John Kerry for President!

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
WTH are you talking about? I never said nor implied anything like that. Nice try though.

You said that terror attacks had increased elsewhere, thereby implying that those attacks matter less than those that happen at home. Terror attacks have increased. Period. Deal with it.

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
No, not possibly. Definitely. It would have happened regardless of who was in the WH.

Again, unless you have a direct line to the terrorists, you simply can NOT know that. You are PROBABLY right, and I have said as much before. But you simply can NOT say it is definite.

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
I don't gleefully say anything when it comes to this stuff. That's the way you interpreted it. That's YOUR problem. Not mine.

Yeah...my mistake

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
Are you implying that 9-11 could have been avoided if Bush wasn't reading to those school kids that day?

No....but it would have been nice (as has been discussed ad nauseum) if he'd not been doing it for 10 minutes after finding out that the nation was under attack.

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
Ok ok, you got me. No one here *actually* said that but the implication was loud and clear.

Umm...."That's your problem, not mine"

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
So are you saying the terroists attacks will not end entirely?
Or are you saying (as has been implied) that once we leave all the places they don't want us to be, they won't want to attack us anymore?

I've already addressed this...Only the extreme right wants to make the issue of terrorism as simple as "us vs. them" (probably so that their leader can understand it ). Sorry if complexities are too difficult, but there isn't any such thing as "black and white" when it comes to this (or most) issues, no matter how this administration tries to make it so. Looking at the terrorist issue without looking into it's root cause is just plain stupid.

 

[faithinkarma]

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Swift_Boat_Veterans_for_Truth

that is the link to the site. I am looking for the link to the person who financially supports them. I posted it recently here. I am doing this while I am on hold with the cable co. lol

 

[JoeThaNo1Stunna]

Originally posted by Saffron
Up until last night I was voting for Kerry simply to vote against Bush. When I cast my vote in the fall I will be voting FOR Kerry.

I needed to hear him say what he said about the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq. I needed to feel that he has the same values or thoughts when it comes to war as I do ... that the USA should only enter into war when it's necessary, not because we want to, but that doesn't mean we won't strike back against any terrorist attacks in this country. I needed to hear him say that the lessons he learned in Vietnam will lead him in his decisions about war in the future if he becomes president.

In my opinion this country needs change and Kerry's speech made me feel hopeful about the future for the USA. It seems that his visions of what the people in this country stand for and what the USA means to him, are almost the same as mine.

He voted to go to war! So if he had any feelings that were different from George W. Bush he should have made them known then instead of endorsing a war, then bashing it. He pleaded for the war, and talked of how Iraq was an imminent danger. Now... it was wrong. I can't believe people actually think he is anti-war.

Democrats capped Sen. John Kerry's presidential nomination last night by showing a Hollywood-produced movie of his life, featuring amateur film clips and testaments about his service in Vietnam as commander of a Navy river patrol boat.
But a group of former sailors who served with Mr. Kerry are telling a different story. Rather than depicting Mr. Kerry as a war hero, they are quoted in a new book accusing him of exaggerating and falsifying his experiences.

