John Forbes Kerry Refuses to Release Military Records

Well put.

Except it isn't so funny

 

he typically doesn't know

 

When did the anti-military liberal establishment in this country consider military service a near-requirement for the presidency?
Only now because their nominee is a "war hero." But when it came to Clinton, the Democrats said that service did not matter. So which is it? Kerry came back from Vietnam and betrayed the very troops he fought with in front of Congress as he recited the lies of the anti-war leftist kooks who in were in bed with the Communists. Kerry's efforts did nothing to bring our troops home, but emboldened the enemy killing those same troops. I'm tired of this traitor being treated like some kind of courageous dissenter when he was nothing more than a political opportunist who saw a way to get in the national spotlight. The war was his ticket to greatness or so he thought.

link

link

 

Bill Clinton has left the building.

 

Now that was funny!

TJ throwing around terms like "Charlie" like the old "Nam" vet that he is.

LOL!!!

 

so let me get this straight

Kerry served in the military, volunteered for Nam, served honorably and bravely, was wonded, recieved many medals...all as an attempt to gain respectabilty and to use as a stepladder to greater political glory to push communist ideals and betray the very country he was risking his life for

and you have the balls to claim that liberals make up some outragous conspiracies

 

Honest question. I saw pictures of a protest online a while back and someone claiming that Kerry threw his purple heart over the white house fence in protest? I have no idea if this is true or not, or a made up lie. Anyone know?

 

Oh yeah. It had absolutely nothing to do with the war itself or what they went through while in the field, now did it?

 

Wonded? Huh? Anyway, he did not serve honorably. The sonuvabitch served four puny months over there before running away at the first possible opportunity. I didn't say Kerry was a Communist (even though his pro-socialist Democratic leanings are quite close), but that he was part of a group that was nothing more than a bunch of whacko 60's radicals used as willing dupes by our Communist enemies.

He used the anti-war movement (I should have clarified here) to get his name in circulation and start his rise up the ladder to power. Add to it his ability to marry rich women and you have a very crafty man working his way to become one of the powerbrokers. Is he honest? Nope. Is he honorable. No again. Can he be trusted to fight and win the war on terror? Give me a big hell no. Count on a surrender to the machinations of despots and morons in the UN as we hand over our ability to defend ourselves to an international community bent on our humbling. That's the facts on Kerry, a man who never met a way to spend the taxpayers money to buy votes he didn't like. A man who believed Ronald Reagan, like all liberals, was a bigger enemy of peace than the Communists. He is not the man I want in charge of my country and if our voters are dumb enough to vote in that sonuvabitch, we should get what we deserve.

 

Thanks for the info on both sides guys. This will be the first year I am old enough to vote in a presidential election so it is nice to hear all the facts on both side even if they seem not that important.

I know who I support in this election because he supports more of the issues that I believe in. I, however, still want to know about both sides. I don't want to end up someone who in 30 years who voted without checking to make sure the person they are voting for supports what they support.

 

Look on Snopes.com for the protest pictures... there are real ones and there are fake ones out there.

 

I believe that Kerry probably could have turned one of his purple hearts and elected to stay in Viet Nam if he'd wanted. Not doing so, however, in no way tarnishes what he did while over there. Kerry saved lives, was wounded, personally chased an enemy down and killed him. He was awarded several medals.

Unlike Bamma or TJ, the vets who served with Kerry have a genuine fondness for him, and vouch for his service. Remember that, unlike Bamma, these are vets who were with Kerry saw what he went through, and witnessed his actions under fire.

As for military service, being a near rquisite for the office of President, I don't believe that it is. It may be one part of a candidate's background to look at when deciding. Clinton had a moral obligation to serving, and he didn't serve. Bush did not claim a moral obligation to serve and he managed to join the air national guard knowing that it meant he would not be sent into combat. There still remains questions as to whether or not he even completed his guard duty. Kerry served honorably, was decorated for his bravery, and actions in combat. He then left the war, protested against what he witnessed, and heard told to him. Since then Kerry has gone out of his way to include veterans that he served with and other veterans in his campaigning and events. War service may be somewhat more of an issue this year since we are currently at war. It's up to the individual voter how much of an issue they want to make it.

 

Oh the beauty of the world through our rose coloured glasses.

Kerry served honourably and courageously. He took on a very dangerous mission, and excelled at it. He was certainly not as injured as others who were awarded the Purple Heart -- and may have hastened his trip home through the 'loophole' of being thrice wounded (some loophole!). But Bama, and the rest, should at least respect his service, even if they disagree with everything else about him.

