NationStates Jolt Archive

We're worried about whether or not Kerry deserved that third Purple heart and Bush can't even prove that he SHOWED UP?? What the hell is that about?

Yeah, it's that damn liberal media.

I agree--Bush the war deserter also attacked McCains war record and even went so far to bash Max Cleland for losing limbs fighting in a war--a truly obscene spectacle

I agree--Bush the war deserter also attacked McCains war record and even went so far to bash Max Cleland for losing limbs fighting in a war--a truly obscene spectacle

We're worried about whether or not Kerry deserved that third Purple heart and Bush can't even prove that he SHOWED UP?? What the hell is that about?

Yeah, it's that damn liberal media.
Perhaps you folks read different newspapers than I do, but I never read or heard the President say anything about John Kerry's decorations.

We're worried about whether or not Kerry deserved that third Purple heart and Bush can't even prove that he SHOWED UP?? What the hell is that about?

Yeah, it's that damn liberal media.
Perhaps you folks read different newspapers than I do, but I never read or heard the President say anything about John Kerry's decorations.

I was just going to say the same thing. Where is the quote from President Bush about John Kerry's service?

We're worried about whether or not Kerry deserved that third Purple heart and Bush can't even prove that he SHOWED UP?? What the hell is that about?

Yeah, it's that damn liberal media.
Perhaps you folks read different newspapers than I do, but I never read or heard the President say anything about John Kerry's decorations.

No, but Karen Hughes, his former advisor, one of his closest confidants, and one of the influential Republicans in the U.S., did. So have a lot of other Republicans, as well as their PR firm in the form of talk radio and Fox News. What is happening is what is known as the "Taking the High Horse down the Low Road" phenomena. Bush says nothing, so he gets to claim that he is innocent of any kind of bashing (The High Horse). His lieutenants, on the other hand, go out and in his name do anything and everything in their power to rip his opponents to shreds (The Low Road). If you don't believe how low this administration can and does go to get elected, Google the term "push-polling" sometime.

Personally, this is disgusting. Bush and/or his cronies are simply trying to hide the fact that they can't even account for where their noble leader was, so they make a deal out of. . .well, out of whether he deserved 2 or 3 Purple Hearts, and whether he threw his medals or his ribbons away. This is an insult to everyone who ever bled for this country.

Bush never engages in character assassination personally--he has his rightwing goon squads do it for him and its all based on lies and distortions too and they know the corporate media will just mindlessly repeat it all

We're worried about whether or not Kerry deserved that third Purple heart and Bush can't even prove that he SHOWED UP?? What the hell is that about?

Yeah, it's that damn liberal media.
Perhaps you folks read different newspapers than I do, but I never read or heard the President say anything about John Kerry's decorations.

No, but Karen Hughes, his former advisor, one of his closest confidants, and one of the influential Republicans in the U.S., did. So have a lot of other Republicans, as well as their PR firm in the form of talk radio and Fox News. What is happening is what is known as the "Taking the High Horse down the Low Road" phenomena. Bush says nothing, so he gets to claim that he is innocent of any kind of bashing (The High Horse). His lieutenants, on the other hand, go out and in his name do anything and everything in their power to rip his opponents to shreds (The Low Road). If you don't believe how low this administration can and does go to get elected, Google the term "push-polling" sometime.

Personally, this is disgusting. Bush and/or his cronies are simply trying to hide the fact that they can't even account for where their noble leader was, so they make a deal out of. . .well, out of whether he deserved 2 or 3 Purple Hearts, and whether he threw his medals or his ribbons away. This is an insult to everyone who ever bled for this country.
I see. The President is responsible for the actions of every person who is not anti-Bush. Got it.

I am amazed by people who get all in a tizzy when someone mentions something about Kerry's service, while at the same time barreling into the President's guard service. I seem to recall the President releasing all his guard records years ago, including pay stubs and other such items. The reply was, "This leaves questions unanswered!" This is a standard tactic of the left: make some outlandish claim e.g. "Bush knew about 9/11 beforehand", then when evidence refuting the claim is presented say, "That leaves questions unanswered!" I hate to burst your bubble, but the sum of human knowledge leaves questions unanswered.

