posted on September 22, 2004 07:38:46 PM
Crow, I realize this is above your comprehension. Have someone read it to you & maybe you will understand.
A true Hero doesn't have to blow his own horn, his acts speak for themselves. Only a self made paper hero like kerry, who has accomplished nothing in his career in the senate, would run for president based on his self perception of a decorated vet. If kerry is such a great person & congressman, why haven't any of his fellow demo senators sought to promote him to higher status or commitee? Answer, because they too know kerry is unfit.
kerry is a self admitted liar about his 1st PH, he has admitted lying about "Christmas 1968 in Cambodia". He is also a self admitted "War Criminal" and admits to "Aiding and abetting" the enemy in a time of war by meeting the N Viet Communists in Paris.
-------------
“Seared in My Memory”
Reclaiming stolen honor this election year.
John Kerry's decision to run for president on his record in Vietnam has ripped the scab off of the wounds that war inflicted on the American body politic. Some of Kerry's defenders have laid this charge at the feet of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, but the fact is that they were responding to what they perceived as an affront to their honor. This is why all the attempts to paint them as Republican stooges are so far off of the mark.
I believe my own motivation in publicizing Kerry's actions after the war is typical of most anti-Kerry veterans, including the Swifties. I would never have written my first NRO piece back in January had Kerry chosen to run on his Senate record. But to coin a phrase, his April 1971 testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is "seared in my memory" and I believe his attempt now to surround himself with people he had once described as war criminals represents the height of cynicism and hypocrisy.
BEFORE AND AFTER
Of course, the Kerry campaign and most of the press blew off the pieces I wrote for NRO in January and for National Review in February as an attempt to question his service in Vietnam. The volume of e-mails and phone calls I received from Vietnam veterans agreeing with me demonstrated that I was far from alone. But owing to a lack of media interest, the issue dropped off the scope, permitting Kerry and his apologists to avoid addressing it.
Enter the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. They were motivated not only by Kerry's actions after the war but by the hagiographic portrayal of his Vietnam service in Douglas Brinkley's Tour of Duty. Despite a desperate attempt to dismiss the Swifties as Republican goons, Kerry and his defenders in the media were forced to deal with the substance of the Swifties' charges. This they did with varying degrees of success, owing to the fact that men in battle often perceive the same event differently. It does seem clear that Kerry did not spend Christmas of 1968 in Cambodia as he claimed on numerous occasions. There are also legitimate questions about the circumstances surrounding his first Purple Heart and his rescue of Jim Rassmann.
But there would seem to be no argument about Kerry's actions after the war. He did leave the Navy early to pursue a political career; he did join the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW); he did claim during his 1971 Senate testimony that American soldiers committed atrocities in Vietnam on a regular basis; he did participate in numerous instances of "political theater" put on by the VVAW, including Dewey Canyon III; and he did meet with representatives of the North Vietnamese Communist government. These events may have brought him to political prominence in the United States, but at the cost of alienating a substantial number of Vietnam veterans who believed he besmirched their honor and whose resulting anger has simmered for three decades.
WEAK DEFENSE
The first attempt to defend Kerry on the substance of the charge that he had dishonored all of those who fought in Vietnam with his 1971 Senate testimony was a series of arguments claiming that he really didn't mean to include everyone in Vietnam when he made his claim of widespread atrocities. He was, so the argument went, merely relating stories told by others. But if so, he should have chosen his words more carefully. The commonsense meaning of the statement that "over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command" seems to be that these accounts represent only the tip of the iceberg and, more important, that such actions represented U.S. policy against the Vietnamese.
So indeed, the second attempt to defend Kerry is now in play. His defenders claim that he was telling the truth — that atrocities did take place in Vietnam. Of course, as anyone who has read my articles knows, there is no controversy about this point. But the trick here, most on display in Peter Beinart's "Apocalypse Redux" in the September 6 issue of The New Republic, is to suggest that those who criticize Kerry are somehow denying that atrocities occurred in Vietnam at all. Beinart argues that the second Swift Boat ad (recounting Kerry's Senate testimony) doesn't claim that Kerry's charges were false, but "merely suggests he was unpatriotic for leveling them." Beinart then goes on to cite a number of historians who, sure enough, assure us that atrocities did occur in Vietnam.
