PDA

View Full Version : I LOVE ELECTION YEAR POLICTICS



cheesemouse
02-10-2004, 05:06 PM
I LOVE ELECTION YEAR POLITICS

What's the next question for GW about his Guard duty???

"Hey, George, what was the sergeants name who maintained your jet?" Were just curious.....LOL.......

nAz
02-10-2004, 06:47 PM
the "proof" that was displayed today was falsified, his father had the originals destroyed and then planted this copy that suddenly pop up out of nowhere...

remember his dad was head of the CIA one time /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

eg8r
02-11-2004, 09:28 AM
Cheese I am with you on that one.

I was just wondering if you would not mind me stepping back into the past during Clinton's run for Presidency. Don't you find it sickening that Kerry is so intent on finding out about Bush's military career? /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif Wasn't it just a few years ago that Kerry proclaimed it would horrible to split our country into two sides over military experience?

eg8r

cheesemouse
02-11-2004, 12:37 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> Cheese I am with you on that one.

I was just wondering if you would not mind me stepping back into the past during Clinton's run for Presidency. Don't you find it sickening that Kerry is so intent on finding out about Bush's military career? /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif Wasn't it just a few years ago that Kerry proclaimed it would horrible to split our country into two sides over military experience?

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>


eg8r,

I don't find it sickening that Kerry's camp is making an issue, or re-issue, of GW's questionable use of the Air National Guard as a deferment or more harshly said "a dodge" from having to serve in the killing fields of Nam. Kerry is wisely using a strength of his against an opponents weakness. The reason that veterans so respect Kerry's service is that they know how unusual it was for the privedledged of our generation to actually volunteer to become a gunt in the field of battle. Kerry surely could have used the influences of his family to dodge service in Nam. Instead of jumping over the Canadian border or showing up for his induction physical in a dress, Kerry stepped up and said "put me in Uncle Sam" I want to serve my country and I will serve wherever you need me too...this is the action of an American patriot putting service to his country first; not second to anything but first. Vets that willingly served understand this and give they're respect. Even if his service were uneventful he would have a leg up on GW in this regard. It is probably a place-in-time thing that Kerry proved to be a heroic warrior in the heat of battle but you can't unring the bell, Kerry is a true decorated soldier who did his duty well, and bravely did his duty willingly.


Do I mind you going back to Clintons election or Billy's actions to avoid military service? No, I don't mind a bit because I equate Clintons manipulations of the college deferment programs to avoid service in the same catagory with GW's familys actions of pulling strings to jump him over 400 on a waiting list to get him into the ANG. Both Clinton and GW accomplished the same thing by different means. Also when you take your journey backwards remember that Bush #1's camp made no bones about running their war hero against the dope smoking, draft dodging, [censored] chasing Clinton. History repeats itself.

As far as Kerrys record over the years, it is written in black and white in his voting record which much of GW's 200 million dollars will be spent in the effort to make Kerry defend. The spin masters will do what they do, that's just part of the game...We'll see how it all comes out. There is going to be some world class smoke blown up our a$$es before Nov O4...it'll be fun.... /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

eg8r
02-11-2004, 01:08 PM
I wonder where you were when Clinton was running. Were you one of those Kerry wannabes that said service time was not an issue and you should not divide the country because of it. Seems Kerry is quite the hypocrite, and we still have not even discussed his special interest taboo.

[ QUOTE ]
Instead of jumping over the Canadian border or showing up for his induction physical in a dress, Kerry stepped up and said "put me in Uncle Sam" I want to serve my country and I will serve wherever you need me too... <hr /></blockquote> Not sure if you have been keeping tabs will all these veterans you are talking about but some are not so happy with Kerry. Read this article (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040211-123002-8027r.htm) . Seems Kerry wasn't exactly the wonderful "put me in coach" kind of soldier after he got hurt. Now granted he was not the coward Clinton was at the time, however neither was Bush. Sure Bush was safer and probably because of his family but at least he was not dodging the draft.

[ QUOTE ]
Kerry is a true decorated soldier who did his duty well, and bravely did his duty willingly.
<hr /></blockquote> You are correct. Here is a quote from the previous article... [ QUOTE ]
Mr. Kerry, a Navy lieutenant, commanded patrol boats on South Vietnamese rivers and was wounded three times. On his return to the United States, he turned against the war, and at the time of the Valley Forge rally, he was beginning to gain notice as one of the leaders of the organization Vietnam Veterans Against the War. <hr /></blockquote> Seems the poor guy changed his mind (which he has been doing a lot lately) after he was hurt. What did he expect when he joined?

[ QUOTE ]
Do I mind you going back to Clintons election or Billy's actions to avoid military service? No, I don't mind a bit because I equate Clintons manipulations of the college deferment programs to avoid service in the same catagory with GW's familys actions of pulling strings to jump him over 400 on a waiting list to get him into the ANG. Both Clinton and GW accomplished the same thing by different means. Also when you take your journey backwards remember that Bush #1's camp made no bones about running their war hero against the dope smoking, draft dodging, [censored] chasing Clinton. History repeats itself.
<hr /></blockquote> This is where you are not paying attention. When Bush was harping on his military past, it was none other than Kerry himself saying this was an injustice to split the American people over ones past. Kerry is now changing face and doing exactly what he said was an injustice. That is the issue I am talking about, saying one thing and waiting 8 years to say another.

