.
Well they claim to be patriotic and all, but when a true bona fide war hero like Kerry is offered to them for the position of commander-in-chief they recoil.
I actually think they prefer a deserter and one who used his family influence to not only get into a wait listed over staffed NG unit but also to get an honorable discharge.
Conservatives have very low standards for leadership, and that is exactly why this country is in the mess that it is in.
posted on August 6, 2004 01:34:43 PM new
Well we will just have to wait and see. It honestly doesn't matter to me but who ever becomes president will have a tough job.
I can't see FREE or even AFORDABLE health care in 4 years. I can't see millions of jobs in 4 years and if Kerry becomes President that is what he promised, if it doesn't happen Hillary will be there.....
What I can see if Kerry becomes President is that he will take away the money from the wealthy and give to the poor. Because that is the American way. why go out and earn it and give yourself a feeling of self worth. Just hand it to them.
We won't know until November and it is going to be a long and heated debate. Should be interesting.
posted on August 6, 2004 01:40:49 PM newWhat I can see if Kerry becomes President is that he will take away the money from the wealthy and give to the poor. Because that is the American way. why go out and earn it and give yourself a feeling of self worth. Just hand it to them.
posted on August 6, 2004 01:46:22 PM new
I saw "hero's" like kerry during my tour. Few survived more than 2 or 3 months. And during those 2 or 3 months they were directly responsible for more American deaths by their reckless irresponsible actions than by the enemy. Just like kerrys reckless irresponsible actions.
Support kerry, not in this life time or in HIS life time. I believe the word of the vets that served along side kerry more than I believe kerry.
Too many of them report the same facts, facts of incidences they witnessed.
These same vets never commited treason by giving comfort and aid to the enemy, LIKE kerry.
These same vets never lied to congress, LIKE kerry.
kerry pulled Jim Rassman out of the water after a mine blew up under his boat. Kerry got the Bronze Star for that action.
O'Dell (one of the SwiftBoat vets against kerry) was there in his boat and witnessed the incident, along with several other boats and said that when the 3 boat was hit, no one fled as Kerry said.
Only the 94 boat did in order to get out of the kill zone. O'Neill said his boat stayed there for an hour trying to rig a tow on the #3 boat and pumping water out of it.
It seems there was only 1 mine and there was no incoming fire from shore as Kerry said. Several other boats pulled 3 other men out of the water. No one but Kerry got a medal.
This is the same O'Neill that debated kerry for 90 minutes on the Dick Cavet show in the early 70's about his testimony to the senate.
O'Neill beat the crap out of kerry in the debate.
So O'Neill knows kerry first hand, knows the type person kerry is and is reporting the fact as they are.
If you want to compare service records between O'Neill & kerry, read on.
The Un-Kerry
Meet John O’Neill, the Vietnam vet who once debated John Kerry on The Dick Cavett Show.
By Alexander Rose
EDITOR'S NOTE: This article appears in the May 3, 2004, issue of National Review.
More than 30 years after he returned to voluntary, and happy, obscurity as a Houston lawyer, 58-year-old John O'Neill is making a prime-time comeback. Who's John O'Neill? He was the Vietnam veteran — a former commander of a Patrol Craft Fast, better known as the Swift boat — who famously debated one John Kerry, a fellow Swift skipper, for 90 minutes on The Dick Cavett Show back in 1971. C-SPAN excavated this particular television gem a couple of weeks ago and re-broadcast it.
In 1971, Kerry was leveraging his military experience for political gain (old habits die hard, eh?) and had recently testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about the American soldiers who, he believed, habitually committed war crimes. A few months earlier, Kerry had been involved in the "Winter Soldier Investigation," which proved to be less a serious inquiry into American actions than a rigged indictment of AmeriKKKa. It was later shown that many of the "eyewitness" participants, as well as many of Kerry's colleagues in Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW), were frauds who had never been near a battlefield, let alone seen these crimes happen. Undaunted, Kerry claimed in his Senate testimony that these were "not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command." In other words, these alleged horrors were endemic to, and an officially sanctioned corollary of, the U.S. war effort in Vietnam.
Kerry, as we know, went on to great things, and perhaps may ascend to still greater ones, but what ever happened to John O'Neill? His biography, perhaps owing to its very ordinariness, is far more interesting than Kerry's flashier story of riches-to-riches. It is O'Neill, not Kerry, who embodies how countless regular Americans experienced, survived, and remembered Vietnam. His is a world away from the cynicism and the insanity, the cruelty and the self-hatred represented by the Winter Soldier Investigation and transmitted into the popular consciousness by such movies as Apocalypse Now and Platoon.
