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

see here again it comes down to who you believe.

you dont believe the people who served with Kerry, but you cling to the fittness reports from people were wernt in the field with him.
pretend all you want that you dont know how those reports are written.

you say the book is fiction but you have never read it.

i claim the same about michael moore and have seen his films and read his books.(btw,gotta love his cheap shots at canada in candian bacon)
i took the time to research both sides.

maybe someday you will too?
 
Originally posted by GaryAdams
see here again it comes down to who you believe.

you dont believe the people who served with Kerry, but you cling to the fittness reports from people were wernt in the field with him.
pretend all you want that you dont know how those reports are written.

you say the book is fiction but you have never read it.

i claim the same about michael moore and have seen his films and read his books.(btw,gotta love his cheap shots at canada in candian bacon)
i took the time to research both sides.

maybe someday you will too?
Oh, for crying out loud...I DO BELIEVE THE PEOPLE THAT SERVED WITH KERRY....Those would be the ones standing with him on that stage in Boston. :rolleyes: I don't believe these men that DIDN'T serve with him and have an obvious agenda. If Kerry was such a loser, why do the men from his command stand by him, answer me that ?

And I said before, I read a chapter of the book, as well as watching several interviews with the nauseating author and I've seen the disgusting ad, all of it packed full of more lies than Tall Tales night at Callahan's Bar and Grille. Why would I need to read the other chapters to know that it's just more of the same, particularly when the guy that wrote it has been on every news program in the known universe ?
 
Originally posted by wvrevy
Is the devil wearing ice skates and a parka ? :teeth:

There's a difference in the two things you cite: one was put out by an "entertainer" that was making a film, the other is being bandied about as truth by a political campaign. So, you're saying that the Bush crew are no better than Michael Moore in your eyes ?

I can see the difference but, in the eyes of the casual observer who hears bits and pieces of news items... they won't.

And while we both know that the Bush crew is much better than Michael Moore can ever strive for, I do wish both sides wouldn't take bits and pieces and put it out there.

Just pointing out that some can't fault Bush's camp and not point to Moore's misdoing either....
 
Originally posted by wvrevy
Oh, for crying out loud...I DO BELIEVE THE PEOPLE THAT SERVED WITH KERRY....Those would be the ones standing with him on that stage in Boston. :rolleyes: I don't believe these men that DIDN'T serve with him and have an obvious agenda. If Kerry was such a loser, why do the men from his command stand by him, answer me that ?

They could be tainted... from what I hear, they fought on the same boat and he saved their lives by getting out of the action while leaving other boats in action... sort of like the Tom Cruise movie Top Gun where Tom's wingman couldn't trust him in combat... at least till the end.... ;)
 

Can't speak for anyone else but no, there's not much difference between Moore's documentary and the SBVT's book in my eyes. If you've never questioned anyone for bashing F911 without having seen it, then I guess there's no problem here.

Originally posted by wvrevy
They say Kerry didn't do the things his record shows him to have done.

This is going on everywhere though. Was he in Cambodia on Christmas Day 1968 for example.

(besides, when did severity of injury become a requirement for a purple heart ?).

Agreed, it never has been.
 
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those men WERE NOT in the field "with him"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



i just want to make sure i understand you?
your saying that only Kerrys boat was on patrol?
there were never any other boats maybe on patrol with his?or even in the same area?
are you saying that none of them were even stationed at the same port?

as far as being underfire and watching someone else,maybe in the pentagon you didnt have to watch the people in the office next to yours, but in the field its a little different when you have 3 or 4 boats all in the same river in the same fight,(let alone any ground troops in the area) you tend to watch the others to make sure they are ok, let alone be in communication with them so you can mantain support and care out tatics.(never mind being in radio contact with the different air crews overhead,be they choppers or planes)


i will ask it again,you glossed right over it before.

oh wait you have decided that none of the men around him actually served with him, guess that means only 6 guys were in the war?

i guess thats your answer?
 
Just pointing out that some can't fault Bush's camp and not point to Moore's misdoing either....

I realize I'm jumping in on the middle of your arguments but...

Not true, unless you agree that Republicans can't complain about Kerry's camp without pointing out the misdoings Democrats believe the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush bunch is doing.