Don't get me wrong, I totally understand the idea of using a strength against an opponent, however when you chastise someone the Reps for mentioning military service, and then you turn around and do that very same thing, then you are nothing more than hypocrite.

I wonder if all these veterans know that since Kerry has been in politics, he has done everything to limit the military. He has voted against every single new defense project. The only times he really approved of removing Saddam were while Clinton was the President. He has since changed his mind after Bush removed Saddam (However it is good to point out that Kerry did vote to into Iraq this last time, and renegged his support after the war). He has since also decided to vote to cut the spending on the soldiers who are over there right now. What do you think Kerry would have said if his pay was cut while he was in Vietnam? I bet he would have been pissed, yet he tried to do that very thing to the soldiers right now.

[ QUOTE ]
There is going to be some world class smoke blown up our a$$es before Nov O4...it'll be fun.... <hr /></blockquote> If it was Clinton spewing this would you call it smoke?

You are right, it is going to be fun. I cannot wait until more starts coming out about Kerry's special interest groupies. He is already starting to backstep on this issue.

eg8r

Sid_Vicious
02-11-2004, 01:09 PM
What's good for the goose....well you know the rest. I find it predictable when I see people opting to make an opposite ruleset for "their guy". sid

dgkisler
02-11-2004, 01:32 PM
I would have to say john kerry earned the right to change his mind. getting wounded three times and spending 7 years in hell should give anyone the right to change their minds. I do know that Bush's cabinet is doing a decent job at running the free world, I don't like the fact that Mr Bush has seemed to alienate a good part of the UN nations though.
That article siad that kerry and fonda were together, how so. In the same photogaph maybe. I was once in the same frame as the chicogo bears and the green bay packers in an over head shot of soldier field, does that mean we were together. The article also goes out of its way to not report what John Kerry siad in the rally. It seemed a little biased, personally I like Nader, go GREEN.

t411
02-11-2004, 01:38 PM
You know, if your a Republican your always going to over look anything Bush is or has done and you know, if your a Democrat your always going to over look anything your man is or has done. /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif Maybe you should hold an election on the forum and the winners can be happy. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

cheesemouse
02-11-2004, 02:32 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> I wonder where you were when Clinton was running. Were you one of those Kerry wannabes that said service time was not an issue and you should not divide the country because of it. Seems Kerry is quite the hypocrite <font color="red"> I think we can all agree that the market on hypocritsy is shared by all politicians </font color> , and we still have not even discussed his special interest taboo.

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
Instead of jumping over the Canadian border or showing up for his induction physical in a dress, Kerry stepped up and said "put me in Uncle Sam" I want to serve my country and I will serve wherever you need me too... <hr /></blockquote> Not sure if you have been keeping tabs will all these veterans you are talking about but some are not so happy with Kerry. Read this article (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040211-123002-8027r.htm) . <font color="red"> OPPS! me thinks you should read the article, it was well written and didn't even come close supporting your point. </font color> Seems Kerry wasn't exactly the wonderful "put me in coach" kind of soldier after he got hurt. Now granted he was not the coward Clinton was at the time, however neither was Bush. Sure Bush was safer and probably because of his family but at least he was not dodging the draft.

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
Kerry is a true decorated soldier who did his duty well, and bravely did his duty willingly.
<hr /></blockquote> You are correct. Here is a quote from the previous article... &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
Mr. Kerry, a Navy lieutenant, commanded patrol boats on South Vietnamese rivers and was wounded three times. On his return to the United States, he turned against the war, and at the time of the Valley Forge rally, he was beginning to gain notice as one of the leaders of the organization Vietnam Veterans Against the War. <hr /></blockquote> Seems the poor guy changed his mind (which he has been doing a lot lately) after he was hurt. What did he expect when he joined? <font color="red"> Just like me I think he expected to be fighting in just war and when he found out that wasn't the case he did something about it </font color>

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
Do I mind you going back to Clintons election or Billy's actions to avoid military service? No, I don't mind a bit because I equate Clintons manipulations of the college deferment programs to avoid service in the same catagory with GW's familys actions of pulling strings to jump him over 400 on a waiting list to get him into the ANG. Both Clinton and GW accomplished the same thing by different means. Also when you take your journey backwards remember that Bush #1's camp made no bones about running their war hero against the dope smoking, draft dodging, [censored] chasing Clinton. History repeats itself.
<hr /></blockquote> This is where you are not paying attention. When Bush was harping on his military past, it was none other than Kerry himself saying this was an injustice to split the American people over ones past. Kerry is now changing face and doing exactly what he said was an injustice. That is the issue I am talking about, saying one thing and waiting 8 years to say another. <font color="red"> We covered hypocracy /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif </font color>

Don't get me wrong, I totally understand the idea of using a strength against an opponent, however when you chastise someone the Reps for mentioning military service, and then you turn around and do that very same thing, then you are nothing more than hypocrite.

I wonder if all these veterans know that since Kerry has been in politics, he has done everything to limit the military. <font color="red"> Eisenhower was right "beware of the military Industrial Complex" </font color> He has voted against every single new defense project. The only times he really approved of removing Saddam were while Clinton was the President. He has since changed his mind after Bush removed Saddam (However it is good to point out that Kerry did vote to into Iraq this last time, and renegged his support after the war). He has since also decided to vote to cut the spending on the soldiers who are over there right now. What do you think Kerry would have said if his pay was cut while he was in Vietnam? <font color="red"> I can assure that while piloting a gun boat in the Mecong Delta nobody cares about a 3% pay raise </font color> I bet he would have been pissed, yet he tried to do that very thing to the soldiers right now.

