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

Originally posted by Saffron
I have a problem with the statement. Nixon secretly put the troops in Cambodia, not Johnson, if I'm correct. Then how could Kerry make those statements, unless at the end of Johnson's days in office, he secretly put troops in Cambodia? :confused: I guess as the story makes the rounds, more and more information will come out about it and we can all make our own judgments.
Right now, I don't understand why he made those statements. Could they be a mistake? I dunno. Does it change my mind about him and make me not want him as President? Not at all! I wouldn't want to start comparing lies politicians or President tell now, or we'd all be on this thread for a thousand pages! :eek: :p

Great. More" what ifs". How about just sticking to the facts as we know them.
 
Originally posted by bsnyder
If you're going to count the SBVT ads, surely you have to include the moveon.org ads and the Media fund ads, and the America Coming Together ads.

In case you missed the summary I posted earlier (maybe it was on another thread?)

Looking at the top forty-nine 527 organizations, we find:

#1: The Joint Victory Campaign. The sole purpose of this organization is to raise funds for the number two ranked Media Fund and number three ranked America Coming Together. Both organizations are dedicated to defeating George Bush. This organization sports no less than thirty-three individuals who have given more money than Bob Perry, twelve who have given at least one million dollars, with the largest contributor shelling out $7.75 million. George Soros has given more than $4.5 million to this organization.

#2: The Media Fund. This "Anybody but Bush" group has put together and paid for multiple TV ads that play in the battle-ground states. They are funded to the tune of over $28 million, almost half of which comes from the number one ranked Joint Victory Campaign. More than $5.5 million has come from employee unions.

#3: America Coming Together. Also against Bush, also helped by the Joint Victory Campaign, also a baby of George Soros ($5 million) and Peter Lewis (almost $3 million).

#4 & #5: The Service Employees International Union and the American Federationn of State/County/Municiple Employees More than $16 and $13 million respectively. Both are unions and hence partisan Democratic fronts.

Those are just the first five of the forty-nine. More staggering is when we step back and look at the forest, not the trees. Of the top forty-nine 527 organizations:

Forty one (84%) are supported by Democrats and push Democrat causes.

Only five are supported by Republicans and push Republican causes.


Three are issue or industry oriented (like Peter Lewis' Marijuana Policy Project).


The Democrat funding totals $176 million compared to the Republican total of $10.8 million.


Wow! We Dems are pretty serious about this aren't we!?
Hurray for us! I was amazed to hear that the hemp fest people
were supporting Kerry instead of Nader. Even the pot heads know how important for the United States it is to send George
W Bush back to Texas for a permanent vacation instead of just
HALF the year, LOL! If YOUR stats are true, they don't suprise
me at all. This is the first time in my life I've donated to a
campaign effort financially and I've looked for every way I can
do it. Most of us feel the same way. Have to raise more money
than W if we want to defeat him. Pulling together and sending
our $25 or $50 per person is the only way and WE ARE DOING IT!
Can you tell me, is it unprecedented? I'm excited by your information. I knew we were steeled, I just didn't know how well
it was working.
 
I think that a man who has been to war has a higher chance of being involved in questionable "war-time" situations then a man who has never been to war.

Ggenuine horror stories will come back from Iraq just as they have come beck from every war before it. Movies will be made, books written and perhaps in 30 years we will be able to revisit this whole mess again.

The individual troops who participate in all wars or conflicts should be shown due respect.

I am a Viet Nam veteran who only saw aircraft carrier duty when I was 17 years old. I stayed for my carrer and loved the Navy but hated that war.

I also remember President Nixon telling the American people that we were not involved in Cambodia as we loaded the bombsand rockets on the A-6's, F-4 and A-7's for the next mission to Cambodia and Laos (the Ho Che Minh Trail). At the time we laughed about it.

I also came back with anti-Viet Nam War feelings and beliefs. Not very many of us truly came back singing the praises of that war.
 
Bobbles. First off, thank you for your service and I agree that all soldiers should be given due respect. Especially if they're seen combat. But that doesn't mean those that commit such acts as Kerry has admitted too should given such respect. A person can be good for all of their lives and do good things but as soon as they (willfully) do something horrible, their past record is tarnished forever. How people come to terms with this is their own choice. However, if they hold different people to different standards for committing the same (or similar) actions, then they aren't being true to themselves.
 

