Every Single Commanding Officer of Kerry Says He is UNFIT TO LEAD

For me it turns into:

Why did they say one thing then and something different now?

Every performance evaluation, review, and report on Kerry from the Vietnam era was glowing in its praise for his performance in combat. Those are the reports that tend to tell me how he was, not "reports" from years later from people who may or may not have served alongside Kerry.

The people who served directly alongside Kerry report that he was valorious, to the point of running into hot zones to retrieve fallen men and take out enemy combatants. Unfit to lead? I think not.

 

supermac;

You've made some pretty good and fair points. That said you should consider whether the GW Bush Admin should be held accountable for what has happened in office. Even though Kerry is not going to substantially change policy in Iraq this isn't a situation that he started. Also one of the main problems we face in Iraq is lack of major international support for our efforts their. IMO one reason for that is because there is a visceral level of hatred towards this Administration throughout the World that is making it difficult for other countries to support us. A change in leadership will likely lead to a rapproachment with the UN and some of our major allies.

Here you have to ask yourself can the people who ridiculed the UN now hope to gain the UN's support?

Also on the economic front while GW Bush has cut taxes his Admin and the Republican led Congress have shown no inclination to restrain spending or cut government. They have even supported Keynsian deficit spending policies while growing the Federal government. These days the Dems are the ones preaching fiscal responsibility and its likey a Dem president and Repub. Congress will end up cutting (or at least limiting) new spending because they wil block each other. With a president and congress dominated by the same party there is no such check.

 

Jorge, you and L. Brent Bozell's assault on Forbes Kerry has wrecked itself on the shoals of contemporaneous truth.

http://www.johnkerry.com/about/Fitness_Reports.pdf



Back to the drawing board for you, L. Brent, and Walker Bush.

 

Wow, so all those things written about his service at the time were wrong? And then he single handedly turned America against all Vietnam veterans? Well, at least you can say he's powerfully persuasive. Give me a break.

That was a very passionate essay by a life-long Republican who has hated Kerry from minute one. I sincerely believe the guy at face value: he does not want anyone but Bush to be president (even as Bush cuts military salaries).

_Jorge's analogy to football players' performance reviews is completely laughable, at best. Kerry's reviews spoke directly to his leadership and his abilities under extreme pressure. OJ Simpson was never given an evaluation as to his *coaching* abilities.

That analogy would be more accurate if Kerry's military reviews said "this soldier shows great markmanship, and he can cover territory quickly." But again, they spoke to leadership. Not one person can answer why so many commanding officers wrote complete lies (?) at the most relevant time of appraisal. Again, doubters should read these military documents. They are impressive.

 

Tell me, is Nixonite John O'Neill simply peeved because Forbes Kerry received a bronze and silver star, while he got two bronzes?

It's hard to believe that a Republican party insider like O'Neill would launch such a spurious attack on Kerry,with whom he did not directly serve, if he is in fact non-partisan, without such petty motivations.

Here's a young O'Neill along with senior dirty trickster and mentor Charles Colson and Papa Doc Nixon; his plot against Kerry is 30 years in the making:



For an unblemished Republican view of Kerry, I prefer that of Green Beret Jim Rassman:

Tell me jorge, are you calling Mr. Rassmann a liar?

How many veterans can you impugn in one thread?

 

Just check the sources:

"Leaders of America's conservative movement have long believed that within the national news media a strident liberal bias existed that influenced the public's understanding of critical issues. On October 1, 1987, a group of young determined conservatives set out to not only prove - through sound scientific research - that liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values, but also to neutralize its impact on the American political scene. What they launched that fall is the now acclaimed --- Media Research Center (MRC)."

from http://www.mrc.org/about/aboutwelcome.asp

CNSNews is derived from the above:

The Cybercast News Service was launched on June 16, 1998 as a news source for individuals, news organizations and broadcasters who put a higher premium on balance than spin and seek news that’s ignored or under-reported as a result of media bias by omission.

Study after study by the Media Research Center, the parent organization of CNSNews.com, clearly demonstrate a liberal bias in many news outlets – bias by commission and bias by omission – that results in a frequent double-standard in editorial decisions on what constitutes "news."

http://www.cnsnews.com/corporate/history.asp

I wonder why this "news" has this slant????

Bart.

 

Originally posted by Rocket Fan
cohen.. I'm just saying when the article comes up with a commanding officer not supporting kerry or something.. instead of talking about that.. it turns into BUSH didn't serve...

whether bush served or not has nothing to do with kerrys purple hearts etc.. or what his commanding officers said then.. now.. or whenever .. bush never said he fought in vietnam or had purple hearts so if someone posts something about his commanding officers not supporting him for president.. I think that can be discussed without having to discuss bush.. I don't think anyone is discussing who fought better in vietnam.. we know bush wasn't in vietnam.... just like if someone is criticizing bush's record as governor of texas.. that should be discussed the good and the bad.. instead of saying.. KERRY wasn't governor of texas at all!

You're correct, Kerry was never governor of Texas. So no comparison is available.