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
There is going to be some world class smoke blown up our a$$es before Nov O4...it'll be fun.... <hr /></blockquote> If it was Clinton spewing this would you call it smoke?

You are right, it is going to be fun. I cannot wait until more starts coming out about Kerry's special interest groupies. He is already starting to backstep on this issue.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>




Let the games begin......LOL

bigshooter
02-11-2004, 03:56 PM
The picture Democrats have been hoping nobody had: John Kerry sitting behind Jane Fonda during an anti-war rally at Valley Forge, PA in September 1970.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_021004/content/john_kerry_with_jane_fonda__september_1970.Par.000 7.ImageFile.jpg

eg8r
02-11-2004, 04:08 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I think we can all agree that the market on hypocritsy is shared by all politicians <hr /></blockquote> At one time or another. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cheesemouse:</font><hr>OPPS! me thinks you should read the article, it was well written and didn't even come close supporting your point <blockquote><font class="small">Quote article:</font><hr> Rep. Sam Johnson, Texas Republican, who spent nearly seven years in a prisoner-of-war camp in Vietnam, said yesterday the photograph of Mr. Kerry with Miss Fonda will hurt him nevertheless.
"I think it symbolizes how two-faced he is, talking about his war reputation, which is questionable on the one hand, and then coming out against our veterans who were fighting over there on the other," Mr. Johnson said.
Mr. Johnson recalled that his North Vietnamese captors played recordings of Miss Fonda telling U.S. troops to give up the war. "Seeing this picture of Kerry with her at antiwar demonstrations in the United States just makes me want to throw up."
<hr /></blockquote><hr /></blockquote> Sure it is only one person in the article, but I am sure there are more people that feel the same way. This article (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37049) might help some.

[ QUOTE ]
Just like me I think he expected to be fighting in just war and when he found out that wasn't the case he did something about it <hr /></blockquote> I think when he got shot, he re-evaluated the chances of him getting shot and decided they were high. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
We covered hypocracy <hr /></blockquote> Yup, and I was re-iterating how hypocritical Kerry is acting. Just because all politicians are hypocritical at one point in time or another, does it make it right?

[ QUOTE ]
I can assure that while piloting a gun boat in the Mecong Delta nobody cares about a 3% pay raise <hr /></blockquote> Just to clarify, not giving a raise is not the same as a cut. If you don't get a raise your pay was not cut. Instead, Kerry was voting not to give as much, he literally wanted to cut the amount that was already being spent. Not only does this have to do with pay, but support and supplies also.

[ QUOTE ]
Let the games begin......LOL <hr /></blockquote> Yes sir. They will be in full swing pretty soon. Just need to get that retarded Dean out of the way. Oh, I wonder who will be VP, Edwards maybe? Hope he has a bunch of skeletons to make this even more interesting. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

eg8r
02-11-2004, 04:13 PM
Here is another interesting article (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/2/10/222651.shtml) with a different outlook on Kerry.

[ QUOTE ]
The North Vietnamese general in charge of the military campaign that finally drove the U.S. out of South Vietnam in 1975 credited a group led by Democratic presidential front-runner John Kerry with helping him achieve victory.

In his 1985 memoir about the war, Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap wrote that if it weren't for organizations like Kerry's Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Hanoi would have surrendered to the U.S. - according to Fox News Channel war historian Oliver North.

That's why, he predicted on Tuesday, the Vietnam War issue "is going to blow up in Kerry's face."

"People are going to remember Gen. Giap saying if it weren't for these guys [Kerry's group], we would have lost," North told radio host Sean Hannity.

"The Vietnam Veterans Against the War encouraged people to desert, encouraged people to mutiny - some used what they wrote to justify fragging officers," noted the former Marine lieutenant colonel, who earned two purple hearts in Vietnam.

"John Kerry has blood of American soldiers on his hands," North said.

<hr /></blockquote>

eg8r

eg8r
02-11-2004, 04:17 PM
[ QUOTE ]
That article siad that kerry and fonda were together, how so. In the same photogaph maybe. I was once in the same frame as the chicogo bears and the green bay packers in an over head shot of soldier field, does that mean we were together. <hr /></blockquote> Are you being serious? Here is a Newsmax article (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/2/11/170500.shtml) and it seems a certain Dem is not too happy about the pic. I guess his take on it was a bit different than yours.

eg8r

eg8r
02-11-2004, 04:26 PM
Another article (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/2/11/112603.shtml) questioning Kerry's actions.

[ QUOTE ]
Dear Senator Kerry,
Thus far, your presidential campaign has been focused solely on attacking President Bush and touting you Vietnam War record from over 30 years ago. Though you have stated reasons why voters should not re-elect President Bush, you have not given the American people ample reason to vote for you. Further, there are many inconsistencies and unanswered allegations in your own record. Herein is an opportunity for you to respond.

You have inserted Vietnam into the campaign as a central issue. However, in the 1992 presidential election, when Bill Clinton was accused of dodging the Vietnam draft, you said, “I am saddened by the fact that Vietnam has yet again been inserted into the campaign. ... The race for the White House should be about leadership, and leadership requires that one help heal the wounds of Vietnam, not reopen them."