Bush was trained as a fighter pilot. Again, more dangerous than many acknowledge, but he did do all within his influence to avoid active combat. Not unusual at the time. Not as dishonourable as some imply -- but certainly not to par with Kerry's service.

Clinton also did what he could to avoid combat. Originally through his attendance at school (on a Rhodes scholarship, no less), but later through whatever means he could. His moral objection to serving is bunk. Convenient phraseology. If you believe this was his only reason for not going to Vietnam, you believe him when he said he never inhaled weed as it was being passed around.

Many people didn't go to Vietnam. Especially those of privilege.
Through whatever means they could.

Whether it has any bearing on whether one will make a better president is another matter.

But i guess, at this point it's all just more monkey poo -- to be gathered, shaped and flung at random

 

I should clarify my statement. I should also point out that I did vote in both '92 and '96, and didn't vote for Clinton in either election.

I don't believe that his moral objection to Viet Nam was the only reason he didn't serve. But I do believe that he did have a moral objection to Viet Nam, and this is evidenced by his attendence of various anti-war rallies. I'm not equating Clinton's moral objection with concience objectors who could use that reason before the draft board as a means of not fulfilling their draft notices.

Clinton was dishonest about many things, that came character wise, is guilty of perjury etc.

I also know that many people enetered National Guard duty as a means of getting out of going to Viet Nam, and I find this to be middle of the road, as far as neither being particularly honorable or particularly cowardly.

What I do find to be somewhat of a problem is signing up for, and not fulfilling that guard duty. I have no problems with looking into that.

 

You know what they say about broken clocks...

T_J, you might actually be right about this, for the most part. Kerry is not my ideal choice, and I do sense an element of opportunism in him. I don't think it's clear that he himself uses his serviece in Nam for self-promotion, but it clearly has been used by his supporters. Unscrupulous applies to most politicians to some degree on another.


Having acknowledged all of that, let's look at the alternative. Bush is all of those things except for the using his Nam service...which would be hard as he doesn't have one to use. Replace 'Nam' with "Daddy' and/or '9-11' and you're spot on. He's also incredibly dim-witted for a national leader, willing to manipulate his populace with false information to propogate a war for his own reasons, and propote fear and divisiveness to further his own political agenda, while never once taking any responsibility for any of the increible gaffes during his Presidency. The Busk stops...with the Media...or the Left-Wingers...or those who hate America....or the bad intel boys...etc. etc. Anywhere but with Dubya.

So you may be somewhat right about Kerry in the above phrase, but at least he has something worthwhile to exploit, like an honourable record of sacrifice and riusk for his country, as opposed to fear and a death toll. So maybe you'll get why many of us are supporting Kerry over Bush; yeah he's in many ways a run of the mill candidate, but compared with Bush, that's pure gold.

 

i think we're in agreement then.

Not so sure i put as high a value on what George did, or didn't do 35 years ago...but as long as his camp wants to disparage Kerry's service, i suppose it's fair game.

And McB:

I think you'll find a degree of opportunism is all individuals who aspire to politics.

I do find it funny that this is an issue at all. I imagine Jorge is giggling himself silly seeing us get all frothed up about it.

 

John Forbes Kerry Refuses to Release Military Records

Translation: "You can do whatever you want to me Karl Rove, just PLEASE don't throw me in that briar patch"

Another non-scandal that blows up in the Republican's faces. Are they losing their touch?

 

Yes, you are implying that Bush volunteering to fly obsolete aircraft in Texas is somehow as courageous as volunteering for multiple tours in Vietnam, brushing aside safe, back line work for commanding a PT boat specifically tasked to go up river and f*** with the enemy, and being wounded in the course of that duty.

You appear to be the one slapping the face of servicemen everywhere.

And the truth appears to be that you have no way of winning an argument without twisting the meaning of and lying about statements made by people not in lock step with your puppetmasters.

I was actually referring to various reports that the Texas division that flew out of Ellington during that time period CALLED THEMSELVES THAT!!! How many influential and rich sons were in that division at that time?

I do not believe that my comparing and contrasting the particulars of military service for the two men running for President is a slap in the face to anyone, GWB excluded. You can attempt to twist words and meanings all you like, but it is transparent and very obviously a sad attempt to save some face for Bush.

I am specifically stating that the particulars of GWBs service during the Vietnam era show him to be far less noble than the particulars of Kerry's service show him to be. When they both had the choice, Kerry chose to go to 'Nam and Bush chose to stay in Texas.

What is disgusting is the ridiculous bile that you subject this BBS to.

REBUTTED

Not that rebutting you takes any brain power.