NationStates Jolt Archive

...the "candidate who has to Google his own name to find out where he stands" Waffling Flip-flopper who flat out lied in his hurried, rambling "rebuttal" speech/rant.

Kerry Fled

Taking up the "Fair and Balanced" mantle, are you, Bill?

if george flip flops dick beats his knuckles with a ruler and takes away his tv privileges

Where does Bush stand exactly?

"I will fight terror! God bless America!"

The man doesn't even speak unless it is authorized by Dick Cheney.

Sure, vote for Bush and continue the economic recession. At least Halliburton will get richer.

...not Bush.

That's good enough for most people.

i personally perfer a candidate who stands for nothing, they are less likely to cause real harm to the nation during their term.

If John flip-flops Tereasa slaps him on the hand and tells him to shove it or she's taking away his ketchup.

...the "candidate who has to Google his own name to find out where he stands" Waffling Flip-flopper who flat out lied in his hurried, rambling "rebuttal" speech/rant.

Kerry Fled

I shiver to respond to you..lol, but DO tell, what did Kerry lie about?

If John flip-flops Tereasa slaps him on the hand and tells him to shove it or she's taking away his ketchup.


but john likes it when she does that

Where does Bush stand exactly?

"I will fight terror! God bless America!"

Nono, there's more to it than that. It's"

"Terror terror terror! 9/11 9/11 9/11! America is in danger! So vote for everything I say or you are unpatriotic. We really are safer than ever but the only think I can talk about is still terror terror terror! 9/11 9/11 9/11!!!! God told me personally that he blesses America!!"

Was that a googlism? How uninventive...a googlism of "george bush" yields "george bush is a monkey" as well as "george bush is a fucking fascist donkey"...doesn't make either one true.

but john likes it when she does that
No wonder he keeps flip-flopping. :D

I shiver to respond to you..lol, but DO tell, what did Kerry lie about?
"For the past week, they attacked my patriotism and even my fitness to serve as commander in chief," Kerry said.

Not a single person attacked his patriotism, this is a lie, he is trying to demonize those who only point out his record, or lack of a record.

"For the past week, they attacked my patriotism and even my fitness to serve as commander in chief," Kerry said.

Not a single person attacked his patriotism, this is a lie, he is trying to demonize those who only point out his record, or lack of a record.

I've watched the convention for the past 4 days and they most certainly did. Not every speaker, no, but Cheney and Miller most certainly did.

This thread is not going to live very long. It just says something that many have already said in other threads which had decent arguments that could be debated.

This isn't even an argument. Its a statement. Why are we even bothering posting?

"We can't win the war on terror"-Interview

"We will win the war on terror"-Speech

"Gay marriage is a state issue"-Debate

"Gay marriage is a federal issue"-Political stance now

"We must control the deficit"-2000

"We must make our tax cuts permanent"-2004 (i.e. larger deficit)

"Bush has said he is opposed to abortion and would support a constitutional amendment making the procedure illegal - except in cases of rape, incest and when the woman’s life is jeopardy. But he also says Americans don’t support the measure, thus there is no need to pursue it. But he would not require his Supreme Court nominees to pass an anti-abortion ‘litmus test."

(Insert generic quote on evil abortion here)

Need I go on about who is the real flip-flopper?

I've watched the convention for the past 4 days and they most certainly did. Not every speaker, no, but Cheney and Miller most certainly did.
Source? Quote? I watched the convention, No one said he was not patriotic.

Im not a fan of kerry, in fact, he was tha last democrat I wanted to run. I wanted dean, kukinich, or...well...sharpton. Point is, hes not bush and hes not a skinhead,and if youre not those right now, you should be on the ballot.

...the "candidate who has to Google his own name to find out where he stands" Waffling Flip-flopper who flat out lied in his hurried, rambling "rebuttal" speech/rant.

Kerry Fled

All right. Kerry fled. He fled what exactly? I thought that it was "W" who went missing from duty for one year, not Kerry. Kerry actually went to war. Did "W"? I'll save you the trouble...he did not.

Also, Bush has to use "Google" just to figure out how to spell "W"!
"Is our children learning?"
(A direct quote from Bush in a speech to an educational group)

Maybe you call being open minded "waffling". I agree that Kerry is a bit loose on some decisions, but would Bush be willing to change his decision if he realized he was wrong?! Oh yeah.....he would never admit that he was wrong about anything. Damn terrorists.

R];-]

Source? Quote? I watched the convention, No one said he was not patriotic.

Actually Miller accused the whole democratic party of it. I'm off to bed, look up a transcript of Zell Miller's speech, it won't be hard to find.

Actually Miller accused the whole democratic party of it. I'm off to bed, look up a transcript of Zell Miller's speech, it won't be hard to find.
Swing and a miss, and you out. Run away. No one said it, you are a liar.

:rolleyes:

Don't worry Steph will put you in your place when she wakes up.

Sad part is you probably won't even notice.

:rolleyes:

Swing and a miss, and you out. Run away. No one said it, you are a liar.
"Senator Kerry denounces American action when other countries don't approve as if the whole object of our foreign policy were to please a few persistent critics." ---Cheney

"Now, while young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrat's manic obsession to bring down our Commander in Chief." ---Miller

"Motivated more by partisan politics than by national security, today's Democratic leaders see America as an occupier, not a liberator. And nothing makes this Marine madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators." ---Miller

"But don't waste your breath telling that to the leaders of my party today. In their warped way of thinking America is the problem, not the solution." ---Miller

"Senator Kerry has made it clear that he would use military force only if approved by the United Nations. Kerry would let Paris decide when America needs defending." ---Miller

"John Kerry, who says he doesn't like outsourcing, wants to outsource our national security." ---Miller

"From John Kerry, they get a 'yes-no-maybe' bowl of mush that can only encourage our enemies and confuse our friends." ---Miller




That should be sufficient evidence that Cheney and Miller portrayed the Democrats as unpatriotic. Now some evidence that Dick Cheney and Zel Miller either were lying or had no idea how the US Senate works. I'll guess the former. http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/weapons.asp

"...he then decided he was opposed to the war, and voted against funding for our men and women in the field. He voted against body armor, ammunition, fuel, spare parts, armored vehicles, extra pay for hardship duty, and support for military families." ---Cheney

"The B-1 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed..." ---Miller

"The B-2 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed..." ---Miller

"The F-14A Tomcats, that Senator Kerry opposed..." ---Miller

"The Apache helicopter, that Senator Kerry opposed..." ---Miller

"...against the Patriot Missile that shot down Saddam Hussein's scud missiles over Israel; against the Aegis air-defense cruiser; against the Strategic Defense Initiative; against the Trident missile;" ---Miller

"And nothing shows that more sadly and more clearly than his vote this year to deny protective armor for our troops in harms way, far away." ---Miller

...from Massachusetts, therefore inherently superior to people from the other 49 states.

Swing and a miss, and you out. Run away. No one said it, you are a liar.

Actually, Pantylvania just proved you wrong.

Now who's the liar? :p

Swing and a miss, and you out. Run away. No one said it, you are a liar.


Are you NUTS?

DID YOU HEAR THAT SPEECH?

That guy is insane!

He wanted to challenge Wolf Blitzer to a duel!

... presidential candidate for the DNC.

Swing and a miss, and you out. Run away. No one said it, you are a liar.

http://www.satanstephen.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Troll.jpg

That should be sufficient evidence that Cheney and Miller portrayed the Democrats as unpatriotic. Now some evidence that Dick Cheney and Zel Miller either were lying or had no idea how the US Senate works. I'll guess the former. http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/weapons.asp

"...he then decided he was opposed to the war, and voted against funding for our men and women in the field. He voted against body armor, ammunition, fuel, spare parts, armored vehicles, extra pay for hardship duty, and support for military families." ---Cheney

"The B-1 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed..." ---Miller

"The B-2 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed..." ---Miller

"The F-14A Tomcats, that Senator Kerry opposed..." ---Miller

"The Apache helicopter, that Senator Kerry opposed..." ---Miller

"...against the Patriot Missile that shot down Saddam Hussein's scud missiles over Israel; against the Aegis air-defense cruiser; against the Strategic Defense Initiative; against the Trident missile;" ---Miller

"And nothing shows that more sadly and more clearly than his vote this year to deny protective armor for our troops in harms way, far away." ---Miller
lets also not forget to note that as SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, cheny outright opposed the further funding for those same vehicles and weapons, in addition to the bradley fighting vehicle

I swear, FOB, shouldn't you go back to your trailer park now?

What the hell kind of thread is this meant to be anyway? Let's assume for the moment that you are even correct (kudos to Pantylvania for shooting him down), do you honestly want us to bring out some of the crap that GWB has said in his time?

...not Bush.

That's good enough for most people.

However, this is a bad way to vote!

Someone on here pointed out the recession! However, this too is inaccurate since the recession is over. As for the Economy and the Federal Budget, Kerry's plans would INCREASE IT over 5 Years!

Actually Miller accused the whole democratic party of it. I'm off to bed, look up a transcript of Zell Miller's speech, it won't be hard to find.

Actually Steph, You'll find that anywhere when the democratic Party gets attacked on National Security and Defense Issues in the Senate. Kerry does have a very bad record on the 2 but I don't recall him labeling anyone unpatriotic.

I've heard the speech and read the speech. Not once did he attack the patriotism of his fellow democrats. I think you need to get your head out of the sand and see that.

"Senator Kerry denounces American action when other countries don't approve as if the whole object of our foreign policy were to please a few persistent critics." ---Cheney

This does not label anyone as Unpatriotic to his country. Just soft on Defense and National Security! Strike one!

"Now, while young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrat's manic obsession to bring down our Commander in Chief." ---Miller

Same as above. The dems have bashed Bush but when someone bashes either Kerry or the Democratic Party, they say they are questioning our patriotism. Stop spouting the party line. This is not questioning anyone's Patriotism.

"Motivatedmore by partisan politics than by national security, today's Democratic leaders see America as an occupier, not a liberator. And nothing makes this Marine madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators." ---Miller

I've heard a couple of dems say this and that really does make marines mad. This line is actually accurate but again, does not question anyone's patriotism.

"But don't waste your breath telling that to the leaders of my party today. In their warped way of thinking America is the problem, not the solution." ---Miller

Again accurate. The Dems wants the UN to decide everything. Not the President or the halls of Congress. This does not really question their patriotism. This questions where their brains are and what they believe in. I guess you really do buy the party line that you can bash Bush and Reps but when they Bash Back, they are questioning your patriotism.

"Senator Kerry has made it clear that he would use military force only if approved by the United Nations. Kerry would let Paris decide when America needs defending." ---Miller

Again Accurate. Look at the speech Kerry gave on this. He stated something along the lines of that unless we have our allies with us, I won't wage war. In Other words, if France or Germany Object, we'll do nothing because the UN will not give us permission. Guess what, we don't need the UN to tell us when we can and can't go to war. That is Congress's Job.

"John Kerry, who says he doesn't like outsourcing, wants to outsource our national security." ---Miller

In other words, let the UN dictate when we go to war. Not questioning Patriotism

"From John Kerry, they get a 'yes-no-maybe' bowl of mush that can only encourage our enemies and confuse our friends." ---Miller

He has flipped-flopped alot on the issues. Most notably Iraq (Yes, No, Yes, No) and Intellegience (wanted to cut 6 billion from intel but was defeated then said he would implement all the changes in the 9/11 commission report, Bush is doing that now)!


That should be sufficient evidence that Cheney and Miller portrayed the Democrats as unpatriotic. Now some evidence that Dick Cheney and Zel Miller either were lying or had no idea how the US Senate works. I'll guess the former. http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/weapons.asp

I believe my posts on your quotes will go over your head or you just won't believe them. However, if you look at what Kerry has done, he has missed like 75% of his Intel meetings, Tried to cut the Intellegence Budgets, Voted against the Trident, F-14s, Aegis, etc etc etc. They have NOT QUESTIONED Kerry's Patriotism. This is infact a lie perpetuated by the Democratic Party.

"...he then decided he was opposed to the war, and voted against funding for our men and women in the field. He voted against body armor, ammunition, fuel, spare parts, armored vehicles, extra pay for hardship duty, and support for military families." ---Cheney

That is precisely what Kerry did. I can see where your getting that he is questioning his patriotism but when infact, he is targeting Kerry's Senate Record. Nice try.

"The B-1 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed..." ---Miller

Accureate. Attacking your opponet's senate record is perfectly legit and is not questioning Patriotism

"The B-2 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed..." ---Miller

He did, Attack on sen. Rec. not patriotism

"The F-14A Tomcats, that Senator Kerry opposed..." ---Miller

Attack on his Senate Record, not patriotism

"The Apache helicopter, that Senator Kerry opposed..." ---Miller

Attack on record, not Patriotism

"...against the Patriot Missile that shot down Saddam Hussein's scud missiles over Israel; against the Aegis air-defense cruiser; against the Strategic Defense Initiative; against the Trident missile;" ---Miller

Attacks on Kerry voting record and not his patriotism. I guess you do think that when the Dems are attack on defense you think it is an attack on their Patriotism.

"And nothing shows that more sadly and more clearly than his vote this year to deny protective armor for our troops in harms way, far away." ---Miller

This is another attack on his senate Record. That is all what they did. they did not question his patriotism but where he stood on Defense. It was an attack on Kerry's Senate Record, Nothing more nothing less

Now I'm off to my Class and I won't be able to post till after 1:00!

some one that has lied about his record, lied about his Vietnam record, going to raise taxes, demolish our military, make our troops fight battles at the behest of the UN or Paris. Need I list more.

http://www.satanstephen.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Troll.jpg

Now don't be insulting trolls like that! ;)

Now don't be insulting trolls like that! ;)
i need to make a picture of a troll at a computer -_-

i find it hilarious how Liberals thinks it's ok to bash Bush and conservatives and that they are justified in thier bashing and insulting but yet when conservatives strike back and bash them, they are up in arms and say how it's wrong for us to strike back at them and how we're always wrong.