But this is missing the point — whether intentionally or not I cannot say. This is now my eighth piece on this topic since January for National Review, NRO, The Weekly Standard, and the Jerusalem Post. In every one of those pieces as well as many others I have written over the years about the Vietnam War, I have stated unequivocally that Americans committed atrocities in Vietnam. I have never tried to whitewash the record, as one of my correspondents claimed.
As is often the case, Jim Webb — a Marine hero of the Vietnam War (Navy Cross) and best-selling author whose novel Fields of Fire is the best book about Vietnam — got to the crux of the matter in a recent NPR commentary when he said that the "stories of atrocious conduct, repeated in lurid detail by Kerry before the Congress, represented not the typical experience of the American soldier, but its ugly extreme" (emphasis added).
THE WINTER SOLDIER DISCONTENT
Some of us who believe that the American soldier did not typically commit atrocities have called into question the credibility of many of the accounts upon which Kerry based his testimony — the "Winter Soldier Investigation" (WSI), an early 1971 event in Detroit organized by the VVAW and sponsored by Jane Fonda, Dick Gregory, and conspiracy theorist Mark Lane. I had read Lane's 1970 book, Conversations with Americans, and was struck by how implausible most of the atrocity claims were. I was not alone. Lane's book was panned by James Reston Jr. and Neil Sheehan, not exactly known as supporters of the Vietnam War. Sheehan in particular demonstrated that many of Lane's "eyewitnesses" either had never served in Vietnam or had not done so in the capacity they claimed.
The transcripts of the WSI struck me the same way. My own beliefs were reinforced several years later by the publication of Guenter Lewy's America in Vietnam, in which he related the difficulty that military investigators faced trying to get particulars. As I wrote in the February 23 issue of National Review, paraphrasing Lewy, when the Naval Investigative Service (NIS) attempted to interview those who allegedly had witnessed atrocities, most refused to cooperate, even after assurances that they would not be questioned about atrocities they might have committed personally. Those that did cooperate never provided details of actual crimes to investigators. The NIS also discovered that some of the most grisly testimony was given by fake witnesses who had appropriated the names of real Vietnam veterans.
The same thing happened with Army investigators. As Lewy wrote,
the refusal of [those who claimed to have witnessed atrocities] to give substantiating factual information in support of their atrocity allegations created a situation in which the accusers continued to reap generous publicity for their sensational charges while the Army in most cases could neither investigate nor refute them...As of April 1971, the CID (the Army's Criminal Investigative Division) had determined that [in one case] 7 of 16 allegations...which could be investigated were unfounded or unsubstantiated. Most of the allegations were so general as to defy investigation.
My skepticism about the WSI was further strengthened by the publication of Stolen Valor by B. G. Burkett and Genna Whitley. In the course of trying to raise money for a Texas Vietnam Veterans Memorial, Burkett discovered that reporters were only interested in homeless veterans and drug abuse and that the corporate leaders he approached had bought into the popular image of Vietnam veterans: They were not honorable men who took pride in their service, but whining welfare cases, bellyaching about what an immoral government did to them.
Fed up, Burkett did something that any reporter worth his or her salt could have done: He used the Freedom of Information Act to check the actual records of the "image makers" used by reporters to flesh out their stories on homelessness, Agent Orange, suicide, drug abuse, criminality, or alcoholism. What he found was astounding. More often than not, the showcase "veteran" who cried on camera — about his dead buddies, about committing or witnessing atrocities, or about some heroic action in combat that led him to the current dead end in his life — was an impostor.
Indeed, Burkett discovered that over the last decade, some 1,700 individuals, including some of the most prominent examples of the Vietnam-veteran-as-dysfunctional-loser, had fabricated their war stories. Many had never even been in the service. Others had been, but had never been in Vietnam.