<center><IMG width="300" SRC="http://www.seeyageorge.com/shop/images/11.jpg"></center>
 
Try to look at each issue for both. I know that I will be voting for Bush in November, I feel that Kerry is just not right and is saying anything to get elected. To many election promises that will never come to be.
 
Originally posted by Patch'sD
Try to look at each issue for both. I know that I will be voting for Bush in November, I feel that Kerry is just not right and is saying anything to get elected. To many election promises that will never come to be.

You mean like the ones we heard in 2000? Like uniter not a divider? Like fiscal responsibility? Like Honor to the WH? Like increased prosperity? Promises like those?

Seems like you are willing to judge one man because you think he cannot fufill promises while giving the one who clearly did not fufill his promises a pass.

If Bush deserves a second term, why is he not standing up and citing his record? Why did he abandon the " turning the corner" line. Why does he instead take every opportunity to trash his opponent no matter how dishonest his attacks are? If his record is so good, why did he spend over 100 million dollars on negative ads instead of ads about his wonderful accomplishments?
 
Just a thought:
Why does everyone assume based on media, not personal experience (I am assuming none of YOU have been to Iraq lately), that the people of Iraq do NOT want our troops there? As a military spouse with a DH currently residing in Iraq, I know for a FACT that a HUGE amount of the people do want them there! So the tv shows that some people protest us being there. What about the hords that greet the soilders on their arrival in a town? Why are the few that do not want us there regarded as the whole country? It makes me wonder if we should not have police in our own cities because the criminals don't like it. What makes the difference?
 
Originally posted by peachgirl
Back to Bush's military service and lack thereof...

The proof that he was a no show is that there's no proof that he did show. Had he been where he was supposed to and done what he was supposed to do, it would have been documented.

I think President Bush being honorably discharged is proof. The military doesn't like their soldiers being AWOL. Being AWOL would be in their record, could result in jail time or being dishonorably discharged.
 
Originally posted by Teejay32
Agreed, it never has been.


Purple Heart

The Purple Heart was established by General George Washington at Newburgh, New York, on 7 August 1782, during the Revolutionary War. It was reestablished by the President of the United States per War Department General Orders 3, 1932 and is currently awarded pursuant to Executive Order 11016, 25 April 1962, Executive Order 12464, 23 February 1984 and Public Law 98-525, 19 October 1984.

a. The Purple Heart is awarded in the name of the President of the United States to any member of an Armed Force or any civilian national of the United States who, while serving under competent authority in any capacity with one of the U.S. Armed Services after 5 April 1917, has been wounded or killed, or who has died or may hereafter die after being wounded-

(1) In any action against an enemy of the United States.

(2) In any action with an opposing armed force of a foreign country in which the Armed Forces of the United States are or have been engaged.

(3) While serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party.

(4) As a result of an act of any such enemy of opposing armed forces.

(5) As the result of an act of any hostile foreign force

(6) After 28 March 1973, as a result of an international terrorist attack against the United States or a foreign nation friendly to the United States, recognized as such an attack by the Secretary of the Army, or jointly by the Secretaries of the separate armed services concerned if persons from more than one service are wounded in the attack.

(7) After 28 March 1973, as a result of military operations while serving outside the territory of the United States as part of a peacekeeping force.

b. While clearly an individual decoration, the Purple Heart differs from all other decorations in that an individual is not "recommended" for the decoration; rather he or she is entitled to it upon meeting specific criteria.

(1) A Purple Heart is authorized for the first wound suffered under conditions indicated above, but for each subsequent award an Oak Leaf Cluster will be awarded to be worn on the medal or ribbon. Not more than one award will be made for more than one wound or injury received at the same instant or from the same missile, force, explosion, or agent.

(2) A wound is defined as an injury to any part of the body from an outside force or agent sustained under one or more of the conditions listed above. A physical lesion is not required, however, the wound for which the award is made must have required treatment by a medical officer and records of medical treatment for wounds or injuries received in action must have been made a matter of official record.

(3) When contemplating an award of this decoration, the key issue that commanders must take into consideration is the degree to which the enemy caused the injury. The fact that the proposed recipient was participating in direct or indirect combat operations is a necessary prerequisite, but is not sole justification for award.

