PDA

View Full Version : Another ex of Kerry's support for fellow soldiers



eg8r
08-31-2004, 11:10 AM
Just recently Kerry vowed that he felt soldiers should be respected while they are fighting and when they come home. Well here is just how Kerry supported his fellow soldiers who were still fighting for their country and could not defend themselves... http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images2/vvflyer2.jpg If anyone on the board fought in Vietnam, this is what Kerry thought of your courageous act....

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
08-31-2004, 11:18 AM
Well, to be totally off-topic.....



http://putupon.smugmug.com/photos/2613579-L.jpg

/ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

pooltchr
08-31-2004, 11:43 AM
The thing that continues to amaze me is that this guy felt so strongly about this topic, yet he has so far based his entire campaign for the presidency on his own 4 months of participation in the war. Sen. McCain was captured and held prisoner by the VC...and we got a pretty good idea what he thinks about Kerry last night.
The Dems made a big mistake opening the Viet Nam can of worms for this election. Vets are some of the most passionate when it comes to politics, and I suspect Kerry's lack of support from the vets will continue to drop the closer we get to November.

crawdaddio
08-31-2004, 11:59 AM
What is it that you have a problem with? Is it that many, many soldiers were very upset and traumatized by what they saw and did in Vietnam? Or is it that Kerry is one of those soldiers who wanted his government to withdraw from a then senseless, brutal, unnecessary war that turned thousands of good soldiers into paranoid, schizofrenic (sp?), killers? Or is it that Kerry is now using his war credentials hypocritically in his bid the presidency? I'm guessing, by this and other posts from you, that it's the last one.

[ QUOTE ]
If anyone on the board fought in Vietnam, this is what Kerry thought of your courageous act....
<hr /></blockquote>

I personally know several vietnam vets who agree that attrocities were committed by americans in vietnam. Courageous soldiers? Yes. Disillusioned by years in brutal jungle warfare? Yes as well. I haven't met anyone who would call Vietnam a "victory".

I agree that Kerry is a hypocrite. He should have never based his campaign on something as controversial as Vietnam. Especially if he is not going to back his records with proof (such as releasing his records).

The Dems are shooting their own feet.
Peace
DC /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

highsea
08-31-2004, 12:27 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote crawdaddio:</font><hr>Or is it that Kerry is one of those soldiers who wanted his government to withdraw from a then senseless, brutal, unnecessary war that turned thousands of good soldiers into paranoid, schizofrenic (sp?), killers? <hr /></blockquote>This statement is patently absurd. Where do you come up with this nonsense? Thousands of paranoid schizophrenic killers? By whose definition? Do you have any statistics from the VA or any other credible agency to lend any credibility at all to this?

You should to try to be a little less emotional and a little more objective.

-CM

eg8r
08-31-2004, 12:34 PM
[ QUOTE ]
What is it that you have a problem with? <hr /></blockquote> My post was pretty clear, Kerry stated he felt veterans should be respected while fighting and when they come home. However, this is the type of respect he offered to his fellow soldiers when he "hobbled" home from Vietnam and they could not defend themselves.

eg8r

eg8r
08-31-2004, 12:42 PM
Here is the text from the letter Kerry sent to Bush... [ QUOTE ]
"As you yourself have said, there is nothing complicated about supporting our troops, and the leaders of this nation should make it clear that the members of our military will not only be supported when they wear the uniform, but also when they return home to the land they fought to defend," it said. <hr /></blockquote> This is the problem I have...He has flip flopped his support for the troops. You might think his stance after Vietnam was against the government, however, he used the soldiers that were fighting as pawns. He lied about the soldiers while they were still fighting for their country. They, for the most part, could not defend themselves in front of Congress because they were still doing their jobs.

Now, when Kerry is running for President, he feels the leaders should support the troops in combat and when they come home, however this is in stark contrast to ALL of Kerry's past. He was against the soldiers when he got back from Vietnam and while he was in Congress. Just recently he voted to go to war but he voted against sending in extra money to provide safety for the soldiers. Is that support?

eg8r

crawdaddio
08-31-2004, 04:27 PM
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/08/25/1410215&amp;mode=thread&amp;tid=25

[ QUOTE ]
Dennis Stout, former Vietnam Army journalist speaking at the Veterans for Peace National Convention, July 25, 2004. He describes atrocities committed by U.S. soldiers in Vietnam including raping and killing Vietnamese girl and skinning an unarmed Vietnamese man as well as how he was threatened by senior military officers when he tried to come forward.