Lewy's account recently has been called into question and Burkett has been criticized for simply accusing everyone who talks about atrocities as a phony or imposter. In the August 30 TNR Online, historian John Prados writes regarding the WSI atrocity accounts that "a handful of individual stories may have been called into question, but the main thrust of the [WSI] testimonies — that American atrocities were widespread in Vietnam — is today beyond dispute. Indeed the emergence of new evidence during the last 30 years has only solidified the winter soldiers' overall case." He then criticizes Lewy's account of the WSI:
Lewy's primary evidence consists of noting that VVAW members refused to give depositions. When the Naval Investigative Service tried to pull VVAW members into an inquiry, it found one Marine who either could not or would not give details of what he had seen and allegedly located several other veterans who said they had never gone to Detroit. (O'Neill had cited this same information in his televised debate with Kerry.) But even if true, these incidents were far too limited to establish anything in particular about the Winter Soldier Investigation; the fact that some of the winter soldiers declined to give depositions does not prove or disprove the legitimacy of the entire project. The VVAW leadership left it up to individual members to decide how to respond to requests for depositions. And veterans had good reasons to decline. For one thing, they argued that their purpose was to protest U.S. policy, not to draw attention to individual soldiers. What's more, with the VVAW under direct assault from the Nixon administration, it's understandable that the group's members were loath to cooperate with government investigators.
The debate turns, it seems to me, on Prados's assertion that it is today beyond dispute that "American atrocities were widespread in Vietnam." Again I stipulate that they did occur. Recent revelations include the Son Thang event described by Marine Corps veteran Gary D. Solis in his book Son Thang: An American War Crime and the more troubling "Tiger Force" story broken earlier this year by the Toledo Blade, which reported that members of an elite unit of the 327th Airborne Infantry in the Central Highlands in 1967 committed war crimes ranging from murder and assault to dereliction of duty.
Of course the best-known incident was the admission several years ago by Bob Kerrey, the highly respected former senator from Nebraska and Medal of Honor recipient, that the Navy SEAL team he led in Vietnam killed women and children during a nighttime mission some 32 years ago.
Kerrey's admission was prompted by a lengthy New York Times Magazine story by Gregory Vistica that went further than the charge that civilians died during this action. It contained the explosive claim that then-Lieutenant (j.g.) Kerrey had ordered the civilians to be rounded up and then shot point-blank to facilitate the SEAL team's escape. If this allegation is true, what happened that night in the Mekong Delta village of Thanh Phong was more than a terrible tragedy of war — it was a war crime.
KERRY, THE SOVIET PROPAGANDIST
These are all troubling events. But they do not prove that atrocities in Vietnam were more widespread than in previous wars. Additionally, there is no evidence that atrocities were a matter of policy, as suggested in this September 1970 VVAW flyer issued in conjunction with one of its stunts:
A
US Infantry
Company Just
Came through
Here!
If you had been Vietnamese —
We might have burned your house
We might have shot your dog
We might have shot you
We might have raped your wife and daughter
We might have turned you over to the government for torture
We might have taken souvenirs from your property
We might have shot things up a bit
We might have done all these things to you and your whole town
Let's put things in perspective. Some three million men served in Vietnam. Since the logistics tail of U.S. forces is fairly large, only about 25 percent, or 750,000, served in combat units. If we add up all of the atrocities, both proven and alleged, and multiply them by two as a hedge against under-reporting, the percentage of American combat soldiers who might have committed atrocities is still less than 1 percent of the total. I doubt that many armies in history could match that record.
I have tried on many occasions to get to the heart of why some Americans committed atrocities in Vietnam and others didn't. The fact is that anyone who has been in combat understands the thin line between permissible acts and atrocity. The first and potentially most powerful emotion in combat is fear arising from the instinct of self-preservation.