(4) Examples of enemy-related injuries which clearly justify award of the Purple Heart are as follows:

(a) Injury caused by enemy bullet, shrapnel, or other projectile created by enemy action.

(b) Injury caused by enemy placed mine or trap.

(c) Injury caused by enemy released chemical, biological, or nuclear agent.

(d) Injury caused by vehicle or aircraft accident resulting from enemy fire.

(e) Concussion injuries caused as a result of enemy generated explosions.

(5) Examples of injuries or wounds which clearly do not qualify for award of the Purple Heart are as follows:

(a) Frostbite or trench foot injuries.

(b) Heat stroke.

(c) Food poisoning not caused by enemy agents.

(d) Chemical, biological, or nuclear agents not released by the enemy.

(e) Battle fatigue.

(f) Disease not directly caused by enemy agents.

(g) Accidents, to include explosive, aircraft, vehicular, and other accidental wounding not related to or caused by enemy action.

(h) Self-inflicted wounds, except when in the heat of battle, and not involving gross negligence.

(i) Post traumatic stressdisorders.

(j) Jump injuries not caused by enemy action.

(6) It is not intended that such a strict interpretation of the requirement for the wound or injury to be caused by direct result of hostile action be taken that it would preclude the award being made to deserving personnel. Commanders must also take into consideration the circumstances surrounding an injury, even if it appears to meet the criteria. Note the following examples:

(a) In a case such as an individual injured while making a parachute landing from an aircraft that had been brought down by enemy fire; or, an individual injured as a result of a vehicle accident caused by enemy fire, the decision will be made in favor of the individual and the award will be made.

(b) Individuals wounded or killed as a result of "friendly fire" in the "heat of battle" will be awarded the Purple Heart as long as the "friendly" projectile or agent was released with the full intent of inflicting damage or destroying enemy troops or equipment.

(c) Individuals injured as a result of their own negligence; for example, driving or walking through an unauthorized area known to have been mined or placed off limits or searching for or picking up unexploded munitions as war souvenirs, will not be awarded the Purple Heart as they clearly were not injured as a result of enemy action, but rather by their own negligence.

c. A Purple Heart will be issued to the next of kin of each person entitled to a posthumous award. Issue will be made automatically by the Commanding General, PERSCOM, upon receiving a report of death indicating entitlement.

d. Upon written application to Commander, ARPERCEN, ATTN: DARP-VSE-A, 9700 Page Boulevard. St. Louis, MO 63132-5200, award may be made to any member of the Army, who during World War I, was awarded a Meritorious Service Citation Certificate signed by the Commander in Chief, American Expeditionary Forces, or who was authorized to wear wound chevrons. Posthumous awards to personnel who were killed or died of wounds after 5 April 1917 will be made to the appropriate next of kin upon application to the Commanding General, PERSCOM.

e. Any member of the Army who was awarded the Purple Heart for meritorious achievement or service, as opposed to wounds received in action, between 7 December 1941 and 22 September 1943, may apply for award of an appropriate decoration instead of the Purple Heart.

f. For those who became Prisoners of War after 25 April 1962, the Purple Heart will be awarded to individuals wounded while prisoners of foreign forces, upon submission by the individual to the Department of the U.S. Army of an affidavit that is supported by a statement from a witness, if this is possible. Documentation and inquiries should be directed to Commander, PERSCOM, ATTN: TAPC-PDA, Alexandria, VA 22332-0471.

g. Any member of the U.S. Army who believes that he or she is eligible for the Purple Heart, but through unusual circumstances no award was made, may submit an application through military channels, to Commander, PERSCOM, ATTN: TAPC PDA, Alexandria, VA 22332-0471. Application will include complete documentation, to include evidence of medical treatment, pertaining to the wound.

h. As noted in a above, the Purple Heart may be awarded to civilian nationals of the United States. These individuals must be serving under competent authority with the Army when wounded. Serving under competent authority with the Army will include those eligible persons who are employees of the U.S. Government in a duty (pay or official travel) status when wounds are sustained. Examples of eligible individuals are as follows:

(1) Any Army employee who is traveling outside of the continental limits of the United States on PCS or temporary duty (TDY) aboard a commercial aircraft and wounded by international terrorists in an attempted or actual hijacking incident.

(2) An Army employee in an Army office building performing his or her job who is wounded by an explosive device detonated by international terrorists.