You now seek to "reopen" these wounds. Please explain how you reconcile your current tactic of using the Vietnam War to your own political advantage with your contradictory statements of Feb. 27, 1992.

While we deeply appreciate your service to our nation, there are many lingering questions regarding your conduct after the war. In the early 1970s, you participated in Jane Fonda's "Winter Soldier Investigation," and you also testified before Congress. In this testimony, you accused your fellow soldiers of committing unspeakable atrocities.

Later, it was determined that many of these charges you leveled against your fellow soldiers were distorted or outright false. Please explain why Vietnam veterans should support your candidacy after you have publicly defamed them and falsely accused them of serious crimes.

As chairman of the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA in the early 1990s, you lobbied zealously for normalized relations with Vietnam. As a result, your cousin, C. Stewart Forbes, was able to broker a billion-dollar deal between Hanoi and Colliers International, a large company based in your home state of Massachusetts. Is this merely an odd coincidence? <font color="blue"> What happened to not pandering to special interest groups. There will be plenty more of this. </font color>

Further, there is credible evidence that your committee suppressed evidence – including live sightings – that there were indeed American prisoners still in Vietnam. If introduced, this evidence might have prevented the normalized relations you sought – normalized relations that were paramount to sealing the Colliers deal. Some investigators have charged that you threatened, if the suppressed evidence ever leaked out, that they would “"wish [they'd] never been born." Please answer these charges.

You have asserted that it is relevant to this campaign that President Bush allegedly missed a physical while he served in the National Guard decades ago – you and the DNC have described him as being AWOL, though he made up his missed time and was honorably discharged. The implication is that neglect of official duty is relevant to this campaign.

If this is the case, then it is, by implication, relevant that your attendance record in the 108th Congress was a dismal 36 percent. In other words, you have failed to execute your duties to your constituents as their senator 64 percent of the time in the last Congress.

Please explain why it is relevant that President Bush allegedly missed some time while serving his country in the National Guard decades ago, but it is not relevant that you have failed to represent your own constituents almost two-thirds of the time last session – i.e., that you were "AWOL" from the Senate.

As you may be aware, 2 USC § 39 mandates that "The Secretary of the Senate ... shall deduct from the [salary] of each Member ... the amount of his salary for each day that he has been absent from the Senate ... unless such Member ... assigns as the reason for such absence the sickness of himself or of some member of his family." Please explain why you feel you are exempt from this federal law. <font color="blue"> Wow, you think he will ever answer this one? </font color>

Finally, please explain your ever-changing explanation of your vote on the resolution that authorized President Bush to use force in Iraq. On Oct. 10, 2002, you voted "aye" to H.J. Res. 114 (Senate vote #237). The explicit purpose of the bill was to "authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq."

There is no ambiguity in the text of this bill. Unless you did not understand the plain language of the text, please explain your claim that you only authorized "the threat" of force, subject to the permission of the U.N.

Sincerely,
Jonathan M. Stein

<hr /></blockquote> Well, it was actually a letter instead of an article but it was definitely interesting to say the least.

eg8r

cheesemouse
02-11-2004, 04:35 PM
Geez..ussssss..h...Eg8r

You are quoting Gen.Giap as presented to you by Ollie North on the Fox New Channel.........you have lost it man, get a grip....can't you tell, can't you fell it when the smoke hose is inserted into your posterior???


The cheese screwed up and sent Ed off on another google searching right wing rampage....Sorry man...

nAz
02-11-2004, 04:53 PM
I would not put too much stock in what Oli says he is a proven liar.

Bottom line is kerry did what he felt was right during that time in history and like someone mentioned before he has the right to criticize that war, he fought and got wounded in it. As for Bush hey we all know that he used what ever strings he had to get out of it, and i do not blame him too much many prominent Americans at the time did the same thing, i just hate the way people try to deny it.

what worries me most about kerry is not his military past but what he has done since. Has he taken obscene amounts on of money from lobbyist? lied to his constituents? will he truly look out for the common American person if elected? that is what i want to know more of and i want to hear this from a reputable news source. (not that there are any left)

On Bush I know his record and so far i am not happy with him, the prewar evidence was defiantly hyped up, and the Economy is still in the toilet (Jobs created not how much money has been made recently by the already rich)The national debt has not even been addressed yet and the Tax cuts that he made i feel will come back to bite the middle class in the arse. The current state of Immigration is a joke. With Congress is a Republican majority he should have done more. He should have done more in the last four years to convince me that he is worthy at another four years.

Naz~~ wishing Jed Bartlett was a real person and running for office. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Qtec
02-11-2004, 06:05 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Geez..ussssss..h...Eg8r

You are quoting Gen.Giap as presented to you by Ollie North on the Fox New Channel.........you have lost it man, get a grip.... <hr /></blockquote> LOL. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Remember the granite-like skull. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Q

eg8r
02-12-2004, 07:36 AM
[ QUOTE ]
The cheese screwed up and sent Ed off on another google searching right wing rampage....Sorry man... <hr /></blockquote> Nah, no google search. Just go to Newsmax, they have a huge list of Kerry articles. As far as quoting Oli, that was just to show one more example.

eg8r

t411
02-12-2004, 08:46 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> Here is another interesting article (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/2/10/222651.shtml) with a different outlook on Kerry.
- according to Fox News Channel war historian Oliver North.
That's why, he predicted on Tuesday, the Vietnam War issue "is going to blow up in Kerry's face."

