« SoftVote Update Released. Download Now! | Main | IT'S THE ECONOMY, STUPID »

August 05, 2004

Swiftboat Veterans for Truth is doing for John Kerry what Farenheit 911 did for Bush

Swiftboat Veterans for Truth is a group of veterans depicted in the photo above that were not happy with the idea of John Kerry using a picture of them in his campaign.

It has been reported on some sites that they have hired a lawyer and demanded John Kerry cease and desist from using the photo above as part of his campaign and included legal threats.

Swiftvets.com has become incredibly popular and the media rankings for the website have been soaring on Alexa. Today the SwiftVets site is ranked by Alexa as the #5,143 most visited site. This is an alltime high for that website, and it is falling right behind GeorgeWBush.com at #5,002 and way behind JohnKerry.com at #1,902.

JohnKerry.com website's Alexa rankings have been soaring ever since his aggressive campaigning in the battleground states began.

Interesting Statistics:
Swiftvets.com today reached 3 out of every 1000 internet users.
GeorgeWBush.com today reached 3 out of every 1000 internet users
JohnKerry.com is leading in political web traffic with 5 out of every 1000 users

Please post comments on what you think about this issue.

Posted by Elouise at August 5, 2004 11:02 PM

Comments

This will totally result in a backlash against Bush, especially since John McCain even came out against it. I listened to other Republican spokespeople tonight on TV and they were also speaking against it and thought it needed to be investigated. I hope they do, because I know they will find Karl Rove behind it all and it is not going to be a good day for the Republicans when the truth comes out.

Posted by: Rebecca at August 5, 2004 11:27 PM

It is simply amazing that when F911 came out all we heard was 'they are trying to kill Free Speech'. Nevermind that 3/4's of the crock-u-mentary was based on innuendo and slight of hand. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, what is the first thing that the DNC did today? Called out the lawyers. These men served with Kerry, sure they may not have been in the same boat; however, investigate how these units were arranged. They know him and when Unfit for Command (#1 on Amazon in pre-release) comes out, it should be disastrous for the Kerry camp. No one shouted from the roof tops when the George Soros backed moveon.org was pulling its political punches in an attempt to buy the election, but now it is time for the pot to meet the kettle.

Posted by: Toni at August 6, 2004 05:26 AM

I would say that I normally disagree with this kind of politics, but I also think that with the way that the democrats and their supporters have been running such a dirty campaign they deserve this kind of treatment right back at them. I think this really got started when presidential candidate Al Gore decided to drop the bomb on George W. Bush (his people released information on George W. Bush's DUI just a week before the election). This was a sneaky, dirty, nasty trick and I'm glad as hell that they didn't get elected in the end because it was such filthy politics!

Now with all the propaganda from Michael Moore, moveon.org, the celebs, the news media, and I'd even go so far as to include Jay Leno, David Letterman, and all the other late night comics with the bunch, it has just been a filthy campaign by the democrats and all their supporters trying to oust George W. Bush from the White House (keep in mind I don't say that they want Kerry elected necessarily, I don't think anyone really wants that, they just want to get rid of George W. Bush). Excuse me for saying, but this has been by far the dirtiest presidential election by far compared to all that I've seen in the past, and things just keep heating up as the days pass. If you are careful enough to notice, a vast majority of the mud slinging has come from the democratic party (though they claim they are running a positive campaign).

No, this add is just the tip of the iceberg, believe me! From what I hear George W. Bush is still mad as hell at the Democrats for what they tried to do to him in the 2000 election, and based on his personality I am confident that he has lots of hot information to leak to the public just before the election.

Things to look forward to:

Weapons of Mass Destruction found and accounted for sometime in mid-October and Osama Bin Laden arrested in late October to early November.

There I have said it, I have made my prediction. And just you wait, all the democrats will fall in line like Howard Dean is right now in saying "Oh yeah, such interesting timing for this information to be released just before the election". Well they called the thunder in the 2000 election, so they will get what's coming to them! Don't you think if George W. Bush's DUI was such crucial information that it would be released sooner than a week before the election? But noooooo, they probably claim that they just received the tip the day before they released it.

I personally disagree with these tactics, but I'm still mad as hell that the democrats started it and I'm looking forward to George W. Bush ending it in November.

So for all you Democrats out there, please by all means keep running your mouths about the war in Afganistan and the war in Iraq. Keep asking us where the weapons of mass destruction are. Keep asking us where Osama Bin Laden is. We'll tell you in a few months.

Posted by: David at August 6, 2004 09:19 AM

On Sean Hannity's radio show, one of the SwiftBoat vets mentioned that their website was experiencing heavy loading due to denial of service attacks. So it probably isn't wise to take the raw number of hits as an indicator of favorable interest.

I'll wait to see if this is corroborated by survey results.

But as a Vietnam Vet opposed to Kerry, I'm glad to see this story getting some attention. I think Kerry's fourth months in Nam were less heroic than he claims, and are outweighed by what he did after returning stateside. I think his Winter Soldier testimony before the Senate, his leadership of VVAW, his affiliation with Michael Dukakis, and his voting record as a senator, provide a context which lends credibility to what the SwiftVets for Truth are saying about his military service.

Posted by: Charlie at August 6, 2004 09:33 AM

I think Kerry has a lot of chutzpah to base a campaign on a war he protested.

Posted by: Brian Hartman at August 6, 2004 10:55 AM

I find it funny that the Democrats are crying fowl....I am a democrat and am ashamed my party has turn into what it is today. They remind me of the bully that picks on the little kid on a daily basis, then when the kid has had enough and punches the bully in the mouth , he is the first one to run and say he hit me. I am also a Vet that thinks his behavior after his return is shamefull. Then to try and capitilize on his service record when it is Convenient to him is a disgrace. That to me shows his Character....NONE!
I can't in good conscience vote for this type of person. I would rather vote for him if he stood up for his convictions and stood by those convictions, and took the heat for doing so. But that is not what he does. I'm sorry Again, another character flaw. He voted to allow our President to go to war knowing full well what he was doing, then when the heat was on changed his tune. Another Character Flaw. Again i could not vote for that type person. I read how he wants to be like an ordinary guy that is just another one of working stiffs and he smiles as he peddles around on his $4000.00 dollar bicycle. I hate to inform him, I am an ordinary Joe and i sure as hell don't have a $4000.00 bike. I also eat at Wendys and don't have 5 star dinners made up for me instead.. I bet if you look at the financial worth of all the candidates you would probably be suprised to see George Bush is the poorest of them all. I can tell you this is one Democrat that is Voting for George Bush come November. I'll tell you why. Say what you want, but he hasn't swayed one ioda from his decisions and has taken the heat. Not once have i heard him sway from that path. To me that is a man that makes mistakes and lives with them. He is a man of convictions no matter who attacks him. That is why the French and rest don't like him. He can't be pushed around. Lets Face it we ARE the most powerfull Country in the World. We are finally acting like it. I truly hope John Kerry does not win, I don't want to be a third rate nation once again

Posted by: Larry at August 6, 2004 12:24 PM

When the Democrats do underhanded stuff they say This is America and we have protection by the first amendment, but when it's a Republican it's a dirty, vicious, underhanded thing and should not be brought up.

Nothing the Swift Boat Vets said was proven to be false or misleading. They stated they served with John Kerry not on his boat. Anybody with Military experience know's how that works. You can be in the same unit and not on the same boat, they stated that on many occasions they were on patrols with him, not more than 50 yards from his boat. That does not take into account the time spent around the base camp.

I am glad this has come to light and maybe if John Kerry, (the very John Kerry who chastised President Bush for not meeting with the NAACP and stated he would meet with any group regardless of whether he agrees with them or not) refused to meet with these vets and discuss the situation might not have this problem if he had just taken the meeting.

Posted by: Wayne at August 6, 2004 12:40 PM

As usual the Conservatives are missing the whole point. Regardless of what is being said about Kerry in Vietnam, he if fact did volunteer to fight to keep America safe. He didn't sit at a PC and complain about the Republicans. They want to strip this man of his Purple Hearts and his credibility. He is doing the same thing now as he did then when he got home. He wants to expose the injustices of a war that may never be won. What this Vietnam site has done is cause the Republicans to fight among themselves. It's dirty politics plain and simple. Give me a break. Try reading Kerry's war records on www.johnkerry.com it has acutal documents from his experiences in nam'

Take America Back! Vote Kerry/Edwards

Posted by: d. jones at August 6, 2004 01:37 PM

Even John McCain is saying that "Swift Vets" is underhanded and should not be listened to.

Posted by: Wayne Wilson at August 6, 2004 02:36 PM

I would simply like to remind folks like Wayne that "they" do not want to strip John Kerry of any of his medals. He did it himself. He took them off and put them on the steps of the capital.

Now before someone cries foul, I don't care whether it was ribbons or medals he put there. It makes no difference whether he tossed his bronze star or his Unit ribbons. The video (not the Swiftvets.com video, the old black and white video of the ex-soldiers making a pile of medals and ribbons on the steps) shows John Kerry putting whatever it was on the pile, just like the rest of the war protestors. He was a peace activist then, he's as close to a peace activist as a national politician today can be.

Bravo for the Swiftvets. If John Kerry can prove they're wrong, he will. If he can't, he's going to lose in states like Iowa, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Missouri. He'd better do more than just call out the attorneys. He had better have something to back it up with.

Posted by: John at August 6, 2004 03:46 PM

The demos are complaining about who's funding the Swiftie adds but never mention a word of the G. Soros funding of anti-Bush propaganda and the Michael Moore lies. It seems like demos prefer lies to the word of the Swifties who served honorably. This seems to be typical of modern-day democrats. If Kerry's four months of Military Service as a Junior Officer is the best he can offer as a qualification for the highest office in the free world, the democrat party is in deep trouble.

Posted by: James at August 6, 2004 07:14 PM

I think both of them (President Bush and Senetor Kerry) should lighten up on each other. One of the above comments was talking about how negative this campaign has gotten, and I totally agree. They both need to focus on the issues (which probably would be bad for Kerry since his issue seems to be how bad Bush is, and not what he can actually do).
As for swift vets, michael moore, moveon.org, unfortunatly they have as much right to state their opinion as we do. We all won't agree with everything, but that is the nature of the beast. I believe that all of these organizations (or just really big people in moore's case) have put out their case(s) of their own volition. To blame republicans/democrats for not controlling their members or playing dirty politics for the actions of some of its members is wrong (or at the very least inaccurate). Just remember the one right that we don't have in this country. The right to not be offended. If you don't like what is being said or written or discussed just ignore it. There are some many avenues to recieve information these days that you can also verify what you hear or read if you take the time.
Any way Go Michael Bednarik (the libertarian candidate for those of you interested).

Posted by: James at August 6, 2004 07:17 PM

This is one fight that anyone without military service should stay out. The only comment I have is, I feel that Kerry disrespected out armed forces when he came back. It seems to me that when you train someone to kill the enemy, things will happen that are not very pretty. I for one respect the armed forces for what they are. They are there to protect our country, our allies. Our commander and chief has access to information we don't. That gives him insight.
We need to remember, all of us armchair quarterbacks, we don't have security clearance. That means we can't say what he should or shouldn't do.

Kerry made himself a target by trying to be all things to all people.

Posted by: Chris, OH at August 6, 2004 09:19 PM

If Bush would've waited or not even declared war on Iraq, where would our country be today? The world is a much better place without Saddam--The Iraqis are much better without Saddam.

America is supposed to be all about freedom. We shouldn't be the only one's in the world to experience freedom!!! Whether republican or democrat, how can anyone say what Bush done was wrong???

I, however, think it did take a republican (Bush) to get the job done and the message across. Now if all the politicians would leave Bush alone and finish the job, we could bring our troops home quicker. Kerry flip-flops everything he says. One minute he says we shouldn't have gone at all and the next, he says "we can't just pull out of there." And we can't.

Whether Kerry really was awarded the purple hearts or not... what kind of person receives them and then doesn't want them because of what he done in Nam (what little time he was there). Everyone else was there a hell of a lot longer than him.

Do we really want a man leading our country that was opposed to what he was doing in the first place? What kind of strings did he pull to only do 4 months there anyway?

Yes, I am a republican, but I would vote for the person that would do the best job in the White House. Why can't anyone see that Bush is the better candidate and when he took office, he was given a crappy economy and is slowly turning it around. No one needs to vote strictly along party lines. Look at the better choice in anything you do.

Posted by: kim at August 7, 2004 12:47 AM

Kerry is a man of conviction, as shown BOTH by his courage volunteering for service in Vietnam, and his subsequent protest of the same war when he learned that he had been wrong. The men closest to Kerry in the war believed in him then, and they believe in him now.

Conviction is not evidenced by the person who won't change his mind, it is practiced by the person who will act on what he believes.

Those who claim that Americans shouldn't make use of their God given right to free speech to speak out against an ill-advised, unjust war are:

Not in support of our Troops
Not in support of American Values
Not in support of the Truth

Such talk is the talk of authoritarians who have nothing in common with Americans, and everything in common with the enemies of America, from Osama Bin Laden to Saddam Hussein. Supposedly "Irresponsible" speech is the excuse that every authoritarian uses to squelch opposing views. Russian Communists used the notion recklessly and the Chinese still use it artfully.

So, he believed that the war was so unjust that he needed to make a dramatic statement, and leave the purple hearts on the Capitol steps; maybe in the hope of saving young lives on both sides? Hardly an ignoble act. Misguided, if you disagree with his conclusions, at worst.

And ideologues begrudge him this act, because they simply disagree with him about whether the war was just or wise, and for no other reason, except perhaps, that they also disagree with him about what to do for American today. Period.

Posted by: Matt at August 7, 2004 02:46 AM

So it was OK to question President Bush's military service but now it's bad to question Kerry's? Mr. Bush has always been open about his service. And to you lefties out there, flying high performance aircraft is always dangerous. So skip the "easy service" baloney already.
Kerry originally volunteered for the Swift Boats because at the time they were a fairly safe place. Only later did were they obligated to perform more dangerous roles, on orders from Admiral Zumwalt.
At this point in our history, we need a man who has the power of his convictions. And that ain't a lying windsock like John Kerry.

Posted by: Jon Lewis at August 7, 2004 09:08 AM

I just heard the other night on Fox news, that Kerry is somewhat like Jane Fonda. When she turn her back on the America people. Americans, please wake up and hear God's callling. He is Trying to tell each and one of us to open our eyes see what this man (Kerry) is trying to do our country. You talk about mass destruction. You have not seen nothing yet. We will be under his and Teresa Hines Kerry control. We need to stand up and take our COUNTRY back.... Democrats, talk about Bush is the blame for us goning to war. We was already in war the day on 9/11/01 when they struck the TWINS TOWERS!!!!!!!!! We did not have a choice except go to war. It was goning be us or them. Which would you have chose?

Posted by: Lori at August 7, 2004 09:45 AM

Kerry is not fit mentally to be president

Posted by: Campaign Manager at August 7, 2004 12:44 PM

I entirely agree with Toni's idea, but I would venture that will it happen in reverse: in mid October they'll capture Osama Bin Laden plus a few key top men, and then Bin Laden et al. will give up the location of the sites ten days before the election, which gives Bush a few days to capitalize on the glory right before the election. Bravo, I say, Bravo!! Any Bush strategists out there?!?
As to the other opinions ventured, I believe that charecter and integrety are the qualities voters will look to for a leader. The president proposes, Congress disposes. John Kerry is still campaigning like a Senetor, the Agent For Change, wile Bush enlarges upon his leadership role as an actual Governer. Being a lieutenant Governer is still being subservient, and as much as I personally despise Bill Clinton's personal morals, doggone it, he was a leader. That was directly from being, as was so elegantly put, 'on the hot seat', but Clinton chose deceict and the rest that eventually got him an impeachment vote. That there, my friends, is the difference, and one that will be on the voters minds come November.

Posted by: Dave at August 7, 2004 01:18 PM

i think its interesting all john kerry talks about is vietnam when the abuse of pris came out i hear rumsfiled should be fired, but he didnt abuse anyone yet kerry who wont talk about his record in the senate at all admitted himself that he personally was an abuser now how do the dem want rumsfiled head who didnt do it but wanna vote for john kerry who did where the consistency and how come kerry isnt proud of all the votes in the senate he runs away from it

Posted by: thomas daniel at August 7, 2004 06:58 PM

"Even John McCain is saying that 'Swift Vets' is underhanded and should not be listened to."

LOL. McCain might as well switch parties and get it over with. He's a classic RINO.

Posted by: Charlie at August 7, 2004 11:23 PM

It's funny how the Democrats at their DNC have accused George Bush of taking us to war against Irag all by himself and by doing so, have convieniently forgotten that on January 23rd, 2003, John Kerry said "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a Brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime... He presents a particularly greivous threat because he is so consistanly prone to miscalculation... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his cosistant grasp for weapons of mass destruction... SO THE THREAT OF SADDAM HUSSEIN WITH WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTIN IS REAL." Flippity floppity, Flippity floppity. Sounds like a flat tire to me and how about Hillary Clinton's statement on October 10th, 2002. She says "In the four years since the inpectors left, Intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapon stock, his missle delivery capability, and his nuclear program. HE HAS ALSO GIVEN AID, COMFORT, AND SANCUARY TO TERRORISTS, INCLUDING AL QAETA MEMBERS. It is clear, however, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological warfar, and will keep trying to develope nuclear weapons." Flippity floppity, Flippity floppity. Sounds like another annoying flat tire to me! These are two of the most prominant morons in the Democrat party and two people who definitely ar not fit for the presidency. A truly fit nominee would be at least responsible to stick to their words and not run away from them!

Posted by: Ron at August 8, 2004 04:03 AM

The ad was totally misleading and anyone who has an inkling of intelligence should know that Medals are not just awarded to those who get family ties to help them avoid combat and also who desert during a time of war.
I’m sorry that would be the other guy. Instead I should be condemning Swift Vets for Truth for misleading people into thinking that a Junior Lieutenant couldn’t possibly be a good leader based on their obviously slanted views.

Maybe we should refresh people's knowledge of the ways certain Awards and Medals are issued since many seem to think they come from Bubblegum Machines?

Let’s start with the Purple Heart; any one can look up what the MOPH has posted on their website as criteria (http://www.purpleheart.org/Awd_of_PH.htm).

Key points:
1. The Purple Heart differs from all other decorations in that an individual is not "recommended" for the decoration; rather he or she is entitled to it upon meeting specific criteria.
2. A wound is defined as an injury to any part of the body from an outside force or agent sustained under one or more of the conditions listed above A physical lesion is not required, however, the wound for which the award is made must have required treatment by a medical officer and records of medical treatment for wounds or injuries received in action must have been made a matter of official record.
3. If adequate documentation is not available in the individual's service and/or health records, the individual may submit sworn affidavits from two eyewitnesses who have personal knowledge of the injury and the circumstances surrounding the incident in which the injury occurred.
4. Commanders must also take into consideration, the circumstances surrounding an injury, even if it appears to meet the criteria.
5. Examples of enemy-related injuries which clearly justify award of the Purple Heart are as follows:
a. Injury caused by enemy bullet, shrapnel, or other projectile created by enemy action.
b. Injury caused by enemy placed mine or trap.
c. Injury caused by enemy released chemical, biological or nuclear agent.
d. Injury caused by vehicle or aircraft accident resulting from enemy fire.
e. Concussion injuries caused as a result of enemy generated explosions.

Clearly even the bogus ad discredits itself when looking at this information. Medical Officer; LIED, Commanding Officer; LIED, One can only assume that everyone else attached to the video LIED as well.

But let’s look at the requirements for a Bronze Star… On second thought look them up yourself, I guess those in that group who have those Medals & Awards didn’t deserve them either, since they claim Kerry didn’t deserve his. Maybe they need to dust off a copy of SECNAVINST 1650 (AKA the Awards Manual)… Truthfully, it is a shame that as Veterans they can’t see beyond the petty BS, it is clear that most of the people in the ad never served under Kerry nor can they be believed to even have served with him. Here is a couple questions they should know the answers to; how many enlisted served on a PCF? What were their normal ratings? Look at the ad again and see how skewed it is. I say, once again, that anyone with half a brain can see this group has a dishonorable agenda and as a Veteran myself I think they should be ashamed of themselves.

Silver Star: "For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity in action..."

Bronze Star Medal: "For heroic achievement (or meritorious achievement) (or meritorious service) (or heroic service) in connection with combat operations against the enemy (or operations involving conflict with an opposing foreign force)..."

True honorable veterans know that a deserter as Commander In Chief is one of the worst possible reflections upon themselves. Oh yeah, if you can’t find a spare copy of the Awards Manual you can get one here: http://neds.nebt.daps.mil/Directives/1650/1650.htm

Posted by: X at August 8, 2004 05:00 AM

Thank you, d. jones, for ilustrating a few key points. Kerry was protesting a war that HE felt could never be won. The injustices HE perceived in a war [yet, what war is not?]. I have no problem with Kerry laying his purple hearts at the steps of the Capitol. However, standing in front of CONGRESS in a nationwide spotlight and lie about the extant of the horrors being done by his comrades-in-arms, for crying out loud, that is betrayal on the same order of a married man spreading nasty rumors and talking about alleged affairs of their spouse on Jerry Springer without his wife there to answer the charges, and on national television, to the highest legislative body in the nation! Thius is betrayal, and the 'fighting' you perceive is actually a unified voice of disgust. No one has brought polictical demogougery into this until you have, and to do so does not contribute to the real purpose of this forum, which is to discuss the candidates, not their party or politial leanings. I ask this of you and anyone; this is about John Kerry and the swiftvets. This is about George Bush and farenheit 911. LET'S KEEP IT THAT WAY. Please?

Posted by: Dave at August 8, 2004 12:40 PM

I'm glad the Swift Boat Veterans are finally standing up for what they belive....the only reason Democrats are upset because they know the truth and in the end this will hurt Kerry's chance at the Presidency...I am not sure if Kerry should be soley judged on his military duty, but it will be a factor come election day. Everyone needs to research and find out about Kerry's voting record.....he voted against more money to the military, but in his acceptance speech at the convention he said he would give the military more funds....there has been numerous issues that he stays on both side of the fence...DON'T take any one persons word, find out for yourself.....the resources are available online......God Bless America!!

Posted by: Jo at August 8, 2004 02:03 PM

While much has been written about the identity and history of John E. O'Neill -- one of the authors of the forthcoming Regnery book Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry (whose links in the GOP go back to his days as "protégé of Nixon-era dirty trickster Charles Colson") -- little has been said about his co-author, Jerome R. Corsi, PhD.

-- Corsi on Islam: "a worthless, dangerous Satanic religion"

--Corsi on Catholicism: "Boy buggering in both Islam and Catholicism is okay with the Pope as long as it isn't reported by the liberal press"

--Corsi on Muslims: "RAGHEADS are Boy-Bumpers as clearly as they are Women-Haters -- it all goes together"

--Corsi on "John F*ing Commie Kerry": "After he married TerRAHsa, didn't John Kerry begin practicing Judiasm? He also has paternal grandparents that were Jewish. What religion is John Kerry?"

--Corsi on Senator "FAT HOG" Clinton: "Anybody ask why HELLary couldn't keep BJ Bill satisfied? Not lesbo or anything, is she?"

Unfit for Command has received wide media coverage recently, in part because of hype on The Drudge Report and the website Human Events Online, which is offering a sample chapter via e-mail, and in part as a result of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth's new attack ad on Kerry's service in Vietnam. The book has skyrocketed to the top of the Amazon.com "Top Sellers" list, as of August 6.

Corsi received his PhD in political science from Harvard University in 1972; his dissertation was titled Prior Restraint, Prior Punishment, and Political Dissent; a Moral and Legal Evaluation. Previously, he co-authored a report on the 1967 riots in Cleveland, titled "Shoot-out in Cleveland: Black Militants and the Police," published in 1968 by the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence.

In addition to Unfit for Command, Corsi has written books on a variety of subjects, and is currently the vice president of development and senior editor of U.S. Financial Marketing Group. Recently, he has been contributing articles to the website wintersoldier.com on the subject of Senator John Kerry's record as an anti-war activist following his service in the Vietnam War.

In this series of articles, Corsi has accused Kerry of "violating the legal provision against negotiating with foreign powers (18 U.S.C. 953) and the constitutional prohibition against giving support to our nation's enemies during wartime (Article III, Section 3)"; asserted that Kerry's actions as an anti-war activist amounted to treason; and claimed that "Kerry and the VVAW consistently coordinated their efforts with Communists." Corsi asserted that, in 1971, Kerry's anti-war activism amounted to a proclamation by him that "Communists were right in maintaining that American values were corrupt and that the only solution was for America to capitulate so Communism could continue to spread." As Media Matters for America has noted, Kerry was quoted expressing exactly the opposite sentiment in a December 12, 1971, Boston Globe article: "I don't like Communists," Kerry said. "In fact, I hate them. I hate all totalitarians. I'm totally dedicated to representative, pluralistic, free democracy."

On August 6, Salon.com's Joe Conason documented links between Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and the conservative online forum www.FreeRepublic.com. Conason noted that the designer of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth website is Robert A. Hahn, a director of the Free Republic Network, a conservative activist organization affiliated with FreeRepublic.com. Scott Swett, who is listed as the webmaster of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth website, swiftvets.com, also appeared on FOX News Channel host Sean Hannity's August 5 radio show to discuss the group. Swett posts frequently to FreeRepublic.com, using the pseudonym "Interesting Times," and is also a director of the Free Republic Network. The wintersoldier.com website to which Swett has contributed articles is a project of the Free Republic Network.

Corsi is also a frequent participant in FreeRepublic.com's online forums, posting under the pseudonym "jrlc" since 2001. (Click here to read a full set of Corsi's posts; click here to read the post in which "jrlc" admits to being Jerome Corsi.)

On FreeRepublic.com, Corsi has, among other things, said that "ragheads" are "boy buggers"; referred to "John F*ing Kerry"; called Senator Hillary Clinton a "Fat Hog"; referred to her daughter as "Chubby Chelsie" Clinton; referred to Janet Reno as "Janet Rhino"; called Katie Couric "Little Katie Communist"; suggested Kerry was "practicing Judaism"; and expressed the wish that a small plane that had crashed into a building in Los Angeles had instead crashed into the set of NBC'S The West Wing, thereby killing actor Martin Sheen.

Following are some examples. [Spelling and punctuation are Corsi's own.]

On Catholics and the Pope

CORSI: Maybe while he's there he can tell the UN what he's going to do about the sexual crimes committed by "priests" in his "Church" during his tenure. Or, maybe that's the connection -- boy buggering in both Islam and Catholicism is okay with the Pope as long as it isn't reported by the liberal press. (03/03/2003)

CORSI: So this is what the last days of the Catholic Church are going to look like. Buggering boys undermines the moral base and the laywers rip the gold off the Vatican altars. We may get one more Pope, when this senile one dies, but that's probably about it. (12/16/2002)

On Islam and Arabs

CORSI: Let's see exactly why it isn't the case that Islam is a worthless, dangerous Satanic religion? Where's the proof to the contrary? (04/24/2004)

CORSI: Islam is like a virus -- it affects the mind -- maybe even better as an analogy -- it is a cancer that destroys the body it infects... No doctor would hesitate to eliminate cancer cells from the body. (11/26/02)

CORSI: Islam is a peaceful religion as long as the women are beaten, the boys buggered, and the infidels killed. (11/22/2002)

CORSI: How's this as an analogy -- the Koran is simply the "software" for producing deviant cancer cell political behavior and violence in human beings. (02/15/2002)

CORSI: Think the liberal press will ever let out that these 2 were lovers -- typical Islamic boy-buggering -- older man, younger man -- black Muslims? I doubt it. Not a pretty picture, but one certain to be hidden by PC media. (11/08/2002)

CORSI: Isn't the Democratic Party the official SODOMIZER PROTECTION ASSOCIATION of AMERICA -- oh, I forgot, it was just an accident that Clintoon's first act in office was to promote "gays in the military." RAGHEADS are Boy-Bumpers as clearly as they are Women-Haters -- it all goes together. (11/18/2001)

On Senator John Kerry

CORSI: First let's undermine the US in Vietnam. Then we can go for gay marriage. When you get to be Pres. JFK-lite, there will be no end to how much of America we can destroy. (05/17/2004)

CORSI: Just don't let anybody put a tablet with the Ten Commandments in front of the school where that girl wants to wear a Muslim scarf -- OH, No --- then the RATS would complain. Anti-Christian, Anti-American -- just like their Presidential Candidate -- Jean Francois Kerrie. (03/31/2004)

CORSI: After he married TerRAHsa, didn't John Kerry begin practicing Judiasm? He also has paternal gradparents that were Jewish. What religion is John Kerry? (03/04/2004)

CORSI: Kerry has a long history of Communist supporters. (03/12/2004)

CORSI: Kerry offers a clear choice. Anti-American hatred. (02/08/2004)

CORSI: John F*ing Commie Kerry and Commie Ted [Kennedy] discuss their plan to hand America over to our nation's enemies. (02/04/2004)

On former President Bill Clinton

CORSI: When is this guy going to admit he's simply an anti-American communist? Won't he and his leftist wife simply go away???? Enough already. (02/24/2002)

CORSI: Hey, Bill, didn't you steal enough when you had the chance? (02/15/2002)

CORSI: Clinton doesn't get it. Afganistan, and other Moslim countries, are not poor because they lack money. The culture itself is anti-modern. But then, maybe Slick did get it and he just wants to create another bork barrel from which he and his wife can draw slop. (02/15/2002)

CORSI: Clinton was more interested in gays in the military than going after OBL. Clinton had Janet Rhino pushing the FBI to deport a child to Castro's nondemocratic Cuba, not searching out OBL sleepers in the USA. Clinton was too busy getting BJs in the Oval Office to do more than Wag the Dog after the Cole was hit. (05/16/2002)

On Senator Hillary Clinton

CORSI: HELL-ary loves the Arabs so much (kiss, kiss Mrs. Arab*RAT) -- wonder how she would look in a Burkha? (05/21/2002)

CORSI: Mullah Ali'Gore-ah is very proud of his new Bin Laden beard and he hopes others in the Democratic Party will follow his lead. Hell-ary is disappointed she cannot grow a beard, but her press secretary reminds us she can still enroll in flight school. (01/07/02)

CORSI: Let the FAT HOG run!!! [regarding a possible presidential bid] (08/30/2003)

CORSI: Hellary should resign and go away. What ever happened to the people she ran over with her car at Westchester Airport? Can't anybody sue this b*tch? (11/17/2002)

CORSI: Anybody ask why HELLary couldn't keep BJ Bill satisfied? Not lesbo or anything, is she? (06/08/2003)

On Chelsea Clinton

CORSI: According to Talk Magazine, Chubby Chelsea had a very great adventure on 9/11 in NYC and Hell-ary had the details wrong -- oh, it was terrible. (12/07/2001)

CORSI: Did the Journalist see Chubbie Chelsea among the wives. Little Katie Communist [Katie Couric] on the NBC Today show interviewed Hillary this morning and mom is worried sick about Chelsea. She was last seen in Kandahar at a Starbucks. But now, as Little Katie Communist sighed, "Who Knows?" Even British disinformation planted reports such as this grocery crap will be useful. Anyone with information about Chubbie Chelsea's whereabouts should post it now. Mom wants to know her daughter is out of harms way. Mom also wants to be at the center of the story. (11/29/2001)

CORSI: But the real question is: WHERE IS CHUBBIE CHELSEA? Is she in Kabul in danger, looking for a Starbucks? Waldo wants to know. Please, Little Katie Communist, HELP US FIND CHELSEA. THE SITUATION MAY BE URGENT. (11/29/2001)

CORSI: HILLARY SAYS CHELSEA IS MISSING AND JANET RHINO DOESN'T KNOW WHERE SHE IS? (11/28/2001)

On former Vice President Al Gore

CORSI: Gore isn't available for television. He is growing his regulation length Bin Laden beard. Mullah Ali'Gore-ah, as he now wishes to be called, is focused on his new career as a pilot. "Want to fly like bird," he says after his stint as a professor at Columbia. "No need to learn take-off or landing, just soar like bird and look at buildings." As to Florida, Mulllah Gore-ah says, "No big buildings," dismissing the importance of the state to his future plans." (12/15/2001)

Posted by: Becky - A Registered Republican at August 8, 2004 05:40 PM

The arguments made by the liberals is truely getting to be pathetic. The funny part of all this is that throughout all the media coverage I've seen, everyone is spouting off about Bush not condemning the ads, blah, blah, blah.
Kerry has brought this all on himself. HE chose to use his "hero" status as a political tool. People have got to realize a few things here. Bush didn't put anyone up to the ads. How would you feel if you spent an ammount of time in combat, watched friends die, maybe gotten injured yourself and been awarded a medal, all to have someone else only spend 4 months in combat and recieve the same medals for very minor and possibly fraudulent injuries? Don't you think these guys have been ticked off at John Kerry for quite some time and felt for whatever reason that since Kerry has used his vet status in a Presidential election that maybe the public would need to know the truth?
If you have never served then you may never understand, but if these allegations are true(and I believe them to be)the John Kerry is one of the most vile men to try to take the highest office of the United States, and I cannot imagine anyone in their right mind feeling safe as a member of the military if Kerry is elected.

And as a side note to d. jones, if I want to know about Kerrys war records, why on earth would I go to johnkerry.com ?!? What, like he's going to have anything other that glowing reviews of himself? If that web site has been your only source of information, I can see where you get your views and I pity you.

God Bless The USA and God Bless Bush

Posted by: Chad B at August 9, 2004 12:20 AM

I have gone to the swiftboatvets website and I looked at John Kerry's fitreps. My husband has been in the Navy for 14 years and has seen many fitreps.
It appears that the fitreps he released are at best. In 1,the Commanding Officer has 3 men to evaluate and rank and doesn't see any of them to be fit for the #1 slot!! Also, the majority of these fitreps are non-observed which means he had not been around long enough to be watched and ranked.
He also didn't even rank as early promote (or back then accelerated promote) when he was only ranked against himself as an aide to a rear admiral!!
Now on to other things-it doesn't matter what kind of officer he was. He did go over there. It seems for personal reasons.He wanted to go into public office. Is that the sole purpose of Vietnam for him? I believe so since he only served 4 months. His big downfall is the way he acted AFTER coming home. He was a traitor to his Country. He talked out against the military and desecrated the names of those who have fought and died for this country!! He threw his medals away (well, someone's medals that he claimed at the time were his) Why run on the fact that he even received them? They meant nothing to him.
People can put their own names in to receive medals. It is not looked upon with dignity but if someone REALLY wants out of somewhere-they can make it happen. Maybe he was given the Purple Hearts when he requested them to get him out of there because he was not fit to serve in a combat environment.
There are Vets, who on Memorial Day, put their old uniforms on and proudly pin their medals on. They remember how and who they served with. They are proud to have served this Country. They don't throw the medals away in "protest" and disregard their service until it deems profittable to them.
It is hard to see a man want to be President who totally went against the men (and now women) who he wants to lead. He wants to be their commander-in-chief!! How can they serve honorably and proudly for someone who despises what they do? We already had military-haters in the White House-for 8 years!!!! Please don't do that to the armed forces again!
This is an important election. We need to let Bush finish his job with the war on terror!! He is doing a great job with it! It is a slow and steady fight but we are making progress. We need to stay the course and we will succeed!

Posted by: Teresa G at August 9, 2004 12:35 AM

If you don't look hard...you can find bad things on Kerry AND Bush I am sure...

The parts that get me though...are so many of the things Kerry is usuing to prove he is fit to be Commander and Chief are very misleading to the average public...he has had two sides to everything from the beggining of his service to the US Government...from his service in the way...to his views on healthcare, abortion, economics....he views change with the political wind, as far as I can tell Bush stays with his same thoughts...his same goals...he actually backs up his own policies...with action.

Over 2,400,000 people have watched this video about Kerry on iraq....watch it...listen to the comments from others...

http://www.kerryoniraq.com/

Watch that...then read vets against kerry...then swiftboats against kerry....then do your own research on his voting record...even in his acceptance speach...he said no one would send troops to war...then not support them...yet Kerry didn't support them.

He is catholic...and things life begins at conception...yet votes for partial birth abortion

He says he believes in the values of families...yet voted to give out the 'morning after pill' to teens with out parental consent

He says he is for new fuel ideas...yets votes for higher fuel taxes and against ethanol??

He says he is the average american...yet he can't actually state if he owns his SUV or if his 'family' does....he is the average joe...yet votes against tax relief bills -- that give money BACK to the average family.

He makes fun of the 'no child left behind act' yet my daughters school was just awarded the 'school of excellance' award...because they have a 97% passing grade due to the 'no child left behind act'

He says he wants America to be a strong country again (?? like we are not?) and he wants us to be independant to be able to make our own decisions...yet he wants us to use the UN to make our decisions...he wants us to rely on allies more...he wants us to unite more with other countries and be more united in voting policies about iraq....

If someone attacks the US again....who takes care of it...the US of A...if someone was to bomb Australia or Brittian or anyone really.....WHO WOULD they come to for force of strength....the US of A

Go visit http://www.kerryoniraq.com/ and then tell me you want this man running this country....our troops...and our economics....

I dare you

Vote Bush...if you have any idea what is actually going on in the world today...and you want a leader who isn't afraid to voice his opinion and stand BY THAT SAME OPINION...you can't flip flop when the whole country is at stake...

Shanna

Posted by: GreenEyes at August 9, 2004 01:11 AM

Okay, Becky(8-8-04, 5:04 p.m.), so Corsi is an ignorant, inflammatory, bigoted and insensitive idiot. So what has that to do with the Swiftvets? In documenting their story, and recounting Kerry's attacks on his comerades-in-arms, nonfiction in its very essence eschews personal opinion or ignorance. Corsi is (or should be, at any rate) well aware that this the Swiftvets story, and the Swiftvets, to a person, would have to approve its contents before publication, or withdraw the book. He has his own forum to act like a jackass. I appreciate the comprehensive detailing of Corsi's comments, they are enlightening to his personal convictions, but that does not discredit the Swiftvets story out of hand. Read the book before you say whether it is credible or not, and to paraphrase an old adage, 'never judge a book by its authors'.

Posted by: Dave at August 9, 2004 01:20 AM

I find it interesting that, none of President Bush's fellow Serviceman in that very Questionable time period of His so called
call to Duty have surfaced. This is Important to Voting for Relection.
patrickgannon...Viet-Nam 68' 69'.

Posted by: patrickgannon at August 9, 2004 11:10 AM

This will be my last comment on this site -- it makes me not only ill, but profoundly sad, how your absolute blind loyalty to GWB will allow you to believe the ugly lies of the swiftvets , produced through bitterness from a war fought over 30 years ago – a war where the Secretary of Defense, Robert S. McNamara himself came out years later and said we were wrong to go to war (and has recently spoken out against the war in Iraq – I watched him speak about this on C-Span.)

My brother graduated from West Point; served two terms in Vietnam; fought in the jungles and saw much horror while serving, with great honor, his country; retired as a Full Colonel, and today, believes 100% in Kerry’s honor and truthfulness. I have learned much from my brother on how it was during that war, and anyone who thinks they can capture the essence of what happened during that war in a few sound bits, or a book filled with hate for a man who they feel betrayed them because he spoke the truth, I feel nothing but a profound sense of sadness for you all.

And when I am told by a Bush supporter that I should not judge a book by it's aurthors, the very authors who are are trying to tell me the "truth," and I find through much research that these authors are liers; then I know I am in troubled waters and must get out of here.

I have gone done much reading on the issues at stake, I have gone to the source and read in detail the many polices both candidates are running on, and how each candidate has conducted themselves while serving their country – as soldiers and as elected officials, and my vote is unequivocally for John F. Kerry!!!!

Posted by: Becky - A Registered Republican at August 9, 2004 03:23 PM

I have a real problem with Mr. Kerry trying to keep these swift boat vets from using the 1st amemdment, Freedom of speach. The desparate attempts to sue media and use threatening tactics to keep them from getting their message out. The democrats use the media in any manner they choose, simply by throwing issues, whether true or not, against the wall to see what sticks and then running with the popular ideas. I want to make my own dicisions and do not want to be spoon fed what the media thinks I should know! Censorship is usually fought against, unless it hurts their party. Kerry could just clear this whole topic up if he would just release his service records, all of them. Kerry has something to hide and this is just one of the many reasons he is not fit to be President! I do not want another four years or possibally eight of I didn't inhale and I never had sex with that woman. This story needs to get out and let the voting public make the decision whom is the better candidate.

The Presidency is far to important a held office to be given to someone primarily due to the fact that the current President is not well liked. I like him because he is getting the job done, not just holding summits to talk about what should be done.

Posted by: Steve at August 9, 2004 06:10 PM

Steve,
In your haste to blame Kerry for whatever, you state that he is trying to sensor the book. No where have I seen where this is true. Yes, there are MANY people who are uncovering the lies of the authors, who are making public statments -- including John McCain -- against the untruths and ugliness of the book -- but Kerry, himslef, is not actively seeking to do anything about this book but ignore it. He has had these people go after him since he first spoke out to the congress in 1971. They have never been able to prove anything they claim, but instead have always been countered with the truth -- yet they still try each time someone from the extreme right wring of the Republican party decides they need to play dirty politics. So, once again, we will let the attacks hit the walls and will once again see that nothing sticks but the scum and sickening smears left by the SwiftVets lies.

Posted by: harriet at August 9, 2004 10:42 PM

Hey Steve,

The problem with Clinton is not that he didn't inhale. It is that he didn't exhale. Tee Hee!

Posted by: Ron Crafton at August 10, 2004 01:01 AM

Becky, we are sad as well to see you go, because you believe so strongly about Kerry and his ideas. That is what this forum is about, to explore all viewpoints and have fun exploring them. No one bears personal malice to another in expressing their opinions, and that is all they are- opinions. I have noticed, and with no criticism, that you tend to respond by telling those who oppose your viewpoint are wrong, rather than why you are right. So enlighten us further. Tell us why Kerry is the man for the job. We all get frustrated when we feel we aren't being heard, as you may feel now. But you are being heard. What's more, you owe it to Kerry. Of anyone, you have stated his case most elequently on this forum, and we marvel at it. Really. And agree or disagree,we benefit from all points of view and learn from them. In the end, it's like what I heard, I believe, Robin Williams when he said some twenty years ago, "The difference between Democrats and Republicans is the difference between Syphillis and Ghonorrea-- either is just a common infection of the body politic".
I am a supporter of Bush only in principle. I am an avowed Libertarian, and while we should crush those who attacked us, and it is our right and obligation to in defense of our country in response to an act of declared war, I do not agree with a policy of "perpetual war for perpetual peace". I understand Kerry's position and opposition to Vietnam. We all do, because thirty-five years later, we all realize Kerry was right to oppose what he felt was wrong. We all have that right. It is a basic tenet of our freedom. But why would he exaggerate, if not outright lie about the extant of the wartime atrocities being committed by his own comerades-in-arms? Forget Coursi. Forget politics. Even forget the Swiftboat vets and their book and website. Just tell me why Kerry would misrepresent the facts- and the facts were, yes, there was killing of civilians. There was raping of teenage girls. Whole villages were burned, and men, women and children were shot in cold blood. No war is free of such atrocities. But it was rare, and few got away with it. Kerry probably felt by painting a more gruesome picture, the outrage would help end the war sooner. That was flawed thinking, for two reasons: one, war does not work like that. And two, the means- lying and deceit- did not justify the ends, even if he were successful, and his motives sincere. It didn't justify Watergate, it didn't justify Iran-Contra, and it didn't justify MonicaGate (I never had sex with that...that woman). So please tell us why Kerry can be justified in what he did, when it turned honest fighting soldiers, your brother included, into molester, rapists and murderers, without cooberating evidence and with the accused not having the opportunity to defend themselves or being able to answer Kerry's charges in an equal forum before Congress. That is the focus of this whole forum, and despite the hundreds of contributions, no one has answered that question.
Not even Kerry himself.
So, c'mon, Becky, let's lighten up and continue the debate! We want you to speak your mind. We await your next posting. With open arms.

Posted by: Dave at August 10, 2004 02:47 AM

TO: Dave at August 8, 2004 12:40 PM

Since when did you become web master? I know enough about this swiftvets site not to even bother to read it, and on the other hand, I have never seen 911. I don't have to, I have lived through that horror. In addition, my Mom worked at Lowrey's Air Force Base in Denver, CO during nam' I was a kid, and saw everything from American Soldiers with their mouth half shot off, to some American's gone mentally insane. Let me ask you a qustion. Does the Iraq prison scandle and court martials ring a bell? Wars have laws, and when those laws are broken, court martials are held, and some people with character will testify to the truth of any crime here or abroad. You need to learn the difference between betrayal and the ability to follows policy. You can start with those of the Geneva Convention as related to wars.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards Take America Back!

Posted by: d. jones at August 10, 2004 03:09 AM

P.S. If you are smart, you will do as I am about to do. Search the web and learn what incentives are being paid to the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth participants for coming out with this site so close to election time. I know 911 made millions for Moore, and I know some money is floating around somewhere for this Swiftboat Veterans for Truth. For heavans sake, they weren't even on the same boat!

Vote: Kerry/Edwards Take America Back!

Posted by: d. jones at August 10, 2004 03:16 AM

There are so many things that bother me about Kerry's character. One that stands out is that he threw away his medals as a sign of protest. When he became senator, a reporter noticed that he had his medals showcased on a wall. When asked how he got his medals back, Kerry said that the medals he threw away were somebody else's. Isn't this reminiscent of "I voted for it before I voted against it." This tells me that his anti-war stance was not authentic. This is Kerry having his cake and eating it too. The political winds then was anti-war. His entry into politics was based on his Senate testimony where he slandered the fighting men and women in Vietnam. The man has no conscience.

I feel for the souls of the American men and women who perished during the Vietnam war. Your sacrifice is being desecrated by an egotistical maniac who will do anything to become president.

If Kerry wins, I pray to God that I am wrong about him, for the sake of my young children.

Posted by: Carlos Encarnacion at August 10, 2004 04:35 AM

Did Kerry do anything after Vietnam? Why is he not talking about his record in the senate? I'm tired of hearing about four month of his life and ignoring the last 20 years. Thats where the issue is. He is not good for the U.S.

Posted by: Vietnam ed at August 10, 2004 12:09 PM

For all of you who claim the SwiftVets are liars, please, I beg of you show me some proof! I am more inclined to believe a Retired Navy Captain, and a Retired Admiral, (both highly decorated by the way) before I would believe a war protester who sat in on meetings that discussed assasinating United States Senators.

Show me your proof. I bet you are the same ones who fail to see that Michal Moore cut and edited his F911 movie to show things his way. Heck I could make Ghandi look like satan doing the same thing.

Oh yeah "X" John Kerry's commander told him to get out of his office when he came in with a scratch and he also refused to put him in for a Purple Heart and has no idea how he got it, since his scratch was from a wound recieved by firing a gernade launcher too close and getting hit by schrapnell. To be honest, If I had been on the boat when he did that we would not be having this conversation today. He endangered everyones lives in that instance. Everyone on the boat at the time said they received no hostile fire at all. This was not Kerry's crew, he had not been given one by that time.

He enlisted in the Navy to get Swift boats because they were usually far from the action. He did this only because he got his draft notice and tried to get a 1 year extension so he could go to Paris and study. When that was turned down he enlisted so he would at least have a possible say as to where he might go. I see no honor in doing that.

Posted by: Wayne at August 10, 2004 02:19 PM

Once again, why would Kerry lie, forgive me, exaggerate? No one disputes the horrors of Vietnam. The trouble with war is it does not always follow protocol. The North Vietnamese weren't always paragons of virtue, and no matter what side you were fighting for, those who commit those violations obviously don't give a rip about the Geneva convention, and that includes those in Iraq. Were there court-martials in Vietnam? You bet your southern exposure. Kerry insinuated, even by exaggerating, that protocol was not being followed to a greater degree than it actually was, and the court-martials and discipline were not being followed. The Swiftvets and every soldier who served are right to be mad as hell to be misrepresented in such a manner. The unfounded charge that they are getting paid off [and I quote:"If you are smart, you will do as I am about to do. Search the web and learn what incentives are being paid to the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth participants for coming out with this site so close to election time. I know 911 made millions for Moore, and I know some money is floating around somewhere for this Swiftboat Veterans for Truth"]. That is an exact echo of Kerry, and right out of his playbook.
Enough of this nonesense. I will not be lured into a verbal tennis match, and as for being webmaster, this is a free forum and it disturbed me that someone would withdraw from this free, open and constructive debate. Let us continue, and allow Becky, for whom my respect has grown profound, speak for herself.
Becky, I wish to personally apologize to you and to everyone reading this for this foolishness. I will confine future comments to about something else besides the swiftvets and Vietnam. And d. jones, let us agree to disagree, and leave it at that.