They remind me of little babies or some spoiled brat that thinks he can steal stuff from kids but yet when the kids steal soemthign from him, he goes crying to mommy.

What I found amusing was watching CNN and seeing a clip of GWB on there giving his great "The world is a safer place thanks to us" drivel while at the bottom of the screen it said "Russian school taken hostage by terrorists", "Two Russian planes blown up by terrorists" etc etc ...

I thought that maybe CNN was just being nutty, so I flipped over to Fox News and *bingo* same thing. Bush saying how the world was a safer place, but the scroll on the bottom of the screen kept going on about terrorist attacks and such.

Now .... explain to me how Bush is just being mislead about the world being a safer place ... go ahead ... we all know Bush is a godly saint who would never do or say anything wrong or lie about anything unless he was mislead ...

Or maybe there are no TVs in the White House ...

*shrug*

Bush. Must. Go.

Wow. I can feel the constructive energy flowing in here...no, wait. That's just the contact buzz from all the doobie-smoke in here.

I think this whole debate is fairly fruitless as there will doubtlessly not be one opinion changed, just a spin-centered exchange of rants.

Even steph has gotten involved....oh wait. She's always been involved in things like that.

stuufs gonna happen no matter what. That Russian thing that heppened with the kids is sad yes but it was out of our control. Things will happen, even if we do keep on fighting. I think we can win against the war on terror but the world will always be dangerous.

Even if Kerry does become president, those things will happen and it's beyond our control for the most part in happening.

Will you say the same thing when such a crisis comes up if Kerry is elected president yet he won't do anything about it. Keruvalia??

I have a firm believe that if such a crisis or even worse pokes its ugly head as Kerry is president, he won't do a thing to jelp it or try to make it less worse and if he does, he will only make it worst.

some one that has lied about his record, lied about his Vietnam record, going to raise taxes, demolish our military, make our troops fight battles at the behest of the UN or Paris. Need I list more.

How about using the truth supported by FACTS....not just Bush rhetoric.

How about using the truth supported by FACTS....not just Bush rhetoric.

Or Kerry's rhetoric!

Or Kerry's rhetoric!

Ja! Or no rhetoric at all! ;-)

Oh, come in will you, guys! There's only one solution for this!

Vote Powerhungry Chipmunks for President!

you know you want to...

everyone's doing it...

if you really loved me...er...nevermind.

Ja! Or no rhetoric at all! ;-)

LOL :D

John Kerry is...

A liberal bastard who will get votes taken away from him by an even bigger liberal bastard and lose the election.

Oh, come in will you, guys! There's only one solution for this!

Vote Powerhungry Chipmunks for President!

you know you want to...

everyone's doing it...

if you really loved me...er...nevermind.

I still think Frodo (no not elijah wood) would make a good president..but powerhungry chipmunks so better then the current canidates.

Actually Miller accused the whole democratic party of it. I'm off to bed, look up a transcript of Zell Miller's speech, it won't be hard to find.

The transcript: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/01/gop.miller.transcript/index.html

The transcript: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/01/gop.miller.transcript/index.html

Thank you.

Now if people can't find in that speech how on many levels Miller called not only Kerry unpatriotic, but also the whole Democratic party, then they need glasses!

Thank you.

Now if people can't find in that speech how on many levels Miller called not only Kerry unpatriotic, but also the whole Democratic party, then they need glasses!

Steph, did you not read one person's post with exerpts from Cheney's and Millers speech? I guess not because I responded to that post.

They never called him on patriotic but slambasted his voting record. How is that questioning his patriotism? Anyway's Cheney actualy praised Kerry on his service in Vietnam but I guess you missed that line.

Steph, did you not read one person's post with exerpts from Cheney's and Millers speech? I guess not because I responded to that post.

They never called him on patriotic but slambasted his voting record. How is that questioning his patriotism? Anyway's Cheney actualy praised Kerry on his service in Vietnam but I guess you missed that line.

Yes I did read it and again.. excuses.. of course that is what Miller was saying, what do you think he was implying? See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil huh Corneliu.. shall I take you to get that pair of glasses?

Yes I did read it and again.. excuses.. of course that is what Miller was saying, what do you think he was implying? See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil huh Corneliu.. shall I take you to get that pair of glasses?

Excuses my ass. Your just mad because I am right. All of those so called attacks on his patriotism is an attack on his voting record. You would do the same if the roles where reversed. Since when is attacking a person's voting record an attack on someone's patriotism?

As for glasses, I have them. I can read just find but I think your the one that needs glasses. Shall I take you to get that pair of Glasses?

Excuses my ass. Your just mad because I am right.

Hahaha, yeah, Zeppistan has proven just how right you can be huh Corneliu..LOL Every time you and Zeppistan get into it he PWNS your ass and proves you are WRONG! and you still don't usually admit it. Thus, I'm not all that surprised you got your blinders on for this one too! :D

Hahaha, yeah, Zeppistan has proven just how right you can be huh Corneliu..LOL Every time you and Zeppistan get into it he PWNS your ass and proves you are WRONG! and you still don't usually admit it. Thus, I'm not all that surprised you got your blinders on for this one too! :D

In this case though, I am right. Everything they hammered on Kerry WAS HIS VOTING RECORD! His Voting Record is Fair Game Steph. As for blinders, I think your the one that is blind. Your blind loyality to Kerry and your blind hatred for Bush has clouded your mind.

Will you say the same thing when such a crisis comes up if Kerry is elected president yet he won't do anything about it. Keruvalia??


If Kerry gets elected and he stands up on camera and bold faced *lies* about the world being a safer place when it is clearly not a safer place, then yes ... I will say the same thing.

My point was that every time Bush says the world is a safer place, the world proves him a liar.

In this case though, I am right.

You say that every time and you're usually wrong as Zeppistan proves on a regular basis. Any way, I'm done have fun. :rolleyes:

You say that every time and you're usually wrong as Zeppistan proves on a regular basis. Any way, I'm done have fun. :rolleyes:

I will because I know that what they attacked was not his patriotism but his voting record. Have fun with your dilusions.

In this case though, I am right. Everything they hammered on Kerry WAS HIS VOTING RECORD! His Voting Record is Fair Game Steph. As for blinders, I think your the one that is blind. Your blind loyality to Kerry and your blind hatred for Bush has clouded your mind.
Just because they never say anything about his patriotism doesn't mean theres a connection. Bush has repeatedly confirmed the fact that supporting the War in Iraq is being patriotic. Refer to my little chart for details.

1. 9/11 happens.
2. Bush says that we must band together to eliminate the terrorist threat. (thereby labeling anyone who does not support the War on Terror against America)
3. We go after Osama.
4. We can't find Osama.
5. Bush works a little magic and makes Osama=Saddam (something like "You can't distinguish between people like Saddam and Osama").
6. We go after Saddam.
7. Democrats disagree with War in Iraq.
8. Through this twisted logic, Democrats are unpatriotic.
(If you don't want to go after Saddam, you don't want to go after Osama, therefore you haven't joined together to suppost America, therfore you're unatriotic.)

Well, as a roundabout way of saying it, just because you don't say something doesn't mean you don't imply it.

Just because they never say anything about his patriotism doesn't mean theres a connection.

Since when is attacking a voting record unpatriotic? I wish someone will answer this for me.

Bush has repeatedly confirmed the fact that supporting the War in Iraq is being patriotic.

Source Please. I've seen everyone of his speeches and not a one does he say that.

Refer to my little chart for details.

1. 9/11 happens.
2. Bush says that we must band together to eliminate the terrorist threat. (thereby labeling anyone who does not support the War on Terror against America)
3. We go after Osama.
4. We can't find Osama.
5. Bush works a little magic and makes Osama=Saddam (something like "You can't distinguish between people like Saddam and Osama").
6. We go after Saddam.
7. Democrats disagree with War in Iraq.
8. Through this twisted logic, Democrats are unpatriotic.
(If you don't want to go after Saddam, you don't want to go after Osama, therefore you haven't joined together to suppost America, therfore you're unatriotic.)

U are not making any sense. None whatsoever.

Well, as a roundabout way of saying it, just because you don't say something doesn't mean you don't imply it.

Now this means something. However, your wrong. You can find implied statements if you look hard enough. In this case though, all they did was attack his voting record. How is questioning your opponet's voting record questioning the said opponet's patriotism?

How about using the truth supported by FACTS....not just Bush rhetoric.
Truth and Facts? What a novel idea!!

Truth and Facts? Isn't that a Republican oxymoron?

Truth and Facts? What a novel idea!!

Truth and Facts? Isn't that a Republican oxymoron?

Could say the samething for Democrats. Besides, don't all politicians lie anyway?

In this case though, I am right. Everything they hammered on Kerry WAS HIS VOTING RECORD! His Voting Record is Fair Game Steph. As for blinders, I think your the one that is blind. Your blind loyality to Kerry and your blind hatred for Bush has clouded your mind.
*CanuckHeaven* hands Steph some BS repellant. :D

Could say the samething for Democrats. Besides, don't all politicians lie anyway?
Bush has refined into a fine art, starting with the reasons to invade Iraq. Bush's approval rating after 9/11 was around 90%, and now he scrapes along near 50%. Is it because he is such a truthful kinda guy?

*CanuckHeaven* hands Steph some BS repellant. :D

Canadians have no say as to who is elected. However I respect ALL Opinions when they are thoughtfully given. When people blindly follow one person because he isn't someone and not based on what the person stands for is bad policy and backfires.

3-1 Bush gets re-elected!

Oh and btw CH! Do you know the difference between questioning someone's voting record and questioning one's patriotism?

Canadians have no say as to who is elected. No Canadians do not have a say, but nonetheless are VERY concerned about the direction that Bush is taking America (slippery slope comes to mind).

However I respect ALL Opinions when they are thoughtfully given. When people blindly follow one person
Just like you blindly follow Bush?

3-1 Bush gets re-elected!
Now that would be a shame. It might cost you your life? You did say you are willing to die for your country? I think Bush will give you every opportunity to do so.

Oh and btw CH! Do you know the difference between questioning someone's voting record and questioning one's patriotism?
It appears that from the quotes posted by Pantylvania, that they did indeed question the Democrats committment to their country. That is what my take is on the matter.

It looks like the choice in America is this:

Vote for the candidate who joined the naval reserve when his draft deferment was declined, who when he came off of active duty failed to show up for 2 years of mandatory Naval Reserve Drills

Or vote for the Air National Guard pilot who showed up for all of his drills. Reserves are Reserves you make the choice.

...the "candidate who has to Google his own name to find out where he stands" Waffling Flip-flopper who flat out lied in his hurried, rambling "rebuttal" speech/rant.

Kerry Fled
Bill! I love you man, your like the conservative TRA. I think we need someone to represent us, and your the man.

However, if you look at what Kerry has done, he has missed like 75% of his Intel meetings, Tried to cut the Intellegence Budgets, Voted against the Trident, F-14s, Aegis, etc etc etc. They have NOT QUESTIONED Kerry's Patriotism. This is infact a lie perpetuated by the Democratic Party.

That is precisely what Kerry did. I can see where your getting that he is questioning his patriotism but when infact, he is targeting Kerry's Senate Record. Nice try.

Accureate. Attacking your opponet's senate record is perfectly legit and is not questioning Patriotism

He did, Attack on sen. Rec. not patriotism

Attack on his Senate Record, not patriotism

Attack on record, not Patriotism

Attacks on Kerry voting record and not his patriotism. I guess you do think that when the Dems are attack on defense you think it is an attack on their Patriotism.

This is another attack on his senate Record. That is all what they did. they did not question his patriotism but where he stood on Defense. It was an attack on Kerry's Senate Record, Nothing more nothing lessI will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you didn't read the Snopes article, don't know how the US Senate works, and weren't lying. Here it is. http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/weapons.asp Unless you can provide some evidence that the Snopes article is wrong, it's time for you to give up on this BS about them merely attacking Kerry's record.

And unless you can provide us with the part of John Kerry's campaign platform or the part of a John Kerry speech that says the US should let the UN decide when the US should defend itself, it's time for you to give up on that other BS the Republicans have been spewing since March

"Senator Kerry denounces American action when other countries don't approve as if the whole object of our foreign policy were to please a few persistent critics." ---Cheney

"Now, while young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrat's manic obsession to bring down our Commander in Chief." ---Miller

"Motivated more by partisan politics than by national security, today's Democratic leaders see America as an occupier, not a liberator. And nothing makes this Marine madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators." ---Miller

"But don't waste your breath telling that to the leaders of my party today. In their warped way of thinking America is the problem, not the solution." ---Miller

"Senator Kerry has made it clear that he would use military force only if approved by the United Nations. Kerry would let Paris decide when America needs defending." ---Miller

"John Kerry, who says he doesn't like outsourcing, wants to outsource our national security." ---Miller

"From John Kerry, they get a 'yes-no-maybe' bowl of mush that can only encourage our enemies and confuse our friends." ---Miller




That should be sufficient evidence that Cheney and Miller portrayed the Democrats as unpatriotic. Now some evidence that Dick Cheney and Zel Miller either were lying or had no idea how the US Senate works. I'll guess the former. http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/weapons.asp

"...he then decided he was opposed to the war, and voted against funding for our men and women in the field. He voted against body armor, ammunition, fuel, spare parts, armored vehicles, extra pay for hardship duty, and support for military families." ---Cheney

"The B-1 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed..." ---Miller

"The B-2 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed..." ---Miller

"The F-14A Tomcats, that Senator Kerry opposed..." ---Miller

"The Apache helicopter, that Senator Kerry opposed..." ---Miller

"...against the Patriot Missile that shot down Saddam Hussein's scud missiles over Israel; against the Aegis air-defense cruiser; against the Strategic Defense Initiative; against the Trident missile;" ---Miller

"And nothing shows that more sadly and more clearly than his vote this year to deny protective armor for our troops in harms way, far away." ---Miller
Wow, This is complete farce, isnt it. All those quotes, not a single one mention kerry's patriotism.