The first thing you need to know about John O'Neill is that the O'Neills were sea dogs through and through. Even today, there are some 90 first cousins living in and around Annapolis — home of the Naval Academy — many of them serving in America's fleets. O'Neill's grandfather taught at the Naval Academy; his father graduated in the early '30s, flew fighters, fought at Iwo Jima, and retired an admiral; O'Neill himself, who grew up in landlocked San Antonio, Texas, was in the Naval Academy Class of 1967 (two brothers also graduated, '57 and '59). An uncle, a fighter pilot, was killed at Pearl Harbor; another, also a naval pilot, in Korea. Several of O'Neill's nephews fought in the first Gulf War in the Marine Corps, and his brother-in-law commanded the Coast Guard, Atlantic Area. Nelson and Nimitz would have been proud of the O'Neills.
Young Ensign O'Neill chose to serve aboard a minesweeper, the Woodpecker. His fellow classmates had a good laugh. A minesweeper? Not exactly the most glamorous gig in the Navy, and an especially odd choice for a man whose class standing was so high he could have breezed into pretty much any posting he desired. But O'Neill's motive was nothing to laugh about: Mindful of the "family tradition of service," he says it was "important to me not to sit out the war" — and he supposed that he had a better chance of seeing action on one of the smaller boats than he would have cooling his heels aboard an aircraft carrier.
After a year on the Woodpecker, O'Neill transferred to the Swift boats in the spring of 1969, serving on them until the summer of 1970. His boat was fired on many times as it patrolled the Cambodian border, as well as the Uminh and Namcan forests in southern Vietnam. In the Swifts, says O'Neill, the average length of service was twelve months; John Kerry was in for four.
After a little over two years' duty, O'Neill himself departed Vietnam with two Bronze Stars (with "V"s for valor in combat) pinned to his chest. There were apparently several more decorations, but when I asked about them, his modesty triumphed over my curiosity. He also came home with a badly damaged knee and leg, which earned him some time in a military hospital. And it was there that John O'Neill started learning about the Senate testimony of someone named John Kerry. Distressed and angered by the future senator's allegations, none of which squared with his own experiences, O'Neill vainly wrote to the Foreign Relations Committee asking for a chance to testify himself.
Then he read an op-ed in the New York Times by Bruce Kessler, a former Marine and a leader of the new group, Vietnam Veterans for a Just Peace, which disparaged the Kerry allegations. O'Neill wrote to Kessler, who got him involved in a Washington press conference. "We were convinced," says O'Neill, that "Kerry's charges were false." 60 Minutes and NBC both offered time for a debate — Kerry vs. O'Neill — but the former repeatedly balked. And then, miraculously, Kerry accepted an invitation from Dick Cavett to go head-to-head with O'Neill.
By this time, O'Neill had been star-spotted by President Nixon, and he met the president at the White House. (The sunny atmosphere turned a little frostier when O'Neill confided that he'd voted for Hubert Humphrey in '68: "The people all around me were shocked" when he told Nixon he was a Democrat.) He was also introduced to several Democratic congressmen and senators who didn't like Kerry's slanderous grandstanding.
As for the Cavett Show appearance, that was an invitation arranged by the television host himself, and had nothing to do with the White House; O'Neill even had to pay his own travel and hotel expenses. He wore "the only suit I had" — a not overly fashionable blue serge number unfortunately teamed with white socks. It mattered not. What mattered, says O'Neill, was that "I felt very passionate about the issue of war crimes. I had served in Vietnam with all those kids . . . and they reflected the people in the country as a whole. And the way [Kerry and his friends] falsely used war-crime charges involved a degree of political cynicism beyond my comprehension. I was outraged. I thought honestly about my friends who had died out there. And the unit we were in — Kerry and I — had suffered substantial casualties because of the restraints we placed on ourselves." O'Neill says that "Kerry, of course, knows this."
The debate was a success. "I always thought Kerry wouldn't be able to document evidence of war crimes," and so it was. His claim that these crimes were not isolated incidents but ordered by officers was nothing but a "barefaced lie." "Of course," O'Neill, with good humor, adds, "he was there for such a short time, he might not have known what was happening."
