Disgusting Kerry - link now fixed

[Pugdog007]

A Kerry presidency would be disastrous to our armed forces and to national security. God help us if he wins.

Not that I think he has a chance in hell.

 

[chadfromdallas]

Originally posted by Pugdog007
Not that I think he has a chance in hell.

Really? What election have you been keeping up with?

Earth to Pugdog007 :


linky

 

[Viking]

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
Ding the messenger and ignore the message. Nice.

So, is this man is lying too or do he just have a grudge against Kerry?

Why do Kerry cool-aid drinkers dismiss the impact he had on the men still serving?

I just wish one of you would have the backbone to say that his actions had a deep negative impact on the soldiers still serving and the POWs.

But I won't be holding my breath.

IMHO the impact Dubya had on the 1000+ KIA so far is worse

The letter of this guy just makes him appear as a stupid warmonger who hasn't learned anything from history.

 

[ripleysmom]

There were many other men who returned from Vietnam with the same feelings so why is so horrible for John Kerry to have spoken up? To me, he would be a far more effective CiC since he has a firsthand knowledge of the ramifications of the decisions that he was making regarding war.

Part of why we did not invade Iraq the first time would be due to the input of the officers that had served in Vietnam and understood the consequences of such an invasion. Vietnam was one big SNAFU that no one was anxious to repeat.

Maybe if W had actually served his country instead of hiding out in the National Guard he would have had a better idea of the consequences of his actions.

There is a report that we are looking at 5 more years of occupation before we can exit Iraq.

http://news.bostonherald.com/international/view.bg?articleid=49840

I think that if Kerry had been leading the country, Iraq would have been handled with more insight and a better understanding of the long term consequences of invasion.

 

[birdiesunshine]

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
All I was asking was for someone who supports Kerry to admit they thought his actions when he returned had a deep negative impact on (some, many, a lot, who knows) soldiers and POWs.

You couldn't even say one way or the other without bringing Bush in to it. Bush had nothing to do with the question or the answer.

So I can only assume that you don't think Kerry's actions when he returned had the impact stated by the man who took out the ad or any other vet that has expressed the same feelings.

The bottom line is that Kerry is a war hero!! He served our country unlike Bush who snorted coke and played pick- up- sticks instead of defending our country. I don't put much merit into something a person says that I don't know, haven't met and will never meet. Sure there are a lot of people our there that say Kerry doesn't deserve his medals, but there are a lot of people that say he does. I love how the top of the link that was posted says "rumor has it" didn't your mommies tell you never to listen to rumors!!!!

 

[swanmom]

If you are going to present Lehtinen's letter, then I believe that some background information is relevant. Lehtinen is not just any Vietnam vet without bias or a possible motive for such a letter. To get the full story, people who are going to the Snopes link to read Lehtinen's letter should also look at a link which is posted further down on that page to the article "Lehtinen for Mayor" in the Miami Herald. Gives an additional perspective on Lehtinen.

 

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
All I was asking was for someone who supports Kerry to admit they thought his actions when he returned had a deep negative impact on (some, many, a lot, who knows) soldiers and POWs.

I support Kerry and I admit that his actions when he returned had a deep negative impact on some soldiers and POWs. But then, so did the anger and cruelty of the American people in general during Viet Nam. When soldiers returned from Viet Nam they were, generally, treated as pariahs -- people who had fought an unjust war for reasons that most Americans did not understand. John Kerry was not the only soldier who returned from Viet Nam and then took a position against it. However, as John Kerry is now running for President, it's convenient for people opposing him to bring this up and use it against him.

Part of what our military is fighting for, I thought, was the fundamental freedoms of being an American. Not only do we want to protect those freedoms and rights for ourselves, but we want to bring them to other countries around the globe. Those freedoms include freedom of speech and the freedom to criticize your government. How can someone call a person unpatriotic for exercising the freedoms that they, themselves, fought for?

It has been known for decades that John Kerry spoke out against the Viet Nam War after he returned, just as many, many other Viet Nam vets did. It's inevitable that some of those men and women who fought in that War are going to disagree with him for doing that. If you're looking for an issue where someone is going to be 100% right or 100% wrong, then Viet Nam is the wrong place to look.