But in soldiers, fear is overcome by what the Greeks called thumos, spiritedness or righteous indignation. It is thumos, awakened by the death of his comrade Patroclus, that causes Achilles to quit sulking in his tent and wade into the Trojans, slaughtering them in great numbers. But unchecked, thumos can engender rage and frenzy. It is the role of leadership, which provides strategic context for killing and enforces discipline, to prevent this outcome. Such leadership was not in evidence at My Lai, or most of the other cases of atrocities.
In the May 3 issue of National Review, I suggested three reasons that explain the belief on the part of so many that atrocities in Vietnam were more frequent than in other wars and that they were a part of policy: 1) Soviet propaganda; 2) the belief on the part of the veterans who related atrocity stories that they were telling their listeners what they wanted to hear; and 3) liars and phonies.
In America in Vietnam, Lewy noted the establishment of a veritable war-crimes industry, supported by the USSR, as early as 1965. As Ion Mihai Pacepa, a former Romanian intelligence chief, has recounted, the Soviets set up permanent international organizations — including the International War Crimes Tribunal and the Stockholm Conference on Vietnam — "to aid or to conduct operations to help Americans dodge the draft or defect, to demoralize its army with anti-American propaganda, to conduct protests, demonstrations, and boycotts, and to sanction anyone connected with the war." Pacepa claims to have been responsible for fabricating stories about U.S. atrocities in Vietnam and "flacking" them to Western news organizations. Lewy writes that "the Communists made skillful use of their worldwide propaganda apparatus . . . and they found many Western intellectuals only too willing to accept every conceivable allegation of [American] wrongdoing at face value."
The VVAW, a small, radical group that never exceeded a membership of 7,000 (including John Kerry) from a pool of nearly three million Vietnam (and nine million Vietnam-era) veterans, essentially "Americanized" Soviet propaganda. When he testified before the Senate in 1971, Kerry was merely repeating charges that had been making the rounds since 1965.
To the anti-war Left, atrocities revealed the Nazi-like character of "Amerika." But, unlike their Nazi counterparts, U.S. soldiers could be redeemed: By confessing atrocities, the Vietnam veterans, once denigrated as "baby killers," were able to receive absolution from the Left, and were transmuted into innocent victims of a brutal war. American military sociologist Charles Moskos has suggested that atrocity stories out of Vietnam were the functional equivalent of heroic war stories from World War II: They provided a meaning to participation in Vietnam that resonated with those who opposed the war and were now judging the returning soldiers. Some atrocity claims were the product of outright fantasy, on the part of soldiers who returned from the war emotionally disturbed. The (anti-war) psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton wrote of a veteran who, after some time in group therapy, could "confess that he had been much less violent in Vietnam than he had implied. He had previously given the impression that he had killed many people there, whereas in actuality, despite extensive combat experience, he could not be certain he had killed anyone."
Third were the phonies: In response to the claim that some if not many of those who testified at the WSI event were exaggerating or even imposters, Prados writes that "every veteran who presented in Detroit had to show a copy of his military papers (the military form known as DD-214) to demonstrate that he had actually been present at the places and times he was speaking about."
Let me be clear. Not all atrocity stories can be pawned off as the work of phonies. But one of the most striking revelations of Stolen Valor is how easy it is to produce fraudulent records, including the DD-214. And anyone who served in Vietnam has no doubt at one time or another confronted a wannabe Vietnam vet. It has always amazed me how many people want to claim to have served in such an unpopular war.
I would add a fourth reason — the passing down of a story from soldier to soldier. According to FactCheck.org, Keith Nolan, author of ten published books on Vietnam, says he's heard many veterans describe atrocities just like those Kerry recounted from the Winter Soldier event. Since 1978, Nolan has interviewed roughly 1,000 veterans in depth for his books, and spoken to thousands of others. "I have heard the exact same stories dozens if not hundreds of times over," he said. "Wars produce atrocities. Frustrating guerrilla wars produce a particularly horrific number of atrocities. That some individual soldiers and certain units responded with excessive brutality in Vietnam shouldn't really surprise anyone."