"People are going to remember Gen. Giap saying if it weren't for these guys [Kerry's group], we would have lost," North told radio host Sean Hannity.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>
People that don't think we should have been there in the first place are not going to care if we did or didn't win the war . I don't think they want U.S. solders getting killed, but it's like anything else, If you your self were in a fight or an argument that you should not have been in who cares if you won. I know that for myself, I have won some "battles" that I have been in but looking back on some of them the bigger thing is, I should not have been "battling" in the first place.
Maybe your are assuming people think it is un American to protest a war. If that is what your assuming then I understand why you think it "is going to blow up in Karry's face"

eg8r
02-12-2004, 08:53 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe your are assuming people think it is un American to protest a war. If that is what your assuming then I understand why you think it "is going to blow up in Karry's face"
<hr /></blockquote> Whatever you just said. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif Go back and read the article and tell me who was saying what?

eg8r

Kato
02-12-2004, 09:09 AM
Find me a national level politician that cares about "The Common Man".

Kato~~~very common.

t411
02-12-2004, 09:35 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
Maybe your are assuming people think it is un American to protest a war. If that is what your assuming then I understand why you think it "is going to blow up in Karry's face"
<hr /></blockquote> Whatever you just said. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif Go back and read the article and tell me who was saying what?

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>
Im not saying anybody is saying anything. I used the words (maybe and if) Go back and read what I wrote. Could it be that what I wrote was a question?

eg8r
02-12-2004, 10:24 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Im not saying anybody is saying anything. I used the words (maybe and if) Go back and read what I wrote. Could it be that what I wrote was a question? <hr /></blockquote> I may have mis-read what you wrote, however I don't think you can take anything from my typed words that would make you think that I think it is un-American to protest war. The only part of that entire post that was mine was..... [ QUOTE ]
Here is another interesting article with a different outlook on Kerry.
<hr /></blockquote> Given this one little sentence how on earth would you assume I was assuming anything? I did not even choose part of the article to prove anything, instead I posted the entire article for you to look at. I guess when I read your post and you used the word "you" you meant me, however I was not the author of the content so surely you meant Oliver North.

As to the reason for posting the article, it is not to show a side in which I have chosen (although one would have to be dead to not know already) but rather to show another article that is available about John Kerry. Did you somehow feel I thought war protestors were un-American because I found the article interesting?????

eg8r

eg8r
02-12-2004, 10:26 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Find me a national level politician that cares about "The Common Man".
<hr /></blockquote>

Vote Libertarian.

eg8r &lt;~~~Common man

t411
02-12-2004, 11:25 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> I may have mis-read what you wrote, however I don't think you can take anything from my typed words that would make you think that I think it is un-American to protest war. The only part of that entire post that was mine was..... &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
Here is another interesting article with a different outlook on Kerry.
<hr /></blockquote> Given this one little sentence how on earth would you assume I was assuming anything? I did not even choose part of the article to prove anything, instead I posted the entire article for you to look at. I guess when I read your post and you used the word "you" you meant me, however I was not the author of the content so surely you meant Oliver North.

------------------------------------------------------------
eg8r, actually I did mean you not Ollie even though it was his article. I was not trying to insinuate that it was your article, that's why I left his name there.
------------------------------------------------------------

As to the reason for posting the article, it is not to show a side in which I have chosen (although one would have to be dead to not know already) but rather to show another article that is available about John Kerry. Did you somehow feel I thought war protestors were un-American because I found the article interesting?????

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>
Maybe I am assumming that you felt this way becouse you posted the article and I know how a lot of Americans feel about Jane Fonda and I know what Ollie feels for Jane. If not, my bad. I probably read too much into it. May I add that many on the side that you have chosen, do think it is un American to protest a war. Would you concur?

Kato
02-12-2004, 11:37 AM
I don't usually count them as "National Level" although I guess the one running for President is.

Kato

eg8r
02-12-2004, 02:16 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe I am assumming that you felt this way becouse you posted the article and I know how a lot of Americans feel about Jane Fonda and I know what Ollie feels for Jane. If not, my bad. I probably read too much into it. May I add that many on the side that you have chosen, do think it is un American to protest a war. Would you concur? <hr /></blockquote> Yup, read into it a little. I was just posting the article because it is not all sunshine in Kerryland. Did you hear the latest about him and an intern? Seems Weasly Clark had one last thing to say before he left the race. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

To your last question, yes, I think there are some that believe it is un-American to protest war, but I don't believe that is the majority sentiment.

eg8r

t411
02-12-2004, 02:27 PM
[quote=eg8r
<hr /></blockquote> Did you hear the latest about him and an intern? Seems Weasly Clark had one last thing to say before he left the race. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif



What did Weasly Clark say?

eg8r
02-12-2004, 03:44 PM
[ QUOTE ]
What did Weasly Clark say?
<hr /></blockquote> [ QUOTE ]
"Kerry will implode over an intern issue." [Three reporters in attendance confirm Clark made the startling comments.]
<hr /></blockquote> Here is one of the articles (http://www.drudgereport.com/mattjk1.htm)talking about Kerry.

eg8r

eg8r
02-12-2004, 03:50 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe your are assuming people think it is un American to protest a war. <hr /></blockquote> Well, instead of people being un-American, it appears Kerry feels soldiers are murderers. Here is an article found on the Wall Street Journal Opinion journal website...It appears that back in the 70's Kerry thought of his fellow soldiers as murderers. Seems the war hero has changed his mind when he decided to run for President. He is now a hero and no longer a murderer. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote James Taranto:</font><hr> Kerry's Vietnam Record
By now, you may have heard that John Kerry, the haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat, by the way served in Vietnam. We're being slightly sarcastic, of course: Kerry has made his service in Vietnam the centerpiece of his campaign. The idea seems to be that military service is sufficient, perhaps even necessary, to establish a candidate's national-security bona fides.

