Kerry and Bush supporters. A question for y'all.

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by wvrevy
I'm sorry, did we move the white house to texas and I missed the memo ? If it didn't matter at all where the president was, why even bother making them move to Washington ? We can just have the Kerry White House in Mass...the Edwards White House in North Caroline...the Obama White House in Chicago.... More excuses from the right for anything this president does.

[/B]very narrow minded, wvrevy. Uh, there are offices at both Camp David and the Texas Ranch. Is there a problem with hosting officials or conducting work from venues other than the White House? Didn't Carter and Clinton conduct peace talks at Camp David? Was he on vacation? Your response lacks dimension and thoughtfulness.[B}

I don't know how you can possibly believe any of that, Kendra...i mean, you're not serious with that, are you ? The guy didn't even SHOW UP for duty, and you're trying to make him out to be a war hero...

I find humor in your posts, too. He did INDEED show up for duty and has proven that with 30-year-old military documents, pay and accreditation records from Bush's "missing (according to empty accusations by McAuliffe)" times of service. By the way, just because McAuliffe and company refuse to acknowedge and apologize for their erroneous accusations, doesn't mean the accusations are true.

Hmm, that's funny....Seems that Kerry's record said he was an exemplary soldier (that would be his record composed by those same COs)....But NOW his commanders suddenly remember him as such a poor soldier that he's "unfit for command", and you don't even bother looking at their agenda ?!?

I don't think that they "suddenly" remembered anything. Of course there is an agenda--keeping Kerry from becoming Commander in Chief. That point is accurate and VALID. Does that mean they're lying? 250 soldiers willingly signing affidavits? No. It means they have reason now to speak out--when the security of our country is at stake.

1 - Why wasn't he tried at the time then ?
2 - Misinformation like Abu Ghraib, you mean ? Seems to me that information is enough to generate plenty of hatred on it's own. Failed policies have a habit of doing that.

1. I don't know. Because the anti-war sentiment was so high during that time, the country so divided, that it became a shelved issue? Because the other veterans denied the story and they didn't believe Kerry, and perjury wasn't first on the list? It doesn't matter WHY. What matters is he confessed to war crimes. . .so, if he was being honest, then he IS a war criminal--according to his own testimony. If he actually didn't do those reprehensible deeds, then he's a liar. . .this isn't up for debate, this is according to his testimony. . .where's the gray area here? He is the one who stated this--this isn't an accusation from someone else. I know you want to stick up for Kerry under any circumstances at all. That's okay with me. . .it doesn't make your argument carry more weight, though.

2. Off the subject completely. The people who committed those crimes against the prisoners should definitely be brought to justice. Although I'm not so sympathetic towards the terrorists, I do not condone criminal behavior. I don't recall our President complimenting the guards' behavior. If you have any statements he made to the contrary, please send them along.

Kerry has never waivered on either topic you mentioned, though the SUV comment was just stupid (akin to Clinton's "definition of is"). He is against the idea of abortion, and for a woman's right to choose. He is against gay marraige, but for civil unions (and against amending the constitution). Where is the flip flop ? Do you accuse Bush of flipping since he also was against the amendment, before he was for it ?

I think what we're talking about is Kerry compromises his moral beliefs to please his constituency. Personally, i don't have a problem with Bush's change of heart--but I concede that particular point you make.

He wants America to be a leader in the world community, but in order to do that you actually have to get people to FOLLOW you. Do you see a helluva lot of help for our guys right now in Iraq ? Nobody is following Bush but the people in this country too frightened of the boogey-man terrorists to think about what the man is doing.

Big difference of perspective here. There really is no world community. There is the world, yes. . .it's not a community. That said, we had a coalition of 30 countries. Bush supporters find our invasion of Iraq to be justified. Your sarcasm in this particular comment did not go unnoticed. Our outlook on this requires a whole other thread. . .and even then, I don't think it will do any good. It's not "boogey-man terrorists" that we're "too frightened of". It's more that terrorism cannot be accepted any longer. And, harboring terrorists will not be accepted any longer. It's a proactive response rather than a reactive response. We approve of this; you do not.

Would those be the ones blowing up our soldiers or the ones supporting those that blow up our soldiers ?

Since this is our first major exchange, I wanted to mention I see why people get annoyed with your use of the rolling eyes smiley. It is annoying.

There are many liberated Iraqis who beg to differ. . .what makes an innocent Muslim in Iraq suffering under Sadam's rule less important than suffering ANYWHERE? Suffering is suffering. Saudi Columnist Reem al-Saleh wrote in Kuwait's Al-Siyassah, writing about Michael Moore--but he makes a valid point, wrote, "When he condemned the war in Iraq. . .he pictured it this way: Baghdad was safe and happy until cowboys Bush and Blair came. He ignored 30 years of muscle-flexing invasions, villages massacred by chemcal weapons. . .millions of bodies, and mass graves. He has no right to hide the full truth."