.........MICHAEL SALLAH: Right. What we found, essentially was that there was a unit, very small, mobile platoon known as Tiger Force that was unleashed into the central highlands in Vietnam in 1967. They dangerously and very violently lost control. This wasn't fog of war stuff. This was where they went into villages and premeditatedly executed--murdered men, women and children at random. They cut of off their ears. There was body mutilation. They cut off the head of an infant. They routinely saw women and children hide in bunkers and they threw in grenades. This went on and on unabated for seven months from May through November of 1967. The Army launched a four-and-a-half year investigation between ‘71 and ‘75, substantiated, that is, they developed probable cause in about 20 war crimes involving 18 soldiers, multiple victims. Untold hundreds. Then, quickly and then very systematically shut the case down and concealed it. It was buried in the archives of the Army for the last 36 years until we were able to get rare classified documents about this case and we continued to press for more records, the Army said no, we were able to get them, regardless. And in addition, we interviewed more than 100 members off and on who rotated in and out of Tiger Force during that period. The atrocities are well documented. They're well known. They're not in dispute. <hr /></blockquote>

You really don't believe that american (as well as others) soldiers committed any outright murders in vietnam? Gimme a break...
To be emotionally outraged by wrongdoing is human, and I will not stop it. Thank you.
Peace
DC

highsea
08-31-2004, 04:39 PM
So where do you get "thousands of paranoid schizophrenic killers" from one very small mobile platoon????? /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

highsea
08-31-2004, 05:10 PM
This Tiger Force case first appeared last year in the Toledo Blade. Here is an exerpt of a news analysis by the VietNam Quoc Dan Dang (also known as VNQDD, or Vietnamese National Party). <hr /></blockquote>According to articles on The Blade, the soldiers were members of the platoon-size task force known as the Tiger Force. They are believed to have committed illegal execution of many dozen – even more than a hundred - innocent civilians who showed no sign of being disguised enemies or acted against the soldiers. Most victims were old people, women and children. The atrocities included cutting ears and scalping for souvenirs.

The massacres, according to the articles, took place in the “highlands of Quang Ngai and Quang Nam,” mostly in Song Ve valley, Duc Pho district, and Quang Ngai province during 7 months the Tiger were operating in the area, from April to November 1967. The Blade’s articles disclosed that the Army launched an investigation from May to November 1967 that identified 18 suspects among Tiger Force members, but none of them was arraigned or punished. Recently, the Department of Defense said that the case might be reopened for more investigation although the official investigation has closed for almost 36 years.

Every Vietnamese is shocked by the stories. As many other Asians, they are very sensitive at any bloodshed committed by foreign soldiers against their compatriots. Whether the killers are Vietnamese or foreigners, they must be punished. However, to those who have profound knowledge about Hanoi communist regime and the way Western reporters seeing the Vietnam War, the Blade’s accounts lead to many questions.

There were undeniable war crimes in the said areas. However, the number of victims has not been approximately determined. Witnesses and suspects each gave far different numbers.

The communist regime has always grasped events of the kind – American and South Vietnamese military soldiers’ wrongdoing – to launch propaganda campaigns. A killing of five or ten victims could have been made into a massacre five hundred or one thousand by Communist propaganda.

Why this time Hanoi has been silent at such atrocities for so long, not until the Toledo Blade broke the news did Communist authorities voice their comments? Was the number of victims really high? Did Hanoi leaders know the massacre? Or they knew it but purposely kept silent?

Many analysts who are familiar with Vietnam Communist affairs are saying that Hanoi leaders were certainly well informed of the event. But they decided it was a killing of a small number, not sensational enough to make a great noise. During the war, anything of some importance for propaganda was quickly exploited, carefully recorded, maintained with full details, usually exaggerated, for psyops purposes. It is hardly possible that Hanoi leaders could have neglected the case if the reported stories are true.

Moreover, how did the investigators from the Toledo Blade select people to be interviewed? The selection and the interview were done with or without control or presence of local Public Security officers? How they could be sure that the interviewees were saying the truth and not what Communist cadres in charge of local Public Security agency had ordered them to say?

According to the reports, a Communist colonel from the Quang Nam province government told reporters that he would conduct an investigation to learn more details about the killing. In his own words he admitted, "We want to know more about this platoon, and what they did. Why did they operate this way? We have never heard of this before." Loud and clear.