If you are wondering how many people will decide not to vote for Bush over the tempest in a teapot over his Guard service, the answer is zero. The President is not running on his Guard service the way that Kerry is running on his Navy service.

We're worried about whether or not Kerry deserved that third Purple heart and Bush can't even prove that he SHOWED UP?? What the hell is that about?

Yeah, it's that damn liberal media.
Perhaps you folks read different newspapers than I do, but I never read or heard the President say anything about John Kerry's decorations.

it's not necessarily the president, it's his supporters and "the white house" as they call it on the news

Although I have one mere question

Although I'm not saying that I'm Anti-Kerry by saying this, but what does it show about a President if he went AWOL 20-30 years ago? He still is a great military leader, rather than a slow ass UN follower. Can't that just even it out then?

called freedom of speech. although, I don't consider "war awards" as something to be paticularly proud of... wow, you killed 50 people to save a friend...

Although I have one mere question

Although I'm not saying that I'm Anti-Kerry by saying this, but what does it show about a President if he went AWOL 20-30 years ago? He still is a great military leader, rather than a slow ass UN follower. Can't that just even it out then?

He is a great military leader? What are you talking about? All he does is say "Ok let's go to war" and then REAL heroes' lives are at stake. Yes, it does matter that he went AWOL 32 years ago. That's irresponsible. It's also hypocritical because I think that's one of the most unpatriotic thing someone can do, yet Bush critisizes others' patriotism. He's not fit to be president and that's that.

P.S. I'm wearing my favorite shirt. It says:

The Patriot Act

*picture of bush wearing flight suit*

Pretending to be a soldier by wearing a flight suit


Drop Bush
Not Bombs

We're worried about whether or not Kerry deserved that third Purple heart and Bush can't even prove that he SHOWED UP?? What the hell is that about?

Yeah, it's that damn liberal media.
Perhaps you folks read different newspapers than I do, but I never read or heard the President say anything about John Kerry's decorations.

They have Pundits and other associates to do it for him.

called freedom of speech. although, I don't consider "war awards" as something to be paticularly proud of... wow, you killed 50 people to save a friend...

i dont either, i'm just pointing out bush's hypocrisy

Anti-Bush partisans talk a lot about him going AWOL, but that is a specific offense under the UCMJ. People who go AWOL tend not to get the honorable discharge that the President received.

I see. The President is responsible for the actions of every person who is not anti-Bush. Got it.

I am amazed by people who get all in a tizzy when someone mentions something about Kerry's service, while at the same time barreling into the President's guard service. I seem to recall the President releasing all his guard records years ago, including pay stubs and other such items. The reply was, "This leaves questions unanswered!" This is a standard tactic of the left: make some outlandish claim e.g. "Bush knew about 9/11 beforehand", then when evidence refuting the claim is presented say, "That leaves questions unanswered!" I hate to burst your bubble, but the sum of human knowledge leaves questions unanswered.

If you are wondering how many people will decide not to vote for Bush over the tempest in a teapot over his Guard service, the answer is zero. The President is not running on his Guard service the way that Kerry is running on his Navy service.

Hardly. But the President is responsible, in the interest of being honest about his claim to be above such slander, to firstly publicly disagree with Mrs. Hughes, friend or no, if he truly believes that this is beneath him, and secondly to have a good, long sit-down with Karen and explain to her that this kind of tactic is beneath her as well and ill-fitting for the honorable woman that she is. Were I in office, and my stance to be above such claims (which is what it would be), then you can bet your ass I'd be doing just that. Why? Because honor, and the duty to the truth, demands that I do so. That Bush does not says volumes.

As for his war record, Bush did release his information, and it did say that he got paid for his duties. But it also cannot provide clear indication of where he was at that time and in what way he was earning his money. This is not "an unanswered question" in the sense of a trivial qualm the Democrats keep harping on, as you imply. This is the focal point of the whole damn investigation: did he fulfill his duty during the Vietnam War. If he did, then it says something about his character. If he doesn't it also says something about his character. That character is what most people will be voting on when they go to the polls. So yes, this issue does matter.

called freedom of speech. although, I don't consider "war awards" as something to be paticularly proud of... wow, you killed 50 people to save a friend...

i dont either, i'm just pointing out bush's hypocrisy

cmon, he's a politician. that's what they do. :lol:

Anti-Bush partisans talk a lot about him going AWOL, but that is a specific offense under the UCMJ. People who go AWOL tend not to get the honorable discharge that the President received.