Posted by: Dave at August 10, 2004 03:14 PM

Hey Harriet,

There are way too many issues wrong with Kerry's own statements which are found to be lies. Kerry has nine guys standing beside him and 224 standing against him. Harriet, your guy Kerry is not fit to be president in so many was, and I do not respond in haste. Kerry seems to blow with the wind in what he believes. I have always believed if you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything.

Harriet, you Dem's can dis*** out...

Posted by: Steve at August 10, 2004 03:56 PM

Kerry is a war veteran. He should be proud. However, based on his political record will he have the fortitude to protect America from terrorists.

Vote Bush, Whatever his faults he gives 100% to protect Americans. He took a political risk by invading Iraq. He knew the next election would be on the line. What a breath of fresh air after 8 years of Clinton to have a President who will take a stand based on his convictions and not motivated by the polls. So Kerry is a war hero, that's great, but what about the Senate. Where were his votes. Tnink about it

Posted by: Queens,NY at August 10, 2004 04:55 PM

Kerry is a war veteran. He should be proud. However, based on his political record will he have the fortitude to protect America from terrorists.

Vote Bush, Whatever his faults he gives 100% to protect Americans. He took a political risk by invading Iraq. He knew the next election would be on the line. What a breath of fresh air after 8 years of Clinton to have a President who will take a stand based on his convictions and not motivated by the polls. So Kerry is a war hero, that's great, but what about the Senate. Where were his votes. Think about it

Posted by: Queens,NY at August 10, 2004 04:55 PM

Dave: It works for me.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards

Posted by: d. jones at August 10, 2004 07:10 PM

HERES THE BOTTOM LINE HERE:

YOU CAN'T GET MEDALS UNLESS IT GOES THROUGH A REVIEW BOARD. THE PEOPLE IN CHANGE OF RATING KERRY'S PERFORMANCE BACK THEN OBVIOUSLY DIN"T THINK HE HAD DONE ANYTHING WRONG. THESE PEOPLE WE'RENT ON JOHN KERRY'S SWIFTBOATS HE COMMANDED.

IF YOU QUESTIONING JOHN KERRY'S MEDALS, THEN YOUR QUESTIONING EVERYONE'S MEDALS... AND THATS NOT SMART.
THIS WILLL BEACKFIRE, CAUSE ITS A DIRTY TRICK AND OBVIOUSLY HAS NO CREDIBILITY AND IS COMPLETELY POLITICALLY MOTIVATED.
IF IT WASN'T POLITICALLY MOTIVATED, THEY"D HAVE CLAIMED THIS 30 YEARS AGO.

and whats the deal with compaigning this to f-9/11? Um NO! F-9/11 actually is factual, and it may be cut together in a way to force the point home, it is not innacurate. His facts are solid and the clips of Bush should be enough to show you who Bush really is. Don't strike down moore's movie jkust cause your pissed that the president is an arrogant A**-h***, who considers the wealthist americans "his base".
The media attacked the movie, and said it was full of lies, but if yo0u check it out yourself, (go to Michaelmoore.com and read his notes and sources), you'll see that the media is actually lying.. gee I wonder why? OH YUEAH, ITS CAUSE THEY'RE PISSED THAT THEY GOT DISSED BY HIS MOVIE; CAUSE THEY DIDN'T SHOW US THE TRUTH.

Lets get a better america built back up again, we were going in the right direction until Bush came and screwed our economy up, got us attacked, and got us into Iraq. Lets get someone into office that actually cares about us, and not just money and power.

Kerry's got the best plan I've seen. It will work, because it will bring back our intellectualism, our technology, and we can contribute to the world, and grow our economy, by being inventive, and smart again. Thats what got us this far. and it can get us off of middeast oil, and give us a new product to seel the the world to grow our economy. Stop listening to the media machines, and read JohnKerry.com
Lets make our future better, and take the country OUT of the hands of the big corporations. Its OUR country.

I'm voting for Kerry this November 2nd.

Posted by: Peace + Love at August 10, 2004 09:52 PM

Since the primary season began and Vietnam became an issue I have wondered where the anti-Kerry swiftboaters were - better late than never. This country neds George W. Bush for 4 more years. I have a dream - after Bush's re-election I want to e-mail Kerry with two words "MISSON ACCOMPLISHED"

Posted by: Arly S. at August 11, 2004 12:36 AM

This is America. People have the right to stand up for what they believe. In the words of Dr. Martin Luther King “A man who won't die for something is not fit to live.” Kerry put his wealthy American life on the line for our country. He also had the American right to contest the injustices of the war based on his experiences by the peaceful protest of his choice. Just as we all have the American right to freely comment on this site. We are not a barbaric people, out for blood! We are in fact a very intelligent Country, very defensive of our way of life, our rights and our freedoms. When someone as the current Bush Administration tests our intelligence, when we are attacked on our own soil, then we will promptly and very forcefully respond. The fight no longer becomes Democratic or Republican it becomes American.

Vote Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at August 11, 2004 01:34 AM

I have been following the swiftvets since their little noticed press conference in May. Mr. Kerry has brought this on himself. He has chosen to make his Vietnam service the central theme of his campaign and in doing so has made the mistake of under estimating and ,in my view, insulting americans (especially veterans) in the sense that most people would not be interested enough to pay attention. Mr Kerry you are wrong.....this is not a senatorial race and you can fool the people of you state but not the whole nation.

Posted by: Jack Ball at August 11, 2004 07:38 AM

The Swiftboat vets have now had their say and now it is up to the voters to determine whether or not there is anything to it. I only hope that they and and the media give it the same attention and investigate to the same level to which they investigated the claims against Bush's national guard service.

I feel no pity at all for Sen. Kerry in this regard for two reasons. First, he chose to make Vietnam service the central tenet of his campaign and this invites close examination of his record. In fact it is the only qualification he has put forth of his ability to lead. One would think to watch that he walked straight off the battlefield covered in glory, took a shower and walked to the podium in Boston, skipping the entire 35 year period in between. Secondly he has done nothing to restrain the unadulterated filth emerging from "527" organizations dedicated to his cause. He is bullying TV stations who air the Swiftboat ads, but doing nothing to stop George Soros and his goons from morphing Bush into Hitler. The Bush campaign has quickly repudiated the Swiftboat ad and Kerry must unequivically repudiate MoveOn.org as well. Or he will simply invite more of the same.

Posted by: Michael P. Borgia at August 11, 2004 02:56 PM

Deserter!

Talk about hipocricy since taking office George W. has relished his so called version of the role of Commander in Chief.

His military record is disastrous. While he supported the Vietnam War, his family influence got him into the Texas Air National Guard, which, short of World War III breaking out, guaranteed that he would never see military action. Even in this safest of positions, Lieutenant Bush broke under the strain and went AWOL in Alabama for the better part of a year--canvassing for the Republican Party.

In contrast, George W. Bush's Administration calls up contemporary national Guardsmen for front-line action in Iraq, and extends their terms in a form of backdoor conscription. As the military budget soars, the war is being fought with a dangerously inadequate number of troops. Those troops who do eventually return in one piece find their veterans' medical benefits and facilities axed. Drawing on the President's STILL MYSTERIOUS MILITARY CAREEER, while the Republican Conservative Movement in this country is now trying to smear John Kerry and his service to our country Mr. Bush is guilty of breathtaking hypocrisy, cynical doublethink and egregious neglect of the actual defense of the United States.

Keep one thing in mind John Kerry went to war! He did not hide in the National Guard! To bad Nixon did not send the National Guard to Vietnam like W is sending them to IRAQ! Than again since he went AWOL he would not have served anyway!

Posted by: Louis (Canton, Ohio) at August 11, 2004 03:23 PM

Arly S., I think you missed the point. If all Kerry did was go to Vietnam and then come back and peacefully protest, I don't think there would be a problem. What he did according to the Swiftvets was come back and lie to Congress and as recently as 1986 repeated those lies on the Senate floor. This is not new; the main Swiftvet that wrote the book, John O'Neill was in a debate with Kerry on "The Dick Cavett Show" some 30 years ago challenging Kerry's war crimes claims. He comletely refuted him then and you are going to find Kerry having a hard time answering this one. Just watch, no records produced, no official statements from him, it will be just his spin machine personally attacking the Swiftvets.

Posted by: Ed at August 11, 2004 03:25 PM

February 1968:
Bush takes an Air
Force officers test.
SCORES 25th
percentile in the pilot
aptitude portion.
Declares that he does
not wish to serve
overseas.

May 27, 1968:
Bush enlists in Texas Air National Guard. Aided by Texas House Speaker Ben Barnes, he jumps over waiting list. He pledges two years of active duty and four years of reserve duty. June 9,

1968:
Bush's student deferment expires.
Bush on why the Air National Guard took him:
"They could sense I would be one of the great pilots of all time."
Houston Chronicle, August 1988

September 1968:
After basic training, Bush pulls inactive duty to act as gopher on Florida Senator Edward J. Gurney's campaign.
November 1968:
After Gurney wins, Bush is reactivated and transferred to Georgia.

November 1969:
Bush is flown to the White House by President Nixon for a date with daughter Tricia.
December 1969:
Bush transfers to Houston and moves into Chateaux Dijon complex. Laura lives there too, but they don't meet till later.

March 1970:
Bush gets his wings.

June 1970:
Joins the Guard's
"Champagne Unit," where
he flies with sons of Texas' elite.

November 3, 1970:
George Bush Sr. loses Senate election to Lloyd Bentsen, whose son is also in the "Champagne Unit."

November 7, 1970:
Promoted to first lieutenant. Rejected by University of Texas School of Law.

January 1971:
The Guard begins testing for drugs during physicals.

Spring 1971:
Hired by Texas agricultural importer, Bush uses F-102 to shuttle tropical plants from Florida.

May 26, 1972:
Transfers to Alabama Guard unit so he can work on Senator William Blount's reelection campaign. According to his commanding officer, Bush never shows up for duty while in Alabama, nor can anyone confirm he ever serves in the Guard again.

August 1972:
Bush is grounded for missing a mandatory physical.

November 1972:
Bush returns to Houston, but never reports for Guard duty.

Bush on commitment:
"I, George W. Bush, upon the successful completion of pilot training, plan to return to my unit and fulfill my obligation."
Air National Guard pledge, 1968

Bush on lessons learned:
"I learned some good lessons from Vietnam. First, there must be a clear mission. Secondly, the politics ought to stay out of fighting a war. There was too much politics during the Vietnam War."
Associated Press, March 2002

WHAT A FRICKING HIPOCRIT!

The RNC and the swift boat add has the nerve to question and smear Kerry? At least Kerry served and because Kerry laid his medals down because of the politics of Vietnam (The same thing W spoke of in March of 2002) Bush said he learned a lesson from Vietnam? John Kerry learned the hard way while being shot at defending his country not deserting it!

As John McCain noted, the television ad aired by these veterans is 'dishonest and dishonorable.' Sen. McCain called on President Bush to condemn the ad. Regrettably, the president has ignored Sen. McCain."

Bush: "I've been to war. I've raised twins. If I had a choice, I'd rather go to war."

As a candidate, you promised to "be a uniter, not a divider" ... "restore honor and integrity to the White House" ... and "change the tone in Washington."

What a JOKE!

Posted by: Louis (Canton, Ohio) at August 11, 2004 04:03 PM

FACTS ABOUT OL GEORGEY BOY!

The George W. Bush Military Record
by Jesse Brown
Former Secretary of Veterans Affairs
George W. Bush did not fulfill the military obligations that he committed himself to as a 21 year old in 1968. This happened because he quit flying in 1972 as a 25 year old with over 2 years of flying commitment still required.

The public should know that there have been misstatements and exaggerations on the part of Governor Bush and his staff to attempt to cover-up this lack of fulfillment of a commitment. The public has a right to know what really happened when meeting a military obligation when one seeks the Office of President of The United States.

(does this sound familiar?)
BUSH IS NOW ATTACKING KERRY THAT ALSO SERVED IN VIETNAM? HIS LAST TWO OPPONENTS SERVED AND HE WAS AWOL!

Al Gore volunteered and served in Vietnam meeting his obligation during the war. George W. Bush chose instead to join the Texas Air National Guard as a pilot but did not fulfill that obligation.

People may well forgive Governor Bush for what he did or did not do "in his youth." People are much less likely to be so forgiving if he is caught not telling the truth and covering up today. The press has an obligation to ask the candidate for a full explanation of his activities back then.

George W. Bush, in his official website information resume lists biographical facts which includes the following:

"Pilot, Texas Air National Guard, 1968-73"

George W. Bush, in his official biography to the National Governor's Association states:

"He was an F-102 fighter pilot in the Texas Air National Guard from 1968-1973"

This is not true! George W. Bush, on August 1, 1972, was suspended from flying status through verbal orders. Further, Major General Francis F. Greenlief confirmed this suspension in a letter of September 19, 1972. Lieutenant George W. Bush last flew an airplane for the United States Air National Guard in April of 1972.

He has in the past and continues to refuse to release his military records to allow the public to judge the circumstances surrounding his suspension. He further continues to cover-up the situation by representing to his fellow Governors and to the public at-large that he was a fighter pilot during 1973, when indeed he was suspended from flying a year before.

There are several other recent instances by Governor Bush and his staff of not telling the truth about his service to his country in the Air National Guard.

Examples include:

I. In his 1999 Autobiography, Governor Bush stated that after becoming a pilot "I flew for several years." This statement is an exaggeration. Bush flew as a pilot from November 1970 to April 1972, 17 months which does not classify as several years. In fact Bush's flying commitment was for 4 years (1970-1974) which would classify as "several years." However he chose not to accomplish his physical in 1972 and was suspended from flying by his supervisors.

II. Governor Bush stated in May 2000 that he was not able to accomplish his physical in 1972 because he was in Alabama and his doctor was in Houston. This is not true on three counts. First, Lt. Bush was not able to use his own physician for his physical. A pilot needs to accomplish his physical with a military physician. Second, being in Alabama was not a problem since there was no scarcity of flight surgeons in Montgomery, given the existence of two separate flying units in Alabama's capital - an Air Force Reserve airlift unit at Maxwell AFB, and an Air National Guard reconnaissance unit at Dannally Field. Indeed from May 1972 to September 1972 Bush was in Alabama so he certainly had time to accomplish his physical. And third, Bush returned to Houston in November and could have accomplished his physical at Ellington Air Force Base.

III. Governor Bush declared that he would have continued flying but they phased out his airplane, the F-102.

This is not true! The F-102 continued in service at Ellington Air Force Base until September 1974, after the time that Bush would have completed his full 6 year commitment. In fact, a second plane, the F-101, did not displace the F-102, but was added to the inventory of his unit. This allowed the unit to establish a second Combat Crew Training School to train F-101 air crews alongside F-102 crews.

Indeed his unit actually was placed in an alert status in 1972, meaning that more pilots were needed as of November 1972 just at the time Governor Bush should have taken his physical.

IV. On May 22, 2000, Bush campaign aide Mindy Tucker asserted that Governor Bush "fulfilled all of his requirements in the Guard. If he missed any drills, he made them up later on."

This response is geared to cover-up the fact that Bush never completed his pilot commitments. He claims he attended some non-flying drills (which are not reflected in his official military records) but these drills were not with his assigned unit and were not in conjunction with his pilot status. Indeed his official annual evaluation states "Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of this report" May 1, 1972 to April 30, 1973.

Posted by: Louis (Canton, Ohio) at August 11, 2004 04:39 PM

Governor Bush stresses trustworthiness and truthfulness in his campaign. Lieutenant Bush assumed public trust in his military career during wartime. The public deserves an explanation about his actions, both then and now.

Right now, hundreds of American soldiers are dying and being wounded in a war that was sold to Americans on a shifting desert sand of lies. Most of the men who are responsible for sending our brave young men off to die were themselves cowards (Chickenhawks) who supported the Vietnam War, but sent other young men to die in their places.

The top two Chickenhawks, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, had different excuses to explain the yellow streaks down their backs. Dick Cheney said he was too busy to go to Vietnam. George W. Bush said he was too busy patrolling the skies of Texas.

In memory of the young men in Vietnam who died in combat so that George and Dick could save their hides.

Here are the young men from Midland, Texas, (Bush's hometown) who died in Vietnam in place of George W. Bush, as he stayed in Texas afraid to go to war:

(1) LASTNAME: CUTBIRTH FIRSTNAME: KENDELL DWAYNE IDNO: 1912851 SVC: M COMP: R RANK: SSG GRADE: E6 MOS: 0369 AGE: 23 HOME: MIDLAND ST: TX CASDATE: 19670225 CAS1: A1 CAS2: G CAS3: 7 BODY: --- CTRY: VS PROV: 01 LSVC: 06 BIRDATE: 19430429 RACE: C REL: PN MAR: M SEX: M CIT: 1 TOURD: ------ PANL: 15E LINE: 089 REFNO: 2287 PDATE: 6702

(2) LASTNAME: DYER FIRSTNAME: IRBY III IDNO: 458709452 SVC: A COMP: R RANK: SGT GRADE: E5 MOS: 91B40 AGE: 23 HOME: MIDLAND ST: TX CASDATE: 19661202 CAS1: A3 CAS2: B CAS3: 6 BODY: BNR CTRY: LA PROV: LZ LSVC: ** BIRDATE: 19430612 RACE: C REL: 99 MAR: M SEX: M CIT: 1 TOURD: 661202 PANL: 13E LINE: 004 REFNO: 133 PDATE: 6701

(3) LASTNAME: GUERRERO FIRSTNAME: ANDREW CASTRO IDNO: 449984505 SVC: A COMP: R RANK: CPL PP: + GRADE: E3 MOS: 11B10 AGE: 19 HOME: MIDLAND ST: TX CASDATE: 19701217 CAS1: A1 CAS2: D CAS3: 7 BODY: --- CTRY: VS PROV: 02 LSVC: ** BIRDATE: 19510516 RACE: C REL: RC MAR: S SEX: M CIT: 1 TOURD: 700619 PANL: 06W LINE: 127 REFNO: 28717 PDATE: 7012

(4) LASTNAME: HALL FIRSTNAME: BRUCE IDNO: 18742754 SVC: A COMP: R RANK: SP4 GRADE: E4 MOS: 11B2P AGE: 19 HOME: MIDLAND ST: TX CASDATE: 19671227 CAS1: A1 CAS2: D CAS3: 7 BODY: --- CTRY: VS PROV: 09 LSVC: 02 BIRDATE: 19480516 RACE: C REL: BO MAR: S SEX: M CIT: 1 TOURD: 671003 PANL: 32E LINE: 072 REFNO: 9539 PDATE: 6712

(5) LASTNAME: HODGES FIRSTNAME: RUFUS WELDON IDNO: 54388226 SVC: A COMP: R RANK: SP4 GRADE: E4 MOS: 67V20 AGE: 21 HOME: MIDLAND ST: TX CASDATE: 19690117 CAS1: C1 CAS2: B CAS3: 6 BODY: --- CTRY: VS PROV: 26 LSVC: 01 BIRDATE: 19471017 RACE: C REL: BO MAR: M SEX: M CIT: 1 TOURD: 680518 PANL: 34W LINE: 024 REFNO: 3232 PDATE: 6901

(6) LASTNAME: HOLLEY FIRSTNAME: GLYNN BYRON IDNO: 566821922 SVC: F COMP: R RANK: A1C GRADE: E3 MOS: ----- AGE: 20 HOME: MIDLAND ST: TX CASDATE: 19691226 CAS1: C2 CAS2: L CAS3: 7 BODY: --- CTRY: VS PROV: 11 LSVC: 01 BIRDATE: 19490527 RACE: C REL: CC MAR: S SEX: M CIT: 1 TOURD: 691206 PANL: 15W LINE: 093 REFNO: 427 PDATE: 6912

(7) LASTNAME: LOPEZ FIRSTNAME: PAULINO GUTIERREZ IDNO: 54382708 SVC: A COMP: Y RANK: PFC GRADE: E3 MOS: 11B10 AGE: 23 HOME: MIDLAND ST: TX CASDATE: 19670722 CAS1: A2 CAS2: D CAS3: 7 BODY: --- CTRY: VS PROV: 25 LSVC: ** BIRDATE: 19440622 RACE: C REL: RC MAR: M SEX: M CIT: 1 TOURD: 670501 PANL: 23E LINE: 106 REFNO: 7260 PDATE: 6707

(8) LASTNAME: MC KINNEY FIRSTNAME: CECIL CURTIS IDNO: 18728047 SVC: A COMP: R RANK: SP5 GRADE: E5 MOS: 91B2P AGE: 22 HOME: MIDLAND ST: TX CASDATE: 19681005 CAS1: A1 CAS2: I CAS3: 7 BODY: --- CTRY: VS PROV: 02 LSVC: 02 BIRDATE: 19460926 RACE: C REL: BO MAR: S SEX: M CIT: 1 TOURD: 670520 PANL: 41W LINE: 014 REFNO: 17621 PDATE: 6810

(9) LASTNAME: NIEDECKEN FIRSTNAME: RAYMOND ALVIS IDNO: 2353821 SVC: M COMP: R RANK: PFC GRADE: E2 MOS: 0311 AGE: 20 HOME: MIDLAND ST: TX CASDATE: 19671228 CAS1: A1 CAS2: D CAS3: 7 BODY: --- CTRY: VS PROV: 03 LSVC: 00 BIRDATE: 19470812 RACE: C REL: PN MAR: S SEX: M CIT: 1 TOURD: 671117 PANL: 32E LINE: 088 REFNO: 5441 PDATE: 6712

(10) LASTNAME: SATTERFIELD FIRSTNAME: HOWARD EUGENE IDNO: 525660321 SVC: A COMP: R RANK: SP5 GRADE: E5 MOS: 94B20 AGE: 37 HOME: MIDLAND ST: TX CASDATE: 19700829 CAS1: C2 CAS2: U CAS3: 7 BODY: --- CTRY: VS PROV: 02 LSVC: ** BIRDATE: 19320909 RACE: C REL: 99 MAR: S SEX: M CIT: 1 TOURD: 700219 PANL: 07W LINE: 023 REFNO: 5556 PDATE: 7008

(11) LASTNAME: SEGOVIA FIRSTNAME: RAUL LERMA IDNO: 54388602 SVC: A COMP: Y RANK: SP4 GRADE: E4 MOS: 11B20 AGE: 20 HOME: MIDLAND ST: TX CASDATE: 19690130 CAS1: C1 CAS2: V CAS3: 7 BODY: --- CTRY: VS PROV: 07 LSVC: 00 BIRDATE: 19480330 RACE: C REL: RC MAR: S SEX: M CIT: 1 TOURD: 680909 PANL: 33W LINE: 022 REFNO: 3271 PDATE: 6901

(12) LASTNAME: SIMMONS FIRSTNAME: TRAVIS A JR IDNO: 7715206 SVC: N COMP: V RANK: HM3 GRADE: E4 MOS: HM3 AGE: 23 HOME: MIDLAND ST: TX CASDATE: 19670316 CAS1: A1 CAS2: D CAS3: 7 BODY: --- CTRY: VS PROV: 05 LSVC: 02 BIRDATE: 19430827 RACE: C REL: PN MAR: S SEX: M CIT: 1 TOURD: ------ PANL: 16E LINE: 098 REFNO: 240 PDATE: 6703

(13) LASTNAME: STALL FIRSTNAME: WILLIAM ROBB IDNO: 2303522 SVC: M COMP: R RANK: LCPL GRADE: E3 MOS: 0846 AGE: 20 HOME: MIDLAND ST: TX CASDATE: 19680118 CAS1: A1 CAS2: G CAS3: 7 BODY: --- CTRY: VS PROV: 01 LSVC: 00 BIRDATE: 19470214 RACE: C REL: PN MAR: M SEX: M CIT: 1 TOURD: 670922 PANL: 34E LINE: 071 REFNO: 5613 PDATE: 6801

(14) LASTNAME: TAYLOR FIRSTNAME: SELVWYN RISHER IDNO: W3161245 SVC: A COMP: V RANK: WO GRADE: W1 MOS: 061B AGE: 31 HOME: MIDLAND ST: TX CASDATE: 19690316 CAS1: C1 CAS2: B CAS3: 1 BODY: --- CTRY: VS PROV: 30 LSVC: 12 BIRDATE: 19371218 RACE: C REL: RC MAR: M SEX: M CIT: 1 TOURD: 680819 PANL: 29W LINE: 056 REFNO: 3435 PDATE: 6903

(15) LASTNAME: WATSON FIRSTNAME: GARY EUGENE IDNO: 54387872 SVC: A COMP: Y RANK: SP4 GRADE: E4 MOS: 11B20 AGE: 24 HOME: MIDLAND ST: TX CASDATE: 19680403 CAS1: A1 CAS2: H CAS3: 7 BODY: --- CTRY: VS PROV: 06 LSVC: 01 BIRDATE: 19440318 RACE: C REL: CC MAR: S SEX: M CIT: 1 TOURD: 670725 PANL: 47E LINE: 057 REFNO: 12830 PDATE: 6804

(16) LASTNAME: ZONNE FIRSTNAME: ROBERT JOHN JR IDNO: 462620728 SVC: A COMP: R RANK: CPT GRADE: O3 MOS: 0200 AGE: 27 HOME: MIDLAND ST: TX CASDATE: 19700420 CAS1: C1 CAS2: B CAS3: 6 BODY: --- CTRY: VS PROV: 25 LSVC: 04 BIRDATE: 19420528 RACE: C REL: EP MAR: M SEX: M CIT: 1 TOURD: 690718 PANL: 11W LINE: 029 REFNO: 5085 PDATE: 7004

Here are young men from Casper, Wyoming, (Dick Cheney's hometown), who died in Vietnam in place of Cheney, who said that he had "important things" that kept him from fighting for his beliefs:

(1) LASTNAME: BARNES FIRSTNAME: ROBERT EUGENE IDNO: 16915925 SVC: A COMP: R RANK: SP4 GRADE: E4 MOS: 91B20 AGE: 20 HOME: CASPER ST: WY CASDATE: 19680607 CAS1: A1 CAS2: G CAS3: 7 BODY: --- CTRY: VS PROV: 27 LSVC: 01 BIRDATE: 19480502 RACE: C REL: PB MAR: S SEX: M CIT: 1 TOURD: 680102 PANL: 59W LINE: 019 REFNO: 15220 PDATE: 6806

(2) LASTNAME: BYERS FIRSTNAME: JERRY DUANE IDNO: 55874873 SVC: A COMP: Y RANK: SP4 GRADE: E4 MOS: 91B20 AGE: 20 HOME: CASPER ST: WY CASDATE: 19670301 CAS1: A1 CAS2: E CAS3: 7 BODY: --- CTRY: VS PROV: 23 LSVC: 01 BIRDATE: 19460717 RACE: C REL: BO MAR: S SEX: M CIT: 1 TOURD: 660823 PANL: 15E LINE: 126 REFNO: 4983 PDATE: 6703

(3) LASTNAME: CARDENAS FIRSTNAME: LEROY ROBERT IDNO: 54905640 SVC: A COMP: Y RANK: PFC GRADE: E3 MOS: 11B10 AGE: 23 HOME: CASPER ST: WY CASDATE: 19690604 CAS1: A1 CAS2: D CAS3: 7 BODY: --- CTRY: VS PROV: 23 LSVC: 00 BIRDATE: 19460511 RACE: C REL: RC MAR: S SEX: M CIT: 1 TOURD: 690407 PANL: 23W LINE: 062 REFNO: 22646 PDATE: 6906

(4) LASTNAME: ENDICOTT FIRSTNAME: RICHARD LEROY IDNO: OF104722 SVC: A COMP: R RANK: CPT GRADE: O3 MOS: 1542 AGE: 25 HOME: CASPER ST: WY CASDATE: 19680430 CAS1: A1 CAS2: E CAS3: 7 BODY: --- CTRY: VS PROV: 42 LSVC: 02 BIRDATE: 19421114 RACE: C REL: LU MAR: S SEX: M CIT: 1 TOURD: 680303 PANL: 53E LINE: 011 REFNO: 13624 PDATE: 6804

(5) LASTNAME: GROVE FIRSTNAME: ROBERT WOODROW IDNO: 306455 SVC: M COMP: R RANK: GSGT GRADE: E7 MOS: 0369 AGE: 47 HOME: CASPER ST: WY CASDATE: 19650218 CAS1: A1 CAS2: D CAS3: 7 BODY: --- CTRY: VS PROV: 11 LSVC: 20 BIRDATE: 19170301 RACE: C REL: PN MAR: M SEX: M CIT: 1 TOURD: ------ PANL: 01E LINE: 092 REFNO: 13 PDATE: 6502

(6) LASTNAME: HANDY FIRSTNAME: WALTER ELMER IDNO: 54901810 SVC: A COMP: Y RANK: PFC GRADE: E3 MOS: 64B20 AGE: 26 HOME: CASPER ST: WY CASDATE: 19680313 CAS1: A1 CAS2: V CAS3: 7 BODY: --- CTRY: VS PROV: 08 LSVC: 00 BIRDATE: 19410927 RACE: C REL: AD MAR: M SEX: M CIT: 1 TOURD: 671216 PANL: 44E LINE: 036 REFNO: 12378 PDATE: 6803

(7) LASTNAME: HOLLAND FIRSTNAME: CARLTON JAKE IDNO: O2270112 SVC: A COMP: V RANK: CPT GRADE: O3 MOS: 82162 AGE: 36 HOME: CASPER ST: WY CASDATE: 19650209 CAS1: A3 CAS2: H CAS3: 7 BODY: --- CTRY: VS PROV: 99 LSVC: 18 BIRDATE: 19280531 RACE: C REL: BO MAR: M SEX: M CIT: 1 TOURD: ------ PANL: 01E LINE: 086 REFNO: 200 PDATE: 6502

(8) LASTNAME: KASTNER FIRSTNAME: RICHARD THOMAS IDNO: 520563368 SVC: A COMP: Y RANK: PFC GRADE: E3 MOS: 11B10 AGE: 20 HOME: CASPER ST: WY CASDATE: 19691115 CAS1: A1 CAS2: G CAS3: 7 BODY: --- CTRY: VS PROV: 14 LSVC: 00 BIRDATE: 19490227 RACE: C REL: RC MAR: M SEX: M CIT: 1 TOURD: 690924 PANL: 16W LINE: 080 REFNO: 25172 PDATE: 6911

(9) LASTNAME: NIX FIRSTNAME: VERNON WALTER III IDNO: 16915371 SVC: A COMP: R RANK: SSG PP: + GRADE: E5 MOS: 11B4P AGE: 19 HOME: CASPER ST: WY CASDATE: 19680429 CAS1: A1 CAS2: D CAS3: 7 BODY: --- CTRY: VS PROV: 02 LSVC: 01 BIRDATE: 19481216 RACE: C REL: PN MAR: M SEX: M CIT: 1 TOURD: 680402 PANL: 53E LINE: 003 REFNO: 14026 PDATE: 6805

(10) LASTNAME: PATRICK FIRSTNAME: DOUGLAS TYRONE IDNO: 55809144 SVC: A COMP: Y RANK: PFC GRADE: E3 MOS: 11H10 AGE: 19 HOME: CASPER ST: WY CASDATE: 19660806 CAS1: C1 CAS2: C CAS3: 7 BODY: --- CTRY: VS PROV: 99 LSVC: 00 BIRDATE: 19460828 RACE: C REL: PN MAR: S SEX: M CIT: 1 TOURD: 660609 PANL: 09E LINE: 108 REFNO: 597 PDATE: 6608

(11) LASTNAME: REBERG FIRSTNAME: CHARLES WAYNE IDNO: 16914092 SVC: A COMP: R RANK: SGT PP: + GRADE: E4 MOS: 11C2P AGE: 20 HOME: CASPER ST: WY CASDATE: 19680421 CAS1: A1 CAS2: H CAS3: 7 BODY: --- CTRY: VS PROV: 02 LSVC: 01 BIRDATE: 19471030 RACE: C REL: LU MAR: S SEX: M CIT: 1 TOURD: 671201 PANL: 51E LINE: 024 REFNO: 13662 PDATE: 6804

(12) LASTNAME: SWEENEY FIRSTNAME: RICHARD JOHN IDNO: 54903457 SVC: A COMP: Y RANK: SP4 GRADE: E4 MOS: 11B20 AGE: 21 HOME: CASPER ST: WY CASDATE: 19690223 CAS1: A1 CAS2: D CAS3: 7 BODY: --- CTRY: VS PROV: 22 LSVC: 01 BIRDATE: 19470904 RACE: C REL: LU MAR: S SEX: M CIT: 1 TOURD: 680623 PANL: 31W LINE: 025 REFNO: 19992 PDATE: 6902

Nothing more vividly illustrates the gap between the image of Bush and Cheney as "wise, seasoned leaders of a nation at war" than their cowardliness in supporting the Vietnam War while running from combat with a yellow streak down their backs.

The Bush/Cheney Vietnam evasion also plays a significant role in understanding how an ill-prepared war cabinet composed primarily of Vietnam Chickenhawks put our young soldiers at risk by overruling the advice of Pentagon generals, analysis from the CIA, and common sense in launching an ill-advised war.

Posted by: Louis (Canton, Ohio) at August 11, 2004 04:53 PM

Louis (Canton, Ohio) at August 11, 2004 04:53 PM

WOW Louis, That is horrible, but I believe it to be absolutely true. GW Bush JR sometimes frightenes me, but I now realize his whole campaign and administration is run by putting fear in the minds of American people for their own personal gain, when in fact the are a bunch of Cowards!!! Cowards!!! Cowards!!!

Vote: Kerry/Edwards Take America Away From Cowards!

Posted by: D. jones at August 11, 2004 06:49 PM

The one thing I think most people are forgetting is that Bush is not trying to base his re-election on his service record. He has done a great job with the war on terrorism. We have not had one attack on American soil since 9/11. I would have to say that is a major accomplishment. Kerry is the one that put himself in the hotseat with his service record. For all of you who think he is some war hero, come on....4 months. I don't really feel one way or the other about the swiftboat ad, but I do have strong feelings on Michael Moore's F9/11. He is putting that propaganda out there for other countries to see. Is is me or does that make us look weak. I did not like Clinton, I felt he was morally bankrupt but I would not go to other countries at a time of war and bash him to people who already think we are evil and are so jealous of us they try to kill us. The Kerryoniraq.com video should put doubt in all of you Kerry supporters eyes. Watch it and then come back and say he means what he says and say what he meant...yesterday, when it benefitted him to do so. This guy is a joke. Our current President is a man of integrity and morality which is much more than we had previously, he would never put anyone in harms way if it could be helped. If we had not gone into Iraq and something else(any act of terrorism) happened the dems would have spun it to be his fault anyway. Either way watch the video, Kerry said in there on several media broadcast Saddam needed to be dealt with he was an enormous threat. And what if Kerry did win and something happened to him health wise, do you really have that much confidence in Edwards, come on he is an ambulance chaser who has cost the American consumers millions of dollars over frivilous lawsuits. Open your eyes people, get the facts, all of them, don't listen to one source, check them all out, but make sure to watch the video of KerryonIraq.com. It is actual feed of him making statements, how can you deny that.

Bush/Cheney Keep America Safe!!!!

Posted by: Amy G at August 11, 2004 06:56 PM

Amy,

If GW JR is doing such a great job, can you please tell me where Osama Bin Laden is? I would immediately contact the authorities if only someone would tell where the man responsible for 911 is. We as Americans spent billions on a war in Iraq, later changed to the name "War On Terrorism" (it sounds better to the American people), and still don't have a clue where Osama Bin Laden is. Don't believe the lies, Sadaam had no ties to Osama Bin Laden if so they probably would have hid near each other, but GW JR. put Osama on the back burner to go after Saadam (Which in fact, Saadam needed ousting); however, America still doesn't know where Osama Bin Laden the man responsible for 911 is. Where ever he is, I bet is still recruiting American haters!

Vote: Kerry/Edwards

Posted by: D. jones at August 11, 2004 07:44 PM

I think it is pathetic that anyone would bash on a candidate for showing their pride as a willing serviceman in the VietNam war in order to help his campaign. Everyone who has commented on this subject knows damn well that Bush would be tooting his horn if he had any kind of decent military record. I guess him flying onto the aircraft carrier with "Mission Accomplished" wasn't a way of plugging himself?

Admit it everyone, if Bush would have gone to VietNam you all would be kissing his ass to high heaven.

In this election year it is not about the differences between Democrats/Republicans and Liberals/Conservatives. It is about everyone coming to terms with Bush's poor representation as a president. The republicans need to accept the blow to their egos and find someone more fit to run in 2008. Really, it is an ABB (anybody but Bush) year.

Vote Kerry/Edward 2004

Posted by: P. Smith at August 11, 2004 07:50 PM

I am a registered Democrat an have been for 30+yrs. I served two(2)tours of duty in Viet-Nam
1965 and 1969 For a total of 19 mos.I applaude these swift vets for coming forward. Kerry made his Viet-nam service His platform for president instead of his SENATE RECORD!!!and it looks like neither one of them can stand much scrutiny.And being a fisherman on the coast of NC I dont have to be in the boat next to me to see whos drinking soda or beer or if they are catching fish and what kind it is but I'd have to guess at the weight.And I would Know if they were in trouble or not.Thats part of Boating observing what is going on around you. The man rescued that day was not the only one saved in the incident there where three others and the one Kerry saved and is using was only on the boat for the rest of the day he was not assigned to the Crew

Posted by: Thomas Dickerson at August 11, 2004 10:17 PM

The Bin Laden question, d., was answered first by David (not me) on this very forum on August 6, 9:16 am:
"...Things to look forward to:

"Weapons of Mass Destruction found and accounted for sometime in mid-October and Osama Bin Laden arrested in late October to early November.

"There I have said it, I have made my prediction. And just you wait, all the democrats will fall in line like Howard Dean is right now in saying "Oh yeah, such interesting timing for this information to be released just before the election". Well they called the thunder in the 2000 election, so they will get what's coming to them! Don't you think if George W. Bush's DUI was such crucial information that it would be released sooner than a week before the election? But noooooo, they probably claim that they just received the tip the day before they released it.

"I personally disagree with these tactics, but I'm still mad as hell that the democrats started it and I'm looking forward to George W. Bush ending it in November.

"So for all you Democrats out there, please by all means keep running your mouths about the war in Afganistan and the war in Iraq. Keep asking us where the weapons of mass destruction are. Keep asking us where Osama Bin Laden is. We'll tell you in a few months".

Wait for it. And then, enjoy Kerry's concession speech. I know I will. :}

Posted by: Dave at August 11, 2004 11:48 PM

Several weeks ago I read the July 9, 2004, interview that master documentary filmmaker Michael Moore gave to the magazine Entertainment Weekly. In it he stated, "I don't get sued because my facts are correct." He continued, and I quote, "My opinions are my own and they may or may not be correct, but let's have that debate."
I THOROUGHLY AGREE. Challenge his opinions as did Dave Kopel in his "Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11," available through the Independence Institute and found on the internet.
Now if I'm not mistaken, some Democrats and others
think that Mr. Moore hung the moon and that his documentary Fahrenheit 9/11 is the absolute truth.
So I would think that if it is fair to show this movie throughout the United States and abroad, what is wrong with the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth presenting their opinion of what they think John Kerry did or how he acted in Vietnam?
The fact is, John Kerry did serve in Vietnam, but the veterans opinion is "how he served?" Kerry has made his service in Vietnam the centerpiece of his presidential campaign. Just as Michael Moore questions whether George Bush has told the public the truth on several issues, these veterans have a right to question whether John Kerry told the truth. I don't understand the leaders of the Democratic campaign attempting to block the veteran campaign ads by using lawyers to threaten TV stations, nor do I understand their screaming "foul play." There are already Kerry Washington staffers and web sites attempting to discredit the Swift Boat Veterans and the book Unfit for Command. Why don't we let the public read and hear about both sides of the issue or opinion (if they can find the information, because some of the mnedia doesn't seem to want to cover it) and let the public make up its own mind.

Posted by: Bill W. at August 12, 2004 01:56 AM

Injustices of war don't always have to involve torture or murder of detainees.

Soldier's Carjacking Court-Martial Begins

August 11, 2004 11:59 PM EDT

FORT CAMPBELL, Ky. - An Army lieutenant allegedly ordered his soldiers to find him a vehicle after his broke down, then tried to cover up the theft of a sheik's SUV in Iraq, military prosecutors said Wednesday.

In opening statements at the court-martial of 1st Lt. Bradley Pavlik, prosecutor Capt. Howard Hoege said the officer "led his platoon down a road of misconduct."

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: Texans4Kerry at August 12, 2004 02:53 AM

How many Americans do you know that are running for the President of our United States that has written and had published a book showing on its front cover, our American Flag flying UPSIDE DOWN? If you don’t have enough respect for our flag, to display it the way it SHOULD BE. Then the least anyone should is "JUST NOT DISPLAY IT AT ALL". Visit http://www.kerry-04.org/war/ to view this disgraceful act.

Posted by: Sherman at August 12, 2004 08:38 AM

I can't believe the arguments some of you people are making. Listen to yourselves and see how irrational most of these comments are!!
Bashing Bush because of his military record is absurd. Bush may have did things to avoid going to war, but so did Kerry. The difference is that Kerry was unsuccessful, don't make it out to be that Kerry felt it was his patriotic duty to go to Vietnam. The whole argument of military record would have meant nothing had Kerry not tried using it to get elected. If I remember correctly, Clinton dodged the draft, but that must be ok because he is a Democrat.
And Moore's F-911 is a bunch of crap. He has said himself that the film depicts his personal opinions. Using cut and paste truths, Moore made a film to push the Democrat's agenda. Moore is not an idiot, he knows that some people will take it for the honest to God truth, and that may sway votes in favor of Kerry.
And then you have the Osama Bin Laden arguments. I was wondering how long it would take for that one. Let's keep in mind we are not the only group looking for him. It's not like he's wearing a neon sign 24/7 until we find him. The real problem lies within the lack of intelligence we had in the middle east prior to 9-11. Take a lucky guess who was responsible for that. It wasn't Bush, it was Clinton. We at one time had the opportunity to get Bin Laden and we didn't. Would that have avoided 9-11? Who knows, but the fact is that pointing fingers at Bush for not having him yet is a pretty bold statement considering Clinton could have already had him or at least had the intelligence in place to find him more easily.
Armchair quarterbacking is easy, try being the one at the moment. Bush is doing a fine job, he has faced more in the first year of his Presidency that any other President for the past 30 years. And yet there is a vast amount of voters who will be swayed by the people like Moore, people who will vote for Kerry simply because they are like sheep that follow whatever the reporters on CNN tell them, swallowing every last bit of partisan slop thrown in front of them.
Stay the course/Vote Bush

Posted by: Chad B at August 12, 2004 11:47 AM

Shame on The Bush Administration!

http://www.eriposte.com/media/liars_inc/swiftboat.htm

What is even more remarkable is that SBV's hateful mendacity is nothing other than a direct attack on the integrity of the American Armed Forces - something that Republicans like them claim to hold dear.

It has struck me lately what a terrible indictment of the military these charges are and how once again the Republicans have absolutely no limits in terms of how fully they are willing to trash the American institutions they allegedly love in order to win. What these people are saying is that the US Navy awarded some of its highest medals for bravery to a coward. The many officers who signed those glowing fitness reports and awarded those citations are either liars or they are incompetent. The word of his shipmates, even the man whose life he saved, are worth nothing. You can't believe military documentary evidence. It was all b***s***, every last piece of it.
And because of this it can now be said that all medals awarded for bravery are suspect. A superior military record is no longer a recommendation. Who can ever believe the government on this issue, now?

Posted by: d. jones at August 12, 2004 12:00 PM

When Voting for a President it is best to gage their truefullness by looking at their Record not Media statements.

Posted by: Gene Little at August 12, 2004 06:31 PM

Ok folks since you still want to argue about gwb vs Kerry instead of the truthfulness of the swiftvets ad, let's look at members of gwb's administration that help guide gwb in his daily decisions:

Wolfowitz- a member of PNAC. Never served in the military.

Cheney- a member of PNAC. Never served in the military.

Rumsfeld- a member of PNAC. Never served in the military.

Libby- a member of PNAC. Never served in the military.

Perle- a member of PNAC. Never served in the military.

What is PNAC? The Project for the New American Century. http://newamericancentury.org

This organization has many members and before 9/11 hoped that a "New Pearl Habor" would give them ability to impliment their stated agenda, which includes:

Invading Iraq.
Removing Liberties/Freedoms from citizens.
Forcing US policies on the World.

Truthfully folks, if this doesn't make you want to vote for Kerry I doubt there is anything that would sway you to make the right choice for humanity.

Posted by: X at August 12, 2004 08:24 PM

This is the great left’s hypocrisy trying to minimized the serve in the service, “like what is is” if you believe them Kerry only served with the men on his boat, regardless of the 220 plus people in his company that was around him on a daily basis, going on this I guess I didn’t serve with the 1st Armor Division, nor did I serve with the FSB Battalion nor did I serve with D Company nor did I serve with the 3 other platoons I only served with the 8 other guys in my squad, this is BS and all Veterans know it!!!

Posted by: D. Walker at August 12, 2004 09:05 PM

I am a registered Democrat and have been all my life, however, John Kerry is a disgrace to this Great Country and will not get my vote. President George Bush is my kind of Stand-up-guy who believe in America and it's values. John Kerry is not and has proved it by his voting record in Washington.

What has happened to the people of America? Are we now so bitter we blindly vote with emotions and not common sense.

Posted by: J. Dickens at August 12, 2004 09:29 PM

In all honesty, who cares who Kerry served with, at least he did serve! To call the American Military a lie by giving medals of honor should be considered treason! GW JR. completely avoided the war and thought he had his record closed! (by executive order as Commander and Chief Of the American Armed Forces). Let's face the facts, he is a coward hiding behind the Presidency and Republican Party!

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d.jones at August 12, 2004 09:52 PM

How many people posting on this site were over the age of 18 in 1971?

I was, and I remember the pain of soldiers coming home from Vietnam and being spit on and called baby killers. Why? Because of John "turncoat" Kerry and his commie friends.

Do any of you know how many people died and were tortured because of John Kerry's testimony in Congress? Including John Mccain.

Does anyone remember how almost every college in the US was closed down for over a month in January - February 1971 for a "moratorium" because John Kerry was lying to Congress?

Does anybody remember how much damage John Kerry and his buddies did to the morale of this country?
It took 20 years to restore it.

Does anybody realize what Jane Fonda did while cavorting with the Viet Cong? She met with American POWS and asked them "how it felt to be baby killers" while these poor guys slipped her small pieces of paper with their Social Security numbers on them so she could take them home and let the government know they were alive. What did John Kerry's buddy do with these scraps of paper? She promptly turned them over to the Commander. As a result of this highest form of treason three of those men died and a fourth survived the torture, and he is the one who lived to tell the story.

WAKE UP AMERICA!! REMEMBER WHAT WAS DONE TO OUR VETS AND MORALE IN 1971 THANKS TO JOHN KERRY

Posted by: Calamity Jane at August 12, 2004 10:56 PM

I just want to ask one question! How does serving in the military make you qualified to run a country? So, what you Kerry supporters are saying is if I join the military, for 4 months go to Iraq and fight or sit on a ship in the water waiting for a fight to come, that would make me more qualified than a man who has not served 4 months. Seems to me you need intelligence and morality more than the ability to fire a gun or ride on a boat. I am in no way trying to say there is anything wrong with serving your country, thank God for those of you that have and do. But it does not make you qualified to be the President if you served 4 months 30 years ago. Just my opinion. Oh and a question that was asked of me from my last comment, where is Osama, he is in Pakistan, they just can't go in and get him because it could have their current leader over thrown and cause major conflict. Don't you worry, we will get him. At least Bush has him on the run and he is not sitting in a cave with no fears planning an attack for who knows how many years like he did with the last President.

Posted by: Amy at August 13, 2004 08:41 AM

I was a child in Denver and would visit the Air Force Base there during the Vietnam war. Remembering through the eyes of a kid my main question was WHY! I still have those same questions to this date! It wasn't all Kerry's fault as some want us to believe. Here is a couple of links as to Why!

http://ohoh.essortment.com/vietnamwarprot_rlcz.htm
http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/vietnam/causes.htm

Seven presidents were involved with decisions that impacted Americas presence in Vietnam: Truman, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and Ford.

