I still don't see how this book is any different from Moore's 9/11 which most of you think is the work of God.
from Snopes article listed above: John Kerry's service in Vietnam as an officer in command of a Swift boat and his subsequent activities as an anti-war protester have engendered a good deal of controversy, especially among those who also served in Vietnam. Many Vietnam veterans were angered by Kerry's anti-war stance after he returned to the U.S., viewing his anti-war activities — particularly his testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971 — as unfairly and undeservedly smearing the reputations of all who served in Vietnam. That said, the piece quoted above, in which a variety of veterans offer their views of John Kerry, isn't really something that can evaluated as "true" or "false." It's true that the men named do exist, that they served in Vietnam, and that they made the statements attributed to them, but the substance of most of these quotes is an expression of opinion, not something objectively classifiable as right or wrong. The important point to note here is that this piece presents only one side of the story: Although the men quoted above are often identified as "John Kerry's shipmates," only one of them, Steven Gardner, actually served under Lt. Kerry's command on a Swift boat. The other men who served under Kerry's command continue to speak positively of him: "In 1969, I was Sen. Kerry's gun mate atop of the Swift boat in Vietnam. And I just wanted to let everyone know that, contrary to all the rumors that you might hear from the other side, Sen. Kerry's blood is red, not blue. I know, I've seen it. "If it weren't for Sen. John Kerry, on the 28th of February 1969, the day he won the Silver Star . . . you and I would not be having this conversation. My name would be on a long, black wall in Washington, D.C. I saw this man save my life."3 — Fred Short "I can still see him now, standing in the doorway of the pilothouse, firing his M-16, shouting orders through the smoke and chaos . . . Even wounded, or confronting sights no man should ever have to see, he never lost his cool. I had to sit on my hands [after a firefight], I was shaking so hard . . . He went to every man on that boat and put his arm around them and asked them how they're doing. I've never had an officer do that before or since. That's the mettle of the man, John Kerry."3 — David Alston "What I saw back then [in Vietnam] was a guy with genuine caring and leadership ability who was aggressive when he had to be. What I see now is a guy who's not afraid to tackle tough issues. And he knows what the consequences are of putting people's kids in harm's way."2 — James Wasser Many of Kerry's Vietnam commanders and fellow officers also continue to speak positively of him: Navy records, fitness reports by Kerry's commanders and scores of interviews with Swift boat officers and crewmen depict a model officer who fought aggressively in river ambushes and won the respect of many of his crewmates and commanders, even as his doubts about the war grew. "I don't like what he said after the war," said Adrian Lonsdale, who commanded Kerry for three months in 1969. "But he was a good naval officer."2 "I don't know what conclusions you can draw about someone's ability to lead from their combat experience, but John's service was commendable," said James J. Galvin, a former Swift boat officer . . . "He played by the same rules we all did."1 How well all of these men knew John Kerry is questionable, and discrepancies between how some of them described Kerry thirty-five years ago and how they describe him today suggest that their opinions are largely based upon political differences rather than objective assessments of Kerry's military record. For example, Rear Admiral Roy Hoffman is quoted above, yet the Los Angeles Times reported: . . . Hoffman and Kerry had few direct dealings in Vietnam. A Los Angeles Times examination of Navy archives found that Hoffman praised Kerry's performance in cabled messages after several river skirmishes.1link but don't let the truth get in way of your smear campaign..
I think you overestimate how much credence most of us give to Moore's work. As I have stated many times before, I take everything Moore does with a grain of salt the size of a deer lick.
John Kerry initially supported the war because President Bush lied to him and the rest of the nation. Now that JFK knows the truth he has correctly changed his mind --- you might want to add that to your silly little picture camaro boy.
Other people voted "No." Why couldn't John? Seems it would carry more water in my book as his "conviction" and not a wishy-washy vote grabber. A man of strong convictions sticks by his beliefs. A turncoat flip-flops, and says, "I was lied to." Rule # 1 for anyone in leadership, or trying to be: Laying blame on others for your actions is not leadership material, step down. John "Lil' FLIP" Kerry is the same as "Flip Wilson" here trying to say "The Devil made me do it." Be a man. Just admit, "I changed my mind to gain votes." DOUBLE STANDARDS don't surprise me from Kerry or his support. You can "armchair" the presdident, yet cry "foul" and exclaim "expletives" when we try and point out truth about a "candidate." I'm just being a "patriot" according to Michael Moore. If I can't ask the questions, "Which is it, John? Can we trust you?" Then lock me up, self-serving, censoring, double-minded, Hypocrits. Shove that. Your owns words.... YOUR OWN CANDIDATE'S ACTIONS... used against you. Have a nice day wallering in the cess-pool you created.
