Generation Terrorists » Forum
Sign up   |   Start new thread   |   Lost password?   |   Edit profile   |   Member List   |   myGT   |   Blog
Keyword
From
To
 

ha ha kerry
simonvii Posted: Sat Aug 21 12:14:20 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  poor kerry, he can spew trash all over about how great a war hero he was and then when his fellow veterans say 'hold on, he's full of it' he cant take it and files complaints to silence those same veterans he claims to defend so strongly...if you cant take the heat, stay out of the whitehouse...stupid whiner...

(p.s. for any who dont know this post in response to kerry crying about some ads against him that he doesnt agree with that were put out by some fellow vietnam vets...hmm maybe if he hadnt falsified half his write-ups on his goings-on in vietnam he wouldnt have to worry about the other people who were actually there calling him on it)


 
FN Posted: Sat Aug 21 13:45:34 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Whatever the case might be, don't you think it's a little coincidential that the adds are financed by bush-adepts and the doctor for example hasn't actually treated kerry himself, at least not for the wound in question.

And then again, remind me of how long bush was in 'nam.

Another thing that kind of pisses me off (although I don't really care but you know what i'm getting at) is that "they" say he shot a vietnamese guy in the back. If he wouldn't have done it it would be used against him as well.

I'll shoot the first person who says that wouldnt be the case in the back as well, so don't even try.


 
Asswipe Posted: Sat Aug 21 16:24:35 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>Whatever the case might be, don't you think it's a little coincidential that the adds are financed by bush-adepts and the doctor for example hasn't actually treated kerry himself, at least not for the wound in question.

coincidental? you talk like it's a great big conspiracy. Republicans who hold the purse strings are going to pay for stuff that supports bush and bashes kerry... as that's the stuff they want people to hear.

9 out of 10 of kerry's crewmates, the people who he lived w/ and worked w/ everyday while in nam, support him for president. If a bush advocate can slap together a million other vets who do not support him, yet they never worked w/ him, their opinion is about as good as the one of the manure they shovel.


>
>Another thing that kind of pisses me off (although I don't really care but you know what i'm getting at) is that "they" say he shot a vietnamese guy in the back. If he wouldn't have done it it would be used against him as well.
>

Well, Kerry's response to this one was the guy was holding a rocket launcher. I think that warrants a bullet. That's crazy how they dig up info like that when it was so long ago and millions of people were killed...


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat Aug 21 18:35:35 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Sorry to disappoint you Kerry lovers, but the veterans that are supporting Kerry are not the ones that he lived and worked with every day. Most of these guys were enlisted men who served on his boat and were with him for 2 weeks or less, a couple of them only one day. His peers, the officers on the other boats in his group, swiftboats worked in groups of 3 to 5, to a man, say he is a liar. These are the guys he worked with, ate with, and slept with every day. They are the ones that are qualified to make an informed statement on his decision making abilities.
Also, John Oneill, is not a Bush supporter, and has never supported republicans.
Without a single exception, every single commanding officer Kerry had while on active duty claims he is a liar and unfit to command. How can that be a republican conspiracy ?
None of this is about Bush, it's about Kerry's service in Vietnam, But when you can't adequately rebut the argument, then you go an try to make it about Bush.
For the truth go to www.swiftvets.com


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat Aug 21 18:43:18 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>Whatever the case might be, don't you think it's a little coincidential that the adds are financed by bush-adepts and the doctor for example hasn't actually treated kerry himself, at least not for the wound in question.
>
spin, it any way you want, find a lie in what they are saying. Kerry can't so he's trying to have them silenced.

>And then again, remind me of how long bush was in 'nam.
>
Ok, so tell me what does Bush have to do with whether or not Kerry's time in 'Nam was honorable or not ?
One has absolutely nothing to do with the other.

>Another thing that kind of pisses me off (although I don't really care but you know what i'm getting at) is that "they" say he shot a vietnamese guy in the back. If he wouldn't have done it it would be used against him as well.
>
>I'll shoot the first person who says that wouldnt be the case in the back as well, so don't even try.
>
You got the story wrong shooter.
He beached his boat to chase down and kill an already wounded and fleeing vietnamese boy.
Beaching your boat and disembarking during combat is a court martial offense, and killing a wounded retreating enemy is a violation of the Geneva convention.


 
FN Posted: Sat Aug 21 19:21:46 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Don't talk about the fucking human rights and geneva convention while you're agreeing with abu ghraib and guantanamo bay.

Double standards again, I wonder how many times I've said that before.

If t was bush's war record and everything was the other way around, you'd be saying the exact same thing as "kerry-supporters" are saying now, and you would have a point.

And yeah, the fact that republicans are eager to point at somebody's war record while their front guy doesn't have one because daddy managed to have him dodge it has everything to do with it.


And you mean the silencing is the same thing as fahrenheit being banned at first?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat Aug 21 19:52:00 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>Don't talk about the fucking human rights and geneva convention while you're agreeing with abu ghraib and guantanamo bay.
>
>Double standards again, I wonder how many times I've said that before.
>
>If t was bush's war record and everything was the other way around, you'd be saying the exact same thing as "kerry-supporters" are saying now, and you would have a point.
>
>And yeah, the fact that republicans are eager to point at somebody's war record while their front guy doesn't have one because daddy managed to have him dodge it has everything to do with it.
>
Once again, you have failed to rebut the original argument and tried to change the subject. Kerry's war record has absolutely nothing to do with Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo. Also as I've stated before, John O'neil is not and has never been a republican supporter.

>And you mean the silencing is the same thing as fahrenheit being banned at first?
>
farenheit was never banned.


 
Zacq Posted: Sat Aug 21 20:03:07 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Does anyone remember the last time we argued this, where the pro-truth people annihilated the whole Swiftboat crap thing and then certain people stopped posting because they had nothing left to say?

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=231

Here's one of the most recent lies involved with the 'Swiftboat crap thing.' One of the guys claims Kerry wasn't under fire when he says he was, which was much of the reason he won a medal (though another guy claims it was only for chasing down a Viet Cong guy, which is false). Problem is, they checked that guys records, and he in fact won a bronze star for his actions in one of the boats supposedly around Kerry, and in his records it says the boats were underfire.

These guys are idiots. Please stop wasting time over this.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat Aug 21 20:12:51 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>Does anyone remember the last time we argued this, where the pro-truth people annihilated the whole Swiftboat crap thing and then certain people stopped posting because they had nothing left to say?
>
>http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=231
>
>Here's one of the most recent lies involved with the 'Swiftboat crap thing.' One of the guys claims Kerry wasn't under fire when he says he was, which was much of the reason he won a medal (though another guy claims it was only for chasing down a Viet Cong guy, which is false). Problem is, they checked that guys records, and he in fact won a bronze star for his actions in one of the boats supposedly around Kerry, and in his records it says the boats were underfire.
>
>These guys are idiots. Please stop wasting time over this.
>
The account of record on the medal awards was written by Kerry himself.
CHECK DEEPER DUDE !