A Communist colonel who has never heard of such important event in his own province! That is worth re-consideration of the allegation. In this rural area, every villager knows the others and any pet dog of the neighbors. They must have known the true stories if such killing actually occurred.<hr /></blockquote>
http://www.vietquoc.com/news2004/na021604.htm

As I see it, you have seen fit to convict this platoon on the basis of a newspaper story. The Army investigated in 1967, and determined not to file charges. If they choose to reopen the investigation, I will wait until they reach a conclusion, rather than jump to one based on one newspaper story.

And once again, 18 soldiers are not "thousands". Mai Lai, the most famous war crime of Vietnam, was also only a single platoon.

So your characterization of a war that happened long before you were born, and of which you have no personal experience, rings hollow for me, and I suspect many others who actually remember it would feel the same way.

-CM

Ross
08-31-2004, 05:16 PM
Steve, I grew up in a very small town in southern Texas, population 230. Seriously, 230 people. Anyway, one of my classmates had a brother in Vietnam. He was 19. He used to write her letters bragging about how they beheaded Vietcong and put their heads on fenceposts. This does't prove anything about how widespead this was of course. But I do think that it illustrates what a very brutal and traumatic war this was, that a fairly normal small town Texas kid could start participating in this. I believe that in such wars atrocities and war crimes are very common from both sides. Most of them get hushed up.

BTW, after Kerry's testimony, another 10,000 Americans died in Vietnam. He probably should have shown more sensitivity to the soldiers that were still there when he was trying to convince the government to stop the war. But so many lives being lost in a quite brutal and fairly senseless war leads to a lot of self-righteous anger and strongly felt views. In the fervor, young people get heated up and sometimes said things that are not fair. But that doesn't make them evil or traitors or incapable of growing into strong leaders. It only proves that at one time they had some idealistic hope that they could favorably alter the course of history.

Kerry and Bush should be judged on their current policy positions, not on this old stuff. And saying Kerry brought it up doesn't justify dwelling on it endlessly or demonizing him for it. He emphasized it because people were seeing him as weak and Bush as strong in military matters. The Democrats decided to play up his war record to make him look stronger. It was a political decision, just like the Republican decision to show their softer side once every 4 years just before elections.

Also BTW, the Republicans are running a much stronger campaign than the Democrats. They get their talking points together and stay on message. Andy Card is a political genius, I think. We Democrats need Carville in charge! Why is McCauliff still around?

pooltchr
08-31-2004, 07:39 PM
Ross,
I agree that the whole situation in Viet Nam was nothing short of ugly on both sides. It caused a lot of people to do things way out of character. But until you have been in a jungle thousands of miles from home in a country where many people want to kill you, you don't know what you are capable of. The will to live is very strong, and the phrases "will to live" and "fight fire with fire" play heavily on your mind.

I don't justify the things that were done, but offer this as somewhat of an explanation.

My problem with Kerry is that he went over for a short time, probably didn't see a lot of what was really going on, then joined the "Hanoi Jane" crowd when he got home and turned his back on those that were still there. I will grant you that his protest of throwing his medals away may have been youthful exhuberance, but knowing that it would come back to bite him, why in the world did he choose to use this part of his life as a campaign issue? I think the reason is that he really doesn't want anyone focusing on his voting record, or lack thereof, in the 30 years he spent in the Senate.

The Dems made a poor choice in selecting a candidate for this campaign, and are just doing whatever they can to try and salvage something from an election that I think they believe they are about to lose. There were other candidates that I believe would have had a better opportunity to win the election than Kerry. I don't see a lot of leadership skills in the man, I don't respect what he did in his military career, and I don't agree with many of the things he has done (or not done) in the Senate.

I know you think I'm just a party hard liner, but this isn't about Reps and Dems...it's about leadership, and the thought of JK being elected scares the Hell out of me. He seems to be a puppet of the DNC, and I think he was a throw-away in this election. When GW can't run in '08, I think they will put up what they believe is their strength, whether they think it's Hillery (God help us!!) or possibly Bill again (Ditto last comment).