The group says that of 23 crew members photographed with Mr. Kerry more than 30 years ago in Vietnam, only one supports his presidential campaign. They will announce a nationwide campaign by "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" to tell the American public about what they say is Mr. Kerry's true war record.
The biographical movie shown last night, "A Remarkable Promise," shows "family and friends talking about the courage he has shown as a soldier and a veteran, the fights he has waged for middle-class values and the faith in family he has exhibited as a father and husband," the Kerry campaign said before its prime-time convention appearance.
The film was produced by James Moll, a partner of director Steven Spielberg.
The book, "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry," from Regnery Publishing, is written by John E. O'Neill. Mr. O'Neill served in Vietnam at the same time as Mr. Kerry and followed him as commander on the swift boat.
Mr. O'Neill, riled by what he considered Mr. Kerry's false charge in 1971 of widespread war crimes committed by U.S. troops, has waged a public debate with the politician dating back to the "Dick Cavett Show" that year.
The book quotes Mr. Kerry's fellow combatants as saying two of his Purple Hearts came from friendly fire, not the enemy. The veterans also will dispute other stories Mr. Kerry has told.
"Unfit for Command" will not be released until Sept. 25, but the online Drudge Report yesterday broke news of what it called a "bombshell book." The book hit No. 2 on Amazon.com's best-seller list. Radio and TV hosts were clamoring for Mr. O'Neill to appear.
Regnery, which boasts a long list of best-selling conservative books, has put a tight hold on information until the official release.
Some of the book's charges have been aired by Veterans for Truth.
Retired Rear Adm. Roy Hoffmann, who commanded Mr. Kerry's task force in Vietnam, is one of the book's sources.
Adm. Hoffmann said yesterday he has supplied several instances of Mr. Kerry's purported lies. One example, he said, is Mr. Kerry's contention that he warned admirals of the folly of a certain river operation. Adm. Hoffmann said he and others were at the meeting, and that Mr. Kerry never made such a statement.
"The real truth is he didn't say a ... word," Adm. Hoffmann said.
Mr. Hoffmann is chairman of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which plans what it calls a grass-roots campaign.
"We're going to tell the truth — the fact that he was a perpetual, habitual liar," Adm. Hoffmann said. "I don't care whether it was perjury or lying before the Senate of the United States, or that two of his Purple Hearts are at least very specious, if not absolutely false, because he filed false after-action reports."

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by minniepumpernickel
Someday Elwood, I would love to know exactly what the crux of your argument is. The main concern of mine is The War that we are involved in right now. Someone on here predicted that it would bother us when the body bags started coming back from Iraq. It bothers me, I grew up around military people, and I have friends and a relative serving. Nothing that you say in fragmented sentences is going to change my mind. Try looking at the World through someone else's eyes for a change. No amount of "red neck" logic is going to change my mind.

Red neck???? Excuse me missy, but I live ABOVE the Mason Dixon line.


Your too funny. The "queen" of the one liners is bothered by my fragmented replies. The crux of my argument is that regardless of who was in the WH, 9-11 would have occurred. That was a ball set in motion YEARS and YEARS ago throughout several administrations so to drop it solely at the feet of this one is quite unfair. We need to take the fight TO the terrorists. We always need to be on the offensive. That's the way wars are won. Peace is achieved by complete victory over the enemy. You do remember who that is don't you?

I hope you're not implying that I don't feel for the deaths of our brave soldiers. I truly hope you aren't because it could not be more untrue. But there are many on *your* side that say Bush is sending them off to die. The current armed forces is completely voluntary and they are STILL signing up knowing full well that they could be sent off to fight now. People in *your* side say that they support the troops but not what they are doing. How would you feel if someone told you that? Me, I wouldn't want that kind of support.

 

[BedKnobbery2]

Joe, could you please, when you quote an article, cite the source? Thanks!

Also, FWIW, a fine point that Republicans always seem ready to gloss over, Kerry didn't vote for the war; he voted to give the President authorization to go to war, if he felt it was necessary.

 

[jjskribs]

I also thought that John Kerry did a fantastic job last night. I was especially struck by his comments pertaining to those who "wrap themselves in the flag."
One thing that angered me the most about Ronald Reagan and now George Bush is that they have tried to take that flag away from those who disagree with them.
My father fought for that flag in WWII and my husband fought for it in Vietnam. How dare anyone take the flag away from them.
I was glad to see the Democrats proudly waving the flag..... it belongs to all of us and may we never let any Republican take it away from us again!

Now my fellow Kerry supporters it's time to "put our money where our mouths are."
Please go to the Kerry webpage and donate any amount no matter how small. Every 5 dollar contribution is going to help answer the barrage of negative campaigning that our President has already started. I am listening to him as I type (on CNN) .

Please contribute what you can and let's help in every way that we can to get John Kerry into the White House.