Maybe you will find out why Kerry still refuses to have his complete military and medical records released.
How does any war hero account for three purple hearts with not a single hour of hospitalization or a missed day of work ?


 
Zacq Posted: Sat Aug 21 20:22:09 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Read the link hif.


 
Zacq Posted: Sat Aug 21 20:24:01 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  What military records haven't been released?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat Aug 21 20:34:03 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>Read the link hif.
>
The link only parrots what Kerry has been saying all along.
As I said before, the account of record for his Bronze star was written by Kerry himself.
Did you go to www.swiftvets.com ?
The guys that you so cavalierly call "idiots" ? These men served their country with honor and won purple hearts the hard way, they were actually wounded. They served their entire tour of duty while Kerry skated home on his band aids and called them criminals, rapists, baby killers, etc.
How do you explain away every single CO he ever had calling him a liar?
What about his "Christmas in Cambodia"?



 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat Aug 21 20:37:24 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>What military records haven't been released?
>
http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200408201031.asp


 
Zacq Posted: Sat Aug 21 20:37:40 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>What military records haven't been released?


 
Zacq Posted: Sat Aug 21 20:38:30 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Sorry, I quoted myself before I saw you post a link. I'll look at that now.


 
Zacq Posted: Sat Aug 21 20:40:52 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Well, I got to the first bullet point and read:

Dr. Louis Letson used tweezers to pull a splinter of shrapnel from
Kerry's left arm on December 3, 1968. The next day, with a Band-Aid upon his elbow, Kerry applied for a Purple Heart.

Louis Letson was not the doctor who signed Kerry's medical records for this injury. I really don't feel like reading further after that.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat Aug 21 20:56:38 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>Well, I got to the first bullet point and read:
>
> Dr. Louis Letson used tweezers to pull a splinter of shrapnel from
>Kerry's left arm on December 3, 1968. The next day, with a Band-Aid upon his elbow, Kerry applied for a Purple Heart.
>
>Louis Letson was not the doctor who signed Kerry's medical records for this injury. I really don't feel like reading further after that.
>

Maybe you should, because he was the doctor that treated him, and denied his request for a purple heart.
The guy that signed his medical records for his purple heart did not treat him.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat Aug 21 20:57:35 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  here's another blip on his records:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14743



 
FN Posted: Sat Aug 21 23:06:53 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Once again, you have failed to rebut the original argument and tried to change the subject.

So what are you saying? That human rights and the geneva convention have not been violated (perhaps even systematicly in abu graihb and certainly in guantanamo) and that I can't talk about it unless I start a seperate thread?

You brought the human rights up, not me, and I think you're the last person who should be calling upon them with your believes.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat Aug 21 23:23:39 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>Once again, you have failed to rebut the original argument and tried to change the subject.
>
We were debating about Kerry's dishonorable service, and I brought up the Geneva convention in reference to his killing of a wounded retreating enemy combatant.

>You brought the human rights up, not me, and I think you're the last person who should be calling upon them with your believes.
>
We were debating about Kerry's dishonorable service, and I brought up the Geneva convention in reference to his killing of a wounded retreating enemy combatant.
I would like you to address the subject at hand.
As for Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, the Geneva convention quite clearly does not apply to terrorists.



 
DanSRose Posted: Sun Aug 22 00:57:29 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5771731

Article Summary:
Another of Sen. Kerry's commrade's is at his side, refuting all arguments that there was no fire on their boat and telling his story of what happened that day. His story is John Kerry's. Arguments against Kerry are insults to former Commander William Rood, as he said.
Questions are now being raised about the Swift Boat Veterans Ties to the Bush-Cheney campaign, with possible direct soft money contributions.
The major Kerry detractor's own Bronze Star is directly from the report in question that led to Sen. Kerry's Purple Heart.
blah, now I'm bored with that



 
FN Posted: Sun Aug 22 07:35:13 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>As for Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, the Geneva convention quite clearly does not apply to terrorists.

And what about innocent until proven guilty and the right to an attorney?

You're saying that if they for one reason or the other *suspect* you of terrorist links and they lock you up for a year without any right or means to defend yourself you wouldn't have a problem with it nd you'd call it justice?

Don't bullshit yourself.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sun Aug 22 07:35:55 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  DanSRose said:
>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5771731
>
>Article Summary:
>Another of Sen. Kerry's commrade's is at his side, refuting all arguments that there was no fire on their boat and telling his story of what happened that day. His story is John Kerry's. Arguments against Kerry are insults to former Commander William Rood, as he said.
>Questions are now being raised about the Swift Boat Veterans Ties to the Bush-Cheney campaign, with possible direct soft money contributions.
>
Questions are being raised. . .
Hmmm what does that mean exactly ?
It's political spin, nothing more.
Show me evidence.
>The major Kerry detractor's own Bronze Star is directly from the report in question that led to Sen. Kerry's Purple Heart.
>
This statement was addressed several post up and in the book by John Oneill.
You're not reading the whole story because you don't want to hear it.
>


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sun Aug 22 08:02:27 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>As for Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, the Geneva convention quite clearly does not apply to terrorists.
>
>And what about innocent until proven guilty and the right to an attorney?
>
Innocent until proven guilty and the right to an attorney apply to civil law, not terrorists captured by military. When have you ever seen a POW declared innocent until proven guilty and given an attorney ?


 
Zacq Posted: Sun Aug 22 09:40:29 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Innocent until proven guilty and the right to an attorney apply to civil law, not terrorists captured by military. When have you ever seen a POW declared innocent until proven guilty and given an attorney ?

Well besides the fact that many people held have done nothing wrong at all.

Here's this crazy idea I thought of, by the way. Maybe if we want to spread democracy through the world, and show how America promotes freedom, we should show decency to people since we don't really know they're terrorists - I'm not saying let them go, but they can have an attorney just like any other suspected criminal.


 
FN Posted: Sun Aug 22 10:05:58 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  It's dumbass redneck logic that'll come back to bite "you" in the ass some day. Happening now already.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sun Aug 22 10:27:43 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>Innocent until proven guilty and the right to an attorney apply to civil law, not terrorists captured by military. When have you ever seen a POW declared innocent until proven guilty and given an attorney ?
>
>Well besides the fact that many people held have done nothing wrong at all.
>
>Here's this crazy idea I thought of, by the way. Maybe if we want to spread democracy through the world, and show how America promotes freedom, we should show decency to people since we don't really know they're terrorists - I'm not saying let them go, but they can have an attorney just like any other suspected criminal.
>
These are not suspected criminals. They are enemy combatants captured trying to kill Coalition soldiers !
Never in our history have we given those rights to a captured enemy combatant, unless they are accused of war crimes. Why should we start now ?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sun Aug 22 10:29:22 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>It's dumbass redneck logic that'll come back to bite "you" in the ass some day. Happening now already.
>
So, in the the history of your country, tell me how many POW's were given attorneys ?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sun Aug 22 10:31:51 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>It's dumbass redneck logic that'll come back to bite "you" in the ass some day. Happening now already.
>
By the way, you totally reneged on the Kerry argument that was the original topic on this thread, you started with something and when you couldn't finish it, you changed the subject.
Talk about redneck logic, you're the only person that threatened to shoot anybody.
For a guy that occassionally displays a modicum of intelligence, you say a lot of dumb things.