Lol, Exactly. So somethings wrong isnt it? :Wink: :Wink:

(Rich, politically influential parents with military history....)

I see. The President is responsible for the actions of every person who is not anti-Bush. Got it.

I am amazed by people who get all in a tizzy when someone mentions something about Kerry's service, while at the same time barreling into the President's guard service. I seem to recall the President releasing all his guard records years ago, including pay stubs and other such items. The reply was, "This leaves questions unanswered!" This is a standard tactic of the left: make some outlandish claim e.g. "Bush knew about 9/11 beforehand", then when evidence refuting the claim is presented say, "That leaves questions unanswered!" I hate to burst your bubble, but the sum of human knowledge leaves questions unanswered.

If you are wondering how many people will decide not to vote for Bush over the tempest in a teapot over his Guard service, the answer is zero. The President is not running on his Guard service the way that Kerry is running on his Navy service.

Hardly. But the President is responsible, in the interest of being honest about his claim to be above such slander, to firstly publicly disagree with Mrs. Hughes, friend or no, if he truly believes that this is beneath him, and secondly to have a good, long sit-down with Karen and explain to her that this kind of tactic is beneath her as well and ill-fitting for the honorable woman that she is. Were I in office, and my stance to be above such claims (which is what it would be), then you can bet your ass I'd be doing just that. Why? Because honor, and the duty to the truth, demands that I do so. That Bush does not says volumes.

As for his war record, Bush did release his information, and it did say that he got paid for his duties. But it also cannot provide clear indication of where he was at that time and in what way he was earning his money. This is not "an unanswered question" in the sense of a trivial qualm the Democrats keep harping on, as you imply. This is the focal point of the whole damn investigation: did he fulfill his duty during the Vietnam War. If he did, then it says something about his character. If he doesn't it also says something about his character. That character is what most people will be voting on when they go to the polls. So yes, this issue does matter.

The records show that there were long periods of time when he was absent. He was off snorting coke and disgracing the English language.

Although I have one mere question

Although I'm not saying that I'm Anti-Kerry by saying this, but what does it show about a President if he went AWOL 20-30 years ago? He still is a great military leader, rather than a slow ass UN follower. Can't that just even it out then?

A great military leader?

On what do you base that?

On the fact that the US forces could pummel a foe that they been bombing for a decade and who had zero air force and 20-year old Soviet technology?

That suprised you?

ANY President giving the go order would have seen a victorious invasion.

A great leader though migh have done things like:

a) finished the job in Afghanistan first.
b) put in the resources to actually capture the guy who attacked you.
c) gone in with a plan that would have mitigated a lot of the current unrest.

What exactly has GW done that was so indicitive of his good military leadership? Starting a war in and of itself does not qualify him in that regard.

-Z-

A great military leader?

On what do you base that?

On the fact that the US forces could pummel a foe that they been bombing for a decade and who had zero air force and 20-year old Soviet technology?

That suprised you?

ANY President giving the go order would have seen a victorious invasion.

A great leader though migh have done things like:

a) finished the job in Afghanistan first.
b) put in the resources to actually capture the guy who attacked you.
c) gone in with a plan that would have mitigated a lot of the current unrest.

What exactly has GW done that was so indicitive of his good military leadership? Starting a war in and of itself does not qualify him in that regard.

-Z-

It might not make him a good military leader, But it does mean "He" is a good politician.

Astrolia, a good commander never fights a battle he doesn't have to win. Iraq, much as the goal of liberty for all Iraqis was laudable, was not such a fight. What it was was a distraction from the battle we did have to win: Afghanistan and Al Queda. The longer this thing goes on, the more I see that now, and the more and more depressed that I made the mistake of supporting the war. I thought that we had enough strength to do both. Apparently, either I was wrong, or President Bush is unwilling to commit what strength is needed.