Let me recount a personal anecdote that makes me question the idea that a story heard many times validates it. I didn't commit or witness atrocities during my tour as a Marine infantry platoon leader. As far as I know, neither did the other officers in my regiment and battalion. But I heard of an atrocity just after I joined the unit. A Marine who was scheduled to rotate soon recounted an incident that he claimed had occurred shortly after he had arrived in the unit about a year earlier.
According to the story, members of a sister company had killed some North Vietnamese soldiers after they had surrendered. Some months later, I heard another Marine who had joined my platoon after I took it over relate exactly the same story to some newly arrived men, only now it involved me and my platoon. I had a little chat with him and he cleared things up with the new men. But that episode has always made me wonder how many of the stories have been recycled and how many accounts of atrocities are based on what veterans heard as opposed to committed or witnessed. Of course, an account based on hearsay may be true. After all, the soldier who broke the My Lai story was not present during the massacre.
Unfortunately for the body politic, this issue is not going to go away. Too many veterans have long memories and they believe that Kerry sacrificed their honor on the altar of his political ambitions.
— Mackubin Thomas Owens is a professor of national-security affairs at the Naval War College in Newport, R.I. He led a Marine infantry platoon in Vietnam in 1968-69.
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The person who has nothing for which he is willing
to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill
posted on September 22, 2004 07:41:24 PM
But, bear, you are pointing out the facts to a bunch of people that don't let the truth interfere with their version of reality.
posted on September 22, 2004 07:50:35 PMBut, bear, you are pointing out the facts to a bunch of people that don't let the truth interfere with their version of reality.
Very few people are going to cast votes based on stuff that did or didn't happen 30+ years ago. Kerry's and Bush's service or lack thereof are a big yawn. Irrelevant except to a few vets who can't get past the war.
posted on September 22, 2004 07:55:47 PMIrrelevant except to a few vets who can't get past the war.
Except those people were getting past the war until kerry came along and made it an issue again.
Hey, hey Ho, ho Kerry - sign the 1-8-0
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The person who has nothing for which he is willing
to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill
posted on September 22, 2004 09:00:19 PM
BTW where is John Edwards? Has he decided not to participate? Does he realize that working as a malpractice attorney has many more benefits. Well whatever the reason is he has been vacant for quite a while now.
posted on September 23, 2004 06:03:40 AM
libra,"vacant for quite a while now."
Edwards, libra, has not been "vacant".
He is traveling around the country campaigning.....read a newspaper instead of google searching stupid stories abour hidden doors and you'd know.
yup, the war stuff IS getting boring but the lying "Not-so-Swift"
boat vets keep it up funded by rich Republicans.
It's to draw attention away from the fact that the slimey drunken bush was too cowardly to go to Vietnam and fight.
This is the reality that the righties in here can't face.
By constantly attacking Kerry they think it makes george "cokey" bush look better.
posted on September 23, 2004 06:16:30 AM
I agree, profe, but something much more important and timely, something that affects us all, bush's tax plan doesn't seem to draw much attention. Why?
Because the people who wrote that article are some of the top experts in America and can't be refuted. Hard to argue with Brookings. Their ideas are also in line with Nobel prizewinners in Economics who warned bush's tax "cuts" would benefit the rich, hurt the middle and lower income , and NOT jump start the economy.
The Deomocrats know they're being screwed tax-wise and the righties don't want to see the facts.
They just rather keep maligning a combat vet. Well, the fact that Kerry went to Vietnam and fought and bush hid in a bottle and had his daddy protect him just can't be hidden.
They attack Kerry and I will just keep shoving bush's "war" record in their faces.
The purpose is to draw attentiomn away from bush's endless debacle in Iraq, his failed economy, his miserable policy on the environment.....there just is nothing good to say about HIM so slander his competition...........