Once again Elwood, thank you for making my point ;) :

You say you can't label him a war criminal. Fine. But a military court would most likely think otherwise.

Kerry came home from Vietnam and immediately started speaking out against the war. He sat in front of Congress and testified to commiting "attrocities". He sat on the Dick Cavett show and admitted to committing "war crimes". I'm the one that posted that information for everyone to read. Okay let me count ... 1969 ...1970 ...1971...1972...1973 ... 2004. I believe that's 35 years, that at anytime, a miitary court could have hauled his butt in for trial. They did Lt. Calley, who is now a convicted war criminal. Kerry and a Senator even talked about Calley's trial during his Congressional testimony! Surely at some point the MP's could have picked him up. And believe me, members of the V V A W were so hated then, by "the" military and government, if anyone could have found a way to prosecute him, they would have.

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
Great. More" what ifs". How about just sticking to the facts as we know them.

Sticking to the facts as we know them. Hmmmm. Interesting concept. Here are some facts for you, Elwood. I have repeatedly posted if Kerry made those statements, then he lied. I was asked if they could be a mistake, I said I don't know because in order to believe Kerry, you'd have to believe Johnson secretly put troops in Cambodia, and I don't believe that's the case. How much more factual can I get? Until any of us read the actual speech, as Bet and I have both said on this thread, whose facts are we to believe? Yours? Bets? Mine? The SBVT or the Freepers ... because we know they are always factual? Whose?

I never assume anything, unlike you in numerous posts on this thread, in your own words. I asked questions, questions that Kerry needs to answer if he is going to address the story as it has been reported, not as we know the "facts".

An aside: Thank you Bobbles. Thank you for speaking out too. I know back in the 60's and 70's it was a very difficult thing for some Vietnam veterans to do, it's even difficult for some to this day, no matter if they agreed or disagreed with our nation's involvment in Vietnam.
 
. But that doesn't mean those that commit such acts as Kerry has admitted too should given such respect. A person can be good for all of their lives and do good things but as soon as they (willfully) do something horrible, their past record is tarnished forever

Weren't you the one that used the "bank robber" analogy? :confused: Again, is Kerry the only "bank robber"?
 
I do not challange Kerry's Vietnam service - he served honorably.
I do not challange Kerry with "war crimes" regardless of his testimony.

FIRST - "war is hell" is the reason that we should avoid war if possible, and bring it to a swift conclusion if unavoidable. What men do during war should be evaluated very carefully. It is not for 'arm chair' quarterbacks to pass judgement on actions taken during wartime. The only people who can make any sort of legitimate judgement on wartime activities is a US Court Martial proceeding. What happens during a war is the reason that MOST veterans do not wish to discuss it. Most veterans keep their wartime actions as part of their secret past which they reveal only to their closest friends or discuss with fellow comrades who were in the same situation. This is a primary reason that it is so interesting that John Kerry makes this service the centerpiece of his campaign. It seems to be the only thing he wanted to talk about until some second opinions of what actually happened surfaced.

SECOND - While I do NOT criticize Kerry's war experience - he served honorably - I DO criticize what he did when he RETURNED from the war. Mr. Kerry purposefully lied about what he had done. Mr. Kerry besmirched the actions, motives, and command structure of his former comrades who were STILL serving and many of whom were POW, and more of whow were killed in action. Mr. Kerry gave AID and COMFORT to the enemy, and his words were part of the torture the POWs had to endure. The Viet Cong themselves applauded Mr. Kerry's efforts and readily admit that BECAUSE of Mr. Kerry's activities in the USA, they were able to maintain morale and acquire a more advantageous conclusion than would have been otherwise possibe.

CONCLUSION - John Kerry served honorably - whether or not some of his medals were acquired under less than "heroic" situations is a topic for a different discussion that I would readily undertake, but not now. John Kerry served DISHONORABLY after he returned home from his FOUR MONTHS of honorable service. It is John Kerry's actions in the THIRTY YEARS since he returned from war that make him UNFIT FOR COMMAND.