Actually, Pantylvania just proved you wrong.

Now who's the liar? :p
Well, as evidenced by your intereptation of the above, you are the liar.


I swear, FOB, shouldn't you go back to your trailer park now? If I go to the trailer park I am just going to see you in your mullet and cut off shirt, your cousin lusting for me in her neon hot pants, and your illegitimate chillins running around with no shoes on.

Actually Steph, You'll find that anywhere when the democratic Party gets attacked on National Security and Defense Issues in the Senate. Kerry does have a very bad record on the 2 but I don't recall him labeling anyone unpatriotic.

I've heard the speech and read the speech. Not once did he attack the patriotism of his fellow democrats. I think you need to get your head out of the sand and see that.
Apparently, pointing out kerry's shabby record is attacking his patriotism. This only points out the fact that his love for his country leaves something to be desired.

Thank you.

Now if people can't find in that speech how on many levels Miller called not only Kerry unpatriotic, but also the whole Democratic party, then they need glasses!
Just goes to show you what the left will see when attacked on their record. Conservative-"You, lefty, voted against the supplying of troops" Liberal-"Well, you are attacking my patriotism. BUUHUUUUHUUUU, Mommy!!"

Hahaha, yeah, Zeppistan has proven just how right you can be huh Corneliu..LOL Every time you and Zeppistan get into it he PWNS your ass and proves you are WRONG! and you still don't usually admit it. Thus, I'm not all that surprised you got your blinders on for this one too! :DThis is just sad. Can't the two of you back yourselves up? Why are you always propping each other up as the model of discourse on this site? The fact that you two need to point that out to others is almost as sad as Incertonia constantly saying how much smarter he is than others.

Kerry Fled

then he came back to America and killed thousands of soldiers.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you didn't read the Snopes article, don't know how the US Senate works, and weren't lying. Here it is. http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/weapons.asp Unless you can provide some evidence that the Snopes article is wrong, it's time for you to give up on this BS about them merely attacking Kerry's record.

Ive read it but you know what, Senate Records don't lie!

And unless you can provide us with the part of John Kerry's campaign platform or the part of a John Kerry speech that says the US should let the UN decide when the US should defend itself, it's time for you to give up on that other BS the Republicans have been spewing since March

How about not going into combat unless our allies are with us? Which allies is he talking about? France and Germany. Our allies are with us but these 2. He also said that he wouldn't go to war unless he had the backing of the UN

http://news.bostonherald.com/opinion/view.bg?articleid=3845&format=

``I will immediately reach out to other nations in a very different way from this administration,'' he said Sunday on NBC's ``Meet the Press.'' ``I will return to the U.N. and I will literally, formally rejoin the community of nations and turn over a proud new chapter in America's relationship with the world.''

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/bayefsky200405030950.asp

He announced that the U.N. must "provide the necessary legitimacy" for the successful prosecution of the war against terrorism on the Iraqi frontlines and the ultimate transformation of Iraq. According to Kerry, the U.N. "is the key that opens the door."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37068

an old interview surfaced regarding something on UN controling our forces in Vietnam!

This guy wants the UN to run the world.

“I PLEDGE to you, on your behalf and on behalf of the other 96% of humanity, that within weeks of being elected I will return to the United Nations, and not only rejoin the community of nations but also turn over a proud new chapter in America's relationship with the world.”

This should suffice for now!

It has become painfully obvious that no matter where you stand, you wont believe whatever the other side says.

When presented with "facts" most of the time you hear "that source is biased", like any source now adays aren't biased.

When Steph (who is normally a very well spoken, and well informed debator) was presented with an argument and questions about how Millers speech was attacking Kerry's patriotism, her response was "Oooh Zeppistan pwns you" as if she were some 13 year old boy powergamer.

When someone else whos name escapes me at the moment, also normally a well spoken and well informed debator but on the otherside of the fence is presented with "attacks" on his arguement he becomes enraged to the point he get's himself banned.

Perhaps we should all take a deep breath before responding, and open our minds to actually concider our opponents views before we "tear them apart"

"I will immediately reach out to other nations in a very different way from this administration,'' he said Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press.'' "I will return to the U.N. and I will literally, formally rejoin the community of nations and turn over a proud new chapter in America's relationship with the world.''
"He announced that the U.N. must "provide the necessary legitimacy" for the successful prosecution of the war against terrorism on the Iraqi frontlines and the ultimate transformation of Iraq. According to Kerry, the U.N. "is the key that opens the door."
"I PLEDGE to you, on your behalf and on behalf of the other 96% of humanity, that within weeks of being elected I will return to the United Nations, and not only rejoin the community of nations but also turn over a proud new chapter in America's relationship with the world."
nothing about the UN deciding when the US can defend itself, despite what Bush would have us believe

nothing about the UN deciding when the US can defend itself, despite what Bush would have us believe
http://www.usasurvival.org/ck021204.shtml

Research, my man, it only takes a second.

http://www.usasurvival.org/ck021204.shtml

Research, my man, it only takes a second.
Ummm that is based on an article that is 34 years old. Anything more recent?

Ummm that is based on an article that is 34 years old. Anything more recent?

Ummm... wait.. I thought that Kerry was the one running on what he did and said 34 years ago. Isnt that why he keeps bringing it up?

Ummm... wait.. I thought that Kerry was the one running on what he did and said 34 years ago. Isnt that why he keeps bringing it up?

You are Correct TheOneRule.

<clap clap>

Kerry has stated this in those articles:

"I will immediately reach out to other nations in a very different way from this administration"

"I will return to the U.N. and I will literally, formally rejoin the community of nations and turn over a proud new chapter in America's relationship with the world

What is wrong with that? That is what the UN is for, that is what partnerships are all about?

Meanwhile, Bush is running around, alienating people and attacking the wrong enemies, at great cost of lives, at great risk of increasing terrorism, and at great cost to the American economy. Bush is a loose cannon and God knows where he will strike next?

BTW, nowhere in those comments did Kerry suggest that he would let the UN dictate foreign policy to the US.

Kerry has stated this in those articles:

"I will immediately reach out to other nations in a very different way from this administration"

"I will return to the U.N. and I will literally, formally rejoin the community of nations and turn over a proud new chapter in America's relationship with the world

What is wrong with that? That is what the UN is for, that is what partnerships are all about?

It implies that we'll do crap unless the UN is involved. If we are attacked, he better strike back with or without the UN. If he waits to long waiting on the UN, the People won't tolerate it. That is why people say he'll outsource our National Security. He'll wait on the UN before doing anything.

Try going to google.com and typing in MISERABLE FAILURE and search. What's the first link that comes up? Heh.

It implies that we'll do crap unless the UN is involved. If we are attacked, he better strike back with or without the UN. If he waits to long waiting on the UN, the People won't tolerate it. That is why people say he'll outsource our National Security. He'll wait on the UN before doing anything.
All you are doing is speculating. Did Kerry say that he would not retaliate if the US was attacked? No!!

You are reading far too much into his committment to a renewed relationship with the UN.

BTW, I doubt very much that Kerry would sit in a classroom of young school children while his country was being attacked like your current President did.

I find that extremely unbelieveable, and very indecisive.

Try going to google.com and typing in MISERABLE FAILURE and search. What's the first link that comes up? Heh.
George W Bush - Followed by Jimmy Carter and Michael Moore though.

Try going to google.com and typing in MISERABLE FAILURE and search. What's the first link that comes up? Heh.
Well, I can't disagree with that. :D

Also the 3rd link is to the Michael Moore web site which links to "facts" from Fahrenheit 911, that are confirmed by the 911 Commission. :eek:

Good find Bailin^^

Well, I can't disagree with that. :D

Also the 3rd link is to the Michael Moore web site which links to "facts" from Fahrenheit 911, that are confirmed by the 911 Commission. :eek:

Good find Bailin^^

Last time I checked, the 9/11 commission report debunked the movie. And Yes, I've read the 9/11 commission report!

All you are doing is speculating. Did Kerry say that he would not retaliate if the US was attacked? No!!

Did he say he will when attacked? only if he has our allies with us. That is what he said. Does that mean, we have to wait on France and Germany? What if they say no?

You are reading far too much into his committment to a renewed relationship with the UN.

I think we need to sever ties with the UN. Its worthless and doesn't stop anything. If we get to close to the UN, it'll risk our national security and our soveriegnty.

BTW, I doubt very much that Kerry would sit in a classroom of young school children while his country was being attacked like your current President did.

BTW, Kerry spent FOURTY MINUTES with Daschel and Boxer at a Senate office building then leaving when the Pentagon got hit. As for staying in a class room, read the 9/11 commission report on it. Unfortunately, I left it at home so I can't quote it.

I find that extremely unbelieveable, and very indecisive.

I find that you don't like to look at facts when it stares you in the face.

Did he say he will when attacked? only if he has our allies with us. That is what he said. Does that mean, we have to wait on France and Germany? What if they say no?
Where does it mention that Kerry would "wait" if the US was attacked?

I think we need to sever ties with the UN. Its worthless and doesn't stop anything. If we get to close to the UN, it'll risk our national security and our soveriegnty.
That would be an even bigger mistake, not only for the US but for the world. Perhaps you need to read the history behind the League of Nations and the United Nations, and why they were formed?
BTW, Kerry spent FOURTY MINUTES with Daschel and Boxer at a Senate office building then leaving when the Pentagon got hit.
What has that got to do with the Commander in Chief? Quit trying to deflect the wrongdoings/inaction of your President on September 11.
As for staying in a class room, read the 9/11 commission report on it. Unfortunately, I left it at home so I can't quote it.
I will wait for you to post it.
I find that you don't like to look at facts when it stares you in the face.
I see the facts and understand them. It is you who is trying to put your interpretation on them?

Where does it mention that Kerry would "wait" if the US was attacked?

He said he would only go if he had the backing of our allies. What if France and Germany oppose what Kerry wants to do. Whould he attack anyway? No he will not

That would be an even bigger mistake, not only for the US but for the world. Perhaps you need to read the history behind the League of Nations and the United Nations, and why they were formed?

US DID NOT ratify the League of Nations. The League of Nations was a paper Tiger. When challenged, they went to appeasement. Germany Challenged the LoN and the LoN did crap to stop them. The UN did not follow through on UN Resolutions except with more UN resolutions. Resolutions are meaningless and they only HURT the citizens and not the government. Read up on the History fo the League of Nations and see exactly what they accomplished. They accomplished Nothing and WWII was the result.

What has that got to do with the Commander in Chief? Quit trying to deflect the wrongdoings/inaction of your President on September 11.

What does staying in a class room for 5-7 minutes have to do with being a Commander and Chief? Nothing. There really wasn't much he could do at the moment. He had no idea what was going on just like the rest of us. I'm not trying to deflect anything. You are though. 5-7 minutes in a classroom compared to being in an office building for 40 minutes. Besides this is a mute point anyway.

I will wait for you to post it.

Wait on what? Oh the 9/11 commission report on Bush and the classroom? I said I left it at home.

I see the facts and understand them. It is you who is trying to put your interpretation on them?

I don't think you totally understand them. I'm the one that is trying to put my interpretation on them? You are too dude. It goes both ways. You have yours and I have mine.

Wow, This is complete farce, isnt it. All those quotes, not a single one mention kerry's patriotism.



Well, as evidenced by your intereptation of the above, you are the liar.


If I go to the trailer park I am just going to see you in your mullet and cut off shirt, your cousin lusting for me in her neon hot pants, and your illegitimate chillins running around with no shoes on.


Apparently, pointing out kerry's shabby record is attacking his patriotism. This only points out the fact that his love for his country leaves something to be desired.


Just goes to show you what the left will see when attacked on their record. Conservative-"You, lefty, voted against the supplying of troops" Liberal-"Well, you are attacking my patriotism. BUUHUUUUHUUUU, Mommy!!"

This is just sad. Can't the two of you back yourselves up? Why are you always propping each other up as the model of discourse on this site? The fact that you two need to point that out to others is almost as sad as Incertonia constantly saying how much smarter he is than others.

Kerry Fled

then he came back to America and killed thousands of soldiers.
Kerry did'nt flee and he never killed any soldiers after Vietnam. I think you are thinking of Bush.

some day Canada is gonna attack the US and we're gonna put them in there place ;)

He said he would only go if he had the backing of our allies. What if France and Germany oppose what Kerry wants to do. Whould he attack anyway? No he will not
I don't care if you cut and paste, but show me where he said anything like you are suggesting. You are reading your own words into his quote. Why are you doing that? Don't forget to supply the applicable link.
US DID NOT ratify the League of Nations. The League of Nations was a paper Tiger. When challenged, they went to appeasement. Germany Challenged the LoN and the LoN did crap to stop them. The UN did not follow through on UN Resolutions except with more UN resolutions. Resolutions are meaningless and they only HURT the citizens and not the government. Read up on the History fo the League of Nations and see exactly what they accomplished. They accomplished Nothing and WWII was the result.You have missed the point of the exercize. The world was trying to establish tools to prevent another World War. The League obviously failed. However, the UN has been the chamber of second sober thought as it should be and yes the US is a Charter member and that agreement is supported by the US Constitution.
What does staying in a class room for 5-7 minutes have to do with being a Commander and Chief? Nothing.
Many people will suggest that this clearly demonstrates Bush's inability as an effective leader.