Once the draft was introduced young people on college and university campuses all around the country began to organise protests against the war. Teach-ins and student organizations like the SDS (Students for a Democratic Society) held rallies and marches, the first of which happened in Washington in April of 1965. Over the next 2 years the anti-war movement snow balled. Activists, celebrities and musicians like Abbie Hoffmann, Timothy Leary, Allen Ginsberg, Jane Fonda, Jimi Hendrix, Jefferson Airplane, and countless others took up the Anti-war cause and waved Anti-war banners. Their speeches and their music reflected the anger and hopelessness that Americans felt over the Vietnam war. Even the GIs stationed overseas began supporting the Anti-war movement in whatever capacity they could, from wearing peace symbols to refusing to obey orders.

Over 50,000 Americans were killed and many of those who returned suffered and still suffer deep physical and emotional scars. Many more veterans took their own lives, were treated as social outcasts or ended up on Americas streets among the homeless. What the war did to Vietnam and to the Vietnamese people was even more drastic. By the time Saigon fell to invading North Vietnamese forces on April 29, 1975, close to 2 million Vietnamese had died

Kerry couldn't possibly the blame for all this. He participated and like many others didn't like what he saw, and neither did I.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at August 13, 2004 10:31 AM

RE: my last comment, where is Osama, he is in Pakistan, they just can't go in and get him because it could have their current leader over thrown and cause major conflict.

They Can't? They invaded Afganistan, They invaded Iraq? The mighty GW JR. afraid of overthrowing a leader and causing major conflict. Pleaseeeeee, give me a break!

Vote: Kerry/Edwards

Posted by: d. jones at August 13, 2004 11:01 AM

D. WALKER JUST BECAUSE YOU SAY IN YOUR COMMENT THAT YOU ARE REGISTERED AS A DEM DOES NOT MAKE YOU ONE! YOUR COMMENTS ARE PROOF THAT YOU ARE NOT EVEN CLOSE TO BEING A DEMOCRATE SO QUICK SAYING YOU ARE ONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: D. Walker at August 12, 2004 09:05 PM

I am a registered Democrat and have been all my life, however, John Kerry is a disgrace to this Great Country and will not get my vote. President George Bush is my kind of Stand-up-guy who believe in America and it's values. John Kerry is not and has proved it by his voting record in Washington.

What has happened to the people of America? Are we now so bitter we blindly vote with emotions and not common sense.

YOU ARE NOT A DEMOCRATE!

Posted by: Louis (Canton, Ohio) at August 13, 2004 11:07 AM

Calamity Jane, I ask you also what makes someone that went AWOL when he was in the service, was the Governor of what is known as one of the two weakest Governorships in the Union (TEXAS) Qualified to be our President? What makes him not qualified is his lies that took us to war in IRAQ not Afganistan where we should be massing our troops to fight the war on Terror. Now, we are only making the nuts in the middle east hate us even more. We have now pissed on and pissed off the world. Our country is not safer today we are more at risk and George W's failed policies in the Middle East will keep our country in danger for generations to come!

Posted by: Louis (Canton, Ohio) at August 13, 2004 11:14 AM

"Hoping for a new Pearl Harbor?!? Removing Liberties from citizens?!?" Holy cow. Decocrats believe that the Holy Mother Government is God, has a divine mission of spreading the Gospel of "we-know-what's-better-for-you-than-you-do" and "if-you-don't-like-it, we'll-force-you-to-do-it-by-law-anyway" has a problem with this? Unless, of course, they didn't think of it first...

Posted by: Dave at August 13, 2004 11:38 AM

To Louis from Canton, Ohio

What proof do you have that Bush was AWOL?
Also, I was discussing the damage done by Kerry in 1971, which has nothing to do with Bush.

As far as I am concerned if four months in Vietnam qualifies you to be president, then that means a janitor who has worked at a company for four months is qualified to be CEO. This is common sense.

Bush-Cheney '04

Posted by: Calamity Jane at August 13, 2004 04:46 PM

To X

Invading Iraq - the right thing to do.
Removing Liberties/Freedoms from citizens - tell me which freedoms you have lost? I have asked this very question to every Dem I know and have yet to get an answer.

Forcing US policies on the World - which policies have we forced? Bush looking out for OUR PEOPLE AND OUR COUNTRY - THAT IS THE PRESIDENT'S JOB.

BUSH IS DOING A GOOD JOB. HOW CAN I TELL? OUR ENEMIES WANT HIM OUT OF OFFICE - A SURE SIGN HE IS DOING THE RIGHT THING.

Posted by: Calamity Jane at August 13, 2004 05:44 PM

Hey Calamity.

Forget trying to get a rational answer from a left wing Democrat. Hate for GW consumes every fiber in their being! They posses no ability to see the error of their thinking.

Posted by: Ron at August 13, 2004 07:29 PM

Those of you who seem to think that service in the National Guard or reserves during the Veitnam war was a cowardly way to serve your country are slapping the faces of every reservist or Guardsman that is currently serving today. With less tha 48 hours notice, many are being called to service right now. Are you serving in any capacity? Or do you just like to spew your misinformation and hate! Put on the uniform of your country, put your name on the doted line, put your life at risk, until you do just remember it is us who serve who pretect you from enemies that could care less what any of our opinions are, THEY WANT US ALL DEAD!
the sooner we all realize that and get on the same page, the better off we will all be!

Posted by: NAVY SEABEE at August 14, 2004 12:23 AM

For those of you who are still questioning Kerry's service, please know he served in the Navy from February 1966 to April 1970. Within the time he served in the Navy, Kerry requested duty in Vietnam in February 10, 1968. Kerry's first intense combat started in December 2, 1968. In late January 1969, his crew completed 18 missions over an intense and dangerous 48 days, almost all of them in the dense jungles of the Mekong Delta.

On March 17, 1969 - The policy of Coastal Squadron One, the swift boat command, was to send home any individual who is wounded three times in action. After sustaining his third wound from enemy action in Vietnam, Kerry was granted relief under this policy.

My brother also served in Vietnam during the same time period, as an Amry Officer. He served two tours of duty -- he also saw a great deal of battle, but fortunately was never wounded. Since he and my sister are triplets, we spent most of his time in service worrying about his safety. We also were very involved with the issues concerning the Vietnam War. AND PLEASE KNOW ANYONE WHO DID NOT WANT TO GO TO VIETNAM, BUT COULD NOT AVOID THE DRAFT WORKED VERY HARD TO GET INTO THE NATIONAL GUARD. The National Guard was not used during the Vietnam war in any way shape or form the way Bush is using it today -- that is the huge difference. Today every person in military uniform is being called to serve Bush's War. It was not like that during the Vietnam War.

I do honor all the brave soldiers who are fighting Bush's War -- I have a nephew who is fight over there -- While I hate Bush's War, I believe in our soldiers and pray for them everyday. But I also pray this will not become another Vietnam -- We lost over 50,000 soldiers to a war that was a mistake -- a mistake even admitted to by the Secretary of Defense, Robert S. Mcnamara. How many years do we have to wait before we hear the same words from Donald H. Rumsfeld!

And one more FactCheck (www.factcheck.org -- a totally nonpartisan, un biased website) regarding the SwiftVets:

The official citations show Kerry was not awarded the Silver Star "for simply pursuing and dispatching" the Viet Cong. In fact, the killing is not even mentioned in two of the three versions of the official citation (see "supporting documents" at right.) The citations - based on what Elliott wrote up at the time - dwell mostly on Kerry's decision to attack rather than flee from two ambushes, including one in which he led a landing party.

The longest of the citations, signed by Vice Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, commander of U.S. naval forces in Vietnam, describes Kerry as killing a fleeing Viet Cong with a loaded rocket launcher. It says that as Kerry beached his boat to attack his second set of ambushers, "an enemy soldier sprang up from his position not ten feet from Patrol Craft Fast 94 and fled. Without hesitation, Lieutenant (junior grade) KERRY leaped ashore, pursued the man behind a hooch, and killed him, capturing a B-40 rocket launcher with a round in the chamber."

Two other citations omit any mention of the killing. One was signed by Admiral John J. Hyland, commander in chief of the Pacific Fleet, and the other was signed by Secretary of the Navy John Chafee. Both those citations say Kerry attacked his first set of ambushers and that "this daring and courageous tactic surprised the enemy and succeeded in routing a score of enemy soldiers." Later, 800 yards away, Kerry's boat encountered a second ambush and a B-40 rocket exploded "close aboard" Kerry's boat. "With utter disregard for his own safety, and the enemy rockets, he again ordered a charge on the enemy, beached his boat only ten feet away from the VC rocket position, and personally led a landing party ashore in pursuit of the enemy." In these citations there is no mention of enemy casualties at all. Kerry was cited for "extraordinary daring and personal courage . . . in attacking a numerically superior force in the face of intense fire."

Posted by: harriet at August 14, 2004 06:23 PM

Harriet

I don't most people are questioning Kerry's military service. What he did when he came home is the problem. He lied to Congress about atrocities that were not committed, thereby causing those men to come home to be spit on and called baby killers. Don't you get it?

HEre is another "turncoat" Kerry tactic I recently discovered. THis one is just as bad as the first in 1971. The Mehr News Agency that reported this story is in IRAN.

go to http://www.tehrantimes.com and search the archives for Feb 8, 2004 and see for yourselves.

First he turns on the Vietnam soldiers
Then he turns on his own country to Iran of all places
What's next? A cabinet position for Bin Laden?


Category: Politics

Date: Sunday, February 08, 2004
Kerry Says He Will Repair Damage If He Wins Election

WASHINGTON (Mehr News Agency) -- The office of Senator John Kerry, the frontrunner in the Democratic presidential primary in the U.S., sent the Mehr News Agency an e-email saying that Kerry will try to repair the damage done by the incumbent president if he wins the election. The text of the e-mail follows.

As Americans who have lived and worked extensively overseas, we have personally witnessed the high regard with which people around the world have historically viewed the United States. Sadly, we are also painfully aware of how the actions and the attitudes demonstrated by the U.S. government over the past three years have threatened the goodwill earned by presidents of both parties over many decades and put many of our international relationships at risk.

It is in the urgent interests of the people of the United States to restore our country's credibility in the eyes of the world. America needs the kind of leadership that will repair alliances with countries on every continent that have been so damaged in the past few years, as well as build new friendships and overcome tensions with others.

We are convinced that John Kerry is the candidate best qualified to meet this challenge. Senator Kerry has the diplomatic skill and temperament as well as a lifetime of accomplishments in field of international affairs. He believes that collaboration with other countries is crucial to efforts to win the war on terror and make America safer.

An understanding of global affairs is essential in these times, and central to this campaign Kerry has the experience and the understanding necessary to successfully restore the United States to its position of respect within the community of nations. He has the judgment and vision necessary to assure that the United States fulfills a leadership role in meeting the challenges we face throughout the world.

The current Administration's policies of unilateralism and rejection of important international initiatives, from the Kyoto Accords to the Biological Weapons Convention, have alienated much of the world and squandered remarkable reserves of support after 9/11. This climate of hostility affects us all, but most especially impacts those who reside overseas. Disappointment with current U.S. leadership is widespread, extending not just to the corridors of power and politics, but to the man and woman on the street as well.

We believe John Kerry is the Democrat who can go toe-to-toe against the current Administration on national security and defense issues. We also remain convinced that John Kerry has the best chance of beating the incumbent in November, and putting America on a new course that will lead to a safer, more secure, and more stable world.

Posted by: Calamity Jane at August 14, 2004 08:41 PM

Harriet

I don't most people are questioning Kerry's military service. What he did when he came home is the problem. He lied to Congress about atrocities that were not committed, thereby causing those men to come home to be spit on and called baby killers. Don't you get it?

HEre is another "turncoat" Kerry tactic I recently discovered. THis one is just as bad as the first in 1971. The Mehr News Agency that reported this story is in IRAN.

go to http://www.tehrantimes.com and search the archives for Feb 8, 2004 and see for yourselves.

First he turns on the Vietnam soldiers
Then he turns on his own country to Iran of all places
What's next? A cabinet position for Bin Laden?


Category: Politics

Date: Sunday, February 08, 2004
Kerry Says He Will Repair Damage If He Wins Election

WASHINGTON (Mehr News Agency) -- The office of Senator John Kerry, the frontrunner in the Democratic presidential primary in the U.S., sent the Mehr News Agency an e-email saying that Kerry will try to repair the damage done by the incumbent president if he wins the election. The text of the e-mail follows.

As Americans who have lived and worked extensively overseas, we have personally witnessed the high regard with which people around the world have historically viewed the United States. Sadly, we are also painfully aware of how the actions and the attitudes demonstrated by the U.S. government over the past three years have threatened the goodwill earned by presidents of both parties over many decades and put many of our international relationships at risk.

It is in the urgent interests of the people of the United States to restore our country's credibility in the eyes of the world. America needs the kind of leadership that will repair alliances with countries on every continent that have been so damaged in the past few years, as well as build new friendships and overcome tensions with others.

We are convinced that John Kerry is the candidate best qualified to meet this challenge. Senator Kerry has the diplomatic skill and temperament as well as a lifetime of accomplishments in field of international affairs. He believes that collaboration with other countries is crucial to efforts to win the war on terror and make America safer.

An understanding of global affairs is essential in these times, and central to this campaign Kerry has the experience and the understanding necessary to successfully restore the United States to its position of respect within the community of nations. He has the judgment and vision necessary to assure that the United States fulfills a leadership role in meeting the challenges we face throughout the world.

The current Administration's policies of unilateralism and rejection of important international initiatives, from the Kyoto Accords to the Biological Weapons Convention, have alienated much of the world and squandered remarkable reserves of support after 9/11. This climate of hostility affects us all, but most especially impacts those who reside overseas. Disappointment with current U.S. leadership is widespread, extending not just to the corridors of power and politics, but to the man and woman on the street as well.

We believe John Kerry is the Democrat who can go toe-to-toe against the current Administration on national security and defense issues. We also remain convinced that John Kerry has the best chance of beating the incumbent in November, and putting America on a new course that will lead to a safer, more secure, and more stable world.

Posted by: Calamity Jane at August 14, 2004 08:42 PM

First of all, several things have now been exposed about the people who constructed the "Swift boat captains for truth" site. The chief instigator was involved with the Watergate "plumbers," an extreme right criminal type. None of the veterans for truth ever served with John Kerry. I know: I met the real band of brothers personally, and to a man, they admire Kerry. The Veterans for Truth may be Veterans (some of them), and some of them may have even served in Vietnam. But about Kerry, they are most definitely NOT TELLING THE TRUTH. They never served with Kerry. They are Republicans who want to take Kerry down simply because he protested the war when he got back. I find this plumber tactic morally and ethically repugnant.
By the way, FACTCHECK.org, (NOT a leftie organization but an independent watchdog group who does not pull punches either way) has been monitoring the mudslinging. They say 78% of the mudslinging has been done by the Republicans, not the Democrats, no matter what you thin-skinned ultra-right wing neocons' impressions may be.
By the way, WMD will NEVER be found in Iraq. That was just one of the lies proffered to the American public to keep selling the idea that the war in Iraq was justified. As Richard Clark and several other people from his own administration have told us, Bush's people planned the war in Iraq almost a year before 9/11 for ideological reasons. 9/11 offered the chance to pull Iraq invasion off the shelf and implement it. It had absolutely nothing to do with the attack on us, or with Al Quaeda, although most of the Al Quaedans were from Saudi Arabia, the royal family of which is known even by Republicans to be friends with the Bush family. By the way, you may not like Michael Moore's attitude as expressed in the movie, but all of what he presented about Bush is factual, and can be checked against neutral news sources, such as Associated Press and Lexis-Nexis. And PLEASE don't give me that load of crap again about the press being left-leaning. 70% is neutral, 20% (including FOX news, who is in the habit of interviewing five times as many Republicans as Democrats, and who is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who has vowed to help deliver the election to Bush) and 10% leans toward the left. I was a delegate to the DNC. Every night after the convention, I would go back to the hotel room and watch the three major news networks with their convention coverage. C-SPAN is totally accurate. They basically turn on the camera and walk away. CNN interrupted with some talking head commentary, but not leaning one way or the other, no more so than sports coverage. FOX, on the other hand, left me wondering if they were even at the same convention. They were off in la-la land. When you experience something first hand and can compare it against the reportage, you quickly see what's accurate and what's not, and FOX definitely is NOT "Fair and Balanced," which is why right now, the FCC is suing FOX for false advertising. They could not do that unless they are really slanting the news, any more than you can make a slander suit stick unless the slanderer is really telling lies about you.
So, all you charismatic pentecostal, Christian Coalition hate-mongers, get a life and read what your leaders have said: understand how dangerous they are to Democracy. Understand how moderate and old-guard Republicans are opposed ideologically and practically to neoconservative smear tactics. Tactic like Zaxby Chambliss worked in Georgia against Max Cleveland, when Chambliss compared Max to Hitler and called him unpatriotic, while Max is a war hero with(out) three amputated limbs, courtesy Vietnam. Tactics like Cheney's trying to introduce a bill that would take away soldiers' purple hearts if they were, in his opinion, "not hurt bad enough," his criterion being that "if you can gather up your spilled guts and walk to the medivac chopper, you don't deserve the purple heart." It would be retroactive to Vietnam, but not Korea. Of course not Korea! John Kerry did not serve until Vietnam! And that, boys and girls, is the real target: John Kerry!
WAKE UP! The Democrats haven't done ANYTHING that underhanded to the Republicans. This election is NOT about partisan politics. It is about ETHICS, and a referendum on the incumbent's performance. Research the facts about George Bush on all the issues that matter to all Americans, not the "fake outrage" red herring issues, putting aside for a moment your unwavering loyalty and belief in Bush's morality and integrity, and you simply can't make an argument that stands without propaganda, that Bush should be in office.
Jan

Posted by: Jan at August 14, 2004 11:49 PM

The common thread between the greatest leaders of the free world, people like Churchill, Washington, Lincoln, Reagan and Bush has been when in pursuit of a goal that in every fiber of their being they feel is right, their actions are independent from the good opinion of other people. Kerry has capitulated time after time seeking the good opinion of other people, and now he thinks that the best defense is to 'repair broken alliances' and regain 'respect among the family of nations'? If we did that during our countries history, we would still be a British commonwealth, the confederate states of America would still exist, Britian would still be part of the Nazi's Festung Europa and Hawaii and most of the Pacific Islands would have Japanese flags flying over them. You think Kerry has or will show that greatness? It all started with Kerry coming home from Vietnam and joining the consensus against the war; it has continued throughout his Senate career and joining the majority consensus in Massachusetts and the Senate, which has been Democrat-controlled for almost all of Kerry's career, and now he wants to make nice with France by offering concessions and compromising our foriegn policy and the very security of this country, when he turned his back on the cause of the war to the point of saying, 'I am no longer a proud vetren, here's your medals back'. So why is he acting like a proud vetren now? To gain consensus in the form of votes to win the election. Yep, that's a real war hero in action. That is someone who defended the cause of freedom and remains proud of his involvement, no matter if people spit on him. Instead, Kerry did the spitting, because everyone else was doing it. That's not a leader, that's a lemming.

Posted by: Dave at August 15, 2004 01:01 AM

Good post Calamity Jane, I can't believe people still support this guy. I noticed in the article that he say he will go toe to toe against the current administration on National security, what does that mean? We already know the democrats are not strong on securing our nation, they cut the military buget every chance they get. In a earlier post, someone questioned one of my posts about Kerry's service record, yes he was supposedly wounded three times which allowed him to come home. None of these injuries were serious, if he is truly this honorable man you speak of why didn't he stay. I heard he was drafted, I don't know for sure if that is true, but that is what I was told, that he voluteered after he found out he could not get out of going.

If you want terrorism back on American soil then vote for Kerry, if you want to continue to enjoy the same freedoms you have now, then you better keep someone in there that knows what he is doing. The terrorists fear Bush, they know he won't take any c***, and what makes him more qualified to be President over Kerry....He is the President and has been for almost four years. For those of you that whine and complain about the economy and the war, obviously things are not so bad in your households, you can still afford the time and money it takes to post here and afford to have a computer and internet service. I am self employed and the job I perform is a luxury to most people, not a necessity, I am doing fine, no one is letting me go over the economy or anything else. We are not in bad shape, yet...We need George W Bush for 4 more years!

Posted by: Amy G at August 16, 2004 07:55 AM

If you think GW JR. gives a hoot about any veteran, you are completely misinformed!

On January 17, 2002, Bush spoke about American veterans: Having been here and seeing the care that these troops get is comforting for me and Laura. We are -- should and must provide the best care for anybody who is willing to put their life in harm’s way.

” Bush's visit came on the same day that the administration announced it was immediately cutting off access to its health care system approximately 164,000 veterans. (Washington Post, January 17, 2003)

GW JR. Flip Flops and just downright lies to the American people, including Veterans! He only cares about veterans when he needs their support!

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at August 16, 2004 01:58 PM

WoW there is soo much hatred on this board, I don't know where to begin.

Peace+Love, you are so wrong in your opinions of Michal Moore it's unbelievable. The one thing you mentioned about being true was the easiest to prove that it was not. Yes President Bush did make the comment about the wealthest Americans being his base, but that was at a function that every President goes too and it mainly amounts to the same thing as a Roast. It's all about having fun and cracking jokes. Mr. Moore stated he would pay $10,000 to anybody who could prove hime wrong and when he was called on it he refused to pay and then stated he never said that. I saw the interview where he said it at the Canns film festival. It goes to show you how easy it is to get the Dems to follow around behind blindly.

Where were all you so called Democrats who say that you need to have served in the Military to be President when Clinton was elected? He never served did he? No! He was a draft dodger and spent 2 weeks in Russia as a student and BURNED an American Flag in Protest of the Vietnam war.

I don't hold anything against someone who has served in the Military, even the National Guard. There were times and there will be times when the NG get's put in harms way.

So President Bush didn't go to Vietnam, neither did President Clinton. Where was your support for Bob Dole, he was a genuine war hero, but that didn't matter cause he was a nasty Republican.

Where was all the protesting when President Clinton bombed Bosnia relentlessly? Without UN permission I might add. How many of those Serbs were attacking the US? They were not, but they were murdering innocent men, women, and children.(I applaude President Clinton for Bosnia) The same as Sadam Hussen, but Sadam did it on a much larger scale. So how is it Clinton is right and Bush is wrong?

You are all ignorant if you don't think that the terrorist and Sadam were not in bed together. God help us is some of those chemical weapons he had get blown up in a major city. Tens of thousands of people will die.

Maybe that's what it will take, maybe it will have to be someone close to you who dies, before you realize that what the president did was the right thing. If not for the weapons of mass destruction, for the sake of the Iraqi people.

I can understand disagreeing on how this came about, but it still needed to be done and the world IS a better place now that Sadam is behind bars.

Posted by: Devil Dawg at August 16, 2004 02:25 PM

Hey Wayne,

Get a clue. You say, "Conservatives are missing the point", well, I think you are missing the point. You're right, Kerry did volunteer to go to Viet Nam, then after serving 4 months, was such a detriment to his unit (Kerry was identified as "out for himself only looking to advance his own agenda at everyone else's expense" and "not a team player") that his leadership forced him out of Viet Nam under the 3 Purple Heart rule. Doesn't it seem odd that Kerry had to put himself in for all these awards? After 24 years of military service myself, my superiors put me in for all of my medals (2 Meritorious, 3 Commendations, 3 Achievement, 2 Humanitarian, etc, etc)

Posted by: Lawmann at August 16, 2004 03:14 PM

Re: Devil Dawg

I'ts not about what GW JR. did, it's how he went about doing it. You don't start wars based on misinformation and lies to the American people! Take a look at your neighbor, he may or may not be of a different culture. If your closest friends give you information on your neighbor and you attack him without any support from other neighbors or a clear investigation followed by solid proof of the allegations, then a solid plan to follow after the attack, your are WRONG! Plain and Simple! Then what would you say? Well, I didn't like my neighbor anyway, I am glad he is gone and my neighborhood is a better place? The point is several Nations detested Saadam, and he if fact need ousting; however, there should have been a certain protocol to follow to get from point A to B, with the support of other nations that did not like Saadam, followed by a plan for Iraq after his capture, and there was not under the GW JR. Admin! Is the world a better place now? All I hear of is constant terrorist threats on the news!

Vote: Kerry/Edwards

Vote: Kerry/Edwards

Posted by: d. jones at August 16, 2004 03:24 PM

I am not convinced that GW lied to me. After all he was stating exactly what Kerry was saying prior to the war. I saw it at kerryoniraq.com he was pushing for the past administration to take military action against Iraq and then reversed his position. GW was saying what all the other foreign leaders, Clinton, and Gore was saying about Saddam having WMD's. Was everyone lying? Someone convince me otherwise.

Posted by: Christopher at August 16, 2004 06:22 PM

Calamity Jane,

Question: Have you traveled much outside of the country?

I have a feeling you don't pay much attention to what's going on around the globe. Most citizens of this planet are not happy with Bush's foreign policies and in fact want him out of office. We had the most strong foreign relations this country has ever seen after 9/11. The Bush administration managed to destroy those in a very short period.

If this is not news to you then I am guessing you think the rest of the world is our enemy?

Get a clue.

Posted by: P. Smith at August 16, 2004 08:23 PM

I haven't read all the other comments so forgive me for repeating anyone...I completely disagree with what comment "The John Kerry Swift Boat Veterans Book is the Fahrenheit 911 for Bush." There are tons of reasons why these aren't the same. The majority of people in America do not reads books, and have nothing to do with them. A large margin of people are moviegoers, or at least watch movies at their home. The book is being publicized in the paper and in bookstores. Fahrenheit 911 was being televised on the liberal MTV news, and by every rock group out there. Kids, teenagers, and tons of adults listen to these rock bands, DJ's, and newscasters talk about Michael Moore, Madonna, Garafolo, and there deep hate for Bush. Also, many people go to the movies "just to see something." I know I have seen a movie many times without even knowing what it is. Not many people walk into a store and by a book they don't even know, considering there are thousands to choose from. But if you go to a movie about once every 3 weeks, you're gonna see only 8 flicks showing...the same flicks usually througout those weeks.

To end this, I just heard some kid today singing a Jadakiss (rapper) song on MTV, and the only words he could hear or remember were "Why did Bush take down those towers." This world is becmong nothing but sick when you blame 911 on the President.

Vote Bush/Cheney 2004
Tim Johnson
www.soccflorida.com

Posted by: Tim Johnson at August 17, 2004 06:31 AM

This is from www.pimnews.com. . .

FELLOW FIGHTER PILOTS CONDEMN AWOL PRESIDENT

The latest smears about John Kerry’s record are coming from a group calling itself “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.” Though they never served with him, they make several claims about his time in Vietnam.

In the interest of fairness, it is probably a good idea to find the same Veterans who served with our current President in the National Guard. According to Bush in an interview held back in 2000, “I was there on temporary assignment and fulfilled my weekends at one period of time.” He also claims “I can’t remember what I did, but I wasn’t flying because they didn’t have the same airplanes. I fulfilled my obligations.”

According to official records, in September, 1972, Bush received a direct order to report for duty at Dannelly Air Force Base in Alabama, “Lt Bush should report to Lt. Col. William Turnipseed, DCO, to perform equivalent training" on “7-8 October, and 4-5 November.” Bush never showed up.

Retired General William Turpinseed and his administrative officer both say he never reported for duty. “Had he reported in, I would have had some recall, and I do not,” Turpinseed said. “I had been in Texas, done my flight training there.

If we had a 1st Lieutenant from Texas, I would have remembered.”

Something George Bush cold also not remember, according to statements, were any of the names of the 700 men he was to have served with, had he reported. None of the 700 either have come forward to say they served with him. In fact two fighter pilots assigned to the unit Bush was supposed to have reported to, say they are absolutely certain that he never showed up for duty. Bob Mintz and Paul Bishop are both fighter pilots who, like many of their fellow Americans, fulfilled their obligation to serve.

The Memphis Flyer published an interview with both men in February, 2004. According to Mintz, “I remember that I heard someone was coming to drill with us from Texas. And it was implied that it was someone with political influence. I was a young bachelor then. I was looking for someone to prowl around with.”

When he didn’t show, Mintz thought Bush had “changed his mind and went somewhere else” to do his duty. When he found out that Bush had referred to serving in Mintz’s unit, Mintz commented, “you don’t do that as a pilot, you don’t do it as an important person, and you don’t do it as a citizen. This guy’s got a lot of nerve.”

According to Mintz there were only 25 or 30 pilots on base at that time. In fact, “if he did any flying at all, on whatever kind of craft, that would have involved a great number of supportive personnel. It takes a lot of people to get a plane into the air. But nobody I can think of remembers him."

His fellow pilot, Paul Bishop, voted for Bush in 2000. After learning that Bush claimed to have been in his unit Bishop remarked, “"I never saw hide nor hair of Mr. Bush."

Bishop claims he paid little attention to Bush’s lies during the 2000 election. However, Bush’s actions during the Iraq War infuriated him. "It bothered me that he wouldn't 'fess up and say, Okay, guys, I cut out when the rest of you did your time. He shouldn't have tried to dance around the subject. I take great exception to that. I spent 39 years defending my country.”

Posted by: Paul Pimentel at August 17, 2004 10:08 AM

Paul,

Your sources may be biased. I take them with a grain of salt. Secondly, Bush has already established himself as Commander and Chief. Kerry can't even show up for intel meetings.

Posted by: Chris, OH at August 17, 2004 01:07 PM

George W. Bush is a "Christian" man full of honor and integrity.

John Kerry is clearly a flip-flopping "double minded" man, UNSTABLE in all his ways.

James 1:8
A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

My message to John Kerry:

James 4:8
Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded.

Posted by: Brett Foster at August 17, 2004 03:03 PM

George W. Bush is a "Christian" man full of honor and integrity.

John Kerry is clearly a flip-flopping "double minded" man, UNSTABLE in all his ways.

James 1:8
A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

My message to John Kerry:

James 4:8
Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded.

Posted by: Brett Foster at August 17, 2004 03:05 PM

Chris,

There you go again. If you would get you head from under GW JR's butt you would not claim all information against him is biased, but then of course you believe Rush Limbaugh's word is the law. That explains a lot!

Vote: Kerry/Edwards

Posted by: d. jones at August 17, 2004 03:08 PM

In every DNC strategist attack on the Swift Vets they assault the integrity of this men by first claiming they didn't serve with Kerry.

That is simply a bold faced lie. They did serve with Kerry. Officers on boats on missions with Kerry and only the handfull of those on the same boat as Kerry back him up. That's not even 100 percent. 2 men who served ON THE SAME BOAT have denounced Kerry's version of the story.

When the same DNC strategists are asked about the 527 ads that attack Bush they cry, freedom of speach.

They cry that Bush should demand the ads be removed. That's illegal. Bush can have nothing pro or con in relation to these ads. Just as Kerry can do nothing to promote or extinguish the attacks against Bush.

They cry politics and timing, although Michael Moore's 9/11 DVD is slated for release on October 5. I guess that move isn't political as well.

Fact: John Kerry is a featured part of a North Vietnam musuem which honors the Vietnam War dissenters. This museum honors them for their HELP in winning the war. Some honor! Have we forgotten the Killing Fields. According to this museum, Kerry helped make that possible.

Kerry, by his own words, is a war criminal. He said, on the floor of the Senate after he returned from Vietnam, that he participated in atrocities in Vietnam. Sure he got some medals, but he admitted to rape, torture and dissection of enemy combatants.

What are we to belief, war hero or war criminal?

My opinion is neither. He was a manipulative soldier who didn't get along with his fellow officers who SERVED WITH HIM and often put them at RISK.

The point is simply this. Kerry has decreed that Bush lied to America about WMD's after telling us himself that there were WMD's. Which is the lie.

Kerry's medal's came at a time when America was seeking to boost the moral of the soldiers serving in Vietnam. They were granted based on his testimony alone and now that many have been interviewed concerning those medals, those who awarded them have said he shouldn't have received them. In other words, Kerry lied to them.

He returned home and he lied about atrocities in Vietnam, exxagerated to make the claim that they occurred on a daily basis and he witness these atrocities.

Got that---the same men who served in this boat with Kerry allegedly committed these atrocities. The Kerry camp claims that the only men who served with Kerry were the ones on his boat, then they must also belive that these honorable men committed the war crimes that Kerry participated in and witnessed them participating in as well.

So again, which version of the Kerry lie do we believe. Those on his boat were honorable soldiers or those on his boat, the only ones Kerry claims served with him, are war criminals.

Kerry has never been able to get the story straight. He was in Cambodia, he wasn't. It was Christmas Eve on 1968, seared in his memory, no wait a minute, it was a different time. There were war crimes committed by these men, or as Kerry has said later, that maybe he worded those thing to harshly.

Kerry attacks Bush for his corporate involvement and then sites businesses that created jobs so that people could provide for their families. What about the Heinz corporation and the hundreds of jobs given to outsourced employess that Kerry is now a part of. Why hasn't he brought those jobs home as he promises to do on the campaign trail? What about the hundreds of thousands contributed by the Heinz corporation to extremist left organizations? I guess we are just supposed to ignore that and belive him.

Kerry says he can get France and Germany on board in the war on terrorism, France and Germany said no he can't. The DNC says believe Kerry.

Kerry has hired a legal team to shut down the voice of the swift vets but Kerry said that Michale Moore is free to express his opinions. Kerry has said that the utterly uncalled from comments by his Hollywood celebrities are simply expressing their opinions and that is what is great about this country and the freedom of speech. I agree, but that applies to all people, not just those who support Kerry's viewpoint.

The hatred of so many democrats against President Bush is their EXCUSE to put Kerry in Office with total disregard to the Senator's own record and with a broad sweep of ignorance to anything negative against Kerry.

His spokespeople on the news shows apparently believe the tactic of debate means shouting down your opponent everytime they try to explain their side with the same diatribe. Bush lied about WMD's and they keep shouting it regardless of the fact that independent studies, bipartisan studies, the statements of foreign countries all agreed with Bush, there were WND's and probably still are.

And they get away with it because so many people don't want to hear the truth. Our Enemy is the terrorist and they attacked us on our soil and we responded after going to the other nations and to the UN and NATO for support. Kerry agreed then that even without their support we had to go after Saddam. Now he says differently. Which version is the truth?

Kerry's record of misrepresenting and exaggerting the truth comes from the KERRY RECORD but anytime that's brought up, it's politics. DAMN RIGHT it's politics, because it's about the poor representation of Senator Kerry.

How is he supposed to know what to do when he misses most of the mettings and breifings, and then pulls home a salary paid for by the American people who put him office to do his job.

It's odd how that even backs up the Swift-Vets statements that when the going got tough, Kerry disappeared. After the attack on the World Trade Center Kerry fled and then he has the gall to attack the President about 7 minutes in a classroom full of children.

I've seen that film clip and the look on the Presidents face moved me soul. The compassion, not fear, but compassion in his eyes. And then he began to act. He began to mobilize the military, he began to review and fix the problems with our intelligence gathering forces. He went to Nato, he went to the UN and he asked for the support of other Countries, where our brave soldiers died to give them freedom, and some of them refused.

7 minutes to be stunned, as all American's were. But what about Kerry, he missed every intelligence meeting after the tragedy of 9/11. EVERY SINGLE MEETING. He fled, just like the swift boat vets said he did in Veitnam. And when he caught the wind of the American voice who supported the President, he to supported the President. He answered the tough questions just like he thought the Americans wanted to hear it.

Then he changed his mind and now he's singing a different tune, in spite of what he promised during the convention.

There was a time, just a few months ago, I was willing to listen. I was talking to my friends about Edwards message. I liked it. There were things about Kerry's message that I liked but the longer this has gone on, the more angry I become. His campaign promises are like his statements after 9/11 empty words backed with no conviction. Lies to the American people to get what he wants and now I'm angry!

The swift vets, when it comes down to it, tell us that it's about a pattern of behavior, a pattern of lies and deceptions, a pattern of a person seeking personal recognition and using the war for his personal gain. Kerry's own actions since then, but especially during the campaign, tell me that they are probably closer to the truth.

You can turn and point to Bush's Air National Guard and you can flip out a few quotes but the truth is that several men and women have stepped forward and offered to testify that George Bush did fulfill his duty and obligations but He didn't want to exploit them. During a recent campaign drive and woman stood up during a question and answer session and boldly stated that she served with him, he was there. But we are going to ignore that and instead, trust Kerry while he exploits the men he once condemned as war criminals.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at August 17, 2004 03:14 PM

When I was in the Marines I worked in an Avionics shop in a Squadron of over 300 Marines. There was a Power Line Shop, Power Plants shop, Hydrolics shop, Seat Shop, Flight Crew Shop. I knew every Marine to a person in my squadron even though I did not work next to them on a daily basis. Those who claim that members of John Kerry's unit, a unit I might add that was less than 60 people, did not know what kind of person he was. To this I BULL!

Take a look at where you work, if your life depended in some way on the people around you would you not take the time to find out all you can about them and get to know them? I know I would and did.

Your barking up the wrong tree if you think these men did not know the Man John Kerry!

Posted by: Devil Dawg at August 17, 2004 04:27 PM

Why does Kerry only attack and smeer the swiftboat veterans for the truth but not deny their claims.

Posted by: keith price at August 17, 2004 05:07 PM

Hey Brett,

Careful...Hitler was a "Christian" too. Did that make him a man full of honor and integrity?

Posted by: P. Smith at August 17, 2004 05:45 PM

Why is it when the swiftboatvets challange John Kerry's record and make a commercial stating that he lied about his combat it's WRONG, but when places like moveon.org put commercials on the air comparing President Bush to Adolf Hitler it's ok? Is there a double standard in this country or what.

Swiftboatvets got $100,000 from one man and the other $400,000 came in from donation yet they have backing of rich people, and yet that Sorros fella gave moveon.org $10,000,000 to date with plans to give more and it's ok.

Why is it that if John Kerry is so sure he will win the election, he does not vacat his senate seat so that someone else can vote in his place. He has missed over 90% of the senate votes, including the one that would have raised minimum wage. Yes he can relate the the common man. Yet he is still raking in a paycheck. Yeah my tax dollars are being spent well on him.

Why is it you folks say that the republicans are the rich ones when Sorros is a billionaire, John Kerry is a multi-millionaire (don't get me started on his wife), John Edwards and Ted Kennedy are multi-millionaires. Yet it's the republicans who are the rich ones.

Speaking of John Kerry's wife. What kind of man marries a woman and is not bothered by her keeping her first husbands name? A man who is only after the money that's who.

Posted by: Devil Dawg at August 17, 2004 07:39 PM

AMERICA............ARE YOU LISTENING America, thirty years ago you abandoned us. You turned your back on us, forgot our sacrifices and classified us as losers, drug addicts and social outcasts. Hollywood gladly persisted in portraying us to a younger generation and to the world as drug-addled sadists, loners and borderline psychopaths.

You never welcomed us home with open arms or words of comfort for our wounds. Instead, we were greeted by sneering leftist, Communists and fifth columnists posing as students, professors and members of the almighty press, all anxious to document the return of its wayward sons to a country all too quick and pleased to forget us.

Our own families, force-fed a diet of lies by its trusted television newsmen, doubted the nature of our sacrifices and quietly, shamefully, accepted our unadorned return.

Faced with such singular ignominy, we quietly resumed our lives, jobs, educations and careers. The overwhelming majority of us succeeded in those interrupted lives and careers, becoming doctors,engineers,architects,lawyers,businessmen,accountants,and all other professions imaginable. We established businesses, became wealthy, raised families, paid taxes, had grandchildren. By any measure, we achieved the American dream-not because it was handed to us in payment for our service,sacrifices or victimization-but earned by us in spite of it.

For thirty years and more we quietly persevered in our march to heal the wound inflicted on our souls, not by the armed enemy we faced on the battlefield, but by our countrymen in our rear - some, but not very, very many at all, who had even worn the uniform. Such a deep wound had been healing slowly and without any help from those who gleefully inflicted it.

And then, one of the men who wielded the original knife...the dagger sharpened by his ideological masters in Hanoi,Beijing,Moscow and Havana...re-emerges from our past and begins to once again twist that knife he so deeply thrust into our backs. He now emerges, wearing the mantle of respectable member of Congress, who rode his once-shameful Vietnam service into the halls of political power...who now seeks the highest office in the land, professing to be one of us...the abandoned ones, the forgotten ones, the murderers, rapists and sadists he loudly and theatrically damned in front of a world watching, listening and reading in 1971. He now proudly proclaims shedding blood for a Nation whose service he condemned in 1971, whose medals he contemptuously threw on the Capital grounds and which he now wears, unstained by the shame of his rejecting them when his nation needed solidarity. He now claims heroism as his badge of honor in an army of savages not seen since the "hordes of Genghis Khan."

And he does all of this without shame, guilt or remorse in front of us, the forgotten ones, the abandoned ones...and what is most terrifing to us, the ones who were never ashamed of our service, who have quietly kept the faith of our fathers, who have faithfully remembered and honored our dead, who have never "cashed in" on our military service, and who had slowly and painfully learned to accept our anonymity - is the fact this opportunist, this sunshine patriot, this back-stabbing traitor to his uniformed compatriots...this elitist, gold-digger...may possibly become our Commander-in-Chief.

And you...America...our dearly loved Nation...who abandoned us so many years ago, and to whom we have remained faithful nonetheless...are you going to shame us once again?

A VIETNAM VETERAN

Posted by: John Copeskey at August 17, 2004 08:40 PM

Maybe we should look at prosecuting Kerry for the war crimes, instead of considering him to be President. He discraced the uniform after his cowardly retreat, based on made up stories to obtain purple hearts. What a discrace. People need to open their eyes. This man has and will do anything to be president. He stated that while he was in Vietnam.

Posted by: Jim Pruett at August 17, 2004 10:24 PM

Just the facts D.,

Kerry doesn't show for intel meetings.

Posted by: Chris, OH at August 17, 2004 10:46 PM

I cannot imigine, a man that Got Thousands of american men killed in vietnam, by his anti war activities, even to the point he was honered by north vietnam, for his activities, being considered as a person to be comander of our great nation, what in the world are you thinkin out there ? He has to be the worst posible choice, I believe that the swift boat guys will take care of him, I dont think he will get a trird of the votes, and that is the hate Bush people, you are to be pitied.

Posted by: Harold Cecil at August 18, 2004 11:25 AM

I feel like we should impeach GW JR. like the Republicans said.

Published on Tuesday, June 17, 2003 by CommonDreams.org
When Will House Republicans Call for Bush's Impeachment?
by Steve Pittelli

It has now become clear that President Bush lied to the American people in order to promote a war. That war continues and has already led to the death of thousands of Iraqi civilians, hundreds of U.S. soldiers and countless Iraqi soldiers. In truth, Bush’s lies are more than just lies. They are high crimes and the President should now be subject to impeachment.

There are those who say that the President’s current popularity or the Republican majority in the House and Senate preclude the possibility of his impeachment. Perhaps they are underestimating the moral integrity of our Republican congressmen. In fact, some of them have already publicly stated their opinions on this subject. They did so in February of 1999 when they served as Impeachment Trial Managers for the Senate Impeachment Trial of former President Clinton. Let’s look at what they had to say then:

Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Illinois):
“There is a visibility factor in the president's public acts, and those which betray a trust or reveal contempt for the law are hard to sweep under the rug...They reverberate, they ricochet all over the land and provide the worst possible example for our young people.”

Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisconsin):
“The truth is still the truth, and a lie is still a lie, and the rule of law should apply to everyone, no matter what excuses are made by the president's defenders…We have done so because of our devotion to the rule of law and our fear that if the president does not suffer the legal and constitutional consequences of his actions, the impact of allowing the president to stand above the law will be felt for generations to come…laws not enforced are open invitations for more serious and more criminal behavior.”

Steve Chabot (R-Ohio):
“It would be wrong for you to tell America's children that some lies are all right. It would be wrong to show the rest of the world that some of our laws don't really matter.”

Steve Buyer (R- Indiana):
“I have also heard some senators from both sides of the aisle state publicly: I think these offenses rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. Now, to state publicly that you believe that high crimes and misdemeanors have occurred but for some reason you have this desire not to remove the president -- that desire, though, does not square with the law, the Constitution, and the Senate's precedents for removing federal judges for similar offenses.”

Rep. Lindsey Graham (R - South Carolina, Now Senator):
“The president of the United States sets atop of the legal pyramid. If there's reasonable doubt about his ability to faithfully execute the laws of the land, our future would be better off if that individual is removed. And let me tell you where it all comes down to me. If you can go back and explain to your children and your constituents how you can be truthful and misleading at the same time, good luck.”

Posted by: d. jones at August 18, 2004 07:01 PM

Bottom line to the Democrats is this. "Anybody but Bush!" They will defend Kerry because of their hatred of President Bush. They can't stand losing the White House, it's eating them up to the point of self destruction.

I heard it today on the radio on my ride home from work. A talk show host (and no d. jones, not Rush) ask for just Kerry supporters to call in and he asked them two questions.

1. What does John Kerry stand for?
Not a single one could answer that question.

Then he went on to:
2. Then why are you going to vote for John Kerry and to a person they said "Anybody but Bush"

You are willing to take a big chance and devastate this country for your hatred of President Bush.

I did not like President Clinton at all, but I did not resort to calling him names during his Presidency. He was the President and therefore deserved the respect that the office holds.

What I did was changed from an Independent to a Republican as a way of showing my dislike for what he stood for.

Posted by: Devil Dawg at August 18, 2004 07:10 PM

Senator Kerry has denounced a "527" ad attacking President Bush and now the Kerry "campaign" is asking President Bush to denounce the Swift Boat Veterans "527" ad attacking Senator Kerry. Well now, Senator Kerry has just broken the law with his denunciation of the "527" ad attacking the President. Why, you ask, has Senator Kerry broken the law? Because the law forbids coordination by the candidate or the candidate's campaign with any "527" group. President Bush will not denounce any "527" ad nor ask that any "527" ad be pulled, because it would be a violation of the law and President Bush will not violate the law.

Posted by: Walter D. Graham, III, Th.D. at August 18, 2004 08:14 PM

Another blog where mr jones misrepresents the truth. You say that Bush lied to Americans, the 911 commision said he didn't. I guess we are just supposed to trust you.

Bill Clinton didn't just lie to America, he lied under oath and he WAS IMPEACHED for that. He is no longer allowed to practice law because of his actions. George Bush told us the truth. He distinguished between WMD's and nuclear weapons by telling us that Saddam was pursuing nuclear development. Those facts are all established by congressional invetigations. But again, we are supposed to take your word for this.

Everyman that you have quoted still belives President Bush told them the truth, just because they don't belive you doesn't make them wrong.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at August 18, 2004 08:15 PM

Hey Jim Rodkey,

I didn't say it. Remember, my sources are biased. The Republican's said. Go after them!

GW JR. is on his way out by his own party.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004"

Posted by: d. jones at August 18, 2004 09:18 PM

What does John Kerry stand for?

Kerry, Stands for America FREEDOM, he stands for INTELLIGENCE before actions, he stnds for GIVING AMERICA DECENT PAYING JOBS, he stands for THE RIGHT OF EVERY AMERICAN TO HAVE AFFORDABLE HEALTH COVERAGE. He stands for WINNING AN ELECTION WITHOUT CHEATING! That is why John Kerry gets my vote. How can you be Anti Abortion and Pro Death Penality at the same time. That has never made sense to me. You people have forced me to take a side, and I would rather have Kerry than a Dictatoral President that doesn's listen to the American people, but TELL'S THEM WHAT TO DO! GW JR. needs to clean his own home up before he can tell anybody what to do.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at August 18, 2004 09:35 PM

d jones

Does the d stand for dumb? Those quotes by Republicans were about CLINTON - not Bush.

You'll believe anything! Keep drinking that Bush hating kool-aid

Posted by: Calamity Jane at August 18, 2004 09:43 PM

d.

AHA! These are your reasons for voting for Kerry:

GIVING AMERICA DECENT PAYING JOBS, he stands for THE RIGHT OF EVERY AMERICAN TO HAVE AFFORDABLE HEALTH COVERAGE.

You want handouts paid for by people like me, Jom, Devil Dawg and eveyone else with sense on this forum.

Presidents do not give jobs - businesses do. Where in the Bill of Rights does it say you are entitled to have health coverage?

Posted by: Calamity Jane at August 18, 2004 10:36 PM

D.
Kerry still didn't show for intelligence meetings.

Just the facts.