 
FN Posted: Sun Aug 22 11:11:38 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>They are enemy combatants captured trying to kill Coalition soldiers !

No they're not. Not all of them at least. A lot were just pointed out by others for a reward.


 
FN Posted: Sun Aug 22 11:13:55 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>By the way, you totally reneged on the Kerry argument that was the original topic on this thread, you started with something and when you couldn't finish it, you changed the subject.

I didn't, I picked up on some of your hypocrisy.

And from what I've heard, most of kerry's crewmates who were actually there agree with what he says.

>Talk about redneck logic, you're the only person that threatened to shoot anybody.

Haha, don't act so offended/pure.

>For a guy that occassionally displays a modicum of intelligence, you say a lot of dumb things.

I would be more worried if you agreed with what I said when it comes to subjects like this.


 
Mesh Posted: Sun Aug 22 11:15:21 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  LOL YESSS!!!!!!! I'm here to see a debate in realtime!


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sun Aug 22 11:17:00 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>They are enemy combatants captured trying to kill Coalition soldiers !
>
>No they're not. Not all of them at least. A lot were just pointed out by others for a reward.
>
So they say . . .
Shit happens in a war zone dude.
There has never been a squeaky clean war. Never been one fought without mistakes either.



 
ifihadahif Posted: Sun Aug 22 11:18:51 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>By the way, you totally reneged on the Kerry argument that was the original topic on this thread, you started with something and when you couldn't finish it, you changed the subject.
>
>I didn't, I picked up on some of your hypocrisy.
>
No you didn't, you merely changed the subject.
>
>And from what I've heard, most of kerry's crewmates who were actually there agree with what he says.
>
You heard wrong, he has only 8 or 9 guys to support him.



 
FN Posted: Sun Aug 22 11:46:26 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>So they say . . .

So there were never any rewards?


 
FN Posted: Sun Aug 22 11:47:09 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>No you didn't

Yeah, I did.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sun Aug 22 11:49:02 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>So they say . . .
>
>So there were never any rewards?
>
I don't know of any, but that's irrelevant here.
Even if the rewards were offerred and I never heard of this, the accusations would still have to be substantiated.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sun Aug 22 11:52:13 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>It's dumbass redneck logic that'll come back to bite "you" in the ass some day. Happening now already.
>
sorry dude, you're definitely wrong on this one.
And I will add this, if you are lucky to live to be my age, and at some points along the way, your own logic doesn't bite you in the ass once or twice, then you will be the first.


 
Zacq Posted: Sun Aug 22 12:30:08 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe and hif, I'm afraid you're both missing the important political things going on.

http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/team_america/

Yeah that's right.


 
Mesh Posted: Sun Aug 22 12:38:38 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  God damnit. Those fuckers freak the shit out of me. Damned little dolls.


 
Mesh Posted: Sun Aug 22 12:38:59 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  and by fucking dolls, I meant puppets.





Shit!


 
Asswipe Posted: Sun Aug 22 13:33:39 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Sorry to disappoint you Kerry lovers, but the veterans that are supporting Kerry are not the ones that he lived and worked with every day. Most of these guys were enlisted men who served on his boat and were with him for 2 weeks or less, a couple of them only one day. His peers, the officers on the other boats in his group, swiftboats worked in groups of 3 to 5, to a man, say he is a liar. These are the guys he worked with, ate with, and slept with every day. They are the ones that are qualified to make an informed statement on his decision making abilities.

seems we're in an interesting spot here as i've heard and read that his crewmates support him, those who lived w/ him every day and would know him better than anyone else, back whne he was 20...(was anyone fit to run the country when they were fucking 20?? Maybe knowing him when he's 20 is not a very reliable base to come from)

so, anyway, your facts say one thing, mine say the complete opposite... interesting place we're put in here. But by simply stating the opposite of what has been said, it's not rebutting an argument, doing that would require using premises that we've both agreed to be true.

>Also, John Oneill, is not a Bush supporter, and has never supported republicans.

I don't know who john Oneill is but if he is funding the anti-Kerry campaign he's a bush supporter.

>Without a single exception, every single commanding officer Kerry had while on active duty claims he is a liar and unfit to command. How can that be a republican conspiracy ?

well, people can lie, people can act, however i'm not thinking that is the case, it may or may not be so but i don't care. however, as i mentioned above, were you as intelligent and sound in reasoning as you would believe yourself to be now that you're older?

Everyone claims he is unfit to be president based on actions committed wrongly or rightly 40-someodd years ago, actions that also both sides of the argument cannot agree ever having happened.


 
Asswipe Posted: Sun Aug 22 13:37:45 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Christophe said:
>>ifihadahif said:
>>>Once again, you have failed to rebut the original argument and tried to change the subject.
>>
>We were debating about Kerry's dishonorable service, and I brought up the Geneva convention in reference to his killing of a wounded retreating enemy combatant.

Kerry said the retreating wounded enemy combatant was still a threat as he had a fucking rocket launcher.


 
Asswipe Posted: Sun Aug 22 13:42:29 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>Christophe and hif, I'm afraid you're both missing the important political things going on.
>
>http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/team_america/
>
>Yeah that's right.

hahaha, awesome. Gotta love those southpark guys.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sun Aug 22 13:56:06 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Asswipe said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>Sorry to disappoint you Kerry lovers, but the veterans that are supporting Kerry are not the ones that he lived and worked with every day. Most of these guys were enlisted men who served on his boat and were with him for 2 weeks or less, a couple of them only one day. His peers, the officers on the other boats in his group, swiftboats worked in groups of 3 to 5, to a man, say he is a liar. These are the guys he worked with, ate with, and slept with every day. They are the ones that are qualified to make an informed statement on his decision making abilities.
>
>seems we're in an interesting spot here as i've heard and read that his crewmates support him, those who lived w/ him every day and would know him better than anyone else, back whne he was 20...(was anyone fit to run the country when they were fucking 20?? Maybe knowing him when he's 20 is not a very reliable base to come from)
>
When are you going to actually read my posts ? As I stated above, the guys that are supporting him were not his peers, they did not in fact live with him. They were his crew; enlisted men.
The guys that were in a position to know how well he followed orders or standard operating procedures were the officers on the other boats, these were the guys that he lived, slept with, and ate with every day he was there.