 

[pammypooh]

I knew that I should not have read the entire thread...

I don't like how people are attacking each other here.

We live in a free country, and while you are able to disagree with whomever you want...you do not have to have a mean spirited tone to your post.

Just for the record, I support President Bush and my dad was a Vietnam combat vet - served one year in country - with the USMC. He will also be voting for President Bush and is not running for any political office.

Please try to keep these posts civil.

Thank you.

Pam

 

[disney4us2002]

Originally posted by Viking
IMHO the impact Dubya had on the 1000+ KIA so far is worse

So is it your contention that Kerry will somehow have less impact on those serving currently? How so? He states he intends to send 40,000 more over there so the death toll could conceivably go up drastically. I don't believe that he actually will send the troops and that he will actually pull out because he doesn't believe in this war. I'm not convinced he believes in any war for any reason.

See, the problem with Kerry is judgement. I don't think he uses good judgement. That is my issue with his actions after returning from Vietnam. He didn't understand that his words of terrible atrocities would impact the POW's? He could have protested the war on the grounds that we weren't in a position to win (similar to his belief about terrorism) or that the goal wasn't clearly defined. He could've taken any number of positions but instead slammed those serving and then met with the Viet Cong while still serving in the military.

Then there is the whole use of Cheney's daughter for his own political gains. There is an unwritten rule that you don't involve family members - most seem to get that.

He could've turned both of these situations around easily if he had just apologized. You Dems keep harping on Bush not admitting making mistakes but you want him to say invading was a mistake which he doesn't believe (and neither do I). The impact of Kerry's actions/words clearly disturbed many people. Regardless of whether he thought at the time it was right, he could say he didn't intend to worsen the POW's plight or insult the Cheney's. Simple.

He just doesn't use good judgement and cannot grasp the impact of his words and actions. This will make the difference on Nov 2nd.

 

[goofy4tink]

I seldom get embroiled in these political 'discussions' but after living through the horror that was the Vietnam War I have to say that I remember, and talked to, plenty of vets who said the exact same things that John Kerry has said. Why in heavens name would someone come home from the war and say this type of thing if he didn't believe them to be true and want them to be addressed. After the way our war vets were treated when they came home, I don't think anyone now should be commenting on what John Kerry has said. It was a miserable war, made more so by some 'bad apples'. We have had them in our current war, we have had them in all wars. John Kerry speaking out about them does not make him a bad person or incapeable of governing. At least he knows what war is all about...up close and personnal!! I'm sure each candidate is a good man who wants to do the right thing. Just because some of us don't agree as to the correct person to do the job doesn't make any of us bad either!!!

 

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by ripleysmom
There were many other men who returned from Vietnam with the same feelings so why is so horrible for John Kerry to have spoken up? To me, he would be a far more effective CiC since he has a firsthand knowledge of the ramifications of the decisions that he was making regarding war.

Part of why we did not invade Iraq the first time would be due to the input of the officers that had served in Vietnam and understood the consequences of such an invasion. Vietnam was one big SNAFU that no one was anxious to repeat.

Maybe if W had actually served his country instead of hiding out in the National Guard he would have had a better idea of the consequences of his actions.

There is a report that we are looking at 5 more years of occupation before we can exit Iraq.

http://news.bostonherald.com/international/view.bg?articleid=49840

I think that if Kerry had been leading the country, Iraq would have been handled with more insight and a better understanding of the long term consequences of invasion.

ITA!

And let me add this: The Viet Nam war was based on a fictitious incident and encouraged by ideologues who believed the ends justified the means.

History repeats itself.

 

[Elwood Blues]

Thank you WDWSearcher. And FTR, I had no idea who Kerry was or what he did until he showed up in the campaign so to say it was known for decades what his past was is a little misleading because I'm sure many others didn't know his background. I'd even bet that many of his fellow constituents didn't know.

I find it amazing when the actions of Kerry are brought in to question a lot of Kerry supporters immediately dodge the question and bring up comparisons to Bush.

I know this happens when the question is about Bush or Cheney or Edwards, etc.

It would be nice for a change not to do that and stick to the question.

 

[Ted and Holly]

Originally posted by birdiesunshine
I don't put much merit into something a person says that I don't know, haven't met and will never meet.