Both where draft-age during a war. How patriotic and selfless these draft-age men responded IS THE ONLY SALIENT ISSUE. We wouldn't be discussing what they did if we weren't comparing them ... trying to determine who's better and more deserving.

Now, as for the details, they deserve discussing; that's how we achieve our comparison. But since there is nothing concrete added by the 'opinions' of a group of ex-servicemen, there is nothing to discuss. It is admittedly interesting and provocative, but it proves nothing. We don't know what ulterior motives exist here. I won't just accept their 'displeasure' with Kerry as damning without them mentioning any 'real' basis. Would you?

 

Nuff Said...

 

Bush supports lower taxes for me. I made more money last year because of tax cuts.

He also favors lax taxes on corporations. I favor this as I think its the corporations that employ most of this country.

He has supported an economic policy that has caused a rebound in our economy. Corporate profits are up, unemployment is getting back to normal, and companies are starting to hire more.

I disagree with rolling back the tax cuts, which Kerry supports.

Believe it or not, the economic hardships of this country began before Bush took office and were compounded with 9/11. I actually think Bush has done a good job trying to rejuvenate the economy.

Many people lost jobs during the years that Bush was President, but those jobs had already begun to be lost before he took office. The bubble had already burst. Those jobs would have been lost if Gore, Bush or George Washington had been President. I think Bush has done a pretty good job of creating a business friendly environment to help get the economy back on its feet.

While I do worry about the short term affects of offshoring labor and services, I believe in the long run we will be better off. Besides, I read a report in the Wall Street Journal saying we've lost about 100,000 jobs a year to offshoring to foreign countries over the last few years, up from abotu 90,000 the few years before.

I'm torn on Iraq. We would be better off if we had not taken the responsibility, but I think the net gain over the years will be positive for doing it. Besides, Kerry and Bush are almost the same on their plans for Iraq. Kerry has stated we must see it through the end anyways. He has big plans for getting an international force in there, but I just don't think he could pull it off, even if he wanted to.

Plus Kerry looks like Lurch.

 

What is this thread about? Did the Republicans manage to come up with some Republican veterans who prefer Bush to Kerry?

 

Wow. With so much support from the Nixon cronies, and with all of the developing scandals such as the Plame outrage, perhaps we should just be honest with our middle names.

GEORGE NIXON BUSH

 

Yes, that is precisely what this thread is about. It is truly startling news.

 

Bush supports lower taxes for me. I made more money last year because of tax cuts.


No you didn't. Every dollar you got in tax cuts was borrowed from the American people. When you spend $500 on a credit card, you didn't suddenly make $500. You'll pay any money you "made" on tax cuts back by paying higher taxes in the future to cover the interest on the money the gov't borrowed to give you that tax cut.

 

Let's give a brief synopsis of the Trader_Jorge approach to attempting to tackle the sticky problem of Forbes Kerry's exemplary military service record in an attempt to distract from the lackluster draft-dodging, potentially AWOL antics of his boy Walker Bush.

1. Trader_Jorge and L. Brent Bozell clamor for the release of Forbes Kerry's military record, claimss that there is a potential cover up.

http://bbs.clutchcity.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=76473

Trader_Jorge and L. Brent Bozell do this with full knowledge of Kerry's exemplary military record and decorations, as well as knowledge of Walker Bush's "lost years" with the Air National Guard and failure to produce his own records, yet proceed with Operation: Briar Patch



2. A scant few hours later, the Forbes Kerry campaign releases his full military record, revealing an outstanding young officer praised for his "dynamic leadership" and bravery in combat.
http://www.johnkerry.com/about/military_records.html


3. Trader_Jorge, L. Brent Bozell and the Walker Bush forces attempt to recoup from the failure of Operation Briar Patch by questioning the severity of Kerry's war wounds.

http://bbs.clutchcity.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=76219&perpage=30&pagenumber=2

This tactic also fails with the release of Kerry's medical records
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=143-04232004




4. Now finally, desperate and out of options, Trader_Jorge, L Brent Bozell, now trumpet the antics of Nixonite dirty trickster John O'Neill, who singlehandedly demolishes the credibility of Kerry's former officers by duping them into recanting their former evaluations of Kerry as an "outstanding" "excellent" "dynamic" leader.

Be careful Jorge. You and Walker Bush are reaching maximum depth...

 

OK, let's just break down this part of it:

60% of US corporations don't pay any taxes at all, and 94% pay less than 5% (www.gao.gov) The rates for foreign corporations (many "US" corporations that are household names are incorporated in Bermuda these days, including such paragons of ethics as Tyco International, as well as Ingersoll-Rand, Accenture, Global Crossing, Nabors and others) are even more dramatic (73% don't pay any taxes at all).

This isn't the result of "lax taxes on corporations" favored by the President; most of this is the result of complicated tax shelters and other tax avoidance schemes.

Who makes up for the difference? You and I, of course, now and well into the future, thanks to our little deficit problem.

 

Bush's tax cuts are a tax deferment. Anyone who wants to take theirs now at the expense of the country's future is, in my mind, un-American.