Posted by: Chris, OH at August 18, 2004 10:55 PM

Why don't people who claim to be so concerned for our country. take a deep breath and step back and take a good look at what has happened to our beloved country in the past 40 years or so.And Now no matter what President Bush said or does He's wrong . From the time he took office he has had to fight the democrats. they claim that he stole the election or that the supreme court gave it to him Fact is the democrats tried to steal it and also tried to change the rules while the game was being played The supreme court said that the rules had to stay the same.then the news media and the leaders of the democratic party set about trying to split this country which they have been some what succesful and if they come back to power they will continue the trend of trying to socialize this nation the most blessed one over the past 3 centuries the freedoms we had when I was a little boy are almost all gone can't even go fishing without a permit and I have been democratfor most of my life.Heck even a baby dosn't have the right to life no more
Guess you guys know how I'm voting go CLAMITY

Posted by: T Dickerson at August 18, 2004 10:58 PM

D. Jones trying hard to ignore Calamity for her insults.

Veterans face conundrum: Kerry or Bush?
By James Webb

Source:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-02-18-veterans-edit_x.htm

Both Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., and President Bush have had their attackers and defenders on the issue of Vietnam War service. But given Kerry's infamous anti-war activities, it is striking that many Vietnam veterans have chosen either to support him or maintain a skeptical distance from both camps. Indeed, Kerry's wins in Iowa and New Hampshire, which jump-started his campaign, often are attributed to his support among veterans.

Bush arguably has committed the greatest strategic blunder in modern memory. To put it bluntly, he attacked the wrong target. While he boasts of removing Saddam Hussein from power, he did far more than that. He decapitated the government of a country that was not directly threatening the United States and, in so doing, bogged down a huge percentage of our military in a region that never has known peace. Our military is being forced to trade away its maneuverability in the wider war against terrorism while being placed on the defensive in a single country that never will fully accept its presence.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at August 19, 2004 01:19 AM

I don't want Kerry for President, due to the fact that I am afraid this country will become
the puppet of the UN.

The UN. is obvously toothless, doesn't make any country play by the rules, and is corrupt beyond words in its own right. Why does he consider France Russia and Germany the only countries that matter in any coalition?

There is a difference in "getting along" with a Country, and just rolling over and letting some other country call our shots.

I would like the U.S. to stay independant of what other countries tell us to do.
I don't like Kerrys tilt to globalizing US power.
Not one bit.

Posted by: Sandy at August 19, 2004 08:24 AM

Pro-life and Pro-Death Penalty?

Well, that's a tough one. The aborted human life is the innocent victim of a murder. The Death Penalty is reserved for those who would take away another person's life without just cause by an act of premeditated murder.

Be honest Jones, even if I did take the time to quote the sources, you wouldn't believe it anyhow.

Kerry voting record is open to the public an accessible to any person who wants to check it out. I've already checked your sources and I'd be ashamed to list them if I were you. Pure hate!

Everything you claimed Kerry is going to give to you are things he has voted against as a Senator.

I guess it just depends on which Kerry you are going to vote for. The Senator and his voting record or the man he claims to be on the campaign trail.

Dems do seem to have a problem distinguishing which Kerry on their site after listing the record of BOB KERREY on the senate intelligence committee instead of John Kerry. I guess they;re so confused they don't know which Kerry they're supporting either.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at August 19, 2004 11:09 AM

Jim, ding, ding, ding,! Your Right!

Your sources tend to be completely biased towards Right Wing Conservatism Hatred. If I honestly could think of one thing GW JR. has done even decent. I would post it. I have thought long and hard and I Honestly can't! His whole Presidency is based on a lie.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards

Posted by: d. jones at August 19, 2004 01:55 PM

A news exclusive from www.pimnews.com. . .

NAZI SYMPATHIZERS FUND ATTACKS ON KERRY

William Regnery II, an heir to the Regnery publishing fortune is also a leading advocate of white nationalism publishing and moving into a new line of business: match-making for "heterosexual whites of Christian cultural heritage."

In an appeal to potential investors titled "Population is Destiny," Regnery wrote that the Caucasian dating service would be no ordinary money-making opportunity, but a chance to ensure "the survival of our race," which "depends upon our people marrying, reproducing and parenting."

According to Regenery, the dating service, will be the "first arrow in a business quiver" providing "services and products to whites."

Above: George W. Bush, with a copy of Bias, published by the pro-Nazi Regnery family.

Promoting white nationalism is nothing new for him or his family. His grandfather, William I, was an opponent of the U.S. siding against Germany in WWII. He signed incorporation papers for the America First Committee, an organization that opposed fighting Nazi Germany in World War II. His father, Henry, created Regnery Publishing, best known for publishing and promoting books written by right-wingers like Anne Coulter and G. Gordon Liddy.

William II has made his mark as a major fundraiser in radical right circles as the founder of the Charles Martel Society in 2001. The society publishes The Occidental Quarterly, an academic-looking journal filled with articles by white-supremacist luminaries such as Sam Francis, editor for the white supremacist Council of Conservative Citizens and Wayne Lutton of the hate group The Social Contract Press.

The society is putting together conferences, summer schools and a speaker's bureau — all designed to push Regnery's view that the white race is veering toward extinction.

As part of their effort, Regenery is doing everything it can to keep George W. Bush in the White House and the Republicans in Congress in power. It has published a new book by John O’Neill and Jerome Corsi titled “Unfit for Command.” The book smears Kerry’s war record in an attempt to distract voters from George W. Bush’s dereliction of duty.

Posted by: Paul at August 19, 2004 04:07 PM

d.

Since when does the President give jobs, much less better paying jobs? The truth of the matter is that the economy was going down with Clinton, and then 9/11 happened. I know if the terrorist had not attacked, the economy would be much better. Bush has done a wonderful job keeping the economy going in such tough times. I know you can't see it because you are blinded by hate for our president, I thought the dems were all for love and forgiveness. Lord knows Gore would have forgiven the terrorist and then given them some money hopping that they would not attack again. Please the President did what had to be done, go in and attack the bastard terrorist who killed 3000 innocent people. We cannot deal with these types of people lightly; we have to attack them in their territory before they attack us (you, me, everyone in this great country).

Posted by: David Lowery at August 19, 2004 06:00 PM

SwiftBoat Liars!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13267-2004Aug18.html

This has to stop people. I don't like saying, I told you so. So I won't. This is one of the most disgusting things a person can do to another person to discredit his efforts to serve his country. Thurman got on national and Lied On John Kerry About Vietnam. What kind of person would do this? Is there no end to what money can buy? I almost started to believe them. This is not funny at all, it is very sad. It shows how desperate the GW JR. camp really is. Another Scandal that blew up in his face. Man!

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at August 19, 2004 07:29 PM

Hey Jones,
Answer me this one question.
If as you state Kerry is for INTELLEGENCE before action. How come he introduced a measure to cut funding to the CIA by 6 BILLION dollars over a 4 year period. It's all public record, we all know what he has voted for and against as a Senator of Mass.

Posted by: Devil Dawg at August 19, 2004 09:40 PM

Just face it all of you die-hard Bush supporters. Bush is going to lose. When he does, America will pull up from the nosedive that MR. (I don't consider him worthy of being called PRESIDENT) Bush has steered it into. I hope you sleep well knowing this is the truth, I know I will. Oh, and to make clear to all you Evangelist Born-Again Christians, GEORGE BUSH IS THE DEVIL. HE'S SATAN! AGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!

Love,
Mr. Reality Check

Posted by: Reality Check at August 20, 2004 02:02 AM

Hey d.,
Not directly threatening the United States? Who funded OBL and supplied Al-Queda willing martyrs for their jihad against the "Great Satan"? The oppressed Iraqi people? Hussein was a billionaire who financed Al-Queda with the spoils of what he plundered from his own people. And the people who aren't accepting the presence of the US are those who are the terrorists threatened by the promise of freedom and representitive government. Who cares what they think? The majority of Iraqis are glad to be free. As for never knowing peace, the Native Americans had been fighting each other since the Ice Age, and some like the Apache, accepted by historians as the greatest guerrila fighters in history, literally lived to fight- a young warrior couldn't take a squaw until he stole enough horses or had enough scalps hanging from his belt to prove he was a man- no matter if it sounds politically incorrect today, their bloody heritage was ingrained in their culture and became their identity as a people (the same is true of the Huns of old, whom the Iraqis of today are descendants). Yet they changed, as are many Iraqis who already have renounced their progenitors' bloody past. The battle with the terrorists continue, but the war was won the minute we dragged Attila Hussein out of his woodchuck hole. It was no tactical error- Bush has broken a worldwide terrorist network into isolated pockets of resistance, the largest which happens to be the Huns' old stomping grounds. If you want to fault Bush for that, believe me, the terrorists wholeheartedly agree.

Posted by: Dave at August 20, 2004 03:00 AM

d.

Please, those Republicans were talking about Clinton not President Bush. You are trying to take these statements out of context, just like most democrats. Are you that desperate? Do you have no morals? I guess not, you are a democrat.
One last question, did you read the whole thing, or just what you wanted to read?

Posted by: David Lowery at August 20, 2004 09:09 AM

This is the post I was replying to in my previous post:

I feel like we should impeach GW JR. like the Republicans said.

Published on Tuesday, June 17, 2003 by CommonDreams.org
When Will House Republicans Call for Bush's Impeachment?
by Steve Pittelli

It has now become clear that President Bush lied to the American people in order to promote a war. That war continues and has already led to the death of thousands of Iraqi civilians, hundreds of U.S. soldiers and countless Iraqi soldiers. In truth, Bush’s lies are more than just lies. They are high crimes and the President should now be subject to impeachment.

There are those who say that the President’s current popularity or the Republican majority in the House and Senate preclude the possibility of his impeachment. Perhaps they are underestimating the moral integrity of our Republican congressmen. In fact, some of them have already publicly stated their opinions on this subject. They did so in February of 1999 when they served as Impeachment Trial Managers for the Senate Impeachment Trial of former President Clinton. Let’s look at what they had to say then:

Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Illinois):
“There is a visibility factor in the president's public acts, and those which betray a trust or reveal contempt for the law are hard to sweep under the rug...They reverberate, they ricochet all over the land and provide the worst possible example for our young people.”

Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisconsin):
“The truth is still the truth, and a lie is still a lie, and the rule of law should apply to everyone, no matter what excuses are made by the president's defenders…We have done so because of our devotion to the rule of law and our fear that if the president does not suffer the legal and constitutional consequences of his actions, the impact of allowing the president to stand above the law will be felt for generations to come…laws not enforced are open invitations for more serious and more criminal behavior.”

Steve Chabot (R-Ohio):
“It would be wrong for you to tell America's children that some lies are all right. It would be wrong to show the rest of the world that some of our laws don't really matter.”

Steve Buyer (R- Indiana):
“I have also heard some senators from both sides of the aisle state publicly: I think these offenses rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. Now, to state publicly that you believe that high crimes and misdemeanors have occurred but for some reason you have this desire not to remove the president -- that desire, though, does not square with the law, the Constitution, and the Senate's precedents for removing federal judges for similar offenses.”

Rep. Lindsey Graham (R - South Carolina, Now Senator):
“The president of the United States sets atop of the legal pyramid. If there's reasonable doubt about his ability to faithfully execute the laws of the land, our future would be better off if that individual is removed. And let me tell you where it all comes down to me. If you can go back and explain to your children and your constituents how you can be truthful and misleading at the same time, good luck.”

Posted by: d. jones at August 18, 2004 07:01 PM

Posted by: David Lowery at August 20, 2004 09:10 AM

David, The same judgemental people that attacked President Clinton, can use their own words for the same reason to impeach GW JR. His Crimes are by far worse.

Compare GW JR. to Senator Kerry and be level headed.

The Bush and Kerry Track Records

http://www.electoral-vote.com/info/records.html

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at August 20, 2004 11:14 AM

Why are the GW JR supporters so quiet about the Swiftboat Lies in the Washington Post!

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at August 20, 2004 11:16 AM

D. Jones,
I'm still waiting on your answer to my question.

Wow, I can honestly see why you feel the world is coming to an end. If commondreams.org was where I got my information I might feel the same way. There is nothing but doom and gloom on that web site. Looks like another 527 site to me. Nothing good to say about anything.

Hopefully you will reach puberty you will realize that just because it's in black and white it does not mean it's true. You really need to read some other sites, not just Liberal news orginizations.

To head you off, I read daily, CNN, FOX, USATODAY, Drudge Report, MRC.org, MSNBC, Wall Street Journal, and if it's a really slow day ABC News. I like to know what everyone's opinions are not just a select few.

I would still like you to respond to my question earlier.

Posted by: Devil Dawg at August 20, 2004 11:31 AM

They are quiet about the lies because it blew up in their faces. I saw a poll that said 70% of independent voters who haven't decided yet make it more likely they will vote for kerry and against Bush.

Whoops!

Posted by: Paul at August 20, 2004 01:07 PM

2.9362

MODIFIED CABLE LENGTH TO ENABLE PROPER FIT IN CHASSIS

Hey D...

It turns out that article does more to hurt Kerry. It turns out that the citation that awarded Larry Thurlow the Bronze star was actually written by John Kerry.

Kerry is digging a huge hole for himself. His best approach would be to do what Bush does, and take the high road, but this is eating away at him. He can't let it go.

What's so hypocritical about this is it's okay for George Soros, moveon.org, and all pro democrat 527's to spend $100,000,000 telling lies and making serious misrepresentations about President Bush since January, but let one group of Vet's have a different opinion, and hell breaks loose.

George Soros has donated over $5,000,000 to pro-democrat 527's. But one guy from Texas donates $150,000 to another 527, (swiftboat vets) and suddenly they're freaking out, it's all part of a vast right wing conspiracy, and Bush is in on it. But, there's no coordination between John (the saint) Kerry and MoveOn.org, is there? Only Republicians do stuff like that, right?

Get real. You live in a fantasy world.

John Kerry's camp is also calling on the Publisher of Unfit for command to Ban the book. Did you know that? Isn't that censorship?

So D, I guess in your world the First Amendment only applies to those who agree with your point of view.

Some people call that fascism.

Open your eyes. There are a lot of things about Bush I don't like, but at least I'm honest enough with myself to be objective, and not so morally obtuse.

Oh, BTW; despite the $100,000,000 pro-democrat 527's have invested to try to get Bush out of office, Kerry and Bush are still in a statistical dead heat, and the GOP has not even had their convention yet.

One $150,000 ad, and Kerry looses 2 points nationally. Your man is not very solid.

VOTE: W04

Posted by: Rick OH at August 20, 2004 01:30 PM

d:

If John Kerry is innocent of the Swift Boat accusations, why won't he realese his records. It seems the press and Kerry lawyers managed to use the freedom of information acts to demand the documents of the swift vets be released, now let's do the same thing with Kerry. It's not that some haven't tried, but everytime, Kerry gets his legal team out there and prevents this from happening. Apparently freedom of information is a law that can only be used to gather attack information against the common person and not the fat cat person who wants to represent us.

Kerry's version of his Vietnam service has been an ever changing, ever evolving story. The Cambodian incident is just the beginning, as more of the facts are discovered, more of the deceptions will be revealed. John O'neill version has remained unchanged. He isn't telling a different story. It's kind of like the evolution debate, everytime a new discovery is made, the whole scenario has to change to make the deceptions fit the intended purpose.

The Washington Post poll is just that, a poll. And polls can and are manipulated to reach a foregone conclusion and very few polls have been shown to be reliable.

Why is it that you only sight polls that report favorably on Kerry but then ignore polls that site favorably towards Bush? If you are going to use polls as a standard, shouldn't the judgment be to look at all the polls and then find the common thread in those polls.

Most polls ask misleading questions that are open to interpretation. As in the country going in the wrong direction poll. As a supporter of Bush, I think the country is going in the wrong direction, but it's because of the liberal judges, ACLU and planned parenthood. Others, who support the democratic view think the country is going in the wrong direction because of George Bush. The answer is far more complex than simple.

You are going to reinterpret everything to your own advantage and gain. You are going to seek out others who agree with your view to support your opinions. Rush isn't the standard of truth for America any more than the left leaning liberals. I'm honest enough to admit that.

Trying to find a balance, trying to get to the real truth, is cutting through the hype of both sides and giving everyone an opportunity to voice their opinions and concerns. Fox slants to the right, CNN slants to the left. The real truth is somewhere in the center but you have to listen to both sides to arrive at conclusions. Until you are willing to that, your opinions are tainted by a personal bias that will not allow you to agree that anything a supporter of Bush says has any credence simply because he supports Bush.

You attack the swifty's a republicans supporting Bush. Aren't the veterans for Kerry also slanted by their party affiliation? Yet all we hear from the Kerry side is that this is a Republican agenda supported by republicans and those words came from Kerry's mouth. When have you heard Bush attack John Kerry for moveon.org or Michael Moore. When have you heard george Bush demand that Kerry denounce any attack ad against him. That hasn't happened and I interpret that as integrity. Instead George Bush has said that he is opposed to ALL the 527 ads. Kerry hasn't said this, he is only demanding that the ads that attack him be removed while he says little to nothing about the attacks against Bush.

And before you site the latest moveon.org ad. Here's some facts. Kerry denounced that ad 2 hours before it aired anywhere in the country. It wasn't aired where he was campaigning, that means that Kerry knew about the ad before it aired. Party afiliation with these ads is illegal and any action of co-ops with the groups is also illegal. Kerry's knowledge of the ad, implies a co-operation between his camp and moveon.org. And when those charges were levelled against Kerry he stopped talking about it. More implication.

You could use a few lessons from Monty Python, an arguement is simply taking an opposing view, it is about debate for the purpose of coming to a greater understanding. From everyone of your post, that is never your intention. Your intention is to attack, not debate and you aren't concerned with discovering truth, you are only concerned with promoting a rabid hatred of Bush and think anyone who disagrees with you to be an idiot.

I don't think your an idot. I simply think you are well informed about the other sides views. You would do well to explore some other views and then develop a more well-rounded more informed view opinion.

I don't buy the swift-vet arguements wholesale, just like I don't buy the defence of Kerry arguements. It's not that simple. But let them debate and then allow us to decide and let's put all the facts on the table, not only the facts that make our own views look good.

You might think I'm some sort of right-winger. I voted for Bill Clinton for his first term, I voted for Jimmy Carter. I did this because I trusted them and not the attack dogs. I still think Clinton was a good president, but I also know that he lied under oath and then that impuned his presidency keeping him from being a great president. I am embarassed about by support for Carter and cringe everytime he opens his mouth about politics to this day. He does great work with Habitat but let's leave it at that.

I believe GW has atempted to preserve intergrity to the WHite House, based on my view of the facts, you disagree and that's fine but it doesn't make you or me evil and it doesn't make you or me stupid.

My request is that you simply up the level of this debate to debate and not attack and assault while implying to total stupidity of everyone who disagrees with you. The country is evenly divided. That means as many people agree with you and disagree with you, the same is true with me. Neither side is 100% right. Some economists say the country is on the right track, others say it isn't. I can only account for my own personal life and that is to say that I am OK. I'm doing fine. I haven't been personally hurt by the policies of the Bush administration and have, in fact, been helped to some degree by the tax cuts.

On the other hand, I look at the war and I believe that the president went in the right direction, I believe that if we didn't take the war to them, we'd be fighting that war here. I can't proove that, but you also can't prove that I'm wrong. Both of us can only speculate.

I've not only read the 911 commission report, but I trust it, it points out the flaws and the strengths and points a finger at no one, not GW and not Clinton. I don't need some journalist to tell me what it says because I've read it for myself.

I've read the swift boat claims and I've read Kerry's claims. I've watched the previous debates between Kerry and O'Neill from the 70's and all I can say is that O'Neill's story hasn't changed but Kerry's has so I trust O'Neill's version more because he has been unwavering while Kerry hasn't. That's how informed opinions are made. I find it difficult to understand how Rassman would know where the shots were coming from since, by his own words, he was underwater because shells were hitting the water. The other three commanders of the swift boats who were there say that when the boat hit the mine the began to fire because it was common to be hit by the VC's during this type of operation, when no enemy fire was was returned they stopped firing. That explains Rassman's feer of being shot by enemy fire evn though there wasn't any and somebody who was rightfully trying to stay underwater to avoid being shot would not therefore be the best candidate to observe where the shots were coming from. You don't have to agree, that's fine. But it is worth considering, even if it might not agree you with you notion.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at August 20, 2004 01:32 PM

d.

You still have not given me proof that President Bush has lied. On the other hand, there is proof that President Clinton lied. You have given me a bunch of opinions, no facts. I'm sorry I can't debate you anymore. How can you debate someone like yourself, who debates with opinions and not facts? Please use facts and not opinions. The swiftboat vets use facts. The citation that was given to kerry was based on an after-action report written by kerry. Almost everyone that was present when this action happened has said they were not under enemy fire, and that kerry ran when the mine hit Boat-3. Only after did kerry come back to help his crewmate. I have lost all respect for you d. I know this will not affect you in the least but kerry is losing respect as well. Lets wait and see what kind of bounce the President gets after his convention.

Posted by: David Lowery at August 20, 2004 01:52 PM

d.

To top it off, you tried to pass off the Republican comments as if they were talking about President Bush. You are just like kerry, half truths and out and out lies.

Posted by: David Lowery at August 20, 2004 01:54 PM

And I'll repeat:

Open your eyes. There are a lot of things about Bush I don't like, but at least I'm honest enough with myself to be objective, and not so morally obtuse.

Oh, BTW; despite the $100,000,000 pro-democrat 527's have invested to try to get Bush out of office, Kerry and Bush are still in a statistical dead heat, and the GOP has not even had their convention yet.

One $150,000 ad, and Kerry looses 2 points nationally. Your man is not very solid.

VOTE: W04

Posted by: Rick OH at August 20, 2004 02:11 PM

Jim Rodkey, that was a concise, well thought out, and long (like most of mine) response.

Take comfort in knowing that I read it, and I thank you for taking the time to put it together. Unfortunately, D is so close minded, as he/she has continually demonstrated, that the chances are it will not be taken to task, or even read.

D... You're getting eaten alive. Bow out now while you still have... well something.

Posted by: Rick OH at August 20, 2004 02:26 PM

To David Lowery

Thank you for providing a fair and balanced viewpoint.

Posted by: Calamity Jane at August 20, 2004 03:10 PM

GW was alone in making the decision to invade Iraq? Please!

On 2/4/1998 Bill Clinton said "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develope weapons of mass destruction and the missles to deliver them". Thirteen days later, he said: "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriuosly diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction".

Oh really! I didn't think the elitist democrats had the word use of force in their vocabulary. I guess this must mean to lob a few cruise missles at Bin Laden's camps, and then turn away, thinking, (if you can compliment them by saying they are able to think), that that will teach them to mess with us, and what about those WMD's he mentioned? How about your montra, (for you Dem's, that is the repeating over and over and over, the lies and inuendo's and half truths that they have taught you). I thought there were no WMD's. I guess that was a slip of the tougue. Maybe we are no safer today because of your wonderful cigar toting Mr. Clinton pissing Al Queda off when he bombed them! Or maybe I am in error and it was really GW's fault again.

Duuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhh!

Posted by: Ron at August 20, 2004 06:13 PM

Calamity Jane, you ask if I travel outside the country? Yeah, I actually work for a German company and travel to Dresden twice a year. I will tell you what I know. The europeans prefer a less strong president. I also have a French lady and an Irish guy in my engineering group. I can tell you this, they do not think twice about whether the person they are voting for is on friendly terms with the US. Remember, the only time the UN has agreed to action in all of history was the first Iraq war and Korea so expecting Europe to take an interest in the US has been a cr***y argument from the start...when have they ever supported our struggles...we typically come to their aid not vice versa.

Posted by: Christopher at August 20, 2004 06:57 PM

Oh this is rich...

MoveOn.org, the Media Fund, ACT, and other pro-Democrat 527's spend $100 mill and the last year blasting Bush with lies.

What does the President do? Nothing, he takes the high road.

A group of 250 vetrans spend $150,000 voicing their opinion in a commercial.

What does John Kerry do?

WAHHHHHH! IT'S NOT FAIR... THEY'RE CHEATING, AND I'M GONNA SUE!!!!

I suppose if he's elected, and terrorists fly airplanes into the Sears Tower, or detonate a nuke in Manhattan... he'll sue them too.

VOTE: W04

Posted by: Rick at August 20, 2004 08:03 PM

When you shovel dirt, expect to get dirty. Apparently, no one told Mr. Kerry that his hatred latent comments about our President would have repercussions. Isn’t it amazing how a person of his stature has lived as long as he has without learning basic schoolyard lessons?

Posted by: David at August 20, 2004 08:32 PM

I find it funny that every Dem out there says "Even McCain is coming out against this!" McCain hasn't been a Republican for years, he hasn't voted like one, he hasn't spoken like one and he is one by affiliation only!
Go W!

Posted by: Tony at August 20, 2004 08:32 PM

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States, (duuuuhhhh!, as opposed to who?) the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I beleive that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destructin is his hands is a REAL, (real? I thought they had a code of montra that has disposed any myth of the WMD's that Saddam had), and grave threat to our security" as quoted by Senator John F. Kerry on October 9th, 2002 There he goes again, using that naughty word force and saying that Saddam had WMD's. Now he is talking out the other side of his mouth, (a natural phenomenon with Liberals), in saying GW lied? Good F*&%&$g God. Do they not have a limit to their hipocrisy?

On January 23rd of 2003, that's just a year and a half ago for you montra indoctrinated moronic liberals, Kerry said, "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murdurous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly greivous threat because he is so prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistant grasp for weapons of mass destruction IS REAL, (there he goes again -- using that word )." I suppose Kerry would have rally made America's response a strong one by lobbing maybe 8 or 10 missiles this time, but then we would have to award him another purple heart, because he would have surely gotten wounded again.

I wonder what would the worthless montra spewing out of the democrat's mouths if Gore would have won, (that is if Bush would have allowed the counting of all the votes, like he had control of it, oh, I forgot, the montra says he did). Would he have handled the situation in the same way with the same information Bush had? Would that dumb a** Gore be saying that he lied about the war? Oh, that's right, he would have lobbed 5 or 6 missiles and went back to learning the fine art of twisting the truth at some liberal convention somewhere while they comitted attack after attack atfer attack like they did when his worthless boss was the President, and somehow GW would still be responsible, I guess.

Posted by: Ron at August 20, 2004 09:15 PM

All Kerry has to do to put a stop to these vets hurting him is to release his records. To date, he hasn't done that. Seems a little fishy to me. Bush did. Why can't Kerry? Because he is a filthy liar!

Posted by: Ron at August 20, 2004 09:28 PM

John Kerry may have opened himself up to not only judgement but condemnation and revoking of his metals. Read the Judical Watch suit just filed with the Department of Naval Defense among others.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2004/kerryawards.htm

Posted by: Kerry Naval Investigation at August 20, 2004 10:35 PM

This is in response to Christopher:

I am not the one who said do I ever get out of the country.

I worked with French and Germans on Sept 11th and when I asked them what they thought they said that the world thinks we Americans have too much (ie they are jealous) and that we favor Israel too much. I suppose that justifies killing us in some peoples' minds??? Anyway, I agree with you Christopher - I don't care if Europe or any other place on this planet likes us or our president. This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR CHILDRENS' FUTURES - WE SHOULD DO WHAT IS IN OUR BEST INTERESTS.

VOTE W - You will sleep better at night!

Posted by: Calamity Jane at August 21, 2004 12:10 AM

Senator Kerry makes vicious attack against the Bush camp for the oc-ordination of the Swift Boat Vets because a FLIER advertising a Swift Boat Rally was at a volunteer staffed GOP headquarters. Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't moveon.org an official part of the DNC Convention. Didn't Michael Moore admit contributing to the Kerry Camp and wasn't he a part of the DNC convention. Was John Kerry and John Edwards present at a concert where vicious attacks were made against the President? Hasn't each of the performers who will be going out full-force in a concert to promote John Kerry contributed to the Kerry Campaign?

I wasn't aware that the soft money regulations only applied to Republicans and to television advertising. I thought the campaign reform bill was to stop the soft money spending ofr the promotion of a candidate in any form.

If Kerry is opposed to this type of thing than demonstrate it by stopping the showings of Fahrenheit 911, denounce the musicians anti-Bush concert tour and demand an investigation into moveon.org. After all, while the Bush attackers keep saying he's done nothing to stop the attacks all the while ignoring his statement that he is opposed to all 527 ads (that would include the Swift Vet ads), they are quick to ignore that the Swift Ads haven't hit the million mark in spending but moveon.org has already spent over 60 million.

Maybe we all need to read "If it's not close, they can't cheat." I wonder how many dead people the democrats are going to register to vote in this years elections. I wonder how many illegal immigrants the Democrats will grant voter registration cards to. I wonder how many felony convicts they'll bus to the polls with promises of cigarettes. I wonder how many mysterious, after the polls have closed, voting boxes will turn up in New Mexico. I wonder if they'll turn to the courts to stop the vote of our servicemen who are serving overseas.

Oh that's right, it's the Democrats and we are supposed to simply ignore that!

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at August 21, 2004 08:00 AM

kerry has stayed far away from moore's movie ,,,,
moore sure was hanging with the crowed at the convention ,,,,, drinking with jimmy carter, now there was a real example of a president lol, 55 mph speeed limits, wage freezes, and on and on,

Posted by: roger at August 21, 2004 12:00 PM

oops, sorry calamity...wrong reply to the wrong person...we are on the same side of this issue, I was responding to the person stating the world hates us....when in fact the world is jealous of us...the only country that ever had the power to take over the world and didn't try to. Remember the decisions Germany, France, and Russia made in regards to world domination when they had all chips- somehow we are supposed to consider them when it comes to spending US tax dollars liberating and rebuilding a country....they just want a handout.

Posted by: christopher at August 21, 2004 06:32 PM

http://www.conservativecartoons.com/cartoon.php?toon=ballot.gif&year=2004

this kind of says it all.

Posted by: Christopher at August 21, 2004 09:32 PM

Roger

We could write volumes filled with everything Carter did wrong. HE should stay on his peanut farm with the rest of the nuts. That man was the worst president EVER!! I stood in line for over 2 hours to vote him out of office. Weren't they a pair at the DNC Convention? Michael and Jimmy - two prize winners!!

And Carter didn't get trashed half as much as Bush but caused this country ten times more damage. OOPS - I just remembered he is a Dem and loved by the media.

Posted by: Calamity Jane at August 21, 2004 11:23 PM

Roger, first of all, I'm on your side, but it was Nixon who imposed 55 mph speed limits, not Jimmy Carter

Posted by: Ron at August 21, 2004 11:47 PM

Isn't it curious that Kerry is the preferred candidate of the Europeans? They know Kerry would seek the 'good opinion of other people' and wind up at the mercy of the Euros, making concessions and pleading forgiveness, plus tossing in some foriegn aid and favored nation trade status for good measure. Worst of all, he would do this and more by deferring our foriegn policy to others like the UN. Kerry calls this 'regaining our status in the family of nations'. I call it, as Bush fully recognizes it, as abdicating our sovreignty. That's why Farenheit 911 is a non-issue with Bush. He never defended himself for making the decision to invade Iraq, only that even if the data was incorrect, he felt that he was right for doing so. No matter what France or Germany or Russia thought of him or his foriegn policy. They hate Bush because he had the guts to do something without their approval, something they hadn't the guts to do themselves as nations or together through the UN. They're not only jealous of what we have, but who we are.

Posted by: Dave at August 22, 2004 01:39 AM

What it boils down to is that we can watch Kerry give his concession speech before the voters of the US, or watch him give our concession speech before the delegates of the UN. Let's kiss his a** goodbye before we kiss our own goodbye.

Posted by: Dave at August 22, 2004 02:02 AM

A question: Why don't the Kerry people have each of the vets that stood on stage at the Democratic convention (supposedly)on his behalf, go on all the popular news shows and talk shows, expressing how honorable this figure is? Show us your battle scars! It would be most interesting seeing these men joined together with the Swift Boat men hashing out the TRUTH. After seeing what this man Kerry really is I have much shame in seeing how our country is evolving. God help us. (Another Purple Heart Nam Vet)

Posted by: Jim B at August 22, 2004 03:28 AM

Swiftboat is a LIE, and Senator Kerry, has documentation to prove it!

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004'

Posted by: d. jones at August 22, 2004 04:34 AM

d:
IF swiftboat is a lie, AND IF Senator Kerry has documentation to prove it, THEN Senator Kerry should sign SF(Standard Form)180 so ALL the records can be viewed, not just the records Kerry wants to show us.

Posted by: Walter D. Graham, III, Th.D. at August 22, 2004 06:50 PM

d. jones

Do you know Kerry personally to be privy to this information?

He is afraid he will be exposed if he signs a Form 180.

Prediction: He is protecting other people like Ted "the swimmer" Kennedy is what I think. Teddie probably pulled some strings to get him his medals after Kerry wrote up his own recommendations.

To ALL YOU VETS AND ACTIVE MILITARY - THANK YOU!!

Posted by: Calamity Jane at August 22, 2004 07:09 PM

D... What documentation?

You know this is all getting kind of funny. Theres' Kerry blaming all of this swift boat stuff on Bush, and yet not once has Bush ever attacked Kerry's war record. His Senate record is what is truly at issue here. (and I agree, the whole this is not important to me, it's just fun to watch Kerry get himself into these blunders)

And that is what Bush has been questioning. His actions as senator. That is what has the most bearing on how Kerry will perform as President. After all, he spent 19 years there, and only 4 months, 11 days in vietnam. Which , by the way hardly qualifiy's him to be Commander in Chief. There are many more Democrats who served with greater distiction in that war than Kerry did.

Now Kerry is saying that there are far more important issues to talk about, like the economy, gay marriage, etc, etc, etc. He says that we shouldn't get bogged down in things that happened 35 years ago.

Well John, you brought it up! Not the president.

Welcome to the campaign John.

VOTE: W04

Posted by: Rick OH at August 23, 2004 09:04 AM

There is a atricle in the Wall Street Journal today that everyone in this forum must read. Please do because it really shed some light on what's really going on:

Why We're Refighting Vietnam, Blame McCain-Feingold.

Monday, August 23, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

How did we get into this mess? Much of the presidential campaign this month has been consumed with a dispute about whether John Kerry told tall tales about his service in Vietnam 35 years ago.

The media were similarly fixated on ancient history several months ago, after filmmaker Michael Moore, at a Wesley Clark rally, labeled President Bush "a deserter" and Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe said the president had been "AWOL" during his service in the Texas Air National Guard. Mr. Bush had to produce his dental records to quiet the storm. Now in response to the anti-Kerry ad by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, MoveOn.org is airing an ad accusing Mr. Bush of using family ties to evade serving overseas during Vietnam.

This is insanity. While partisans may delight in playing gotcha over uncertain Vietnam-era memories, voters are likely to wonder about when the issues they care about will get discussed.

It's fair to say that the so-called campaign finance reform that Mr. Bush signed into law in 2002 will result in more money being plowed into negative advertising during this campaign than ever before. The McCain-Feingold law was supposed to curb the influence of big money in politics. Instead, it has led to an avalanche of money landing in the coffers of so-called 527 groups. The name comes from the section of the tax code that allows independent groups to raise and spend as much as they want on political ads so long as they don't expressly advocate a candidate or coordinate their campaign with political parties or candidates.
So far, the 527 action has mostly been on the Democratic side. Billionaire financier George Soros has given some $15 million to such liberal 527 advocacy groups as MoveOn.org and America Coming Together. Together, such groups have spent more than $50 million on Bush-bashing TV ads they claim were not coordinated at all with the Kerry campaign. Now the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, backed by money from Republican donors, have produced two anti-Kerry ads questioning his service in Vietnam and his subsequent career as an antiwar activist who charged U.S. soldiers with committing atrocities.

Democrats have filed a formal compliant with the Federal Election Commission, charging that the Swift Boat group is illegally coordinating its ads with the Bush campaign. Such a complaint is almost impossible to prove and almost certainly destined for the FEC's circular file. Last week, the FEC did meet to pass some new restrictions on 527 groups, but they will take effect only in the 2006 elections. Even then, no one expects the new rules to slow down the 527s much.

Although no one is ever likely to prove coordination between 527s and any political campaign, it doesn't take a genius to realize that campaign finance reform makes it easier and more convenient for both sides to run nasty advertising while avoiding any accountability for toxic messages. Political parties might not be able to endure the criticism that would accompany the Swift Boat ad questioning Mr. Kerry's military record or a liberal ad that ties President Bush's policies to the poisoning of pregnant women. Far from banishing money from politics, McCain-Feingold has merely moved it out of the major parties and into the political shadows, where it is less accountable.
Indeed, for all the effort that has gone into trying to establish a link between the Swift Boat anti-Kerry ads and such Bush aides as Karl Rove, the even closer connections between liberal 527s and the Kerry campaign have gone largely unremarked. No Bush 527 has donors who have given nearly as much as the millions that Mr. Soros or investment analyst Peter Lewis have given to liberal groups. Jim Jordan, a former Kerry campaign manager, is now the spokesman for the Media Fund, the biggest liberal 527. Zack Exley, the former Internet director of MoveOn.org, now performs the same tasks for the Kerry campaign.

Indeed, it is remarkable how so many people who backed McCain-Feingold restrictions on soft money now embrace the 527s that have brought a flood of new cash into politics. Hollywood in particular has fallen in love with liberal 527s, lavishing millions on the groups through donations and concert tours. Chad Griffin, a consultant to Democrats on Hollywood giving, defends the practice: "We'll never be on equal financial ground with the Republicans, but hopefully, the playing field will be more level than in the past." This year, liberals now suddenly seem to believe there is no such thing as too much money in politics, as long as it flows to their side. Writer-producer Lionel Chetwynd, a rare Hollywood Republican, says he's astonished at the hypocrisy he sees: "We've opened a Pandora's box. Anyone who truly believes in campaign finance reform doesn't do an end run around it."

Media outlets, which are now wallowing in the drama of the Swift Boat/Bush bashing crossfire, seem unable to explain how we have sunk to this level of discourse. "Reporters and pundits remain silent about the perversion of the very system they championed for years," says Vaughn Ververs, editor of the political tip sheet Hotline. "To them, it seems, simply saying 'reform' is as good as actually having it."

To their credit, a few journalists are now seeing the scales fall from their eyes. The Washington Post's David Broder, dean of the Beltway press corps, now admits that "it is virtually impossible to control the flow of money from the private sector into the political world. . . . The best one can hope is that new rules do not produce more unintended negative consequences than benefits. McCain-Feingold is flunking that test."
Sen. George Allen, who once occupied Thomas Jefferson's seat in the Virginia Legislature, says that the only way to honor the First Amendment's protections of political speech is to let everyone contribute whatever he wants but require immediate disclosure on the Internet. The alternative, as we see today, is to let independent groups refight the Vietnam War, diverting attention and accountability from the candidates and their programs. The major losers in this latest round of unfriendly 527 fire are the voters, many of whom are too young to fully appreciate Vietnam and must wonder what any of this has to do with them.

Posted by: Rick OH at August 23, 2004 09:23 AM

Mr.McCain is a poor angry man that wants revenge no matter the cost. His aspiration on becoming a presidential nominee was trashed by his own words and his own record during the Republican elections of 2000. Making this worst, he has become a Democratic party sponsor (being a republican--shame on you--- not shame on President Bush--)-- The Bush administration has never attacked you for this, it has just let you be... However, why the Democrats are actively attacking and truthfully PUBLICLY HATING the Democrat Senator that will speak at the Republican convention next week?
Crying Babies...it is just the old child game, "I can do it being a Democrat but you cannot being a Republican.?" The same with the EXTREME LIES of the movie 911 -- The Bush administation has played as what they are. Grown up responsible people, responding at a Leader's level, however, when the swift boat commanders claims in front of the general public that MR.Kerry lied about his medals, topping these with trashing garbage against his own comrades by calling them murderers.? DONT BE SORRY MR. KERRY.. IF ALL THESE IS TRUE,THEN ACCEPT THAT WHAT YOU HAVE DONE IN THE PAST HAS BEEN WRONG>!!
A man of his words accepts the goods and the bads just like that...as a man.

Posted by: Ricardo at August 23, 2004 03:34 PM

GIVE BUSH A SWIFT KICK IN HIS ASS VOTE JOHN F. KEERY

Posted by: MICHAEL WILLIAMS at August 23, 2004 08:14 PM

Michael:
Who?

Posted by: Dave at August 24, 2004 12:18 AM

Why is it ok for the M.Moore, Clarke, Whoopie, etc. to have freedom of speech to say any nasty untruth they want to spout? But when over 200 brave and honorable vets speak out they are supposed to be "hushed" up and have no right to speak? And even called "liars" by the democrats? This just goes to show what the Johns stand for. To heck with the constitution unless it favors their agenda. If the dems win the election, we can kiss our freedoms goodbye.
Vote Bush

Posted by: Deb OK at August 24, 2004 02:02 AM

Swift Boat Officer Tells About '69 Raid
by William Rood... Chicago Tribune 8/22/04
"...The difference was that Kerry, who had tactical command of that particular operation, had talked to Droz and me beforehand about not responding the way the boats did to an ambush.
We agreed that if we were not crippled by the initial volley, and had a clear fix on the location of the ambush, we would turn directly into it, focusing the boat's twin .50 caliber machine guns on the attackers and beaching the boats. We told the crew about our plans...."

This actually appeared on the same page right below Rood's story in the Orlando Sentinel:

Witness Backs Kerry's Version of Attack by Tim Jones, Chicago Tribune, 8/22/04
...Before this day's mission, though, Kerry, the tactical commander of the mission, discussed with Rood and Droz a change in response to the anticipated ambushes..." (huh? Does that mean fire before thou art fired upon?):..." If possible, turn into the fire once it is identified..." Now breaking away from the article for a moment, imagine the conversation that took place:
(Rood- hey Kerry, was that Enemy Gunfire?
Kerry- How the hell would I know? I can't see them. Maybe if I jumped onshore I could get a better look at them.)
"...and attack the ambushers, Rood recalled Kerry saying".
So here we have two articles, the first by Rood, The Venerated Chicago Tribune Editor, who must be so respected that another reporter writes the same story about Rood's account, while saying elsewhere in the same article, "Rood declined requests from a Tribune reporter to be interviewed for this article". Funnier still, he further quotes Rood as saying, "My intent is to tell the story here and to never again talk about it".
He won't need to. He'll have his trained parrots do it for him. But, next time, guys, be original... don't print the same two articles on the same day in the same Sunday paper, on the same page, using the same words... is that plagerism or is it propeganda? You decide.
P.S.- Maybe one of them was writing about John F. KEERY (sorry Michael, but I still get fits of giggling every time I read that).
Vote Bosh!
(who?)

Posted by: Dave at August 24, 2004 02:21 AM

Wow, Michael...

You certainly persuaded me with your cunning words. How masterfully crafted and well thought out. I am in awe of you. How could I help but vote for John F'ing Kerry?

Posted by: Rick OH at August 24, 2004 08:40 AM

"When Kerry signed up to command a Swift Boat in the summer of 1968, he was inspired by the example of his hero, John F. Kennedy, who had commanded the PT-109 patrol boat in the Pacific World War II. But Kerry had little expectation of seeing serious action. At the time the Swift Boats -- or PCFs (patrol craft fast), in Navy Jargon -- were laregly restricted to coastal patrols. ""I didn't really want to get involved in the war,"" Kerry wrote in a book of war reminiscences published in 1986."

This is a quote for an article published in the Washington Post on August 22, 2004 by Michael Dobbs. Citing the reality of Kerry's involvement. "I didn't want to get involved in the war" is a far cry from the Battle Cry "SEND ME!" espoused by Senator Kennedy.

In Kerry's journal he records that his group was becoming cocky because they had not been fired upon and the date for the journal entry is after his first Purple Heart. His journal would seem to disagree with the Official Navy Records and agree with the claims of the Swift Vets for Truth. Kerry can produce no document proving he was in Cambodia. His own Swift boat crew says they were not in Cambodia. Yet Kerry says that he was, again Kerry's testimony contradicts the claims of his supporting vets who served with him on the same boat as well as the official Navy Documents but Kerry says the records back up his stories. Kerry's supporters say, look at the records. At least one of the citations was altered from it's original form, something highlly irregular, some say unethical, if not illegal, in Navy Protocal. I'm confused, do I trust Kerry's word or the records.

Personally, I wish this wasn't part of the debate. Personally, I wish Kerry would release all the records so we could get past this and move on to the issues that do face us right now. But it isn't President Bush who has made this an issue, it was John Kerry who now stands behind his medals as a badge of honor even though he once tossed them away. It is John Kerry who called for the support of Veterans who he once criticized as systematically, on a day-to-day basis of committing war crimes.

Presdient Bush's service in the Guard was NOT dodging the draft and I would not dare cast that criticism on anyone who served in the Guard. Yes, it has changed since the 70's, but then, as now, many from the Guard were called to active service. Many of them flew missions over Vietnam and many of them lost their lives in that war. No one, with any respect for the military can make this claim and be honest to themselves or to the people who proudly served this country. And the criticism about Bush's record in the Guard's is suspicious at best. It's been under-scrutiny by the press and Democrats for 4 years and not one of them has produced any solid information to back up the claim and keep spinning the lie that no-one has stepped up to say they remember him. At least 10 people who have served with him say he was there. His medical records say he was there (he released his medical records unlike John Kerry). He pay stubs say he was there and his citation says he completed all requirements and was honorably discharged.

One Professor steps out and criticizes Bush, a liberal professor who supports John Kerry and says Bush was lazy and failed to apply himself. His word becomes gospel for the liberal spin media, ignoring the fact that he is the only President who has a Masters Degree. Nobody drags this guy onto the news and then attacks him for being a democrat and supporter of Kerry.

Apparently, according to the news media, it is only unethical to say something negative is your are a Republican. According to the news media, if your are a republican or ever supported a republican than your mitives must be questioned.

O'Neill is constantly attacked because he is a Republican, citing his contribution of 2500 to republican caused while ignoring the fact that he contributed another half that amount to Democrats and has voted both independant and democrat in previous elections. And then while they attack him no one looks at any of those defending the record of Kerry as possibly lying to get their man elected. They aren't attacked.

This country is becoming more and more polorized and more and more divided but who is the group who is using legal actions to supress Free Speech. Isn't it the "so-called" great defenders of the free speech-the democratic party.

They cry foul while they stand there with blood on their hands. And let's put this Bush stole the elcetion thing to rest. It was released over the weekend that at least 40,000 voters in the 2000 election voted twice, once in New York and once in Florida. 86% of those voters voted Democrat to 12% Republican. Add that to the number of veterans who were denied the vote by Al Gore and Florida was a landslide for Bush.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at August 24, 2004 01:40 PM

All you kerry supporters, go here www.wintersoldier.com and read his own words, this man literally hates the United States. He hates what we stand for, democracy and freedom. I have read his words and have found him to be a communist. He used the Vietnam War as his springboard into politics, plain and simple, he could care less about what went on over there as long as he could use it. It didn't matter that he lied about what he did. This man makes me sick, and the worst part about it is if he is elected, I will have to respect the office of the president. Not him, just the office. He is not fit to be Commander in Chief. d. how can you vote for a communist waffler like him? I really fear for this country, why don't people just read his own words, if they did they would see that this man is a sick person. There is double standard in this country, what's good for the dems is not good for the Republicans. Freedom of speech works both ways, not just for the dems. Why won't kerry denounce moveon, and the rest of the liberal 527's? The PRESIDENT has denounced all of them as bad for the country. kerry will not because he is CHICKENS*** COMMUNIST who wants to tear down this country and put it under the control of the UN. The UN what a joke, the UN was on the payroll of Saddam, along with franc and germany. I am so sick and tired of the liberal machine trying to roll over the conservatives in this country. Please go read john kerry's own words at www.wintersoldier.com

Posted by: David Lowery at August 24, 2004 01:46 PM

Great work Calamity,Dawg,and Rick OH!!! You back things up with verified facts,not innuendo,half-truths and lies. I copy and pasted these articles for you guys, because I know most of the Demos that come here won't read it because it's not propaganda about Bush. Of course,they ARE welcome to, and I actually urge them to read them. Of course it doesn't have footnotes to show documented proof of what Van Odell says,but it is his eyewitness account, which is all we have from Scary. We haven't seen ALL of his records, except for the one's he has selectively chosen to put on his website. You have to ask yourself, why is that? What's he hiding? Having served in the Navy I know you don't have to be in the same boat, nor even in the same unit to know and/or observe a person, their personality, character,integrity, and military bearing. It's quite obvious to me from Scary's account his record during Viet Nam and after Viet Nam who I'll believe. Scary has the presidency to loose and exposition of his dishonesty to the world, and Van Odell has nothing to gain except to make sure a man he knows and strongly believes is not fit to command will not reach the White House and endanger us all. I've read all of your posting, and I think you have all covered all the bases extremely well.I just cant wait to hear what .d is going to post next. She/he is truly entertainment!I have truly just laughed aloud at she/he's posting! They are incredible! Keep up the good work all.

Interview with Van Odell, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth
by Judson Cox
16 August 2004

Van Odell, a gunners mate, served on PCF's 93, 35, and 10.

Judson Cox: Who are you, and who are the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth?