>so, anyway, your facts say one thing, mine say the complete opposite... interesting place we're put in here. But by simply stating the opposite of what has been said, it's not rebutting an argument, doing that would require using premises that we've both agreed to be true.
>
How about sheer numbers ? 254 to what 8 or 9 ?
>>Also, John Oneill, is not a Bush supporter, and has never supported republicans.
>
>I don't know who john Oneill is but if he is funding the anti-Kerry campaign he's a bush supporter.
>
Technically maybe you're correct, but if it were Daffy Duck running against Kerry, he would be a Duck supporter. He is anti-Kerry, nothing more.
>>Without a single exception, every single commanding officer Kerry had while on active duty claims he is a liar and unfit to command. How can that be a republican conspiracy ?
>
>well, people can lie, people can act, however i'm not thinking that is the case, it may or may not be so but i don't care. however, as i mentioned above, were you as intelligent and sound in reasoning as you would believe yourself to be now that you're older?
>
>Everyone claims he is unfit to be president based on actions committed wrongly or rightly 40-someodd years ago, actions that also both sides of the argument cannot agree ever having happened.
>
No one is the same person after 30-40 years, but their basic character usually doesn't change. A lying manipulative person at 25 is usually that same type of character at 55, especially when they are still trying to perpetuate the lies.
How bout that Christmas in Cambodia speech on the senate floor just weeks ago ?


 
Asswipe Posted: Sun Aug 22 14:10:13 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>When are you going to actually read my posts ? As I stated above, the guys that are supporting him were not his peers, they did not in fact live with him. They were his crew; enlisted men.
>The guys that were in a position to know how well he followed orders or standard operating procedures were the officers on the other boats, these were the guys that he lived, slept with, and ate with every day he was there.

i will not say you're wrong, as i don't know, but i have heard otherwise. Despite that though, in order to take these men's opinions as being worthy of considering I would need to know more about them individually and their character.

>>
>How about sheer numbers ? 254 to what 8 or 9 ?

i'm not sure what you mean.

>>
>No one is the same person after 30-40 years, but their basic character usually doesn't change. A lying manipulative person at 25 is usually that same type of character at 55, especially when they are still trying to perpetuate the lies.

well, that is true, however, it still doesn't mean that the case can be proved true or false either way. They are arguing over events that have occured 40 years ago, events that wern't even of note or importance back then. I wouldn't be suprised if the doctors in question didn't even remember who kerry was as the injury wasn't significant and he probably saw dozens and dozens and dozens of patients every single hour. And the crewmates... you say he only served w/ the ones who supported him for a few weeks, how long could he have lived w/ the ones that do not support him?

>How bout that Christmas in Cambodia speech on the senate floor just weeks ago ?

how 'bout it? I don't know what it is.


 
simonvii Posted: Sun Aug 22 14:34:12 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Asswipe said:
>ifihadahif said:


>>How bout that Christmas in Cambodia speech on the senate floor just weeks ago ?
>
>how 'bout it? I don't know what it is.

kerry said before that one of the most life-changing/memorable times in his life or whatever was when he was in cambodia for christmas way back when for reasons i dont quite remember (but were somehow 'honorable and heroic' of course), anyways, in the time since it has been discovered that he was nowhere near cambodia at the time...(im foggy on the details but its a pretty big deal and if you want to take the 5 minutes to check it out im sure it'd be easy to find an article)...anyway kerry has decided rather than to defend himself when proven wrong by actual facts rather than propaganda he wrote up himself, that he would rather just not say anything on the issue...idiot


 
simonvii Posted: Sun Aug 22 14:38:34 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  man kerrys so stupid he keeps saying all this stuff about providing new jobs and health care and about making america stronger and everybody cheers but nobody asks "how?"...stupid kerry anybody can say what they want to do but you gotta have a logical plan....

also heres and interesting note: on i think it was last thursday kerry was in north carolina i believe, where the focus of his speeches was on new jobs and higher incomes, which is stupid cuz if he had done his research he would have known that north carolinas employment rate and income is not only higher than when GW took office but is also higher than the national average...stupid kerry


 
simonvii Posted: Sun Aug 22 14:39:49 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  stupid kerry


 
Zacq Posted: Sun Aug 22 19:15:05 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_08/004557.php


 
Posted: Sun Aug 22 21:48:41 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  from the desk of the political philosophy major:

kerry>bush.

but, knowing the american voting 48%, bush will win the election come november.

can't stand the fools that don't vote. i don't live inside the country and i still drive 2 hours to vote.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Mon Aug 23 07:00:12 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_08/004557.php
>
Taken out of context, you can make anyone appear to say almost anything.
The Dr. Letson quote isn't even a quote.
As for the last one about his rating/evaluation, I suggest you go to the the swiftvets website and read about the fitness reviews.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Mon Aug 23 09:08:02 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Asswipe said:
>
>i will not say you're wrong, as i don't know, but i have heard otherwise. Despite that though, in order to take these men's opinions as being worthy of considering I would need to know more about them individually and their character.
>
This is a good article on the subject and includes some answers to your questions.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20040823.shtml


 
Asswipe Posted: Mon Aug 23 11:52:59 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  that article told me absolutely nothing.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Mon Aug 23 13:03:54 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Asswipe said:
>i will not say you're wrong, as i don't know, but i have heard otherwise. Despite that though, in order to take these men's opinions as being worthy of considering I would need to know more about them individually and their character.
>
Ok, so are you buying the bull that the 8 or 9 crewmen that are supporting Kerry ? What do you know about their individual character ?
The Swiftboat vets would be a cross section of Americana. They are virtually all the guys Kerry served with in 'Nam. If you were to take all the guys in a whole military outfit, what do you think you would find ?

Some of the stuff might be unprovable, but other things are rather glaring.
Such as, Kerry claims his guys support him but he has only 8 or guys, 254 of the people he served with claim he is a liar.
Without exception, every single commanding officer he had claims he is a liar.
He claimed 3 purple hearts and was never hospitalized, never missed a day of work. Never even got any stitches.

These glaring facts are not anyone's opinion, they are facts. There are many more if you go to the website.


 
Asswipe Posted: Mon Aug 23 18:07:22 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Ok, so are you buying the bull that the 8 or 9 crewmen that are supporting Kerry ? What do you know about their individual character ?

you're right, i don't know much about their character, which is sort of why their opinions, them saying they support kerry, doesn't really sway me in any direction.

I think the whole swig of attempting to get elected based primarily on one's actions 40 years ago is a stupid campaign idea. I'd think focusing on one's actions in government, like backing various legislative statutes/ideas would be a far better approach to getting elected, but i suppose his motives arn't focused at winning a guy like mine's support. It seems it's all flash, all lights, camara, action, all hollywood; it's a damn commercial trying to sway the support from moderate conservatives who're maybe just looking for someone both warhawkish and working for the people at home.

