Kendra17
"Kendra17" is a consortium of political analysts a
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2004
- Messages
- 1,919
Many of those vacation days were "working vacations" and while at Camp David, or in texas, he was often meeting with other officials. This accusation holds no water. . . also, I would venture to guess that the administration keeps the President aware while on "vacation".
I wonder if George did anything like this while defending Alabama from the Viet Cong ?Misinformation certainly does get spread around, doesn't it! "Rather than a possible two-year draft in the regular forces, Bush chose to volunteer for a six-year hitch with the Air National Guard. Where privilege might have landed him in a safe administrative position, he chose one of the riskiest jobs in the force, piloting a high-performance but old jet fighter, the Convair F-102 "Delta Dagger." His mission during the Cold War - what is now called homeland defense - was vital: to intercept Soviet Tu-95 strategic nuclear bombers that ran regular doomsday missions up and down the Eastern seaboard threatening U.S. cities with nuclear destruction.
Bush's F-102 was a dangerous machine to fly. Built in the 1950s, according to the U.S. Air Force Museum, the primitive single-engine plane, with a delta-wing design that pilots say made it tough to control, could fly at supersonic speed with an arsenal of 24 unguided rockets and six guided missiles to intercept incoming aircraft. Col. William Campenni, who served with Bush in the same squadron, wrote in a Feb. 11 letter to the Washington Times, "Our Texas Air National Guard lost several planes right there in Houston during Lt. Bush's tenure, with fatalities. Just strapping on one of those obsolescing F-102s was risking one's life."
Bush flew dangerous supersonic interceptors during the Vietnam War to protect the country against a nuclear attack, actually intercepting Soviet bombers. Bush was honorably discharged. He did not go AWOL, as McAuliffe has alleged."--from Dispelling the Left's Lies about George W. Bush, by J. Michael Waller,
Yes, because eyewitnesses should certainly be disbelieved when you've got a bunch of people with agendas going on hearsay
Ask yourself this: in a court of law, would those "200+" even be heard, since they weren't even there at the time ?Only ONE of Kerry's commanders or Officers in Charge support Kerry. One. It could be that Kerry had a good rapport with his subordinates, and seven of them are supporting him. However, it seems that EVERy Officer in Charge find reason to distance themselves from Kerry. This could be that he didn't follow orders correctly, that they thought he wasn't fit. Their view of Kerry would be different, and carries more relevance than kerry's subordinates who would not have this same, more knowledgeable perspective. This story has absolutely not been debunked, and is still being investigated. Yes, a court of law would take a look at all the signed affidavits and be interested in their testimony. There's no reason to believe they would not be heard. These are respected military personnel who have devoted their lives to this country. You are possibly accusing and definitely dismissing 250+ vets that served our country honorably.
Also, as i've mentioned before, Kerry has not accused or threatened the SBV themselves--only the television stations that planned to air the ads. A suppression of free speech, really, since he's not accusing the SBV DIRECTLY of libel/slander.
Oh, please. John Kerry went to war. He became disillusioned. He returned and spoke out against the war. What is so awfully damaging to the USA about that ?
Well, several things are wrong about this. The first one is, if the stories are true, then Kerry should be tried as a War Criminal. If he really DID participate in these war crimes, he is a terrible human being and needs to be brought to justice.
The second thing that is wrong about this is that the only way he could not be considered a War Criminal would be that he LIED. If this is the case, that is extremely damaging to the U.S. and contributes to the misinformation that feeds Anti-Americanism throughout the world and in this country.
And with a single statement you blithely excuse the hypocrisy of accusing Kerry of flip-flopping while doing exactly the same thing. Kerry's changes of mind sometimes came over decades, yet there couldn't have been anything that actually caused that change of heart other than politics, right ? I agree with spearenb and do not consider her comments to be neither hypocritical nor blithe. Kerry's views (abortion, gay marriage) flip flop according to his audience. At a car manufacturer's he's the everyman, raving about how many cars he has. In front of a "green" audience, he denied owning an SUV. . .when pressed, he admits it, though it's in Teresa's name. I see Kerry as a man lacking moral clarity and spine (JMHO).
Again, you're joking, right ? Bush won't answer questions posed him by reporters, and his cronies have turned questioning him into an unpatriotic act, but Kerry is the arrogant one ?
When has Kerry ever given any indication he would "back down", other than saying that the US has no right to completely ignore world opinion and trample on other countries ? Well, Kerry DID say to the Harvard Crimson, Im an internationalist, Id like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations. I know he distances himself from these comments NOW. But, like his present views, this shows him to be shortsighted and have a narrow perspective on America's place in the world as well as its security and sovereignty--as do many of his other comments.
And, nobody is talking about "trampling on other countries". . .that is your own blithe accusation, and the Bush Administration's views (which I agree with) do not see our Iraqi invasion as trampling. Many Iraqis don't see it that way, either.
I realize this is your opinion, and you have every right to it, so please don't say that I'm telling you you don't...But there's not a single issue of substance in this list that doesn't apply just as strongly to Bush, if not more so.
I beg to differ; there are many issues of substance on this list, and more. . .we didn't even discuss Cambodia. And, during those comments, Kerry spoke of Nixon being President. Well, Nixon wasn't even in office during "Christmas of 1968"! Now he states he was on a clandestine mission. . . but nobody is coming out to support that assertion.
Kendra