The U.S could blow this entire Planet Apart if they tried. That doesnt mean they can occupy it. In nationstates terms, The U.S has a Pityful army for its size.

Although I am not a Bush supporter--not in the slightest--and will vote for Kerry in the elections, I am tired of the flawed argument implied in this thread. I don't know if there is a classical name for it, but just because Bush's war record is not great doesn't mean that he has no right to accuse someone else of the same flaw. At least on the truth level. A flawed person can well be correct in accusing someone else of the same flaws.

Astrolia, a good commander never fights a battle he doesn't have to win. Iraq, much as the goal of liberty for all Iraqis was laudable, was not such a fight. What it was was a distraction from the battle we did have to win: Afghanistan and Al Queda. The longer this thing goes on, the more I see that now, and the more and more depressed that I made the mistake of supporting the war. I thought that we had enough strength to do both. Apparently, either I was wrong, or President Bush is unwilling to commit what strength is needed.

Xenophobialand, you are not alone. I also supported the war at the start and have been severly dissapointed by the Bush/Rummy team's myriad mistakes.

The two biggest failings have been to ignore the generals plans and to continue pushing their ideologically based failed war plan beyond what is reasonable.

Maybe Kerry should decide whether he's a war criminal or a war hero, before we give his military record any thought, hm?

And the people he served with who said he was a decent leader are reliable, while the ones who said otherwise are "working for the RNC," in Kerry's words, right?

And when Kerry's speaking for an anti-war crowd, he courageously threw away his medals, but while speaking nationally, he's "proud" of his service, despite claiming to have comitted "atrocities," and still has them.

This guy's a real champ, for sure. :wink:

Although I have one mere question

Although I'm not saying that I'm Anti-Kerry by saying this, but what does it show about a President if he went AWOL 20-30 years ago? He still is a great military leader, rather than a slow ass UN follower. Can't that just even it out then?

A great military leader?

On what do you base that?

On the fact that the US forces could pummel a foe that they been bombing for a decade and who had zero air force and 20-year old Soviet technology?

That suprised you?

ANY President giving the go order would have seen a victorious invasion.

A great leader though migh have done things like:

a) finished the job in Afghanistan first.
b) put in the resources to actually capture the guy who attacked you.
c) gone in with a plan that would have mitigated a lot of the current unrest.

What exactly has GW done that was so indicitive of his good military leadership? Starting a war in and of itself does not qualify him in that regard.

-Z-

I was focusing more of the war in Afghanistan. Of course, it's not like he went in and left 3 months later. We're still in Afghanistan mopping up Al-Qaeda.

And Iraq really needed to be taken care of. Regardless of whatever President was in office, Iraq would've been a target nonetheless.

I agree--Bush the war deserter also attacked McCains war record and even went so far to bash Max Cleland for losing limbs fighting in a war--a truly obscene spectacle
Cleland didn't lose his limbs fighting a war. He lost them doing something stupid with a grenade.

I agree--Bush the war deserter also attacked McCains war record and even went so far to bash Max Cleland for losing limbs fighting in a war--a truly obscene spectacle
Bush never attacked Kerry about his medals. Kerry got himself into that mess. He also attacked Bush on his military service after he said military service shouldn't be an issue. Kerry's grave just keeps getting deeper and deeper.

A great military leader?

On what do you base that?

On the fact that the US forces could pummel a foe that they been bombing for a decade and who had zero air force and 20-year old Soviet technology?

That suprised you?

The Soviets sure couldn't do it. And they tried for 10 years.

I agree--Bush the war deserter also attacked McCains war record and even went so far to bash Max Cleland for losing limbs fighting in a war--a truly obscene spectacle
Bush never attacked Kerry about his medals. Kerry got himself into that mess. He also attacked Bush on his military service after he said military service shouldn't be an issue. Kerry's grave just keeps getting deeper and deeper.

Exactly. Kerry said a few months ago that he wouldn't sink to speculation about Bush's service, but now that he's been caught in his own lies, he's trying to defer the heat back to Bush. Too late, chump. :wink:

I was focusing more of the war in Afghanistan. Of course, it's not like he went in and left 3 months later. We're still in Afghanistan mopping up Al-Qaeda.