[ edited by crowfarm on Sep 23, 2004 06:52 AM ]
posted on September 23, 2004 08:24:03 AM
Libra - I do believe he's hiding out...you know like the lefties accuse Cheney of doing all the time. Just remember...anything is a-okay when it's their side.
----------------
you are pointing out the facts to a bunch of people that don't let the truth interfere with their version of reality.
posted on September 23, 2004 08:48:31 AM
AS crowfarm is wrong many times she tells me not to use google. I have never googled anything that I have posted here. It either comes from Yahoo or one of the big 4. Foxnews, CBS, ABC or NBC. Well not CBS any more.
I see Edwards has surfaced again. Is it because Kerry is home sick? I understand he has a terrible cold and can't speak. Too bad.
posted on September 23, 2004 10:04:24 PM
There is nothing wrong with doing a google search, imo. The lefties don't like it anymore...helen's about the only ultra-ultra-liberal who still does it. But they mention it only when the righties use it. The biggest objection I see is because the nonsense they speak is then proven incorrect by doing a search of their claims. So if they can convince everyone there's something wrong with it....then they have a better chance of their own incorrect statements being believed. It's call verifying the truth. Truth and facts are dirty words to some here.
---------------------
Anyway...yes poor kerry has a cold and had to stay home so they brought Edwards out of hiding. Some commentators have mentioned how kerry's poll numbers *always* go UP when he's *not* campaigning. LOL I sure can understand why. I can just picture it now... kerry gets a cold and the whole WH has to shut down.
But it has been mentioned that when kerry's under a lot of stress...he needs to get away for a few days to de-stress. That's when we see him windsurfing, skiing, etc. rather than heading back to the Senate to represent the people he supposedly was elected to represent.
So...maybe they're just saying it's a cold....and it's really not....he just needs a rest from watching his poll numbers.
posted on September 23, 2004 11:45:10 PM
Has anyone else ever mentioned how stubborn you are, reamond?
The Armed Forces only give Honorable Discharges to those who have served honorably. Everyone knows that....and even you do...you just can't say it.
You kind of remind me of Dan Rather....just can't admit he and See-BS were wrong. Trying to turn an election on false information. And here you are doing the same....trying to change peoples minds on....
....an accusation that *no one has been able to prove* for all these years it's been made an issue by the democrats.
Also so funny to me how the dems latch onto someone who served for 14 weeks...like WOW!!!
"Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture, don´t have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president." - john kerry
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"These dizzying contradictions -- so glaring, so public, so frequent -- have gone beyond undermining anything Kerry can now say on Iraq. They have been transmuted into a character issue."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"What kind of man, aspiring to the presidency, does not know his own mind about the most serious issue of our time?" - Charles Krauthammer
------------
posted on September 24, 2004 08:39:58 AMThe Armed Forces only give Honorable Discharges to those who have served honorably.
How naive and ignorant can you be Linda.
Bush immediately got into a guard unit that had a waiting list. It was the "champaign" unit. No combat, no Vietnam. There was a waiting list to get in and he got right in. What don't you understand about the cowardice and desertion of Bush ?
Bush comes and goes as he pleases in the Guard while we are at war.
So you now believe that they would give Bush an honorable discharge only if he deserves it ?
BUSH GOT AN HONORABLE DISCHARGE THE SAME WAY HE GOT INTO THE NATIONAL GUARD.
BUSH GOT AWAY WITH DESERTING AND TELLING THE MILITARY WHEN AND WHERE HE WOULD REPORT FOR DUTY DURING A TIME OF WAR.
BUSH GOT AN HONORABLE DISCHARGE HANDED TO HIM THE SAME WAY HE GOT EVERY OTHER FAVOR HANDED TO HIM.
HOW ANYONE WITH FAMILY MEMBERS PRESENTLY IN THE SERVICE CAN SUPPORT THIS DESERTER IS BEYOND BELIEF.
ANYONE WHO CAN DENY THAT BUSH WAS TREATED WITH GREAT PRIVELEGE AND TOOK GROSS ADVANTAGE OF HIS PRIVELEGE DURING THE VIETNAM WAR IS BLIND.