There really wasn't much he could do at the moment. He had no idea what was going on just like the rest of us.
"HE HAD NO IDEA WHAT WAS GOING ON"? And you are okay with that? He took NO action. What if there were going to be another 10 or 15 jets flying into buildings while he is sitting there? What if they were going to fly a plane into that very schoolroom while he was sitting there? Talk about reckless endangerment? He was endangering those children while he sat there?
I'm not trying to deflect anything. You are though. 5-7 minutes in a classroom compared to being in an office building for 40 minutes. Besides this is a mute point anyway.
Again, what does John Kerry have to do with Bush's INACTION? Nada!!
Wait on what? Oh the 9/11 commission report on Bush and the classroom? I said I left it at home.
Yeah the 911 Commission's relevance to this point about Bush in the classroom.
I don't think you totally understand them. I'm the one that is trying to put my interpretation on them? You are too dude. It goes both ways. You have yours and I have mine.
I am responding to your innuendos, and asking you to supply facts rather than fiction.

Kerry did'nt flee and he never killed any soldiers after Vietnam. I think you are thinking of Bush.

North Vietnamese used Kerry's Testimony on our POWs! They say this is proof of war crimes. However, even Kerry has backed down on the War Crimes thing. What Kerry said was used as propaganda against us and for their cause so yea, you can make a case that he was indirectly responsible for the deaths of soldiers.

Again, what does John Kerry have to do with Bush's INACTION? Nada!!.
yeah wth does kerry's, a senator, staying in a building have to do with the president sitting on his ass?

North Vietnamese used Kerry's Testimony on our POWs! They say this is proof of war crimes. However, even Kerry has backed down on the War Crimes thing. What Kerry said was used as propaganda against us and for their cause so yea, you can make a case that he was indirectly responsible for the deaths of soldiers.
First, Kerry wasn't lying. Many Vets did do bad things.
second, Kerry didn't intend for that to happen so he can't be called a traitor or treason, its the rules of the law that you must intend for those actions.
Third, the North Viets were right! America did do war crimes, a couple soldiers were punished for their crimes by our govt. Not all though because its more the leaders than the soldiers who are at fault. If the soldiers were following orders then the orders are the problem.
I'm sorry that you hate the truth so much that you must blame Kerry but hey the truth will set you free, try it sometime.

I don't care if you cut and paste, but show me where he said anything like you are suggesting. You are reading your own words into his quote. Why are you doing that? Don't forget to supply the applicable link.

I'm going by WHAT HE SAID! We need to have our allies with us. That is what he has said. But what if our allies say no. Will he go without them? No I don't think he will. He says that the UN should be involved in everything we do. Why? What if the UN won't go along with what is right? Will he do what is right anyway? Nope sorr. not likely. At least Bush has the balls to use our sovereignty to buck the UN and he sticks to his guns.

You have missed the point of the exercize. The world was trying to establish tools to prevent another World War. The League obviously failed. However, the UN has been the chamber of second sober thought as it should be and yes the US is a Charter member and that agreement is supported by the US Constitution.


I didn't know this was an exercise. The League failed because it didn't have the backbone to back up anything. Much like the Current UN. Sanctions run amuck. Even the League used sanctions but didn't back up the threats. History repeats itself. The UN didn't win the Korean war. Its still going on. Technically USA and S. Korea is still at war with N. Korea. We should end that once and for all. UN Failed in Iraq. Should've ended it in 1991. Then Hussein bucked the Resolutions, as did France and Russia and Germany. The UN did nothing. History is repeating itself and I fear we'll have a massive Global Conflict outside of the War on Terror if the UN doesn't develope a spine.

Many people will suggest that this clearly demonstrates Bush's inability as an effective leader.

And if you bothered to listen to his speeches, one at the School, one at Barksdale AFB, the one at Offut AFB and the one at the White House, He showed himself to be a leader. This blows that right out of the water.

"HE HAD NO IDEA WHAT WAS GOING ON"? And you are okay with that? He took NO action. What if there were going to be another 10 or 15 jets flying into buildings while he is sitting there? What if they were going to fly a plane into that very schoolroom while he was sitting there? Talk about reckless endangerment? He was endangering those children while he sat there?

All he knew was that 2 planes hit the WTC. Enroute to Barksdale, he got information as to what is going on. He then notified his NS Staff and tried to figure out who was behind it. They suspected it was Al-Qaeda from the start. As for the Jets, there was more than 4 planes that was going to be used but thanks to the FAA closing down the airspace THROUGHOUT the USA, those plans were not carried out.

Now on to the second part! What if a plane hit the senate building that Kerry was in? No more John Kerry! He endangered himself, and several other Senators that were in the Office Building. There would be no more Senators, Daschel, Kerry, Boxer and whoever else was in that building. You can turn this issue on its ear CanuckHeaven so using this as an example is not a good idea. As for endangering children, they are endangered everyday from guns, drugs, kidnappers, murders, and traffic.

Again, what does John Kerry have to do with Bush's INACTION? Nada!!

The same goes for Bush. Five to Seven Minutes is all he spent in that classroom. Then he got up, gave a speech on television then left for Barksdale and began to issue orders. He was issuing them even before the plane took off to Barksdale.

Yeah the 911 Commission's relevance to this point about Bush in the classroom.

There is none. Just like this whole discussion on this issue is irrelevent. Notice that it isn't even on the news anymore? because its not relevent. Its not even issue. Ironically, it left the airwaves when they discovered what kerry was doing on 9/11!

I am responding to your innuendos, and asking you to supply facts rather than fiction.

My innuendos are yours too. We are on two different sides here. No one is 100% correct. Not me, not you. No one. Why are we arguing this anyway when it has no bearing on the discussion at hand?

First, Kerry wasn't lying. Many Vets did do bad things.
second, Kerry didn't intend for that to happen so he can't be called a traitor or treason, its the rules of the law that you must intend for those actions.
Third, the North Viets were right! America did do war crimes, a couple soldiers were punished for their crimes by our govt. Not all though because its more the leaders than the soldiers who are at fault. If the soldiers were following orders then the orders are the problem.
I'm sorry that you hate the truth so much that you must blame Kerry but hey the truth will set you free, try it sometime.

And I never said there weren't any! In every war, you'll have them. However, it WAS NOT to the extent that Kerry said it was. That is why the Veterans aren't happy with Kerry. He paint THEM ALL as war criminals. THAT is what he is lieing about. He also painted his fellow Swift Boats as war Criminals. That is also a lie. Kerry is an ADMITTED WAR CRIMINAL. He said that during Senate Hearings in 1971. That is a FACT! As for the Soldiers, they have a MORAL OBLIGATION to DISOBEY an ILLEGAL ORDER! If asked to committ warcrimes, they are obligated NOT TO follow them and to report it up the chain. If they don't then they are in support of it and thus could be punished for it.

And I never said there weren't any! In every war, you'll have them. However, it WAS NOT to the extent that Kerry said it was. That is why the Veterans aren't happy with Kerry. He paint THEM ALL as war criminals. THAT is what he is lieing about. He also painted his fellow Swift Boats as war Criminals. That is also a lie. Kerry is an ADMITTED WAR CRIMINAL. He said that during Senate Hearings in 1971. That is a FACT! As for the Soldiers, they have a MORAL OBLIGATION to DISOBEY an ILLEGAL ORDER! If asked to committ warcrimes, they are obligated NOT TO follow them and to report it up the chain. If they don't then they are in support of it and thus could be punished for it.
We would all like proof. Show what he said.

We would all like proof. Show what he said.

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1121957/posts

We would all like proof. Show what he said.

Everytime someone says something that you don't like, you ask for proof. Ok you want proof? Its under the UCMJ! Solders have the moral responsibility to disobey an illegal order no matter who gives it. Yea they might get punished. However, I would rather get punished for disobeying an illegal order then not get punished for following it and get a medal. Sorry, my conscience won't allow that.

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1121957/posts
Thank you, I've been prioven again and again that it wasn't treason because he wasn't lying and it was the truth. He did'nt intend to help a enemy, but reveal what happened.
He never said he was a criminal, he said the people they investigated did these things. That is a major difference.
Great quote-
I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago, in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged, and many very highly decorated, veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia. These were not isolated incidents, but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis, with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command. It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit--the emotions in the room, and the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.

They told stories that, at times, they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam,in addition to the normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

We call this investigation the Winter Soldier Investigation. The term "winter soldier" is a play on words of Thomas Paine's in 1776, when he spoke of the "sunshine patriots," and "summertime soldiers" who deserted at Valley Forge because the going was rough.

We who have come here to Washington have come here because we feel we have to be winter soldiers now. We could come back to this country, we could be quiet, we could hold our silence, we could not tell what went on in Vietnam, but we feel, because of what threatens this country, not the reds, but the crimes which we are committing that threaten it, that we have to speak out.

emotional stuff:
Each day, to facilitate the process by which the United States washes her hands of Vietnam, someone has to give up his life so that the United States doesn't have to admit something that the entire world already knows, so that we can't say that we have made a mistake. Someone has to die so that President Nixon won't be, and these are his words, "the first President to lose a war."


Its sad that republicans and conservatives refuse to read the transcript that he said and learn that Kery was fighting for the Vets and not against.

He stated himself that he committed warcrimes!

http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/index.php?topic=Quotes
http://asiapacificuniverse.com/asia_pacific/messages7/257.html
http://www.wintersoldier.com/audio/kerry2.mp3
rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/c04/c04_rwh081504.rm

This should suffice for now

He stated himself that he committed warcrimes!

http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/index.php?topic=Quotes
http://asiapacificuniverse.com/asia_pacific/messages7/257.html
http://www.wintersoldier.com/audio/kerry2.mp3
rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/c04/c04_rwh081504.rm

This should suffice for now
Kerry said

I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals.
1) took part in free fire zones
2)Harrassment, is that a crime in war?
3) Burning enemy villages, is that a crime?
So unless you prove each is a war crime he isn't one. He just feels guilty that he took part in any thing close to one.

Kerry said

1) took part in free fire zones
2)Harrassment, is that a crime in war?
3) Burning enemy villages, is that a crime?
So unless you prove each is a war crime he isn't one. He just feels guilty that he took part in any thing close to one.

"I admit that I committed the same kind of atrocities!" In otherwords BastardSword, he admitted that he committed War Crimes. Here's another one, "I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages" Again he admitted to committing warcrimes! Ok so what part of this escapes you.

"I admit that I committed the same kind of atrocities!" In otherwords BastardSword, he admitted that he committed War Crimes. Here's another one, "I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages" Again he admitted to committing warcrimes! Ok so what part of this escapes you.
Notice he said atrocities not war crimes, but thank you please dig deeper.

Notice he said atrocities not war crimes, but thank you please dig deeper.

I guess you missed it. Atrocities IS WARCRIMES! Notice what else I posted? He admitted to committing warcrimes BastardSword. Sorry but I think you need to learn to read.

Hi,
Originally John Kerry said that he supported the war on terrorism. He also said that he would not insult the president, he said it WAS unpatriotic, think about that.
Friends and Others

It might not be wise to jump into this but, here we go. Zell Miller and VP Cheney made a whole bunch of statments about John Kerry that were factually accurate (despite that website someone posted that said Kerry didn't really vote against the weapons systems, he just voted against the bill that supported them). If these factually accurate statements made about Sen. Kerry by these two men lead a number of people to infer that he is unpatriotic...then maybe, and I hesitate to say it because many will jump on me, but just maybe, he is, or was indeed unpatriotic. Patriotism as defined by Merriam Webster's is "love of or devotion to one's country." we can't state for certain what John Kerry's feelings are, at this time in his life I think he is at least devoted to his own career which is bound up in the well being of America. Ergo I don't think his patriotism is an issue, it can't really be proven or disproven and, whether he loves America (like I do (I'm voting for Bush by the way)) or hates America (like CanukHeaven and many other foreigners (who coincidentally support Kerry)), I don't think it will really affect his decision making process, since what's good for America is good for any politician who supports it.

Kerry Fled

So Did Bush

(I dislike 'em both equally, in case anyone was wondering)

So Did Bush


(I dislike 'em both equally, in case anyone was wondering)

Prove it! In the National Guard, if you don't work you don't get paid. Besides, Kerry missed his Mandatory 2 years of service when he came off of Active duty!

...the "candidate who has to Google his own name to find out where he stands" Waffling Flip-flopper who flat out lied in his hurried, rambling "rebuttal" speech/rant.

Kerry Fled
Boring, boring, boring you are.

Thank you, I've been prioven again and again that it wasn't treason because he wasn't lying and it was the truth.

I dont know about you, but I feel that gross exageration of facts to be, a lie. Kerry said that those atrocities happened each and every day. Implying in his speech that it was not only known by higher-ups, but actually encouraged by them. He was basically accusing the President of ordering those crimes.

Lying before Congress, and accusing the President of crimes of which he had not only no proof, but was in no way able to have gotten any proof, is treason.

Kerry Fled
Way to repeatedly make an outrageous claim without ever providing support or reason for your ludicrous opinion. Now for my two favorite questions for conservatives:
1. Did it hurt when you pulled that out of your ass?
2. Does your throat hurt after swallowing all those lies?

At least Kerry was able to flee. See you have to be in Vietnam in the first place to actually flee from there *coughbushandcheneycough*

It appears that although Bush may not be a rocket scientist he always tries to do what he believes is right. Kerry appears so fickle because he tries to do what he thinks will benifit him most.

Bush 53% Kerry 43%

In comparing the two presidential candidates, more registered voters think
President Bush has strong leadership qualities than Kerry (65% vs. 47%), is
more honest and ethical (62% vs. 47%), says what he believes and not just what
people want to hear (66% vs. 42%), would trust him to make the right decisions
during an international crisis (57% vs. 44%), shares their values (54% vs.
42%), and is personally likeable (67% vs. 59%). In addition, more registered
voters think President Bush would do a better job than Sen. Kerry on various
issues: terrorism and homeland security (60% vs. 32%), the situation in Iraq
(55% vs. 37%), foreign policy (54% vs. 38%), taxes (52% vs. 38%), economy (49%
vs. 43%), education (48% vs. 42%), and gay marriage (44% vs. 36%). More
people say Sen. Kerry would do a better job than President Bush on healthcare,
including Medicare (45% vs. 43%) and the environment (50% vs. 36%).