 

[brerrabbit]

More terror attacks during a particular Presidents term is not relivant at all. Terrorist organizations don't elect new leaders every four years. They are fanatically devoted to their cause and will spend their entire lives working towards an attack. Who the actual President is at the time does not matter to them. Further the vast majority of the agencies (CIA, FBI, etc) that are primarily responsible for fighting terror are career agents who do not change with the party in office. Presidents and Congress have power over the amount of money allocated to the agencies and a review of John Kerry's voting record indicates that during the Clinton years he was aligned with President Clinton and voted to cut those agencies spending.

As far as Kerry's speech last night it was what you would expect from a Democrat Presidential candidate seeking to unseat a sitting Republican President. The entire campaign has been about attack, attack, attack. When not in office either party has only to be critical of the current office holder. Thats what politics has degenerated to. Of significant note throughout Kerry's campaign I have heard critisism of Bush and his actions but not any hard ideas on how to fix the problems. Sure if you support Kerry his speech made you feel warm and fuzzy, if you support Bush his speech was a load of hot air.

As a responsible voter who takes the role seriously I look at the actual record. Look at how Kerry has voted on issues important to you during his time in the Senate. Compare that to what President Bush has done during his time in office and what he is currently working on. I caution you do not read the medias reports on the way Kerry voted or what Bush has done. Go to the source. The actual congressional records. Media is as bias to the left or right every bit as much as the posters on this board. After doing this make your decision, go to the polls and cast your vote. But most importantlly don't vote for someone because he made you feel good with a speech. Vote for someone because his ideals, and more importantly his record aligns with your beliefs and hopes.

Granted this is just my opinion but at the end of the day elections are won with sound bites, flashy ads, and catch phrases. Not on the real issues and how each candidate will respond to them.

 

[faithinkarma]

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

try getting the real story

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by JoeThaNo1Stunna
A bunch of nonsense about Kerry in Vietnam

So, when are Bush's Vietnam war buddies going to come out in support of him ?



Do you guys even realize how hypocritical you sound, or is it just something that people who haven't drank the kool aid can see ?

 

[BedKnobbery2]

I almost nearly agree with you 100%, brerrabbit.

The two points on which I would disagree is 1.) labeling a desire for change and a disagreement with policy as an "attack".
2.) I would also disagree about hard ideas; I thought he put forth several important and necessary changes he would like to implement during his presidency. Granted, he did get into minute detail on how, but then, he does only have a limited amount of time to give a speech.

 

[brerrabbit]

But through his web site and other means he could put a little more meat on the bone. Unfortunatly, candidates never do. Even the current administration is vague on some of its ideas. Succesful candidates for the Presidency seem to be those who rise from the level of Governers who do not have congressional records. Personally I feel that Kerry has spent so many years in the Senate works to his detriment.

 

[JoeThaNo1Stunna]

Originally posted by BedKnobbery2
Joe, could you please, when you quote an article, cite the source? Thanks!

Also, FWIW, a fine point that Republicans always seem ready to gloss over, Kerry didn't vote for the war; he voted to give the President authorization to go to war, if he felt it was necessary.

He voted to authorize the war. There are you happy? It's the same thing as voting for the war. He not only voted for the war, he made some pretty strong arguments for the war as well.

Here is what John Kerry had to say in the months leading up to the war...

Sep 6, 2002: "If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community's already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement, even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act."

Oct 9, 2002: "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

Oct 9, 2002: "The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation."

Oct 9, 2002: The Iraqi regime's record over the decade leaves little doubt that Saddam Hussein wants to retain his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and to expand it to include nuclear weapons. We cannot allow him to prevail in that quest.

Oct 9, 2002: "Regime change has been an American policy under the Clinton administration, and it is the current policy. I support the policy."

Jan 23, 2003: "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."

Mar 16, 2004: "I actually did vote for his $87 billion, before I voted against it." (Ahhhh, sounds like debating what the meaning of is is)

 

[Saffron]

My guess is Kerry was fed the same feed Bush was, so he bought the same arguments Bush did when it came to going to war in Iraq. Well heck, if the President of the USA can be fooled into going to war in Iraq with the information he was given, I guess a Senator can too? The difference is, after voting for the war, Kerry starting speaking out against the war because of the stories he and other Reps. were fed. For some reason Bush never has. That doesn't make Kerry a "man of war". That doesn't make him a "flip flopper" (that term cracks me up ) either. That makes him a man who is able to admit mistakes or admit when he was wrong. That's my guess. I guess we'll see during the upcoming debates. They should be a blast to watch!

