John Forbes Kerry Refuses to Release Military Records

One r in moron.

 

Glad folks with your opinion were not visible or persuasive WWII. Hitler, Tojo and Mussolini would have taken over if we'd have listened to the "dissent is American crowd." His treachery is assisting the enemy by killing our will to win by repeating the lies of communist propaganda. He lied in front of Congress and yet, you people give him a pass! Lord, what next for a liberal presidential candidate, he can rape someone and harrass other women and get away with just a shrug too? Oh....that's right. That already happened.

 

Here are some photos the Bushies refused to release for the longest time and tried to recall. Some shuttle photos mixed in there.

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/coffin_photos/dover/

 

... and, of course, the requisite "D" in idiot. We could go on but let's not.

 

Well, at least you admitted as much that shuttle pictures were mixed among the combat dead. You Bush-haters will do anything to gin up any sort of scandal just because you know your candidate is too worthless to win without one.

 

Actually, the pattern is that I call anyone who states an opinion that is obviously RNC spin and has nothing to do with reality.

When I see Dems throwing out crap that is obviously spin and untrue, you can bet I will hurl at them (so to speak).

Mostly because the Dems lately have been using (mostly) facts and provable evidence instead of spin, mistruths, and lies.

I know it may seem like I am slanted against the Reps lately, but you should have heard me rail against Clinton when he lied to my face AND, you should have heard me rail in support of the Prez after 9/11 and throughout the invasion of Afghanistan. I was ready to enlist myself, though now I am glad that my wife talked me out of it. I couldn't handle being in the middle of an unjust war 10,000 miles away from my new son.

 

There were some dissenters during WWII. But the difference is that WWII was a completely justified war. Viet Nam wasn't. Nobody in Viet Nam was like a Tojo, Mussolini, or Hitler.

What liberal candidate raped or harassed anyone? That's a serious charge to toss out there without offering any proof.

When Kerry spoke before congress none of the information he shared was known to be false. It was only later shown that some of the information wasn't correct.

The conservative Oliver North, however, did knowingly lie in front of congress. I hope that you are capable of seeing the difference.

 

Bill Clinton did. He raped Anita Broaderick, asked Paula Jones to just "kiss it," and groped Kathleen Wiley. What a track record!
It wasn't false, but wasn't correct either, you say. Huh? Well, what the hell what is it? Right in the middle?

And while we're on the pecadilloes of Democratic candidates, need I add Teddy Kennedy and Chappaquidick, where he left a woman to drown while pondering his political future on a beach? The last candidate with any integrity the Democrats have nominated in recent memory was Jimmy Carter and he was a bumbling moron who lost us Iran and gave away the Panama Canal.

 

Why isn't anyone protesting our actions in Afghanistan? Hmmm. Could be because the vast majority of Americans agree with the mission there and support it (at least in theory... perhaps there are differences over the way the Administration has prosecuted that war... like taking $700 million out to plan for Iraq, taking intelligence out for Iraq, taking forces pursuing Omar and Osama out so they can go to Iraq). Regardless of the differences over strategy, the cause is just and necessary. Iraq ia a different matter.

And for the love of all things holy, let's please have a moratorium on comparisons between Iraq and WWII.

Finally, do we really want to get in a tit-for-tat series of posts over whose politicians are the most ethically challenged?

 

I see the American justice system means nothing to you. Bill Clinton hasn't raped anyone, or even been arrested for rape. Bill Clinton has been found guilty of harassing nobody. Sorry those are the facts.

Ted Kennedy and Cappaquidick is another story.

As far as Jimmy Carter goes he fulfilled a treaty that the U.S. signed in regards to Panama Canal. He made America as good as its word. That was a good move. Iran wasn't brought to us by Carter, it was brought to us by years and years of trying to prop up the Shah.

 

you seriously need some major psychological help

do you just choose to ignore the hypocrisy of your views?

 

Why is that?

 

Carter abandoned the Shah and left out to dry a great American ally. He did not have to fufill that treaty, especially since now that a Chinese?! company that is part of their military runs the Canal now. Face it, liberals- you nominate reprobates. If you can't see that, you are as blind as Helen Keller and have the IQ of a salad bar. No one had the guts to take Bill Clinton to task for his serial abuse of women and that is a shame. Not even his wife, the smartest woman in the world , did.

 

The Shah might have been an ally to the U.S. but he was a corrupt dictator. I would never consider that a 'Great' ally to the U.S. We should have found a more democratic group to support in Iran long before and helped that group get rid of the Shah.