(3) A civil or foreign service employee from a U.S. Government Agency or Department attached to an Army element performing intelligence, counter-terrorist, or other duties with the Army wounded by international terrorists.

(4) An Army employee wounded in an international terrorist incident in which a soldier or soldiers are also wounded.



Purple Heart
 
I think President Bush being honorably discharged is proof.

Good, then the same should apply to Kerry...he was honorably discharged, therefore he served honorably.

If we agree to that, we have no argument.

Still, the statement below is an absolute fact and this was after the few records that were released recently.

But the records also make it clear why he fell short of minimal requirements: Bush did no duty at all between April 16 and Oct. 28, 1972. Nor did he appear for monthly training in December 1972 or in February and March of 1973.

It's also a fact that he only served enough days to receive retirement credit. He fell short of enough days to meet minimum training requirements. He couldn't have gone after those commies' even if he wanted to...he wasn't qualified to fly.

The White House included with the documents a memorandum from a Texas Air National Guard personnel specialist stating that the documents prove that Bush had a "satisfactory year" for "retirement/retention" purposes between May 27, 1972, and May 26, 1973. But that specialist, retired Lieutenant Colonel Albert C. Lloyd Jr., acknowledged in an interview last night that he evaluated Bush using the lower of two measures for rating Guard service.

Guardsmen, he said, needed to serve more days to meet minimum-training requirements than to meet the lower threshold to receive retirement credit for the year."Should he have done more? Yes, he should have," Lloyd said of Bush, who was a fighter-interceptor pilot. "Did he have to? No."

So, the best that can be said is that Bush did the absolute bare minimum that was required of him and then got special permission to check out early.

<center><IMG width="300" SRC="http://www.seeyageorge.com/shop/images/11.jpg"></center>
 
I'd agree with John McCain... why are we talking about what happened 30 years ago? Surely both have more important things to talk about than that.
 
I actually agree jrydberg and I don't bring up Bush's military service until someone starts that CRAP knocking Kerry's service. I think Bush's people are a lot smarter than some of those who keep harping on the war record. They know Bush can't win that one and I really believe they'd just as soon stay as far away from military records as they can.

Still, on these boards, if they're going to trash Kerry's service, some of us are going to remind them just what a lousy record Bush has.


I'd prefer to discuss current issues as well, but for some reason it always comes back to this.


<center><IMG width="300" SRC="http://www.seeyageorge.com/shop/images/11.jpg"></center>
 
Oh I understand that, peachgirl. If it's brought up, certainly not going to berate anyone for firing back.

And you're absolutely right that Bush's people don't bring it up because it's not where they want the focus to be.
 
Since the issue of Kerry's flip-flopping tendencies has been brought up here already, I thought I'd share another new example of Kerry's flip-flopping which is one of the many reasons I don't like him. Specifically, see the 2 paragraphs I've bolded. What a difference a couple of weeks make, huh?

CNN article

Kerry challenges Bush troop plan

CINCINNATI, Ohio (AP) -- Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry on Wednesday criticized President Bush's proposal to recall up to 70,000 foreign troops as a hastily announced plan that raises more doubts about U.S. intentions and commitments than it answers.

"Nobody wants to bring troops home more than those of us who have fought in foreign wars," Kerry said in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign War. "But it needs to be done at the right time and in a sensible way. This is not that time or that way,"

Bush announced his plan to bring home troops from Cold War-era bases in Europe and Asia on Monday before an earlier session of the same gathering of 15,000 members of the VFW.

Kerry argued that Bush's policy would dangerously reduce forces at a time when the nation is fighting the al-Qaida terrorist network in 60 countries across the globe.

Kerry said the redeployment would undermine relations with U.S. allies needed to help fight in Iraq and in the war on terror. It also would endanger national security as the United States is working to deter North Korea's nuclear program, he said.

"Why are we unilaterally withdrawing 12,000 troops from the Korean Peninsula at the very time we are negotiating with North Korea -- a country that really has nuclear weapons?" he said.

Kerry also said the redeployment does nothing to relieve the problem of an overextended military in Iraq.

Kerry's campaign cited a three-month-old Congressional Budget Office report that said pulling back troops from overseas would produce at best only small improvements in the United States' ability to respond to far-flung conflicts.