But Kerry wasn't just a serviceman; he was also an antiwar activist. His record in this capacity may be more revealing of his views on national security than his record in the Navy, where, after all, he was just following orders. The conservative weekly Human Events has put online a transcript of Kerry's testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 22, 1971, and it makes for fascinating reading. Human Events extracts a few telling quotes:

During the question-and-answer part of his 1971 testimony, Sen. George Aiken (R.-Vt.) asked Kerry if the South Vietnamese army and South Vietnamese people "would be happy to have us withdraw or what?"

"If we don't withdraw," Kerry said, "if we maintain a Korean-type presence in South Vietnam, say 50,000 troops or something, with strategic bombing raids from Guam and from Japan and from Thailand dropping these 15,000 pound fragmentation bombs on them, et cetera, in the next few years, then what you will have is a people who are continually oppressed, who are continually at warfare, and whose problems will not at all be solved because they will not have any kind of representation.

"The war will continue," said Kerry. "So what I am saying is that yes, there will be some recrimination but far, far less than the 200,000 a year who are murdered by the United States of America."

It is not clear from Kerry's testimony when, where or how he believed these people were, or would be, "murdered by the United States of America." . . .

The transcript indicates that later in the testimony, under sympathetic questioning from Sen. Clifford Case (D.-N.J.), Kerry drew laughter from the crowd when he dismissed the administration's rationale for the war, to keep Communism at bay. "I think it is bogus, totally artificial," he said. "There is no threat. The Communists are not about to take over our McDonald hamburger stands."

Here are some other notable quotes from the transcript (PDF format):

Page 181; "To attempt to justify the loss of one American life in Vietnam, Cambodia or Laos by linking such loss to the preservation of freedom . . . is to us the height of criminal hypocrisy."


Page 185: "Where are McNamara, Rostow, Bundy, Gilpatric and so many others. Where are they now that we, the men whom they sent off to war, have returned? These are commanders who have deserted their troops, and there is no more serious crime in the law of war."
Robert McNamara, of course, was defense secretary to Lyndon Johnson, who had been out of office for more than two years by the time Kerry testified.

Page 186: "The only other important point is that we allow the South Vietnamese people to determine their own future and that ostensibly is what we have been fighting for anyway."
Does Kerry now think the people of South Vietnam "determined their own future" when the communist North conquered their country in 1975, after America's withdrawal?

Page 191: "I think we have a very definite obligation to make extensive reparations to the people of Indochina."
Dennis Kucinich has said the same thing about Iraq.

Page 195: "The United States is still reacting in very much the 1945 mood and postwar cold-war period when we reacted to the forces which were at work in World War II and came out of it with this paranoia about the Russians and how the world was going to be divided up between the super powers. . . . I think that politically, historically, the one thing that people try to do, that society is structured on as a whole, is an attempt to satisfy their felt needs, and you can satisfy those felt needs with any kind of political structure, giving it one name or another. In this name it is democratic; in others it is communism; in others it is benevolent dictatorship. As long as those needs are satisfied, that structure will exist."
If we understand this correctly, Kerry thought that fear of the Soviet Union was "paranoia" and that the difference between democracy and communism was merely one of nomenclature. Is this still his view?

Page 200: "I called the media. . . . I said, 'If I take some crippled veterans down to the White house and we chain ourselves to the gates, will we get coverage?' 'Oh, yes, we will cover that.' So you are reduced to a position where the only way you can get your ideas out is to stage events."
Kerry is doing much the same thing in his current campaign. This is from his victory speech Tuesday after the Virginia and Tennessee primaries:

Once again, I express my special thanks to the remarkable brigade of veterans who have crossed this country--Senator Max Cleland--the same band of brothers that I depended on 30 years ago.

Cleland, a former senator from Georgia, is a triple amputee. But not all "crippled veterans" are useful to Kerry. Last week we reprinted a 1992 speech he delivered on the Senate floor in which he rebuked then-Sen. Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, who lost a leg in Vietnam, for making an issue of Bill Clinton's lack of military service. At the time Kerrey was seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, and Kerry took a high-minded approach: "We do not need to divide America over who served and how." Of late, of course, Kerry has been disparaging President Bush for serving stateside in the Texas Air National Guard instead of in Vietnam.

So in 1971 Kerry's view was that American servicemen in Vietnam were murderers. In 1992, they were no better or worse than anyone else. Today he proudly claims the mantle of war hero.

Kerry was only 27 when he testified before the Foreign Relations Committee, but he was already active in politics, having waged an unsuccessful campaign for Congress. His views might well have changed in the intervening years as he matured. But at the very least, someone who wishes to be commander in chief in a time of war owes the country an explanation of how and why his views have changed.
<hr /></blockquote> Link to web page (http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110004687) .

eg8r

TheDragon
02-17-2004, 02:41 PM
Find me a national level politician that cares about "The Common Man".