To tell you the truth i may not even vote. I gotta see the republican convention speeches and see if they drop the damn rhetoric and focus on the issues.

>The Swiftboat vets would be a cross section of Americana. They are virtually all the guys Kerry served with in 'Nam. If you were to take all the guys in a whole military outfit, what do you think you would find ?

A whole bunch of crazy old men? I've no idea.

>
>Some of the stuff might be unprovable, but other things are rather glaring.
>Such as, Kerry claims his guys support him but he has only 8 or guys, 254 of the people he served with claim he is a liar.

How the hell would 254 people get to hear a lie from him in the 3 months that they lived somewhat near each other?

>Without exception, every single commanding officer he had claims he is a liar.

again, how can such claims possibly be made?

>He claimed 3 purple hearts and was never hospitalized, never missed a day of work. Never even got any stitches.

I'm not sure what purple hearts are awarded for. I'm guessing they are given out to people who are injured?

>
>These glaring facts are not anyone's opinion, they are facts. There are many more if you go to the website.

facts, schmacks.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Mon Aug 23 20:17:09 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Asswipe said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>Ok, so are you buying the bull that the 8 or 9 crewmen that are supporting Kerry ? What do you know about their individual character ?
>
>you're right, i don't know much about their character, which is sort of why their opinions, them saying they support kerry, doesn't really sway me in any direction.
>
>I think the whole swig of attempting to get elected based primarily on one's actions 40 years ago is a stupid campaign idea. I'd think focusing on one's actions in government, like backing various legislative statutes/ideas would be a far better approach to getting elected, but i suppose his motives arn't focused at winning a guy like mine's support. It seems it's all flash, all lights, camara, action, all hollywood; it's a damn commercial trying to sway the support from moderate conservatives who're maybe just looking for someone both warhawkish and working for the people at home.
>
>To tell you the truth i may not even vote. I gotta see the republican convention speeches and see if they drop the damn rhetoric and focus on the issues.
>
>>The Swiftboat vets would be a cross section of Americana. They are virtually all the guys Kerry served with in 'Nam. If you were to take all the guys in a whole military outfit, what do you think you would find ?
>
>A whole bunch of crazy old men? I've no idea.
>
You would get a little bit of everything. These guys are now doctors, lawyers, cops, salesmen, teachers, CEO's, auto mechanics, waiters, etc. - for the most part they're all regular guys that served their country with honor. They were much more highly decorated than Kerry and they don't brag about it.

>>Some of the stuff might be unprovable, but other things are rather glaring.
>>Such as, Kerry claims his guys support him but he has only 8 or guys, 254 of the people he served with claim he is a liar.
>
>How the hell would 254 people get to hear a lie from him in the 3 months that they lived somewhat near each other?
>
>>Without exception, every single commanding officer he had claims he is a liar.
>
>again, how can such claims possibly be made?
>
They are claiming that he lied about his tour of duty in 'Nam, not that he lied to them while he was there.
He has put his tour in 'nam front and center and made it a central theme as to why he should be elected president.
The swift vets say that he lied to get his medals and lied about war crimes when he returned stateside, and he certainly lied about spending Christmas in Cambodia in 1968.
>
>>He claimed 3 purple hearts and was never hospitalized, never missed a day of work. Never even got any stitches.
>
>I'm not sure what purple hearts are awarded for. I'm guessing they are given out to people who are injured?
>
Yes, the purple heart is a medal you get for being wounded in action.
>
>>These glaring facts are not anyone's opinion, they are facts. There are many more if you go to the website.
>
>facts, schmacks.
>
Each of the facts that I've listed is provable and have been proven.
Kerry has yet to respond to any of them with anything other than to threaten networks with lawsuits if they play the ads. Guess he's never heard of the first amendment.
John O'neill has invited Kerry to sue him if he can prove any untruths in the book or in the ads.


 
Asswipe Posted: Mon Aug 23 23:22:53 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  well, i was taking a crap before and, like diarreah, it just came to me. The reason why the swiftvets are full of shit, in my opinion, is because there's no way in hell Kerry would place so much emphasis on his military career if there was any bit of a chance that he was lying about it. If anything he would keep his mouth shut about it and hope no one else remembered it. If somehow 257 people knew he was full of shit, he would know that they knew this, he would have to know.

Politics need to be all about the issues and not people, ficticiously or not, telling stories about each other or themselves.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Aug 24 15:37:09 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Asswipe said:
>well, i was taking a crap before and, like diarreah, it just came to me. The reason why the swiftvets are full of shit, in my opinion, is because there's no way in hell Kerry would place so much emphasis on his military career if there was any bit of a chance that he was lying about it. If anything he would keep his mouth shut about it and hope no one else remembered it. If somehow 257 people knew he was full of shit, he would know that they knew this, he would have to know.
>
What planet are you from ?
And Clinton would never have oral sex in the oval office if there was a chance anyone would find out !
And Reagan would never have initiated the Iran/Contra affair if there was a chance anyone would find out.
And Nixon would never have covered up the Watergate affair if he thought anyone would find out.
Need I go on ?
>
>Politics need to be all about the issues and not people, ficticiously or not, telling stories about each other or themselves.
>
Yes, politics is about people and the character of those people is important.
And if I'm going to cast my precious vote, then I certainly want to know if the guy I'm voting for is a liar or not.
What he did thirty years ago is not too important, depending on what it was that he did. The fact that he is still lying about his service is important to me.


 
Asswipe Posted: Tue Aug 24 18:25:56 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>>
>What planet are you from ?

apparently not earth if all the people here are fucking retarded.

>And Clinton would never have oral sex in the oval office if there was a chance anyone would find out !

Clinton probably was thinking like a not-uptight christian fanatic asshole believing his cock was his and his wife's business and no one elses.

>And Reagan would never have initiated the Iran/Contra affair if there was a chance anyone would find out.

Well, Reagan, aside from going around the procedures, acted in a way that he believed to be for the best interest of the world, as i'm sure you would agree. He had to do so because there's no way the country would support the actions being still devestated from 'nam.

Far different from Kerry's actions, lying for own personal merit, according to you. Just so i'm certain what you're claiming here, you're saying he blew up a grenade near himself to self-inflict injury in order to receive a purple heart(basically just a medal saying that you were injured in combat) so he could, in the future, use the knowledge that he was injured so people would think he was a good president?

>And Nixon would never have covered up the Watergate affair if he thought anyone would find out.

The reason people found out about watergate was shere luck. As opposed to the case here where apparently 257 people can assure us that kerry blew up his own arm(because people respect war wounds or something), chased down and killed a little boy, and pulled his buddy from a lake?