If enough people would take a close look and interest in national politics, rather than taking what is spoon fed to them by the media, maybe we could actually get a decent candidate from one side or the other. Or maybe the Liberterian party might finally make the inroads to make some real positive changes in this country.
Steve

crawdaddio
08-31-2004, 08:08 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr>
&lt;snip&gt;
As I see it, you have seen fit to convict this platoon on the basis of a newspaper story.<font color="blue">Based on reports by an army journalist.</font color> The Army investigated in 1967, and determined not to file charges.<font color="blue">Cover up. </font color> If they choose to reopen the investigation, I will wait until they reach a conclusion, rather than jump to one based on one newspaper story. <font color="blue">And I'm sure the army's investigation would be unbiased. </font color>

And once again, 18 soldiers are not "thousands". <font color="blue">True. </font color> Mai Lai, the most famous war crime of Vietnam, was also only a single platoon.

So your characterization of a war that happened long before you were born, and of which you have no personal experience, rings hollow for me,<font color="blue">I didn't post this to convince of you of anything. I already know that this is impossible. </font color> and I suspect many others who actually remember it would feel the same way. <font color="blue">I agree. However, as I have already said, I know many vets who had personally witnessed attrocities in vietnam. I wonder why hundreds of thousands of people protested the war? </font color>

-CM
<hr /></blockquote>

mred477
08-31-2004, 09:22 PM
No third party will be able to make inroads until the electoral college is done away with. Anyone in a close state is throwing away their vote if they vote for a third party. Take Florida for example. I will vote for Bush because I agree with his tax cuts and his foreign policy decisions. On the other hand, I find his spending deplorable, bordering on dangerous. But because I live in Florida, I have to vote for Bush, because voting for the Libertarian candidate might give Kerry the electoral votes to win the election. Get rid of those, and I could be free to choose who I really wanted in office without tipping the scales in Kerry's favor.

Will ~ waiting for Neal Boortz to run

cueball1950
08-31-2004, 09:58 PM
where do you see his name on this flyer. I am not voting for him or Bush. Hell i am not going to even vote. the heck with it. and yes i did serve in the navy during the viet nam conflict. now i have a trivia question for all of you. who was the first president to send peace keeping troops to vien nam?????????mike

Ross
08-31-2004, 10:04 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> Ross,
I agree that the whole situation in Viet Nam was nothing short of ugly on both sides. It caused a lot of people to do things way out of character. But until you have been in a jungle thousands of miles from home in a country where many people want to kill you, you don't know what you are capable of. The will to live is very strong, and the phrases "will to live" and "fight fire with fire" play heavily on your mind.

I don't justify the things that were done, but offer this as somewhat of an explanation.

<font color="blue">I agree. </font color>

My problem with Kerry is that he went over for a short time, probably didn't see a lot of what was really going on, then joined the "Hanoi Jane" crowd when he got home and turned his back on those that were still there.

<font color="blue">I think that is unfair Steve. He volunteered to lead Swiftboats down the rivers of Vietnam. When he did this he didn't know what was ahead of him; whether he would survive this tour of duty. Four months of war is a long time (every trip you are going into the heart of enemy territory and you don't know if you are going to make it out alive) and you are disrespecting the service he did for your country by minimizing it. He even killed a guy by his own admission. So to dismiss his service with "he didn't really see a lot" is minimizing what was likely a pretty horrific experience that most of us will never go through.

Maybe by the end of it he was trying to get Purple Hearts to get out of that insane war - I don't know. But just like in Mash, it was the sane people who saw the war for what it was - a waste of life. Many of the boys I knew that had the strongest consciences are the ones that resisted that war. Even Jane Fonda was doing what she thought was right for the country. Maybe you think what she did was a horrible mistake and wrongheaded, but you can't deny that her GOAL was to stop the war and save lives. To paint this as a simple matter of "good soldiers" and "bad war protesters" is denying the complexity of that war.</font color>

I will grant you that his protest of throwing his medals away may have been youthful exhuberance, but knowing that it would come back to bite him, why in the world did he choose to use this part of his life as a campaign issue? I think the reason is that he really doesn't want anyone focusing on his voting record, or lack thereof, in the 30 years he spent in the Senate.