Well, the offers to do more TV appearances came rolling in, but O'Neill decided to pack his blue serge suit and go home. He went to the University of Texas Law School, and graduated first in a class of 554 with the third highest score in its history. In 1974, he clerked for U.S. Supreme Court justice William Rehnquist before returning to Texas to practice law. Specializing in large-scale commercial litigation — though he has often represented poor clients for free — he's been there ever since, founding along the way his own 35-lawyer firm (Clements O'Neill, for those of you with large-scale commercial-litigation needs).
He hasn't been politically involved since those heady days of the '70s. From 1972 onward, whenever people ran against Kerry, they asked O'Neill to spill some more beans, but he always declined — "because I believed in forgetting the thing." But I myself wondered, what suddenly prompted O'Neill to break his silence after all these years and talk to National Review? As he recuperated in an intensive-care unit after donating a kidney to his wife, Anne (now well on her way to recovery), a television story about Kerry leading the pack galvanized O'Neill. "It was déjà vu all over again; there was a Lord of the Rings quality to it, because here was the guy I had debated on the Cavett Show reappearing as the presidential candidate."
What O'Neill found particularly unsettling was that here was "a guy who believed everything we did in Vietnam was a crime" but who was now "campaigning on his record and claiming to be a war hero." In short, "the only reason I'm getting involved now is because he's running for commander-in-chief of the United States."
So there it is: a regular American — O'Neill, father of two, likes hiking, playing golf, and taking an active part in his church — not content anymore to allow Kerry and his kind to keep hijacking the Vietnam War.
posted on August 6, 2004 02:00:01 PM new
Get this --- Elliot, the guy that lied about Kerry and then recanted IS THE ONE WHO RECOMMENDED KERRY FOR THE SILVER STAR 35 YEARS AGO !!!!
These guys are a pack of liars of the worst kind.
I am ashamed they ever wore the uniform of and fought under the flag of my country.
posted on August 6, 2004 02:06:58 PM new
Linda, PooBear and all the neocons lose this argument because they have NEVER and will NEVER answer my previous post:
""Reamond, this is something I just don't get from these flag waving neocons like Linda and Poobear.
They are willing to slander a vet who served his country IN COMBAT but they will never answer why bush is a better president because he was too scared to even show up for a medical exam much less combat.
It's hard to believe they will honor a man who aided and abetted the enemy by refusing to fight and slander a United States Veteran who served!
posted on August 6, 2004 02:33:05 PM newOne of these "vets" has already recanted what he said about Kerry.
Guess you didn't read the news today, one of the vets did NOT recant
Anti-Kerry Vietnam Veterans Hold Strong
The following statement from Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is in response to an article appearing in the morning edition of the Boston Globe (“Veteran Retracts Criticism of Kerry”) http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/08/06/veteran_retracts_criticism_of_kerry/ which implies that one Vietnam Veteran wishes to retract an affidavit he signed regarding John Kerry’s actions during and after Kerry’s time in Vietnam. The signed affidavit can be seen below.
"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. [See both affidavits below.]
“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.”
PS, the reporter that wrote the Boston Globe atricle jas been directly linked to John Kerry's campaign & COMMISSIONED TO WRITE CAMPAIGN BOOK FOREWORD -- WHILE COVERING KERRY.
posted on August 6, 2004 02:38:59 PM newbut they will never answer why bush is a better president because he was too scared to even show up for a medical exam...
Been answered many times...you just don't like the answers you read so you keep asking it over and over and over. Now I just ignore it....figure if you haven't understood it all the times before....you're not likely to get it this time either ...so there's no point in wasting more bandwidth.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"One thing is for sure: the extremists have faith in our weakness. And the weaker we are, the more they will come after us." --Tony Blair
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"The War on Terror will not be won until America is united. And as long as Democrats target the Bush administration -- not the terrorists -- as the enemy, we are in trouble." --Oliver North
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
posted on August 6, 2004 02:43:46 PM new
Another non-answer......
""""Been answered many times...you just don't like the answers you read so you keep asking it over and over and over. Now I just ignore it....figure if you haven't understood it all the times before....you're not likely to get it this time either ...so there's no point in wasting more bandwidth."""
C'mon, linda, waste a little more bandwidth.......answer the question.......when have you started being shy about shooting off your fat mouth.......
Gosh, I've been waiting and linduh and Poobear have been so quiet.