KERRY TOOK HAVE TAKEN THE COWARDS PATH LIKE BUSH BUT HE DIDN'T.
posted on September 24, 2004 08:46:35 AM
EVERY CURRENT GUARD AND RESERVE MEMBER SHOULD REQUEST LEAVE TO SERVE ON A POLITICAL CAMPAIGN. SEE WHAT HAPPENS.
EVERY CURRENT GUARD PILOT AND PILOT RESERVE MEMBER SHOULD REFUSE TO TAKE THEIR FLIGHT PHYSICAL. SEE WHAT HAPPENS.
WE'VE RECENTLY HAD MILITARY PEOPLE THREATENED WITH COURT MARTIAL FOR REFUSING TO TAKE VACCINATIONS.
ANYONE WHO CONTINUES TO BLATHER THAT BUSH EARNED AN HONORABLE DISCHARGE IS IN NEVER-NEVER-LAND.
BUSH WAS A DESERTER AND A COWARD.
WHY ANYONE WOULD SUPPORT A DESERTER AND A COWARD AS COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF DURING TIME OF WAR IS IRRESPONSIBLE.
posted on September 24, 2004 11:56:46 AM
20 Reasons to vote for kerry
20. Israel's security fence really is both a ''legitimate act of self defense'' and a ''barrier to peace,'' and at the same time. (web site)
19. In fact, no matter what you believe about any issue, Kerry's on your side (web site)50% of the time. Unfortunately, if there are three sides to an issue, he's only with you 33%.
18. Anyone who had the foresight to bring his own Super 8 movie camera to Vietnam (web site) to shoot campaign commercials for when he got back home, is okay by you.
17. Kerry should be president because, as he said, he was born in the ''west wing'' of a hospital. (web site) This has nothing to do with all the other people ever born in the west wings of all the hospitals in the world, however.
16. You believe that Saddam was a threat with nuclear weapons. After all, John Kerry himself said, (web site) ''If you don't believe ... Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me.'' Of course, that would make the liberation of Iraq the right thing to do then, wouldn't it? Maybe you'd better skip this one.
15. He and John Edwards have ''better hair.'' (web site) Aren't you glad Don King (web site) isn't running?
14. The company you work for doesn't pay enough taxes. If it did, it wouldn't have money in the budget to waste on you.
13. Europe wants him (web site) to be our president, which automatically means that you should, too... if you want to be popular when you visit your family in France, (web site) that is.
12. Kerry was in Vietnam for a few months 35 years ago, and he still remembers how to curse like a sailor! (web site)
11. Kim Jong Il prefers him, (web site) Iranian mullahs, and other unnamed foreign leaders would certainly prefer him, (web site) and the CPUSA (U.S. Communist Party) prefers him. (web site)
10. He owns American-made SUVs... no, no, wait, his FAMILY does. (web site) Sorry.
9. He was in Vietnam for a few months 35 years ago--did you know that? He was in Cambodia, too. The memory of his secret mission on Christmas Day 1968 (web site) was seared--seared--in him. Or maybe it was some other time, or some other place, or some other guy. But he has a hat to prove it... whatever it is.
8. John Kerry said that he believes we ''need to build multilateral support for whatever course of action we ultimately would take.'' America should never act on its own, (web site) like other countries do.
7. He was the only Vietnam veteran to be honored by both America and the North Vietnamese (web site) for his activities during the Vietnam War.
6. The best way to deal with terrorism is to wait until they hit us again. (web site) ''Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response,'' Kerry said when he accepted the Democrat nomination.