<font color="blue">I don't know why no one will buy the explanation that all of the evidence supports. In poll after poll before the Dem convention, voters tended to agree more with Kerry than Bush on domestic issues, but saw Kerry as militarily soft. So the Dems said ramp up his military experience. And contrary to the biased conservative media who have a selective memory, he talked about a lot more than his military history. He talked about economics and taxes and jobs, education, health research, health insurance, and foreign policy. Did no conservative hear that part of his speech, or did his suggestions make too much sense to be acknowledged? </font color>

The Dems made a poor choice in selecting a candidate for this campaign, and are just doing whatever they can to try and salvage something from an election that I think they believe they are about to lose. There were other candidates that I believe would have had a better opportunity to win the election than Kerry.

<font color="blue">Who? Possibly Gephardt, but he was seen as too boring. Edwards was too inexperienced. Dean was too volatile and would be in no better shape than Kerry at this point. The military guy (blocking on his name) was not as strong in person as he was on his resume.

And even if the Dems put up a good guy, the right wing hatchet guys are good enough to make them look like idiots. All it takes is some research for selected quotes, then a skewing of information to put the person in the worst possible light. Then make the accusation over and over for months, and voila', enough of the population buys into it. It's no different than trashing someones reputation in a workplace. If you try hard enough and you have a small enough concience you can do it to anyone.

But I agree that we didn't have a really strong candidate to put up. And we don't have the PR machine to take a lightweight like Bush and make him look like a real leader. Can we have Card and Rove?

</font color>

I don't see a lot of leadership skills in the man, I don't respect what he did in his military career, and I don't agree with many of the things he has done (or not done) in the Senate.

I know you think I'm just a party hard liner, but this isn't about Reps and Dems...it's about leadership, and the thought of JK being elected scares the Hell out of me. He seems to be a puppet of the DNC, and I think he was a throw-away in this election. When GW can't run in '08, I think they will put up what they believe is their strength, whether they think it's Hillery (God help us!!) or possibly Bill again (Ditto last comment).

<font color="blue">Yeah, evil Hillary. Evil Bill. Liar turncoat Kerry. Sellout, snob Edwards. Weak on crime Dukakis. Turncoat triple-amputee Cleland. Anti-soldier McCain (yes, they convinced South Carolinians of that for the period of time it took for Bush to wrap up the nomination. After he was dead in the water he became a good guy again.) Ugly smear campaigns do work, I will give them that.</font color>

If enough people would take a close look and interest in national politics, rather than taking what is spoon fed to them by the media, maybe we could actually get a decent candidate from one side or the other.

<font color="blue">I do take a close look. And the people I end up arguing with get their news spoonfed from newsmax or Drudge or O'Reilly or National Review or articles written by the Heritage Foundation. Sources that have NEVER published an article that challenged the conservative view. NOT ONCE. EVER. And then they acuse me of reading biased media. What a joke! </font color>

Or maybe the Liberterian party might finally make the inroads to make some real positive changes in this country.
Steve <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue">

Democrats support more individual liberties than any Republican, IMO. They also apparently spend less of our money. Which party is closer to libertarian?

Sorry, Steve, but this character assassination against Dems sometimes remind me of a guy at my poolhall. He sees all women as sluts. And he believes it more and more each day because he interprets all of the evidence in a way that supports that. If they hang out with a guy, they are sleeping with the guy. If they dress sexy, they are sleeping with every guy that comes along. And so he will always see women that way, and miss the real people. Its sad and destructive, but he will never recognize it. What can you do?

</font color>

Wally_in_Cincy
09-01-2004, 06:23 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr>

...Andy Card is a political genius, I think.
<hr /></blockquote>

You probably mean Karl Rove

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr>

.... We Democrats need Carville in charge! Why is McCauliff still around?
<hr /></blockquote>

The Clintons pull the strings and he's the Clintons' boy /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

pooltchr
09-01-2004, 06:33 AM
Ross,
One reason I enjoy our discussions is that you do your research and put some thought into the topic. And believe it or not, there was a time in my life when I actually supported the Democrats. I don't deny they are stronger in the area of civil liberties than the Republicans. My issue with them is their solution is the same as the Republican solution...more government control. The more control Washington has over us, the more power they have. And power in Washington equates to money. In the end, it seems like both parties are selling us the same stuff but in different packaging.

You ask what can we do. I wish I had an answer to that. Our system seems to be breaking down. Overly simplified, it seems the Democrats want to buy the individual by giving them what they want, and the Republicans want to buy big business and the money that comes their way from them.

The trend in business these days is to downsize and focus on core business activities, and outsource support activities to other businesses that can do a particular job better. Why can't Washington do the same thing? Focus on the things a federal government needs to be doing, like national defense and interstate commerce, and stay out of social issues like gay rights, education, and other things that are best left to local and state governments?