The report also said a large reduction of the U.S. military presence overseas could cost $7 billion up front, although annual savings could be more than $1 billion.

Pentagon officials who spoke on condition of anonymity this week said the CBO study used different assumptions than the president's redeployment plan.

They said the amount of savings for the Bush plan could not be calculated until officials determine precisely which units will return to the United States, what domestic bases they will use and what overseas installations will be closed.

Pentagon officials also say plans to trim about 12,000 of the 37,000 U.S. troops in South Korea would not give North Korea an advantage. Military officials have said that advances in U.S. military firepower and a stronger South Korean military mean there can be more military power in the south with fewer soldiers.

In response to Kerry's criticism, the Bush campaign released a list of statements from Republican senators and others praising the president's proposal as essential to fighting a new kind of war.

"The Kerry campaign's attacks on realignment demonstrate a pre-9/11 world view that doesn't address the threats facing our country today," said former Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tennessee.

The Bush campaign also pointed out that Kerry appeared receptive to the idea of troop redeployment just two weeks ago.

"If the diplomacy that I believe can be put in place can work, I think we can significantly change the deployment of troops, not just there but elsewhere in the world -- in the Korean peninsula perhaps, in Europe perhaps," Kerry said on the August 1 broadcast of ABC's "This Week."

With voters focused on the war on terror, the VFW convention was the perfect backdrop for both candidates to tout their war plans. The convention was set in Ohio, a top battleground state, with a live audience targeted by both campaigns.

Besides describing his redeployment plan, Bush used his appearance before the veterans to criticize Kerry for saying he plans to reduce the number of U.S. troops in Iraq during his first six months in office.

Although veterans lean Republican, Kerry also is seeking their support in this election. Kerry touts his own service in the Vietnam War as a mutual connection and is even bucking the tradition of suspending campaigning during the opposing party's national convention to speak to the American Legion.

Kerry plans to speak to the group at their convention in Nashville on September 1, in the middle of the Republican National Convention. Kerry spokeswoman Allison Dobson said it's the only event he has scheduled during the GOP gathering in New York City.

Kerry's criticism of Bush comes as the Democratic challenger tries to cut the president's advantage on terrorism and national security. Bush is often seen as the stronger leader on those issues in public opinion polls, but Kerry's aides say the president is vulnerable, especially as voters learn more about Kerry's record of service.

The Vietnam-era military records of both candidates remain an issue in the race, with former sailors accusing Kerry of exaggerating his war record and Democrats questioning whether Bush showed up for duty in the Texas Air National Guard.

Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona, a decorated Vietnam veteran who campaigns with Bush but has worked closely with Kerry in the Senate, has called for a cease fire.

"I wish we would stop opening wounds from a war of more than 30 years ago and talk about the war we're fighting now," McCain told The Associated Press on Tuesday. "I believe they both served honorably."
 
I want to know what their plans are for the future.
I want to know their stance on issues.
I want to know their voting records.
I want to know what they've said in their speeches.

I don't care about something that happened 30 years ago. I am not the same person I was at 20 and I'm sure they aren't either. At least I hope they're not
 
"Why are we unilaterally withdrawing 12,000 troops from the Korean Peninsula at the very time we are negotiating with North Korea -- a country that really has nuclear weapons?" he said.

"If the diplomacy that I believe can be put in place can work, I think we can significantly change the deployment of troops, not just there but elsewhere in the world -- in the Korean peninsula perhaps, in Europe perhaps," Kerry said on the August 1 broadcast of ABC's "This Week."

I don't see a flip-flop at all.

The key here is "If the diplomacy can work". There is NO diplomacy with Bush. It's either ignore or kill them. So, no, with nothing in place to diffuse the situation, we have no business withdrawing troops from the Korean Peninsula.

Once Kerry is in office and we actually start a plan of developing a dialogue with other countries, then perhaps we can have progress on these issues using our brains instead of our muscle.

Seems very consistent and reasonable to me.

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












Receive up to $1,000 in Onboard Credit and a Gift Basket!
That’s right — when you book your Disney Cruise with Dreams Unlimited Travel, you’ll receive incredible shipboard credits to spend during your vacation!
CLICK HERE













DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter DIS Bluesky

Back
Top