WHY is he unfit for command? - This is easy. John Kerry has demonstrated that he views events as an opportunity for him to appear heroic. He bases his decisions on "what will make ME look good" instead of "what is the RIGHT thing to do." It is undeniable that President Bush makes decisions that are based on what is best for the nation. One may disagree with his decisions, but nobody can credibly charge that he is making decisions based on some popularity poll.
It is undeniable that in John Kerry's quest for the nomination that his "view of the war in Iraq" was totally dependent on the audience he was addressing. If he needed to speak to an audience that was more conservative - he was a "supporter" of the war. If he needed to peel off a few Howard Dean supporters - he was "against the war."

What is called for in a time of CRISIS is a statesman - that is the very nature of President Bush.

The WORST thing we could have in a time of crisis is a POLLSTER - and that is the best description of John Kerry.
 
Investors.com

We Are Waiting
Campaign '04: John Kerry says he'll fight claims he lied about or exaggerated his service in Vietnam. The best way to fight such charges would be to stop calling people names and start providing some answers.

He'll have to show that the charges by a group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are false. That's a tall order. The allegations are numerous, well documented and quite serious.

In general, they insist that Kerry has consistently overstated his heroism, that many accounts of his service in Vietnam are not true and that he has slandered his fellow veterans by claiming they were guilty of widespread war crimes and atrocities.

It's too bad Kerry has responded to these charges — and particularly those raised in the book "Unfit for Command" by former Swift boat commander John O'Neill — by vowing to "attack."

So far, his "attack" seems to be of the political and personal kind, with Kerry and his followers claiming that O'Neill, and the 250 or so Swift boat vets who back him, are Republican Party shills.

On Friday, Kerry filed a legal complaint about O'Neill's group.

But that won't do. Only answers will. The presidency of the United States is too important to give to someone with something to hide. Questions about Kerry's fitness to be commander in chief won't go away if he simply stonewalls and makes baseless charges of political bias.

After all, it was Kerry himself — with the smart salute and "reporting for duty" opening of his convention speech — who made his military service the keystone of his campaign. And it is Kerry who has repeatedly compared himself favorably with President Bush on that score.

In so doing, he's all but ignored his undistinguished 20-year career in the U.S. Senate and his decade as an anti-war activist.

Fair enough. Now we have questions about Vietnam. Such as:

• Did Kerry commit war atrocities? This charge would seem unduly harsh to level at someone who fought in a war more than three decades ago — except for the fact that he himself made it.

In a 1971 appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press," Kerry said: "There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed . . ."

Earlier that year, Kerry claimed his now-beloved "band of brothers" were broadly guilty of war crimes as well.

During the infamous "Winter Soldier Investigation" by anti-war activists in early 1971, Kerry and his pals described a shocking array of atrocities that U.S. troops routinely committed: arson, rape, torture, murder, burning of villages, all part of official policy.

This, more than anything, explains the still-burning ire of his former comrades in arms.

As O'Neill wrote: "Millions of Vietnam veterans will never forget Kerry's spinning of lies — lies so damaging to his comrades but so profitable to himself."

Kerry never provided evidence that such war crimes were official policy or routine. But he — and O'Neill — have raised questions about his own behavior in Vietnam.

• Did Kerry lie about "Christmas in Cambodia"? This is a story Kerry has repeated over and over as explanation for his later metamorphosis from decorated hero into staunch anti-war activist.

"I remember spending Christmas Eve of 1968 five miles across the Cambodian border being shot at by our South Vietnamese allies who were drunk and celebrating Christmas," Kerry wrote in the Boston Herald in October 1979. "The absurdity of almost being killed by our own allies in a country in which President Nixon claimed there were no American troops was very real."

A couple of problems. Nixon wasn't president on Christmas Eve 1968. Lyndon Johnson was. In fact, official records of his service show Kerry was never in Cambodia — as his campaign now concedes.

Subsequent "clarifications" — saying Kerry in ensuing months served as a kind of ferry master for Green Berets, CIA agents and Navy Seals into Cambodia — likewise have run afoul of the truth. There simply is no evidence for it.

Yet, on the floor of the Senate, Kerry said the experience was "seared — seared" into his memory.

Bad memory, or just a lie? People deserve an explanation.