So, how often are you having dinner with the Kerry's or Bush family?

Ted

 

[denisenh]

Originally posted by pammypooh
I knew that I should not have read the entire thread...
I don't like how people are attacking each other here.
We live in a free country, and while you are able to disagree with whomever you want...you do not have to have a mean spirited tone to your post.
Please try to keep these posts civil.
Thank you.
Pam

I, for one, think this thread is civil. No one is attacking anyone. It is all very nice. Could you point out what it is that you are referring to?

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
I just wish one of you would have the backbone to say that his actions had a deep negative impact on the soldiers still serving and the POWs.
But I won't be holding my breath.

Originally posted by denisenh
For the sake of ....whatever, lets say that I said that Kerrys actions had a deep negative impact on the soldiers still serving and the POWs.
Then what? Does that undo Bushs mess? Does it make President Bush better?

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
All I was asking was for someone who supports Kerry to admit they thought his actions when he returned had a deep negative impact on (some, many, a lot, who knows) soldiers and POWs.
You couldn't even say one way or the other without bringing Bush in to it. Bush had nothing to do with the question or the answer.
So I can only assume that you don't think Kerry's actions when he returned had the impact stated by the man who took out the ad or any other vet that has expressed the same feelings.

So, erase my last 2 questions on my above post. What's left is "then what?" Bush is out of the answer, just like he will be out of the White House in January.
Elwood, just come over to Kerrys side. You'll like it. You belong with us. PLEEAASSEE?

 

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
I had no idea who Kerry was or what he did until he showed up in the campaign so to say it was known for decades what his past was is a little misleading because I'm sure many others didn't know his background.

And therein lies the fundamental problem with election-year charges such as the whole Viet Nam thing. This information HAS been public record since it first happened. Go back to the whole Jane Fonda thing, and you'll see John Kerry (and a lot of other Viet Nam Vets) in the pictures too. It's not an expose. Kerry didn't try to keep it hidden ... he didn't deny it happened. It wasn't some big secret. He fully and freely admits that he spoke out against the Viet Nam war after returning from his tour of duty.

You didn't know Kerry spoke out against Viet Nam when he first did it, and you didn't care, until he ran for office. You didn't have reason to. But whether he wins or loses the presidency, you'll go back to not caring, because there will be a whole new host of things to worry about. That's the problem with things like this -- on both sides. They "reveal" some issue that people care about DEEPLY, but only until the election. Then it fades back into the woodwork, and all the passion and anger and importance that it held two weeks before disappears, leaving those who DO truly care about it even farther back then they were when they started.

 

[ripleysmom]

"All I was asking was for someone who supports Kerry to admit they thought his actions when he returned had a deep negative impact on (some, many, a lot, who knows) soldiers and POWs."

Why should I admit to something that I do not believe?

 

[suzannen]

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
All I was asking was for someone who supports Kerry to admit they thought his actions when he returned had a deep negative impact on (some, many, a lot, who knows) soldiers and POWs.

The entire Vietnam experience had a deep negative impact on the soldiers and POWS. That included my friends that came back and my 20-year old next door neighbor that never did! If you fought in it - you earned the right to criticize what was going on over there. It was a mess!

 

[Christine]

["All I was asking was for someone who supports Kerry to admit they thought his actions when he returned had a deep negative impact on (some, many, a lot, who knows) soldiers and POWs."

[/QUOTE]

Anything ANY person does can have a negative impact on others. I'm sure that I have done things that were within my beliefs that may have caused problems for others. Does that mean that I should not say them or keep my freedom of speech to myself--because my views may cause someone else pain?

There are soldiers today in Iraq who are speaking out against the war. They are disillusioned, don't know why they are there, but they are doing their jobs nevertheless. There are also soldiers there who agree with the whole war and have no problem with it. Everyone is entitled to say what they think. How is this any different? So that poor, downtrodden 20-something soldier I saw on the news last month who was against the war better never run for office right??? Because what he said insulted another soldier there? Just doesn't make sense to me.

Yes, I will agree that Kerry's actions/words over the Viet Nam war probably did piss off some and had a negative impact. That doesn't mean he did anything wrong by speaking out.