Van Odell: I served in the U.S. Navy from October 1966 to October 1972. I was assigned to Coastal Squadron 1 on Swift Boats as a Gunners Mate in Vietnam, on January 9, 1969. During the period January 9, 1969 through July 1969 I served in Coastal Division 11 at An Thoi, RVN. While assigned to Cos Div 11 I served on PCF's 93, 35, and 10. I was on many of the river patrols that John Kerry was also assigned. During this time I observed his behavior and some of the incidents that are in dispute. My battle station as Gunners mate was the twin 50-cal gun tub; this position was the highest point on a swift and allowed a 360 degree view of any action.

The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is a group of 254 swift boat veterans, 60 of whom served with John Kerry. We were by his side during the events for which he received his medals. We know the truth.

JC: Why have you come forward now?

VO: We came forward because Senator Kerry seeks to become the President of the United States of America. We believe that he is unfit to be president, and to make this man Commander in Chief would be demoralizing and dangerous for our military. Also, I now have a young grandson who means the world to me. He is young enough to think his grandfather is the greatest; without trying, I am his hero. It cuts me to the quick to think one day he would study the history of a president who served with me in Viet Nam and read the lies of atrocities committed by Swift Boat Sailors, the lies John Kerry told. What others think about me is nothing compared to what my grandson thinks about his grandfather.

JC: What were your experiences with John Kerry in Vietnam?

VO: During the month of March our crew was given a river patrol mission along with several other boat crews on the Bay Hop River. During our run in, and part of the run out of the river, we encountered no hostile fire.

As we exited the river PCF 3 was the lead boat, we were second in the line, PCF 51 was astern of our craft. The other boats were lined up beside us including Kerry's boat PCF 94. During the transit we encountered a fishing weir (gill net) stretched across the middle of the river with just enough room on either side to allow a Swift boat to pass. We passed the fishing weir river left. As the 3 boat passed the weir on the narrowest part of the river it was hit by a mine, which lifted it completely out of the water. I immediately began firing my twin 50's towards river left to suppress any fire. I fired a couple of hundred rounds and realized we were not receiving any return fire from either bank. The other boats quit firing and we commenced rescue operations for the PCF 3 crew and boat. WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY FIRE FROM EITHER BANK. Our boat picked up members of the disabled PCF-3. I continued to watch all the area for any VC activity and witnessed the majority of the events of the day.

John Kerry received a Bronze Star for this incident, claiming that he saved Jim Rassman's life, at the risk of his own, while receiving hostile fire. That simply did not happen.

JC: What is your opinion of Senator Kerry's fitness for the presidency given these experiences?

VO: He is not fit to be Commander in Chief.

JC: What are the most important facts the voters should know about Kerry's service in Vietnam?

VO: He lied. He lied about his service. He lied before the Congress of the United States about atrocities committed by Vietnam Veterans. His "eye witness accounts" of rapes, murders and torture by Swift Boat sailors were fabricated, and tarred honorable veterans with a stain that still exists today. His entire career in politics and his campaign for the presidency is a lie.

JC: How have the Kerry campaign and the Democratic Party reacted to your message?

VO: They have lied about our service in Vietnam with Kerry; they lied about our political affiliations. And they are suing us to stop us from exercising our freedom of speech.

JC: What is your party affiliation, and for whom will you vote for president?

VO: I have no party affiliation; I have voted a split ticket all my voting life. In this election the only decision I have made so far is I will NOT support or vote for John Kerry.

JC: Who should have more credibility, and why, the Swift Boat Vets for Truth or the band of brothers?

VO: There are 7 men that stand behind Senators Kerry's stories. There are 254 Swift Boat Veterans that stand with us. Out of the 254 there are 60 who served directly with John Kerry and have first hand knowledge of his activities in Vietnam and they include Steve Gardner who served as Kerry's Gunners Mate. We all condemn his lies. The 7 who support the Senator are on his payroll. What we have to gain is our good name back after being called war criminals by a serial liar.

JC: Have you been threatened, either with physical harm or legally?

VO: Not personally. We are being sued by the DNC and Kerry Campaign to end our right to freedom of speech. A freedom we already paid for with service and blood. We will not let these guys Kill our first amendment right.

JC: How do you answer the issue of the funding of your group?

VO: We accept donations from Americans who are interested in getting the truth out. We never allow any donor to tell us what to say. It's our message and it will not be changed by outsiders. Right now our largest donor is the American people. Since the ad started we have received 5000 donations totaling $300,000.00.

JC: Is there anything else you would like to add, that I have not asked?

VO: Kerry recently recanted his statement that he was in Cambodia under illegal orders during Christmas 1968. This is the second lie he is admitting and I think his house of cards is starting to fall.

JC: Mr. Odell, thank you for your service to our country, for your bravery in standing for the truth and for granting me this interview.

Judson Cox is a college student and political columnist.

Another statement by Van Odell,whom DID serve with John Scary.:

Statement By Swift Boat Veterans for Truth Member Van Odell
Author:
Dated: Thursday, August 19 2004 @ 02:00 PM PDT
Viewed: 14342 times
For Immediate Release
Statement By Swift Boat Veterans for Truth Member Van Odell

A courageous, soft spoken man of the Midwest, Larry Thurlow has a heart bigger than the great plains and a commitment to truth and honesty that is boundless. He is under attack, because John Kerry is feeling the heat of truth at the hands of this honest man and others like him.

The Kerry Campaign is attacking the truthfulness of this man and the Bronze Star he so richly deserves for his actions on March 13, 1969. I was there. I saw what happened.

The mine’s detonation lifted PCF-3 completely out of the water just yards ahead of me. All boats commenced suppression fire in case enemy small arms fire ensued. None did.

All boats came to the aid of PCF-3, except one: John Kerry’s boat. Kerry fled.

Larry Thurlow piloted his boat straight toward the mine-damaged PCF-3 from which thick, black smoke billowed. He jumped aboard and personally led damage control operations that saved the boat and rescue operations that saved the lives of badly wounded men. Larry’s leadership was in the highest traditions of the naval service. His leadership allowed the other men and boats of the mission to exit the river safely. This "single act of meritorious service" -– the chief requirement of the Bronze Star -– should be honored, not ridiculed, by the Kerry campaign and its allies in the mainstream media.

To reiterate, only one enemy weapon was deployed that day -– the command-detonated submerged mine that disabled PCF-3. Larry Thurlow's citation contained references to "enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire," because that was the language chosen by John Kerry who penned the "spot report" on the action that day. There was no "enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire" received that day. John Kerry’s report was fiction -– a hoax on the entire chain of command. Larry Thurlow's heroism and meritorious service, however, is real.

To me Larry is one of the heroes of our country. He is a man who served his country when called and who returned home to be a productive citizen. Larry and men like him are the strong backbone of our society. I am proud to have served with him.

Posted by: Navy Vet at August 24, 2004 03:22 PM

Eh, guys/gals these libs and dem's aren't open minded enough to even read what we write. All they do is cite talking points and rhetoric. They can't argue the facts.

Posted by: Rick OH at August 24, 2004 03:44 PM

Hey Rick OH,

That’s a pretty cool website, I think I will set me up one to. Oh yea, keep up the good fight!!!
You are a true American.

Posted by: David Lowery at August 24, 2004 04:51 PM

"Your sources tend to be completely biased towards Right Wing Conservatism Hatred. If I honestly could think of one thing GW JR. has done even decent. I would post it. I have thought long and hard and I Honestly can't! His whole Presidency is based on a lie." (d. jones)

d. jones, since you were having a hard time coming up with decent things done by the bush white house, i thought i'd take the liberty of doing it for you :-) you can thank me later, keep on thinking 'long and hard' haha...

-the executive order authorizing the freezing of bank accounts of terror groups (sept. 2001)
-the signing of the Terrorism Relief Act providing tax relief to families of those killed in the attacks on September the 11th, the anthrax attacks and the Oklahoma City bombing (jan. 2002)
-Executive Order establishing the USA Freedom Corps (jan. 2002)
-increases funding for Bioterrorism by 319 Percent (feb 2002)
-signs nuclear arms treaty with russia (may 2002)
-signs Corporate Corruption Bill (july 2002, can't wait to hear some good ol' enron comments)
-signs Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (aug. 2002)
-signs Homeland Security Act (nov. 2002)
-signs Terrorism Insurance Act (nov. 2002)
-signs Executive Order: Equal Protection of the Laws for Faith-based and Community Organizations (december 2002)
- signs Protect Act- Amber Alert Bill expanding nationwide a rapid-response network to help find kidnapped children (april 2003)
-signs Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (nov 2003)
-signs the Adoption Promotion Act of 2003 (dec. 2003)
-signs Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (dec 2003)
-signs American Dream Downpayment Act of 2003 (dec 2003)
-signs Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 <-- laci's law (april 2004)
-signs Identity Theft Penalty Enhancement Act (july 2004)
-signs Project Bioshield Act of 2004 (july 2004)

Posted by: justin anderson at August 24, 2004 11:09 PM

Nice, Justin. I'd wager that d will find something wrong with some, or even all of that though. I guess he/she comes from a background that has taught that all that you listed is wrong.

I have an idea: but I'm a little busy right now, and I'd like to do it, but if someone else has the time to, please do. I'd like to go research and list all of the accusations made against this president. It's an incredible list too. It's unbeliveable that a person they believe to be so stupid and inept could pull off everything they accuse him of doing.

No facts or arguments would be needed. The indecorous list would speak for itself.

Posted by: Rick OH at August 25, 2004 12:53 PM

Dr. Evil... yeah, that's it.

Posted by: Rick OH at August 25, 2004 04:02 PM

Swiftboat is a LIE, and Senator Kerry, has documentation to prove it!

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004 (If you are a complete drooling idiot) [Ahhh... we have regained conciousness! Welcome to the real world, d.! Glad to have you!!]

Posted by: d. jones at August 22, 2004 04:34 AM

-----------------------------------------
d.:
It's been four days... WHAT DOCUMENTATION?!?
WHAT PROOF? We all wait... whoops, there I go playing webmaster again...

Posted by: Dave at August 26, 2004 12:53 AM

In all of this debate about the war crimes in Vietnam, I've never read of a single account of a soldier who was ordered by the Department of Defense or higher personnel, and then refused to comply bringing charges that would directly attach to administration. Instead, there are the vague inplications that the war crimes were committed at the insistance, as Kerry stated, of the powers of the administrative government at the time.

There were atrocities during Vietnam, just as in any war. There were atrocities committed against our soldiers and some, in anger and frustration reacted. But that's not what Kerry said. He said torture, beheadings, cutting off the ears and limbs, killing babies.

It appears there are to camps in this debate. There seems to be those who ignore the Senator's remarks or acknowledge them and blame the government. These would be the voice of the Democrats who support John Kerry. Then there are those who, while acknowledging the war crimes, reject Kerry's notion that there were systematically carried out on a day-to-day basis and that when they were, they were not sanctioned by the government. These would be those who are supporting the President.

I have one question. If George Bush and John Kerry were taken prisoner, who would denounce America to save his own skin? The answer to that one is simple, it's already happened.

According to Tour of Duty and a 1986 statement by Kerry he joined the Navy because he didn't want to go to Vietnam. When the Navy became more involved he asked for reassignment to the swift boats because they were on patrol off the coast and not really in country. It wasn't until after Kerry was reassigned that swift boats regularly began going in country.

Here is one final note of history that should quiet the attacks of Bush dodging Vietnam.

"We today have concluded an agreement to end the war and bring peace with honor in Vietnam and in Southeast Asia." (White House, Washington, D.C., January 23, 1973)

Every attack of Bush records is for 1973, after we agreed to pull out of Vietnam. It's not an issue of the Vietnam War. His service was during the pull-out and he wouldn't have gone anyhow. It's simply a mute point.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at August 26, 2004 04:41 PM

Kerry's four months... OK, a body count. Hey, after all, you win a war by killing people and breaking things. So just how much damage could the Senator do in 120 days? How many gooks did he shoot? How many tunnels did he crawl down? How many gun battles did he engage on the rivers he patrolled? Kerry opened this can of worms, so let him eat! War record my a**. My father killed Japs in the Great WWII while operating a bulldozer building air strips. He's a SEABEE and a Marine. He never talked about his war. Didn't need to.

Posted by: Kim Cole at August 26, 2004 06:48 PM

The Democrats talk about how poor they are and how the rich republicans are buying the election. Over the last year democratic supporters have spent $100 million to discredit Bush? You know why? They knew beforehand that Kerry's betrayal before Congress and his VVAW activities (the 'medal incident' included) would blow up in his face once it became an issue. The Swiftvets was just icing on the cake. So all Kerry knows how to do is to discredit Bush, because his own actions from Vietnam to VVAW to being Lieutenant Governer (oh by the way, John Adams, Washington's VP, said something to the effect that the office he held had to be the most inconsequential and tedious position in the Federal Government- [on a state level, it's no different for the Lieutenant Governer, which is why Kerry was so 'good' at it) through his Senate voting record, he has already discredited himself. The Dems knew this was coming, but they didn't expect Bush to take the high road and not engage Kerry yet it blew up in his face anyway, after wasting all that money. Hmmm... so you poor, disadvantaged,oppressed Democrats, ask yourself one question: who ended up trying to buy the election? And failed, because of one $150,000 commercial? And we expect these morons to save the ruined economy?
---------------------------
Day 5, d.- What Proof? What Documentation? At least give us a clue- don't dangle a steak before a Doberman, and expect him to forgive you when you yank it out of reach. If you can't prove Kerry has proof or documentation, don't say that he does. I've already bought the A-1 sauce. I am getting mighty hungry. So where's the steak? Or should I be asking, "where's the beef?"

Posted by: Dave at August 27, 2004 01:52 AM

I find it funny that the Kerry Campaign is trying so hard to keep this alive. They are hoping for a backlash Sympathy vote Tell John Kerry to stop Crying about less than a million dollars worth of ads in 3 states and take a real stand like Bush and say all these ads should stop. Is that going to happen NO Kerry has benefitted from more than 60 million dollars woth of these ads plus moores lied filled film. If John Kerry wants to talk issues stand up like Bush and tell these 527s it is time to stop

Posted by: wpnsgy at August 27, 2004 06:01 PM

In his own words....

We will not quickly join those who march on Veterans' Day waving small flags, calling to memory those thousands who died for the "greater glory of the United States." We will not accept the rhetoric. We will not readily join the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars--in fact, we will find it hard to join anything at all and when we do, we will demand relevancy such as other organizations have recently been unable to provide. We will not take solace from the creation of monuments or the naming of parks after a select few of the thousands of dead Americans and Vietnamese. We will not uphold the traditions which decorously memorialize that which was base and grim. . . . We are asking America to turn from false glory, hollow victory, fabricated foreign threats, fear which threatens us as a nation, shallow pride which feeds of fear.
John F. Kerry
Epilogue to The New Soldier (1971)

During his presidential campaign, John Kerry has sought to portray himself as a member of the first group--a veteran proud of his service in Vietnam. In his remarks on July 25 at the Democratic National Convention, Kerry said, "We [veterans] fought for this nation because we loved it. . . . I defended this country as a young man and I will defend it as president." But this sentiment is completely at odds with his infamous testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 22, 1971, wherein he said he and those he spoke for were "ashamed of and hated what we were called on to do in Southeast Asia. . . And to attempt to justify the loss of one American life in Vietnam, Cambodia, or Laos by linking such loss to the preservation of freedom . . . is to us the height of criminal hypocrisy. ."
......................

How could a vet ever vote for this fraud?

Posted by: Jim at August 28, 2004 01:11 AM

Okay, I'm going to take away the last three letters of my username, switch it to lowercase, and answer my own question. Remember the question, copy-n-pasted verbetim, which was:
Swiftboat is a LIE, and Senator Kerry, has documentation to prove it!
Here must be a new level of desperation for the Kerry campaign. Now he denies the swiftboats even existed. He denies even being there. He denies that when the first boat hit the mine, and the third boat came to assist, he bolted and pulled back, as the interviewed swiftvet above states clearly. Kerry, clearly then, wasn't the jelly-spined coward that once again, the interview above clearly stated. Well, that clears THAT mess up. In addition, there was no evidence of Kerry's killed soldier, so Kerry can deny that with impunity. Kerry can now breathe easier.
But wait- we have a glimmer of conscience in Kerry's soul. He felt better when he laid those medals on the steps on the Capitol, because if Swiftboat was a lie, then he didn't actually deserve those medals, because he did not serve on any of the swiftboats, seeing that they didn't exist in the first place. Does this sound overblown? It makes perfect sense. As much sense as Kerry standing in front of Congress and on a nationwide stage and lying about high crimes against humanity committed by the very people he depended upon and who depended on him on these Swiftboat patrols. Such heinous, horrifying pictures painted by his forked tongue that single-handedly soiled the reputation of tens of thousands of honest hard working, fighting soldiers who fought together, ate together, bound each others' wounds and watched the last sparkle of life dim and go out as they died in each others' arms. Yeah, tell me that Kerry is honorable. Tell me he is worthy of the Presidency. And tell me, I dare any of you Kerry supporters, that this lowlife pond scum is worthy to be the Commander-In Chief of the Greatest armed forces in all of history serving and protecting the Greatest Country on Earth in all of history. You bet the Euros want Kerry in, who will appease and negotiate our soveriegnty away, and just be another mannequin of the U.N. With such filth sitting in the Oval Office, the terrorists pray to Allah, or whatever bloodthirsty, vengeful God they worship, that Kerry will get elected. Then they will have evidence of America being the Great Satan they believed all along just by pointing to its self-desecrated leader. And then the planes will come again, the terrorists will have new vigor and ruthlessness in fighting an enemy that has finally showed its true colors, and must, more than ever, be wiped off the face of the earth.
Yep, that makes sense to me. It also scares the living hell out of me.

Posted by: Dave at August 28, 2004 01:21 AM

Dave, If you haven't noticed... D. Jones only picks a line or two out of every other post and then tries to make a point out of it... and then, however sad it must be for him, he quickly gets discredited and has to back away from his comments...

I listed 18 'decent' things that Bush has done... that was just from about 5 minutes worth of research...and general knowledge.... and you as all noticed, he hasn't commented on it...so if it slipped his mind, here they are again... enjoy

-the executive order authorizing the freezing of bank accounts of terror groups (sept. 2001)
-the signing of the Terrorism Relief Act providing tax relief to families of those killed in the attacks on September the 11th, the anthrax attacks and the Oklahoma City bombing (jan. 2002)
-Executive Order establishing the USA Freedom Corps (jan. 2002)
-increases funding for Bioterrorism by 319 Percent (feb 2002)
-signs nuclear arms treaty with russia (may 2002)
-signs Corporate Corruption Bill (july 2002, can't wait to hear some good ol' enron comments)
-signs Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (aug. 2002)
-signs Homeland Security Act (nov. 2002)
-signs Terrorism Insurance Act (nov. 2002)
-signs Executive Order: Equal Protection of the Laws for Faith-based and Community Organizations (december 2002)
- signs Protect Act- Amber Alert Bill expanding nationwide a rapid-response network to help find kidnapped children (april 2003)
-signs Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (nov 2003)
-signs the Adoption Promotion Act of 2003 (dec. 2003)
-signs Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (dec 2003)
-signs American Dream Downpayment Act of 2003 (dec 2003)
-signs Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 <-- laci's law (april 2004)
-signs Identity Theft Penalty Enhancement Act (july 2004)
-signs Project Bioshield Act of 2004 (july 2004)

I can't wait to hear how awful the Amber Alert system is! And how flawed the American Dream Downpayment act is! Or do you think he'll pick the Adoption promotion act, and say that the government should support the orphans and they don't deserve a family? nah, i'll bet its the tax relief for the families of 9/11! shouldn't have got them if they're loved ones were stock brokers and such.... no tax cuts for the rich! remember?! but, who here thinks that the identity theft penalty enhancement act should be scrapped? in fact d. jones, since this isn't a decent thing done by the president, maybe you should post your credit card number on here (if you have one)!!

Posted by: justin anderson at August 28, 2004 12:00 PM

There are several people posting here who claim that Kerry will keep them safer? How do they reach this conclusion? What has he said or done to make people think he is capable?

I have heard nothing that would lead me to believe this.

Posted by: Calamity Jane at August 28, 2004 06:36 PM

Calamity Jane,
You say, "There are several people posting here who claim that Kerry will keep them safer? How do they reach this conclusion? What has he said or done to make people think he is capable?"

"I have heard nothing that would lead me to believe this."

The answer is quite simple if you use common sense. We have already seen the incompetence of George W. Bush and it's not possible, I think, that John Kerry could do any worse. Examples of Bush's total incompetence are shown in this Blog by different contributors, so look for them if you want to examine them--like I have already said, however, you need to have an open mind and heart to see them otherwise they'll be invisible to you.
I wish you the best of Luck.

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at August 28, 2004 09:11 PM

GOT HIS ORDERS... READ THIS

Where Bush Got His Marching Orders

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry ( D - MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has .. chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do." - Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapon stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation .. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

SO NOW THESE SAME DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, AND THAT HE TOOK US TO WAR UNECESSARILY !

TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT THE PRESIDENT LEADING US TO WAR.

Posted by: Jim at August 28, 2004 10:52 PM

Kerry has said several times before the senate, "It was seared in my mind" that he was in Cambodia. Now he says he was not. Kerry also now admits that the first injury he received in Vietnam was from his own granade.

Two national guard people have come out and stated that George Bush reported for duty. One was a superior officer. But the liberal media did not report it.

Was the war against terrorism justified:
America was attacked three(or four) times on its own soil. Twice in New York City, once in Washington, D.C., and possibly once in Oklahoma City. The Japanese attacked us once - Pearl Harbor on foreign soil. Hawaii was a protectorate not a state in 1941.

In addition, the terrorists attacked the U.S.S. Cole on foreign soil, and our embassies in two African nations.

Japan never declared war on America. Osama bin Laden has five times.
The Japanese and Germans, in 1941, only wanted to rule the world. The terrorists want to kill all that are not Muslim.

Posted by: Terry at August 29, 2004 01:02 AM

Posted by: justin anderson at August 28, 2004 12:00 PM

Justin,

You and Dave (I hate to say it) are both STUPID, those were not even my posts. I know you read mine, and I meant what I said. I told you "Don't Mess With Texas" (ME) and you insist anyway! Bring it on DUMMY! Did you do what I asked you to? You are quoting me off the Kerry Web Site. Everything I have posted is from outside sources so you people wouldn't think I was biased, but you know what? You think that anyway! Just Dumb Cowards, just like GW JR.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at August 29, 2004 02:02 AM

The Republicans keep mentioning the so-called Flip-Flops that John Kerry makes but always fail to mention the ones that come from George W. Bush's mouth. Fair is fair, they should also keep track of the ones that come from the master Flip-Flopper himself, George W. Bush. These are only the top ten Flip-Flops that George W. Bush has made. For those who are always looking for facts--the following are facts!

1. Bush Flip-Flops on Independent 9/11 Commission
Bush Flip: Initially Opposed to Independent 9/11 Commission
Bush opposed an independent inquiry into 9/11, arguing it would duplicate a probe conducted by Congress. In July 2002, his administration issued a "statement of policy" that read "...the Administration would oppose an amendment that would create a new commission to conduct a similar review [to Congress's investigation]." [Statement of Administration Policy, Executive Office of the President, 7/24/02; LA Times, 11/28/02]

Bush Flop: Bush Relented and Appointed Independent Commission
President Bush finally agreed to support an independent investigation into the 9/11 attacks after "the congressional committees unearthed more and more examples of intelligence lapses, the administration reversed its stance." [Los Angeles Times, 11/28/02]

2. Bush Flip-Flops on Independent WMD Commission
Bush Flip: Refuses to Call for Independent Bipartisan Commission on Weapons of Mass Destruction
"President Bush said on January 30, 2004, 'I want to know the facts' about any intelligence failures concerning Saddam Hussein's alleged cache of forbidden weapons but he declined to endorse calls for an independent investigation." [AP, 1/30/04]

Bush Flop: Bush Appoints WMD Investigation Commission
President Bush named a nine-member bipartisan commission to investigate U.S. intelligence-gathering capabilities in February 2004. The AP noted, "Bush had initially opposed a commission, but agreed to do so as calls grew from Republican lawmakers as well as Democrats." The Los Angeles Times reported, "The White House opposed that panel initially, then backed down under pressure, and some say administration officials now regret doing so because the administration has become locked in a series of embarrassing battles with the Sept. 11 commission." The New York Times noted Bush "gave the panel until March 2005, well after the November elections, to submit its conclusions." [NY Times, 2/7/04; LA Times, 2/1/04; AP, 2/6/04]

3. Bush Flip-Flops on Time He'll Spend With 9/11 Commission
Bush Flip: Would Meet For Only One Hour With 9/11 Commission
McClellan: Obviously, as part of this, the President will be meeting with the chairman and vice chairman at some point in the near future. We are still working on the exact time of that meeting. We have discussed with the commission what we believe is a reasonable period of time to provide the chairman and vice chairman with answers to all of their questions.
Q: Is that the one-hour time frame?
McClellan: That's what I'm referring to. [WH Press Briefing, 3/9/04]

Bush Flop: White House Says No Time Limit on President's Testimony
"President George W. Bush will privately answer all questions raised by the federal commission investigating the September 11 attacks, the White House said, suggesting that Bush might allow the interview to extend beyond the one-hour limit originally offered to the panel by the White House. 'He's going to answer all the questions they want to raise,' said the White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, whose remarks suggested that the White House was softening its negotiating stance toward the bipartisan commission. 'Nobody's watching the clock.'" [WH Press Briefing, 3/9/04; International Herald Tribune, 3/11/04]

4. Bush Flip-Flops On Calling For A U.N. Vote On Iraq War
Bush Flip: U.S. Will Seek U.N. Vote For War With Iraq
Bush: ...yes, we'll call for a vote.
Question: No matter what?
Bush: No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council. And so, you bet. It's time for people to show their cards, let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam. [Bush News Conference, 3/6/03, emphasis added]

Bush Flop: Bush Attacked Iraq Without U.N. Vote
Bush "failed to win explicit [security] council approval for the use of force" in Iraq. Two days before bombs began to fall in Iraq, the Bush administration withdrew its resolution from the UN Security Council that would have authorized military force. Bush abandoned his call for a vote after it became clear that the US could muster only four votes in support of force. [Washington Post, 3/21/03; Los Angeles Times, 3/18/03]

5. Bush Flip-Flops on Department Of Homeland Security
Bush Flip: Bush Thought Homeland Security Cabinet Position Was "Just Not Necessary"
In October 2001, White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said Bush opposed creating Office of Homeland Security position for Ridge. "[T]he president has suggested to members of Congress that they do not need to make this a statutory post, that he [Ridge] does not need Cabinet rank, for example, there does not need to be a Cabinet-level Office of Homeland Security is because there is such overlap among the various agencies, because every agency of the government has security concerns," Fleischer said. [White House Press Briefing, 10/24/01]

Bush Flop: Bush Decides to Support Homeland Security
The New York Times reported, "Bush initially resisted Democratic proposals for a Cabinet-level agency. But once he endorsed it, the president pushed Congress for fast action as it debated such issues as whistle-blower protections, concerns over civil liberties and collective bargaining for department employees."

In remarks to Homeland Security Department employees, Bush claimed credit for supporting the Department: "In just 12 months, under the leadership of your President...you faced the challenges standing up this new Department and you get a -- and a gold star for a job well done." [New York Times, 2/28/03; Bush Remarks at One-Year Anniversary of DHS, 3/2/04]

6. Bush Flip-Flops on Gay Marriage
Bush Flip: It's Up to the States to Decide
In a 2000 presidential primary debate, candidate George W. Bush said gay marriage was a state's issue, saying, "The state can do what they want to do. Don't try to trap me in this state's issue like you're trying to get me into." [Presidential Primary Debate, 2/15/00]

Bush Flop: Bush Supports Constitutional Amendment That Restricts States' Rights
Bush: "If we are to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever, our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America. Decisive and democratic action is needed, because attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country." [Bush, 2/24/04]

7. Bush Flip-Flops on Using Military For Nation Building
Bush Flip: Bush Promised Not to Use Military for Nation Building
In a campaign rally in Tennessee, then-Presidential candidate Bush criticized the Clinton administration for using the military in nation-building missions. Bush said, "I'm worried about an opponent who uses nation-building and the military in the same sentence. See, our view of the military is for our military to be properly prepared to fight and win war and, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place." [Governor George W. Bush, 11/6/00]

Bush Flop: President Used Military for Nation Building in Afghanistan and Iraq
After the removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan, Bush met with soldiers stationed in Afghanistan at the White House and thanked them for their nation building efforts. A senior administration official said, "The administration, with its international partners, is doing something akin to nation-building." The plans for a post war Iraq also included nation building measures and, according to the Baltimore Sun, "Secretary of State Colin L. Powell confirmed...that Bush was considering, among other options, installing a U.S.-led occupation government if Hussein's regime is removed." [Baltimore Sun, 10/19/02]

8. Bush Flip-Flops on Hybrid Automobiles
Bush Flip: Bush Mocked Gore's Tax Credit for Hybrid Cars
"'How many of you own hybrid electric gasoline engine vehicles? If you look under there, you'll see that's one of the criteria necessary to receive tax relief. So when he talks about targeted tax relief that's pretty darn targeted,' Bush told the Arlington Heights rally, drawing laughs." [Chicago Sun-Times, 10/29/00]

Bush Flop: Bush Supported Investing in Hybrid Cars
In his State of the Union speech, Bush said, "Tonight I am proposing $1.2 billion in research funding so that America can lead the world in developing clean, hydrogen-powered automobiles. ... Join me in this important innovation, to make our air significantly cleaner, and our country much less dependent on foreign sources of energy." [White House, "President Delivers 'State of the Union,'" 1/28/03]

9. Bush Flip-Flops on Assault Weapons Ban
Bush Flip: Bush Supports Extending Assault Weapons Ban
Ashcroft: "It is my understanding that the president-elect of the United States has indicated his clear support for extending the assault weapons ban, and I will be pleased to move forward with that position." [Confirmation Hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee, 1/17/01]

Bush Flop: Bush Opposes Extension of Assault Weapons Ban
"The White House is opposing addition of gun show and assault weapons restrictions to a bill shielding firearms makers and dealers from lawsuits, prompting angry complaints from Democrats that President Bush is reneging on earlier support for the two proposals...In a statement [on February 24, 2004], the White House urged passage of the lawsuits measure without amendments that might delay its enactment. 'Any amendment that would delay enactment of the bill beyond this year is unacceptable,' the statement said. Democrats interpreted this as an effort to undermine support for the gun-control measures. 'For the president to say he is for the assault weapons ban but then act against it is a flip-flop if there ever was one,' said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), one of several sponsors of the assault weapons proposal in the Senate." [Washington Post, 2/26/04]

10. Bush Flip-Flops on Steel Tariffs
Bush Flip: Bush Imposes Steel Tariffs
"President Bush on [March 5, 2002] slapped punishing tariffs of 8% to 30% on several types of imported steel in an effort to help the ailing U.S. industry, drawing criticism from American allies and mixed reviews at home. 'An integral part of our commitment to free trade is our commitment to enforcing trade laws to make sure that America's industries and workers compete on a level playing field,' Bush said in a statement issued by the White House." [USA Today, 3/5/02]

Bush Flop: Bush Rescinds Steel Tariffs
"Facing a potential global trade war, President Bush on [December 4, 2003] lifted tariffs he imposed on foreign steel 21 months ago, declaring the U.S. steel industry healthy and ready to compete despite the industry's claim that it needs more time to recover." [Chicago Tribune, 12/5/03]

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at August 29, 2004 04:40 AM

What an awesome site.I know its not very nice but I LOVE seeing the Liberals squirm and throw their little hissy fits.
God Bless the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and God Bless our president.May he serve 4 more years!

Posted by: Miss Sue at August 29, 2004 08:11 AM

Abel

You did not answer my question. How will Kerry keep us safer?

I don't see any common sense in this forum that leads me to believe this.

Posted by: Calamity Jane at August 29, 2004 06:43 PM

Justin and Dave,
Isn't it great when these guys run out of ammo? I can't beleive they are able to walk and breathe at the same time.

This is a panic move on the left, they know they are losing.

Able,
Why when Kerry blatantly(means obvious)flip flops you call him a thinkiing man? Then you try and call Bush a flip flopper? Miss Sue is right, I love to see you squirm. Just wish I could see your face Nov 3rd.

Posted by: Wayne at August 29, 2004 06:56 PM

On a CNN news article dated Sunday August 29, the Kerry campaign went after the First Lady for making what seems to me as being a very logical statement. Mrs. Bush, after being asked if the Swift Boat ads are unfair to John Kerry replied, "Not really." The Kerry campaign used this statement to entail Bush's support of the so called smear ads. Mrs. Bush continued, "There have been millions of terrible ads against my husband." Very true.

The Kerry campaign should come out with the truth about their candidate in Vietnam. It seems to me all he can do is harm himself by making such an issue of these ads.

Statistically, anti-Bush ads far outnumber those anti-Kerry ads. Kerry has spent so much time over this issue that it does seem the Swift Vets have hit their mark.

Posted by: Phil at August 29, 2004 09:16 PM

Abel,

How about some real flip-flops, real changes on opinion? You have to go to the Kerry camp for that, but you won't go there.

1. Bush Flip-Flops on Independent 9/11 Commission

President Bush opposed two similar investigations urging a desire to wait until the one commission's report "arguing it would duplicate a probe conducted by Congress". You twist this into a flip-flop.

2. Bush Flip-Flops on Independent WMD Commission

In your alleged second flip-flop you do not cite specific claims from George Bush but rather on allegations made from the New York Times. Now there's a fair and balanced source.

3. Bush Flip-Flops on Time He'll Spend With 9/11 Commission

I can't really believe you want to go here. The President didn't set that time frame. The Commission set the time frame. Bush agreed to meet with them, he met with them and answered all of their questions.

4. Bush Flip-Flops On Calling For A U.N. Vote On Iraq War

They showed their cards. They let America know that they didn't care about the terrorist attack on American Soil. That's what George wanted and that's what he got. The U.N. was more concerned with their money for oil profits (the accusation you guys keep making about Bush) then they were about the safety of Americans.

5. Bush Flip-Flops on Department Of Homeland Security

The President didn't say it wouldn't be a cabinet post. The Democrats wanted that and in the spirit of bringing the country together, he agreed. I thought you said he was dividing the country. Now you are attacking him for trying to do something in a bi-bartican way, seeking, not a flip-flop as you state, but a compromise that establishes the same goals in a non-divisive manner.

6. Bush Flip-Flops on Gay Marriage

An issue forced upon him by liberal judges and political figures who were violating their own state constitutions and forcing a resolution that could only be resolved by an amendment to the constitution. He supported states rights, he still supports state rights but when individuals violate the choice of the state, the federal government must step in.

7. Bush Flip-Flops on Using Military For Nation Building

Another nice try. In between 2000 and 02 there was 9/11 and that changed the dynamics of the debate. By the words, George Bush didn't tank the soldiers in Afghanistan for their efforts in nation building. That's your words, not his. How about citing his words?

8. Bush Flip-Flops on Hybrid Automobiles

Again, your example shows a change in dynamics. When proposed by Gore, hyrdrogen cars were merely a novelty, 3 years later they weren't. And to think this was dfeveloped without burdening the tax payers with government grants for reasearch as Gore wanted.

9. Bush Flip-Flops on Assault Weapons Ban

I don't care what Ashcroft think George Bush Thinks or what some newspaper or democrat thinks George Bush thinks. What did George say on this. It's not a flip-flop until it comes from the president, either by speech or by legislation.

10. Bush Flip-Flops on Steel Tariffs

All this point makes is that the economic tariff placed in 2002 worked and 18 months later after giving the steelworkers in America some relief, thanks to the tariff, the tariff's could be lifted to engage in more competion and better prices for Americans.

Your attempt is misleading at best. It was definately a nice try though. I'd commend you for your originality, but if your going to use flip-flopping as an issue that disqualifies a candidate and then support Kerry, you have some real problems. Kerry flip-flops from day to day when the dynamaics of the debate haven't changed, just the audience that Kerry is speaking to.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at August 30, 2004 01:10 AM

Abel,

I think there is a stark difference between making decisions to improve your poll numbers and win a nomination, and being cautious with policy. Everyone one of those Bush Flip-Flops hardly tells the full story behind why the President made the decisions he had to.

I should take each one to task, but alas, I have work to do. 7 of 10 are ripe for the picking, so let me pick just one:

"1. Bush Flip-Flops on Independent 9/11 Commission
Bush Flip: Initially Opposed to Independent 9/11 Commission
Bush opposed an independent inquiry into 9/11, arguing it would duplicate a probe conducted by Congress. In July 2002, his administration issued a "statement of policy" that read "...the Administration would oppose an amendment that would create a new commission to conduct a similar review [to Congress's investigation]." [Statement of Administration Policy, Executive Office of the President, 7/24/02; LA Times, 11/28/02]

Bush Flop: Bush Relented and Appointed Independent Commission
President Bush finally agreed to support an independent investigation into the 9/11 attacks after "the congressional committees unearthed more and more examples of intelligence lapses, the administration reversed its stance." [Los Angeles Times, 11/28/02]"

Okay, how on earth is that be considered a Flip-Flop in the same way as it has been applied to Mr. Kerry?

President Bush initially and rightfully opposed and independent investigation because it is the responsibility of Congress to head up such things. Since these are the people who approve or disapprove [his] proposed legislation, it wouldn't be to prudent to step on anyone else’s toes now, would it? So fast forward a few months, and we find that after "the congressional committees unearthed more and more examples of intelligence lapses, the administration reversed its stance." So, at first he didn't want to "duplicate a probe being conducted by Congress", and then once the extent of the "intelligence lapses" was realized by that probe, he chartered the 9/11 Commission.

AND THIS IS A BAD THING? To me, it's just good leadership. You let people do their job, and step in when they are in over their heads.

A flip-flop is a change of mind made to curry favor with a certain group of individuals. In the above case (and in the case of 7 others listed in your post) the President was holding off making sweeping and obtuse implementations of policy that were not prudent at the time.

BUT - Let me state where I agree...

The Gay Marriage Issue... It's a States Rights Thing, and he should have stayed the course in that instance. I think his problem was with Gay Rights groups trying to get Judges to legislate from the bench, thus subverting the will of the people. He was trying to prevent that. Bad idea, but good logic.

Steel Tariffs - I was against them in the first place. I'm glad he realized it was a bad thing. That probably is the only true Bush flip-flop.

John Kerry is on the record, (and I can provide you with documentation; actual video if you like) Flip flopping on Iraq. He was a huge supporter of the war, and when it was hurting him against Howard Dean, he changed his mind. Now he's the nominee, and well, now he says he still would have voted the same way. There are other glaring examples of this trend with him.

There is a big difference, Abel.

VOTE: W04

Posted by: Rick OH at August 30, 2004 11:18 AM

"Your sources tend to be completely biased towards Right Wing Conservatism Hatred. If I honestly could think of one thing GW JR. has done even decent. I would post it. I have thought long and hard and I Honestly can't! His whole Presidency is based on a lie.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards

Posted by: d. jones at August 19, 2004 01:55 PM"

"Justin,

You and Dave (I hate to say it) are both STUPID, those were not even my posts. I know you read mine, and I meant what I said. I told you "Don't Mess With Texas" (ME) and you insist anyway! Bring it on DUMMY! Did you do what I asked you to? You are quoting me off the Kerry Web Site. Everything I have posted is from outside sources so you people wouldn't think I was biased, but you know what? You think that anyway! Just Dumb Cowards, just like GW JR.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at August 29, 2004 02:02 AM"

so you didn't post the first comment? because after reading it, i came to the conclusion that since your name and opinions show up together... it was written by you?

So..... here goes once again.....for the 3rd time, without a comment from d. jones...

D. Jones only picks a line or two out of every other post and then tries to make a point out of it... and then, however sad it must be for him, he quickly gets discredited and has to back away from his comments...

I listed 18 'decent' things that Bush has done... that was just from about 5 minutes worth of research...and general knowledge.... and you as all noticed, he hasn't commented on it...so if it slipped his mind, here they are again... enjoy

-the executive order authorizing the freezing of bank accounts of terror groups (sept. 2001)
-the signing of the Terrorism Relief Act providing tax relief to families of those killed in the attacks on September the 11th, the anthrax attacks and the Oklahoma City bombing (jan. 2002)
-Executive Order establishing the USA Freedom Corps (jan. 2002)
-increases funding for Bioterrorism by 319 Percent (feb 2002)
-signs nuclear arms treaty with russia (may 2002)
-signs Corporate Corruption Bill (july 2002, can't wait to hear some good ol' enron comments)
-signs Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (aug. 2002)
-signs Homeland Security Act (nov. 2002)
-signs Terrorism Insurance Act (nov. 2002)
-signs Executive Order: Equal Protection of the Laws for Faith-based and Community Organizations (december 2002)
- signs Protect Act- Amber Alert Bill expanding nationwide a rapid-response network to help find kidnapped children (april 2003)
-signs Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (nov 2003)
-signs the Adoption Promotion Act of 2003 (dec. 2003)
-signs Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (dec 2003)
-signs American Dream Downpayment Act of 2003 (dec 2003)
-signs Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 <-- laci's law (april 2004)
-signs Identity Theft Penalty Enhancement Act (july 2004)
-signs Project Bioshield Act of 2004 (july 2004)

I can't wait to hear how awful the Amber Alert system is! And how flawed the American Dream Downpayment act is! Or do you think he'll pick the Adoption promotion act, and say that the government should support the orphans and they don't deserve a family? nah, i'll bet its the tax relief for the families of 9/11! shouldn't have got them if they're loved ones were stock brokers and such.... no tax cuts for the rich! remember?! but, who here thinks that the identity theft penalty enhancement act should be scrapped? in fact d. jones, since this isn't a decent thing done by the president, maybe you should post your credit card number on here (if you have one)!!

Posted by: justin anderson at August 30, 2004 02:18 PM

Justin,
Where did you find this information? I love to have lots of ammo for the uninformed such as d.jones and Able.

Thanks in advance

Posted by: Wayne at August 30, 2004 06:51 PM

Wayne,

I found this information on a few different websites, I can't recall them right off hand... However if d. jones wants to challenge the credibility of my information, I'll gladly find it... However its nothing that can be challenged, as ALL of these Acts are in fact enacted laws that can easily be proven to exist... But hey, its been posted 3 times now, and only 1 post from d. jones about it, saying that it wasnt' him that said it in the first place?? As you see this time though, I added his exact quotes...

Posted by: justin anderson at August 30, 2004 07:12 PM

Rick OH,
My point, regarding the Flip-Flop article I posted, was to show that most people will "Flip-Flop" at one time or another, including George W. Bush--and what he did were bona fide Flip-Flops. Flip-Flopping happens when individuals get better informed, etc., and frankly, it's not my purpose to criticize George W. Bush or anyone else for Flip-Flopping. When George W. Bush Flip-Flops, it only shows that he does have some degree of intelligence somewhere inside his head. But the same thing applies to Kerry! Why don't you pro-Bush folks admit it? In any case, if you Flip-Flop and decide to vote for Kerry, I'm not going to criticize you either. How about that? After all, we're all friends here, aren't we? My warmest regards to all!

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at August 30, 2004 08:14 PM

We will not quickly join those who march on Veterans' Day waving small flags, calling to memory those thousands who died for the "greater glory of the United States." We will not accept the rhetoric. We will not readily join the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars--in fact, we will find it hard to join anything at all and when we do, we will demand relevancy such as other organizations have recently been unable to provide. We will not take solace from the creation of monuments or the naming of parks after a select few of the thousands of dead Americans and Vietnamese. We will not uphold the traditions which decorously memorialize that which was base and grim. . . . We are asking America to turn from false glory, hollow victory, fabricated foreign threats, fear which threatens us as a nation, shallow pride which feeds of fear.
John F. Kerry
Epilogue to The New Soldier (1971)

During his presidential campaign, John Kerry has sought to portray himself as a member of the first group--a veteran proud of his service in Vietnam. In his remarks on July 25 at the Democratic National Convention, Kerry said, "We [veterans] fought for this nation because we loved it. . . . I defended this country as a young man and I will defend it as president." But this sentiment is completely at odds with his infamous testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 22, 1971, wherein he said he and those he spoke for were "ashamed of and hated what we were called on to do in Southeast Asia. . . And to attempt to justify the loss of one American life in Vietnam, Cambodia, or Laos by linking such loss to the preservation of freedom . . . is to us the height of criminal hypocrisy. ."

Posted by: Jim at August 31, 2004 12:30 AM

Justin,

You are really beginning to bore me. Here is a sample of Kerry's Voting Record, as for the rest of it, look it up, if you have enough sense! Since GW JR. doesn't have one what will you compare it to? His DICTATORSHIP as a Cheating President? give me a break. Would you like Discover, JC Penny, Sears, etc. as a credit card or do you know what those are?

http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/John_Kerry.htm

THERE IS REALLY NO COMPARISON HERE GW JR. HAS NEVER BEEN IN THE SENATE! KERRY HAS VOTED VERY INTELLIGENT 132 TIMES!

JOHN KERRY HAS 132 votes on the economy, civil rights, education, health care, jobs, tax reform, and more

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Kerry staunchly resists restrictions on abortions. (Apr 2004)
Partial-birth abortion ban undermine women's right to choose. (Nov 2003)
No criminalization of a woman's right to choose. (Jun 2003)
Voted NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
Voted NO on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
Voted NO on disallowing overseas military abortions. (May 1999)
Expand embryonic stem cell research. (Jun 2004)

Incentives to create jobs at home and end corporate welfare. (Jul 2004)
We can do better on economy--lift people out of poverty. (Jul 2004)
Economy is recovering for corporations to some degree. (Jan 2004)
Will follow Clinton's plan to halve deficit in four years. (Oct 2003)
Base policy on broad growth and progressive taxation. (Oct 2003)
Bush policy kept economy afloat in recession-keep some of it. (Sep 2003)
No excuse for special tax cuts for the rich. (Jun 2003)
Voted NO on prioritizing national debt reduction below tax cuts. (Apr 2000)
Voted NO on 1998 GOP budget. (May 1997)
Voted NO on Balanced-budget constitutional amendment. (Mar 1997)
Defense of Marriage Act is fundamentally ugly. (Apr 2004)
Questions the ultimate practicality of affirmative action. (Apr 2004)
Supports federal DOMA, but not Massachusetts DOMA. (Feb 2004)
Support "mend it, don't end it" for affirmative action. (Jan 2004)
Flag burning is displeasing, but it's free expression. (Jan 2004)
For partnership rights and civil union. (Nov 2003)
Include a sunset provision in the Patriot Act. (Jun 2003)
Voted YES on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)
Voted YES on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on setting aside 10% of highway funds for minorities & women. (Mar 1998)
Voted NO on ending special funding for minority & women-owned business. (Oct 1997)
Voted NO on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)
Voted YES on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996)
Voted NO on Amendment to prohibit flag burning. (Dec 1995)
Voted NO on banning affirmative action hiring with federal funds. (Jul 1995)
Shift from group preferences to econKerry owned a small business: they're engine of economy. (Mar 2004)
Close the loopholes that reward corps taking jobs overseas. (Jan 2004)
Regulate on side of citizens, not on side of corporations. (Oct 2003)
Democratize the process of corporate boards. (Sep 2003)
End "Get Mine and Get Out" ethic at White House. (Jun 2003)
Voted NO on restricting rules on personal bankruptcy. (Jul 2001)
omic empowerment of all. (Aug 2000)
Opposes death penalty except for post 9-11 terrorists. (Jul 2004)
States should not engage in killing-too many mistakes. (Feb 2004)
Moratorium on federal executions-only exception is terrorism. (Jan 2004)
Death penalty for Osama bin Laden. (Dec 2003)
Voted YES on $1.15 billion per year to continue the COPS program. (May 1999)
Voted NO on limiting death penalty appeals. (Apr 1996)
Voted NO on limiting product liability punitive damage awards. (Mar 1996)
Voted YES on restricting class-action lawsuits. (Dec 1995)
Voted YES on repealing federal speed limits. (Jun 1995)
Voted NO on mandatory prison terms for crimes involving firearms. (May 1994)
Voted NO on rejecting racial statistics in death penalty appeals. (May 1994)
More funding and stricter sentencing for hate crimes. (Apr 2001)
Require DNA testing for all federal executions. (Mar 2001)
Invest in the children, not the prison system. (Jul 2004)
National Education Trust Fund: fully fund mandated standards. (Mar 2004)
Measure learning, but with flexible standards. (Feb 2004)
Vouchers drain resources from public schools. (Jan 2004)
Supported "No Child Left Behind," but Bush reneged. (Oct 2003)
Stop viewing charter schools as threatening innovation. (Oct 2003)
Nothing good about vouchers can't be done in public schools. (Oct 2003)
Voted YES on funding smaller classes instead of private tutors. (May 2001)
Voted YES on funding student testing instead of private tutors. (May 2001)
Voted YES on spending $448B of tax cut on education & debt reduction. (Apr 2001)
Voted NO on Educational Savings Accounts. (Mar 2000)
Voted NO on allowing more flexibility in federal school rules. (Mar 1999)
Voted NO on education savings accounts. (Jun 1998)
Voted NO on school vouchers in DC. (Sep 1997)
Voted NO on $75M for abstinence education. (Jul 1996)
Voted NO on requiring schools to allow voluntary prayer. (Jul 1994)
Voted YES on national education standards. (Feb 1994)
Offer every parent Charter Schools and public school choice. (Aug 2000)
Three R?s: $35B for Reinvestment,Reinvention,Responsibility. (Jan 2001)

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at August 31, 2004 12:45 AM

Wayne,
I seem to have missed your post dated August 29 (a copy follows) and I apologize for not answering it sooner but I want you to understand that when I called George W. Bush a Flip-Floper, that I never meant it as an insult. I really do believe that only intelligent people can be Flip-Flopers. What's the big deal anyway? All of us change our minds from time to time although I hope that when we change our minds, that we do it for the better. Rest assured that Bush's Flip-Flops are authentic & bona fide Flip-Flops. Oh, and I also wish I could see your face come November 3, 2004. Your post follows:

Able,
Why when Kerry blatantly(means obvious)flip flops you call him a thinkiing man? Then you try and call Bush a flip flopper? Miss Sue is right, I love to see you squirm. Just wish I could see your face Nov 3rd.