• Kerry's medals. Kerry returned from his 4 1/2 month stint in Vietnam with three Purple Hearts for wounds, a Bronze Star and a Silver Star for gallantry.

But some of those who served with him cast doubt on how he earned his medals — and whether he deserved them. Harsh charges, to be sure. O'Neill's book, however, raises serious evidence to support the charges. Kerry must respond.

Specifically, O'Neill alleges Kerry got his first and third Purple Hearts for mishandling grenades — in one case, for setting off one too close to his boat, and in the other, throwing a grenade into a rice bin. In neither case was he seriously wounded, says O'Neill.

Questions abound, too, about his Bronze Star, received for pulling special forces Lt. Jim Rassman out of the water under hostile fire, and his Silver Star, given after Kerry beached his boat in the face of an ambush and killed an enemy soldier.

In the first case, O'Neill and others charge, Kerry was fleeing action when he picked up Rassman. In the second case, the soldier was a "skinny kid" who was wounded and running away.

We'd like to know — and suspect the American people would, too.

You may be wondering: Why raise these questions now, in the heat of a campaign? Sadly, the major media have all but ignored questions of Kerry's record. They've been too busy looking for scandal in Bush's past and, more recently, attacking O'Neill and anyone else who dares question Kerry's glowing accounts of his service.

The bias is pervasive. As the Media Research Center, a media watchdog, pointed out, ABC, CBS and NBC did 75 stories on charges Bush was "AWOL" from the National Guard. They did nine on claims Kerry fibbed about his war record. Biased might be too kind a description.

The major media in this country are overwhelmingly liberal and refuse to ask the questions that need to be asked. They do their viewers and readers — and Kerry for that matter — a disservice.

If Kerry thinks he's being slandered, he should answer with facts —not with insults, threats and lawsuits.

We have questions, senator. We're ready for your answers.
 
US News & World Report

Nation & World
By Michael Barone
Winter in Cambodia?

This month the Kerry Campaign abandoned one claim that John Kerry had made for years about his Vietnam War service and put another into question. The claim that has been dropped: that Kerry was in Cambodia at Christmastime in 1968. In a 1979 review of the movie Apocalypse Now in the Boston Herald, Kerry wrote, "I remember spending Christmas Eve of 1968 5 miles across the Cambodian border being shot at by our Vietnamese allies." In a 1986 speech on the Senate floor, Kerry said, "I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. . . . I have that memory which is seared-seared-in me." In a 1992 interview with States News Service, Kerry claimed, "On Christmas Eve of 1968, I was on a gunboat in a firefight that wasn't supposed to be taking place." That year he also told the Associated Press, "Everybody was over there [in Cambodia]. Nobody thought twice about it."

These are vivid statements full of colorful detail-South Vietnamese soldiers shooting off guns to celebrate Christmas. But, as Emily Litella used to say on Saturday Night Live, "Never mind." Historian Douglas Brinkley's bestselling Tour of Duty, based partly on Kerry's wartime journals, places Kerry on Christmas 1968 in Sa Dec, 50 miles from Cambodia. On August 11, Kerry spokesman Michael Meehan said Kerry's boat was "in the watery borders between Vietnam and Cambodia" on Christmas Eve. That's far from an endorsement of Kerry's oft-told stories. "He was mistaken about Christmas in Cambodia," Brinkley told London's Daily Telegraph last week. But he "went into Cambodian waters three or four times in January and February 1969 on clandestine missions. . . . He was a ferry master, a drop-off guy, but it was dangerous as hell. Kerry carries a hat which he was given by one CIA operative." Indeed, Kerry showed the hat to a Washington Post reporter last year. Similarly, in 2000 Kerry told U.S. News's Kevin Whitelaw that he had run guns into Cambodia.

The Kerry camp has provided no documentation of Kerry's missions to Cambodia; Meehan says that's not surprising because the missions were secret. Perhaps. But none of Kerry's boat mates, most of whom support him, corroborate his story, and the one boat mate who opposes him flatly denies it. Retired Adm. Roy Hoffman, commander of the swift boats during Kerry's four months in Vietnam, insists that no swift boats went into Cambodia. Hoffman is, to be sure, a member of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which opposes Kerry and sponsored the anti-Kerry book Unfit for Command. But there is nothing on the record except Kerry's word to prove him wrong.