And Iraq really needed to be taken care of. Regardless of whatever President was in office, Iraq would've been a target nonetheless.

But they arent. Thats the problem

I agree--Bush the war deserter also attacked McCains war record and even went so far to bash Max Cleland for losing limbs fighting in a war--a truly obscene spectacle
Bush never attacked Kerry about his medals. Kerry got himself into that mess. He also attacked Bush on his military service after he said military service shouldn't be an issue. Kerry's grave just keeps getting deeper and deeper.

Exactly. Kerry said a few months ago that he wouldn't sink to speculation about Bush's service, but now that he's been caught in his own lies, he's trying to defer the heat back to Bush. Too late, chump. :wink:

Are you sure your not also mixing up him and his pundits?

Maybe Kerry should decide whether he's a war criminal or a war hero, before we give his military record any thought, hm?

And the people he served with who said he was a decent leader are reliable, while the ones who said otherwise are "working for the RNC," in Kerry's words, right?

And when Kerry's speaking for an anti-war crowd, he courageously threw away his medals, but while speaking nationally, he's "proud" of his service, despite claiming to have comitted "atrocities," and still has them.

This guy's a real champ, for sure. :wink:

the only nam vets who are offended by the truth Kerry spoke about this war are the ones who raped babies and are scared of being discovered--right now Bush is the war criminal murdering our soldiers in another Vietnam that HE started even tho he wasnt man enuf to go to nam when he was eligable--Bush is a international terrorist who destablizes the world and you defend his atrocities you hypocrite

I agree--Bush the war deserter also attacked McCains war record and even went so far to bash Max Cleland for losing limbs fighting in a war--a truly obscene spectacle
Bush never attacked Kerry about his medals. Kerry got himself into that mess. He also attacked Bush on his military service after he said military service shouldn't be an issue. Kerry's grave just keeps getting deeper and deeper.

Exactly. Kerry said a few months ago that he wouldn't sink to speculation about Bush's service, but now that he's been caught in his own lies, he's trying to defer the heat back to Bush. Too late, chump. :wink:

Are you sure your not also mixing up him and his pundits?

Nope, that's a personal quote from Frankenberry himself.

Another quote from kerry in '92, about Clinton: "We do not need to divide America over who served and how. I have personally always believed that many served in many different ways"

Meh. I could care less, really.. there's more structural reasons why Kerry should never get a shot at the presidency.. but that's another thread. :wink:

Maybe Kerry should decide whether he's a war criminal or a war hero, before we give his military record any thought, hm?

And the people he served with who said he was a decent leader are reliable, while the ones who said otherwise are "working for the RNC," in Kerry's words, right?

And when Kerry's speaking for an anti-war crowd, he courageously threw away his medals, but while speaking nationally, he's "proud" of his service, despite claiming to have comitted "atrocities," and still has them.

This guy's a real champ, for sure. :wink:

the only nam vets who are offended by the truth Kerry spoke about this war are the ones who raped babies and are scared of being discovered--right now Bush is the war criminal murdering our soldiers in another Vietnam that HE started even tho he wasnt man enuf to go to nam when he was eligable--Bush is a international terrorist who destablizes the world and you defend his atrocities you hypocrite

"Raped babies," that's creative.. not even Kerry thought of that one. Still, Kerry considers himself a "war hero" even though he admitted to committing "atrocities." He's the hypocrite. You can't have it both ways. Now he laughs off the "atrocities" that made him famous for 'exposing,' though he never had any personal evidence. The guy's a con, plain and simple.

I was focusing more of the war in Afghanistan. Of course, it's not like he went in and left 3 months later. We're still in Afghanistan mopping up Al-Qaeda.

And Iraq really needed to be taken care of. Regardless of whatever President was in office, Iraq would've been a target nonetheless.

But they arent. Thats the problem

New Astrolia:
And you would know exactly what's going on in Afganistan with first hand experience right?