Posted by: Wayne at August 29, 2004 06:56 PM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at August 31, 2004 01:25 AM

Justin,

You left one thing out! When did GW JR. ever sign a true bill for a WAR ON TERRORISM! HE DIDN'T BECAUSE NO SUCH THING EXISTS! THE DUMMY MADE IT UP! I have answered all of your posts and this is what you give me??? GW JR.'s reign as DICTATOR OF THE U.S. Please I know all that crap. Be original!

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at August 31, 2004 01:29 AM

.d

That's pretty sad he only has 132 votes in 20 years, and some of them are a little disappointing. By the way, the President doesn't vote and he does have a record, and in his less than 4 years as President his record is bigger than Kerry's 20 year record. As a matter of fact it's so much bigger than Kerry's I will not copy and paste it here, but give the URL so that anyone that doubts it can go take a look for themselves. It's at

http://www.issues2000.org/George_W__Bush.htm

Also note it's on the same website you got your Kerry info from. I'm kind of surprised you didn't see it! ;) I have to agree with you, there is no comparison. 20 years as opposed to 4 years. Kerry's record should be 5 times bigger.

Posted by: Navy Vet at August 31, 2004 12:44 PM

Monday, August 30, 2004
Associated Press
NEW YORK President Bush has gained ground on Democrat John Kerry in the month of August because of "relatively small but unmistakable" shifts in the political environment, Democratic strategists said in a memo released Monday.

The polling memo by Democracy Corps, a group led by pollster Stan Greenberg and strategist James Carville, said the subtle gains by Bush have knotted the race again after Kerry had a slight advantage after the Democratic National Convention in late July.

"There is no doubt that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads (attacking Kerry) have had an impact on the race," according to the Democracy Corps memo. Those attacks combined with the Summer Olympics have combined to "shift the focus away from Iraq and worrisome economic trends."

The Democracy Corps analysis averaged numerous national and state polls to come up with its assessment that Bush is doing slightly better against Kerry, a judgment supported more by internal measures such as issues and candidate qualities.

Posted by: Navy Vet at August 31, 2004 01:23 PM

Stephanie,

The highest of accolades to you! For the uninitiated there is a saying: The hardest job in the Navy is being a Navy wife. And unequivocally it is.

Posted by: Navy Vet at August 31, 2004 01:56 PM

D... thanks for posting a portion of Kerry's voting record. Let it speak for itself.

But to say that Bush has no record to evaluate is once again opening yourself to scrutiny. You may want to re-think what you said... or I'm going to have to spank you, again.

Posted by: Rick OH at August 31, 2004 03:21 PM

D. Jones

Could you please make some attempt at keeping your observations from personal attacks against those who hold different opinions than yours?

Supporters of Bush are not all stupid and you impune your own integrity with your caustic observations. You think President Bush is a dictator, fine. Again it only proves our view that you are not only biased but uniformed.

You are practicing what many democrats practice. If you tell a lie loud enough and long enough, some people will begin to believe it.

Just an obervation. We recently followed a car with bumper stickers making many of the unfounded claims you make about the President. Accusations of dictatorship, murdering our troops etc. And then, there it was, a bumper sticker that said "THE ANSWERS CAN BE FOUND AT AREA 51!"

If you think the voting record you cite on Kerry is going to make me vote for him you are wrong. We all have our personal issues and abortion happens to be one of mine. Kerry only further coulded the debate for me when he said that he believes life begins at conception. By your account, if Kerry believes that the fetus is a human life then he condones murder by voting in favor of abortions on demand, including the partial birth abortion issue. Yet he then votes against the death penalty and has only recently changed his mind again to say he supports the death penalty for terrorists. Apparently it's not okay to give the death penatly to a serial killer, but it's okay to kill an innocent life.

This is a moral contradiction and displays a lack of moral fortitude. And you side comments attached to Kerry's record as in the no child left behind vote. Kerry supported the no child left behind act before he didn't support it. Bush didn't back off and is still pushing that forward.

You just can't seem to report on anything without offering your own spin mixed in with your references.

Look, it's okay for you to have a different opinion, but that doesn't make you superior to those who oppose you and it doesn't make you more intelligent than your opponents. That's Kerry's method of debate, no wonder you support him. However, listen to George Bush, he publicly commends Kerry's record in Vietnam, Kerry and Edwards publically criticize Bush Air Guard service. Bush has even publicly commended Kerry's service as a Senator, Kerry has only continued to make personal attacks against Bush, insulting his intelligence. The real smear campaign is coming from the leadership of the Democratic party, not just the 527's. On the Republican side, there is smear in the 527's but not from the leadership.

The leadership has never called John Kerry a liar, Coward or compared him to Hitler, the same thing can not be said about John Kerry.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at August 31, 2004 04:30 PM

Able and d.jones,

You have got me this time cause I am truly speechless.

It's probably because I can't stop laughing, you did make one good point. You would love to see my face Nov 3rd, there is nothing like a 6'2" man with the world's biggest smile.

Have a good day and don't forget your medication.

Posted by: Wayne at August 31, 2004 04:35 PM

D...

You really got to stop with these glaring examples of how out of touch you are.

Have you ever heard of the War Powers Act? Public Law: 93-148 (11/7/73)???

How about H. J. RES. 114... yeah... that's the one that authorized force in Iraq. There was another one just like it authorizing the use of force in Afghanstan.

It was voted on by congressmen, and senators... A lot of them voted for it too. You make it sound as if W just decided to do it one day on his own. Your elected representantives authorized everything this President does. How is that a dictatorship? Here again, your ignorance is showing.

And no, there is no formal declaration of war on terrorism. Now there you go being silly again. But there are plenty of resolutions passed supporting the use of force and other things to allow us to catch the bad guys and put them in jail where they belong.

Now go play with your toys...

Posted by: Rick OH at August 31, 2004 06:05 PM

Rick OH,

You're unflappable. I admire your astuteness.I wish to lighten everything up a bit and share a very funny bumper sticker I saw today:

liberal; adjective:
A person so open-minded their brain fell out.

Note: The opinions shown on this post are not necessarily the opinion of this station and it's management. ;-)

Posted by: Navy Vet at August 31, 2004 07:02 PM

Hey Navy Vet

Thank you for your service.

That was a great bumper sticker.

Posted by: Calamity Jane at August 31, 2004 07:37 PM

It is clear that John Kerry is not a hero in my view. Anyone that works like hell to get credited with the three purple hearts in four months to get sent home aint much of a fighter. I know and respect other men and women that have been wounded far more serious and they continued to fight with their comrades until the mission was complete.My Kerry can chicken flop his spin on his service record but I don't buy it. And his 19 years in the Senate aint much to speak of either.

Posted by: Louis at August 31, 2004 07:42 PM

Dick errr. Rick is many things. I have something for you to play with.

Rick,

What does War on Terror have to do with the War on Iraq. Any true American would have signed the necessary legislation that came across the President's desk after 911. GW JR. can't even stop the overflowing borders of Texas, California, and Arizona as has admitted that the War on Terror can't be won! Believe it or not I have more respect for him saying that he made a mistake than to continue on a road of distruction for America I read, and will find the link that GW JR. stated in his request for funding the War On Iraq, that he could also sucessfully fight a War On Terror. It is listed on one of my other posts. GW JR. also admitted that Osama Bin Laden had no ties to Saadam, but he insists on stating the War On Irag is the war on Terror, when in fact over 60 Countries including North Korea harbor Terrorists. Terrorist are still in this Country Today. Please don't twist my words. I have said from the beginning that Sadaam needed ousting. It was GW JR.s timing that I have a problem with. 911 was an opportunity as a politician to bring America together as GW JR. is attempting to portray; however, he didn't seize that opportunity. He went screaming after Iraq which was on his agenda all the time. He has stretched our military very thin, passed on a hugh deficit for our youth to pay for, lost millions of good jobs, not to meantion his poor porformance on Education and Health Care. He took funding from these programs for his Was On Iraq. He set the tone for America as a Country in War not with Iraq as it is, but with Terrorist. Does Iraq want demoracy? I honestly don't think they are ready for it at this moment. Are there still Terrorist? Absolutely!

Navy Vet,

Some the Right Wing poster like Dick errr. Rick are very negativately vocal on any supporter that doesn't support GW JR.s sick Agenda. They will attack any Kerry Supporters post and attempt to make them look dumb. I am as defensive about my Country as the right to support anyone you feel would make a Great President. That is what America is all about. Freedom Of Speech is very much alive today and if we don't like the way our Country is being handled or the direction it is taking then we have a right to speak out against it. We are a very divided people at this time! I don't like that at all!

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at August 31, 2004 11:16 PM

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/1/18/144051.shtml

"I think this Congress needs to investigate precisely" how the United States wound up in a war "that wasn't connected to the threat of al-Qaeda," the former NATO commander said.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at September 1, 2004 08:52 AM

OK, Kerry is most qualified to be President because he served four months in Nam and got a metal splinter in his forearm. Yep, that makes sense. Don't you all remember all of the democrats that supported George the Elder and Bob Dole over Slick, who did everything in his power not to serve in the military? If the the dems would check the stats, they would find that Reservists accounted for over 10% of all Vietnam casualties. Just because you were in the reserves didn't mean you were not going to fight. Another point lost in all of this is that Kerry petitioned for a deferment so he could study in France (there's another tip on what this guy is like.) When he was turned down, he joined the Navy, not the Marines, not the Army....the Navy. Anybody wonder why he chose the Navy? I can't stand the hypocrisy!

Posted by: Hunter at September 1, 2004 11:31 AM

D: What does War on Terror have to do with the War on Iraq [?]
RICHARD: Everything. There is a litany of things that myself, Navy Vet, or Wayne could produce if you want us to. I find it interesting that the left is trying to create the perception that the War in Iraq is a separate issue from the War on Terror. They are one and the same.

D: Any true American would have signed the necessary legislation that came across the President's desk after 911.
RICHARD: So you're saying the war is about terrorism now? *Dick errr Rick is confused*

D: GW JR. can't even stop the overflowing borders of Texas, California, and Arizona.
RICHARD: Agreed. Perhaps he should clone enough of himself to stretch across the border to prevent them from coming through. But seriously; it is an issue. But at the same time I'm hesitant about putting troops along the border.

D: [GW JR] has admitted that the War on Terror can't be won!
RICHARD: Umm, you are clearly taking his remarks out of context. Let's clarify by using the words of the President himself:

"I should have made my point more clear about what I meant. What I meant was that this is not a conventional war. It is a different kind of war. We're fighting people who have got a dark ideology who use terrorists, terrorism, as a tool. They're trying to shake our conscience. They're trying to shake our will, and so in the short run the strategy has got to be to find them where they lurk. I tell people all the time, "We will stay on the on the offense. We will bring them to justice in foreign lands so we don't have to face them here at home," and that's because you cannot negotiate with these people. And in a conventional war there would be a peace treaty or there would be a moment where somebody would sit on the side and say we quit. That's not the kind of war we're in, and that's what I was saying." (George W. Bush 8/31/04)

D: Believe it or not I have more respect for him saying that he made a mistake
RICHARD: Now if we could get Kerry to admit some things... ;)

D: [GW JR] stated in his request for funding the War on Iraq, that he could also successfully fight a War on Terror.
RICHARD: And it specifically draws a distinction between the two? I seriously doubt that. I think what you’ll find that he requested it in order to better enable us to fight the war in multiple theaters; not putting all of our eggs in one basket, so to speak.

D: It is listed on one of my other posts. GW JR. also admitted that Osama Bin Laden had no ties to Saddam
RICHARD: D, it was affirmed by the 9/11 commission that there were!!! There is no 911/Saddam connection; true, but Al Qaeda was training in Iraq for years! He supported, and gave shelter to them. No, there isn’t any established collaboration between the two leading up to 911, but I don’t recall Bush, or anyone else in the administration ever saying there was! It's a fact that Saddam had WMDs. It's a fact he used them on his own people. The Russians gave us intelligence that suggested that he was making plans to finance, organize, and commit terrorist acts on our soil. There is growing evidence that in the months leading up to the war WMDs were moved into Syria, another Baathist regime. There is a plethora of reasons establishing the Iraq war was for reasons related to terrorism. WHAT OTHER REASON IS THERE? OIL??? Please.

D: But he insists on stating the War On Irag is the war on Terror, when in fact over 60 Countries including North Korea harbor Terrorists. Terrorist are still in this Country Today.
RICHARD: One bad guy at a time, D. And we deal with different countries different ways. Don’t forget the tragic error both Hitler and Napoleon made in fighting wars on multiple fronts. Sure, we have terrorists here today. There is no doubting that, but there is also no doubting that we have seriously impaired their ability to attack us. We have thwarted and prevented a lot of their efforts. Thank God too. Please don’t try to make it sound as if we are doing nothing here at home about terror.

D: Please don't twist my words.
RICHARD: I don’t need to; you do a good job of that yourself.

D: I have said from the beginning that Sadaam needed ousting. It was GW JR.s timing that I have a problem with.
RICHARD: 12 years, 19 UN Resolutions, continued defiance from Saddam. Nah... we should have waited longer. [NOT]

D: 911 was an opportunity as a politician to bring America together as GW JR. is attempting to portray; however, he didn't seize that opportunity.
RICHARD: Yes, he did. I believe with good reason the democrats are the ones being divisive and partisan.

D: He went screaming after Iraq which was on his agenda all the time.
RICHARD: Prove it was on his agenda prior to 9/11. And not from someones blog, or left leaning site. Prove it with a reputable news source.

D: He has stretched our military very thin
RICHARD: Not really, but anyway

D: passed on a hugh deficit for our youth to pay for
RICHARD: War costs money, and when you bail out our country at tax payer expense to keep us from even greater financial calamity in the wake of 911, yes, you will go into dept, but I believe we can overcome it in the long run. Show some optimism here.

D: lost millions of good jobs
RICHARD: Prove to me that the recession started as a result of policies implemented by his administration. Over half of the jobs lost have been gained back, and they are good paying jobs.

D: not to meantion his poor porformance on Education and Health Care.
RICHARD: There are many who believe No Child Left Behind is an enormous success! Clinton Tried to pass the same kind of legislation. Health Care cannot be taken over by the Gov. I have a feeling that is the only thing that will make you happy.

D: He took funding from these programs for his Was On Iraq.
RICHARD: No, he didn’t.

D: He set the tone for America as a Country in War not with Iraq as it is, but with Terrorist.
RICHARD: THEN WHY ARE WE THERE??? WHY DID WE GO? Revenge for Daddy?

D: Does Iraq want demoracy? I honestly don't think they are ready for it at this moment.
RICHARD: We should let the people of Iraq decide that. There are many [Iraqis] who want it very badly

D: Are there still Terrorist? Absolutely!
RICHARD: Umm... DUH?

RICHARD: D, I'm not trying to make you look dumb. I'm trying to get you to open your eyes. You're so blinded by your hatred... it's not heathy.

Yo, Navy Vet... I'm a fellow Navy Vet. I was part of Desert Shield.

USS Klakring FFG-42

I was an FC MK-92

Has anyone noticed that we have Iran surrounded right now?

Posted by: Rick OH at September 1, 2004 12:43 PM

d.jones,
How can you say Al-Qaeda was never in Iraq? Are we to beleive that they were in Spain, Iran, Afghanistan, and S.Florida but not in Iraq?

Use your head, it's that lump 3 feet above your a**.

Posted by: Wayne at September 1, 2004 03:06 PM

Look Dick errr. Rick

Please put your battleship game down. You are at home now. It's going to be ok! Thank you for your response. It shows your Right Wing Conservative view as well as your sarcasim. The same ones I have noticed from the beginning; however, the Bush Administration said they were different wars, if you will open your eyes along with your mind and read my links... Here I know you may have not been potty trained yet so I will post it again.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/1/18/144051.shtml

"I think this Congress needs to investigate precisely" how the United States wound up in a war "that wasn't connected to the threat of al-Qaeda," the former NATO commander said.

You posts are full of I believes. Where are your facts. You are worse than GW JR., well not quite ;-)

"RICHARD: Yes, he did. I believe with good reason the democrats are the ones being divisive and partisan."

Be for real. There is a difference between being divisive and disagreement among political candidate agendas. GW JR. (known at "The Dummy")abused his executive priviledges as Commandor and Chief of the Armed Forces. Any War enthusiast would like that. Senator Kerry brings hope and safety to America, and not by ignoring the American people. The same thing GW JR. wants us to believe, but he is tripping over his own words now, and has a poor track record for leading America. The majority of people don't want him back in office. It's in the polls. Regardless if anyone likes HIS war or not, America wants someone new. Rick errr. Dick Cheny is as corrupt as they come. I am not listing any posts on him, they are to depressing.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at September 1, 2004 06:24 PM

d jones,

You make a very lucid point. It definitely is one of our many great freedoms. Let me ask you though, do you support your party's attempt to ban the Swift Boat Vets adds, but none of the other 527's that oppose Bush? Do you support them rying to intimidate the publisher of "Unfit for Command" to recall all copies? Do you support them threatening to sue radio and TV stations that air their ads for libel? And all this with Kerry's full approval! As a person that embraces freedom of speech, I find these tactics very disturbing, do you?

Hey Calamity, no, thank you for being here. Good to see you back.
Rick OH, should have known! Fire Control Systems can't be run by dummys. Haven't seen a bad post by ya. I won't say what I did, as most liberal people look at the job negatively and I'm sure I'd take some slams over it. I was with a NSWTU platoon in Lebanon. You may or may not know the designation, but either way it good to have you on my side. Of course, it probably couldn't be any other way.

Posted by: Navy Vet at September 1, 2004 06:36 PM

Moe(d.jones),
Or is it Shemp? I know you don't like being called names so refrain from using them against everyone else.

Try and understand this, Kerry will not win because he has no core beliefs. No faith. Didn't Kerry say "what good is a man's faith without any works?", where are his works?

Posted by: Wayne at September 1, 2004 07:00 PM

Wayne,

Please don't start. We never attacked those
other Country's and certanily not S. Florida (There Are Terrorist There) although they harbor terrorist. That is exactly my point. Why didn't GW JR. attack Spain and Iran or is that on his to do list?

And please don't use my own words against me.

"Use your head, it's that lump 3 feet above your a**."

I have those in my GW JR. all time favorite quotes. Next to: "Well, Sadaam Tried To Kill My Daddy" and "Well, we're gonna smoke em' out, get em' on thu run and hunt em' down" among many others.

Original Post by Wayne.

"How can you say Al-Qaeda was never in Iraq? Are we to beleive that they were in Spain, Iran, Afghanistan, and S.Florida but not in Iraq?"

I guess, I understand something that I didn't before. Most of you are have served in our Military. I have not. And do I have questions for you! I won't ask on this post. I have a relative in the Military now. I am a bit to old for that now; however, when I received my DL in the late 70's, I did register for the draft at the local post office in Texas. I must admit it was a bit scary. I went to college, and there was no war. Along with all the Vienam Vet's I salute you whether it was voluntarily or a draft. You fight was for this country. As you now see by some of the other posts, the war is not always a fight abroad. It's worse when the fight it here. As I mentioned earlier, I don't like this division; however, I stand by Senator Kerry.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at September 1, 2004 07:06 PM

d.jones, Understand this and process it please, Iraq harbored terrorists, Spain did not. Iran does and they are on the list. I don't beleive for one second your older than 22, I was going to ask what high school you go to. Put the quote whereever you want to, I don't care. What I do care about is this nation. You on the other hand have attacked everyone that doesn't see eye to eye with you. Do you not think Bush is a patriot?

Posted by: Wayne at September 1, 2004 07:45 PM

"Iran does and they are on the list."

Posted by: Wayne at September 1, 2004 07:45 PM

What list Wayne?

"Do you not think Bush is a patriot?"

yes, I do Wayne, a very misguided patriot. Kinda like a lost missile looking for a target.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at September 1, 2004 08:04 PM

Posted by: Wayne at September 1, 2004 07:45 PM

Wayne,

Take a break dude. Go and watch the protestors at the RNC. Hey!, There goes GW JR! Did you get excited Wayne?

:-)
Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at September 1, 2004 08:21 PM

Check this out, fellas.
SwiftVets number 254 AGAINST John F'n Kerry.
SwiftVet number THREE FOR Kerry.
Registered DEMOCRATS are about HALF (or more) of this nations voters, RIGHT? So who wants to be the absolute fool to say that 254 people are REPUBLICANS AGAINST Kerry? NONSENSE!
(Or that the SwiftVets are being partisan.)
These SwiftVets have nothing to gain and everything to lose by doing what they are doing.
Kerry, on the other hand, has the PRESIDENCY to gain and NOTHING to lose (he'll still be SENATOR Kerry, right?).
BTW, the jerk on this list that calls everybody names is NOT going to be convinced by anything anyone says...don't waste your time trying. That is what he wants you to do...waste your time.
Just remember...come election day...FLUSH THE JOHNS!

Posted by: John at September 1, 2004 10:58 PM

Wayne,
You're still believing the lie that Iraq was harboring terrorists? Well, if that's the case, we must be harboring Terrorists too. Surely you must know that we also have some in this country, at least that what Secretary Remsfeld, President Bush and others are saying. Maybe you still believe the lie that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction too? After all, they did have them at one time and we know that to be true because we gave them to Saddam so he could use them against Iran and his own people. Please, don't fool yourself when there's no need--there are a lot of informative books at Amazon.com. You need to read about what happened and what is happening right now. Use your precious vote intelligently and support the Kerry/Edwards ticket!

Your condensed POST follows:

d.jones, Understand this and process it please, Iraq harbored terrorists, Spain did not. Iran does and they are on the list. I don't beleive for one second your older than 22, I was going to ask what high school you go to. Put the quote whereever you want to, I don't care. What I do care about is this nation. You on the other hand have attacked everyone that doesn't see eye to eye with you. Do you not think Bush is a patriot?
Posted by: Wayne at September 1, 2004 07:45 PM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 2, 2004 01:21 AM

Navy Vet,
I too, would like to thank you from the bottom of my heart for serving our country. God Bless you!

Posted by: Miss Sue at September 2, 2004 02:14 AM

We will not quickly join those who march on Veterans' Day waving small flags, calling to memory those thousands who died for the "greater glory of the United States." We will not accept the rhetoric. We will not readily join the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars--in fact, we will find it hard to join anything at all and when we do, we will demand relevancy such as other organizations have recently been unable to provide. We will not take solace from the creation of monuments or the naming of parks after a select few of the thousands of dead Americans and Vietnamese. We will not uphold the traditions which decorously memorialize that which was base and grim. . . . We are asking America to turn from false glory, hollow victory, fabricated foreign threats, fear which threatens us as a nation, shallow pride which feeds of fear.
John F. Kerry
Epilogue to The New Soldier (1971)

During his presidential campaign, John Kerry has sought to portray himself as a member of the first group--a veteran proud of his service in Vietnam. In his remarks on July 25 at the Democratic National Convention, Kerry said, "We [veterans] fought for this nation because we loved it. . . . I defended this country as a young man and I will defend it as president." But this sentiment is completely at odds with his infamous testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 22, 1971, wherein he said he and those he spoke for were "ashamed of and hated what we were called on to do in Southeast Asia. . . And to attempt to justify the loss of one American life in Vietnam, Cambodia, or Laos by linking such loss to the preservation of freedom . . . is to us the height of criminal hypocrisy. ."

Posted by: JBM at September 2, 2004 02:31 AM

I have tried to post a few times but they never seem to make it - are my commnets too harsh?

JBM

Posted by: JBM at September 2, 2004 02:33 AM

d.jones,
I know it's hard to keep track of things said when all you do is lie, you asked about a list for America to deal with that habors terrorists. Spain to my knowledge does not harbor terrorists. Iran on the other hand does, so it would be my guess that at some point we need to deal with that. I don't know why I even try with you.

At least Able makes sense in his arguements, hes wrong but I can see why he would think the way he does. We have or differences but I think he at leasts listens, you on the other hand just go bonkers when ever someone makes you look uninformed, which is often.

Well have a good day thinking up new ways to twist the truth and what good people say here.

Posted by: Wayne at September 2, 2004 08:28 AM

D... When I say "I believe", it's my personal opinion. In my last post I only said it twice...

1. I believe with good reason the democrats are the ones being divisive and partisan.
2. War costs money, and when you bail out our country at tax payer expense to keep us from even greater financial calamity in the wake of 911, yes, you will go into dept, but I believe we can overcome it in the long run. Show some optimism here.

I believe there is enough evidence in history. If I really thought you were open minded enough to read what undoubtedly would take me several hours to research and write, I would do it, and I would be convincing. (Yes… I'm arrogant too)

D... Not many in this forum have backed themselves up better that I have with fact, and I think the other contributors here would agree. The very fact that you sit there and say I haven't strongly suggests to me that you've not bothered to read the references I've posted.

Now I will not be the hypocrite. You posted an article that was not only written last January, but was based on the opinion of then democrat presidential candidate Retired General Wesley Clark. They were partisan statements, and filled with conjecture because he was trying to win his parities' nomination. But D, I don't like to use sound bytes of others expressing opinions, especially when the ones expressing them have been compromised. Clark was an ardent supporter of the war in Iraq prior to his presidential bid. He flip flopped for political reasons.

Being an engineer, it's my nature to surround myself with empirical evidence to aid me in the formations of opinions I hold.

I'm not a hack. I look at everything, and not just cleverly placed sound bytes, and opinions. That's why in our economic debates I kept on referring to the BLS, which is where all the economic statistics come from. I can't rely on simple opinion, it has to be supported.

It's like a building. We see the nice painted walls, the pretty architecture, the nice interior decorating, and say "Wow!" That looks nice, but what's supporting it? What is its foundation? What is the quality of the materials used?

I look at the President, and I see building with some flaws, but it's built on a steady, solid foundation that can weather any storm.

I look at John Kerry, and I see no stability. I see a man who changes his mind when he should be taking a stand. In these times, I need someone solid. John Kerry has no core. He's hollow.

D, I apologize for the swipes I took. I am sarcastic. It's my sense of humor. Dry, and Monty Pythonish.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to pee. I just need to find mommy.

Navy Vet... I'm guessing CT?

Posted by: Rick OH at September 2, 2004 10:05 AM

JBM,

On John F. Kerry's Epilogue to The New Soldier (1971)

Why are you still talking about Kerry events that happened back in 1971, over 30 years ago? If you're going to do that, you might also tell us about events involving George W. Bush at that time? Surely you must be aware that GW Bush didn't become a man until he was beyond 40 years of age. For example, tell us about his DUI, his drug problem and his jail time. GW Bush now claims that he was young and reckless. Wasn't Kerry also young and perhaps a little reckless? Telling us only about Kerry is lying by omission. You should be ashamed of yourself, John Kerry is an American hero whereas GW Bush is a coward in comparison.

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 2, 2004 11:58 AM

Abel,

The United Staes does not harbor known terrorists. Harbor implies giving a safe have, a sanctuary to terrorists. There are terrorists hiding in the United States and when they are discovered they are arrested and confined. That's what the Patriot Act calls for. Of course the ACLU wants us to notify them before we search their homes claiming that without notice, we violate their civil rights. It would seem to me, by that statement, that the ACLU seeks to harbor terrorists. Their recent ad on television is other attempt by the Democratic Party to generate fear in the hearts of American People. The authorities still need a search warrant, it has just cut through the red tape that slows down investigations. I remind everyone that there is no evidence of the violation of anyone's civil rights because of the Patriot Act.

Like many organizations that start out with good intentions, the ACLU has dissolved into a divisive agency twisting the constitution and declaring that symbols like a cross on a state seal is somehow a threat to America. They are a force of division and they promote their agenda by public statements that seek to generate a spirit of fear and hatred towards traditional positions held by the majority of Americans.

France and Spain are suspect nations because they are aware of the terrorist operating in their country but have done little to stop them. I suspect that will change with the recent attacks in Spain and Russia and with the hostages in Iraq.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at September 2, 2004 03:14 PM

Able,
You are starting to break down aren't you. Yes there are terrorists here and we go after them, we don;t harbor them. Look up the meaning of harbor. Ohh, I forgot that liberals like to redefine words all the time. Iraq had ties with terrorists. You must know that, the more you post, the more I think that your not so smart. Did you see the firemen are supporting Bush now? Not the officers, the firemen.

Posted by: Wayne at September 2, 2004 04:46 PM

George W. Bush saluted an Army officer who had been badly injured during the September 11 terrorist attack on the Pentagon
http://www.snopes.com/glurge/birdwell.htm

"As you may know, the President and Mrs. Bush visited the Washington Burn Center on Friday 14 September. Among those they visited was LTC Brian Birdwell, who was badly burned in the Pentagon attack. Mrs. Bush went into Brian's room, spoke to him for about a minute, all the time as if they had been long acquaintances. She then turned to Brian's wife Mel, who at this time had been at the hospital for probably 2 1/2 days, and apparently, according to Mel herself, was dirty, grimy and had blood on her shirt.

Mrs. Bush hugged Mel for what Mel said seemed like an eternity, just as if Mel were one of her closest family members.

Mrs. Bush then told Brian and Mel that there was "someone" there to see him.

The President then walked in, stood by Brian's bedside, asked Brian how he was doing, told him that he was very proud of them both and that they were his heroes.

The President then saluted Brian. Now, at this point in time, Brian is bandaged up pretty well. His hands are burned very badly as well as the back of him from the head down. His movements were very restricted.

Upon seeing the President saluting him, Brian began to slowly return the salute, taking, from the accounts so far, about 15-20 seconds to get his hand up to his head.

During all of this, 15-20 seconds, President Bush never moved, never dropped his salute. The President dropped his salute only when Brian was finished with his, and then gave Mel a huge hug for what also probably seemed like an eternity.

Pray for our leadership. Thank God for what we are, have, and will be.

As a note to those of you who might not be familiar with military protocol, the subordinate normally initiates a salute and will hold it until the superior officer returns the salute.

In the above incident, President Bush acted in the role of the subordinate to show his respect and high regard for the injured man.

...Birdwell's older brother, Wade, also confirmed the story via e-mail:

"I cannot tell you how grateful and truly proud I am that when Brian started to return that salute, despite his wounds, the president held his salute firmly and thereby permitted my brother the honor of demonstrating his and the true character of so very many others of our fighting men and women. Indeed, you should know that it was this very character that likely saved Brian's life in the first place. As Brian crawled through the fire, certain brave men and women pulled him from the carnage, carried him out to the parking lot, then into the adjoining street."

This is the true character of a man I want to see lead this country. A man who has never criticized the military that gives me the freedom to participate in this exercise of free speech. Am man who has supported the military who places their life on the line each and every day to provide safety and security to even those who would criticize them and their valorous actions.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at September 2, 2004 05:35 PM

Rick,
Are you saying that Kerry has nice drapes but they may change from stripes to plaid at any moment?

Good posts, looking forward to Nov 3rd when GW wins his second presidential election.

Posted by: Wayne at September 2, 2004 05:50 PM

AMERICA............ARE YOU LISTENING America, thirty years ago you abandoned us. You turned your back on us, forgot our sacrifices and classified us as losers, drug addicts and social outcasts. Hollywood gladly persisted in portraying us to a younger generation and to the world as drug-addled sadists, loners and borderline psychopaths.

You never welcomed us home with open arms or words of comfort for our wounds. Instead, we were greeted by sneering leftist, Communists and fifth columnists posing as students, professors and members of the almighty press, all anxious to document the return of its wayward sons to a country all too quick and pleased to forget us.

Our own families, force-fed a diet of lies by its trusted television newsmen, doubted the nature of our sacrifices and quietly, shamefully, accepted our unadorned return.

Faced with such singular ignominy, we quietly resumed our lives, jobs, educations and careers. The overwhelming majority of us succeeded in those interrupted lives and careers, becoming doctors,engineers,architects,lawyers,businessmen,accountants,and all other professions imaginable. We established businesses, became wealthy, raised families, paid taxes, had grandchildren. By any measure, we achieved the American dream-not because it was handed to us in payment for our service,sacrifices or victimization-but earned by us in spite of it.

For thirty years and more we quietly persevered in our march to heal the wound inflicted on our souls, not by the armed enemy we faced on the battlefield, but by our countrymen in our rear - some, but not very, very many at all, who had even worn the uniform. Such a deep wound had been healing slowly and without any help from those who gleefully inflicted it.

And then, one of the men who wielded the original knife...the dagger sharpened by his ideological masters in Hanoi,Beijing,Moscow and Havana...re-emerges from our past and begins to once again twist that knife he so deeply thrust into our backs. He now emerges, wearing the mantle of respectable member of Congress, who rode his once-shameful Vietnam service into the halls of political power...who now seeks the highest office in the land, professing to be one of us...the abandoned ones, the forgotten ones, the murderers, rapists and sadists he loudly and theatrically damned in front of a world watching, listening and reading in 1971. He now proudly proclaims shedding blood for a Nation whose service he condemned in 1971, whose medals he contemptuously threw on the Capital grounds and which he now wears, unstained by the shame of his rejecting them when his nation needed solidarity. He now claims heroism as his badge of honor in an army of savages not seen since the "hordes of Genghis Khan."

And he does all of this without shame, guilt or remorse in front of us, the forgotten ones, the abandoned ones...and what is most terrifing to us, the ones who were never ashamed of our service, who have quietly kept the faith of our fathers, who have faithfully remembered and honored our dead, who have never "cashed in" on our military service, and who had slowly and painfully learned to accept our anonymity - is the fact this opportunist, this sunshine patriot, this back-stabbing traitor to his uniformed compatriots...this elitist, gold-digger...may possibly become our Commander-in-Chief.

And you...America...our dearly loved Nation...who abandoned us so many years ago, and to whom we have remained faithful nonetheless...are you going to shame us once again?

A VIETNAM VETERAN

Posted by: John Copeskey at September 2, 2004 06:49 PM

Rick,

I have made my peace with the Vet's on this post as well as all Vet's. I am not going to play that game. Senator Kerry is a Vietnam Vet War Hero, and That's That! Bush/Cheny are both draft dodgers and That's That!

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at September 2, 2004 08:06 PM

.d jones and Abel,
The definition of harboring in this case is: 'a place of security and comfort'. The U.S., Spain and other countries fighting terrorism are not 'harboring' them. They are not getting 'security and comfort'.Yeh, they were here and I'm sure they're here in sleeper cells right now, and they are being watched. I'm pretty sure the days of taking these murderers lightly is over. There are probably a few wannabe terrorists that really aren't a threat, but they are being watched also.

In this present environment nothing is going to be taken for granted. And it can't be. Because they want to kill you and me and our families, and they want to do it so badly they'll die to do it! I spent some time in the middle east, Lebanon to be exact, and have seen these people up close and personal. These are primitive barbarians stuck in the 12th century with modern weapons. They will look for any weakness and any slight drop in guard, any opportunity, and they WILL strike. Believe this!

I've read a lot of postings calling George Bush a 'dummy' and disparaging the direction he's taking us, how he's destroying us, how he's alienated us from the rest of the world, etc,etc,etc. Well, let's go back in time a little bit. We'll start with Democratic President Jimmy Carter. Under his watch, we had hostages held in Iran for 144 days while he tried to reason with them. Didn't work. During his presidential campaign, Republic Ronald Reagan vowed when he took office he would free them, no matter what it took. The day he was sworn in, they released the hostages. Reagan spoke to them in the only language they understand. And that is, 'you will pay, and it will be severe'.

Under the Carter watch terror became wide spread and operated with impunity. President Carter, who I regret to say I voted for, wanted to reason with the terrorists. I joined the Navy in February of 1981. Reagan was Commander-in-Chief. We were fighting the Cold War. But he also made it a priority to fight terrorism. Every country in the world said it was the wrong thing to do( except Israel ), the terrorist would start attacking even more, don't antagonize them, reason with them, be sensitive, etc ad nauseum. He didn't listen. From l968 to 1982, international terrorism was dominated by Palestinian terror organizations. At the end of this period, the Shi’ite terror organizations operating under Iranian support came on the scene, and by the end of the 1980’s they had become a force to be reckoned with. Now take note of the ending date of Palestinian terrorism domination. It ended in 1982. O.K., I'm starting to get long winded here so I'll shorten it up. Moammar Qadafy (the spelling has changed over the years, due to translation) was dominating the terror scene and Reagan went after him. By the time Reagan left office, he was just a piss-ant in the desert. As a matter of fact, the world was pretty much free of terrorism. The only countries that were being attacked were the ones trying to 'appeal' to them. The threat to the U.S. was gone. Nada, a world away. Not to mention he ended the Cold War.

In comes Democratic President Bill Clinton. The terrorists know, and believe me it's true, that the Democrats want to be more 'sensitive'. Under his watch, this happened:
02/26/93 -Bombing on the World trade Center. 6 killed. 1040 injured. Al-Qaeda responsible
06/25/96- Khobar Towers bombed. 19 U.S. serviceman killed. Hundreds of others injured. Hezbollah responsible
08/07/98- Kenya. 2 US embassies bombed simultaneously. 224 killed. 4,500 injured. Al-Qaeda responsible
10/12/2000- USS Cole bombed. 17 sailors killed. Al-Qaeda responsible
On 3 ( three ) separate occasions, Mansoor Ijaz, leading officer on the Council for Foreign Relations, offered Bill Clinton the custody of Osama Bin-Laden. He refused. According to Dick Morris , Clinton's right-hand man, he didn't want to take the problem on because he was too busy defining his 'legacy' and it would create a distraction.

Now, here comes George Bush. Taking it on like Reagan, even against all international and domestic protest, not worrying about polls or his popularity. Just like Reagan. I want to say here and now, all the prognosticators that second-guess what he has done are doing just that. Prognosticating. There is so much information you have no access to. He has so many advisors that know 10 times more than you do or I do.
Do you know that before Desert Storm and Desert Shield that Seal teams, Delta Force, and Recon Marines were boots on the ground more than 30 days before the invasion? Do you think it was any different before the invasion of Iraq? These guys saw WMD's. They were there, but because of national security this information you will not find out for several years. The UN said they were there, NATO, Germany, France, Russia, every country in the world said so. Mossaud ( Israeli intelligence) has satellite photos of mass transports heading into Syria within the 30 days before we invaded and believe they were carrying out the WMDs before we invaded. Most people forget, but GWs contention was if we waited for the UN to OK our invasion, they could move the WMDs out of country during the delay. In his one show of weakness (?) he decided to appeal to the UN. We lost time. Time was on Saddam's side now. Think about it.

That being said, I find it hard to believe Iraq did not 'harbor' terrorists. It could be ONE reason Saddam violated for 11 years the U.N. resoluton to allow weapons inspectors into the country. They would very definitely notice any terrorist activity and/or camps. Kerry wants to bring the international community into the fold and lift our image in the world community. We have seen in the last decade that the world community is weak and indecisive. The UN is run by a bunch of members from 3rd world countries except for France, Germany and Russia. They're bigger, but they're 3rd rate countries. Kerry would ask the countries of the world what to do and look for the UN's blessing. And if that wasn't forthcoming, he'd sit on his hands. In the meantime, Al-Qaida will be positioning to kill me, you, your brothers, sisters, sons,daughters, mothers, fathers, cousins, and any american they can.

I can say that the reason I say this is because when I was in the Navy my job was in counter terrorism, and I'm sure that the climate and science hasn't changed much since 1987. Rick OH you guessed right. CT. The capacity will remain between me and you if that's alright. Sorry for the long post, I edited as much as I could , and still try to be able make my point.

Needless to say, I will be voting for George Bush. I have had several people thank me for serving, and I appreciate it, Sue in particular, also theresa g and all others. I assure you, I appreciate your kindness, but there were selfish reasons for me serving. There are several other veterans posting here, Rick OH, Devil Dog and Navy wife, theresa G though she is currently an active duty Navy wife ( the hardest job in the Navy is being a Navy wife, which is so true ) that are sometimes impugned. That makes me uncomfortable. I wish to thank all of you, including Abel and d.Jones for being involved and concerned Americans, no matter what your platform. It shows we all care. Wayne, you're great too. I find all the posts invigorating, whether I agree or not.But remember all, Right is Right, and Left is Wrong. :-)

Posted by: Navy Vet at September 2, 2004 08:12 PM

Able,
I don'e give a flying cr** about what happened with Bush or Kerry during Vietnam. What have they done since 9/11? Bush has taken the fight to them and Kerry has done very little to confront the enemy. He won't even fund our troops. I am getting sick and tired of everyone attacking Bush with hearsay and whenever someone mentions Kerry's senate record, which is the truth, they are accused of attacking a Vietnam war hero. The truth of the matter is that Kerry is now a reckless, useless, and dangerous US senator that Mass can have, I don't live there, that if he had it his way we would have no military to be argueing over.

Posted by: Wayne at September 2, 2004 08:14 PM

Are We Winning the War on Terror? That Depends

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_5172.shtml

The war on terror might eventually be won, depending on one's definition of winning. Victory might mean a drop in the number of terror attacks, or a drop in the death tolls they inflict. But almost no one foresees a complete end to terror tactics that have succeeded in getting attention for Islamic extremists and others.
Witness the Middle East, for example. President Bush ignited a continuing controversy early this week by saying he doesn't think the war is winnable; then he reversed himself, saying flatly that it is.

The truth is probably more nuanced, say experts on the military, Islam and international issues.

And though Bush asserted that the United States is winning now, there's wide disagreement on that as well.

It won't be time to even think about declaring victory until the United States goes "many years" without a catastrophic attack like the Sept. 11, 2001, assaults that killed some 3,000 Americans, said Michael O'Hanlon, a defense analyst for the liberal-oriented Brookings Institutions, which operates as a sort of loyal-opposition commentator here when Republicans hold the White House.

Even then, O'Hanlon said, attacks would continue, perhaps at the level of the October 2000 bombing of the USS Cole off of Yemen that killed 17 sailors.

Analysts appeared more worried.

The war's not being won, O'Hanlon said, "because we're doing a good job against the first generation of al-Qaida but not ... the second."

Al-Qaida was scattered from its haven in Afghanistan, arrests of some leaders and operatives have been made around the world and international coalition efforts have stemmed the flow of some money used to finance terrorist activities.

"We are doing damage to the other side," said Joshua Muravchik of the American Enterprise Institute.

At the same time, some U.S. actions have increased contempt for America among Muslims, thus helping terrorists recruit new followers, O'Hanlon and others said.

For instance, though Bush says the Iraq war is part of the counterterror war, critics say it was a setback and unnecessary diversion from the real battle because of the failure to find weapons of mass destruction there - or any proof of a working link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida.

Even those supporting the administration's invasion of Iraq say almost nothing has been done toward the long-term task of changing minds in the Middle East, the breeding ground for most Islamic terrorism.

I will be Voting for John Kerry. It's obvious that GW JR is simply playing a political game.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at September 3, 2004 04:12 AM

d. jones,

That reminds me, I'm also a veteran and I too recognize that John Kerry is a American Vietnam War hero and that Bush/Cheny were draft dodgers. I'm with you 100 percent. I too am voting for the Kerry/Edwards ticket in November. Your POST follows:

Rick,
I have made my peace with the Vet's on this post as well as all Vet's. I am not going to play that game. Senator Kerry is a Vietnam Vet War Hero, and That's That! Bush/Cheny are both draft dodgers and That's That!
Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004
Posted by: d. jones at September 2, 2004 08:06 PM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 3, 2004 04:35 AM

Jim Rodkey,
That's what we have been trying to tell you. There is absolutely no credible evidence that Saddam Hussein was harboring Terrorist. Saddam regarded Ossama Bin Laden as an enemy. He wanted nothing to do with him. This is a matter of record and well documented. Like I like to say, this is common knowledge by intelligent people. The fact that some terrorists were in Iraq means the same as some terrorist being here and in almost every other country. That doesn't mean that it's right that we attack those countries. We attacked Afghanistan only because Bin Laden was physically there and operating from there. The whole world was behind us on that. That was not true in regards to Iraq. That's were George W. Bush "screwed" up. What you say about the ACLU is rediculous and I'm not going to dignify your statement by responding to it. As to the Patriot Act, there's much to be desired regarding it. In my opinion, the Patriot Acts diminishes our American Civil Liberties but you don't seem to mind, I notice.

Your POST follows:

Abel,
The United States does not harbor known terrorists. Harbor implies giving a safe have, a sanctuary to terrorists. There are terrorists hiding in the United States and when they are discovered they are arrested and confined. That's what the Patriot Act calls for. Of course the ACLU wants us to notify them before we search their homes claiming that without notice, we violate their civil rights. It would seem to me, by that statement, that the ACLU seeks to harbor terrorists. Their recent ad on television is other attempt by the Democratic Party to generate fear in the hearts of American People. The authorities still need a search warrant, it has just cut through the red tape that slows down investigations. I remind everyone that there is no evidence of the violation of anyone's civil rights because of the Patriot Act.

Like many organizations that start out with good intentions, the ACLU has dissolved into a divisive agency twisting the constitution and declaring that symbols like a cross on a state seal is somehow a threat to America. They are a force of division and they promote their agenda by public statements that seek to generate a spirit of fear and hatred towards traditional positions held by the majority of Americans.
France and Spain are suspect nations because they are aware of the terrorist operating in their country but have done little to stop them. I suspect that will change with the recent attacks in Spain and Russia and with the hostages in Iraq.
Posted by: Jim Rodkey at September 2, 2004 03:14 PM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 3, 2004 04:54 AM

d.jokes,
Why do you insist upon calling everyone names? Your name is officially changed now. I hope everyone follows suit, if you can refrain from calling names I will back off. I hope you take the first step of manhood here.

Posted by: Wayne at September 3, 2004 08:38 AM

someone who is a democrat please explain to me how u can vote for Kerry, because im having trouble comprehending it.

Posted by: michael at September 3, 2004 09:57 AM

Wow... a lot happened since my last post. Let me respond to all in order:

Abel said - "Why are you still talking about Kerry events that happened back in 1971, over 30 years ago? If you're going to do that, you might also tell us about events involving George W. Bush at that time?"

AMEN... why are we talking about it? I think John Kerry should drop it too! But don't forget, he's the one who brought it up. He feels that his 4 months as a Swift Boat commander qualifies him to be commander in chief. He by doing that opens himself to a challenge. By the way, I have yet to hear Cheney or W criticize his service.

Wayne said - "Rick, Are you saying that Kerry has nice drapes but they may change from stripes to plaid at any moment?"

Yes, I imagine that the interior has the look of Pee Wee's fun house.

John Copeskey - I don't know if you are a Vietnam Vet, but let me say that I was between 3 and 8 years old when most of that went down. To be truthful, I was oblivious to it. But as I grew up I became increasingly aware of the pain that war caused so many of us. I can only imagine the betrayal some one can feel when they go and fight for their country, watch their friends die, suffer life threatening wounds, and then come home after it all to be called a "baby killer", and to also learn that there were some who fought beside that were doing the same.

Navy Vet - I understand. You said, "But remember all, Right is Right, and Left is Wrong. :-)" It's better if you say, "The Right makes tight what the Left hath made loose"

D said - "I will be Voting for John Kerry. It's obvious that GW JR is simply playing a political game."

Again, your opinion coupled with the opinion of others; I respectfully disagree. I could cite several articles with the opinions of well qualified people saying just the opposite. Remember, empirical evidence.