Kerry is doomed. 10 points down and his strong points are medicare and the environment! Sounds like walter mondale and MIke Dukakis to me!

ok I rest my case

Bush is the bigger flip flopper

The Bush Record: Top 10 Bush Flip Flops

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]

You just don't like talking about kerry do you.....why must it always revert back to your dislike of Bush?

notice the topic of the thread as compared to what you posted....

You just don't like talking about kerry do you.....why must it always revert back to your dislike of Bush?

Isn't it obvious?

It's what Kerry supporters like best about Kerry. He's not Bush.

In fact, take away the fact that he's not Bush and what are you left with?

Kerry.

Ewww.....

Let's focus on the fact that he's not Bush, okay? It's safer. *nod*

No...I'll admit it. Kerry sucks...but Bush has proven that he's got my best interests firmly buried deep in a dark recess of his scrooge mc duck type vault of oil and weapons money. Kerry is a glimmer of hope in the bleak politics of 2004. If I really could vote for the candidate I wanted, I'd elect Chuck D. or Cynthia McKinney

:headbang:

No...I'll admit it. Kerry sucks...but Bush has proven that he's got my best interests firmly buried deep in a dark recess of his scrooge mc duck type vault of oil and weapons money. Kerry is a glimmer of hope in the bleak politics of 2004. If I really could vote for the candidate I wanted, I'd elect Chuck D. or Cynthia McKinney

:headbang:

Use the write in thing! LOL!!!

Isn't it obvious?

It's what Kerry supporters like best about Kerry. He's not Bush.

In fact, take away the fact that he's not Bush and what are you left with?

Kerry.

Ewww.....

Let's focus on the fact that he's not Bush, okay? It's safer. *nod*

EXACTLY

I'm going by WHAT HE SAID! We need to have our allies with us. That is what he has said. But what if our allies say no. Will he go without them? No I don't think he will. He says that the UN should be involved in everything we do. Why? What if the UN won't go along with what is right? Will he do what is right anyway? Nope sorr. not likely. At least Bush has the balls to use our sovereignty to buck the UN and he sticks to his guns.
So you are going strictly on hearsay? And I am to trust you on this one huh? I don't for one minute believe that Kerry would wait for the UN's response if the US was in fact under attack. You clearly must think that people are stupid if you can get them to believe that. Did he say that he wants the UN to run the foreign affairs of the US? If he did, post a link to it or don't bother using it because it means nothing otherwise. Don't make stuff up, or post stuff you can't back up because it will come back to haunt you.

I didn't know this was an exercise. The League failed because it didn't have the backbone to back up anything. Much like the Current UN. Sanctions run amuck. Even the League used sanctions but didn't back up the threats. History repeats itself. The UN didn't win the Korean war. Its still going on. Technically USA and S. Korea is still at war with N. Korea. We should end that once and for all. UN Failed in Iraq. Should've ended it in 1991. Then Hussein bucked the Resolutions, as did France and Russia and Germany. The UN did nothing. History is repeating itself and I fear we'll have a massive Global Conflict outside of the War on Terror if the UN doesn't develope a spine.
I and many others here fear that "we'll have a massive Global Conflict", if Bush continues to invade "sovereign" countries without thinking of the consequences. Many would already believe that he has opened a can of worms that has actually increased terrorism. You did know that terrorism has increased?

I and many others believe that the US presence in the Middle East is a very dangerous situation period. We also don't buy into the Iraq "liberation" garbage that has poliferated these threads. The "liberation" cause was a fall back for the lost cause of finding WMD and terrorist bases (linked to Saddam). And the WMD issue was being resolved by over 300 UN inspectors, until Bush stated that the US was going to attack, regardless of the inspections, which BTW was a clear violation of UN Security Council resolution 1441.

EXACTLY

It might be enough to win an election though.

What exactly is so bad about bush that you would resort to voting for kerry?

And who the heck ever said that the UN was the authoritative word on everything?

What exactly is so bad about bush that you would resort to voting for kerry?

Let's see...in Four years, he has accomplised... nothing. He has a lot of projects in the works... but he hasn't actually FINISHED anything.

Other than that, his worst mistakes has been appointing the wrong people to posts. Don Rumsfeld is a twit who recommended first that he be allowed to fly exclusively on charter private planes due to the risk of airborn terrorism and then, recommended cutting funding to anti-terrorism intelligence. All before 9/11/01.

Etc.

i personally perfer a candidate who stands for nothing, they are less likely to cause real harm to the nation during their term.

Amen to that, brother! People who stand for nothing are also much more adaptable to whatever situation comes up.

So you are going strictly on hearsay? And I am to trust you on this one huh? I don't for one minute believe that Kerry would wait for the UN's response if the US was in fact under attack. You clearly must think that people are stupid if you can get them to believe that. Did he say that he wants the UN to run the foreign affairs of the US? If he did, post a link to it or don't bother using it because it means nothing otherwise. Don't make stuff up, or post stuff you can't back up because it will come back to haunt you.

I don't think I said the word trust CH! You did but I didn't! As for Kerry, he better not wait to even consult our allies before he launches an attack. If he consults for to long, the people would be impatient. I was very impatient after 9/11! Bush waited to long to tear down the Taliban. The American Government waited to long in tearing down Hussein. As for the UN, no he hasn't said that he wanted them to do that. However, he said he will go to the UN before he takes action. To me that sounds like he wants UN backing before he attacks. And that is what it sounds like to many here in the USA and not just Republicans either. Some independents and Democrats think that too.

I and many others here fear that "we'll have a massive Global Conflict", if Bush continues to invade "sovereign" countries without thinking of the consequences. Many would already believe that he has opened a can of worms that has actually increased terrorism. You did know that terrorism has increased?[/qoute]

Here's a problem. We invaded Afghanistan because they supported Osama Bin Laden. We invaded Iraq because they were in violation of UN Resolutions. I don't think we'll be invading anymore nations unless we are attacked again or one of our allies at any rate. As for increased terrorism, where has it increased that IS NOT in a WARZONE?

[quote]I and many others believe that the US presence in the Middle East is a very dangerous situation period. We also don't buy into the Iraq "liberation" garbage that has poliferated these threads. The "liberation" cause was a fall back for the lost cause of finding WMD and terrorist bases (linked to Saddam). And the WMD issue was being resolved by over 300 UN inspectors, until Bush stated that the US was going to attack, regardless of the inspections, which BTW was a clear violation of UN Security Council resolution 1441.

You would think that our presence in the middle is very dangerous. However, did you know that we were invited by the Saudi Royal Family to protect Saudi Arabia from Iraq in 1991? Did you know that they came to us and not Bin Laden to kick Hussein out of Kuwait? I don't think you do. That is why Osama hates us. We are in Saudi Arabia and support Israel. Should we stop supporting Israel because it offends someone? As for WMD, 300 inspectors in the size of California, mostly desert no less, isn't going to hack it. This is a country that is the size of California. Those wmd could be anywhere. Besides we found some just not in the quantities they said we would. This tells me that 1) he never had them (possible), 2) he moved them(likely) and 3) he Buried them (likely). As for Bush, I never heard him state that he would attack regardly of the inspections. As for that being in Clear violation, again i point to the fact that no one is saying this. If it was true don't you think that the news would be all over it since it would paint Bush in a bad light? We did Support 1441, we supported UNMOVIC, we supported the IAEA, however, what you FAILED to realize is that Hussein STONEWALLED THEM. Even Blix reported this during his give and take speeches!

What exactly is so bad about bush that you would resort to voting for kerry?
Since his grandfather was trading with the Nazi's, the Bushes have successfully made money off the enemies of America, including Hussein and Bin Laden families. He is a figurehead for the BUSH administration, which has systematically taken on the world for the last remaining supplies of oil, and lied about it the whole time. The man is completely transparent, and you don't want me to go into what Dick Cheney was doing on Sept. 11th.

And who the heck ever said that the UN was the authoritative word on everything?

Zeppistan, Stephistan, CanuckHeaven--All three are Canadians btw

"For the past week, they attacked my patriotism and even my fitness to serve as commander in chief," Kerry said.

Not a single person attacked his patriotism, this is a lie, he is trying to demonize those who only point out his record, or lack of a record.
which is insulting his patriotism. army and patritism go 2gether

It might not be wise to jump into this but, here we go. Zell Miller and VP Cheney made a whole bunch of statments about John Kerry that were factually accurate (despite that website someone posted that said Kerry didn't really vote against the weapons systems, he just voted against the bill that supported them). If these factually accurate statements made about Sen. Kerry by these two men lead a number of people to infer that he is unpatriotic...then maybe, and I hesitate to say it because many will jump on me, but just maybe, he is, or was indeed unpatriotic. Patriotism as defined by Merriam Webster's is "love of or devotion to one's country." we can't state for certain what John Kerry's feelings are, at this time in his life I think he is at least devoted to his own career which is bound up in the well being of America. Ergo I don't think his patriotism is an issue, it can't really be proven or disproven and, whether he loves America (like I do (I'm voting for Bush by the way)) or hates America (like CanukHeaven and many other foreigners (who coincidentally support Kerry)), I don't think it will really affect his decision making process, since what's good for America is good for any politician who supports it.
Nice of a Bush supporter to actually come to the defense of John Kerry on the issue that his patiotism is indeed not an issue in regards to his voting on a weapons bill. :)

However, to set the record straight, I am NOT anti-American nor do I hate America. Do I like Bush or the fact that the US invaded Iraq? NO!!

I was in shock when the terrorists destroyed the WTC and attacked the Pentagon. I supported our country joining forces to attack the Taliban base in Afghanistan.

The invasion of Iraq was where I got off the bus. Millions of people around the world got off that very same bus. Iraq posed NO threat to the US whatsoever, and because the US got sidetracked, I believe that the world is worse off because of it.

I have friends in the US and I have had many happy holidays in your country and look forward to many more, hopefully without Bush as your President. Personally I think he is a very dangerous person.

which is insulting his patriotism. army and patritism go 2gether

I don't think they questioned him serving Ribeira. Bush and Cheney haven't attacked him on him serving. Just the opposite infact.

I don't think I said the word trust CH! You did but I didn't! As for Kerry, he better not wait to even consult our allies before he launches an attack. If he consults for to long, the people would be impatient.......Again, what makes you think he would wait IF the US was attacked?

However, he said he will go to the UN before he takes action. To me that sounds like he wants UN backing before he attacks.
WHERE does he say that? You are making this up and it doesn't bode well for your argument. Give me a credible link that states what you are suggesting then I will apologize?

I and many others here fear that "we'll have a massive Global Conflict", if Bush continues to invade "sovereign" countries without thinking of the consequences. Many would already believe that he has opened a can of worms that has actually increased terrorism. You did know that terrorism has increased?

Here's a problem. We invaded Afghanistan because they supported Osama Bin Laden.
Yup, most of the world supported that.

We invaded Iraq because they were in violation of UN Resolutions.
The UN inspectors were sorting through the WMD as per Resolution 1441. The US violated Resolution 1441 by attacking Iraq. Most of the world condemned this action.

I don't think we'll be invading anymore nations unless we are attacked again or one of our allies at any rate.
With Bush as President, I am not so sure of that and many would agree with that statement.

As for increased terrorism, where has it increased that IS NOT in a WARZONE?

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/06/11/correcting_data_us_says_terrorism_incidents_increased_in_03/

You would think that our presence in the middle is very dangerous. However, did you know that we were invited by the Saudi Royal Family to protect Saudi Arabia from Iraq in 1991? Did you know that they came to us and not Bin Laden to kick Hussein out of Kuwait? I don't think you do. That is why Osama hates us. We are in Saudi Arabia and support Israel. Should we stop supporting Israel because it offends someone? As for WMD, 300 inspectors in the size of California, mostly desert no less, isn't going to hack it. This is a country that is the size of California. Those wmd could be anywhere. Besides we found some just not in the quantities they said we would. This tells me that 1) he never had them (possible), 2) he moved them(likely) and 3) he Buried them (likely). As for Bush, I never heard him state that he would attack regardly of the inspections. As for that being in Clear violation, again i point to the fact that no one is saying this. If it was true don't you think that the news would be all over it since it would paint Bush in a bad light? We did Support 1441, we supported UNMOVIC, we supported the IAEA, however, what you FAILED to realize is that Hussein STONEWALLED THEM. Even Blix reported this during his give and take speeches!
As far as the Gulf War is concerned you were still a young boy. I know all about the reasons for the Gulf War, which initially I supported and after getting further into the history surrounding the whole issue of the Iran/Iraq War, US complicity, etc. I am not so sure any more.

BTW, Blix reported that the UN inspectors were able to carry out their jobs with very little Iraqi resistance, so why did the US attack, without UN Security Council authority?

[i]Cooperation on process

It has regard to the procedures, mechanisms, infrastructure and practical arrangements to pursue inspections and seek verifiable disarmament. While inspection is not built on the premise of confidence but may lead to confidence if it is successful, there must nevertheless be a measure of mutual confidence from the very beginning in running the operation of inspection.

Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field. The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect and with one exception it has been prompt. We have further had great help in building up the infrastructure of our office in Baghdad and the field office in Mosul. Arrangements and services for our plane and our helicopters have been good. The environment has been workable.

Our inspections have included universities, military bases, presidential sites and private residences. Inspections have also taken place on Fridays, the Muslim day of rest, on Christmas day and New Years day. These inspections have been conducted in the same manner as all other inspections. We seek to be both effective and correct.

WHY did the US invade while this process was ongoing?

Why was Saddam Hussein Stonewalling UNMOVIC and the IAEA?

As for the Boston Article, where has terrorism increased? Doesn't tell me where. Israel? More than likely. They are willing to kill at a drop of the hat! Iraq? Warzone! Afghanistan? Warzone! Russia? Not our fault. that'll be the Russians but alas, its still a warzone.