There is public documentation of other secret missions to Cambodia in 1968-69. In most, if not all, cases it seems that agents and special ops were flown into Cambodia by helicopter. If boats were used, the Navy had available smaller, quieter craft than swift boats. That makes Kerry's story seem implausible, but it could still be true. If he made public the journals he provided to Brinkley, there might be more evidence that could be checked.

Character counts. On the Christmas story (which even the pro-Kerry New York Times admits Kerry has not "put to rest"), perhaps Kerry was just confused about dates, or perhaps he convinced himself that an untrue story was true, as people sometimes do, and had no intent to mislead. A more unsettling possibility is that he consciously leapt the bounds of truth to make his experience seem more spectacular or to score political points. Those are not the sort of things most people want in a president.

Will Kerry's evidently untrue statements about Christmas in Cambodia raise doubts about his as-yet-uncorroborated stories about later Cambodian missions? Will they undermine his credibility and bolster the charges of his swift boat critics? Not clear. Most of Kerry's boat mates testify to his heroism; most of those serving on other swift boats in the unit take a different view. So far as I know, all served honorably and are entitled to respectful attention; some may have political motives, in both directions. Battlefield memories inevitably and understandably differ. But character counts in presidents, and some of Kerry's statements over the years-not all, but some-count against his character.
 
Rokkitsci ... I agree whole heartedly with the first half of your post, well, except the last two sentences of it. :)

If you want to debate about Kerry's post war history, would you please post what parts of your post is fact and what part is opinion so as not to confuse anyone? Thanks! :) And if you want to claim your statement as facts, can you please back up those facts with some unbiased sources? Thanks again. :)

Mr. Kerry besmirched the actions, motives ... of his former comrades who were STILL serving and many of whom were POW, and more of whow were killed in action.
Fact or opinion?

Mr. Kerry gave AID and COMFORT to the enemy, and his words were part of the torture the POWs had to endure.
Fact or opinion?

The Viet Cong themselves applauded Mr. Kerry's efforts and readily admit that BECAUSE of Mr. Kerry's activities in the USA, they were able to maintain morale and acquire a more advantageous conclusion than would have been otherwise possibe.
Fact or opinion?
 
Originally posted by Saffron
Weren't you the one that used the "bank robber" analogy? :confused: Again, is Kerry the only "bank robber"?

Yes I did. And if you're trying to get me to say that Kerry wasn't the only "bank robber", then yes, I'll say it. He wasn't.

I don't know why you want to keep bringing in others. I will hold them to the same standards that I have for Kerry. I think I've stated this in not so many words by my previous posts.
 
Originally posted by Saffron

If you want to debate about Kerry's post war history, would you please post what parts of your post is fact and what part is opinion so as not to confuse anyone? Thanks! :) And if you want to claim your statement as facts, can you please back up those facts with some unbiased sources? Thanks again. :)


Fact or opinion?


Fact or opinion?


Fact or opinion?

Don't you think his actions when he returned caused any of this to happen?

I believe I read (elsewhere) that NVN used the protests of Jane Fonda and John Kerry as moral boosters for their troops. Seems only logical that they would use any opportunity to do so.
 
Originally posted by bsnyder
Character counts.

It most certainly does. So maybe Bush ought to answer the questions he flatly refused to do in the 2000 campaign about his reported cocaine use.


You sure don't sound like someone who just wants the allegations investigated. You sound like someone who's prosecuting the case and desperately wants the stories to be true.


It's not surprising at all with the swift liars stories beginning to cave in like a house of cards that all of a sudden the right wants to move on to yet another mudslinging effort.

This is an orchestrated smear campaign and it starts at the grass root level. The right tosses out ridiculous allegations, such as Kerry intentionally got himself shot or that his injuries were caused by...get this...flying rice and then, when they're proved wrong they move to the next one in their book of dirty tricks.

If those that are pulling this crap get in a bind and can't think for themselves how to counter the fact that their lies are exposed, they run to a slime site like freepers where they give you suggestions as to what you can start in on to throw the Dem's off track.