NC Senator John Edwards

Check out the website
www.johnedwards2004.com (http://www.johnedwards2004.com)

eg8r
02-19-2004, 03:50 PM
[ QUOTE ]
The reason that veterans so respect Kerry's service is that they know how unusual it was for the privedledged of our generation to actually volunteer to become a gunt in the field of battle. <hr /></blockquote> This quote has bothered me a bit since I read it. I have not seen any veterans who are of the same side as you say. Well, except the ones who were part of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War.

Anyways, here is a website that was brought up in an article at Newsmax.com. VietnamVeteransAgainstJohnKerry.com (http://www.VietnamVeteransAgainstJohnKerry.com)

I only added it here because it is another example of Vietnam Veterans who are against Kerry. I have no idea how many veterans agree with the site, but I am guessing it is more than one.

Oops. I forgot the link (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/2/19/160224.shtml) for the newsmax article.

eg8r

eg8r
03-03-2004, 01:57 PM
[ QUOTE ]
The reason that veterans so respect Kerry's service is that they know how unusual it was for the privedledged of our generation to actually volunteer to become a gunt in the field of battle. <hr /></blockquote> While surfing around on the net today, I came across yet another article about VietNam Vets and their support for Kerry. Seems it is easier to find those against him than for him.

Anyways, here is the link (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jaybryant/printjb20040303.shtml) to the page.
[ QUOTE ]
Dear Mr. Kerry;

After spending only four months in the country of Vietnam, you testified before Congress in 1971 with these exact words about incidents you say you witnessed: "They personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blew up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Viet Nam."

Spread that on a farmer's field where it will do some good. I spent a year there in 1968-69 in a combat arms unit. I was a Field Artillery Forward Observer in an Infantry company and I saw combat every day until I was wounded. When I returned from the hospital, I was assigned to an artillery battery. I saw brave men fight and die; I saw brave, good men pass out all their rations to hungry kids, build churches and schools, donate to orphanages, cry silently at the sight of villagers slaughtered by North Vietnamese, but I never saw anything approaching the war crimes that you happened to witness as your boat sped by villages on the river bank. If you witnessed atrocities and did not report them, you are guilty of aiding and abetting. If you lied, you are simply unfit for leadership at any level. The most serious incident I witnessed was a young sergeant who grabbed the arm of a Vietnamese woman during a village search. An older, more experienced noncommissioned officer knocked the sergeant to the ground and told him, somewhat forcefully, that that woman was someone's mother and would be treated with respect. That's it, Kerry, that's my confession - I didn't report the incident.

I have children, and my children have children. They will, perhaps, stumble upon your words, much as one might stumble upon a pile of dog droppings. I do not relish the thought of having to explain that your "experiences" are either a bald-faced lie, or you belong to that less-than-1% of Viet Nam veterans who committed war crimes/atrocities. Either way, your words do great harm to the institution of the Senate, my home state of Massachusetts, the Armed Services in which I proudly served for 27 years, and the very country that you aspire to lead.

Is it true that you single-handedly prevented a vote on a Senate version of H.R. 2833, the Viet Nam Human Rights Act of 2001 - a bill that passed the House by a vote of 410-1? There are many who believe that our failure to speak decisively on that issue cost the lives of thousands of Montagnard tribesman in Viet Nam. Where do you stand on H.R. 1587, the Viet Nam Human Rights Act of 2003? Will you support a parallel bill in the Senate? Is it true that you served as Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on MIA/POW Affairs and in that role you fought hard to limit the expenditure of funds to investigate sightings or search for remains? You have, I believe, been a steadfast, staunch and vocal advocate for normalizing relations with Viet Nam. Could it be that your beloved first cousin, Mr. Forbes, CEO of Colliers International, recently signed a contract with Hanoi worth billions of dollars? Any truth to the rumor that you didn't really fling your "hard-earned" military medals over the White House fence in a juvenile fit of pique as you say you did, but rather, you threw your roommate's medals instead?

I know dozens of retired military professionals. None of them support you - there is a reason for that. They all served honorably and well, and they all believe that you did not. I know war heroes, and your, sir, are no war hero.

-- Glenn Lackey
<hr /></blockquote> I have highlighted a very interesting tidbit of information about Kerry in which I think Qtec should enjoy (doubtfully wondering if it will launch him in some search of all the evil wrongdoings of Kerry and his associates).

eg8r

Qtec
03-04-2004, 09:39 AM
Bush camp’s lies keep Guard issue in the spotlight

Just when you start to wonder why and how much President Bush’s Texas Air National Guard service record should be an issue in the 2004 campaign, a light goes on over your head. Why? Because he and his surrogates and spokesmen simply won’t stop lying about it.

The latest example came Monday morning on National Public Radio, when Juan Williams was interviewing the president’s campaign chairman and chief election spokesman, former Montana Gov. Marc Racicot.

The president’s surrogates know enough to avoid attacking John Kerry’s service record. Instead, they train their fire on his voting record in the Senate. But Racicot surprised a lot of people when he told Williams that the president’s own service record compared rather nicely to Kerry’s.

The president’s and Kerry’s service records, “compare very favorably,” said Racicot.

The president “signed up for dangerous duty,” he said. “He volunteered to go to Vietnam. He wasn’t selected to go but nonetheless served his country very well.”
You didn’t know the president volunteered to go to Vietnam? If this is news to you, it’s probably because it’s simply not true.