"Hey buddies, i've an idea. You know how Johnny just fell over board? Well how 'bout we say we were really being assault by gunfire so we can get a little piece of metal? Oh, don't worry about the men in the other boats, they will probably just laugh."

I don't know what is required in order to receive these medals, but I seriously doubt that you can receive one based on your own reports w/ no witnesses backing you up.

You've seen and read the exact opposite of what those vets are saying. How can you stand so steadfast by those men's words and not the others, and then go so far as to declare it the unquestionable truth?

This is fucking absurd.

>Need I go on ?

Please don't, you make yourself look foolish.

>>
>>Politics need to be all about the issues and not people, ficticiously or not, telling stories about each other or themselves.
>>
>Yes, politics is about people and the character of those people is important.

You cannot present your own character in a noble manner, how the hell are you going to judge someone elses? Fuck character, tell me goals and paths to get to 'em.

>And if I'm going to cast my precious vote, then I certainly want to know if the guy I'm voting for is a liar or not.

polititians are liars. Tell me a goal that will benefit me and the country, tell me how you will reach this goal, if you make something off the top, that is okay, as long as you gave me what you promised.

>What he did thirty years ago is not too important, depending on what it was that he did. The fact that he is still lying about his service is important to me.

You spew out these "facts" like they're laws of physics here.






 
addi Posted: Tue Aug 24 19:52:47 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Hif, you are so full of shit. I can't stand it!!!!
Your brain has been spoon fed republican shit for so long it's turned to shit. You have a shit response to every fucking post made against our shit for brains president.
You never critically question any of the shit put out by the conservatives, yet you're ready to throw shit at any liberal questioning the Republican agenda.
I've said this till I was blue in the face: I (and several other liberals here) can be critical of both candidates and parties. I admitted earlier that I thought the soldier stuff ad nauseum at the democratic convention was full of shit.
You, however, would never dare critisize our current president's shitty "service" record. It's shit. The whole fucking world knows it's shit, but you can't see past your fucking nose. Bush is a total embarrassment, and yet you put the shithead up on a pedestal like he's some fucking Alexander the Fucking Great!, defending him against any attack of incompetence, on any subject.

That's not thinking. That's not using your higher mental capacity. It's lowering yourself to a parrot, that mimicks everything he's told to say.
I've totally had it.
If you ever catch me commenting on one of your political rants again I hereby decree that you can officially call me Addi Shit-For-Brains.
But that won't happen cuz I'm never going to get sucked down into the shit you try to pawn off as logic and reason again. Ever!
You are the epitomy of why I may sometimes grit my teeth at voting for a Democrat, but will never support a true conservative shit for brains Republican.


*Been out of town. First post I opened. Sorry to those I may offend here.

If it wasn't for politics we might have been good friends.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Aug 24 20:09:23 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>If it wasn't for politics we might have been good friends.
>
Sorry, I thought we were . . .


 
simonvii Posted: Tue Aug 24 20:19:52 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>
>You, however, would never dare critisize our current president's shitty "service" record. It's shit. The whole fucking world knows it's shit, but you can't see past your fucking nose. Bush is a total embarrassment, and yet you put the shithead up on a pedestal like he's some fucking Alexander the Fucking Great!, defending him against any attack of incompetence, on any subject.
>

i dont know if im right here but ill try: i dont think hif has so much defend bush as he's tried to discredit kerry...if you look in any newspaper, magazine, whatever, its all anti-bush this and anti-bush that, shoot there's even 2 volumes of a "rock against bush" cd and a bunch of rock bands touring in support of kerry...the problem is, at least with most people i know, is that no one really knows what kerry stands for, they just dont like bush because he happened to be president who lead us into iraq...i dont think bush is the greatest guy or whatever, and i dont think hif does either, but im just trying to even the playing field a little bit - just because kerry isnt bush doesnt mean hes worth electing....i repeat- JUST BECAUSE KERRY ISN'T BUSH DOESN'T MEAN HE'S WORTH ELECTING


 
addi Posted: Tue Aug 24 20:44:52 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>Sorry, I thought we were . . .

I'm in a really piss poor mood. Should avoid GT when that happens.

We are friends. I just can't figure out why : )


 
FN Posted: Tue Aug 24 21:01:11 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  My guess is that nasty surprises are up ahead, no matter which of the 2 guys you vote, I think you're fucked, and large parts of the world along with you indirectly, which is why I myself somehow care as well.



Bush simply is a dumb piece of trailertrash nitwit who happens to have some money in his hands because of daddy, with all known results.

I tried to understand some parts of the seemingly american mentality (I hate generalisations, really do, but hey, majority votes say something about a country's state of mind) towards politics and everyday life in general, but some parts I just can not comprehend.

How "you" can vote an admitted religious fanatic as your president and still bear with him after all that has happened up to this point, even not talking about his serious lack of conversational and social skills here (remember the press conference together with chirac where he mocked an american reporter for asking chirac a question in french?), is beyond me.

What the fuck are all these people thinking? I mean seriously, what. the. fuck. are. those. people. thinking?

I'm going to be frank, I look down upon anybody who thinks bush is intelligent or capable enough to be in the position of where he is today. He does not deserve it and is making a disgrace of america and has proved himself to be a threat to it and the whole world for that matter.

I mean for fuck's sake, the whole world is getting agitated by/pissed at him (and at america along with him, which I think is wrong but that's the reality of it) or mocking america for voting on him and schwarzenegger.

That doesn't mean you should look at the world to know which president to vote for (stopped you in your tracks there huh hif) but at least that should somehow make you think, if only for 10 to 15 seconds.

It's embarassing, no matter how you look at it, it's as simple as that.




But all of that doesn't mean that kerry is any better.

In the first thread he was mentioned here I already said I don't trust the guy and I'm sticking with that.

To me he seems like some second-hand cars salesman. He seems credible when he talks but you just know he's fucking you in the ass and enjoying every second of it, and that he's just selling you a piece of crap which will break down as soon as the warranty expires.

The emphasis on his military carreer is over the top, but what astonishes me is the fact that the republican side is actually giving him crap about it while their front man dodged the draft. And hif, no hard feelings, but if you're going to say one more time that bush's war records (or the lack thereof) have nothing to do with his party's "right" of attcking him on it I'm flying over to punch you in the face.

Furthermore, I always get the feeling when watching stuff about him that the guy is telling nothing using a lot of words.



Btw, just out of intrest, how long has it been since america had a president that wasn't either republican or liberal?


 
FN Posted: Tue Aug 24 21:02:29 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>I'm in a really piss poor mood. Should avoid GT when that happens.

I like that mood, much more direct.


Channel your power wisely, addi-san, and you will achieve great things.


 
FN Posted: Tue Aug 24 21:06:18 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Ah yes, please tell me how 250+ people got to know kerry enough to asses his credibility.

I'm not touching the question if his war record is correct or not, that's not the point.

I just don't see how so many people can get involved.