THURLOW: OK...MATTHEWS: Why doesn‘t he deserve the award?
.
THURLOW: Well, I—I don‘t—I‘m not quibbling about the award

So which is it now....Does Kerry deserve the awards, or doesn't he? What's the line from freepers today???

<center><IMG width="200" SRC="http://irregularradio.com/lovetoomuch.gif"></center>
 
Gladly
I post ONLY opinions - I make an arguement based on commonly understood truths and then state an opinion based on that arguement.
If anyone thinks they do otherwise they are fooling themselves. 99% of the FACTS posted in here are things that one reads from other sources. One either believes those "facts" or not, depending on reasonability of the underlying arguements and the past credibility of the source.
I do not, nor do I suspect anyone else has, go to the Washington DC archives and pull out the actual piece of paper which says that John Kerry actually is a veteran of Vietnam war. I accept that "fact" based on common sense and the credibility of the original source material where I accepted it myself as a "fact" which I would use in the future as a truth.

I have found, in this forum as in others where I have visited, that the USUAL way for left wing politicians to retire from a debate they are losing is to say = "prove it." This reminds me of the third grade. When an opponent says = "prove it" that means only one thing - that they have no answer.

Now, I have no direct experience in this forum, but I have extensive experience in the AOL political forum, which is a real-time chat room where the fur flies fast and furious, and there is usually little time for a long response to fully explain your arguement. That is one thing I find refreshing about this forum. There is apparently no resistance to long explanations, although I will admit some are difficult to read to the end.

But, I suspect that if one WERE to respond to a "prove it" challange with something like "Newsmax" - that the left wing supporters in here would start posting the funny little 'rolling around on the floor laughing" icon. That is essentially what happens in the AOL forum. The FACT that Newsmax is actually posting a LINK to the Washington Post, is not part of the capacity of the left wing politico to understand. When I see the equivalent of the 'little rolling around on the floor laughing' icon, I smile to myself and put another notch in the handle of my gun.

FINALLY - the truth is that in any discussion between individuals - we all deal in our opinions - that is the coin of the realm. There are no mathematical FACTS in a political discussion - to pretend otherwise is self-delusion. What one MUST do is be honest.
What I promise to do is to NEVER post one word that I do not GENUINELY believe to be true - I actually abhor those who post UNTRUE or MISLEADING material. And, this is my largest opposition to John Kerry - he uses, for political gain, information that he KNOWs to be false or misleading.

You are all free to judge what I say anyway you want - if you think that I am posting hogwash, you are free to ignore me - that is what I ultimately do to those who have demonstrated that they are not credible. So, as long as the left wing is comfortable in posting information that they read in a Michael Moore book, I will feel even more comfortable relying on my logic and common sense about what I post.

Nothing is worse in my opinion than a liar.
 
Originally posted by peachgirl

It's not surprising at all with the swift liars stories beginning to cave in like a house of cards that all of a sudden the right wants to move on to yet another mudslinging effort.

This is an orchestrated smear campaign and it starts at the grass root level. The right tosses out ridiculous allegations, such as Kerry intentionally got himself shot or that his injuries were caused by...get this...flying rice and then, when they're proved wrong they move to the next one in their book of dirty tricks.

If those that are pulling this crap get in a bind and can't think for themselves how to counter the fact that their lies are exposed, they run to a slime site like freepers where they give you suggestions as to what you can start in on to throw the Dem's off track.


.


So which is it now....Does Kerry deserve the awards, or doesn't he? What's the line from freepers today???

<center><IMG width="200" SRC="http://irregularradio.com/lovetoomuch.gif"></center>

What in the heck does freepers have to do with the two newspaper articles I posted, which are from U.S. News and World Report and Investors.com (hardly bastions of the vast right wing conspiracy!)
 
Bet -- I haven't read the second article you posted, but don't you find this first one even the least bit offensive? Honestly? Let me ask you this, and can you please answer me. Have you read any of Kerry's records for yourself?

Usually when someone posts an Op-Ed piece, they usually stand behind it. Do you stand behind this garbage:

Originally posted by bsnyder
Investors.com

Kerry's medals. Kerry returned from his 4 1/2 month stint in Vietnam with three Purple Hearts for wounds, a Bronze Star and a Silver Star for gallantry.