Please take off your sorry tin foil hat. You aren't giving the Pro-Kerry camp any gold stars with your great news analysis.

the only nam vets who are offended by the truth Kerry spoke about this war are the ones who raped babies and are scared of being discovered--right now Bush is the war criminal murdering our soldiers in another Vietnam that HE started even tho he wasnt man enuf to go to nam when he was eligable--Bush is a international terrorist who destablizes the world and you defend his atrocities you hypocrite

Another Vietnam that Bush started? No, you are wrong. President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/libera.htm) that said that Saddam had to go soon.

Bill Clinton didn't have the cajones to do a thing except bomb a few buildings from 15'000 feet up in the air. President Bush finished the job of taking out Saddam.

Also, unless you've been under CNN's rock for the last few decades, we have a voluntary military system. No one is dragged into service anymore. Therefore people who sign up know the risks, if some chump thinks he's just there to pick up some college education without going to war, he's a fool.

Please quit being an ignorant fool and learn something before you make yourself look even dumber.

Bush is a international terrorist who destablizes the world
Yes, that same President Bush who has reduced tensions with Momar Quadaffi of Libya, taken out Saddam, killed or captured 3/4ths of Al Qaeida's troops... Yep, Bush sure is a bad guy... :roll:

Just because you'd rather see brown islamic people suffer under a dictator don't take out your temper tantrum on us.

-Free Virginia

"Raped babies," that's creative.. not even Kerry thought of that one. Still, Kerry considers himself a "war hero" even though he admitted to committing "atrocities." He's the hypocrite. You can't have it both ways. Now he laughs off the "atrocities" that made him famous for 'exposing,' though he never had any personal evidence. The guy's a con, plain and simple.

Yes Kerry is a con artist. Thankfully the ABC News along with the rest of the media, outside of FNC, News Max and talk radio are finally putting the burn onto Kerry. It was about time.

Here's a simple question to Kerry supporters:
What accomplishments has John Kerry done in his time in the Senate? Can anyone here name a thing that he is famous for sponsoring?
Another fun exercise for Kerry supporters is to ask them why anyone should support Kerry. Answers like "he's not Bush" or "Kerry didn't start a war" aren't valid, push the Kerry supporter to give a positive John Kerry reason that doens't involve bashing President Bush.

That should leave them confused for hours! It worked when I did it to kids at my college in Virginia.

-Free Virginia

"Raped babies," that's creative.. not even Kerry thought of that one. Still, Kerry considers himself a "war hero" even though he admitted to committing "atrocities." He's the hypocrite. You can't have it both ways. Now he laughs off the "atrocities" that made him famous for 'exposing,' though he never had any personal evidence. The guy's a con, plain and simple.

Yes Kerry is a con artist. Thankfully the ABC News along with the rest of the media, outside of FNC, News Max and talk radio are finally putting the burn onto Kerry. It was about time.

Here's a simple question to Kerry supporters:
What accomplishments has John Kerry done in his time in the Senate? Can anyone here name a thing that he is famous for sponsoring?
Another fun exercise for Kerry supporters is to ask them why anyone should support Kerry. Answers like "he's not Bush" or "Kerry didn't start a war" aren't valid, push the Kerry supporter to give a positive John Kerry reason that doens't involve bashing President Bush.

That should leave them confused for hours! It worked when I did it to kids at my college in Virginia.

-Free Virginia

"Raped babies," that's creative.. not even Kerry thought of that one. Still, Kerry considers himself a "war hero" even though he admitted to committing "atrocities." He's the hypocrite. You can't have it both ways. Now he laughs off the "atrocities" that made him famous for 'exposing,' though he never had any personal evidence. The guy's a con, plain and simple.

Yes Kerry is a con artist. Thankfully the ABC News along with the rest of the media, outside of FNC, News Max and talk radio are finally putting the burn onto Kerry. It was about time.

Here's a simple question to Kerry supporters:
What accomplishments has John Kerry done in his time in the Senate? Can anyone here name a thing that he is famous for sponsoring?
Another fun exercise for Kerry supporters is to ask them why anyone should support Kerry. Answers like "he's not Bush" or "Kerry didn't start a war" aren't valid, push the Kerry supporter to give a positive John Kerry reason that doens't involve bashing President Bush.

That should leave them confused for hours! It worked when I did it to kids at my college in Virginia.