Poobear, if you call Kerry a coward because he went to Vietnam and fought in combat then what do you call that yellow-bellied bush....a hero??
C'mon, big mouth, big tough war vet, what's the answer ???
[ edited by crowfarm on Aug 6, 2004 03:36 PM ]
posted on August 6, 2004 04:05:48 PM new
Kerry Says He Wants Republican Mccain As Defence Secretary
John Kerry declared that if elected, he would choose John McCain, an outspoken Republican senator, as defence secretary.
By Guardian Newspapers, 5/13/2004
The Democratic presidential candidate, John Kerry, yesterday made a dramatic bid for crossover votes, declaring that if elected, he would choose John McCain, an outspoken Republican senator, as defence secretary.
Senator Kerry named another senior Republican, Senator John Warner, currently chairing hearings into the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal, as an alternative.
Senator McCain is a personal friend of Senator Kerry, a fellow Vietnam veteran, and the Kerry campaign has used a picture of the Democratic candidate with his arm around Mr McCain in its TV advertisements. There has even been talk of Mr McCain being picked as Mr Kerry's vice-presidential candidate.
"I'm not the president today," Senator Kerry told a radio interviewer yesterday, but added: "I have any number of people that I would make secretary of defence, beginning with our good friend John McCain as an example."
However, when asked about Mr Kerry's comments, Mr McCain said: "No thanks."
Mr McCain's aides have said recently that he plans to run for re-election as a Republican senator, and he supports Mr Bush's re-election.
In the same interview yesterday, the Democratic candidate blamed the Bush administration for the Abu Ghraib scandal. In the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks, the administration had been dismissive in its attitude to the Geneva Conventions, he said.
As a result, Senator Kerry argued, "the status of prisoners, both legal and moral, becomes ambiguous at best".
The candidate won the vocal support of his party's biggest star on Tuesday night, when Bill Clinton urged Democrats to campaign for him and denounced President Bush for wasting international backing with the invasion of Iraq.
"I think the world was really pulling for us after [the September 11] attacks," the former president said at an economic forum in New York. But, he said, the Bush administration "divided the world ... to pursue our vision - not because of any imminent threat but because that's what they wanted to do.
"There was a strong group of people in the administration who believed that Saddam Hussein was more important than Osama bin Laden and believed that dislodging him was important, without regard to whether he had weapons of mass destruction."
posted on August 6, 2004 04:33:11 PM new
Libra - EVERYBODY knows kerry desperately wanted McCain to be his VP. Most dems were praying he'd accept.
You can post 'proof' until you're blue in the face and some here will still argue about it.
Edwards was his second choice....it was mentioned by many online new media sources.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"One thing is for sure: the extremists have faith in our weakness. And the weaker we are, the more they will come after us." --Tony Blair
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"The War on Terror will not be won until America is united. And as long as Democrats target the Bush administration -- not the terrorists -- as the enemy, we are in trouble." --Oliver North
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
posted on August 6, 2004 04:38:17 PM new
Linduh, it has been proven there's no proof.
And, in the time it took you to write,
"Been answered many times...you just don't like the answers you read so you keep asking it over and over and over. Now I just ignore it....figure if you haven't understood it all the times before....you're not likely to get it this time either ...so there's no point in wasting more bandwidth."
.....you could've answered the question you won't answer.
...SNOW: Well, you’re absolutely right though, it’s going to be fun to see. Now John Kerry, is it true that John Kerry asked you to be his vice president?
McCAIN: Uh, no. No, it was never offered.
SNOW: It was never offered. So, it may have been discussed elliptically, but never flat out request.
McCAIN: Never was an offer, no.
SNOW: When you had conversations, did you think it was a little weird that he’d be calling you, even in general terms about this sort of thing?
McCAIN: Well, he and I have been friends for a number of years because of our efforts on POWs and MIAs which was a very hot issue back in the early 90’s, a lot of people have forgotten about it, but it was a- and we worked together to try to resolve that issue and I appreciate the work that he did on it. And, so it’s not unusual for us to have conversations.
SNOW: Right. But, so- I want to just lay to rest once and for all: never approached you, never hinted that he wanted to talk to you about being vice president. All that kind of stuff was made up.
McCAIN: Well, I cannot attest to that. All I can tell you is my conversations with him were private conversations, but he never offered it.
'nuf said.
....
____________________
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. -- John F. Kennedy