And one last thing ... no where did I say Kerry was anti war, nor do I think that of him, nor does he say that about himself. And I didn't I say I was anti war either.

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by BedKnobbery2


Also, FWIW, a fine point that Republicans always seem ready to gloss over, Kerry didn't vote for the war; he voted to give the President authorization to go to war, if he felt it was necessary.

A fine point indeed but little relevance IMO because there were other senators/congressmen that didn't vote for the authorization who reviewed the same data.

IMO, Kerry never thought Bush would take action and is now wishing he had voted no.

 

[jrydberg]

Originally posted by BedKnobbery2
Also, FWIW, a fine point that Republicans always seem ready to gloss over, Kerry didn't vote for the war; he voted to give the President authorization to go to war, if he felt it was necessary.

A fine point that many Kerry supporters seem to gloss over is that Kerry's support of that resolution effectively meant Kerry supported going to war if Saddam did not comply in a forthright fashion. Saddam did not. Kerry knew full well that this would mean going to war. He supported the war -- at least initially.

Now mind you, I'm not saying he can't change his mind based on circumstances and the intelligence gaps. That's his perogative -- and I would hope all our public officials would reasses their positions on a regular basis. But the fact is he did initially support the use of force to remove Saddam Hussein.

 

[BedKnobbery2]

Joe....please, once again, when you are quoting from websites/articles, please, cite your sources.

And Saffron....right on. Could NOT agree more. It takes a bigger man to admit "I was duped" than it does to continue being the dupe.

And Joe, voting to give the President the power to go to war is NOT the same as voting for war. It really is not. You can vote to grant that power because you understand that it *may* be necessary to use it. It doesn't mean you WANT it to be used.

 

[wvrevy]

But you have to remember, Saffron...if it can't be explained in a 10 second sound bite, all too many people will think that it's "waffling" or "hedging".

Take the $87 million Kerry voted for, then against. He's explained it a dozen times, and it's a clear reasoning for why he voted as he did. But some people can't get over the third grade giggling of the one sentence, that he voted for it before voting against it.

It's a shame that people try to boil down incredibly complex issues into ten second sound bites, but since that seems to be the attention span of some people, I guess they don't have a choice in the matter.

 

[beattyfamily]

Originally posted by wvrevy
It's a shame that people try to boil down incredibly complex issues into ten second sound bites, but since that seems to be the attention span of some people, I guess they don't have a choice in the matter.

Insulting people here again, huh?

DIS Guidelines: Messages that are argumentative or sarcastic in nature will be deleted without discussion

 

[faithinkarma]

Originally posted by Saffron
My guess is Kerry was fed the same feed Bush was, so he bought the same arguments Bush did when it came to going to war in Iraq. Well heck, if the President of the USA can be fooled into going to war in Iraq with the information he was given, I guess a Senator can too? The difference is, after voting for the war, Kerry starting speaking out against the war because of the stories he and other Reps. were fed. For some reason Bush never has. That doesn't make Kerry a "man of war". That doesn't make him a "flip flopper" (that term cracks me up ) either. That makes him a man who is able to admit mistakes or admit when he was wrong. That's my guess. I guess we'll see during the upcoming debates. They should be a blast to watch!

And one last thing ... no where did I say Kerry was anti war, nor do I think that of him, nor does he say that about himself. And I didn't I say I was anti war either.

Standing up and cheering for a great post. This issue is perfectly clear to everyone but those who refuse to see.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by beattyfamily
Insulting people here again, huh?

DIS Guidelines: Messages that are argumentative or sarcastic in nature will be deleted without discussion

If the shoe fits

Funny...Did I direct that comment at anyone in particular ? Why did you automatically assume I was talking about you ?

And you can stop with the juvenile posting of the board rules. If you don't like my post, report it.