Why was Saddam Hussein Stonewalling UNMOVIC and the IAEA?
How was he stonewalling? Did you read the Blix report, or what I just posted even?

The US KNEW that Saddam was a lame duck.

Why was Saddam Hussein Stonewalling UNMOVIC and the IAEA?

As for the Boston Article, where has terrorism increased? Doesn't tell me where. Israel? More than likely. They are willing to kill at a drop of the hat! Iraq? Warzone! Afghanistan? Warzone! Russia? Not our fault. that'll be the Russians but alas, its still a warzone.
I thought you paid attention to world events? You are only pretending to know what is going on? How about Spain, Saudi Arabia, London for starters?

How was he stonewalling? Did you read the Blix report, or what I just posted even?

The US KNEW that Saddam was a lame duck.

CH! I've seen his speeches. I don't need a reprint. He gave us something and he gave the French and Germans and Russians something. He wasn't receiving full cooperation. Thus he was in violation!

http://www.state.gov/p/io/rls/fs/2003/18850.htm
http://bond.senate.gov/threat.cfm#
http://www.kuwait-info.com/timeline/time1.asp?titleid=9

Hans even said that Hussein was not complying.

I thought you paid attention to world events? You are only pretending to know what is going on? How about Spain, Saudi Arabia, London for starters?

London? when did a terror attack take place in London? Unless your talking about the IRA! Last time I checked, they are not our worry and do not have international reach. I do know that they have captured Al Qaeda terrorists in London but when did they attack in London? Spain? Yea I remember Spain. They were cowards for leaving Iraq because of that terror attack. By fleeing they gave the terrorists a victory. Saudi Arabia? I'm not surprised but it was aimed at the Saudi government more than at us in all reality and it was what, two or three attacks and the terrorists have paid for that already.

On a side note CH! When you are in a war, you can expect an increase in attacks, especially when you have the enemy on the run.

Swing and a miss, and you out. Run away. No one said it, you are a liar.

Yeah, how dare she go to bed.

I think I am going to divide this into what I like about Kerry, and what I do not like about Kerry.

Kerry is an intelligent individual who likely would make this country a decent president.

He has shown sound reasoning as a Senator...and usually uses intellectual thought about how to address problems. (Unlike Bush who tends to use 'gut' instincts.

However, I am also struck by a decidedly irrational and illogical veiw of the Iraq war by a major part of his base. And the fact that he has allowed political calculations to dominate far too much of his decisions.

I agree with Kerry on raising the top tax bracket on wealthy americans. However, I do not want to raise the tax bracket on small buisnesses (it is the same tax bracket people...)

I do not want to remove the lower income tax on dividends. Primarily because I feel this will reinforce large holding private investors to force boards to look at long term growth rather than short term growth. I may also point out here that this same senario may be why job growth is lacking compared to the rebound of 92.

I do want to raise the long term and short term capital gains tax (to reinforce above)

I do want to leave the tax rate reduction for the lower tax bracket of 10% (from 15%...)

I also want to completely reform education. This is not going to be done by testing students. It is also not going to be done by throwing money at the present system. (If you put sixty grand into a Ford Escort, you still have a Ford Escort...)*

*Here Bush is closer to what I want done...

Now in the end, on domestic issues I really don't care for either canidate. However when I look at the people that Kerry is in bed with and the people that Bush is in bed with...I have shudders about the Left. They keep on calling on 'Peace in Iraq' which is a nice slogan till you ask "with who?"

We can not just hand the country back over to Saddam and his sons (unless we can raise them from the dead) So we are stuck being 'At War' with a bunch of groups who want to dominate the new Iraq.

Now Kerry talks about getting alies in Iraq, I assume he means Germany, France and Russia. Of course those are all "Western, Christian nations" in Muslim eyes so...the anti-american bent will be blunted. Except these groups want power...and are willing to kill to get it.

The Europeans (and I suspect Kerry) knows this. As such if Kerry is elected...five Germans will be seen somewhere in Kuwait...and the French will willingly take over naval duties freeing up our costal patrol boats to work in Afiganistan? ...(or yeah, real big help...they avoid risk even more than we do.)

Basicly Kerry is stuck with the same path that Bush is when it comes to Iraq. Hell Kerry will have an elected government to deal with in Iraq if he is elected.

As for Bush going off on another misadventure like Iraq. The Neo-Cons who got him there in the first place are arguing about Preemptive Strike Policy. The last few comments I heard were along the lines of "we are unable to do nation building so the policy is unworkable..."

End analysis. Unless Kerry shows some grap of the situation and elicutes a national security policy that doesn't sound like complete idiocy I will stick with Bush.

My mantra is "you should have chosen Libermann!" (I know I spelled that wrong...)

And in all fair and honesty, I was looking at Lieberman to be the Presidential Candidate. I probably would've voted for him too. I like where he stood on most issues. He stands by his record and is willing to talk about his record. He might receive some trouble from the muslim world because he's Jewish (I think), but I think he could've overcome that.

Kerry is....

Intelligent certainly, but is a fool for wanting to bring troops out of Iraq in the next several years, a weak person charismatically, pro-choice (whichever side you are on), for more tax hikes and does not understand the concept of an "economy" (good economy=strong businesses, not employment rates).

Bush is....

A war loving, pittiful terrorist hunter, raging debt raiser for our nation, poor speaker and generally a poor off the cuff commentor, for excessive tax cuts, encourages beurocracy, non-education supporter ("No Child Left Behind" filth) puppet of the Republican party.

Mickey Mouse is....

A cartoon character, easily lovable, well versed in public relations, business management and health care (cartoon characters always find ways back to life without bankruptcy), encourages moralistic film and TV, supports education through real world experience and remains strictly out of matters of morality in government constriction.

Vote Mickey Mouse 2004!

-R. S. of UC

CH! I've seen his speeches. I don't need a reprint. He gave us something and he gave the French and Germans and Russians something. He wasn't receiving full cooperation. Thus he was in violation!

http://www.state.gov/p/io/rls/fs/2003/18850.htm
http://bond.senate.gov/threat.cfm#
http://www.kuwait-info.com/timeline/time1.asp?titleid=9

Hans even said that Hussein was not complying.
Hans said that Iraq WAS complying but that it was going to take more time, and he also requested more inspectors. Was Blix entirely satisfied? No he wasn't but they were making progress. This is what the world saw and we also saw pictures of UN inspectors cutting up even fairly harmless missles (range wise). Did you not read the article?

The US and the UK snubbed the UN Security Council and did what was really not necessary.

What has been the cost? Over 10,000 dead Iraqis, over 1,000 dead Coalition forces, tens of thousands injured. More people hating the US, creating more terrorists, and more terrorist attacks. Oh and over $130 Billion US dollars spent that could have gone a long ways towards alleviating some US domestic issues.

London? when did a terror attack take place in London? Unless your talking about the IRA! Last time I checked, they are not our worry and do not have international reach. I do know that they have captured Al Qaeda terrorists in London but when did they attack in London? Spain? Yea I remember Spain. They were cowards for leaving Iraq because of that terror attack. By fleeing they gave the terrorists a victory. Saudi Arabia? I'm not surprised but it was aimed at the Saudi government more than at us in all reality and it was what, two or three attacks and the terrorists have paid for that already.
The attack in London was thwarted, however the possibility existed for great damage.

Calling Spain cowards after helping the US is not a good reflection on you?

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0107947.html

On May 12, suicide bombers killed 34, including 8 Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners in Riyadh. Al-Qaeda was suspected. Saudi Arabia's commitment to antiterrorist measures was again called into question by the U.S. and other countries.

In July, the U.S. Congress bitterly criticized Saudi Arabia's alleged financing of terrorist organizations and for harboring a civil servant who had ties to two of the Sept. 11 hijackers. While the government has arrested a sizeable number of suspected terrorists in the past year, it remains a hotbed of Islamic militancy.

On Nov. 9, 17 were killed and dozens wounded when a bomb exploded at a housing complex populated by Westerners in Riyadh.

In the first attack on a Saudi government target, on April 21. 2004, a bomb destroyed a Saudi security forces building in Riyadh, killing ten and wounding more than 100.

On May 29, another Western complex in Khobar was attacked, killing 22.

In four separate attacks in June, four foreign workers are killed by militants.

Mostly at the Saudi Government. NOT!!

"For the past week, they attacked my patriotism and even my fitness to serve as commander in chief," Kerry said.

Not a single person attacked his patriotism, this is a lie, he is trying to demonize those who only point out his record, or lack of a record.

Um, are you an idiot? That's exactly what they're doing.

I swear, FOB, shouldn't you go back to your trailer park now?

What the hell kind of thread is this meant to be anyway? Let's assume for the moment that you are even correct (kudos to Pantylvania for shooting him down), do you honestly want us to bring out some of the crap that GWB has said in his time?

I get it now. He's being a typical conservative pedant. Or just an a--hole pedant. Since the word "patriotism" so far hasn't been proved to be uttered by a Republican, he's going to cling to literal statements and refuse to draw actual conclusions. He's either trying to piss us off or too stupid to draw the conclusions that his conservative overlords want him to draw.

It looks like the choice in America is this:

Vote for the candidate who joined the naval reserve when his draft deferment was declined, who when he came off of active duty failed to show up for 2 years of mandatory Naval Reserve Drills

Or vote for the Air National Guard pilot who showed up for all of his drills. Reserves are Reserves you make the choice.

Um, do you have sources for that, Corneliu? Because all my research indicates that Bush reported for duty once after transfer to the Alabama Air National Guard, receiving a dental exam. He failed to show up for his physical exam (at a time that corresponds with accusations that he was a cocaine addict) and his flight status was revoked. For the year he was in Alabama, he never showed up for service again, and co-workers on the Congressional campaign he worked on knew he was in the Guard. (Salon.com has a fabulous collection of VERY well researched and documented articles on the subject).

Conversely, Kerry did not sign up for the Naval Reserve but served active duty on a destroyer in the Gulf of Tonkin for a year, and volunteered for a second tour on active duty with a swift boat unit. By all accounts (that are substantiated by naval records and interviews) Kerry served honorably and ably, before earning his third Purple Heart (as I have posted elsewhere, Purple Hearts are awarded for wounds requiring any kind of medical attention in a combat zone, not for combat) and his rightful trip out of country. After that, he completed his tour of duty as an assistant to an Admiral. HE COMPLETED HIS OBLIGATION TO SERVE. So, unless you have some information that contradicts official naval records and isn't derived from the Swift Boat Veterans for "Truth", then bring it.

some day Canada is gonna attack the US and we're gonna put them in there place ;)

I wish you would: these radical conservatives, Republicans, and Libertarians are starting to piss me off. But Canada has even worse privacy laws and intellectual property laws (god, you're country has worse laws on the books than PATRIOT and the soon-to-be-law INDUCE). So I'll just move to Sweden or something and laugh.

North Vietnamese used Kerry's Testimony on our POWs! They say this is proof of war crimes. However, even Kerry has backed down on the War Crimes thing. What Kerry said was used as propaganda against us and for their cause so yea, you can make a case that he was indirectly responsible for the deaths of soldiers.

Proof? I have never heard this before.

You would think that our presence in the middle is very dangerous. However, did you know that we were invited by the Saudi Royal Family to protect Saudi Arabia from Iraq in 1991? Did you know that they came to us and not Bin Laden to kick Hussein out of Kuwait? I don't think you do. That is why Osama hates us. We are in Saudi Arabia and support Israel. Should we stop supporting Israel because it offends someone? As for WMD, 300 inspectors in the size of California, mostly desert no less, isn't going to hack it. This is a country that is the size of California. Those wmd could be anywhere. Besides we found some just not in the quantities they said we would. This tells me that 1) he never had them (possible), 2) he moved them(likely) and 3) he Buried them (likely). As for Bush, I never heard him state that he would attack regardly of the inspections. As for that being in Clear violation, again i point to the fact that no one is saying this. If it was true don't you think that the news would be all over it since it would paint Bush in a bad light? We did Support 1441, we supported UNMOVIC, we supported the IAEA, however, what you FAILED to realize is that Hussein STONEWALLED THEM. Even Blix reported this during his give and take speeches!

"It seems odd that a country could be one hundred percent certain that there were weapons of mass destruction but be zero percent certain where they were." - Hans Blix, chief investigator (former), IAEA

He's talking about the U.S., there, boyo.

QUOTE=Bailin]Try going to google.com and typing in MISERABLE FAILURE and search. What's the first link that comes up? Heh.[/QUOTE]

Hey I just felt like adding this in regards to your comment about the search. Look a little further down the webresults next time and you'll come across a link to the BBC's webpage that describes how easy it is to link anything to a certain google seach... Here's the link if you didn't get it...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3298443.stm

Just to let you guys know here, I consider myself an independent with a bit of conservative lean due to my adamant pro-life stance, mostly because I'm not particuarly pleased with either party right now... Tell you the truth, in all honesty, both these candidates TOTALLY SUCK!!!... But due to the unfortunate nature of our two party system, you have to choose one of them. Oh and that claim about the North Vietnamese using Kerry's testimony on the POW's is a true fact... I had already read about it in a rather interesting book written by a miltary man who held a very important responsiblity for America, carrying around the briefcase with our nuclear launch codes in it for Clinton back when he was the President. Unfortunately due to the hour and my apparent lack of sleep, I am too lazy to get the book out right now, however I will return tomorrow with the facts about that rather interesting issue as soon as I can. Oh and just so you know, due to the status of our current political climate, most conservatives will not believe a damn thing the liberals say and bash them because of it, and most liberals will do the same thing back to the conservatives... Just the way things are, but I honestly do listen and interpret the views of both sides equally... Hell I still haven't made up my mind yet about who to vote for this time round, but I do have a lot of obscure facts about both candidates which I will bring out when I get the time in the future. In the meantime, continue the intelligent debate that I'm seeing here right now, and DON'T START MINDLESSLY BASHING THE OTHER SIDE!!!! The great thing about our great country is that we can have debates like this where anybody can speak their views and it's because of debates such as that that we keep our country from crashing itself into the ground... somebody ALWAYS has to question the way things are going, otherwise we're all doomed to destroy this great nation because of the unchecked acts of one particular point of view rather than the cooperation of all sides...