Carter didn't have to fulfill the treaty, but there is something called honor, and living up to your end of the bargain, that apparently Carter believed in. He showed that at least under his watch America would keep her word.

What proof do you have of Clinton's abuse of women that nobody else could have?

I think I'll take the American Justics system's word over the word of somebody who offers no proof to back his slanderous claims.

 

Because Kennedy left the girl to drown and ran away, when he could have done more to save her.

 

Stooping Low to Smear Kerry


By E. J. Dionne Jr.

Tuesday, April 27, 2004; Page A21


"Have you no sense of decency, sir?"

It was the classic question posed by Joseph Welch to Sen. Joseph McCarthy 50 years ago during the Red-hunter's hearings investigating the Army for alleged communist influence. With his query, Welch, the Army's special counsel, began the undoing of McCarthy.

Unfortunately, the question needs to be asked again. It needs to be posed to shamelessly partisan Republicans who can't stand the fact that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are facing off against a Democrat who fought and was wounded in Vietnam. Cheney said in 1989 that he didn't go to Vietnam because "I had other priorities in the '60s than military service." While Kerry risked his life, Bush got himself into the National Guard.

Funny, isn't it? When Bill Clinton was running against Republican war veterans in 1992 and 1996, the most important thing to GOP propagandists and politicians was that Clinton didn't fight in Vietnam. Now that Republican candidates who didn't fight in Vietnam face a Democrat who did -- and was awarded the Silver Star, the Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts while he was there -- the Republican machine wants to change the subject.

Thus the shameful display on the floor of the House of Representatives last week as one Republican after another declared that what mattered was not Kerry's service but that he decided afterward that the Vietnam War was a terrible mistake for our country.

The decorated combat veteran was transformed from a hero to "Hanoi John," in the phrase of Rep. Sam Johnson, a Texas Republican. Johnson deserves our gratitude for his seven years as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam. But his agenda last week had election-year politics stamped all over it. Johnson declared that in speaking out against the war, Kerry showed "his true colors, and they are not red, white and blue." Kerry, Johnson said, was engaged in "nothing short of aiding and abetting the enemy."

Rep. John Kline, a Minnesota Republican who served as a helicopter pilot in Vietnam, argued that Kerry's service "does not excuse his joining ranks with Jane Fonda and others in speaking ill of our troops or their service, then or now." Thanks for your service, Mr. Kline, but that "then or now" part is demagogic: Yes, Kerry criticized what our troops were asked to do in Vietnam. But have you ever heard Kerry speak ill of our men and women under arms in Iraq? The Republican agenda is obvious: to distract attention from the contrast of Kerry having served in a war theater while Bush and Cheney stayed home.

It seems to be a habit. When Bush faces a Vietnam War hero in an election, a Vietnam veteran perfectly happy to trash his opponent always turns up. In the case of Ted Sampley, the same guy who did Bush's dirty work in going after Sen. John McCain in the 2000 Republican primaries is doing the job against Kerry this year. Sampley dared compare McCain, who spent five years as a Vietnam POW, with "the Manchurian Candidate." Now, Sampley says that Kerry "is not truthful and is not worthy of the support of U.S. veterans. . . . To us, he is 'Hanoi John.' " Is that where Sam Johnson got his line?

One person who is outraged by the attacks on Kerry is McCain. When I reached the Arizona Republican, I found him deeply troubled over the reopening of wounds from the Vietnam era, "the most divisive time since our Civil War." He called Sampley "one of the most despicable characters I've ever met." McCain said he hoped that in the midst of a war in Iraq, politicians "will confront the challenges facing us now, including the conflict we're presently engaged in, rather than refighting the one we were engaged in more than 30 years ago."

McCain recalled that he had worked with Kerry on "POW/MIA issues and the normalization of relations with Vietnam" and wanted to stand up for his war comrade because "you have to do what's right." Speaking of Kerry, McCain said: "He's my friend. He'll continue to be my friend. I know his service was honorable. If that hurts me politically or with my party, that's a very small price to pay."

Now that McCain has spoken, will Bush have the guts to endorse or condemn the attacks on Kerry's service? Or will he just sit by silently, hoping the assaults do their work while he evades responsibility? Once more, Welsh's words call out for an answer: "Have you no sense of decency, sir?"

 

Jorge:

How old are you? Being outraged and all in the early 70's when Forbsy was demonstrating against an unpopular war. A war he actually fought in with valour, and hence earned the right to protest.

I always figured you were just an angry young man. Mid twenties? Perhaps i'm wrong.