Must have been a pretty big tent he slept in.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Aug 24 21:26:22 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>But all of that doesn't mean that kerry is any better.
>
>In the first thread he was mentioned here I already said I don't trust the guy and I'm sticking with that.
>
>To me he seems like some second-hand cars salesman. He seems credible when he talks but you just know he's fucking you in the ass and enjoying every second of it, and that he's just selling you a piece of crap which will break down as soon as the warranty expires.
>
>The emphasis on his military carreer is over the top, but what astonishes me is the fact that the republican side is actually giving him crap about it while their front man dodged the draft. And hif, no hard feelings, but if you're going to say one more time that bush's war records (or the lack thereof) have nothing to do with his party's "right" of attcking him on it I'm flying over to punch you in the face.
>
You don't get it Chris, nobody on the republican side gave him any crap about his military service. Kerry's camp threw the first stone questioning Dubya's military career while touting Kerry's heroics at the same time.
As for Bush's draft dodging, Kerry did the same thing. He joined the reserves same as Bush, he also applied and was refused a deferrment. He just happened to get into a unit that was called up.
Kerry made a huge mistake by making his service a major issue in the campaign.
>Furthermore, I always get the feeling when watching stuff about him that the guy is telling nothing using a lot of words.
>
>
>
>Btw, just out of intrest, how long has it been since america had a president that wasn't either republican or liberal?
>
As far as I know it's never happened.
>
Addie,as for your earlier tirade, I forgive you.
You must understand, there are many people that are far more intelligent than you or I that support both of these guys and for that reason I never judge a man by his politics. If he disagrees with mine, I just assume to be not as well informed as I am. LOL
As for me not willing to criticize the republicans, I do know they are not perfect and many are despicable, but they are my choice as the better party right now. And as for Bush himself, I do consider him a great leader and I like him personally. I believe he makes his decisions based on what he thinks is best for the country and that is why I defend him.
I do understand that many people don't like him and I'm ok with that. Every one is entitled to their opinion.
But when people label the man as stupid because he is not a skilled public speaker, they are only displaying their own stupidity.
Basically they are calling him stupid because they don't like him personally.
That's pretty stupid in and of itself don't you think ?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Aug 24 21:28:59 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>Ah yes, please tell me how 250+ people got to know kerry enough to asses his credibility.
>
>I'm not touching the question if his war record is correct or not, that's not the point.
>
>I just don't see how so many people can get involved.
>
>Must have been a pretty big tent he slept in.
>
It's not that difficult, and you would know that if you ever served in the military.
If you read the book, you will see that all these guys either served with him or were present at each incident that is discussed in the book.
254 people is not that many for an officer to come into contact with in a war zone over a period of 4 months.


 
FN Posted: Tue Aug 24 22:16:58 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Coming into contact and knowing a guy enough to judge his credibility is a very different thing.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Aug 24 22:18:50 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>Coming into contact and knowing a guy enough to judge his credibility is a very different thing.
>
Yes, but if you were there and know what happened and then see someone say it happened differently is not so difficult.


 
Mesh Posted: Tue Aug 24 22:23:30 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  You guys do realize you just screwed it all up, dont you? This thread was on 69. 69!!!

But nooooo, you had to ruin the goodness of 69, didnt you? You have something against that number, huh!?!



You people make me sick.


 
Mesh Posted: Tue Aug 24 22:23:52 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Just kidding :)


 
FN Posted: Tue Aug 24 22:24:08 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>but they are my choice as the better party right now.

So that means you can't criticise them?

Reminds me of people who automaticly defend their partner in a dispute of the partner with somebody else without checking who's causing the trouble first.

>And as for Bush himself, I do consider him a great leader and I like him personally. I believe he makes his decisions based on what he thinks is best for the country and that is why I defend him.

Even if those decisions aren't for the good of the country?

>I do understand that many people don't like him and I'm ok with that. Every one is entitled to their opinion.

Agreed.

>But when people label the man as stupid because he is not a skilled public speaker, they are only displaying their own stupidity.

It's the basic logic behind democracy, the better you can get your ideas across the more votes you get.

And not being a great public speaker is one thing, making up your own proverbs and making the one outrageous flatout mistake after the other, with people who's native language isn't even English questioning the language skills, is something else.

>Basically they are calling him stupid because they don't like him personally.

I don't like him personally because he's stupid.

>That's pretty stupid in and of itself don't you think ?

No.


 
FN Posted: Tue Aug 24 22:25:58 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  meshuggah said:
>But nooooo, you had to ruin the goodness of 69, didnt you?

Gotta love soixante-neuf


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Aug 25 06:56:31 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>but they are my choice as the better party right now.
>
>So that means you can't criticise them?
>
Who said you can't criticize them ?
>
>>And as for Bush himself, I do consider him a great leader and I like him personally. I believe he makes his decisions based on what he thinks is best for the country and that is why I defend him.
>
>Even if those decisions aren't for the good of the country?
>
Everybody makes mistakes, but I think that Dubya's decision making has been good for the most part.
>
>>I do understand that many people don't like him and I'm ok with that. Every one is entitled to their opinion.
>
>Agreed.
>
>>But when people label the man as stupid because he is not a skilled public speaker, they are only displaying their own stupidity.
>
>It's the basic logic behind democracy, the better you can get your ideas across the more votes you get.
>
>And not being a great public speaker is one thing, making up your own proverbs and making the one outrageous flatout mistake after the other, with people who's native language isn't even English questioning the language skills, is something else.
>
That still doesn't make him stupid, anymore than the fact that you are unskilled in debate would make you stupid.
>
>>Basically they are calling him stupid because they don't like him personally.
>
>I don't like him personally because he's stupid.
>
That's far different than calling someone stupid just because you don't like them. That will not serve you well in life because you will contstantly be underestimating your enemies.



 
FN Posted: Wed Aug 25 10:57:55 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Usually I'm not too far off when I make up my mind about somebody.

Overestimating your "enimies" is just as bad.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Aug 25 20:24:12 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  A VIETNAM VET FISKS "TOUR OF DUTY"
By Michelle Malkin August 24, 2004 05:27 PM
Here's a letter I received today from Terry Sater, a Vietnam Vet who served with the Mobile Riverine Force in the Mekong Delta during 1968 and 1969. He writes that "I'm not part of a 527. I voted for McGovern, Perot and Bush. I didn't volunteer for Nam. I didn't want to go. I am not a hero. I served with heroes. Kerry has dishonored all of us."