Truth be told, our mission wasn't completely humanitarian. But, we believe it to be valid, and you know why from all of the other threads that have discussed this.

Cambodia is a non-issue for one simple reason: IT WASN'T ALABAMA. Only the righteous right seems to care, but whatever you do, don't ask them where Bush was in the same time period

Cambodia is indeed an issue. It's hypocritical of you to deny that the possiblity that he lied to impress his core is something that you find easy to dismiss. Bush has proven that he has not lied about his service--anywhere. Although you are acting as if he has not produced documents to prove otherwise, the fact is that he has.

 

[BedKnobbery2]

Oh Gosh. Oh Wow.

TxTink, there is *so* much that can be easily disproven in what you posted, it is unbelievable. It makes me really sad that people actually *do* buy this stuff wholesale, and take the neo-conservative talking points as hard facts just because they've said it is so, while using incomplete and quasi-facts to back up their assertions. I've actually gotten goosebumps from your sincerity in that post. *sigh* I frankly don't know if I have the energy to go through your post point by point and demonstrate what I'm saying; hopefully someone else will be willing to take the time to do it.

That said, I do have a question for the Kerry haters: How can Kerry be a "complete flip-flopper" and "the most liberal senator in the Senate" at the same time? If he's the most liberal senator, that would mean he's voting consistently one way; if he's a complete flip-flopper, that would mean his votes are going 50/50 either way, which puts him in the middle. I'm just curious as to how you guys justify the fuzzy logic there.

 

[peachgirl]

Flame away.

Disagreeing with you is not "flaming".

 

[bsears]

No flames from me.

I just do not understand you position. The country is at war. That is a matter of fact. Surely one can be anti war and still accept the reality that we are at war, and be willing to do what has to be done?

 

[Teejay32]

Originally posted by spearenb
And I think Kerry had an alternative agenda to why he went to war. Something akin to being like JFK (the real one).

With his last few statements like he was in Cambodia and he was the Chairman of the Intelligence committee, I think he is actually trying to bolster his credibility while lying.

I think he was writing a book. Other books and articles mention how Kerry would "pour his thoughts into his typewriter"...he probably incorporated other people's experiences into his own a few times, using artistic license, and no one questioned any of it until he began a national campaign.

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by BedKnobbery2
Ah, we're rolling around with opinions as facts again! What fun!!

Opinion: Kerry served dishonorably in the Viet Nam War. (And no matter how many people say it, it is STILL AN OPINION.)

Fact: Kerry received 3 Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star, and a Silver Star for his service during the Viet Nam War.


And Kendra, this is the first I've heard of this: "Bush flew dangerous supersonic interceptors during the Vietnam War to protect the country against a nuclear attack, actually intercepting Soviet bombers." Can you please provide a link to an article or even Bush's military records that document his interception of Soviet Bombers? Thanks! Not being flip....it honestly is the first I've ever heard of Bush's actively defending the country during his stint in the National Guard......actually, its the first I've heard of anyone intercepting Soviet bombers that were attacking our country during that time frame.

Perhaps I should have been clearer. . .I did attribute where I read this (go back to post), and the author sources his material. You have a starting point. . .I'm not being flippant, but the last several times I sourced material and provided links, all of you dismissed them all because they are known to be conservative--although they are also regarded highly for accuracy. So, please, this time, do your own research.

Also, you are correct, you didn't miss the Soviet Invasion of the United States . That is what he was TRAINED to do. Had a Soviet Invasion occured, he would have been one of the pilots assigned to that mission.

I have to sign off now. See y'all later.

 

[TXTink]

Yes I did look at their records and I do not agree with a large majority of their voting positions, just as I suggested everyone should do, then vote the way that their ideals are most aligned with. I suppose I should not have ranked them, as that is not the issue. The issue is their voting record, and I do not agree with them.

I will gladly concede the fact that Kerry is a pro Iraqi war supporter. That is proof that President Bush made the correct decision. I am glad we can all agree on that.

 

[remyandhollandsmommy]

If he voted for going to war but not to fund it, then wouldn't that simply hurt the troops. I wondered why DH has to use a bunch of crap that doesn't work to "rig" his Hummer in an attempt to avoid getting blown up. I wish ya'll could have heard the disbelief and cynical laughter while he was telling me about it at 0230 this morning.

Oh and it is how you disagree that makes it flaming. Not necessarily directed at me, but it has become a trend in regards to others.