John Kerry.....

is one of those Easter Island statues that escaped and now wants to be president

Actually, Pantylvania just proved you wrong.

Now who's the liar? :p


ummm not exactly. I never found in any of those that anyone called kerry unpatriotic. they just merely stated facts. those that feel they did call him unpatriotic are those that misinterpret the actual words stated. otherwise those that place what thoughts they think that those people who spoke were thinking. but hey. we all know you can't read minds.

Prove it! In the National Guard, if you don't work you don't get paid. Besides, Kerry missed his Mandatory 2 years of service when he came off of Active duty!
Not true. He served his full tour of duty.

http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_kerry/military_records.html

It looks like the choice in America is this:

Vote for the candidate who joined the naval reserve when his draft deferment was declined, who when he came off of active duty failed to show up for 2 years of mandatory Naval Reserve Drills

Or vote for the Air National Guard pilot who showed up for all of his drills. Reserves are Reserves you make the choice.
Ummmm I think you have got that reversed? Kerry volunteered for service, volunteered for the swift boat duty, and served his remaining time working for an admiral.

Bush on the other hand did not complete his tour of duty, as he was awol?

Why have you reversed these? Are you trying to rewrite the truth?

Also the choice for America is for a guy that not only volunteered for the most dangerous place to be on the planet at the time, but a guy that risked his life to save that of a fellow vet. John Kerry

Versus:

A guy who got drafted, ticked the box "do not volunteer" (for active war duty), took time off to help campaign in an election and went awol. The same guy who flew aboard an aircraft carrier to pronounce to the world "mission accomplished", when in fact the unnecessary war was really just starting. The same guy who made a decision to attack a country that was no threat, and which has resulted in thousands of US casualties and the dispersement of over $130 Billion dollars. George W. Bush

Choice is between a true war hero and a "wannabe". Choice seems clear?

ummm not exactly. I never found in any of those that anyone called kerry unpatriotic. they just merely stated facts. those that feel they did call him unpatriotic are those that misinterpret the actual words stated. otherwise those that place what thoughts they think that those people who spoke were thinking. but hey. we all know you can't read minds.

Ah, but you have to remember who you're talking to. The guy that thinks everyone who's against Bush hates America :p.

Just the act of thinking "Hmmm, maybe someone else might be a better president" is unpatriotic to him.

...the "candidate who has to Google his own name to find out where he stands" Waffling Flip-flopper who flat out lied in his hurried, rambling "rebuttal" speech/rant.

Kerry Fled

Looking at Kerry, I could swear that he has been dead for several years. Maybe he was too brave in Vietnam, and took a bullet....

Conversely, Kerry did not sign up for the Naval Reserve but served active duty on a destroyer in the Gulf of Tonkin for a year

OOPS: I guess his military records are wrong then because they say that he joined the USNR! USNR is United States Naval RESERVES


http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/Enlistment_Contract.pdf

Top Line-Third Box over Branch and Class of service-USNR-R

Not to mention, further down on his enlistment papers in the area regarding duty, he is marked as inactive duty.


So YES he did join the Naval Reserves.

And CH! Here's something about volunteering for swiftboats!

http://patterico.com/archives/002526.php

Kerry initially hoped to continue his service at a relatively safe distance from most fighting, securing an assignment as "swift boat" skipper. While the 50-foot swift boats cruised the Vietnamese coast a little closer to the action than the Gridley had come, they were still considered relatively safe.
"I didn't really want to get involved in the war," Kerry said in a little-noticed contribution to a book of Vietnam reminiscences published in 1986. "When I signed up for the swift boats, they had very little to do with the war. They were engaged in coastal patrolling and that's what I thought I was going to be doing."
But two weeks after he arrived in Vietnam, the swift boat mission changed -- and Kerry went from having one of the safest assignments in the escalating conflict to one of the most dangerous. Under the newly launched Operation SEALORD, swift boats were charged with patrolling the narrow waterways of the Mekong Delta to draw fire and smoke out the enemy. Cruising inlets and coves and canals, swift boats were especially vulnerable targets.

Now what were you saying?

"It seems odd that a country could be one hundred percent certain that there were weapons of mass destruction but be zero percent certain where they were." - Hans Blix, chief investigator (former), IAEA

He's talking about the U.S., there, boyo.

Dec. 19, 2002: Hans Blix tells the U.N. Security Council the declaration "is essentially a reorganized version" of information Iraq provided UNSCOM in 1997, and that it "is not enough to create confidence" that Iraq
has abandoned its WMD efforts.

http://www.kuwait-info.com/timeline/time1.asp?titleid=9

Thus, they were not complying!

Feb. 14, 2003: Hans Blix says Iraq has taken steps to assist U.N. inspections but the country refuses to account for chemical and biological agents.

refuses to account for chemical and biological agents That was required under 1441 and he did not.

Now what were you saying?
What are you trying to avoid? The first thing I brought to your attention was your following incorrect statement:

Originally Posted by Corneliu
Besides, Kerry missed his Mandatory 2 years of service when he came off of Active duty!

And I stated the following:

Not true. He served his full tour of duty.

http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/Service_Record.pdf

You will note that his service record actually spans 7 years, although he only enlisted (note not drafted) for 6 years. It appears that his active service was 6 years and 4 months and inactive the last 7 months.

Um, do you have sources for that, Corneliu? Because all my research indicates that Bush reported for duty once after transfer to the Alabama Air National Guard, receiving a dental exam. He failed to show up for his physical exam (at a time that corresponds with accusations that he was a cocaine addict) and his flight status was revoked. For the year he was in Alabama, he never showed up for service again, and co-workers on the Congressional campaign he worked on knew he was in the Guard. (Salon.com has a fabulous collection of VERY well researched and documented articles on the subject).

Conversely, Kerry did not sign up for the Naval Reserve but served active duty on a destroyer in the Gulf of Tonkin for a year, and volunteered for a second tour on active duty with a swift boat unit. By all accounts (that are substantiated by naval records and interviews) Kerry served honorably and ably, before earning his third Purple Heart (as I have posted elsewhere, Purple Hearts are awarded for wounds requiring any kind of medical attention in a combat zone, not for combat) and his rightful trip out of country. After that, he completed his tour of duty as an assistant to an Admiral. HE COMPLETED HIS OBLIGATION TO SERVE. So, unless you have some information that contradicts official naval records and isn't derived from the Swift Boat Veterans for "Truth", then bring it.

First, Bush in Alabama:
Alabama is the most corrupt state in the Union. I mean it is the only state in the last century to declare martial law on one of its own cities and crush the local government...

As such the national guard of Alabama had long been a strong arm of the democratic party (still in the 70's) and likely did not want Bush around anyway. As for the lack of records, that is quite normal for Alabama.

The fact that the republicans control the state has to do with the Democrats invalidating their own primary and seating who the party bosses wanted for govenor. This led to the first Republican Govenor and the rebirth of the republican party to being mainstream.

Kerry in Vietnam:
The more and more I read, the more I think Kerry decided to become a pol in college. Joining the navy durring the Vietnam war was a smart idea. It would likely give you service without being threatened by enemy fire...(the veit-cong didn't have a navy...).

Joining the swift boats would get him more 'acess' to the war with a minimum amount of danger. This increased greatly with the change in policy, then Kerry got wounded three times in four months and sent home. Of course he was quite brave in said engagements...perhaps even crossing the line to fool hardy.

He then returned and took up the Anti-war crusade. Where he re-iterated claims of war crimes from the somewhat shadowy 'Detroit Confrence' to the U.S. Senate. Threw his ribbons back at the White House (but keeping his medals for later use...).

I would say Jhon Kerry has had a single goal his adult life, to be President. Which worked well defeating his opponents in the Primary...

And Bush was just a drunken, lost soul until he turned fourty. Kerry has demonstrated a unique ability to plan out and take advatages of opportunites that have presented themselves.

Bush just sort of found himself being good at being a pol and got thrust out into the role of being President. Remember he was fairly reluctant to run over five years ago. He was basicly drafted into the role. Bush wandered about life until he got elected to being Govenor of Texas (which is really a figure head role) and then plunked down into the Oval Office because well a good number of Americans really found Gore to be Clinton leftovers growing a nasty case of class warfare mold.

The really amazing part in all of this is that Bush grew into the mold after he was elected. No wonder Kerry thinks Bush is unfit to lead?

Didn't he (Kerry) spend his entire life preparing a bio to demonstrate that he was?

What are you trying to avoid? The first thing I brought to your attention was your following incorrect statement:

Ok I guess you did not realize that Kerry DID NOT want to see combat. He joined the Swift Boats because it was easy but their mission changed. He tried his best to get out of being in the line of fire but was unsucessful

And I stated the following:

Not true. He served his full tour of duty.

http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/Service_Record.pdf

You will note that his service record actually spans 7 years, although he only enlisted (note not drafted) for 6 years. It appears that his active service was 6 years and 4 months and inactive the last 7 months.

ANd you'll also notice that not everything is there. His records end in 1970! Where are his records from 1970-1972? I see he was discharged in 1973 from the reserves but I don't see anything on his record since he left being the admiral's aide? Do you know what he did inbetween these two years? I don't see those records anywhere. If your in the Naval Reserves, you have to show up every weekend. Thus there should be evaluations somewhere. Where are they?

Ok I guess you did not realize that Kerry DID NOT want to see combat. He joined the Swift Boats because it was easy but their mission changed. He tried his best to get out of being in the line of fire but was unsucessfulEnough of beating up this topic. I have a straightforward question for you Corneliu. Given John Kerry’s military record, is he a war “hero”?

Enough of beating up this topic. I have a straightforward question for you Corneliu. Given John Kerry’s military record, is he a war “hero”?

The fact that he served in Vietnam, yes! I consider anyone that served in our military a hero wether they see combat or not.

Enough of beating up this topic. I have a straightforward question for you Corneliu. Given John Kerry’s military record, is he a war “hero”?
stop trying to reason with corneliu, no really stop, he has no ability to reason past 'im right, your wrong" just look at what he said, he signed up for swift boats because it was easy. im pretty sure people dont get to pick WHERE they want to go, look at the ultimate fact, kerry checked the box that said "i volunteer for active duty" or whatever it is

i agree with corenliu, he is a war hero. But that doesn't put aside the guys fake.

The fact that he served in Vietnam, yes! I consider anyone that served in our military a hero wether they see combat or not.
Then why are you trying to paint Kerry in a bad light? Why is it important for you to know what he did for those 2 years after leaving Viet Nam?

stop trying to reason with corneliu, no really stop, he has no ability to reason past 'im right, your wrong" just look at what he said, he signed up for swift boats because it was easy. im pretty sure people dont get to pick WHERE they want to go, look at the ultimate fact, kerry checked the box that said "i volunteer for active duty" or whatever it is

Actually CS, they do have some ability into that. Kerry did volunteer for swiftboats. I'm not denying that. He officially joined the Naval Reserves. That is what his enlistment papers state. He was even commissioned as an officer in the USNR. I'm not denying any of this. I'm glad he served in our nation's forces. I think everyone should serve at least two years in the military.

Then why are you trying to paint Kerry in a bad light? Why is it important for you to know what he did for those 2 years after leaving Viet Nam?

Because he says that he released all of his records. He says that all of his records are on his website. Where are the records from 1971-1973? I see his discharge papers but that is about it. I'm not trying to paint him in a bad light, I'm trying to get a better understanding of John Kerry so I can cast my vote this November for the best candidate for President. Another reason why I'm asking is because it is one of his most central issues. Since he constantly brings up his service record, I have the obligation to look into because I'm a voter. Since I'm not seeing his record from 1971-1973, I have to question what he did during that time. I know what he did in the civilian world, that has been blasted everywhere, but I want to know what he did in the reserves for those two years that are missing.

stop trying to reason with corneliu, no really stop, he has no ability to reason past 'im right, your wrong" just look at what he said, he signed up for swift boats because it was easy. im pretty sure people dont get to pick WHERE they want to go, look at the ultimate fact, kerry checked the box that said "i volunteer for active duty" or whatever it is
Yes you are right and also Kerry was not drafted, he enlisted on his own accord. He had a relatively "safe" assignment aboard the Gridley and chose to sign up with the swift boat crews, which were ultimately far more dangerous than any other assignment in Viet Nam. The fact that he risked his life to save a fellow sailor shows true courage and he was decorated for such valour. To try and suggest that he is not a hero for his actions does disservice to him and to all who would follow behind.

This thread is not going to live very long. It just says something that many have already said in other threads which had decent arguments that could be debated.

This isn't even an argument. Its a statement. Why are we even bothering posting?

I guess I was wrong. This argument has a lot of life in it. I guess both parties need an outlet about Kerry.

Though i support Bush because CNN is beginning to get boring.

"For the past week, they attacked my patriotism and even my fitness to serve as commander in chief," Kerry said.

Not a single person attacked his patriotism, this is a lie, he is trying to demonize those who only point out his record, or lack of a record.

The only person with a lack of a record is Bush, he dodged the draft and was even kicked out the Air National Guard for failure to show up at a health inspection or something. The Navy very recently put out records that said Kerrys swift boat was under fire.

ANd you'll also notice that not everything is there. His records end in 1970! Where are his records from 1970-1972? I see he was discharged in 1973 from the reserves but I don't see anything on his record since he left being the admiral's aide? Do you know what he did inbetween these two years? I don't see those records anywhere. If your in the Naval Reserves, you have to show up every weekend. Thus there should be evaluations somewhere. Where are they?