But some of those who served with him cast doubt on how he earned his medals — and whether he deserved them. Harsh charges, to be sure. O'Neill's book, however, raises serious evidence to support the charges. Kerry must respond.

Specifically, O'Neill alleges Kerry got his first and third Purple Hearts for mishandling grenades — in one case, for setting off one too close to his boat, and in the other, throwing a grenade into a rice bin. In neither case was he seriously wounded, says O'Neill.

Don't you think that's at all dispicable, dishonest, or even disgusting to make allegations like that?

Questions abound, too, about his Bronze Star, received for pulling special forces Lt. Jim Rassman out of the water under hostile fire, and his Silver Star, given after Kerry beached his boat in the face of an ambush and killed an enemy soldier.

In the first case, O'Neill and others charge, Kerry was fleeing action when he picked up Rassman. In the second case, the soldier was a "skinny kid" who was wounded and running away.

Bet!!!!!!! Do you really stand behind this article! Can you really stand behind the men that would villify any human being this way?!?!?!?!?!

The bias is pervasive. As the Media Research Center, a media watchdog, pointed out, ABC, CBS and NBC did 75 stories on charges Bush was "AWOL" from the National Guard. They did nine on claims Kerry fibbed about his war record. Biased might be too kind a description.
You know, you asked the question last night, about the media not covering this and I can give my opinion on this now, last night I really didn't have one. After reading this kind of ****, I wouldn't take ANYTHING any of them have to say seriously and cover anything they say. Just because they have the right to say something, doesn't mean that ANYONE should listen to them or give them a public podium to say it! Their comments and allegations are disgusting and I won't read or listen to another single word they have to say, whether they tell the truth, as in the Cambodia in Christmas story, or not.

If Kerry thinks he's being slandered, he should answer with facts —not with insults, threats and lawsuits.
Who wrote this garbage?!?!?! In my opinion he/she wouldn't know a fact if it jumped up and bit them in the face. Funny, even someone whose not into politics can find Kerry's military records and read them, why can't the people quoted in the article and the person who wrote this article?

Do you really stand behind this Bet? Really?
 
Originally posted by bsnyder
What in the heck does freepers have to do with the two newspaper articles I posted, which are from U.S. News and World Report and Investors.com (hardly bastions of the vast right wing conspiracy!)

Lesson #101...

Rather than respond to a post, ask questions. That way the op will answer your questions and you can avoid having to answer theirs.

<center><IMG width="200" SRC="http://irregularradio.com/lovetoomuch.gif"></center>
 
Here's what I think (and then this will be my last post for a while, I have to follow my older son across the state to help him move his stuff back to college :( )

First and foremost, I am very pleased to see that the stranglehold of liberal bias that the mainstream media has enjoyed for so many years is finally broken! I'd venture to guess that I've watched this thing unfold in as much detail as is humanly possibly (who knows how many hours I've spent sitting here at the computer reading!), and it's been fascinating to see the growing influence of political weblogs, cable tv and other non-traditional forms of political coverage.

As to John Kerry and what I believe, these are the facts.

1. He, and not the Republicans, has made his Vietnam service the complete cornerstone of his campaign and his qualification to be President.

2. Kerry volunteered and served honorably in Vietnam. He should be commended for that. He was awarded numerous medals and if the Navy says he deserves them, that's good enough for me.

3. After the war, he became an outspoken and most visable member of the anti-war movement. Many, perhaps the majority, of Vietnam vets saw this as a betrayal and took it very personally. You may disagree that they shouldn't have felt that way, but you can't deny their very real feelings, that some of them have voiced for over 30 years now.

4. Since Kerry began running for President he has highlighted (over and over and over again) the hero portion of his Vietnam service and has tried to ignore the anti-war aspect. This has angered those many vets who felt betrayed by him. They think the American people deserve to see the whole picture, not just the airbrushed version that the Kerry campaign is selling.

5. George W. Bush didn't make this campaign about Vietnam. He has repeatedly said he thinks ALL the 527 groups should be outlawed and he deplores ALL negative ads that they are running. John Kerry has only spoken out against this particular 527, and one moveon.org ad.
 