 

[bsears]

I don't think that they "suddenly" remembered anything.

Then why did none of this come out when Kerry was on Nixon's hit list? And why did O'Neill mention none of this when he debated Kerry in the early 70s on the Dick Cavett Show, although he certainly accused Kerry of everything else under the sun in that debate...and yet we are to believe that he thought Kerry did not deserve his medals and he kept that to himself?

I am having a really hard time understanding the logic in many of the posts. Clearly Bush chose to remain on American soil. Just as clearly Kerry volunteered to go to VN. And yet people chose to look at these two facts and claim that Kerry did it to further some future political career or to write a book? Seriously now, do you think you may be just a tad influenced by your preference for Bush as a candidate. And that is fine if you support Bush. But to feel the need to find "excuses" for why Kerry would go to war that make him look like the lesser man is truly sad.

 

[GaryAdams]

Hmm, that's funny....Seems that Kerry's record said he was an exemplary soldier (that would be his record composed by those same COs)....

did you know that those CO's based their opinions of Kerrys record on after action reports written by kerry himself?

very few if any of those CO'S were actually in the field with Kerry.
their infomation was given to them by Kerry himself.

you tend to discredit the (swiftboat vets) because they didnt serve on the same boat as Kerry, but your all too ready to take as fact the words of CO's who based their opinion on reports submitted by Kerry himself.

remember Kerry as the commander of his boat had to file reports as to what happened each and everyday.

have you ever served in the military? have you ever filled out a fitness or after action report?
Do you understand how the chain-of-command works for all the paperwork and reports?

what goes into the personal record and what really happened in the field tend to be different things all the time.

almost anyone who has been in the service will tell you that.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by remyandhollandsmommy
If he voted for going to war but not to fund it, then wouldn't that simply hurt the troops.

It would, if it were actually the truth. Kerry voted, first, for a bill that would roll back the top level tax cuts to actually pay for the 87 Billion, rather than running the defecit to record proportions. That bill was threatened with veto by the white house and did not pass. He lodged a "protest vote" against the second bill, knowing full well that his vote would not sway the end result.

So answer this: If Kerry's vote against the second bill was "failure to support the troops", why isn't the president's threat to veto the first bill exactly the same thing ?

 

[peachgirl]

Generally the way it works around here is when you make a claim you want to say is fact, you provide a definite source as to where it came from so that others can see it for themselves and do their own evaluation as to whether or not the "source" is reliable.

There's only a few reasons one wouldn't want to source their information. Either they don't have it, they know the source is unreliable and don't want to get called on it or they aren't accurately stating what the information really is.

One can't post page after page after page of lengthy supposed "facts" and expect those that read it to either assume it's true or spend hours tyring to hunt down where it came from.........at least you can't and expect anyone to pay any attention to it.

<center><IMG width="300" SRC="http://www.seeyageorge.com/shop/images/11.jpg"></center>

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by GaryAdams
did you know that those CO's based their opinions of Kerrys record on after action reports written by kerry himself?

very few if any of those CO'S were actually in the field with Kerry.
their infomation was given to them by Kerry himself.

you tend to discredit the (swiftboat vets) because they didnt serve on the same boat as Kerry, but your all too ready to take as fact the words of CO's who based their opinion on reports submitted by Kerry himself.

remember Kerry as the commander of his boat had to file reports as to what happened each and everyday.

have you ever served in the military? have you ever filled out a fitness or after action report?
Do you understand how the chain-of-command works for all the paperwork and reports?

what goes into the personal record and what really happened in the field tend to be different things all the time.

almost anyone who has been in the service will tell you that.

I hate to tell you, because you made such a wonderful rant here, but yes, I did serve in the military, and yes, I have filled out the very reports you're talking about. Falsifying those reports would be grounds for court martial....so is that what you're accusing Kerry of ?

The people that SERVED WITH HIM support Kerry. Period. I served in a unit with hundreds of other airman, many of whom I knew by reputation if not on a first-name basis. Does that mean I also am qualified to evaluate their job performance, even though I didn't work directly with them ?

 

[Teejay32]

Originally posted by bsears
And yet people chose to look at these two facts and claim that Kerry did it to further some future political career or to write a book?

well, to further some future political career and write a book.

Seriously now, do you think you may be just a tad influenced by your preference for Bush as a candidate.

No. Definitely not.

 

[BedKnobbery2]

Originally posted by Kendra17
Perhaps I should have been clearer. . .I did attribute where I read this (go back to post), and the author sources his material. You have a starting point. . .I'm not being flippant, but the last several times I sourced material and provided links, all of you dismissed them all because they are known to be conservative--although they are also regarded highly for accuracy. So, please, this time, do your own research.