Actually Corneliu, if Kerry had been assigned to the inactive ready reserves, he did not have to show up to any drills. And there wouldnt be any written records either. There are 2 forms (actually 3, but one is indistinguishable to active duty) of reserves, the ready reserves (who drill on a monthy basis, with 2 weeks a year active) and inactive ready reserves (who dont drill at all). While I state that Im retired from the Navy, that's not technically true. Im in the fleet reserves (inactive ready reserves). I draw a pension, but for ten years after my discharge date, I am subject to recall. After spending 10 years in the fleet reserve, I am then transfered to retirement.

Enough of beating up this topic. I have a straightforward question for you Corneliu. Given John Kerry’s military record, is he a war “hero”?

The only one who's concerned with Kerry's service is Kerry. His whole campaign was geared around it. It's already been acknowledged that his service was more "honorable" than Bush's.

Shall we move on please?

Yes you are right and also Kerry was not drafted, he enlisted on his own accord. He had a relatively "safe" assignment aboard the Gridley and chose to sign up with the swift boat crews, which were ultimately far more dangerous than any other assignment in Viet Nam. The fact that he risked his life to save a fellow sailor shows true courage and he was decorated for such valour. To try and suggest that he is not a hero for his actions does disservice to him and to all who would follow behind.

At one point CH, swiftboats was an easy assignment till a particular Operation was conceived then they became a very dangerous assignment. On the rest of what you say, I can agree with. I'm not disputing that he saved Rasmann's life. I never have disputed that. I actually found it admirable that he did. Your right, to suggest that he isn't a war hero does due him disservice. I actually admire that he was in vietnam regardless if he was called up or went on his own accord. He was there. To me, that makes him a hero. Doesn't matter to me if he was shot at or not.

Why do people keep attacking Kerry because he flip-flopped? DOESNT ANYBODY KNOW THAT BUSH FLIP-FLOPPED? He said I dont think we can win the war on terror, than people criticized him for saying that so he said "We can win the war on terror!"

Because he says that he released all of his records. He says that all of his records are on his website. Where are the records from 1971-1973? I see his discharge papers but that is about it. I'm not trying to paint him in a bad light, I'm trying to get a better understanding of John Kerry so I can cast my vote this November for the best candidate for President. Another reason why I'm asking is because it is one of his most central issues. Since he constantly brings up his service record, I have the obligation to look into because I'm a voter. Since I'm not seeing his record from 1971-1973, I have to question what he did during that time. I know what he did in the civilian world, that has been blasted everywhere, but I want to know what he did in the reserves for those two years that are missing.
I believe you are making excuses so that you can continue to bash John Kerry. What if he spent two years at a typewriter after coming back from Viet Nam....what does it matter? He served, almost got killed, saved a life and more, fought for is country and your vote is based on what he did when he came back to the US? I say that is BS.

I don't see you clamouring for Bush's records?

Ok just to clear things upto all the religious nutjobs out there who vote Bush because of Pro-Life and banning Homo-marriage. BUSH IS A HOMOSEXUAL! many years ago he went into a coffin and masturbated in it! He doesnt worship Jesus he worships Satan!

I believe you are making excuses so that you can continue to bash John Kerry. What if he spent two years at a typewriter after coming back from Viet Nam....what does it matter? He served, almost got killed, saved a life and more, fought for is country and your vote is based on what he did when he came back to the US? I say that is BS.

I don't see you clamouring for Bush's records?

CH, I'm a voter. To be a more informed voter, I need to know all I can about what he is running on. If he is running on his military service, then I want to know about his military service. If he was running on his Senate Record, I would be looking into that. That is how people should vote. By research. If he spent 2 years behind a type writer that's fine.

What I am voting on is on what Kerry is not running on, records. I'm looking at 19 years in the Senate where he did nothing compared with six years as governor and 4 years as President (10 Years Executive Experience).

I've compared, contrast, and listened to what both candidates have said. I've listened to a whole year of Kerry's speeches and listened to Bush's speeches. I've watched both Conventions and listened to both speeches. In the end, I think that GWB will be a better leader for the US than JFK will be. This is my opinion and my opinion only.

As for clamouring for Bush's military records, he is not running on it. Since he is not running on it. I don't need to know. Kerry IS running on his thus his is fair game for me to study. I look at what both sides are running on then investigate. Kerry IS running on his military record, thus I have the obligation to study it whereas I don't have to study Bush's because Bush IS NOT running on his. Rest assured. If Bush was running on his, you better believe I would be taking a close look at his too.

CH, I'm a voter. To be a more informed voter, I need to know all I can about what he is running on..

Hehehe, so transparent my dear. It might of even been believable if you had not already for months espoused your undying support of Bush. You've already made up your mind and you did it a long time ago.

CH is right, you just keep bashing Kerry for reasons that don't include trying to inform yourself as a voter..lol nice try though! ;)

At least we fully admit we bash Bush because of what he's done and the reasons we disapprove. At least be honest.

I believe you are making excuses so that you can continue to bash John Kerry. What if he spent two years at a typewriter after coming back from Viet Nam....what does it matter? He served, almost got killed, saved a life and more, fought for is country and your vote is based on what he did when he came back to the US? I say that is BS.

I don't see you clamouring for Bush's records?

This one is a good one.... it's now bullsh*t that someone can base his vote on his political history. Since he is running for political office, I believe his political record is of the utmost importance.

Wasnt it Kerry that said you should concider whether or not someone served in the military as qualification for pubic office.

Hehehe, so transparent my dear. It might of even been believable if you had not already for months espoused your undying support of Bush. You've already made up your mind and you did it a long time ago.

Your right, I have been supporting Bush for along time because I've been researching Kerry since he announced his candidency just Like I researched all the other candidates. Kucinich was a lost cost, Al Sharpton would've gotten his head handed to him. Mosley wouldn't be able to cut it though she does fine in Congress. Dean was to eratic and Kerry had to pull a rabbit out of the hat to win the nomination. I actually like Lieberman and was planning on voting Lieberman if he got the nomination. He didn't so I'm supporting Bush because I don't like where Kerry stands on the Issues that I deem important to me.

CH is right, you just keep bashing Kerry for reasons that don't include trying to inform yourself as a voter..lol nice try though! ;)

Wrong. LOL!! I've looked at Kerry's records, Both Military and Senate, and they do not impress me in the least. Kerry stands for everything depending on where he is at in the country and where he is at in the polls. He does not stick to his record whereas Lieberman did. Lieberman stood by the war and is still standing by his vote to go to war. He even voted to fund it too. I like Lieberman's style and his candidness. He I could trust to run the US Military. Kerry I can't.

At least we fully admit we bash Bush because of what he's done and the reasons we disapprove. At least be honest.

You do fully admit that you bash Bush. Even I have bashed him a few times but I have to be careful in how I bash him because of my father who is in the military. I can't bash him publically just like I couldn't bash Clinton Publicly. There are certain things that I'm irked about of Bush. His immigration policies suck. Though I like his stance on Gay-Marriage, I don't support the FMA. I do support Civil Unions with limited benefits though. These are but 2 of the things that I've complained about Bush.

Hehehe, so transparent my dear. It might of even been believable if you had not already for months espoused your undying support of Bush. You've already made up your mind and you did it a long time ago.

CH is right, you just keep bashing Kerry for reasons that don't include trying to inform yourself as a voter..lol nice try though! ;)

At least we fully admit we bash Bush because of what he's done and the reasons we disapprove. At least be honest.

Steph, are you sure you're ok?... You and Zepp disapear for a while, and when you come back you are nothing like your old self.

You used to be extremely well informed, and well spoken. Perhaps a tad wrong in your opinions (imho ;) ).

Recently however, you seem to resort less to information and well informed opinions, but to attacks, however polite they may come across as.

Steph, are you sure you're ok?... You and Zepp disapear for a while, and when you come back you are nothing like your old self.

You used to be extremely well informed, and well spoken. Perhaps a tad wrong in your opinions (imho ;) ).

Recently however, you seem to resort less to information and well informed opinions, but to attacks, however polite they may come across as.
its hard to argue facts, logic, and reason with people who refuse to believe facts, refuse to consider logic, and refuse to listen to reason.

Steph, are you sure you're ok?... You and Zepp disapear for a while, and when you come back you are nothing like your old self.

You used to be extremely well informed, and well spoken. Perhaps a tad wrong in your opinions (imho ;) ).

Recently however, you seem to resort less to information and well informed opinions, but to attacks, however polite they may come across as.

Well, you see it's like beating a dead horse. Zep and I have given all the information and did the hard research that many don't like to do. What we found was no matter what we post no matter how much facts we provide people don't seem to care nor will they admit when they're wrong till usually Zep backs them into a corner and then they still some times refuse to.

We've made all the arguments. At this point it would just be redundant. If a new issue comes up, then we will go at it like usual, we will research it and provide the same good information as always. In the mean time.. since there is nothing new to discuss and I don't wish to keep rehashing the same old tired used up arguments of both sides, I just give my opinion. I call it as I see it. I don't attack any one, but if it walks like a duck, qacks like a duck, guess what? It's a duck! :)

...not Bush.

That's good enough for most people.

That's why I'm voting for him!

its hard to argue facts, logic, and reason with people who refuse to believe facts, refuse to consider logic, and refuse to listen to reason.

Pot, this is Kettle.

CH, I'm a voter. To be a more informed voter, I need to know all I can about what he is running on. If he is running on his military service, then I want to know about his military service. If he was running on his Senate Record, I would be looking into that. That is how people should vote. By research. If he spent 2 years behind a type writer that's fine.

What I am voting on is on what Kerry is not running on, records. I'm looking at 19 years in the Senate where he did nothing compared with six years as governor and 4 years as President (10 Years Executive Experience).

I've compared, contrast, and listened to what both candidates have said. I've listened to a whole year of Kerry's speeches and listened to Bush's speeches. I've watched both Conventions and listened to both speeches. In the end, I think that GWB will be a better leader for the US than JFK will be. This is my opinion and my opinion only.

As for clamouring for Bush's military records, he is not running on it. Since he is not running on it. I don't need to know. Kerry IS running on his thus his is fair game for me to study. I look at what both sides are running on then investigate. Kerry IS running on his military record, thus I have the obligation to study it whereas I don't have to study Bush's because Bush IS NOT running on his. Rest assured. If Bush was running on his, you better believe I would be taking a close look at his too.
As an outsider looking in, I see a lot of divisiveness within the US after 4 years with Bush as the US President. I believe that the US was a far better country under Bill Clinton's leadership.

After 8 years of Clinton, the unemployment rate was 3.9%, there was a surplus of $200 Billion, wages had grown significantly, the stock market was up, poverty declined by 9 million, crime plummeted, there were more Americans with medical insurance, the inflation rate fell dramatically, the dollar was higher, there was only a $100 Billion trade imbalance in 1994 ($500 Billion in 2004), the US Debt in Oct. 2000 was $5.6 Trillion ($7.3 Trillion today), 22 million jobs were created (Bush has net loss of 900,000 jobs), etc.

Is the US better off after 4 years of George W. Bush? It wouldn't appear that way.

Perhaps you need to take a harder look at the incumbent's record rather than worrying if Kerry was pushing a pencil back in 1970?

Pot, this is Kettle.
that was clever, wanna try facts and logic and reason to justify pro-bushness, by all means

As an outsider looking in, I see a lot of divisiveness within the US after 4 years with Bush as the US President. I believe that the US was a far better country under Bill Clinton's leadership.

Domestically I agree with you though Internationally I would disagree with you. As far as the divisiveness, doesn't 2000 ring a bell? There was alot of divisiveness back then. Just a tad more prominient now but no less divisive.

After 8 years of Clinton, the unemployment rate was 3.9%, there was a surplus of $200 Billion, wages had grown significantly, the stock market was up, poverty declined by 9 million, crime plummeted, there were more Americans with medical insurance, the inflation rate fell dramatically, the dollar was higher, there was only a $100 Billion trade imbalance in 1994 ($500 Billion in 2004), the US Debt in Oct. 2000 was $5.6 Trillion ($7.3 Trillion today), 22 million jobs were created (Bush has net loss of 900,000 jobs), etc.

Also, Clinton inherited a good business cycle during his 8 years of office. The Presidency doesn't have that much control over the economy. Yes they do have some but not as much as people think. Everything you stated here is accurate. However, our economy is starting to go up. Our unemployment rate is continueing to drop, jobs are still being created (144,000 last month, still have to check the household servey for their job numbers). Bush inherited a downturn in the business cycle and then had a terrorist attack followed by corporate scandals which rocked our economy. Considering its only been 3 years since 9/11 and the corporate scandals, our economy is doing pretty well. Now the Business cycle is turning back to the good side for the most part but after getting rocked, its going to be awhile for it to recover. Ironically, both Kerry AND Bush are promising 10 Million new jobs.

Is the US better off after 4 years of George W. Bush? It wouldn't appear that way.

If Kerry gets elected, our federal spending will increase more because of all the programs that Kerry wants to pass.

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=4953
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040712-121948-6467r.htm
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.21053,filter.all/pub_detail.asp
http://www.r21online.com/archives/000539.html

(Yes some of them are the same article but different takes on them)

Perhaps you need to take a harder look at the incumbent's record rather than worrying if Kerry was pushing a pencil back in 1970?

I have looked at Bush's record. Yes he has made mistakes, some of the big. I won't deny that. I've looked at Kerry's records in the Senate and Vietnam. I'm proud that he served but His Senate Record isn't what its cracked up to be otherwise he'll be running on that insead of Vietnam.

that was clever, wanna try facts and logic and reason to justify pro-bushness, by all means

Just pointing out the fact that when presented with facts and logic, you refuse to believe them as much if not more than you are accusing me of.

Just pointing out the fact that when presented with facts and logic, you refuse to believe them as much if not more than you are accusing me of.

I've told him this before. Not to mention, he lobs pity insults at those that disagree with him.

Bill! I love you man, your like the conservative TRA. I think we need someone to represent us, and your the man.I love Bill too. I think all the right wingers on here should be more like him. ;)