Posted by: Rick OH at September 3, 2004 11:37 AM

Okay, another post...

D and Abel both say - "I have made my peace with the Vet's on this post as well as all Vet's. I am not going to play that game. Senator Kerry is a Vietnam Vet War Hero, and That's That! Bush/Cheny are both draft dodgers and That's That!"

Well thanks, but I wasn't really at war with either of you. :) I do this for fun.

Since you bring it up, and just to put things in perspective... let's assume you're right, and Bush and Cheney both are both draft dodgers. Wasn't Clinton one too? So, with that being the case, is it okay for Bill, but not okay for Dick and George? Even John Kerry said,

"We do not need to divide America over who served and how. I have personally always believed that many served in many different ways." [John Kerry, 138 Cong Rec S 2479, Thursday, February 27, 1992; responding to the allegations that Bill Clinton was a draft dodger]

But now John Kerry is criticizing Cheney for his deferments. Last night in Springfield Ohio (20 miles from me) he said, "Neither Bush, who served in the Texas Air national Guard, nor Cheney went to Vietnam. The vice president obtained five deferments and has since said he had "other priorities" at the time." Yet another flip-flop for Kerry. And still - Bush and Cheney have not said anything about Kerry's war record except that it was honorable. This guy is falling apart folks. I watched Cheney's speech... Kerry's Vietnam record was not discussed other than it was honorable.

Can you guys see what's happening? Dick Cheney and Zell Miller talked at length about what John Kerry has done in the Senate, and that was it. They are more interested in how he performed as a politician. But Kerry is trying to make it sound like they are attacking his Vietnam record! This a very risky strategy on his part, and I think it stinks of panic.

Kerry is the one obsessed with his Vietnam Record, not me or anyone else here, and especially not the President or the Vice President.

Posted by: Rick OH at September 3, 2004 11:58 AM

Able,

Can you describe one thing about the Patriot Act that violates our Civil Rights? Can you describe one action since the Patriot Act was passed where it was used to violate anyone's Civil Liberties?

Saddam's support of terrorists is well documented as well. Saddam was a terrorist to his own people and was promoting terrorism against the United States. Intelligent people have both commented and wrote extensively about this. The world Intelligence community said it was true. WHile there might not have been a direct connection between Suddam and 9/11 there was some information that there were connections as reported in the 9/11 commission and the commission formed to investigate intelligence gather pre-9/11. I fail to see how you can say that they weren't harboring terrorists when the dictator of the country was one.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at September 3, 2004 01:25 PM

Abel,
What was your MOS? What branch were you with and for what years did you serve? Did you serve overseas? Now that I know your a vet and a union boss it changes the way I look at your opinion. What rank did you reach in your sevice, what qualification are you with an M16? Grenade? Did you use any other weapons and if so which ones?

How can you say it is common knowledge that Saddam habored no terrorists? It was common knowledge he had WMDs and now everyone thinks that was wrong. He used WMDs and still did not have them. Strange isn't it? Didn't one of our allies just tell us within a few months that Saddam's top guys were meeting with Al-Queda members? Russia wasn't it?

Please tell us about your military experience. Where did you go to Boot Camp and where for AIT? What was your drill seargent like? How many push ups did you need to do? Things lilke this.

Posted by: Wayne at September 3, 2004 02:41 PM

Abel,

Ya' know, I've bit my tongue about comments you make and d.Jones too. But you guys have gone over the top! On more than one post by both of you, you have called Bush and Cheney draft dodgers. That is completely and totally outrageous! Ya' know Abel, I've read every single one of your posts and I know you were in the military during the Korean War, and you even state yourself that you didn't wind up in Korea. Well George Bush was in the military and didn't go to Viet Nam. So if he's a draft dodger, so are you! You have indicted yourself with your hate. And yet by the same token you have criticized every posting calling into question any question about Kerry's service. Irregardless of his service in Viet Nam, what he did afterwards is even more telling. He can't even keep his stories straight about what he said during and after 1971 and has recanted so many of his claims, if you can't see his lack of credibility and honesty it's because you are blinded by your hatred of GW. Hate fogs judgement. There is no doubt you hate GW. That's all I need to know about your judgement.
That being said, I'm going to post like you and d.Jones and sling the mud. John Kerry is a disengenious, back-stabbing, two-faced, lying, traitorous scumbag. I am sure that what the SwiftVets call into question about his service is true. His campaign has already recanted several incidents about his medals. That means he LIED! I'll tell you what, if over 60 men that knew him are attacking him there's a real problem here. Period! All he does is attack them and call them liars, but he doesn't show any proof. Why won't the guys backing him debate these men as they have asked? Why won't these men backing him even go on by themselves without a debate and talk on TV programs that have asked them. I've seen Rassmann on TV. But he's convinced he was under fire. Of course he spent most of his time in the water, underwater, trying to avoid the bullets he was sure were coming. How can he claim they were under fire with any surety? How do we know he doesn't have an agenda? How come there was no damage to any of the boats on that day? How come no one was wounded and no one was killed? Especially under such a heavy attack? As someone who has been under heavy attack I'll tell ya'. KERRY IS LYING. HE LIED WHEN HE CAME BACK. HE LIES IN HIS CAMPAIGN ALMOST EVERYDAY. HE IS APROVEN LIAR! Enough shouting. I feel better now. But I'll tell ya' now, I wouldn't let the man shine my shoes. He's a traitor, pure and simple, and you don't believe it. That's too bad, so sad. There's a fine line between hate and love, and both will blind you.

Posted by: Navy Vet at September 3, 2004 06:16 PM

Rick OH, great post! They are in panic mode, as are some other posters right here. When all you have left is to randomly fire in the dark, you're being overrun.

Posted by: Navy Vet at September 3, 2004 06:28 PM

Jim, Rick and Wayne.

I think I saw a post that they had you guys on the run. They were right. You guys are running right at 'em!

Posted by: Navy Vet at September 3, 2004 06:33 PM

Posted by: Wayne at September 3, 2004 02:41 PM

"Abel,
What was your MOS? What branch were you with and for what years did you serve? Did you serve overseas? Now that I know your a vet and a union boss it changes the way I look at your opinion. What rank did you reach in your sevice, what qualification are you with an M16? Grenade? Did you use any other weapons and if so which ones?"

Wayne, why don't you ask GW JR. and Dick Cheny those questions. Abel is not on the Democratic nor Republican Ticket. What's your point? If you have one.

Wayne, who really cares at the way you look at anything! You are biased towards the Republican party (GOP,) your opinion is obsolete just like Zell Miller or whatever his name is.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at September 3, 2004 09:27 PM

d jones

You claim that a true patriot like Zell Miller is obsolete? Why? Because he believes in principles, values and morals? Those qualities will never be obsolete as long as people like me and the others with sense in this country make sure that people who think like you are never elected to hold any office of significance.

What exactly do you do with your life when you aren't posting here? Live under a rock?

Posted by: Calamity Jane at September 4, 2004 01:22 AM

d. Jones,
I was a Personnel Clerk for Headquarters, 18th Infantry of the 1st Inf Division US Army stationed in Aschaffenberg, Germany until I GYROed back with the division and was stationed briefly at Ft Riley, Kansas and Camp Hale, Colorado until my Honorable discharge in 6 Jul 1956. I believe my MOS was 710. It has been a while, about 50 years ago. And yes, I will vote the Kerry/Edwards ticket on November 2, 2004. I was considered a very intelligent GI and I still consider myself a very veteran. I became an E6 and I never got familiar with an M16--I used an M1 and was classified an expert. I worked with an 81 mm Mortar until I was assigned to HQ 18Th Inf when my main weapon became a typewriter. I worked for the Pay, Marriage and ID Cards Section of Personnel. I agree with you on Zell Miller, Senator from GA--I always called people like him Pseudo-Democrats or DixieCrats. My warmest regards to you.

Your POST states: "Abel, What was your MOS? What branch were you with and for what years did you serve? Did you serve overseas? Now that I know your a vet and a union boss it changes the way I look at your opinion. What rank did you reach in your sevice, what qualification are you with an M16? Grenade? Did you use any other weapons and if so which ones?"
Wayne, why don't you ask GW JR. and Dick Cheny those questions. Abel is not on the Democratic nor Republican Ticket. What's your point? If you have one.
Wayne, who really cares at the way you look at anything! You are biased towards the Republican party (GOP,) your opinion is obsolete just like Zell Miller or whatever his name is.
Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004"
Posted by: d. jones at September 3, 2004 09:27 PM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 4, 2004 02:47 AM

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

-- United States Constitution, 14th Amendment, Section 3

Now go to www.wintersoldier.com, read the quotes, read the disclosed FBI documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act and then I ask you to ask yourself, How can John Kerry consider himself eligible, according to the constitution, to be a Senator, much less our Commader-In-Chief?

Having discovered this part of our constitution and knowing what John Kerry was involved in as a senior officer on the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, John Kerry needs to not only apologize to American Veterans, but remove himself from office and discontinue his pursuit of the office of President of the United States of America.

It would unconstitutional for him to hold office, therfore he will be unable to swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America.

YES - HE IS UNFIT FOR COMMAND.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at September 4, 2004 05:09 AM

d.jokes,
Let the grown ups talk and just have another lollie for the time being. The truth is I was in the reserves and know a thing or two about theses topics. I went in in '86 and was honorably discharged in '94, after 6 years of active drilling and 2 years on the IRR. I don't beleive un-stAble was in the military. I don't beleive either of you or anything that comes out of your mouths. I'm just here to make sure the undecideds get the truth. I have never posted any lies. I research things I am not sure of from several sources or reliable ones(not the NY Times). You talk about me being biased for the GOP, aren't you a little biased for the DNC?

I don't care about Bush and Cheyney's records during Vietnam, the facts are Cheney did get a defurment and Bush served in the guard. Did you know that Kerry tried to get a defurment too? He was denied so he signed up for duty. I respect him for that, I don;t have to respect his actions when he came back. That is what you are afraid of isn't it? You don't want to talk about after he came home from war. His senate testimony or his senate voting record.

Your a half-wit that can't cope with Bush having an 11 point lead over Kerry now. Or the fact that unemployment went down again.

Posted by: Wayne at September 4, 2004 09:10 AM

Jim Rodkey,

I just read the newspapers and constantly see that some citizens from the Middle East are having problems directly due to the color of their skin, etc. and I don't think that's the American way. Some citizens are arrested and taken away to "who know where" and not allowed their "due process" American rights. Countless other citizens have suffered violations of their privacy rights. Lets remember that this is exactly how Nazi Germany started acting with the Jews, Labor Unions members and other minorities in Germany during the late 1930s. I wouldn't want to see this happening here too, would you?

Your condensed POST follows:

"...Can you describe one thing about the Patriot Act that violates our Civil Rights? Can you describe one action since the Patriot Act was passed where it was used to violate anyone's Civil Liberties?..."
Posted by: Jim Rodkey at September 3, 2004 01:25 PM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 4, 2004 11:19 AM

Navy Vet,
I'm disappointed, now you're talking dumb. Like GW Bush, I served in the Active National Guard prior to enlisting into the US Army for 3 years. I served in the Infantry although I was assigned to Personnel, HQ 18th Infantry. After my return, I served with the Active US Army reserve for a total of, altogether, 13 years. Seven more and I could've retired from the service. Does that make me a draft dodger like GW Bush and Cheney? You must be a dumb individual, if you think so. That's as bad as saying that John Kerry was a draft dodger when he served two tours of Active duty. Face facts for a change, John Kerry was actually a Vietnam War Hero.

Your dumb POST follows:

Abel, "...Ya' know, I've bit my tongue about comments you make and d.Jones too. But you guys have gone over the top! On more than one post by both of you, you have called Bush and Cheney draft dodgers. That is completely and totally outrageous! Ya' know Abel, I've read every single one of your posts and I know you were in the military during the Korean War, and you even state yourself that you didn't wind up in Korea. Well George Bush was in the military and didn't go to Viet Nam. So if he's a draft dodger, so are you!..."
Posted by: Navy Vet at September 3, 2004 06:16 PM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 4, 2004 11:46 AM

Able,
I mean un-stAble,
You must be 80 years old by now. If you joined the military when you were 18 and served for 13 years, that makes 31. Plus you were honorably discharged in 56 adds another 48 which brings us to a grand total of 81? Now how can you still be a union boss and how in the world can you possibly be in touch with today's average working family man?

If what you say is true, you mustv'e seen times like we are facing today. I can only imagine that in the old days they were much worse. I am speaking of an evil that threatens our soil, we haven't seen something like that since WWII. Not to metion the large deficit we face today. I imagine unemployment was much higher back then because today it is at 5.4%. Pretty low huh? I can't see why you don't want to see the truth for what it is. You keep citing crappy web sites and then don't respond to real numbers and figures. For example, what about Kerry's voting record that you never address? I have listed his record in part on the site on one of the blogs that you spout your unsupported views on but yet no response from you or your sidekick, d.jokes.

Well have fun spinning this one, and please respond about my math on your age.

Posted by: Wayne at September 4, 2004 03:37 PM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 4, 2004 11:19 AM

Your condensed POST follows:

Abel, Jim is a little long winded isn't he? And he expects us to answer all of his misguided allegations. I did it once, but he needs something else in life to do. I wonder does he have a job?

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at September 4, 2004 04:16 PM

Abel,

If you noticed I said:'I'm going to post like you and d.Jones and sling the mud.' I was mocking you and d.Jones to make a point. It was tongue-in cheek. I was being facetious. What I said about Kerry, I don't believe it and I was hoping you guys would get the point I was trying to make about your disparaging remarks of GW. I was trying to show you the perspective that the conservatives perceive of you and .d when you make similar remarks about GW and why they attack you so hard. You're right, it is dumb. Do you understand now? I apologize that I failed in the clarity of making my point. I don't think you are a draft dodger. You were honorable for serving your country whether or not you were in battle. I thank you. But by the same token, GW served his country whether he went to Viet Nam or not, and to call him a draft dodger you would have to use the same definition for yourself. Hope this clarifies what I was trying to say. We are worlds apart in our ideology, but I do respect you and d.Jones. My mission here is to hopefully change your mind and d. Jones's. I realize I am failing miserably, but none the less I'll keep trying. I apologize for any perceived disrespect. It wasn't meant. Vaya con Dios.

Posted by: Navy Vet at September 4, 2004 04:36 PM

Abel,

No allusions, cite an incident where the Patriot Act was used to Violate a person's civil rights. The real complaint by the ACLU is that it enables invetigations without a warning. Like the Fbi, after securing information about terrorist activity, after securing a legal search warrant, is then supposed to call up the terrorist and make an appointment.

Let's keep the time frame in mind when comparing the service records or Kerry and Bush. When Kerry was in Vietnam, Bush was still in College. When Bush was in the Air National Guard, Kerry was calling our soldiers baby killers, aligning himself with communist organizations, violating federal law by engaging in negotiations with an enemy of the United States during the Paris Peace talks, denouncing the United States by saying he would not honor the flag nor fellow veterans in Veterans day celebrations and lying on the floor of the Senate. Many of the allegations suggested by the Winter Soldiers has long since been proven false. The most senoir Officer in VVAW stated he was a Captin who lead air strikes in Vietnam directed against citizens, it turned out he was never in Vietnam and he was a Sargeant. That's just one distortion. There are many more.

Today, there is one more Contrast, while President Bush and the entire floor of the Republican Nation Convention applauded John Kerry's service, John Kerry is attacking the Service of not just President Bush in Guard, but all who serve in the guard by diminishing their contribution to the security of America.

And ONE MORE TIME. John Kerry is lying-Dick Cheney did not personally attack John Kerry's service in Vietnam he praised it and the Audience applauded. Dick Cheney did attack John Kerry's record after the war but John Kerry can't seem to separate the two. He can call it a nuance. I call it a lie.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at September 4, 2004 04:43 PM

Posted by: Navy Vet at September 4, 2004 04:36 PM

"I don't believe it and I was hoping you guys would get the point I was trying to make about your disparaging remarks of GW."

Navy Vet,

You are so full of it. Why don't you try attacking the Republicans for their disparaging remarks. No, thats fine for them to do it, but you want to correct Able and I. I don't need your corrections, nor your attempts to make us change our minds. You know that is not going to ever happen so why make that statement?

"I was trying to show you the perspective that the conservatives perceive of you and .d when you make similar remarks about GW and why they attack you so hard."

Navy Vet, what do you think of how liberals percieve you and the Conservatives??? As holy and Just? I have a new flash for you! YOU DON'T SPEAK FOR EVERYONE ON THIS POST! You comments are Hard Right Wing biased, you have no sense of what A Moderate is. The world is not Black and White! Just read your posts. You praise any Conservative posts and down and Kerry Supporter posts and THAT IS WRONG! If you wanted to be a cheerleader then join the DALLAS COWBOYS!

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at September 4, 2004 05:57 PM

d. jokes

You are NO moderate. You are a radical left winger.

Posted by: Calamity Jane at September 4, 2004 07:03 PM

Wayne,

I'm impressed, you math is pretty good but you made two mistakes and so you're off by about 10 years. First I volunteered into the National Guard when I was still in High School and before I was 18 years of age. The Korean War was going on full blast but I knew that there was almost no chance that the local draft board would call me. I really was a draft dodger at this point in my life. Like I said, I was not quite 18 when I volunteered for Active Guard duty. I guess that during the 1950s they weren't too concerned about age. I volunteered for US Army duty on July 7, 1953 after I graduated from my High School. That means that by 1956 when I was Honorable discharged from the US Army, I had about 2 years of Active Guard duty plus my 3 years of US Army active duty. After that, all I needed to do was 8 more years until I was finally Honorable discharged again on about 1964. Then, about 40 years later brings us to the present. How old do you think I am now? I have been a union President, Vice President, Treasurer, and just Member at different times while I also taught in a high school. I have never considered myself a Union Boss. As a matter of fact, I have always considered myself a servant of the union membership and they considered me a union leader. I kept up with the latest technology and frankly, I always said that I was BC or Before Computers but I read article after article about computers and promised myself that I would buy one if I could ever afford to do it. When I first attended the University all I had was a Slide Rule as this was BC. I finally bought myself a PC when Commodore 64 came out. I think I paid about $1000 for a Commodore System that wouldn't be worth $50 today. It didn't take me long to master it. Before too long I was teaching Computer Mathematics at the High Schools where I worked. This was during the 1980s. You also say that I never respond to you regarding certain questions you ask. I think you're just "fooling" with me so I sometimes just ignore your questions. I tell myself that you couldn't possibly be that stupid. You do the same thing, I kept asking you if you could find out why the Republicans can't stand to see average working people get organized into strong Labor Unions. Frankly, we need more Unions here in the United States and people are simply not totally free unless they are organized and have good union contracts that define wages, benefits, Employee responsibilities as well as Employer responsibilities. I asked you to find this out for me and that you would learn a lot yourself if you would do this. Don't do it for yourself, do it for you friends and neighbors. Like I asked, how can the Labor Union Solidarity be OK in Poland and not OK here in the US?

Your condensed POST follows:

Able, I mean un-stAble,
"You must be 80 years old by now. If you joined the military when you were 18 and served for 13 years, that makes 31. Plus you were honorably discharged in 56 adds another 48 which brings us to a grand total of 81? Now how can you still be a union boss and how in the world can you possibly be in touch with today's average working family man?
If what you say is true, you mustv'e seen times like we are facing today. I can only imagine that in the old days they were much worse. I am speaking of an evil that threatens our soil, we haven't seen something like that since WWII. Not to metion the large deficit we face today. I imagine unemployment was much higher back then because today it is at 5.4%. Pretty low huh? I can't see why you don't want to see the truth for what it is. You keep citing crappy web sites and then don't respond to real numbers and figures. For example, what about Kerry's voting record that you never address? I have listed his record in part on the site on one of the blogs that you spout your unsupported views on but yet no response from you or your sidekick, d.jokes.
Well have fun spinning this one, and please respond about my math on your age."
Posted by: Wayne at September 4, 2004 03:37 PM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 4, 2004 07:08 PM

un-stAble,
I don't know the reason for the GOP not liking unions, but I know my reasons. They are unfair to the employer.

What I mean by this is it doesn't matter how good of a worker you are, how hard you work, rather how much time you have in. Now haw is it fair to have a borderline average employee that has senority over a hard working above standard one, just because the slouch has in a few more years? I agree that they are good for some things, but I don't know about it outweighing the bad.

I don't care about your Commodore 64, I had one too. Tell me about the new unemployment figure, or the new election poll, why did Bush get a bigger bounce than Kerry? Face the truth for once in your life. Aren't you retired by now anyway? Your issues should be prescription drugs. Oh that's right Bush enacted something for that didn't he, and wasn't Kerry against that too?

Posted by: Wayne at September 4, 2004 08:28 PM

d.Jokes,

Alright you mental midget, you threw down the gauntlet and I'm gonna take it. You remind of the a**h**e in high school that when you were pissed off at the world , you beat his a**! And I will beat your a** on these postings. Believe this! I have made no personal attacks on you, and then here you come. You've fu**ed with the wrong guy! Now it's personal. I take back my postings when I said I respect you. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and it was a misjudgement. I wish I could meet you in person. You are truly a very small human being. From here on out I am going to attack you harder and better than you attack everybody on this site. You are an uneducated moron. I can tell by your misspellings, syntax errors and sentence structures, and your general point of view.I'll tell you like kerry said: Bring it on!

This is the last post I'll take the luxury of letting my anger be exposed. You're right. I'll never change your mind because you're an incorrigible imbecile filled with hate. The bumper sticker I saw describes you perfectly. If you didn't see the posting it said:

liberal; adj.
A person who is so open-minded, their brains fell out.

P.S. Sorry for using words you don't understand, you abhorrent ignoramus.

Posted by: Navy Vet at September 4, 2004 09:23 PM

.d Jokes,

You say:
You praise any Conservative posts and down and Kerry Supporter posts and THAT IS WRONG!

What does that non-sensical sentence mean moron.
Did you graduate from high school?

Did you ever think that the people on this site don't listen to you because you can't put an intelligible sentence together shit for brains?

Posted by: Navy Vet at September 4, 2004 09:48 PM

Able

I thought Kerry was be proud of his book and wanted it out there for the public to read and get more acquainted with his core beliefs that America has created Vietnam Monsters. But I really don’t have a problem with Kerry’s Vietnam service – I am a Marine Viet Vet so I know how the war was. I salute him for attending. IT IS HIS VIETNAM VETERANS AGAINST THE WAR leadership that makes him unfit for any additional public service. Do you think he will apologize to all of us that were offended? Probably not.

As for Bush’s service, I think he would be force to make his records public if Kerry would take the lead. I seem to remember both of them saying all records would be make public – that was on Meet the Press. What happened? What is Kerry hiding? What is Bush hiding? Kerry probably has more to lose by making his records public.

We finally found out who the foreign leader are that want Kerry elected – that NVA guy he secretly met with in Paris three times. What was that all about – sounds like the Manchurian Candidate – did he get any secret orders?

I think the Swifties have made a reasonable request for Kerry to apologize and the ads will stop. The ability to halt this whole controversy is in Kerry’s court – will he fumble again? He better do something

Posted by: JBM at September 5, 2004 12:43 AM

Navy Vet,
Well, I don't POST that way. I never say what I don't believe. If I say that GW Bush was a draft dodger, it's because I think he was a draft dodger. If that sound awful, it's because I want it to sound that way. Being a National Guard's man is very honorable position but GW Bush managed to dishonor that position as well. Do you know that he quit earlier than his designated discharge date? Actually, I now think that GW Bush will go down in history as being the worst president we have ever had. Thank goodness that the American people didn't make the mistake of electing him. I just pray that they don't make that mistake this time around. Frankly I'm very disappointed in any veteran who would ally himself with individuals who talk maliciously against another veteran who served in Active duty and received an Honorable Discharge. On top of that, there's no forgiveness for one veteran to be wilfully tearing down the reputation, etc., of a Vietnam War Hero veteran by lying about him. I hope you will reconsider what you're doing before it's too late because it's eventually going to count against you if you don't get your story straight. That Lt. Kerry eventually changed his mind and became an anti Vietnam War Veteran was also an Honorable act. I too became a veteran who was "anti Vietnam War" because there was no justification for us to become involved there either. Well guess what, the American people have now turned against the war in Iraq and feel that we have no business being there either. Frankly, I'm not very hopeful about what's going to happen in Iraq now.

I agree with you that at one point in my life, I was a draft dodger too. That was when I first became a National Guard member, just like GW Bush, but I soon enlisted in the US Army for three years of active duty and I stopped being a draft dodger. GW Bush never volunteered into active duty like I did and he stayed a draft dodger. That I was never ordered into battle was not my fault although I'm very thankful that I wasn't.

Your condensed POST follows:

If you noticed I said:'I'm going to post like you and d.Jones and sling the mud.' I was mocking you and d.Jones to make a point. It was tongue-in cheek. I was being facetious. What I said about Kerry, I don't believe it and I was hoping you guys would get the point I was trying to make about your disparaging remarks of GW. I was trying to show you the perspective that the conservatives perceive of you and .d when you make similar remarks about GW and why they attack you so hard. You're right, it is dumb. Do you understand now? I apologize that I failed in the clarity of making my point. I don't think you are a draft dodger. You were honorable for serving your country whether or not you were in battle. I thank you. But by the same token, GW served his country whether he went to Viet Nam or not, and to call him a draft dodger you would have to use the same definition for yourself. Hope this clarifies what I was trying to say. We are worlds apart in our ideology, but I do respect you and d.Jones. My mission here is to hopefully change your mind and d. Jones's. I realize I am failing miserably, but none the less I'll keep trying. I apologize for any perceived disrespect. It wasn't meant. Vaya con Dios.
Posted by: Navy Vet at September 4, 2004 04:36 PM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 5, 2004 02:29 AM

Kerry is, quite simply, a fraud. But, even if he weren't, he is still bad for this country. We don't need higher taxes, bigger government, weaker defense, and more UN involvement. The liberals are distracting the people from these real issues because in reality they believe that socialism is better than capitalism. Vote for the best man. Vote for President Bush

Posted by: MD Austin at September 5, 2004 10:07 AM

Abel

We do not need Unions in this country. That's why we have labor laws. Unions have put more companies out of business (and people out of work) than any companies ever could.

Poland had no labor laws to protect its workers which is why we supported them. We had unions to protect workers too, but once we had strict labor laws they have outlived their usefulness.

As it turns out, I now see why you and the jokester think the way you do. HANDOUTS - that is what you are all about.

Posted by: Calamity Jane at September 5, 2004 02:06 PM

d.jones,
Why don't you treat Navy Vet and all others here with the respect they have shown you. When you treat a former military man as you have, you show everyone what liberals are really thinking about them. Able seems to be willing to treat people with respect and we can have fun ribbing each other, but often you step over the line with your hatred and anger.

Take your meds and relax.

Posted by: Wayne at September 5, 2004 02:28 PM

To get a sense of the Democratic position about criticism of John Kerry, consider the following imaginary dialogue between a Republican and a Democrat:

R -- I'm disturbed by what Kerry did when he got back from Vietnam, accusing his brothers of war crimes, denouncing his country, and opposing the use of force by the U.S. unless approved by the U.N.

D -- He was a young man then, and had undergone difficult experiences in Vietnam. This was the early 1970s, more than 30 years ago.

R -- But the trend continued. In the 1990s, he opposed weapon system after weapons system.

D -- The cold war had ended. We didn't need all of that stuff. Even the Republcans were in favor of a military build-down.

R -- But Kerry had campaigned for the Senate on a build-down during the mid-1980s when the cold war was still on.

D -- There you go again. Talking about stuff that's almost 20 years old.

R -- But what about the past few years? He flip-flopped on the war and voted against supporting our troops in the field.

D -- Kerry felt there was a right way to go after Saddam and a wrong way. Bush was proceeding without a real international coalition.

R -- But what about 1991, when he opposed going to war with Saddam after the invasion of Kuwait? The U.S. had an enormous coalition and the full backing of the U.N. Yet Kerry still wasn't willing to deal with Saddam. Whatever decade you look at, this is a guy who won't support the use of force to protect our interests.

D -- It sounds like you're questioning John Kerry's patriotism. This is a man who won medal after medal defending his country in Vietnam.

R -- And we respect that, although he does seem to have exaggerated his service.

D -- It was more service than George W. Bush provided.

R -- Right, although he still shouldn't exaggerate it. But what really bothers me is what Kerry did when he got back from Vietnam.

D -- He was a young man then. . .

Posted by: Navy Vet at September 5, 2004 02:33 PM

The New York Times begins a news article about a Kerry speech this way:

Roaring back at his Republican rivals, Senator John Kerry called President Bush "unfit to lead this country" for "misleading'' America into war in Iraq and said Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney avoided fighting in the Vietnam War.
I didn't hear it. I'm just reading it. But I don't know what it would have been about Kerry's speech that would have constituted "roaring"--aside from the Times's dear wish that Kerry would turn into a lion-like fighter. I suppose it took some courage to bring himself to say the word "unfit," so searingly used against him in recent weeks. But what is this roar? It's this:

"For the past week, they have attacked my patriotism and even my fitness to serve as commander in chief ... Well, here is my answer to them ... I will not have my commitment to defend this country questioned by those who refused to serve when they could've and who misled America into Iraq."
So, your big answer, after all of these attacks, is that you somehow "will not have" any questions. I simply will not have it. You hear that? He does not want to be questioned. He went to Vietnam, and therefore, he simply will not have any questions about whether he has the qualifications to be President. Come on, that's a roar, isn't it?

And by the way, any man who didn't volunteer to go to Vietnam who was of age at the time--all you Baby Boomer men who had student deferments or even if you served in the National Guard, I mean were in the National Guard--you were all refusing to serve

Posted by: Navy Vet at September 5, 2004 03:14 PM

Wayne,

Thanks. I wrote back a scathing answer to .d, but evidently the moderator to the site withheld it, of which I'm glad. After I sent it, I regretted it as I had lowered myself to her level. Let's face it, .d Jokes is a mental midget. It's evident in every one of her posts. I had said before I respect her, but I recant that unequivocably. You are right, Abel is very respectful, and I do respect him. I believe he served in Korea because he does appear older and wiser than .d. Even after he misunderstood one of my postings earlier his harshest word was 'disappointed'. He also called it a 'dumb' post, but under the circumstances, in which he didn't perceive my tongue-in-cheek comments, I understand why he'd call it dumb. .d needs to take a bottle and put to bed for timeout. Maybe then she can play better with everbody else.

Posted by: Navy Vet at September 5, 2004 03:34 PM

BTW,

To clarify, so I'm not misunderstood again, where it was written:
'And by the way, any man who didn't volunteer to go to Vietnam who was of age at the time--all you Baby Boomer men who had student deferments or even if you served in the National Guard, I mean were in the National Guard--you were all refusing to serve.' That would be the inference of Kerry, not me.

Posted by: Navy Vet at September 5, 2004 03:54 PM

Calamity Jane,
You don't know what you're saying. Unions are workers! Are you are saying that "We don't need workers in this country?" You know better than that, don't you? On top of that, the only reason that we have some labor laws is due to the workers or unions. You need to do a lot more reading and researching to become able to make sense. It's also crazy to think that the workers are going to put a company out of business. All that workers want is decent wages, benefits and working conditions. The truth is that some employers become greedy and want to become millionaires quickly and so they bring down wages, benefits and working conditions. Frankly as I read your POST, I don't know if you're capable of understanding what I'm talking about. You say, "We had unions to protect workers too." That's like saying "We had organized workers to protect workers too." The reality is that it's the organized workers who propose good labor laws. They don't just happen because we're a nice people. As for handouts, you seem to know quite a bit about handouts so you must have had some personal experience along those lines. I hope you didn't need them for too long. In the meantime, wake up and learn about organized workers or unions so that you can make sense to other people.

Your condensed POST follows:

"We do not need Unions in this country. That's why we have labor laws. Unions have put more companies out of business (and people out of work) than any companies ever could.
Poland had no labor laws to protect its workers which is why we supported them. We had unions to protect workers too, but once we had strict labor laws they have outlived their usefulness.
As it turns out, I now see why you and the jokester think the way you do. HANDOUTS - that is what you are all about."
Posted by: Calamity Jane at September 5, 2004 02:06 PM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 5, 2004 10:02 PM

Senator Kerry attacks the vice president for having deferments. Am I supposed to feel bad because I also had deferments for college? After college I reported to the draft. That's the way it was back then. Kerry made a mistake on this issue.
Jim

Posted by: Jim at September 6, 2004 01:24 AM

I really like this Bush Bounce expecially after the Kerry Flop or was it Flip Flop.

They say Kerry is a loyal guy - how many times has he fired campaign workers for his screw-ups.

Now that he has turned Clinton lite with all the Clinton handlers - look for the mouse to roar. All this talk of comeback kid - he beat Weld (a woss) and Dean (a crazy) but now it is the big league. He needed Kennedy to pull those races out in the end - where is Kennedy now? Even with all his money - can't buy the class to stay competative. So expect him to go gutter negative which is sure to back fire again.

Even Clinton advised him to get off the Vietnam service - but that is his only favorable record but it won't win votes. The winds have changed and he is about to get blown off course again.

Go Bush!!!

Posted by: JBM at September 6, 2004 01:52 AM

Abel

Your presumption that America didn't elect George W. Bush is the first of a series of mistakes in your assessment of President Bush. America has a sytem that works. It worked for John Kennedy and it worked for George W. Bush. The Electoral College is the law and George Bush won the presidency won the vote based on the Electoral College, not the SUpreme Court. Every political analyst agrred after the election that Goerge Bush won Florida. The election was over. You have continually spiral downward because your basic assumption is based on the lies repeatedly pushed by a handful of malcontents in the Democratic Party. Truth doesn't matter as long is you tell the lie loud and long enough.

John Kery knows this, that's why he's telling American's that Dick Cheny and George Bush says that he is unfit for command because of his service in Vietnam. Neither man has said this.
Neither man has ever personally attacked John Kerry for his service in Vietnam. But John Kerry says they did and so do his loyal followers because they really want ot believe in the integrity of John Kerry and are willing to dismiss any fact in his voting records or in his unpatriotic atacks on the Government and military when he returned from Vietnam.

John Kerry has gained a reputation of being the comeback kid. He has won most of his elections but launching last minute, unfounded attacks against his opponents. He smeared Dean during the last week of the Iowa Caucus, he has run visious smear campaigns in his bids for the Senate and now he is running to most disgusting and visciously negative campaign in the history of the Presidency.

If President Bush is accountable for all attacks against John Kerry, as John Kerry is telling us, then he is responsible for the attacks of Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean, Moveon.org, Michael Moore and all the others who continually refer to President Bush as a dictator comparing him to the likes of Hitler.

And yes, D. Jones. I do have a job. Personal attacks might be fun for you, destroying real integrity might be the path of the divisive Democratic Party and that might be why I became a Republican. First you suggest, then you speculate on the suggestion and then make it fact. That's how negative campaigns work. Sure you can point to the swift boat ads, but what about the thousands of ads and a feature length film that have done exactly the same to a much greater degree against the President.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at September 6, 2004 03:48 PM

Democrats make an uproar when we question Kerry's service.Question my service and I'll reply back with whatever you want to know. Not Kerry, he calls eveyone that questions him a liar. But, he won't make his records public by signing a 180.
The transgressing soldiers at Abu Graib prison were risking their lives and serving their country, but no one ever claimed that this bestowed any special favors from criticism upon them. On the contrary, the outrageousness of their actions was exaggerated and they were given no quarter. While the exaggeration was uncalled for, should their behavior have been immune from scrutiny? Of course not. The exalting of a man's veteran status and reverence for it guesses that during his tour of duty he was a person of good will who conducted himself honorably. As soon as that is called into serious question, his military record must also be.
There is also a serious contradiction inherent in the vague suggestion that some seem to take or feign when someone dares to suggest that the old soldier has no clothes. To question the accuracy of a man's claims about his service is beyond belief, is the thinking. But the problem is that to believe the Senator is to disbelieve his critics, who are also veterans. And that's what it boils down to: if Kerry is telling the truth, the Swiftboat Veterans are lying. If the Swiftboat Veterans are telling the truth, Kerry is lying. The harsh reality is that a lying veteran, or veterans, is/are in our midst. And since one of these veterans wants to take the helm of our nation during the most dangerous time in our history, we'd better not let conflicting ideas about the sanctity of military service prevent us from uncovering the truth.

The Swiftboat Veterans for Truth comprises 254 men, all of whom have been honorably discharged and sixty of whom have won Purple Hearts. Moreover, this number includes virtually all of Kerry's fellow officers and the higher chain of command in his division. If we are to believe the senator is not lying, we must believe that the majority of these honorably discharged fighting men are lying.

Normally, there is no group that will stand by you, through thick and thin, like men who fought with you in battle. Normally, there is no group that will be more loathe to utter a harsh word about you than the men who bled with you, the men who risked their lives with you. And we've had former military men run for president before, but I do not know of even one case where the former comrades of such a man have organized with a sense of urgency to sound the alarm about him. But it has happened here. Now. For what could be the very first time. And I think that speaks volumes.

1. Senator Kerry has used pictures from his Vietnam days that make him seem glamorous and heroic to help construct his war hero persona. However, we now know that some of those pictures were staged. We're told that after an event occurred, Kerry would re-enact a dramatized version of it in front of a camera. One case in point: there's the Ramboesque picture in which Kerry is seen moving through the jungle and wearing bandoleers. However, this is remarkably bizarre since he and the other Swiftboat sailors were not in the jungles, but aboard boats and they didn't wear bandoleers.

2. The above is not surprising, though, because of something else we now know. To whit: Kerry told some of his comrades in arms that he was going to be the next JFK. Perhaps this explains why he wanted to be aboard a swiftboat, which is reminiscent of the PT boat that John Kennedy served on during WWII.

3. Something just as serious is the issue of whether Kerry received his war medals under false pretenses. According to O'Neill, Kerry?s first and third Purple Hearts were undeserved because he received them for wounds that he not only inflicted on himself, but also misrepresented. And military regulations dictate that you may not receive such a medal for any kind of self-inflicted wound.
Kerry also received a higher honor, the Silver Star. However, the facts surrounding the incident that was the basis for his receipt of this medal are even more damning than those pertaining to his Purple Hearts. According to Kerry's account of that incident, he spontaneously beached his boat in front of an enemy bunker after arriving first on the scene and, at great risk to life and limb, almost single-handedly prevailed against a numerically superior foe while under heavy fire.
According to Unfit for Command, however, Kerry's heroism in this matter consisted of shooting a lone, fleeing, loin-cloth-clad, teenage Viet Cong in the back. There was no numerically superior foe. Kerry's boat wasn't the first one on the beach. There was no heavy fire. There was no brave John Kerry. There was, however, according to one crewman, talk prior to the operation about how it would provide a great opportunity to garner medals.
So, why did Kerry receive that Silver Star? Well, according to John O'Neill, who himself was a swiftboat commander during the Vietnam War,Kerry's star would never have been awarded had his medals been reviewed through normal channels. In his case, he was awarded the medal two days after the incident with no review. The medal was arranged to boost the moral of coastal division 11 [the division of which Kerry was a member], but it was based on false and incomplete information provided by Kerry himself. Moreover, O'Neill is vindicated in this assertion by Commander George Elliott, who wrote up the initial draft of Kerry's Silver Star citation. The commander has stated that neither he nor anyone else he knew of was aware of the actual facts of the event until 1996, and that had he been he would not have recommended Kerry for the Silver Star.

4. John Kerry's ability to weave a captivating web didn't abandon him upon emerging from the military either. Perhaps the best example of this is his Christmas in Cambodia tale. This story is one that Kerry told on numerous occasions throughout the 1970's and 80's, and it usually went something like what he said on the floor of the Senate on March 27, 1986. To whit: 'I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the President of the United States telling the American people I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared, seared,in me. Moreover, on a different occasion Kerry included the following, 'The absurdity of almost being killed by our own allies in a country in which President Nixon claimed there were no American troops was very real.

This is good melodrama but, like so much of Kerry's military career, is fiction. Firstly, Richard Nixon wasn't president in December 1968. Secondly, there is no indication of any kind anywhere that President Johnson ever sent troops into Cambodia. Lastly, every single living commander in Kerry's chain of command has stated that Kerry was not in Cambodia at any time, nor was he ever ordered to go there.

5. Then there's the testimonial of George Bates, an officer in Coastal Division 11 who served in numerous operations with Kerry. Bates says that one patrol on the Song Bo De river has been forever etched in his memory, and it haunts him to this day. He states that on that day, their group of boats 'with Kerry in the lead' approached a little hamlet that had a few grass huts. There were pigs and chickens roaming about peacefully, and as the boats approached the villagers fled. Bates says that there was nothing about the little village that would raise a red flag; there were no flags or political symbols of any kind. He is convinced that military policy, human decency and plain old common-sense dictated that they should simply move on. But they did not move on.
Instead, Kerry beached his boat in the middle of the village and ordered that the small animals be slaughtered with large-caliber machine-gun fire. Kerry then got out of the boat, went ashore, and burned the entire village to the ground.

6. Perhaps what incenses those who served with John Kerry the most not his actions during the war, but those after it. After all, upon his return after his mere four months of duty, he became a very vocal, high-profile critic of the very conflict that only a short while before had been a very convenient vehicle for achieving glory. Now, a soldier's sincere opposition to that disastrous war is not something with which too many would take issue. However, what has the Swiftboat Veterans so exercised is that Kerry exaggerated accounts of war crimes, thereby painting fellow soldiers in a bad light and frustrating the war effort. For instance, Kerry said that atrocities were being committed 'on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.' O'Neill contradicts this assertion and has challenged Kerry to produce affidavits from the soldiers who claimed to have committed or witnessed such atrocities. To this day none have been forthcoming.

This is no small matter, as Senator Kerry was among the voices that branded American soldiers 'baby-killers.' To level such charges without hard evidence is not only wrong, it's unconscionable. In our courts of law a man is innocent until proven guilty. But when it's a matter of accusations against our own soldiers, accusations that we know can lead to more American deaths in the field, the accusers should be held to an even higher standard. Guilt should be established beyond a reasonable doubt before charges are even voiced publicly.
John O'Neill believes, and I concur, that Kerry's anti-war activities were not motivated by the inklings of his conscience, but were simply the next chapter in his quest for national recognition. This, of course, sheds light on why he might have fabricated stories about American transgressions.

7. John Kerry wrote a book titled 'The New Soldier,' in which he once again attacked his fellow servicemen. The cover of the book features bearded renegades in uniform holding an American flag upside-down. Obviously, however, Kerry determined at some point that he had gotten as much mileage out of libeling American soldiers as he was going to and that the book no longer served his ends, because he decided to prohibit its reprinting

Posted by: Navy Vet at September 6, 2004 04:49 PM

Dang Navy Vet! You've been busy over here! I laughed out loud at your post with the definition of liberal! I am going to have to send that to my Dad, he'll love it! I also appreciate the nice comment you made about me and how hard it is to be a Navy wife. It is but I am proud of my husband and what he does!

I have a question. From what I understand about the draft, if you were in college you could get a deferment. Then another if you were married and another if you had kids. Is this correct? Is this why Cheney never went? The Dems act like he avoided it in some shady way.

Have you noticed Edwards slamming Cheney for his deferments? Have you looked into Edwards military record? (You say, "What record?") THAT"S RIGHT!!! He has no record. He turned 18 in 1971 why didn't he sign up? Could it be that he went to college? Hmmmm, ok for a Dem not a Republican.

I think that we all need to do research and find out if this whole thing with Kerry going to France right after he spoke to the senate and met with North Vietnam leaders is for real! I heard Newt Gingrich say it at the RNC and said that there were independent sources out there confirming it. So let's start searching. There should be no person out there who would vote for a man who has commited treason, well we do have abel, d jones and Louis from Canton.(we have to remember the from canton because there is a nice Louis who posts out there!) They'd vote for Osama Bin Laden for President before they'd vote for Bush! SCARY!!!!!!

You have to read this great book! It is called "Letters to a Young Conservative" by Dinesh D'Souza. It really shows how we as republicans are right in our thinking and our way of life.

We also have to teach our kids our way of thinking! Teachers are quite liberal out there. My son, who is in 7th grade already calls the Democrats-"Democraps." He sees at his young age that they don't stand for anything with integrity! We are big on honesty and being true to our word in our house. My 7 year daughter loves the saying "GIRLY MAN!" She saw Schwartzenegger on TV when he said that. She says it all the time now! We are honest with them and talk about abortion, welfare, taxes etc. We teach how to be responsible for ourselves and not to blame everyone else for our problems. This is why after my youngest goes to 1st grade (he is 3) I am planning on being a teacher and then a school counselor. I want kids to learn and understand that ultimately, we are responsible for ourselves!!

Keep going with the posts they are great!!

What can we say??
Bush 52% to Kerry 45%
Bush/Cheney 2004

Posted by: Teresa G at September 6, 2004 07:03 PM

Abel

I certainly do understand Unions and what they are all about. When you are forced to pay an unskilled worker $25.00 per hour, plus benefits and a pension it's hard to make a profit (ie translates to hiring more workers).

I am a business owner so I think I understand. As far as handouts - never received a penny from ANYONE. Made it on my own since I was 17.

This country doesn't need unions - only people in the unions need unions.

If posting makes no sense to you - then you are the one who doesn't get it.

Posted by: Calamity Jane at September 6, 2004 08:11 PM

I heard John F Kerry trying to put a label on W today. Why does he keep stepping in it and leaving himself wide open? Didn't he relalize his middile inital was F and this might make one wonder is F stood for Flip-flop? That is right John Flip-flop Kerry.

Posted by: JBM at September 7, 2004 12:34 AM

d,
you remind me of my latest houseguest, Frances by name, who is fueled by hot air, is a blowhard (I have branches in my front yard to prove it)and spins furiously with no defined purpose but to get noticed and to rain on everyone's parade. Seriously, I was starting to feel pretty smug when you refused to answer my posts, and I ended up having to do it myself. I thought I had finally humbled you into silence. However, now that you have another who actually agrees with you, you have re-emboldened yourself. Excellent. So, I will ask you one final time, just for olde time's sake, "WHAT PROOF? WHAT DOCUMENTATION?" You didn't think I'd let you off so easy now, did you? And regarding your 9/4 post, Navy Vet can certainly speak for me. Sanity loves company.
Calamity Jane, excellent point on unions. Oh, and by the way, Kerry attacks Cheney's deferments because Cheney used them to actually get an education while Kerry was earning fraudulant medals, throwing them down on the Capitol steps and lying before the Senate. Jealousy, that's all it is. Pure Jealousy.

Posted by: Dave at September 7, 2004 02:47 AM

Calamity Jane,
Well, tell me then, who are you paying $25 per hour who doesn't deserve it? What kind of business do you own? I'm curious. You know, you still say dumb things, you don't like people who are organized or what? You think only people in the unions need unions? That's like saying that only organized workers need organized workers. Does that make sense to you? The truth is that businesses need organized workers because workers who are organized are more efficient than workers who are not, as every thinking person would agree. One more thing to think about, our country is a union and the people in the states are the members. It's a closed union shop in that all the members have to pay dues, e.g., federal income taxes to the states which are forwarded to the national capitol.

You condensed POST follows:

"Abel, I certainly do understand Unions and what they are all about. When you are forced to pay an unskilled worker $25.00 per hour, plus benefits and a pension it's hard to make a profit (ie translates to hiring more workers).
I am a business owner so I think I understand. As far as handouts - never received a penny from ANYONE. Made it on my own since I was 17.
This country doesn't need unions - only people in the unions need unions.
If posting makes no sense to you - then you are the one who doesn't get it."
Posted by: Calamity Jane at September 6, 2004 08:11 PM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 7, 2004 03:44 AM

D... save yourself. It's painful to read what you write.

Posted by: Rick OH at September 7, 2004 10:01 AM

Abel

I give up trying to explain to you why unions are bad for this country. You are a union man and unable to set yourself free from being one of the crowd.