Also, you are correct, you didn't miss the Soviet Invasion of the United States . That is what he was TRAINED to do. Had a Soviet Invasion occured, he would have been one of the pilots assigned to that mission.

I have to sign off now. See y'all later.

Oops...sorry, Kendra, when you stated: "Bush flew dangerous supersonic interceptors during the Vietnam War to protect the country against a nuclear attack, actually intercepting Soviet bombers." I actually thought you meant: "Bush flew dangerous supersonic interceptors during the Vietnam War to protect the country against a nuclear attack, actually intercepting Soviet bombers." My mistake--won't let it happen again.

I asked for a link showing Bush's heroic activities intercepting Soviet bombers because I couldn't actually find one myself, and didn't have the book you quoted on hand here in my office, so I couldn't check the quote for accuracy. Of course, now I realize I couldn't find a source because he didn't actually intercept any Soviet bombers.

 

[KarenC]

In the Illinois Senate primary I did change my mind because the divorce records of the candidate I supported revealed that she alleged that he had been abusive to his wife. I was concerned that, even though the allegations may not have been true, they would be enough to damage his candidacy and I wanted to vote for someone who could win the general election. The point being that I have to admit that I can be swayed by campaign dirt.

I don't expect that I will change my mind and vote for Bush. I really believe he is the worst president of my lifetime. I can point to positive contributions of other presidents I considered not so great (Johnson and civil rights, Carter appointing Paul Volker to the fed, Nixon opening up relations with China). I cannot point to a single positive thing that Bush has done. And I think he's harmed our country in countless ways.

However, if Bush were to do something positive, and some genuine Kerry skeleton was revealed, I would be willing to consider changing my mind. It's a little late, but I'd like to see proposals to help US workers deal with the inevitability of off-shoring work. All of Europe is at risk if Iraq instability continues--I'd like to see a plan to mend fences with our allies so US taxpayers don't have to shoulder the burden of rebuilding that country. And most urgently I'd like to see a plan for how we are going to secure our borders and our nuclear and chemical plants.

But when I look at Bush's website to find out what his plans are for the things that matter to me, all I find on the front page is a bunch of Kerry bashing. I expect an incumbant to tell me a positive story about what he's accomplished and what more he'll do in the next four years. That should be the focus of the campaign, not a bunch of half-truths and mis-statements.

 

[peachgirl]

when you stated:"Bush flew dangerous supersonic interceptors during the Vietnam War to protect the country against a nuclear attack, actually intercepting Soviet bombers." I actually thought you meant: "Bush flew dangerous supersonic interceptors during the Vietnam War to protect the country against a nuclear attack, actually intercepting Soviet bombers." My mistake--won't let it happen again.

I certainly hope you've learned something from your foolish mistake!



<center><IMG width="300" SRC="http://www.seeyageorge.com/shop/images/11.jpg"></center>

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by peachgirl
Generally the way it works around here is when you make a claim you want to say is fact, you provide a definite source as to where it came from so that others can see it for themselves and do their own evaluation as to whether or not the "source" is reliable.

There's only a few reasons one wouldn't want to source their information. Either they don't have it, they know the source is unreliable and don't want to get called on it or they aren't accurately stating what the information really is.

One can't post page after page after page of lengthy supposed "facts" and expect those that read it to either assume it's true or spend hours tyring to hunt down where it came from.........at least you can't and expect anyone to pay any attention to it.

I'm still here for a few, afterall. . .

You make an excellent point here. If, by some chance, you may be referring to me, I want to point out that I did indeed source my quote regarding Bush' service in the National Guard. . .I attributed the quote right at the end.

It does get kind of old, however, to find 5 reputable, yet conservative sources, and have them dismissed just because of the fact that they're a bit conservative. In a recent post, I used National REview, Washington Post, an article by Frank Gaffney, and Associated Press to state my case and had them all, without fail, dismissed. This time, I provided the quote and am declining the opportunity to find it online for you. But, I've quoted the book--which is fully sourced-- and the author. If someone CHOOSES to look for more information, they have a starting point. If they choose to dismiss my post because of this, that'sokay with me. The truth will remain the same whether one believes it or not.

BTW, I have seen that done with some others, too. .. recently someone used the Financial Times--definitely respected--to prove a point. It was dismissed eagerly.

 

[WeluvDisney2]

I am an Independent, but I am definately voting for Bush.

http://www.conservativebookservice.com/bookpage.asp?prod_cd=c6529

http://allconsuming.net/item.cgi?isbn=0895260174

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1181341/posts

 

[bsears]

Free republic? Would that be as reliable as the democratic underground?