And just so Peachgirl doesn't nitpick my words and claim I wasn't clear enough.

IMO, John Kerry was a hero in Vietnam and he deserves the medals he got.

I also think that he is, at best, a serial exaggerator and at worst, he makes things up out of whole cloth. (The Cambodia story)
 
This question of "sources" has made me think in a slightly different direction. I recall public statements by leading Democrat officials - and I will admit I am relying on memory as to what the actual quotes say - which seem to form much of the core opposition to President Bush.

FIRST
ANY democrat speaking to a black audience - "BUSH STOLE THE ELECTION" by "keeping blacks from voting in Florida."
I have heard KERRY and EDWARDs both repeat the essence of this charge in words that mean exactly the same as my quotes. I have heard EVERY democrat politician refer to this "fact" of the democrat universe.
NOW - what is the "source" for these statements of "fact"?? I will be willing to BET that every democrat in this forum 'believes' some form of this assertion. Yet there is not ONE SHRED of evidence to support it. Not ONE person who was "denied the right to vote" has been produced.
The answer is that the SOURCE for this statement is a POLITICAL CALCULATION by the Democrat party as the best way to energize black audiences to vote against Bush. There is NO truth to these statements at all. Yet, I suspect, that many of the democrats in this forum themselves have USED this "fact" in many of their arguements.

SECOND
Al Gore = "Bush BETRAYED America."
This is a statement of fact. The democrats are campaigning as though they believe it. What is the source for this assertion? As yet I have heard no reasonable explanation of how Al Gore came to this conclusion. Note that Al Gore did not say = "It is my opinion that Bush BETRAYED America."
Likewise, I have heard no prominent democrat challange Al Gore on this statement, as they seem to challange Bush on every statement made by some nitwit conservative. Why will not the democrat apparatus ask Al Gore to apoligize or retract or explain that remark? The reason is that they want to convey that IMPRESSION and they will accept any statement that furthers that goal.
Why the MEDIA will not make a similar challange is another question, to which the only reasonable answer is bias.

THIRD
Theodore Kennedy = "This war was planned in Texas for political purposes"
Again, this charge forms a great building block of the democrat opposition to President Bush. Yet there has not been one shred of evidence to support it and Kennedy has not be asked to either explain it or retract it or apologize for it. Why?? Again, it furthers the IMPRESSION that the democrats want to foster = and they will accept anything that furthers that goal. Where is the source?

FOURTH
Hillary Clinton - Howard Dean - Al Sharpton - Wesley Clark - and others I cannot recall at the moment = "President Bush KNEW the attack on the WTC was going to happen and he ALLOWED it."
Not too many democrats actually believe that. But, they dont mind if the charge is out there for ignorant voters to ponder. What is the "source" for this assertion? I know that it takes a very tortured 'interpretation' to even construct a sentence with that conclusion, yet nobody has challanged these orators to come up with a source or retract or apologize. In an HONORABLE world anyone making this assertion would be shunned.

FIFTH
Clinton - Kennedy - and a cast of thousands = "The Patriot Act is taking away our freedom."
Now, this assertion would prompt me to post those little "rolling around on the floor laughing" icons if I knew how. Yet, I will be willing to bet that most democrats in this forum has used this assertion to bolster some arguement. Not one person can be produced whose freedoms have been taken away, other than those captured on the field of battle and Richard Padilla. The only "freedom" I can imagine being taken away is your freedom to ACT LIKE A TERRORIST. Yes - if you try to take a gun onto an airplane, your freedom to do that is interrupted.
Again, what is the "source" of this statement. Why are democrats allowed to state that as a FACT anytime they want to make a political point? Why are they not CHALLANGED each time to support the assertion?
In MY humble view - that is an OPINION of theirs. And I am being charitible when I say opinion. I have a sneaking HUNCH that they are actually just SAYING that for political effect. I believe they KNOW it is a lie.

I have dozens and dozens of other typical democrat assertions that are stated as FACT - depending on the audience - which are nothing more than OPINIONs at best and downright LIEs at worst.

But again - all words do is formulate a person's opinon. It is up to the listener to judge the logic, reasonalbleness, and credibility of the opinion.
 















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