Posted by: Calamity Jane at September 7, 2004 11:36 AM

Jim Rodkey,
You should know better. First you infer or imply that the election situation between Al Gore and GW Bush was similar to the John Kennedy and Dick Nixon election and you're wrong. In the first place, John Kennedy won the popular vote as well as the electoral vote and so there was never any question regarding his win. To be blunt, the Al Gore and GW Bush situation was entirely different. Al Gore won the popular vote by over 500,000 votes and there's no question here. The only question arose regarding the electoral vote in that Al Gore only needed about 3 votes to win whereas GW Bush needed more than 20 to win. This is where the Florida dispute began. Al Gore claimed that tens of thousands of his votes were never counted in Florida and it later turned out that he was telling the truth. Of course GW and his Florida cohorts including his brother Jeb stated that all those votes were legitimately disqualified because those voters were felons. This was not true but in any case, this recount question went all the way to the Supreme Court where GW's supporters there, all 5 of them voted in his behalf whereas Al Gore could only count on 4 votes. The reality is that the Supreme Court selected GW to be President of the USA on a 5 to 4 vote. The American people lost their say in this action. This, of course was unconstitutional but this didn't seem to matter anymore. The Constituion describes another procedure to be followed whenever there are questions of this kind. In any case, my point is that the Kennedy-Nixon and the Gore-Bush cases were entirely different while you seem to think they were identical. The Gore-Bush situation ended when the Progressive Democrats became convinced that it would be better for our country if they waited four years for redressing and recuperation or until the 2004 eledtion and not make things worse by openly rebelling.

Your condensed POST follows:

"Abel, Your presumption that America didn't elect George W. Bush is the first of a series of mistakes in your assessment of President Bush. America has a sytem that works. It worked for John Kennedy and it worked for George W. Bush. The Electoral College is the law and George Bush won the presidency won the vote based on the Electoral College, not the SUpreme Court. Every political analyst agrred after the election that Goerge Bush won Florida. The election was over. You have continually spiral downward because your basic assumption is based on the lies repeatedly pushed by a handful of malcontents in the Democratic Party. Truth doesn't matter as long is you tell the lie loud and long enough..."
Posted by: Jim Rodkey at September 6, 2004 03:48 PM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 7, 2004 02:45 PM

Calamity Jane,
Well, tell me then, who are you paying $25 per hour who doesn't deserve it? What kind of business do you own? I'm curious. You know, you still say dumb things, you don't like people who are organized or what? You think only people in the unions need unions? That's like saying that only organized workers need organized workers. Does that make sense to you? The truth is that businesses need organized workers because workers who are organized are more efficient than workers who are not, as every thinking person would agree. One more thing to think about, our country is a union and the people in the states are the members. It's a closed union shop in that all the members have to pay dues, e.g., federal income taxes to the states which are forwarded to the national capitol.

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 7, 2004 03:44 AM

If we are all members of a union and pay dues, why do we need another union then? I don't need 2 auto insurance policies for the same car.

I don't know where you get your statistics from on union members being more efficient, but I would like to look into this. Where do you get your info from on this? I would think that the guy that does a better job should be treated better, you know, like a reward system? I'm not a fan of handouts and the communist way of everyone is entitled to something. I say you should make your own way. Why would I want to give some of my hard earned money to a union, to make sure I don't get fired for not doing my job?

I will wait for your undoubtedly genius response.

Posted by: Wayne at September 7, 2004 08:04 PM

This will show you what a traitor Hanoi John Was is still is!!!!!
http://ice.he.net/%7Efreepnet/kerry/staticpages/index.php?page=YesterdaysLies1

Posted by: John Copeskey at September 7, 2004 08:20 PM

Well, don't forget that GW Bush is the Master Flip-Flopper himself. I lost track on the number of times I have seen him Flipping and shortly afterward Flopping. The last time Bush Flip-Flopped was when he said on a TV program that he didn't think the war on terrorism was win-able. After his backers made a lot of "fuss" he finally flopped and came back with the statement that the war on terrorism was definitely win-able. That was the last time I saw GW Bush Flip-Flopping and he did both Flip-Flops within two days.

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 7, 2004 09:20 PM

On the Edge of Treason?: John Kerry's exploitation of POWs and their Families
----------
When John Kerry testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in April 1971, he admitted that he had probably broken the law by going to Paris and meeting with North Vietnamese and Viet Cong leaders. (From page 188 of the hearing record: "I realize that even my visits in Paris . . . in a sense are on the borderline of private individuals negotiating, et cetera. I understand these things." The prohibition against private individuals negotiating--which has been on the criminal statute books since John Adams was President--is contained in 18 U.S.C. Section 953 and is a felony.)

I was serving my second tour of duty in Vietnam at the time, and while I was painfully aware of the lies Kerry was telling Congress and the American people about what was happening in Vietnam (pretending to speak for "all" Vietnam veterans, calling us "war criminals," saying 60-80 percent of us were "stoned" twenty-four hours a day, and the like), I was unaware until recently that he was also involved in exploiting the families of American POWs in Vietnam.

In addition to ridiculing the demands of our Government that Hanoi fulfill its obligations under the Third Geneva Convention by ceasing the torturing of our POWs (referring to "the hypocrisy in our taking umbrage in the Geneva Conventions and using that as justification for a continuation of this war, when we are more guilty than any other body of violations of those Geneva Conventions" [Transcript, pp. 184-85]), Kerry demanded that the United States withdraw "immediately and unconditionally" from Vietnam--excluding even the option of conditioning our withdrawal on getting our POWs back.

But this new information (see attached newspaper article from the New York Times of July 23, 1971, p. 2) raises an even more troubling issue. By way of background, upon returning from Vietnam (where I had been detailed by MACV to work in the North Vietnamese/Viet Cong Affairs Division of the Embassy, because I had done my undergrad honors thesis on the war and had correctly predicted who would emerge in the power struggle after the death of Ho Chi Minh in Sept. 1969), I accepted a position at the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace at Stanford University, where I wrote my first book, Vietnamese Communism: Its Origins and Development and served as Associate Editor for Asia and the Pacific of the Yearbook on International Communist Affairs.

Because of my expertise on the Vietnamese communists, I was approached by some POW wives in 1972 and asked to talk with them about Hanoi's attitude towards POWs. That led to an invitation to address the November 1972 annual meeting of the National League of Families of POWs in Washington, DC. During this association, several wives of POWs told me about being contacted by a woman named Cora Weiss (reportedly the daughter of a prominent member of the American Communist Party) who often visited Hanoi and would bring back mail and other information about their husbands--IF family members would first agree to denounce the war in public. Most of the wives and family members showed incredible courage in this setting, refusing to cooperate even when they were told that if they denounced the war their husbands or sons would get better treatment in Hanoi. I was--and I remain--tremendously proud of them.

I mention this, because it seems like a remarkable coincidence that -- after having gone to Paris and met secretly with North Vietnamese and Viet Cong leaders repeatedly (I would add that this was in a setting where Congress, by a vote of 504-2, had 40 years ago this month passed a joint resolution formally authorizing the use of armed force against North Vietnam and the Viet Cong, so we were essentially in a state of declared war with them), John Kerry just happened, coincidentally, to take part in an identical activity to one we know Hanoi was coordinating with other American radicals -- pressuring POW family members to denounce their government.

I would add that some POW family members also showed up at Kerry's January 1971 "Winter Soldier Investigation" in Detroit, where a group of alleged "Vietnam veterans" (many of whom were later exposed as total frauds) told stories about raping and murdering and committing "genocide" against innocent civilians in Vietnam. One of the many frauds in Kerry's "Vietnam Veterans Against the War" was the group's "Executive Secretary," Al Hubbard, a Black Panther and alleged Air Force "captain" who claimed to have been seriously wounded by shrapnel while landing a plane at Da Nang during his second Vietnam tour. Hubbard sat beside Kerry on "Meet the Press" and appeared with him (and Jane Fonda) at other anti-war programs. After the press had investigated and learned Hubbard had been an Air Force sergeant, not a captain and not a pilot -- and he had not spent a day in Vietnam but had been injured in a 1961 soccer game, Hubbard was forced to resign. Showing an unusual loyalty for John Kerry, the future Senator praised Hubbard for having the "courage" to "admit" his deception--not mentioning that the "admission" came only after the press had exposed his fraud.

But back to the interesting question. We don't know what was said between Kerry and the Communist leaders he met with in Paris. But if his role in pressuring POW family members to denounce their government was discussed in advance with the Communist leaders--for example, if they encouraged him to promise mail from or special privileges for POWs held in Hanoi if their relatives would denounce the war, it is quite possible that John F. Kerry committed not one felony but two--the other being Treason.

I honestly don't know what was said in Paris. I don't know why Kerry became involved in putting on a press conference where POW family members spoke out against the war. As the New York Times article notes, the wives of several other POWs showed up and denounced Kerry for "'constantly using our suffering and grief' for his political ambitions." One of the angry POW wives reportedly shouted: "What office are you going to run for next?"

Much of the media doesn't seem much interested in covering the story of John Kerry's behavior during the war. When a majority of the men in the photo Kerry was using in his TV ads held a press conference declaring that Kerry was "unfit" to be Commander in Chief, the Associate Press decided not to run a single line about it--apparently believing that the voters didn't really need to know that information.

The issue, it seems to me, is whether the Internet now gives the people the power to bypass the media and get the truth out despite their biases and the threats of Kerry's lawyers to "sue" any TV station that runs the SwiftVets advertisement.

Please note that I am NOT accusing John Kerry of Treason. I have absolutely no way of knowing what went on during his illegal secret meetings with our nation's enemies during the war. But I do know Hanoi was using American radicals to pressure POW family members to denounce the war in return for promises of mail and better treatment for their POWs. And (thanks to the Associated Press and the New York Times in the attached clipping) we now know that Kerry was personally involved in publicizing statements against the war by relatives of POWs. It seems to me that on these facts Senator Kerry owes the POW families an apology and owes the American people a serious and detailed explanation of exactly how many times he met with our enemies and what was said on each occasion.

The views I have expressed here are entirely personal. (That is to say, I've had absolutely no contact with either the Bush or Kerry campaigns and my views certainly do not represent those of my employer or any group or organization with which I am or have in the past been associated.) In the interest of full disclosure, I have had a passionate dislike for both John Kerry and Jane Fonda ever since I followed their activities in the media while serving in Vietnam. So read the attached story and make up your own mind. Like a lot of Vietnam veterans, I'm clearly prejudiced against Senator Kerry. He not only betrayed the promise of John F. Kennedy that America would "pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty," and the sacrifice of 58,000 of our comrades in arms who came home--if at all--in body bags, but when in May 1973, under the leadership of people like Fulbright, Church, and Ted Kennedy, Congress made it unlawful for the American military to continue defending the Indochinese people from Communist aggression, the Communists conquered their neighbors behind columns of Soviet-made tanks and proceeded to butcher about three million human beings. That didn't have to happen, because by the end of 1972 we had the war in Vietnam essentially won. Even in the modern era, John Kerry has blocked Senate action on legislation that might pressure Hanoi to respect minimal human rights for its people. He just doesn't seem to share many of the values I hold dearly.

As I read his testimony, Kerry told the Senators not only that we could not stop Communist aggression around the world, but that we should not even try because Communism really was not a threat to us. Had Kerry's view prevailed, America might well have lost the Cold War.

----------
-- Dr. Robert Turner

Posted by: John Copeskey at September 7, 2004 10:06 PM

John

WOW!!

I read that link you posted. The man should be in prison - not running for president!

Posted by: Calamity Jane at September 7, 2004 10:16 PM

Posted by: Rick OH at September 7, 2004 10:01 AM

Rick, save your brain power you may need it later.

Navy Vet:

My apologies; however, I didn't resort to name calling. My comments to you were not posted either, but they were very direct and to the point. I wouldn't giving a flying F***, what you feel about me. You are an idiot attempting to make yourself look intelligent. hmmmm. Just as GW JR.

http://mathaba.net/x.htm?http://mathaba.net/0_index.shtml?x=68860

Washington needs a radical change in foreign policy
Posted: 08/31
From: Daily Star Lebanon

by Patrick Seale

Whether George W. Bush or John Kerry wins the US presidential election next November, a radical change of course in American foreign policy will be urgently required. The blunders of this administration, especially in the Middle East, have been breathtaking. They have spread mayhem around the world, gravely endangering the national security of the US and its major allies.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair bears a special responsibility for the disastrous state of affairs because, instead of restraining Bush - as he could and should have done on the key issues of Iraq and Palestine - he rashly followed in his wake, lending his seal of approval to America's follies.

The result is a revolt by Islamic militants, many of them ready to die for the cause, as has been seen in several terrorist outrages. The Sept. 11, 2001, attack is so far the most spectacular, but governments in many parts of the world are also in the firing line. No doubt the Islamic revolt against the arrogance and brutality of the West has been brewing for a very long time - perhaps ever since the carve-up of Arab Asia by Britain and France after World War I and the subsequent encouragement of Zionist colonization in Palestine - but actions in the past three or four years by the Bush administration and the Sharon government in Israel have poured fuel on the fire.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d.jones at September 7, 2004 11:48 PM

Openly rebelling?!? Like at the '68 convention? Sorry, Abel, but it didn't work then, either...
Hey, d., you bringing in a ringer? This guy is as funny as you are!

Posted by: Dave at September 8, 2004 01:45 AM

Wayne,
Come on Wayne, don't tell me that you didn't know that we lived in a Union of States? We live by the rule of Law. I cannot believe that you weren't aware of this? And yes, sometimes we belong to unions within unions. I remember that I was a paying member of the Texas Federation of Teachers (TFT) and they (we) had some paid staff (employees) who were members of another union that represented them with us. They paid dues to that union made up of members who worked for us. Now, I was also a paying member of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) and also of a local union that we called AFT #4632. All of us were affiliated with the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) and paid dues to them too. The dues were kept low but when you added all of them, the total reached to almost $300 per year. AFT/AFL-CIO provided us with a lot of educational opportunities as well as benefits and the money that we paid as dues was more than well worth it. We had lawyers for whenever the employers misbehaved and that's one thing that greedy and malicious employers don't like. Let me assure you that we did a good job and our employers could depend on us being proficient professionals at all times. Non union workers are seldom well trained and so they are sometimes mistreated and fired arbitrarily and capriciously. Nobody treats union workers that way because members bring in the lawyers when some employer or subordinates does something unlawful, breaks a rule or acts against policy.

Your condensed POST follows:

"If we are all members of a union and pay dues, why do we need another union then? I don't need 2 auto insurance policies for the same car.
I don't know where you get your statistics from on union members being more efficient, but I would like to look into this. Where do you get your info from on this? I would think that the guy that does a better job should be treated better, you know, like a reward system? I'm not a fan of handouts and the communist way of everyone is entitled to something. I say you should make your own way. Why would I want to give some of my hard earned money to a union, to make sure I don't get fired for not doing my job?
I will wait for your undoubtedly genius response."
Posted by: Wayne at September 7, 2004 08:04 PM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 8, 2004 01:47 AM

Gawd, I'm liking you better and better, Abel. d. jokes must have taught you well. Your allegory of U.S. workers and I quote...
"One more thing to think about, our country is a union and the people in the states are the members. It's a closed union shop in that all the members have to pay dues, e.g., federal income taxes to the states which are forwarded to the national capitol". Where do I start on this? First, the States do not pay the Federal Government our taxes, each are assessed seperately and are paid to seperate entities. Only in a socialistic or communist government does it work the way you suggest.
Hmmmm.... I believe someone just turned on a light on the real mindset of union activists. But that's no surprise there. That's why they're all Democrats and they loooove John Scary. Secondly, when I pay taxes, I receive defined and tangible benefits (state: police protection; federal: military security)seperately from each source. What does a union deliver in real, tangible goods and services? The promise of less work for more pay? Unions were established for very necessary and critical reasons, to bring into being labor laws and federal agencies to enforce same, but their original purpose has been fulfilled. In a free market society where a fair day's pay is given for a fair day's work, the Employer decides that equation, seeing that the employee works for the employer. Neither works for the union, yet the union is there taking money out of both the employees and the employers pockets. For the promise of less work for more pay- and the employee pays for that promise. Obviously, unions are for those who want a full day's pay while doing as little work to earn it as possible, and they are paying union dues to ensure that happens (which is an oxymoron in itself- paying a union to get you more money so you can pay the union to get you more money... how about paying no one and saving the difference?). This is getting off topic, but really, Abel, before you sling that hash on my plate talk to d. first. I'm still waiting after two hurricanes and now a third on the way for him to tell me what proof and documentation Kerry has that the SwiftVets are lying. He still hasn't answered me. Ask him yourself. I'll bet he can't answer you either.

Posted by: Dave at September 8, 2004 04:11 AM

Thanks John Copeskey for the web link.

Of course, the media isn't going to cover that story. They only want to prove how horrible America really is and to that they can't admit to the lies about Vietnam.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at September 8, 2004 04:25 AM

Here you go with the story of JFK. It is amazing that a Republican has ever won an election. But Dems only believe that Republicans are liars and cheats. Hmmmm, I think it is the Dems who are.

I get more and more disgusted by the people who are choosing to vote for Kerry. He committed treason while he was a Naval Officer. He promises all these new plans, jobs etc with no new tax cuts? He promises to pull out of Iraq which will just make a big terror haven. He is unfit for commander in chief. He complaind about education, jobs, environment blah blah blah but doesn't he realize that none of that matters if a terrorists with a nuke briefcase comes here and detonates? Does any of that matter? That is why the fight on terror is the number 1 issue. It is a continuous fight and it will be for a long time. We cannot love on these terrorists. Russia tried, look what happened. France, Italy, Turkey and other countries have given in and look what happens to them. We have to be strong. If that means being pre emptive then do it. If it keeps us safe here and keeps our children safe, then do it!
Here is the article on JFK........

In the 1960 presidential race Richard M. Nixon lost by a hair to John F. Kennedy.

Two states with razor-thin margins for Kennedy could have swung the election to Nixon: Kennedy carried Texas by only 46,000 votes, and he carried Illinos by a mere 9,000 votes.

Illinois was then, and is now, dominated by Democratic machine politicians the kings of which are the Daley family of Chicago fame.

Democratic Campaign Chair, William Daley, is the son of the late Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley who was instrumental in "stealing" the 1960 election from Nixon. Bill Daley is also brother to the current Chicago Mayor, Richard Daley, Jr.

In the aftermath of 1960 virtual non-election, investigators were alarmed by the fact that on election eve the Republicans were leading in Illinois but Daley’s operatives were withholding the results of a large number of precincts for some worrisome reason.

Then, when Kennedy was just four electoral votes shy of winning the presidency, all of the missing Chicago precincts mysteriously reported at the same time, turning the tide in favor of Kennedy.

There were 68 million votes cast in the 1960 election. The margin between the Republicans and the Democrats (Nixon and Kennedy) was a trifling 113,000 (less than 2/10 of one percent!) in favor of Kennedy.

A subsequent investigation of vote fraud in Illinois and Texas revealed the following:

Fannin County, Texas had only 4,895 registered voters. BUT 6,138 votes were cast, 75% of which went to Kennedy.

Angelina County, Texas: In one precinct, only 86 people voted yet the final tally was 147 for Kennedy, 24 for Nixon.

But Texas refused to conduct a recount. The Texas Election Board consisted entirely of Democrats, and the Board certified John Kennedy the winner in Texas.

Illinois: News reporters witnessed so much voter fraud by the Democrats that the Chicago Tribune stated "the election of November 8 was characterized by such gross and palpable fraud as to justify the conclusion that [Nixon] was deprived of victory." (As quoted by the Washington Post.)

The Republican National Committee filed a lawsuit challenging the Chicago results. Not coincidentally, the lawsuit was assigned to the courtroom of a judge known to be friendly to Daley and the Democratic party, Circuit Court Judge Thomas Kluczynski. After predictably dismissing the Republican suit, Kluczynski was rewarded by "President" John F. Kennedy with an appointment to the federal bench.

Earl Mazo was a reporter for the New York Herald Tribune in 1960. He investigated charges of Chicago voter fraud in the 1960 Kennedy / Nixon elections. Mazo found a cemetary in one Chicago precinct where the names on the head stones were registered voters who had actually voted!

Reporter Mazo also visited the Chicago address where 56 Kennedy voters listed their address. What he found was an abandoned, demolished house.

After numerous Democratic judges dismissed Republican charges of voter fraud, Kennedy was inaugurated.

Following Kennedy’s inauguration, the U.S. Department of Justice performed an inconclusive investigation into the accumulated evidence of voter fraud. The head of the DOJ was none other than U.S. Attorney General Bobby Kennedy, brother of you-know-who.

This summary is based on the story "Another Race to the Finish" by Peter Carlson, published in the Washington Post,

Posted by: Teresa G at September 8, 2004 11:32 AM

Dave,
I said that the people pay the federal government our federal income taxes. The states merely forward them for us but we mail them to the state capitol. I never said nor do I know that the states on their own pay anything to the federal government.

You are also totally wrong in thinking that unions have become obsolete and are no longer necessary. Workers need to be organized if they are to remain free. The truth is that we have many powerful forces that want to take advantage of workers who are not. We have some greedy idiots who think they have special privileges and who, to make more money, think nothing about using child labor and committing other criminal offenses against workers. You're definitely wrong, unions are very necessary right now in the present. I would never be a non-union worker because I think that's stupid. By the way, in regards to the SwiftVets, yes, they lied about John Kerry. For whatever reason, they lied about John Kerry--remember, it's not they who are running for President and I guess they must be jealous.

Your condensed POST follows:

"Gawd, I'm liking you better and better, Abel. d. jokes must have taught you well. Your allegory of U.S. workers and I quote...
"One more thing to think about, our country is a union and the people in the states are the members. It's a closed union shop in that all the members have to pay dues, e.g., federal income taxes to the states which are forwarded to the national capitol". Where do I start on this? First, the States do not pay the Federal Government our taxes, each are assessed seperately and are paid to seperate entities. Only in a socialistic or communist government does it work the way you suggest.
Hmmmm.... I believe someone just turned on a light on the real mindset of union activists. But that's no surprise there. That's why they're all Democrats and they loooove John Scary. Secondly, when I pay taxes, I receive defined and tangible benefits (state: police protection; federal: military security)seperately from each source. What does a union deliver in real, tangible goods and services? The promise of less work for more pay? Unions were established for very necessary and critical reasons, to bring into being labor laws and federal agencies to enforce same, but their original purpose has been fulfilled. In a free market society where a fair day's pay is given for a fair day's work, the Employer decides that equation, seeing that the employee works for the employer. Neither works for the union, yet the union is there taking money out of both the employees and the employers pockets. For the promise of less work for more pay- and the employee pays for that promise. Obviously, unions are for those who want a full day's pay while doing as little work to earn it as possible, and they are paying union dues to ensure that happens (which is an oxymoron in itself- paying a union to get you more money so you can pay the union to get you more money... how about paying no one and saving the difference?). This is getting off topic, but really, Abel, before you sling that hash on my plate talk to d. first. I'm still waiting after two hurricanes and now a third on the way for him to tell me what proof and documentation Kerry has that the SwiftVets are lying. He still hasn't answered me. Ask him yourself. I'll bet he can't answer you either."
Posted by: Dave at September 8, 2004 04:11 AM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 8, 2004 12:23 PM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 8, 2004 12:23 PM

it's not they who are running for President and I guess they must be jealous.

Great Post Abel,

The Swiftboat Vet's were paid $100 grand from Texas alone. This was posted in the morning news. I have also read the total contributions they have received for their work is close to 1/2 million dollars. If you follow the money trail you will be certain to find the source. I can't really blame them for taking the money if they needed it. But, to lie on your fellow officer is extremely underhanded.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at September 8, 2004 03:04 PM

d.jokes,
How much has George Sorros donated to 527 groups on the other side? I think it's more than $100 grand. Let's try and be fair here.

Posted by: Wayne at September 8, 2004 06:26 PM

Able,
I don't care if your in a union inside a union's a**. Don't cram your union c**p down my throat. I am happy not being in a union. Not everyone needs a union, as a matter of fact did you ever consider it might hurt some workers pocket to be in a union?

It's funny how people are starting to call your buddy d.jokes isn't it?

Let's not forget your name either un-stAble or is unAble better?

Posted by: Wayne at September 8, 2004 06:31 PM

d.Jones,
And your point? What about the $62 million plus given to moveon.org? And lie on your fellow officer? Kerry's been caught in five lies as pointed out below, proof provided by the "lying" Swiftvets. Explain that to us all!

1) The Swiftvets note that Kerry only volunteered for the Navy after his request for a deferral to study in Paris was denied. This is the truth, and has been acknowledged by Kerry.

2) Kerry claims to have served two tours in Vietnam, but in fact his first tour was his assignment to the USS Gridley, a guided-missile frigate that spent a little over a month in the South China Sea.

3) Kerry has admitted that Swift Boat duty was a safe pasttime when he volunteered for it, and the Swiftvets point this out. Certainly it's true that Kerry didn't intentionally volunteer for dangerous service.

4)The Swiftvets reviewed the events surrounding Kerry's first Purple Heart. It appears that they may be on to something here, as even Kerry's campaign has now acknowledged that Kerry may not have merited his first Purple Heart.

5) Steve Gardner, who served on board PCF-44 under Kerry's command in December 1968, as well as part of January 1969, says that at the time, in the area in which Kerry and his crew were operating, it was not possible to take a swift boat to Cambodia.

"It was physically, totally, categorically, across-the-board impossible to get into the canal that went to Cambodia with a swift boat," says Gardner. "There were concrete pilings that were put in the water...plus, the Navy kept patrol boats there to make sure nobody went in. When I was on the 44 boat, it was a physical impossibility to take a swift boat into Cambodian waters."
After being confronted with this inofrmation, the Kerry camp now say his wasn't in Cambodia on Christmas Eve.

6) Kerry officials were forced to acknowledge that Kerry’s boat actually left the scene when another swift boat -— operating on the other side of the river —- was damaged by an underwater mine. Kerry had maintained that he remained alone to pull Rassmann from the water as the otherboats fled.Kerry officials now say Kerry’s boat returned after several minutes to pull Rassmann from the water while three other swift boats remained on site to render assistance to the injured crew of the one damaged boat. Campaign officials once claimed that Kerry returned to the scene under withering hostile fire to rescue Rassmann after all the other swift boats left. But other accounts from eyewitnesses of that day confirm that the other boats stayed on site and that Kerry returned to the scene, facing no enemy fire, only seconds before another swift boat was preparing to retrieve Mr. Rassmann from the water.

Also,1) The Swiftvets note that Kerry only volunteered for the Navy after his request for a deferral to study in Paris was denied. This is the truth, and has been acknowledged by Kerry.

2) Kerry claims to have served two tours in Vietnam, but in fact his first tour was his assignment to the USS Gridley, a guided-missile frigate that spent a little over a month in the South China Sea.

3)The Swiftvets reviewed the events surrounding Kerry's first Purple Heart. It appears that they may be on to something here, as even Kerry's campaign has now acknowledged that Kerry may not have merited his first Purple Heart.

4) Steve Gardner, who served on board PCF-44 under Kerry's command in December 1968, as well as part of January 1969, says that at the time, in the area in which Kerry and his crew were operating, it was not possible to take a swift boat to Cambodia.

"It was physically, totally, categorically, across-the-board impossible to get into the canal that went to Cambodia with a swift boat," says Gardner. "There were concrete pilings that were put in the water...plus, the Navy kept patrol boats there to make sure nobody went in. When I was on the 44 boat, it was a physical impossibility to take a swift boat into Cambodian waters."
After being confronted with this inofrmation, the Kerry camp now say his wasn't in Cambodia on Christmas Eve.

5) Kerry officials were forced to acknowledge that Kerry’s boat actually left the scene when another swift boat -— operating on the other side of the river —- was damaged by an underwater mine. Kerry had maintained that he remained alone to pull Rassmann from the water as the otherboats fled.Kerry officials now say Kerry’s boat returned after several minutes to pull Rassmann from the water while three other swift boats remained on site to render assistance to the injured crew of the one damaged boat. Campaign officials once claimed that Kerry returned to the scene under withering hostile fire to rescue Rassmann after all the other swift boats left. But other accounts from eyewitnesses of that day confirm that the other boats stayed on site and that Kerry returned to the scene, facing no enemy fire, only seconds before another swift boat was preparing to retrieve Mr. Rassmann from the water.

Kerry has admitted that Swift Boat duty was a safe pasttime when he volunteered for it, and the Swiftvets point this out. Certainly it's true that Kerry didn't intentionally volunteer for dangerous service. Now, answer to us all where are all the Swiftvet lies? Dave , Wayne and everybody else that's asked this, bet we still don't get an answer.

Posted by: Navy Vet at September 8, 2004 07:17 PM

d.Jones,

BTW you earlier state in one of your posts:
"You(sic)comments are Hard Right Wing biased, you have no sense of what A Moderate is. The world is not Black and White! Just read your posts."

Well .d, I believe in abortion if the woman is raped or her life is in danger, but not for birth control. I believe in outlawing automatic weapons, energy independence, a clean environment and civil rights. Hardly what could be called 'Hard Right Wing biased'. I have even voted for Democrats, but only the one's that were worthy. Jimmy Carter was the last and only President I voted for. I learned my lesson then.

Posted by: Navy Vet at September 8, 2004 07:49 PM

Well "Pain"-In-The-A** are you upset because you lover mud was run off. Poor baby, no one to play with. You wanna a sucker. It will help you not forget him so much.

Haha!

Posted by: d. jones at September 8, 2004 08:39 PM

Wayne,
Be careful when you start calling people by other names. People will retaliate. When people start doing that to me, I just begin calling them, "son of a bitch," (S.O.B.) and we wouldn't want to get started into that, would we?

Your condensed POST follows:

"Able, I don't care if your in a union inside a union's a**. Don't cram your union c**p down my throat. I am happy not being in a union. Not everyone needs a union, as a matter of fact did you ever consider it might hurt some workers pocket to be in a union?
It's funny how people are starting to call your buddy d.jokes isn't it?
Let's not forget your name either un-stAble or is unAble better?"
Posted by: Wayne at September 8, 2004 06:31 PM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 8, 2004 09:17 PM

Posted by: Navy Vet at September 8, 2004 07:49 PM

Yes, Navy Vet

I voted for Reagan. But I detest GW JR. with all my heart. He has ruined what was once a wonderful Country. By the way did you know the law to ban automatic weapons signed by Clinton 10 years ago expires at sunset today. And as far as I know GW JR. hasn't be able to get congress to renew the law.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at September 8, 2004 09:20 PM

The union analogy of comparing it to the United States is a joke. When an employer opens a factory it is thier business, they own it. Then the Union comes it and tells the employer how much profit they are allowed to make or else they will close the doors of the employers business and force him out out of that business. I live in an ex-steel workers town. The Unions had enough strength to keep other business out of my town, drove wages up until the Steel mill could no longer compete in the market and then shut down the plant by refusing to take a wage cut to help keep the plant opened and operating.

America doesn't operate like that, at least not George Bush's America. Certainly not the America that I believe in. Nobody owns America, it has a representative government and it doesn't seek a level playing feild but allows for all people to advance to the highest level of acheivement if they are willing to work hard for it. You can't pull seniority in America. The new citizen has all the rights of the oldest citizen and all can achieve to the level they are willing to honestly work towards.

That was Arnold message to America, the real America, not the one that Abel believes in.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at September 8, 2004 09:29 PM

Wayne,
Be careful when you start calling people by other names. People will retaliate. When people start doing that to me, I just begin calling them, "son of a bitch," (S.O.B.) and we wouldn't want to get started into that, would we?

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 8, 2004 09:17 PM

In the words of the leader of the free world;
Bring it on. When are you gonna learn that the facts outweigh your fiction? UnstAble is what the democratic leaders have become. You should be honored with that name.

Posted by: Wayne at September 8, 2004 09:48 PM

Hey Able,

I'll start it. Wayne err. "pain"-in-the-a** is a dumb SOB!

haha!

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at September 8, 2004 09:48 PM

Able,
Do you see what kind of people you are aligning yourself with? Idiots.

Enough said.

Posted by: Wayne at September 8, 2004 10:57 PM

Jim Rodkey,

You say, "Nobody owns America," well the same thing is true with a union, nobody owns a union. All the union members (the organized workers) run it just like American citizens are supposed to run America. Lets not get confused, the places of businesses where the organized worker's work have nothing to do with the union itself except for the rules in the union contracts. These are called laws in America. Organized workers or unions never tell companies how much money or profit they may make and it's also rediculous to think that workers will keep other businesses out--the more businesses the better as that means more jobs and more union members. Union workers don't pull seniority either, only the businesses may do that but the seniority must be according to policy or rules written by the union and the business representatives. And you're wrong about unions "coming in," as they were already there as "un-organized workers." Yes, as a matter of fact, the union analogy with the United States is very good. Besides, that's what UNION means, the coming together of parts and in the United States, the parts are the State's citizens who come together to form our country. That is, our country is a Union of States called the United States. In a Labor union, the parts are the workers themselves. As the union comes into existance, we say the the workers become organized. Accept it and stop whining!

Your condensed POST follows:

"The union analogy of comparing it to the United States is a joke. When an employer opens a factory it is thier business, they own it. Then the Union comes it and tells the employer how much profit they are allowed to make or else they will close the doors of the employers business and force him out out of that business. I live in an ex-steel workers town. The Unions had enough strength to keep other business out of my town, drove wages up until the Steel mill could no longer compete in the market and then shut down the plant by refusing to take a wage cut to help keep the plant opened and operating.
America doesn't operate like that, at least not George Bush's America. Certainly not the America that I believe in. Nobody owns America, it has a representative government and it doesn't seek a level playing feild but allows for all people to advance to the highest level of acheivement if they are willing to work hard for it. You can't pull seniority in America. The new citizen has all the rights of the oldest citizen and all can achieve to the level they are willing to honestly work towards.
That was Arnold message to America, the real America, not the one that Abel believes in."
Posted by: Jim Rodkey at September 8, 2004 09:29 PM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 9, 2004 12:48 AM

Posted by: Navy Vet at September 8, 2004 07:49 PM

Navy Vet, the best advice I have for you is to quote Mary.

"Bush may win the election, but don't blame me when the radical right appoints extreme right-wing judges who would change our Constitution and strip us of some of our rights like abortion rights [turning over Roe v. Wade], gay rights [an unnecessary constitutional amendment if the states themselves can deal with it], and privacy [release of our library records and telephone calls, doctor appointments, and even spying of the elderly in retirement homes]."

I would also like to add. Don't come crying when we get NUKED from Iran or North Korea, as a result of GW JR. Playing WAR PRESIDENT. The Dummy really doesn't know what he is doing.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at September 9, 2004 03:07 AM

Able,
You make some valid points, but they are all based on presuppositions that just aren't valid. Workers need to be organized to be free? So who is oppressing the American worker? I am free to work, I am free to quote Johnny Paycheck and find different employment. Perhaps not being a business owner gives me a different perspective than the business owner, but unions to me seem to be adversarial in nature. They restrict the worker's responsibilities and thus his accountability for his actions. They become a surrogate parent making all their decisions, defining his boundries. They presuppose that the worker is an idiot who cannot think for himself or herself. They regress the status of a worker to a child, and they are treated like children.
Liberalism is like that. They presuppose that we cannot handle our own freedoms, and we need to be managed. Management costs money, and needs an infostructure to exist, which is why Kerry and his ilk want to raise our taxes and expand government. History is replete with examples. Carl Marx. Josef Stalin. Mussolini. Hitler. Each operated on the dual philosophy that the role of government was to restrict freedom to maintain order, and that by controlling his environment the citizenry would gain their freedom, or as you put it, workers must be organized to remain free. What it boils down to is that you will gain your freedom by being oppressed. Huh?
Oh, and I notice that you cannot even tell me why the Swiftvets are lying. In a court of law one is convicted by two elements of fact. Proof of the crime and motive. If you don't even know the motive, you cannot prove anything, much less provide documentation.

Posted by: Dave at September 9, 2004 09:43 AM

okay..I am waiting to see the Republicans come out and scream "stop!" to this new 527 ad produced by Moveon.org called TexansAgainstBush who criticize Bush and his National Guard record. The people in this ad ALSO are part of the Kerry campaign!!! Do we hear the Republicans yet? NO!!! Why? Because they uphold the constitution and believe in freedom of speech on both sides!!!! Democrats only believe in freedom of speech if you are saying something they like! Kerry and his campaign are doing EXACTLY what they cried foul on the Bush campaign for doing! Don't you guys get it? Kerry is a spoiled little brat.
Unfortunately, most Dems are too. It is ok to slander Bush and said rude things about him but Kerry is supposed to be untouchable. They can slam Bush and his record but you are a right wing nut case if you slam Kerry.
Kerry is imploding. He is now looking like a cry baby who pitches a fit if he doesn't get his way. He screamed all over the news about the meany swiftboat vets. Bush said he wished all 527's weren't there. Kerry never said ALL only the ones against him. Now after all that? Here's another one about Bush! BY the Kerry campaign employees!! Kerry isn't saying a word!! He is an idiot. The real Americans who aren't blinded by their hatred for Bush are seeing it. That is why Bush is up huge in the polls. He is leading by huge margins in alot of the battleground states. Even in California where he was behind Kerry by 18 points 2 months ago, the new poll is Bush behind Kerry by 8 points. That is 10 points that Bush has made up in the most liberal state! WOW!
Bush is ALWAYS one up on Kerry. I think that once the debates start Bush will have an even bigger lead!!! Bush is so much more personable!! Kerry talks, his points go down!
Bush Cheney 2004

Posted by: Teresa G at September 9, 2004 11:20 AM

Dave,

Face it, unless they are wealthy, individuals can hardly be considered free. How can they be if they are subjected to the whims, capricious and arbitrary demands of some employers. You know, the "It's my way or there's the highway," type of boss that so many of us become familiar with during our life time. GW Bush is that way. He has absolutely no respect for middle class workers who want to practice feedom by getting meaningful union contracts which spell out the responsibilities of all concerned. Well, our country is about all of us, regardless of heritage and wealth, being free and equal. Our US Constitution tells us that and our Bill of Rights amplify that. Individuals in our country are guaranteed these freedoms even when the majority wants to take them away. Unions make this possible because when workers organize, they have access to a lot of resources that as individuals they simply cannot have or control. The powers that be sometimes call the union leaders, bosses but union leaders are more like the servants of the organized workers. The same thing is true with our government leaders. They should be the "public servants" of the citizens. Some of us and a lot of them sometimes forget that. If what you mean is that you're free because you can always "up and leave," well that's true too. Some of us, however, want to be able to "buckle up," stand our ground, be able to survive and do battle. As to how I know that the Swiftvets are lying--That's simple, I just have more faith in what the documents say than what some veterans say 30-40 years later. I know why they're lying too, one of their own is running for president and they are jealous--it's that simple. That's human nature. They fancy themselves becoming historical too.

Your condensed POST follows:

"Able, You make some valid points, but they are all based on presuppositions that just aren't valid. Workers need to be organized to be free? So who is oppressing the American worker? I am free to work, I am free to quote Johnny Paycheck and find different employment. Perhaps not being a business owner gives me a different perspective than the business owner, but unions to me seem to be adversarial in nature. They restrict the worker's responsibilities and thus his accountability for his actions. They become a surrogate parent making all their decisions, defining his boundries. They presuppose that the worker is an idiot who cannot think for himself or herself. They regress the status of a worker to a child, and they are treated like children.
Liberalism is like that. They presuppose that we cannot handle our own freedoms, and we need to be managed. Management costs money, and needs an infostructure to exist, which is why Kerry and his ilk want to raise our taxes and expand government. History is replete with examples. Carl Marx. Josef Stalin. Mussolini. Hitler. Each operated on the dual philosophy that the role of government was to restrict freedom to maintain order, and that by controlling his environment the citizenry would gain their freedom, or as you put it, workers must be organized to remain free. What it boils down to is that you will gain your freedom by being oppressed. Huh?
Oh, and I notice that you cannot even tell me why the Swiftvets are lying. In a court of law one is convicted by two elements of fact. Proof of the crime and motive. If you don't even know the motive, you cannot prove anything, much less provide documentation."
Posted by: Dave at September 9, 2004 09:43 AM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 9, 2004 11:57 AM

.d jones,

Yeh, the sky is falling. Run for your life, the boogey man is coming! Two and a half years again the left wing was saying we were going to have tanks in our cities replacing police cars. Where are they? You keep spouting doomsday hyperbole. What Mary (whoever that is) says is pure speculation. I'm still waiting to see your proof the Swiftvets have lied. Kerry's been proven to have lied 5 times. You keep calling them liars and can't prove it. Kerry has proven hisself that he's lied. I'll be waiting.

Posted by: Navy Vet at September 9, 2004 01:06 PM

Fellow Bush supporters

Look at what we are arguing with. People who can't spell even simple words, such as lier for liar. Why bother? These type of functionally illiterate people are what the Democratic party has become. Let's face it - if you can barely spell you can be fooled much more easily.

And to d. jokes - it is no wonder that you have such a skewed view of the world. You can't spell or comprehend what you are reading. Do yourself a favor and take a reading comprehension and spelling class.

Posted by: Calamity Jane at September 9, 2004 03:03 PM

Abel,

Unions are attacking Wal-mart because they won't go union. You apparently missed the points. The steel industry in my area closed because Unions would take a pay cut to save their jobs. They were making far more than the national average of wages and we lost those jobs to oversees competition. Unions DO THINK they are entitled to the profit of a business and DEMAND through STRIKES to secure a portion of that profit with no regard to the fact that the employer's ownership of the business.

Unions pushed to unionize the garment and show-manufacturing companies in the 1970's. Where are they now? Unions take over a company and then think they can, through threat and disruption tell the management how to run that company. That's a fact. It happens over and over again. During these Strikes, how often does violence become a part of the strike. Workers just want to get back to work and they are labelled scabs. Unions enable BAD teacher's to not teach our children because the union would rather protect the teacher than be concerned about the child they are hurting. The major opponent to no child left behind-TEACHER'S UNIONS. Why? Because they don't think a teacher should be accountable for their failure to teach a child. That's their job.
If they aren't doing that job, I say good-bye.

Concerning your post to Dave. I am far from wealthy, but I am free and damn proud of it and how dare you impune the freedom I cherish.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at September 9, 2004 05:21 PM

Calamity,
Now you know that d.jokes is a wang processor don't you? I didn't know that was even legal in all 50 states.

As far as unAble is concerned, I think he may tinker with the wang too.

Man the wang jokes are just coming to easy.
Wang you, I mean thank you.

Posted by: Wayne at September 9, 2004 09:46 PM

Posted by: Calamity Pain at September 9, 2004 03:03 PM

Horse and Wig Lady. LOL HAhah

Posted by: d.jones at September 9, 2004 09:48 PM

Abel,
Abel, you prove my point. The common thread through your diatribe is that workers are being oppressed, taken advantage of, and of course subjecated. You prove the adversarial nature of unions "Some of us, however, want to be able to "buckle up," stand our ground, be able to survive and do battle." What the bloody hell does that have to do with your job?!? And who declared war in the first place? You are obsessed with your own perceptions you live them.
Funny thing, Jim, that you happen to mention my employer. Yes, I have known some real rectal orifices in my 13 years at the Evil Empire. But I have never felt oppressed, because of something Abel probably believes does not and cannot exist. It is called the open door policy. I can walk up to my assistant manager and discuss any issue I feel needs addressing. If it cannot be resolved with that assistant, or if the problem is with that assistant, I can go right up the chain of command to Lee Scott if I have to. It is encouraged, because the associates run the store. The managers don't manage people, they are specifically charged with helping the floor-level associate to get their job done, managing the work effort, not the worker. Management is so accountable to the associates that we complete a grass roots survey each year. We literally grade our managers on their performance, in their attitude, and their accessibility, down to if I feel comfortable bringing an issue before them or whether they treat me with the proper respect. The collective results of that survey are literally the store manager's job evaluation. We control what his raise he gets. Some places just don't need unions, Abel, so stop making asses of yourselves carrying picket signs in front of Wal-Marts around the country. You are wasting your time.

Posted by: Dave at September 10, 2004 01:27 AM

Jim Rodkey,
Tell it like it is, Wal-Mart employees want to organize themselves into a union and the company is fighting its own employees in order to keep them from organizing. Like I have said in other POSTs, the union does not come in sinse the workers are already there. The union comes into existance at the company once they get organized and recognized by the company. They get recognized as soon as they propose a contract that is accepted by the company. You say, "The steel industry in my area closed because Unions would take a pay cut to save their jobs." This statement doesn't make sense to me so I cannot answer it. You probably meant to say, "...wouldn't take a pay cut to save their jobs. Well, this happens sometimes but it's the workers themselves who vote a contract down due to wage cuts. Yes, the wages paid come from the income that the products bring in. As you know, profits are figured only after wages and other expenses have been taken into account. One more thing, a strike is only a tactic that's used as a last resort to reach a contract agreement. Workers and union leaders hate to go on strike because there is no income during strikes. No union dues are paid during strikes so nobody who's intelligent ever wishes for a strike. The Garment Industry was one of the first industries that became "out-sourced" to foreign countries where labor was vastly cheaper. Scabs are outsiders who are brought in to the work place in order to break a strike. Hiring scabs is against the policies or contracts that employees and employers agreed to and signed. BTW it's obvious to me that you have been "brainwashed" by some anti-union right wingers. If you really want to learn anything, you need to have an open mind. Liberals and Progressives are fine people and Unions have always been progressive institutions. Furthermore, Unions are professional organizations and all professions have them except that some unions are called by other names such as Associations, Federations, etc. Have you heard about the American Medical Association (AMA) and the American Bar Association (ABA)? I repeat, all professional groups have certain things in common, a newsletter or magazine, a professional association or union, and perhaps other positive educational institutions. These groups are freedom oriented and always have appropriate rules, policies and laws as well as Constitutions or Charters to govern themselves. As you know, our country is based on the rule of law and so are our unions. Our country will always be divided as long as one party, the Republican Party, orients itself to be anti-Union. We have some good Republicans who are also Pro-Union but, unfortunately, not enough of them. Unions normally would be non-partisan.

Your condensed POST follows:

"Abel, Unions are attacking Wal-mart because they won't go union. You apparently missed the points. The steel industry in my area closed because Unions would take a pay cut to save their jobs. They were making far more than the national average of wages and we lost those jobs to oversees competition. Unions DO THINK they are entitled to the profit of a business and DEMAND through STRIKES to secure a portion of that profit with no regard to the fact that the employer's ownership of the business.
Unions pushed to unionize the garment and show-manufacturing companies in the 1970's. Where are they now? Unions take over a company and then think they can, through threat and disruption tell the management how to run that company. That's a fact. It happens over and over again. During these Strikes, how often does violence become a part of the strike. Workers just want to get back to work and they are labelled scabs. Unions enable BAD teacher's to not teach our children because the union would rather protect the teacher than be concerned about the child they are hurting. The major opponent to no child left behind-TEACHER'S UNIONS. Why? Because they don't think a teacher should be accountable for their failure to teach a child. That's their job.
If they aren't doing that job, I say good-bye.
Concerning your post to Dave. I am far from wealthy, but I am free and damn proud of it and how dare you impune the freedom I cherish."
Posted by: Jim Rodkey at September 9, 2004 05:21 PM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 10, 2004 05:43 AM

d. jokes

You have hit bottom. All you have left is name calling. I am not impressed.

In all of your flaming lunatic fringe postings you NEVER provide anything that makes sense.

BUSH-CHENEY '04 - We will all sleep better at night!!

Posted by: Calamity Jane at September 10, 2004 10:01 AM

Calamity,
They're losing and know it. Even Kerry, Edwards, Gore and all their minions are calling names, so we can't expect the liberals on this site to be any different. They just parrot what their people say. And they're not saying anything, so their source is dried up. You don't expect them to go check msnbc.com, cnn.com, foxnews.com or any other mainstream news source, do you? Oops, that won't work either, because they're saying nothing of substance there either.

Posted by: Navy Vet at September 10, 2004 11:15 AM

Posted by: Navy Vet at September 10, 2004 11:15 AM

Navy Vet,

GW JR, Cheney, are also name calling and issuing terrorist threats if Kerry is elected. Thats all anyone has left.

Posted by: d. jones at September 10, 2004 12:09 PM

Abel,

I have been brain-washed by personal experience. When I was 10 years old, I was threatened on my way home from school because my father wanted to negotiate to go back to work. They said "Tell your father that we know the way you come home from school." He was a shop stewart who wanted to negotiate, and the union officials wanted a strike.

I've already explained that the Union I was a part of did not give us an option to accept the contract, only to strike or go to arbitration.

I live in Pennsylvania, in an ex-steel community. There was no opportunity to negotiate the pay rate. It was strike or arbitrate. The steel mill closed the doors. The Kinney Shoe plant closed shortly after the Union got in the door with promises of higher pay and benefits. The pay didn't go up, no benefits and now we had to pay Union Dues. Garment Factories in the Area closed before NAFTA, always after the Union got in. No change of work condition, just Union Dues.

If anyone has been brainwashed about the unions it's been you. They are doing more to harm the work ethics and use strong arm tactics of threat to force a company to place themselves in a compromising situation financially. When that happens the company can close the doors and move elsewhere, or allow what's left of their company to deteriorate and die to appease the Union's demands.

There is a long history of corruption in Corporate Unions, that's fact.

You keep twisting my point to you. A Union makes no