-Free Virginia

I'm sorry.
My browser said three times "Request timed out" when I clicked submit. It never showed the "Your text has been posted HERE".

Maybe Kerry should decide whether he's a war criminal or a war hero, before we give his military record any thought, hm?

And the people he served with who said he was a decent leader are reliable, while the ones who said otherwise are "working for the RNC," in Kerry's words, right?

And when Kerry's speaking for an anti-war crowd, he courageously threw away his medals, but while speaking nationally, he's "proud" of his service, despite claiming to have comitted "atrocities," and still has them.

This guy's a real champ, for sure. :wink:

the only nam vets who are offended by the truth Kerry spoke about this war are the ones who raped babies and are scared of being discovered--right now Bush is the war criminal murdering our soldiers in another Vietnam that HE started even tho he wasnt man enuf to go to nam when he was eligable--Bush is a international terrorist who destablizes the world and you defend his atrocities you hypocrite

"Raped babies," that's creative.. not even Kerry thought of that one. Still, Kerry considers himself a "war hero" even though he admitted to committing "atrocities." He's the hypocrite. You can't have it both ways. Now he laughs off the "atrocities" that made him famous for 'exposing,' though he never had any personal evidence. The guy's a con, plain and simple.

Kerry never admitted to any atrocities --its just that ugly things happen in all wars and kerry was being a peace hero in openly discussing them--if you republican armchair generals ever saw any combat at all youd see kerry was just being honest but youd all rather be war deserters judging the men who actually served and did their duty

the only nam vets who are offended by the truth Kerry spoke about this war are the ones who raped babies and are scared of being discovered--right now Bush is the war criminal murdering our soldiers in another Vietnam that HE started even tho he wasnt man enuf to go to nam when he was eligable--Bush is a international terrorist who destablizes the world and you defend his atrocities you hypocrite

Another Vietnam that Bush started? No, you are wrong. President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/libera.htm) that said that Saddam had to go soon.

Bill Clinton didn't have the cajones to do a thing except bomb a few buildings from 15'000 feet up in the air. President Bush finished the job of taking out Saddam.

Also, unless you've been under CNN's rock for the last few decades, we have a voluntary military system. No one is dragged into service anymore. Therefore people who sign up know the risks, if some chump thinks he's just there to pick up some college education without going to war, he's a fool.

Please quit being an ignorant fool and learn something before you make yourself look even dumber.

Bush is a international terrorist who destablizes the world
Yes, that same President Bush who has reduced tensions with Momar Quadaffi of Libya, taken out Saddam, killed or captured 3/4ths of Al Qaeida's troops... Yep, Bush sure is a bad guy... :roll:

Just because you'd rather see brown islamic people suffer under a dictator don't take out your temper tantrum on us.

-Free Virginia

it was Bushs father who armed Saddam the dictator with WMDs so get it right--this is all just blowback from the foreign policies of YOUR elk not mine

"Raped babies," that's creative.. not even Kerry thought of that one. Still, Kerry considers himself a "war hero" even though he admitted to committing "atrocities." He's the hypocrite. You can't have it both ways. Now he laughs off the "atrocities" that made him famous for 'exposing,' though he never had any personal evidence. The guy's a con, plain and simple.

Yes Kerry is a con artist. Thankfully the ABC News along with the rest of the media, outside of FNC, News Max and talk radio are finally putting the burn onto Kerry. It was about time.

Here's a simple question to Kerry supporters:
What accomplishments has John Kerry done in his time in the Senate? Can anyone here name a thing that he is famous for sponsoring?
Another fun exercise for Kerry supporters is to ask them why anyone should support Kerry. Answers like "he's not Bush" or "Kerry didn't start a war" aren't valid, push the Kerry supporter to give a positive John Kerry reason that doens't involve bashing President Bush.

That should leave them confused for hours! It worked when I did it to kids at my college in Virginia.

-Free Virginia

Kerry is no con artist at all--its you republican smear artists who are the ones who specialize in blood libel and character assassination crusades in an all out attempt to deceive the american public--america is onto your lies more then ever before now and your blackened forked tung will soon be pulled out by the roots