Sater said he sent the letter to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, but doesn't expect it will run. It it is reprinted here in its entirety:

People don't get it. They point out how "suspicious" it is that the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" are "only now" coming out with their charges, as though they should have formed their organization to refute John Kerry when he was a twenty-six year old nobody. Kerry has made his service in Vietnam the centerpiece of his campaign. He has only himself to blame that his service has been questioned. Michael Moore and Whoopie Goldberg spew their venom. The "MoveOn.org" website carries the motto "Democracy in Action". The Swift Boat Veterans are supposed to shut up.
I served twelve months with the Mobile Riverine Force, in the Mekong Delta, during 1968 and 1969, manning automatic weapons on an Armored Troop Carrier. During the first three months of 1969, I operated in and around the little village of Ha Tien, at times, with Kerry's Coastal Division 11 Swift Boats. If one of the men I served with was running for President, I would be extremely proud. If there was any way I could support him for President, I would. The bonds that are formed in combat are special. They are strong. For the men that served in Kerry's unit to state that he is unfit for command cannot and should not be brushed off as "partisan politics." It is not a "Republican vs. Democrat", or "conservative vs. liberal" issue. They aren't doing it for money. It is personal. The Swift Boat Vets are men who came to know John Kerry in the crucible of war and saw things in John Kerry that are so disturbing, that they cannot sit quietly. They also saw and heard one of their own come back from Vietnam and trash the legacy of everyone who served honorably. John Kerry's lies of atrocities are largely responsible for the terrible reputation Vietnam veterans have lived with for their entire lives. He testified that we were murdering, raping and torturing, with the consent and direction of the entire chain of command. Now, John Kerry is angry that these 254 men dare to question him.

I haven't read "Unfit for Command", yet. I have read John Kerry's "Tour of Duty." He reminds me of a popular cartoon in Vietnam, the "Saigon Warrior". The "Saigon Warrior" cartoon figure had his helmet pushed down over his shaded eyes, ammunition belts crossing his puffed out chest, a sword in one hand and his M-16 in the other. He was a caricature.

If you served in Vietnam, you don't have to read "Unfit for Command" to question Kerry's record. His own book; "Tour of Duty" will do that. I will only point out a few things in his book that stood out, to me.

A photo caption in Kerry's book states; "A Swift boat convoy heading up the Bo De River." If Kerry had spent more than four months in Vietnam, he may have known the picture was actually a column of "PBR's" (Patrol Boat, River), not his swift boats.

The book often refers to his four month stint on the Swifts as Kerry's "second tour", since he had spent time on "the guided-missile frigate U.S.S. Gridley, aboard which he visited Vietnam for the first time in March 1968." He states in his book; "Every day that the Gridley patrolled the Gulf of Tonkin an enemy attack was remotely possible." The Gridley steamed in the Gulf of Tonkin, also known as "Yankee Station." I served on the U.S.S. Enterprise, in the Gulf of Tonkin. No self-respecting sailor who served "in-country" would have considered a tour at "Yankee Station" as a tour of duty in Vietnam, unless you were a Navy pilot.

A lot has been made of John Kerry volunteering for combat. On page 104 of his book, it reads; "John Kerry would be training in San Diego for what he thought would be purely coastal patrolling of Operation Market Time, whose objective was to establish a barrier along the coast of Vietnam to interdict the infiltration of insurgent supplies by sea."

On pages 171 and 172, Kerry describes the base for Coastal Division 11, at An Thoi. First, he described the beauty of An Thoi, which was a small village on Phu Quoc Island, good distance off the coast of Vietnam. "But to the U.S. servicemen who fought in the area and had some awareness of such ghastly guerrilla tactics as booby traps, underwater mines, and sniper nests, all An Thoi signified was danger." While I must admit the possibility that my boat crew may have been painfully ignorant and subjected ourselves to mindless risk, we viewed our occasional trips to An Thoi as the closest thing we could find to "R&R". We swam in the crystal clear waters near the village of An Thoi. We fished with percussion grenades and watched as the villagers swam out to scoop up the stunned fish. We drank and played on the beach, with the dogs that roamed the island, at night.

On page 176, he describes his Swift Boat; "Horne neglected to mention that that hull might not be able to stop a BB at a thousand yards." Even his strongest supports must admit he has a tendency to exaggerate.

On the same page he states; "For those boats stationed near the Mekong Delta, a fine source of entertainment presented itself: making hell-for-leather dashes up the Viet Cong infested rivers through "free fire zones", with guns blazing, mostly for kicks and to have something dramatic to write home about." Think about it. You are in "Viet Cong infested rivers." Would you risk low ammo to fire at nothing, "for kicks"? My boat was an armored troop carrier. We carried four .30cal machine guns, two .50cal machine guns, two 20mm cannons and a "Mark 19" grenade launcher. We kept our guns clean. We plugged the ends of the barrels with grease, so that moisture didn't get into the barrel. We kept plenty of ammunition on hand. We did not want to put ourselves at risk by running out of ammunition. We were not allowed to fire freely. During one operation, the last boat in our column was taking sniper fire. The boat captain requested permission to fire back. His request was denied. We could not fire at will, for fun and entertainment.

On page 179, there is a reference to an incident that occurred on October 14th. Page 181 begins with; "Only a few weeks later, Kerry, on a PCF-44 patrol, observed four troop battalions from the Ninth Infantry Division at Dong Tam and five Mobile Riverine Force squadrons staging an assault for the benefit of Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird. "To facilitate putting on a good show, an area was picked out for the landing where the chance of guerilla contact was minimal." Kerry sneered. "Nothing was to mess up the show for the secretary of defense." I was with River Assault Squadron 13 during this time period. Melvin Laird was the secretary of defense from January 22, 1969 to January 29, 1973. At the high point, there were only four squadrons of the Mobile Riverine Force. The four squadrons were split into two larger groups; "Group Alpha" and "Group Bravo", in early summer, of 1968, spread out over different parts of the Mekong Delta. All four squadrons were never pulled together to put on a show for Melvin Laird.

Kerry renewed his decades old smearing of Viet Nam veterans, on page 211, describing Cobra gunship pilots; "Yet Kerry found himself troubled by the realization that some of these wild boys could kill innocent people from a distance and not be bothered by it. He was no pacifist - far from it- and understood that "accidental atrocities" were a part of war. But it disturbed him that even a few trigger happy American yahoos considered killing Vietnamese civilians a sport."

Page 218 relates that Kerry wrote in his notebook, from Sa Dec; ""Merry Christmas from the most inland market time unit." He meant to be clever and point out to his superiors the incongruity on a river canal not far from the Cambodian border northwest of Saigon." In truth, Sa Dec isn't near the Cambodian border. Look at a map. Second, hundreds of various types of Navy craft were all over the Mekong Delta, many in much worse places than Kerry. The "Saigon Warrior" would like everyone to think that he was the lone "Rambo", sitting in VC territory, all alone.

I hope that the whole truth comes out. I believe it will if people read "Tour of Duty", "Unfit for Command," and Kerry signs the "180" form which will allow the Navy to release all of his records, not just the ones he has selected.

Terry Sater
Eureka, MO




 



[ Reply to this thread ] [ Start new thread ]