5. After years of marrying rich women, shouldn't he finally have his own house?
4. Although he would raise your taxes, his speech explaining why would cure your insomnia.
3. You've probably already forgotten that he was in Vietnam for a few months 35 years ago.
2. As well as revealing at various times that he's Irish (web site) (but really Czech), Catholic (but really Jewish), (web site) and Liberal (but really Conservative), (web site) he will also be the second ''black'' President. (web site)
1. Ketchup packets with the presidential seal! How cool!
[ edited by Bear1949 on Sep 24, 2004 12:02 PM ]
posted on September 24, 2004 11:59:17 AM
Bush immediately got into a guard unit that had a waiting list. It was the "champaign" unit. No combat, no Vietnam. There was a waiting list to get in and he got right in.
wrong
What don't you understand about the cowardice and desertion of Bush ?
never happened
Bush comes and goes as he pleases in the Guard while we are at war.
with approval of his superiors
So you now believe that they would give Bush an honorable discharge only if he deserves it ?
received enough points to fufill obligation
BUSH GOT AN HONORABLE DISCHARGE THE SAME WAY HE GOT INTO THE NATIONAL GUARD.
prove it
BUSH GOT AWAY WITH DESERTING AND TELLING THE MILITARY WHEN AND WHERE HE WOULD REPORT FOR DUTY DURING A TIME OF WAR.
prove it
BUSH GOT AN HONORABLE DISCHARGE HANDED TO HIM THE SAME WAY HE GOT EVERY OTHER FAVOR HANDED TO HIM.
duplicate rant
HOW ANYONE WITH FAMILY MEMBERS PRESENTLY IN THE SERVICE CAN SUPPORT THIS DESERTER IS BEYOND BELIEF.
only in your mind
ANYONE WHO CAN DENY THAT BUSH WAS TREATED WITH GREAT PRIVELEGE AND TOOK GROSS ADVANTAGE OF HIS PRIVELEGE DURING THE VIETNAM WAR IS BLIND.
only to a typical Bush basher
KERRY TOOK HAVE TAKEN THE COWARDS PATH LIKE BUSH BUT HE DIDN'T.
enlisted in Naval reserves in hope of not being called up
KERRY WILL GO AFTER AL QAEDA AND KICK THEIR A$$.
personally? Maybe he can get a 4th undeserved PH
KERRY WILL HOLD THE SAUDIS ACCOUNTABLE.
he can't even hold his own campaign staff accountable
KERRY ISN'T A COWARD OR DESERTER.
request transfer to Swift Boats knowing they would not see action. Zumwalt fooled you didn't he john?
Hey, hey Ho, ho Kerry - sign the 1-8-0
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The person who has nothing for which he is willing
to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill
posted on September 24, 2004 04:38:30 PM
Kerry is a combat veteran and hero, Bush is a deserter. That's a fact and all we nned to know.
kerry is a combat vet, that deserted his bretheren when he thought he was under fire leaving 3 other boats sitting ducks while attempting to aid the #3 boat.
BUSH SUPPORTERS SUPPORT DESERTION AND COWARDICE.
clinton supporters supported his PROVEN RECORD as a coward and draft dodger
By the way Reamond, you still havent provided conclusive evidence or links to support your theories.
-------------
"Like swallows heading for Capistrano, liberals are drawn toward those institutions where they have the power to impose their beliefs and ignore any knowledge that says otherwise. Such institutions are usually dominated by the Left. Only belatedly have people with other ideas begun to challenge the liberal dominance in these institutions. Among the fiercest battlegrounds are the courts. Here anyone who challenges the liberal dominance is certain to be not merely criticized but targeted for a whole campaign of smears, a process that put a new verb in our language, 'to Bork.' The Left understands that power trumps knowledge. The question is whether the rest of us will realize that too -- and try to keep such power from becoming or remaining a monopoly of the Left. We don't need limousine liberals telling farmers how to farm, builders how to build, and everybody else how to live their lives. That power is too dangerous to let it trump knowledge." --Thomas Sowell
Hey, hey Ho, ho Kerry - sign the 1-8-0
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill
[ edited by Bear1949 on Sep 24, 2004 04:42 PM ]
Just remember...anything is a-okay when it's their side.
I can just picture it now... kerry gets a cold and the whole WH has to shut down.