Business has to operate efficiently, and they answer to the stockholders if they don't. I would love to see Washington operate the same way. The bigger they get, the less efficient they become. I believe it's time to seriously downsize the federal government. I just keep waiting for someone to step forward and do it.

Meanwhile, we can only stay educated as to what is actually happening, and encourage everyone we can to do the same.
In the movie "The Hunt for Red October", Sean Connery's character makes the comment that a little revolution every once-in-a-while is a good thing. As long as we sit back and accept what the political machines are giving us, we are going to have to live with the mediocrity they provide.

For now, I have to go with what I decide is the lessor of two evils.
Kinda sad, isn't it?

Steve

eg8r
09-01-2004, 06:55 AM
[ QUOTE ]
where do you see his name on this flyer. <hr /></blockquote> Where did you see in my post stating that his name was on the flyer. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif What is on the flyer is "Vietnam Veterans Against the War. This is the group he was part of and was the most outspoken person of the group (besides his counterpart who was not even in the war). The points listed on the flyer are the same points he gave to Congress in one of his addresses.

eg8r

eg8r
09-01-2004, 06:56 AM
[ QUOTE ]
You really don't believe that american (as well as others) soldiers committed any outright murders in vietnam? Gimme a break...
<hr /></blockquote> No one doubts this is true, I don't think anyone is arguing against it. The problem is that Kerry did not say there were isolated instances of this, he said EVERYONE was doing it.

eg8r

eg8r
09-01-2004, 07:02 AM
[ QUOTE ]
And I'm sure the army's investigation would be unbiased. <hr /></blockquote> They were pretty unbiased for 5 months when investigating the Abu Grahib incident. They had been investigating for 5 months before the news ever mentioned it and had already set up court dates for the soldiers.

If the Army is just picking and choosing when to be biased, I wonder when they to come up with the requirements of when to choose to be biased, or have they always been biased up until AG instance. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

eg8r

eg8r
09-01-2004, 07:07 AM
[ QUOTE ]
In the fervor, young people get heated up and sometimes said things that are not fair. But that doesn't make them evil or traitors or incapable of growing into strong leaders. It only proves that at one time they had some idealistic hope that they could favorably alter the course of history.
<hr /></blockquote> Then do you have any idea why someone would use such a naive point in time to be the basis of their Presidential campaign? We have soldiers fighting in a war right now, and we have a Presidential candidate who is still fighting a war from 30 years ago.

eg8r

eg8r
09-01-2004, 07:34 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I don't know why no one will buy the explanation that all of the evidence supports. In poll after poll before the Dem convention, voters tended to agree more with Kerry than Bush on domestic issues, but saw Kerry as militarily soft. <hr /></blockquote> Poll, after poll, after poll, isn't this all you hear about in election years. They are useless and I try not to talk about them. The poll questions are worded in ways to help the person who is giving the poll or hurt the person they are running against. You know this. Kerry's voting record proved he is militarily soft, not some poll.

[ QUOTE ]
And contrary to the biased conservative media who have a selective memory, he talked about a lot more than his military history. He talked about economics and taxes and jobs, education, health research, health insurance, and foreign policy. Did no conservative hear that part of his speech, or did his suggestions make too much sense to be acknowledged?
<hr /></blockquote> The only conservative media out there is radio, thank goodness they are finally getting some credit? As far as all the issues you are mentioning, those came much later. The only times Kerry mentioned all those other things was when he was stating what an awful job Bush was doing. He never came out and said what he would do different, until maybe during the Convention.

[ QUOTE ]
And even if the Dems put up a good guy, the right wing hatchet guys are good enough to make them look like idiots. <hr /></blockquote> LOL, just like they were able to successfully do to Clinton? Right... You give the hatchet guys too much credit.

[ QUOTE ]
Then make the accusation over and over for months, and voila', enough of the population buys into it. <hr /></blockquote> Now you are talking. This is exactly what the liberal mass media has been doing about the war in Iraq. Thank you for noticing. Keep saying the war in Iraq is going bad and the people will believe it.

[ QUOTE ]
Turncoat triple-amputee Cleland. <hr /></blockquote> I cannot remember, does he have any purple hearts for his injuries?

[ QUOTE ]
Ugly smear campaigns do work, I will give them that.
<hr /></blockquote> MoveOn.org and Moore don't agree with you, they have been much less effective than the SBVs and they spent much more money. The liberal smear campaign is just getting a free ride.

[ QUOTE ]
Democrats support more individual liberties than any Republican, IMO. They also apparently spend less of our money. <hr /></blockquote> Well that is the funniest quote of they day. Dems invented big government.

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, Steve, but this character assassination against Dems sometimes remind me of a guy at my poolhall. He sees all women as sluts. And he believes it more and more each day because he interprets all of the evidence in a way that supports that. If they hang out with a guy, they are sleeping with the guy. If they dress sexy, they are sleeping with every guy that comes along. And so he will always see women that way, and miss the real people. Its sad and destructive, but he will never recognize it. What can you do?
<hr /></blockquote> You can blame the democrats for ignoring the individual for the betterment of the group. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
09-01-2004, 07:37 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cueball1950:</font><hr> ...who was the first president to send peace keeping troops to viet nam? <hr /></blockquote>

Ike?

Wally_in_Cincy
09-01-2004, 07:42 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr>

...he talked about a lot more than his military history. He talked about economics and taxes and jobs, education, health research, health insurance, and foreign policy. ....<hr /></blockquote>

I think he talked about his Senate record for 27 seconds. Seriously.

highsea
09-01-2004, 07:52 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr>...it's about leadership, and the thought of JK being elected scares the Hell out of me. He seems to be a puppet of the DNC, and I think he was a throw-away in this election. When GW can't run in '08, I think they will put up what they believe is their strength, whether they think it's Hillery (God help us!!) or possibly Bill again (Ditto last comment).<hr /></blockquote>Can't be Bill, the two term rule lasts for life. But I think you are exactly right here, w.r.t. the Dems pick. They didn't think they had someone that could beat Bush, so it was better to throw Kerry out as a sacrificial lamb, and save Hillary for '08. They know Cheney won't run, so '08 will be two new (inexperienced) candidates. McCain will be 72, which is a little old, but a good possibility. Next on my short list would be Jeb. Either one would trounce Hillary, so assuming GW takes it in December, we should be safe for 8-12 more years.

When you look at the Dems, who do you see? Gore, Clinton (Bill and Hillary), and Kerry/Kennedy. 2 has beens and 3 wannabes/never-will-bees. They really need some fresh faces, imo.

-CM

pooltchr
09-01-2004, 10:56 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr> so '08 will be two new (inexperienced) candidates. McCain will be 72, which is a little old, but a good possibility. Next on my short list would be Jeb. Either one would trounce Hillary, so assuming GW takes it in December, we should be safe for 8-12 more years.

When you look at the Dems, who do you see? Gore, Clinton (Bill and Hillary), and Kerry/Kennedy. 2 has beens and 3 wannabes/never-will-bees. They really need some fresh faces, imo.

-CM <hr /></blockquote>

I think there is another possibility for the republicans...Ms Rice! Just imagine the "Ultra Conservative" republicans nominating the first black female! How could the Dems counter that?????

Qtec
09-01-2004, 01:47 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3616354.stm

People are kidnapped everyday! Iraq is far from safe.The truth is Iraq is almost in a state of chaos.

Cosidering the two Russian planes that were bombed and the new situation involving 200 school children, also in Russia, it can hardly be claimed that the WOT is working or that the world is a safer place because of the invasion of Iraq.


[ QUOTE ]
Dems invented big government <hr /></blockquote>

You mean they spend too much money? /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Q

Also,

[ QUOTE ]
Kerry, at a late-night rally in Nashville, Tenn., belittled Bush’s shifting position on whether the war on terrorism was winnable. “We can, we must and we will win the war on terror,” he said.

The Massachusetts senator addresses the American Legion on Wednesday, a day after Bush in a speech to the same group backed away from an earlier suggestion — made in a television interview — that the war on terror could not be won.

“It’s a different type of war. We may never sit down at a peace table, but make no mistake about it, we are winning and we will win,” Bush told the legionnaires. Later, he told conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh he didn’t really mean to have said the war against terror could not be won. “I probably needed to be more articulate,” the president said. <font color="blue"> LOL </font color>

<hr /></blockquote>

highsea
09-01-2004, 02:18 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr>He volunteered to lead Swiftboats down the rivers of Vietnam. When he did this he didn't know what was ahead of him; whether he would survive this tour of duty. <hr /></blockquote>Kerry's first tour was on the Gridley in the Gulf of Tonkin. It was pretty far removed from action. After temporarily returning to San Francisco, Kerry was sent back to finish fulfilling his obligation as an officer. When he signed up for the Swift Boats, they were not doing river patrols, they were engaged in coastal patrols.

[ QUOTE ]
Kerry initially hoped to continue his service at a relatively safe distance from most fighting, securing an assignment as "swift boat" skipper. While the 50-foot swift boats cruised the Vietnamese coast a little closer to the action than the Gridley had come, they were still considered relatively safe.

"I didn't really want to get involved in the war," Kerry said in a little-noticed contribution to a book of Vietnam reminiscences published in 1986. "When I signed up for the swift boats, they had very little to do with the war. They were engaged in coastal patrolling and that's what I thought I was going to be doing."

But two weeks after he arrived in Vietnam, the swift boat mission changed -- and Kerry went from having one of the safest assignments in the escalating conflict to one of the most dangerous. Under the newly launched Operation SEALORD, swift boats were charged with patrolling the narrow waterways of the Mekong Delta to draw fire and smoke out the enemy. Cruising inlets and coves and canals, swift boats were especially vulnerable targets.<hr /></blockquote>

http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/061603.shtml

-CM

Ross
09-01-2004, 03:59 PM
Interesting, didn't know that. Still, he did see enough action to have a good picture of what was really going on in Vietnam which was my point to Steve.

eg8r
09-01-2004, 04:19 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Cosidering the two Russian planes that were bombed and the new situation involving 200 school children, also in Russia, it can hardly be claimed that the WOT is working or that the world is a safer place because of the invasion of Iraq. <hr /></blockquote> C'mon on Q, your kidding right. Because Saddam is no longer in control has nothing to do with what is happening in Russia. That would have happened regardless of Saddam. The world is safer because Saddam is removed from power, NO ONE said the world was safe, just a little safer.

[ QUOTE ]
You mean they spend too much money? <hr /></blockquote> That is only part. Heck, W spends too much money and you surely would not call him a Dem, would you?

That last sentence that you bolded in the bottom quote was probably written by someone else, there is no proof that W knows the meaning of "articulate". However it could be true. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

onepocketfanatic
09-02-2004, 12:08 PM
My version on this whole thing is that no matter which gets elected the middle class is going to take it in the shorts. I am in the middle, use common sense, and make my own decision. This decision is not affected by the hard right wing Rush L. loving idiots, nor is it pushed the other way by the bleeding liberals either.
I believe several things. The first is that one of the reasons that this country is doing so poorly is that the "republicans" are pushing through so much pork, and spending money like water, that is reminds me of the Regan days when a home loan was %14.With that said I do not think that things would be so grand with the democrats in control either. I believe much of the same would be going on.
What we need is for the president to be of the opposite party as those that control the House and Senate. Nothing really happens, no "really stupid" bills get passed (like all the pork projects). No one can agree on anything between executive branch and congress so ......nothing at all happens.
This is basically what happened in my opinion during the Clinton years. Didn't the guy veto over 340 bills? So what if the Monica blew Gabriels Horn a couple of times.....my investments trippled. Yes...yes...yes... I know the right will blame him for 9/11 and terror, the left will blame George W. and I think they both (W and Bill) had their head inserted so far up their arse they needed a stomach window to see where they were going.
MY hope is that if W wins, the dems will have a majority somewhere, and if K wins, the reps will have a majority.
One thing for sure if a politician was not rich when he (or she) was elected, he/she sure as hell will be before his/her term expires. For the most part I could care less which one wins, just as long as there is the opposite control in the house or senate to bring some "balance" back to the situation.
For the most part I would rather take a but whipping than do anything for a career politician.

Wally_in_Cincy
09-02-2004, 12:33 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote onepocketfanatic:</font><hr> ...reminds me of the Regan days when a home loan was %14....<hr /></blockquote>

That was the latter Carter years, just to set the record straight

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote onepocketfanatic:</font><hr> ...What we need is for the president to be of the opposite party as those that control the House and Senate. Nothing really happens, no "really stupid" bills get passed (like all the pork projects). No one can agree on anything between executive branch and congress so ......nothing at all happens....<hr /></blockquote>

I agree. Gridlock is good.