Other famous flip floppers in history: Galileo around 1620s: Everything revolves around the earth. No, the earth revolves around the sun. The Church be dammed! Woops. Sorry. Verdict: FLIP FLOPPER. Pythagoras around 500 BC: The earth is flat. No, the earth must be round. Verdict: FLIP FLOPPER. Benjamin Franklin: 1754 - England is good. The American colonies should not unite. mid-1760s - Independence for American colonies. Verdict: FLIP FLOPPER. ----------------------------- In 1971 Kerry dennounced the Vietnam war because he HAD GONE and fought and THOUGHT it was the wrong for the US to act in this course of events. IN 2004 Kerry wants to contrast his military experience with Bush's INEXPERIENCE as a direct indicator of his ability as COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF. CONDITION: The American public was led to believe that Iraq posed an imminent threat with WMDs (treeman? where are you?), a madman out to tear apart the MiddleEast (he was merely a madman stuck in his own country) and it's ties to 9/11 and the evil terrorists. EFFECT: The American public had a strong majority to go to war against Iraq. Here, I'll make the connection clearer. The American public was for the war against Iraq because we trusted our President and his information sources, we trusted the administration when they went in front of the UN with the powerpoint diagrams, and since we've heard our Vice President and President mention Iraq and 9-11 so many times, well, my goodness, there must be a connection there right? THINK ABOUT OUR CHILDREN!!!! Hit that b*stard before he hits us, right? And of course, create a flowering democracy amongst a region with histories of thousands and thousands of years. (oh yeah, that was the part B of the case for war.) CONDITION: The WMDs have not been found - the Administration has admitted errors in its intelligence and have said that the WMDs may never be found (were they there?), the connection between the terrorists and Iraq before the war were not proven, although now, we see more terrorists coming into Iraq (GREAT job), and well, things are pretty crappy with the war budget looming. EFFECT: The American public is now at best ambivalent about the war with Iraq and definitly concern about the state of affairs there. There is no plan after "effective military operations", soliders are dying, civilian uprest is mounting, basic infrastructure is not there, world opinion, whatever's left of it, is dwindling, etc. The public is beginning to ask questions, hard questions, about what got us into the war and what is keeping us in Iraq. VERDICT for the American public: FLIP FLOPPER. As for Kerry: Wow, the man actually took time to reflect and think about the issue at hand, and make a new decision based on new information that he has. Wow. Ya know what? That is the most despicable thing I've ever heard!! Making a decision based on information. Our President, however does NOT do that. He does NOT change direction no matter the circumstances. That guy, he's the smart one. Stand firm, I say. Stand firm. God, I hate those flip floppers. What if it was the other way around? I'm so pissed that America flip flopped and went to war in WWI and WWII. We should have stuck to our guns and stayed isolationist. And dang, what was with the Civil Rights movement??? We gave in and said separate but equal was bad!!! We shoulda kept those southern boys happy and stuck to our guns! Hey, I called all you neo-cons MORONS. But now, wait, actually you guys aren't morons. You have a right to your opinions just as I do. That's right, I'm a flip flopper. God, I hate myself.
Thank you. The first person to actually "debate and discuss" in here in quite some time. Thank you for your honesty. Maybe by November 2nd there may be a few "flip-flop" votes from this kind of constructive response. I know I may me be like gasoline to the fire, but the other side need not reply with more matches to make me stop burning. Seriously, cur.ve, excellent response. Chain of command is something given to Presidents. Presidents are asked, "where did you get the information you based these decisions on?" President responds honestly. Still the point is this. ADMIT you switched your "convictions" to unite the left side of your party, John "Lil' Flip" Kerry, and explain this... Why did you just not vote "no" if you're so anti-war in the first place? "I voted yes because I was lied to" is about as the same as "the devil made me do it." If you have a responsibilty as a Senator to know what you're voting on, then ultimately the blame lies in the same place the President has the privilege of indicating it does... With intel. If the President has indicated, along with other world leaders, that the intel itself was bad, then why does Kerry say, "Bush lied?" He should just admit that he, too, was misinformed by intel, not Bush himself. Yes it applies accross the board. I believe Bush indicated where the info came from when questioned. Why is this so hard to get? Furthermore... John "Lil' Flip" Kerry fought in Vietnam, then came back before the nation and claimed we were committing "war crimes" in Vietnam, and also made claims that there was no real communist threat... He then toured around with known communist sympathizers and denounced his fellow soldiers, on up to the President, in news conferences and committee hearings. Now he wants us to call him a "patriot" and a "war hero," yet he used to denounce these things and call himself "a war criminal" for participating in "free fire zones"... "I changed my mind" in any of these cases indicate to me the IMMINENT POSSIBILTY that he could just "change his mind" at any time IF he were to become my president. Something I have the right to ask, "Can I trust you, John?" on by any stretch of the imagination. I will not vote in opposition of an incumbent war-time president for a candidate I have serious doubt about that has himself denounced (at one time, then recants) his own military service, and then says, "YES" then swiftly "NO" on the war we are IN at the timeframe he MAY become the COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF. Why is this so hard to get?
JFK stuck with the president and went against his party to show unity during a national crisis --- for this he was lied to by George W. Bush. I absolutely agree with you that a true leader should step up and say "The buck stops here" --- sadly Bush has done everything BUT that. Every little scandal that has plagued his battered administration he blames on someone else. Iraq possesses WMD's that could be used against the United States. Bush blames bad intelligence from a variety of agencies --- Bush turncoat flip-flops. Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa Bush blames bad intelligence from a variety of agencies --- Bush turncoat flip-flops. The U.S. would be welcomed as liberators by the Iraqi people. Bush blames the state department for the quagmire --- Bush turncoat flip-flops. The felony outing of CIA operative Valeria Plame. Bush turns the investigation over to his political appointees, John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzalez instead of simply forcing the criminal out --- Bush turncoat flip-flops. Bush stands in front of a mission Mission Accomplished banner and celebrates winning the war in Iraq. Bush blames the crew of the aircraft carrier for putting the banner up --- Bush turncoat flip-flops. Keep passing the buck republican camaro boy.
As soon as you learn what "context" means, you'll understand the difference. Do you even know the context of the IROC in my username? Oh, that's right... democrats must ASSUME first, and check facts later. Well, take the ME out of that old equation here, underoverup. I won't assume anything about your username either. I'll stick to the Kerry vs. Bush slam-fest. I've never owned a Camaro. Niether do I wish to, nor have I. But you got the basic "republican" assumption partially correct, as in this years' general election I'll probably choose that candidate.