Let’s not even waste our time by belaboring the obvious point that getting your father to pull strings so that you can jump ahead of hundreds of other applicants for a spot in the Guard at the height of the Vietnam War is about as far as you can get from “volunteering” to go to Vietnam.

It’s more like moving heaven and earth to stay out of Vietnam.

But actually we can be even more specific.

When the president filled out his enlistment papers, those forms included a checkbox asking whether he wanted to serve overseas or not.

The president checked off the box labeled “I Do Not” volunteer to serve overseas.

In recent years, the president and his aides have had different explanations for how that checkmark got there.

Some have speculated that some other, unknown person checked off that box without the president’s knowledge. Somewhat more plausibly, they’ve suggested that he was instructed to check off that box since obviously what he was really trying to do was sign up for service in Texas, not Vietnam.

However that check got there, the fact that the president filled out a form stating explicitly that he did not volunteer for service in Vietnam would seem to create at least a few credibility problems for Racicot when he claims the president did just the opposite.

Indeed, the president himself doesn’t even agree with Racicot.

Two weeks ago, when Tim Russert asked him point-blank whether “volunteer[ed] or enlist[ed] to go” to Vietnam, the president responded, “No, I didn’t. You’re right.”
So what in the world is Racicot talking about?

Monday afternoon, Racicot’s aides quickly pulled together a conference call with reporters for a little more Kerry-bashing.

But one intrepid reporter on the call asked the obvious question: What on earth was Racicot talking about when he said the president volunteered to go to Vietnam?

Racicot said that he’d heard about it in a story in a ‘’national publication,” but couldn’t remember which one.

Later, one of his aides provided the article and publication in question: a Feb. 19 column by Jed Babbin (“Dubya’s Wing Men”) for National Review Online.

In one paragraph in that piece, Babbin recounts the story of Fred Bradley, one of the president’s friends from those days, who says that he remembers he and the president once inquired about getting into something called the Palace Alert program.

The program, in the words of The Washington Post, “dispatched qualified F-102 pilots in the Guard to Europe and the Far East, occasionally to Vietnam, on three- to six-month assignments.”

Bradley told Babbin that he and Bush were told they weren’t experienced enough and that was the end of it.

So did this really happen? It’s a little hard to figure that after the president and his family pulled so many strings to keep him out of Vietnam he’d go and sign up to get in the first chance he got. And of course there’s no evidence for this in the president’s service records.

The president himself floated the Palace Alert story in the past, too. But one reason he stopped may be because of what the Post discovered in 1999.

The program was shut down just one week after the president got out of flight school — making it a suspiciously ineffective way to end up actually going to Vietnam.

Now, obviously, there’s no way to know the substance of every conversation that the president had with his base commander or whether he and his Guard buddies once talked about signing up for Palace Alert. And really there’s no point in trying.

But why is the president’s campaign manager peddling an unsubstantiated claim from a column for National Review Online that the president himself doesn’t even seem to stand by?

It just seems like another cynical effort by Bush’s supporters to rewrite the story of his service record the first chance the press wasn’t paying close attention.

They’re incorrigible


/ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Q

eg8r
03-04-2004, 11:37 AM
Well, Bush did not say it this time it is someone else. Blame them, if you believe it is a lie. As the story suggests, no one knows what Bush was saying to his commander all the time.

[ QUOTE ]
When the president filled out his enlistment papers, those forms included a checkbox asking whether he wanted to serve overseas or not.

The president checked off the box labeled “I Do Not” volunteer to serve overseas.

In recent years, the president and his aides have had different explanations for how that checkmark got there.

Some have speculated that some other, unknown person checked off that box without the president’s knowledge. Somewhat more plausibly, they’ve suggested that he was instructed to check off that box since obviously what he was really trying to do was sign up for service in Texas, not Vietnam.

However that check got there, the fact that the president filled out a form stating explicitly that he did not volunteer for service in Vietnam would seem to create at least a few credibility problems for Racicot when he claims the president did just the opposite.
<hr /></blockquote> Since the article decides not to go any deeper into this issue, I was wondering there is just a chance it might not be totally true. It states there is some ambiguity as to how the check got there, and no where does it state that Bush was the one that put the check there. Is it possible, that Bush was volunteering to go to Vietnam, however, he did not fill in all the information and in an attempt to keep him safe, someone else filled in the check? Is there even an ounce of possibility?

Is this lie nearly as bad as the one that Kerry told back in the 70s about the rape and murder that the American soldiers were taking part of? Seriously now, if you wanna talk lies which one is more threatening to the military and even more so, to the country?

Was this the article in its entirety?


eg8r &lt;~~~Did not admit Bush told a lie

Qtec
03-04-2004, 11:40 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Is it possible, that Bush was volunteering to go to Vietnam, however, he did not fill in all the information and in an attempt to keep him safe, someone else filled in the check? Is there even an ounce of possibility?
<hr /></blockquote>

Not a micron.

Q

eg8r
03-04-2004, 11:43 AM
Whatever. Since there is so much ambiguity, there is obviously no proven lie. Good job leaning on the BBC to come through with some excellent reporting skills.

eg8r &lt;~~~knows none of the media outlets will go the extra mile, however BBC is one of the worst

Wally_in_Cincy
03-04-2004, 11:46 AM
Would you have volunteered to go to Vietnam in 1968? Just wondering. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif