NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x884953

It's a lot to read. That's why I didn't copy and paste. Go there and read it.

When will these Swift Boat Liars give up their lying? :mad:

Well, I would have thought McCain calling on Bush to condemn them would be enough...but apparently not.

Sigh, they'll only stop when their funding stops.

"I have been to Paris. I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government." - John Kerry

"Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both." - U.S. Code, Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 45, Section 953 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/953.html)

Well, I would have thought McCain calling on Bush to condemn them would be enough...but apparently not.

Why won't Kerry join Bush in condemning all 527 groups?

Why won't Kerry join Bush in condemning all 527 groups?
Bush has REPEATEDLY refused to condemn swift boat vets agaisnt kerry specifically, he ksirts around hte issue by saying "527s, bah" where as KERRY said moveon.org has done stuff he doesnt agree with

It's funny how the dems whine all the time about stuff like this, but they had Michael Moore doing the same thing the whole time, as well as many, many more celebs and "authors". Hypocrites.

"I have been to Paris. I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government." - John Kerry

"Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both." - U.S. Code, Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 45, Section 953 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/953.html)
Doesn't apply. He didn't indend to influence the conduct of the NV...

Not to mention that right or wrong, the swift vets have their freedom of speech. I find it hilariously ironic that the democratic party claims to support freedom of speech, but call on a president they labeled "fascist" to take away someone's freedom of speech, simply because they disagree with the message.

Not to mention that right or wrong, the swift vets have their freedom of speech. I find it hilariously ironic that the democratic party claims to support freedom of speech, but call on a president they labeled "fascist" to take away someone's freedom of speech, simply because they disagree with the message.
Except that it boarders on Libel...

It's funny how the dems whine all the time about stuff like this, but they had Michael Moore doing the same thing the whole time, as well as many, many more celebs and "authors". Hypocrites.
Who says all of us think Michael Moore is 100% credible? SUre, he's factual almost all of the time, but he adds so many opinions to his writing and movies. He makes the Democrats look bad a lot. Like a liberal Limbaugh if you will.

Of course Moore's probably the only "liberal nutjob" I've seen identified on this entire website. Dan Rathers maybe, but I'd hardly consider him an extreist.

Except that it boarders on Libel...

If it's libel, they can get a lawyer and sue like the rest of them. I don't see why the democratic party can bypass the constitution just because they believe it's right for America.

When will these Swift Boat Liars give up their lying? :mad:


When the Democrats stop lying I will be sure to condemn the ads.

It is just politics. Condemn the NAACP and I will condemn the Swift Boats. If you only condemn the Swift Boats, you are classic hypocrite.

I personally think both sides have been equally guilty of mudslinging. Eleanor Cliff, who I disagree with 90% of the time, said will be known as the election in which Vietnam was the only issue. I agree with her. No one speaks about anything but Vietnam. But Kerry should have known better than to run on his military service.

Also, they are attacking him for his 71 bs statements. Bush and McCain condemned the attack on his service and I agree that was wrong to attack. But when he did at home is red meat. He dug his own grave by failing to understand politics. Ask Goldwater(well in heaven) about lies, he will tell you plenty.

Not to mention that right or wrong, the swift vets have their freedom of speech. I find it hilariously ironic that the democratic party claims to support freedom of speech, but call on a president they labeled "fascist" to take away someone's freedom of speech, simply because they disagree with the message.

Nice try...and the Republicans are taking away CBS's freedom of speech by attacking the bogus National Guard memo...

It goes both ways. meh.

It's funny how the dems whine all the time about stuff like this, but they had Michael Moore doing the same thing the whole time, as well as many, many more celebs and "authors". Hypocrites.
you, sir, are a hypocrite

no republican has ever lied or done anythign wrong. oh wait, limbaugh has been in the mainstream for how long? no one gave 2 shits about michael moore until bowling for columbine? and can you name 5 celebs and authors sitting around lying about things asserting it as the truth? im pretty sure when you go around repeating shit over and over that has already been disproven you are a lying idiot

Not to mention that right or wrong, the swift vets have their freedom of speech. I find it hilariously ironic that the democratic party claims to support freedom of speech, but call on a president they labeled "fascist" to take away someone's freedom of speech, simply because they disagree with the message.
hell it doesnt even border on libel, it IS libel. that is: untrue opinions designed to defame and hurt a person's credibility that are asserted as true. ie EVERYTHING the SBVAK have ever said

you, sir, are a hypocrite

no republican has ever lied or done anythign wrong. oh wait, limbaugh has been in the mainstream for how long? no one gave 2 shits about michael moore until bowling for columbine? and can you name 5 celebs and authors sitting around lying about things asserting it as the truth? im pretty sure when you go around repeating shit over and over that has already been disproven you are a lying idiot

David Limbaugh, the columnist? Show me one lie (seriously, expose one lie from Rush)!

Michael Moore
Sarah Brady
Richard Aborn
John Kerry
Dan Rather/Mary Mapes/Bill Burkett/?

lmao, expose one lie from limbaugh, lmfao

listen to any one of his radio shows, doesnt matter which one

you, sir, are a hypocrite

Nice sidestep. How does me pointing out the dems are just as bad as they claim the repubs are make me a hypocrite? Even if I was, what does that have to do with the dems crying?

and can you name 5 celebs and authors sitting around lying about things asserting it as the truth? im pretty sure when you go around repeating shit over and over that has already been disproven you are a lying idiot

Other than Michael Moore, celeb activists who have either authoritatively spouted anti-bush rhetoric or made their political opinions known:
Ben Afleck
Barbara Streissand
Genine Garofalo
Alec Baldwin
Whoopi Goldberg

Do a google search if you don't believe me, and find out what these people have said.

BTW, when you, instead of answering claims of misconduct or hypocrisy, resort to personal attacks on someone who disagrees with you, it shows not only that you have no real answer to the claims, but also that you care more about looking good than the truth. I'm merely trying to point out that the dems are doing the same thing they claim the republicans are doing. No need to lose your temper.

Other than Michael Moore, celeb activists who have either authoritatively spouted anti-bush rhetoric or made their political opinions known:
Ben Afleck
Barbara Streissand
Genine Garofalo
Alec Baldwin
Whoopi Goldberg

anti-bush rhetoric does not equal to the blatant lies and mistruth the swift boat vets are guilty of

For the sake of my sanity and faith in the human race, I absolutely refuse to click on any link to either DU or democracynow.

Could someone post a short summary of the "lies" here?

David Limbaugh, the columnist? Show me one lie (seriously,
Its called a delibrate distorition of the truth. Example,

He shot the poor kid (who happened to have a gun pointed at him).
or
He was the greatest father (to his oldest son, but didnt care about his daughters).

Without the parenthesis its quite different.


Look if you want to stop these ads you need to either take money out of politics, or have a journalist ask "Do you support SBVT, yes or no?" or "Do you support Moveon.org, yes or no?"

Could someone post a short summary of the "lies" here?
Everything ;)

John Kerry renounced his country's symbols? What a blatant distortion of the truth!

Except that it boarders on Libel...

It is very hard for a public figure to prove libel.

libel (http://injury-law.freeadvice.com/libel_and_slander/public_figure_lawsuit.htm)

I think Kerry would have a very tough time indeed. Remember the Falwell suit against Flint.

John Kerry renounced his country's symbols? What a blatant distortion of the truth!
Notice how reaserch papers are more than 20 pages long. Your 20 word post hardly sums up all there is to say. I could just begin with the basic WWWWWH questions. You compleatly distort the truth if you dont point out the crcumstances.


On a side note, Do you support SBVT? Yes or No

hell it doesnt even border on libel, it IS libel. that is: untrue opinions designed to defame and hurt a person's credibility that are asserted as true. ie EVERYTHING the SBVAK have ever said

Sorry, but Kerry is a public figure. As such he would have a tough time proving that there was deliberate malice and that they knew these statements were false. A hard case to prove indeed.

Doesn't apply. He didn't indend to influence the conduct of the NV...
Reaaaaaally. So you just happen to know what Kerry was thinking when he went there.

Only one itsy bitsy problem with your theory. He met in Paris with the North Vietnamese and the VietCong, then came back to the US to present Congress with the NV/VC proposal for an unconditional US withdrawal from South Vietnam. All while he was still a commissioned officer in the U.S. Navy (well, at that point he was in the Naval Reserve, which in his eyes doesn't really count as being in the service, right?)

Looks like the Swifties have a point.

It's funny how the dems whine all the time about stuff like this, but they had Michael Moore doing the same thing the whole time, as well as many, many more celebs and "authors". Hypocrites.

I think a two hour documentary that has the truth (albeit a skewed version of the truth) carries a bit more than a 30 second smear ad.

I think a two hour documentary that has the truth (albeit a skewed version of the truth) carries a bit more than a 30 second smear ad.
Except that the documented number of lies, inaccuracies and misrepresentations in FullofHate 9/11 exceeds 50...and the Swifties have over 250 folks who served with or close to Kerry in Vietnam, and they all agree in their conclusion. The main beef the Dims have with the Swifties has to do with who is funding them.

anti-bush rhetoric does not equal to the blatant lies and mistruth the swift boat vets are guilty of


Have you read Senator Kerry's book or the Swift Boat Vet book? Or are you basing your opinion on something you heard or read that may be a lie also? Misinformation on top of misinformation - repeat a lie enough times so that it seems to be the truth.

When did Senator Kerry get his Honorable Discharge?

Misinformation on top of misinformation - repeat a lie enough times so that it seems to be the truth.

Ahhhhh Bush's favourite behaviour.

Iraq is a threat to America
Al-Queda Iraq, 9/11
WMD, WMD, WMD

Iraq is a threat to America
Al-Queda Iraq, 9/11
WMD, WMD, WMD

Iraq is a threat to America
Al-Queda Iraq, 9/11
WMD, WMD, WMD

Iraq is a threat to America
Al-Queda Iraq, 9/11
WMD, WMD, WMD

Iraq is a threat to America
Al-Queda Iraq, 9/11
WMD, WMD, WMD

Iraq is a threat to America
Al-Queda Iraq, 9/11
WMD, WMD, WMD

I find a couple things ironic

1) military record shows that Kerry's retelling of the story over the years has changed, not little things, major things involving his rescuring of another soldier.

2) He criticizes Bush for not condemning the Swift Boat ads, but i dont see him condemning the moveon.org ads

3) the big one is the BIG LIE, Dan Rather comes out with a story based off false documents and information and just the next day, Kerry feeds off that by launching a open and public smeer campaign. They were stupid enough to even name it.

4) Bush has condemned ALL 527 ads not once, not twice, even more then three times on national television. Kerry continues to bash Bush for the Swift Boat ads but i guess he's never seen a moveon.org ad or something because i dont see him commenting on that.

Kerry is a walking contradiction, he couldnt stand by a decision if we gave him only one option.

I find a couple things ironic

1) military record shows that Kerry's retelling of the story over the years has changed, not little things, major things involving his rescuring of another soldier.

2) He criticizes Bush for not condemning the Swift Boat ads, but i dont see him condemning the moveon.org ads

3) the big one is the BIG LIE, Dan Rather comes out with a story based off false documents and information and just the next day, Kerry feeds off that by launching a open and public smeer campaign. They were stupid enough to even name it.

4) Bush has condemned ALL 527 ads not once, not twice, even more then three times on national television. Kerry continues to bash Bush for the Swift Boat ads but i guess he's never seen a moveon.org ad or something because i dont see him commenting on that.

Kerry is a walking contradiction, he couldnt stand by a decision if we gave him only one option.

1. Military records reveal his changing views? The military follwed his behavior after he left the service and kept writing in his files? I'd never heard such a thing before.

2. Kerry specifically condemned the moveon.org ads and asked that they be taken off. Bush has yet to specifically condemn the Swift Boat ads.

3. :rolleyes: How, exactly, is that a KERRY lie? Prove the Kerry camp created it.

4. You didn't see Kerry condemn the ads because you choose not too. He said it, it's documented, and it'd take you about 2 minutes to find it.

Kerry's actually been very consistent. It's not his fault that some people choose to blind themselves to fine distinctions and decry the evolution of ideas based on newer and better information.

The we have Bush. Bush the resolute. Bush the resolutely wrong. He's incapable of the flexibility required to save the debacle that is Iraq and he's not up to the amount of compromise needed in order to form strong, mutually beneficial alliances. He's blind to the day to day lives of the people he is supposed to serve.

All signs point to Bush being the 2nd worst president ever (worst being Buchanon, who allowed the Union to decay leading to the Civil War.)

Don't care about this--the Swifties have no cred and anyone who believes them is a moron--but if the Swifties are so sure of themselves, why won't O'Neill debate (http://www.bopnews.com/archives/001675.html#1675) Glenn Smith of Texans for Truth?

Ahhhhh Bush's favourite behaviour.

Iraq is a threat to America
Al-Queda Iraq, 9/11
WMD, WMD, WMD

Iraq is a threat to America
Al-Queda Iraq, 9/11
WMD, WMD, WMD

Iraq is a threat to America
Al-Queda Iraq, 9/11
WMD, WMD, WMD

Iraq is a threat to America
Al-Queda Iraq, 9/11
WMD, WMD, WMD

Iraq is a threat to America
Al-Queda Iraq, 9/11
WMD, WMD, WMD

Iraq is a threat to America
Al-Queda Iraq, 9/11
WMD, WMD, WMD

Senator Kerry stated that Iraq is a threat to America and that they had WMDs.

Are you stating that 9/11 is a lie?

There are/were ties between Iraq and Al Queda.

Senator Kerry stated that Iraq is a threat to America and that they had WMDs. Quote it.

Are you stating that 9/11 is a lie?Huh?

There are/were ties between Iraq and Al Queda.There were no cooperative ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda prior to the US-led invasion. None. Nada. Zip. Zero. Zilch.

When he was debriefed after the mission, they logged that retelling into military record, then he retells the story on a late night talk show in the late 70's (the same talk show where he claims he committed atrocities in Vietnam) and the story is different. Whats one of the major differences? In the debriefing he claimed that his boat was fired upon, during the talk show he claims it was the boat in front of him. This is a major change, it shouldnt be to hard to tell if your boat was being shot at or the bullets are flying somewhere else. He has no credibility.

When i say BIG LIE, i mean the story that Dan Rather sent out was based off false documentation therefore its a lie. I cant prove "yet" that Kerry was involved but dont worry im working on it.

I did not see Kerry condemn the moveon.org ads, so if you can show me that he did, then i'll concede the point. Bush condemns ALL 527 ads, that includes Swift Boat because its a 527 ad, so what he didnt target it specificially, he targeted all of them Swift Boat included.

Kerry is the most inconsistent person ive ever seen. It is documented that he has changed his position on iraq multiple times. August 8th he told the United States in a press conference that if he had to choose again, even with what we know today he would still vote to use force against iraq.

This month, he wouldnt, now in another debate i brought this up and a democrat told me that Kerry meant that he would authorize the use of the force but didnt mean to go to war....your kidding me right? So if i asked you if i could punch someone in the face and you said "you can if you want" and then i punch him and you say "you shouldnt have done that" i would punch you out next for such stupidity. This is a democrats resolve? Empty threats? They cant back up their mouths? Thats a democrats resolve, that just solidifies my belief that if Kerry becomes President, we will become the panzy country of the world.
As for Kerry being consistent, thats garbage, you know that. This is my trademark statement now, "Kerry couldnt stand by a decision if we gave him only one option."

Senator Kerry stated that Iraq is a threat to America and that they had WMDs.

Are you stating that 9/11 is a lie?

There are/were ties between Iraq and Al Queda.

The connection between Iraq and Al Queda is very easy to see

The connection between Iraq and Al Queda is very easy to see
You forgot the Qs. :D

You forgot the Qs. :D
Oops! haha

There are/were ties between Iraq and Al Queda.
I see that Bush said this so many times that you believe it?

Iraq is a threat to America
Al-Queda Iraq, 9/11
WMD, WMD, WMD

Iraq is a threat to America
Al-Queda Iraq, 9/11
WMD, WMD, WMD

Bush tried to tie Iraq with Al-Queda and what happened on 9/11. The US population heard this and at 1 point, 70% of Americans believed that Iraq was involved with 9/11. :eek:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm

The belief in the connection persists even though there has been no proof of a link between the two.

President Bush and members of his administration suggested a link between the two in the months before the war in Iraq. Claims of possible links have never been proven, however.

Simply Amazzzzzziiiinnnnnggggg!!!

When he was debriefed after the mission, they logged that retelling into military record, then he retells the story on a late night talk show in the late 70's (the same talk show where he claims he committed atrocities in Vietnam) and the story is different. Whats one of the major differences? In the debriefing he claimed that his boat was fired upon, during the talk show he claims it was the boat in front of him. This is a major change, it shouldnt be to hard to tell if your boat was being shot at or the bullets are flying somewhere else. He has no credibility.

When i say BIG LIE, i mean the story that Dan Rather sent out was based off false documentation therefore its a lie. I cant prove "yet" that Kerry was involved but dont worry im working on it.

I did not see Kerry condemn the moveon.org ads, so if you can show me that he did, then i'll concede the point. Bush condemns ALL 527 ads, that includes Swift Boat because its a 527 ad, so what he didnt target it specificially, he targeted all of them Swift Boat included.

Kerry is the most inconsistent person ive ever seen. It is documented that he has changed his position on iraq multiple times. August 8th he told the United States in a press conference that if he had to choose again, even with what we know today he would still vote to use force against iraq.

This month, he wouldnt, now in another debate i brought this up and a democrat told me that Kerry meant that he would authorize the use of the force but didnt mean to go to war....your kidding me right? So if i asked you if i could punch someone in the face and you said "you can if you want" and then i punch him and you say "you shouldnt have done that" i would punch you out next for such stupidity. This is a democrats resolve? Empty threats? They cant back up their mouths? Thats a democrats resolve, that just solidifies my belief that if Kerry becomes President, we will become the panzy country of the world.
As for Kerry being consistent, thats garbage, you know that. This is my trademark statement now, "Kerry couldnt stand by a decision if we gave him only one option."

The whole point of the Authorization was that Bush promised (his own words, listed in whitehouse.gov,) to use that authorization to keep the peace. In other words, it's a whole lot easier to intimidate someone when your threat is already authorized. Your analogy is tenuous at best.

Kerry has never said "I would have gone to war." not once. He stated again, making sure to use the word "authorization" so that his words would not be misconstrued, that he would have voted for the authorization again. He's never wavered from that, but it's easy to think so if one does not have an ear for complex and intelligent discourse and one is only shown speeches in 3 second chunks. Don't you ever wonder why there are so many edits in the SBVT ads? Doesn't it feel dirty to be manipulated so ruthlessly?

I knew I wouldn't regret putting Hickdumb on my ignore list.

Iraq was a threat, Herbert Walker Bush saw it, even your precious Clinton saw it, but like Kerry, Clinton believed in empty threats. Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, Somolia, Uzbekistan, forgotten wars under Clintons administration that cost the lives of thousands of american soldiers in vain.

Iraq was a threat, but why wait for that threat to face us when "they are ready"? Why make it even more difficult to oust Hussein when we can get him when he wasnt ready?

Husseins past history shows genocidal war mongering background. He invaded his neighbors, murdered a million of his own people with biological and chemical weapons, he allowed his soldiers including his son to rape iraqi women constantly, he brainwashed his people to believe that the US is the pinnacle of evil, he was conditioning his people for war by feeding off his people's hate for us. He openly supported terrorists like Bin Laden in the past, openly supported them, praised Bin Ladens attacks on us, sold weapons to Al Qaeda. He fired WMD's on his own people for decades in the past, a million of his own people, i doubt he would second guess himself on using WMD's on us, why wait for him to acquire them in the first place? The death toll would be much higher among our troops.

Quote it.

Huh?

There were no cooperative ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda prior to the US-led invasion. None. Nada. Zip. Zero. Zilch.


PARTIAL TEXT FROM THE SPEECH JOHN KERRY MADE ON THE SENATE FLOOR
October 9, 2002

In approaching the question of this resolution, I wish the timing were different. I wish for the sake of the country we were not here now at this moment. There are legitimate questions about that timing. But none of the underlying realities of the threat, none of the underlying realities of the choices we face are altered because they are, in fact, the same as they were in 1991 when we discovered those weapons when the teams went in, and in 1998 when the teams were kicked out.

With respect to Saddam Hussein and the threat he presents, we must ask ourselves a simple question: Why? Why is Saddam Hussein pursuing weapons that most nations have agreed to limit or give up? Why is Saddam Hussein guilty of breaking his own cease-fire agreement with the international community? Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don't even try, and responsible nations that have them attempt to limit their potential for disaster? Why did Saddam Hussein threaten and provoke? Why does he develop missiles that exceed allowable limits? Why did Saddam Hussein lie and deceive the inspection teams previously? Why did Saddam Hussein not account for all of the weapons of mass destruction which UNSCOM identified? Why is he seeking to develop unmanned airborne vehicles for delivery of biological agents?

Does he do all of these things because he wants to live by international standards of behavior? Because he respects international law? Because he is a nice guy underneath it all and the world should trust him?

It would be naive to the point of grave danger not to believe that, left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will provoke, misjudge, or stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world.
Saddam Hussein signed that agreement. Saddam Hussein is in office today because of that agreement. It is the only reason he survived in 1991. In 1991, the world collectively made a judgment that this man should not have weapons of mass destruction. And we are here today in the year 2002 with an uninspected 4-year interval during which time we know through intelligence he not only has kept them, but he continues to grow them.


Full text at: http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html

CanuckHeaven stated:
Ahhhhh Bush's favourite behaviour.

Iraq is a threat to America
Al-Queda Iraq, 9/11
WMD, WMD, WMD

Is that not 9/11 in CanuckHeaven statement of President Bush's lies?

When you authorize a president to go to war, the senate must authorize the move, not just authorize the authority to threaten. Saddam Hussein is not gonna care if we authorized our threat, you got to be freakin kidding man, is authorizing a threat supposed to make our threat more intimidating to Saddam Hussein?

"Saddam, we have authorized ourselves to use force against you"

Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds, its still just a threat, authorized or not, nothing changes. When you authorize the use of force, you are authorizing our right to go to war, not to threaten him, we dont need to authorize the right to intimidate him, we were doing that before the authorization anyway, Hussein wasnt buying it.

Incertonia, nice talking to you, putting me on your ignore list wont break my heart :upyours:

the Swifties have no cred and anyone who believes them is a moron

there's the problem right there. i tell ya, we need to get people started on the whole critical thinking thing at a young age.

Just briefly, Independant Turkeys, Kerry's speech was based on intelligence provided by the US intelligence sources, sifted through by the White House, and as it turns out, completely inaccurate. Now, could Kerry have done a bit more due diligence and smelled a rat? Sure he could have. I'm not even in government and I smelled a rat. But that statement was made based on faulty intelligence--intelligence that at least some in the White House knew to be faulty, because they'd removed anything detrimental to their case and brought forward intel that was questionable at best.

So you democrats still supporting that he "authorized the use of threats" or maybe he "misread" the bill and thought it said "authorization to use threats" not "force" i dont know you tell me, im figuring if it says, authorize the president to impose the use of force, it might mean actually using force, if you dont want to use force at any time, you dont be stupid AND VOTE FOR IT.

When you authorize a president to go to war, the senate must authorize the move, not just authorize the authority to threaten. Saddam Hussein is not gonna care if we authorized our threat, you got to be freakin kidding man, is authorizing a threat supposed to make our threat more intimidating to Saddam Hussein?

"Saddam, we have authorized ourselves to use force against you"

Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds, its still just a threat, authorized or not, nothing changes. When you authorize the use of force, you are authorizing our right to go to war, not to threaten him, we dont need to authorize the right to intimidate him, we were doing that before the authorization anyway, Hussein wasnt buying it.

Incertonia, nice talking to you, putting me on your ignore list wont break my heart :upyours:

It would have been stupid if it hadn't worked. Once the authorization to war was declared, Saddam let the inspectors in and they were doing their job. Oh no, but the Bush administration had to rush to war anyway. They wanted the war, and they weren't going to let anything like a promise to Congress get in their way. They got their war, and they've handled it like children playing with toys. Just how far are you willing to go to rationalize the failures of the Bush Presidentcy?

Don't you get it? They're laughing at you! They know they screwed up royallty, but as long as they have enough people not thinking critically about their actions, they still have a chance to keep their frightful grasp on the reins of America.

So you democrats still supporting that he "authorized the use of threats" or maybe he "misread" the bill and thought it said "authorization to use threats" not "force" i dont know you tell me, im figuring if it says, authorize the president to impose the use of force, it might mean actually using force, if you dont want to use force at any time, you dont be stupid AND VOTE FOR IT.

Again, you'd be right if the President himself hadn't said he was only going to use the authorization to keep the peace.

But you may be right, it may indeed be "stupid" to believe anything the President says.

furthermore the point that me and Independent Turkey are trying to get across is connected. Put two and two together, you democrats are capable of doing that right? I know you can, your smart, i can tell your not stupid so you can handle that.

That speech was taken based on misinformation, BUT last month he said he would still authorize the use of force, oh wait i mean "the threat of force" right guys hahaha you guys just crack me up. Last month supposedly Kerry still believed Hussein could still have been a threat even without misinformation, supposedly not this month though.

No, Hussein was still not cooperating, the weapons inspectators themselves said so, several times during their inspections, Husseins detoured and caused several problems with their investigation, i dont call that cooperation.

We authorized the use of force and we waited and waited "and waited" for these inspectators who werent getting the cooperation "required" by UN regulations to do their job. Many times the inspectators informed the UN Hussein was being uncooperative, we werent getting what we were threatening him for.

Just briefly, Independant Turkeys, Kerry's speech was based on intelligence provided by the US intelligence sources, sifted through by the White House, and as it turns out, completely inaccurate. Now, could Kerry have done a bit more due diligence and smelled a rat? Sure he could have. I'm not even in government and I smelled a rat. But that statement was made based on faulty intelligence--intelligence that at least some in the White House knew to be faulty, because they'd removed anything detrimental to their case and brought forward intel that was questionable at best.

Ah, I quoted Senator Kerry,a fact, and you come back with an opinion based on what? All of those other countries that came to the same conclusion must have been under President Bush's control to, huh?

And you called anyone who believes the Swifties, morons.

PARTIAL TEXT FROM THE SPEECH JOHN KERRY MADE ON THE SENATE FLOOR
October 9, 2002

And we are here today in the year 2002 with an uninspected 4-year interval during which time we know through intelligence he not only has kept them, but he continues to grow them.
Ahhhh but after this speech, the UN inspectors went back into Iraq in November 2002. Guess what? The UN was NOT finding ANY WMD. Blix even commented how co-operative Saddam was in allowing the inspectors access to anywhere they wanted to look. Bush got impatient, knowing that if the UN was unable to find any WMD, then he would not be able to invade Iraq. So against the wishes of the UN and many of US allies, Bush declared that the US was going to attack. WHY? WHY? WHY?

Show me a Kerry quote about this AFTER the UN inspectors were in Iraq.

CanuckHeaven stated:
Ahhhhh Bush's favourite behaviour.

Iraq is a threat to America
Al-Queda Iraq, 9/11
WMD, WMD, WMD

Is that not 9/11 in CanuckHeaven statement of President Bush's lies?
Your statement doesn't make sense?

Bush tried to link 9/11 with Saddam which is a lie.

It would have been stupid if it hadn't worked. Once the authorization to war was declared, Saddam let the inspectors in and they were doing their job. Oh no, but the Bush administration had to rush to war anyway. They wanted the war, and they weren't going to let anything like a promise to Congress get in their way. They got their war, and they've handled it like children playing with toys. Just how far are you willing to go to rationalize the failures of the Bush Presidentcy?

Don't you get it? They're laughing at you! They know they screwed up royallty, but as long as they have enough people not thinking critically about their actions, they still have a chance to keep their frightful grasp on the reins of America.

I hope you do not have any kids - they will be the future crimminals of the world.

"Saddam put those matches down. I said put those matches down. I am going to count to ten, so you had better put those matches down. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 - don't make me come over there. Saddam Hussein, I said put those matches down! Daddy is getting angry. If you don't put those matches down young man, there will be no TV tonight. Don't you dare strike that match. Hey, keep that match away from those curtains."

"Well, officer little Saddam didn't mean to burn down the house."

Ah, I quoted Senator Kerry,a fact, and you come back with an opinion based on what? All of those other countries that came to the same conclusion must have been under President Bush's control to, huh?

And you called anyone who believes the Swifties, morons.
Even though the UK joined forces with the US, most of the Brits were against the invasion and even members of his own party resigned. Why? Because they could smell a rat. Same here in Canada, except our government did not support going into Iraq. Same thing in Spain....most of the people were against the attack against Iraq? WHY? Because the UN inspectors were NOT finding ANY WMD.

Millions of people worldwide marched against the war. WHY? Because they knew it was wrong. Bush screwed up royally, and made it worse by hijacking the Iraqi economy (Bremer's Orders 39).

BTW, Saddam had WMD in the Gulf War, but guess what? He did NOT use them against the coalition forces.

"Iraq definitely does not have nuclear weapons, nor any long-range carrier systems which could take what it does not have to their targets. We can disarm Iraq without war."
Gerhard Schroeder, Chancellor of Germany

I hope you do not have any kids - they will be the future crimminals of the world.

"Saddam put those matches down. I said put those matches down. I am going to count to ten, so you had better put those matches down. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 - don't make me come over there. Saddam Hussein, I said put those matches down! Daddy is getting angry. If you don't put those matches down young man, there will be no TV tonight. Don't you dare strike that match. Hey, keep that match away from those curtains."

"Well, officer little Saddam didn't mean to burn down the house."
Ummm WHAT FREAKING MATCHES? Did the UN inspectors find any? Did David Kay find any? NO!!! Why not? THERE ARE NONE!!!!

CanuckHeaven stated:
Ahhhhh Bush's favourite behaviour.

Iraq is a threat to America
Al-Queda Iraq, 9/11
WMD, WMD, WMD

Your statement doesn't make sense?

Bush tried to link 9/11 with Saddam which is a lie.


Sorry, I was thrown off by your punctuation - got your intent now.

"Iraq definitely does not have nuclear weapons, nor any long-range carrier systems which could take what it does not have to their targets. We can disarm Iraq without war."
Gerhard Schroeder, Chancellor of Germany
These were the thoughts of MOST people around the world. The UN inspectors were doing an excellent job. However, Bush had other plans.

Bush also violated UN Resolution 1441:

10. REQUESTS all member states to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programs or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

Sorry, I was thrown off by your punctuation - got your intent now.
NP it was an honest mistake.

These were the thoughts of MOST people around the world. The UN inspectors were doing an excellent job. However, Bush had other plans.

Bush also violated UN Resolution 1441:

10. REQUESTS all member states to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programs or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;
Heh, that's why I said it :D

John Kerry renounced his country's symbols? What a blatant distortion of the truth!

Throwing Medals earned while in the military into the ocean is indeed renouncing his countries symbols.

So many people have thrown out the argument that the US was entitled to attack Iraq as per Resolution 1441 and the other Resolutions before. However, people really should look at the wording in Resolution 1441, because it is extremely important, and clearly shows the US intent to ignore this Resolution:

The first Clause spells out Iraq's deficiencies in regards to compliance to previous Resolutions:

1. DECIDES that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

Now having laid out the problem, Resolution 1441 CLEARLY states the following in Clause 2:

2. DECIDES while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the council;

Now, why in God's name did Bush not allow the process to continue?

Ahhhh but after this speech, the UN inspectors went back into Iraq in November 2002. Guess what? The UN was NOT finding ANY WMD. Blix even commented how co-operative Saddam was in allowing the inspectors access to anywhere they wanted to look. Bush got impatient, knowing that if the UN was unable to find any WMD, then he would not be able to invade Iraq. So against the wishes of the UN and many of US allies, Bush declared that the US was going to attack. WHY? WHY? WHY?

Show me a Kerry quote about this AFTER the UN inspectors were in Iraq.


http://www.back-to-iraq.com/archives/000172.php

http://www.kerryquotes.com/#Iraq%20War

Jan 23, 2003: "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."

http://www.kerryquotes.com/#Iraq%20War

Jan 23, 2003: "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
Okay now, I am going to nitpick. There is no link to this particular quote and it is removed from the body of the whole quote. Also this comment was made BEFORE Blix's Report to the UN detailing the following in regards to co-operation:

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.

What Kerry's thoughts would be after this report is another matter?

Also very important, did Kerry suggest that the US should attack unilaterally, without the presence of her traditional allies and without UN approval?

Throwing Medals earned while in the military into the ocean is indeed renouncing his countries symbols.

Maybe?

What about a man that uncerimoniously tosses his in a shoebox and leaves them in a garage?

My granddads and their brothers never displayed theirs.....

What I find fascinating is that people are offended by him throwing them away and then will talk about how he didn't really earn them.

Except that it boarders on Libel...

Libel requires very, very specific actions to be undertaken. Specifically, it falls to the person who claims libelous statements were made against them to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the statements are libelous. To do so requires access to ALL original documents related to the case, sworn affidavits, witness statements and testimony, and trial before a jury and (in this case) most likely television cameras.

My .02

If you want the ads to go away, don't talk about them.

At first I was bothered by them but I change my mind. Attack ads are part of the american political scene.

The sad part is the fact they are effective as many people will rarely if ever dig for facts to verify the comments.

Case and point. The 10+ year propaganda campaign by the Republicians to overturn the estate tax. Time and time again people who aren't affected by it think it should be overturned. Reason: "People are loosing the family farms" Problem: There has never been a case where a family farm was broken up to pay the estate tax.

The Kerry in Nam and the Shrub in the guard are NON ISSUES! They effectivly have diverted people from debating the real topics.

1) Jobs for the middleclass.
2) Are tax cuts for the wealthy really working.
3) Is Iraq on course.
4) Is Gitmo right?
5) The trade deficet.
6) The environment
7) Insurence.

Just to name a few.

Ummm WHAT FREAKING MATCHES? Did the UN inspectors find any? Did David Kay find any? NO!!! Why not? THERE ARE NONE!!!!


It was not the job of the U.N. Inspectors to find WMDs. It was their job to verify that Saddam got rid of his WMD and associated missiles. Saddam kept blocking them from doing their job - 17 resolutions and years down the road the U.S. and a collection of 30 plus states took him out.

What did we find - long range missles;gas warheads;tools to make WMDs;papers to prove an attempt to make a nuke;radioactive material that could be refined to make nukes.

It was not the job of the U.N. Inspectors to find WMDs. It was their job to verify that Saddam got rid of his WMD and associated missiles. Saddam kept blocking them from doing their job - 17 resolutions and years down the road the U.S. and a collection of 30 plus states took him out.

What did we find - long range missles;gas warheads;tools to make WMDs;papers to prove an attempt to make a nuke;radioactive material that could be refined to make nukes.
I heard about some of those claims.. but not all of them...
Could you possibly provide a link?

Show me where the Swift Boat Vets against Kerry were wrong. I have seen plenty of facts related to Kerry being wrong, not the SBV.

It seems to me that the SBV detractors here have not read either book.

I heard about some of those claims.. but not all of them...
Could you possibly provide a link?

Here are two - there are a lot more...

http://www.insightmag.com/news/2004/05/11/World/Investigative.Reportsaddams.Wmd.Have.Been.Found-670120.shtml

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html

Libel requires very, very specific actions to be undertaken. Specifically, it falls to the person who claims libelous statements were made against them to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the statements are libelous. To do so requires access to ALL original documents related to the case, sworn affidavits, witness statements and testimony, and trial before a jury and (in this case) most likely television cameras.
Hense why I said borders on libel. You need to prove that it was malicious too with public figures.

Maybe?

What about a man that uncerimoniously tosses his in a shoebox and leaves them in a garage?

My granddads and their brothers never displayed theirs.....

What I find fascinating is that people are offended by him throwing them away and then will talk about how he didn't really earn them.


Did you also happen to notice that they did not talk about it either. Most veterans that get medals do not flash them around, the reasons are many. A lot of these guys lost friends and feel that they were just doing their duty. I didn't find out about my Dad's medals till after he died. I was lucky to get him to tell me a story or two about his service in Viet Nam.

Funny how Kerry keeps flashing his around. His stories change each time he tells them too.

"Iraq definitely does not have nuclear weapons, nor any long-range carrier systems which could take what it does not have to their targets. We can disarm Iraq without war."
Gerhard Schroeder, Chancellor of Germany

<he said while he was stuffing his pockets with "Oil for Food" money>

Maybe?
What about a man that uncerimoniously tosses his in a shoebox and leaves them in a garage?
My granddads and their brothers never displayed theirs.....
What I find fascinating is that people are offended by him throwing them away and then will talk about how he didn't really earn them.

That falls under the category of "two wrongs don't make a right." Tossing the medals over the White House fence is a non-issue, as far as I'm concerned. They apparently weren't his own medals, anyway. But as a Vietnam veteran myself, what Kerry did and said after he completed his four months in Vietnam not only upsets me, but makes it impossible for me to believe anything the man says.

Things were bad enough having to come home only to have the "protesters" spit on us and call us things like "baby-killers" ( both of which happened to me ), but to have "one of our own" make such awful ( slanderous, really ) accusations about us in a Congressional hearing is a wound that will never truly heal. This is the real reason why so many Vietnam veterans actually hate Kerry. Not the medals.

The Swift Boat Vets have many good points - they just should have brought this stuff up a few years ago.


FLIP FLOP, FLIP FLOP - aid and comfort to the enemy.

I knew I wouldn't regret putting Hickdumb on my ignore list.

That's right. If you can't refute him, and you can't label him a liar, just ingore him. Typical leftist ... ignore everything which comes even close to calling into question what you choose to believe.

That's right. If you can't refute him, and you can't label him a liar, just ingore him. Typical leftist ... ignore everything which comes even close to calling into question what you choose to believe.
Piss off, you. If Hickdumb had made anything resembling a reasonable post, I'd have engaged him. You don't see me running from you, do you?

That's right. If you can't refute him, and you can't label him a liar, just ingore him. Typical leftist ... ignore everything which comes even close to calling into question what you choose to believe.

See. This is the sort of stuff that makes me think your claim that you're in your sixties is total BS.

Piss off, you. If Hickdumb had made anything resembling a reasonable post, I'd have engaged him. You don't see me running from you, do you?

LOL! Tsk! Such language! :D

Actually, I don't "see" you at all, a fact for which I'm grateful beyond belief!

See. This is the sort of stuff that makes me think your claim that you're in your sixties is total BS.

( shrug ) Whatever trips your trigger.

I am surprised that for the collossal failure and atrocity the Vietnam War was for the US, you seem to disagree with people who voiced their dissent. What is wrong returning from such a misbegotten war and saying that it sucks? I'd do exactly the same! That's democracy and bad wars should not ever be used to condemn someone who refused it. In fact Kerry should be congratulated for actually voicing dissent. Seems he was one of the few who dared to.

I am surprised that for the collossal failure and atrocity the Vietnam War was for the US, you seem to disagree with people who voiced their dissent. What is wrong returning from such a misbegotten war and saying that it sucks? I'd do exactly the same! That's democracy and bad wars should not ever be used to condemn someone who refused it. In fact Kerry should be congratulated for actually voicing dissent. Seems he was one of the few who dared to.

Why Viet Nam was a failure is a whole other thread.

Dissent is one thing. Being still in the service and doing it when fellow soldiers are still in harms way... whole other ball of wax. Going before Congress and spreading lies is a just plain treasonist. An officer and a gentleman, Kerry was not even close.

Why Viet Nam was a failure is a whole other thread.

Dissent is one thing. Being still in the service and doing it when fellow soldiers are still in harms way... whole other ball of wax. Going before Congress and spreading lies is a just plain treasonist. An officer and a gentleman, Kerry was not even close.
What lies did Kerry spread before Congress? Did not some US soldiers commit atrocities? Kerry never said they all did, after all--just some. Show me these lies, please.

1. Both the ad and the counter arguments posted here are splitting hairs. As far as whether or not Kerry made an impact on the North Vietnamese, there is a section in the Hanoi museum dedicated to the war that is dedicated to John Kerry. Kerry's testimony was used against POW veterans and they were forced to sign statements aknowledging it under pain of torture.

2. As far as Bush condemning the ads, Bush has condemned all 527 ads, and it should be pointed out that the Swift Vets have been outspent almost 20-1 by anti-Bush 527 groups who have made similiar if not substantially worse claims about Bush, making comparisons with Hitler and the like. To condemn Bush for not specifically condemning the Swift Vets, even while he condemns ALL 527 groups, is idiotic.

3. As for the Swift Vet claims themselves, why is the AP and news services responding and why hasn't Kerry? Why have only 4% of Kerry's military records, on which he has based a large amount of his campaign, been released?

4. Besides veterans like me, its hard to see why anyone else would care. Kerry's been in the Senate 20 years right? Why is there nothing there for him to run on?

1) Any number of other soldiers coming back from that war were speaking out against it publically, a lot didnt true but I still have some horror stories (second hand) from my dad about his cousins who went, and either didnt come back at all, came back in pieces or came back, told him about some horrible things theyd seen and done there, couldnt live with, and shot themselves. The fact that he spoke to congress about it yes makes it more in the public eye, but behaving like the POW's wouldnt have been tortured into signing affadavits regardless of his testemony is a bit unlikely in my eyes.

2) I havent seen any of this first hand could you give me a link or a paper/magazine article/press conference he did this in and i'll look it up for myself.


3) Kerry hasnt responded because up until recently his campaign manager was using a strategy of trying to keep the high ground. Avoiding acknowledging the smear obviously didnt work well, so he got a new manager to advise him.

4) I dunno, How long has bush been governor of Texas? How much of the things he's done there have been brought up. All i ever hear out of him is thusly.

1: Kerry = Flipflopper
2: Stay the course in Iraq, things are getting better.
3: Terror alert rising
4: God chose america to bring freedom to the world.

What lies did Kerry spread before Congress? Did not some US soldiers commit atrocities? Kerry never said they all did, after all--just some. Show me these lies, please.

Like the old joke goes - how do you know John Kerry is lying, his lips are moving. Anyway try these on for size:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/30/1510259

http://www.gopusa.com/news/2004/february/0224_kerry_antiwar_book.shtml

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/pacepa200402260828.asp

http://www.nationalreview.com/flashback/wfb200402040837.asp

Read the transcripts. Read the rebuttals. Read the truth. Read "Unfit for Command". Do your homework.

A link to links about many more Kerry lies:

http://www.cnsnews.com/Nation/Archive/200403/NAT20040324a.html

and the truth shall set you free!

A link to links about many more Kerry lies:

http://www.cnsnews.com/Nation/Archive/200403/NAT20040324a.html

and the truth shall set you free!
I just had a mental image of you and Kerry having a debate about this questionable material that you like to post......

So what do you think it would be like to have your head surgically removed from your butt? :eek:

Also very important, did Kerry suggest that the US should attack unilaterally, without the presence of her traditional allies and without UN approval?

Sep 6, 2002: "If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community's already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement, even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act." Op-Ed by John Kerry, "We Still Have A Choice On Iraq," The New York Times.

Just wanted to throw that in.

Sep 6, 2002: "If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community's already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement, even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act." Op-Ed by John Kerry, "We Still Have A Choice On Iraq," The New York Times.

Just wanted to throw that in.
Nice try.....but you took a quote of mine out of context and I guess that is what you are good at? Check the date (Sept. 6, 2002)....now check my comment in its entirety:

Also this comment was made BEFORE Blix's Report to the UN detailing the following in regards to co-operation:

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.

What Kerry's thoughts would be after this report is another matter?

Also very important, did Kerry suggest that the US should attack unilaterally, without the presence of her traditional allies and without UN approval?

If the UN inspectors had been allowed to complete their job then they would have found NO WMD, and Bush and Company would not have been able to justifiably invade Iraq, and IMHO Bush did NOT want to be denied that opportunity.

Right... you asked a question. I answered it. If you don't like the answer, maybe you should do more research before you ask the question :rolleyes:

I just had a mental image of you and Kerry having a debate about this questionable material that you like to post......

So what do you think it would be like to have your head surgically removed from your butt? :eek:


Ah yes, the ole standard personal attack because you have nothing to back up your opinion. Prove the material bogus or apologies. I bet you'll do neither and will most likely make another personal attack or ignore this post.

Ah yes, the ole standard personal attack because you have nothing to back up your opinion. Prove the material bogus or apologies. I bet you'll do neither and will most likely make another personal attack or ignore this post.
Perhaps you do not understand? Cerroneth quoted me out of context and I objected to that? Perhaps if you go back and read my original post you will see what I mean. I have no apology to make, and I already proved the material as bogus.

Meanwhile, you choose to make a personal attack against me suggesting that I am attacking Cerroneth, and further suggest that I have nothing to back up my facts, which is untrue. Kind of ironic huh?

Ah yes, the ole standard personal attack because you have nothing to back up your opinion. Prove the material bogus or apologies. I bet you'll do neither and will most likely make another personal attack or ignore this post.
So what do you think it would be like to have your head surgically removed from your butt?
Which is the personal attack?

Perhaps you do not understand? Cerroneth quoted me out of context and I objected to that? Perhaps if you go back and read my original post you will see what I mean. I have no apology to make, and I already proved the material as bogus.

Meanwhile, you choose to make a personal attack against me suggesting that I am attacking Cerroneth, and further suggest that I have nothing to back up my facts, which is untrue. Kind of ironic huh?

My post was to the personal attack on me - I posted nothing about Cerroneth's posts. I brought up links dealing with Kerry's lies. You brought up nothing. How does that disprove my source?

That falls under the category of "two wrongs don't make a right." Tossing the medals over the White House fence is a non-issue, as far as I'm concerned. They apparently weren't his own medals, anyway. But as a Vietnam veteran myself, what Kerry did and said after he completed his four months in Vietnam not only upsets me, but makes it impossible for me to believe anything the man says.

Things were bad enough having to come home only to have the "protesters" spit on us and call us things like "baby-killers" ( both of which happened to me ), but to have "one of our own" make such awful ( slanderous, really ) accusations about us in a Congressional hearing is a wound that will never truly heal. This is the real reason why so many Vietnam veterans actually hate Kerry. Not the medals.

Sure that sucks and it was wrong. However, it has gone on before. Look at the black regiment of WW1(forget the number). The Tuskegee Airmen, the black armored unit(forgot the number), and the black Para unit(forget the name).

After all they did, they came home to be second class citizens and a few were lynched.

Yes you were labeled baby killers for a war that many thought was bull. My buddy did two tours in the Rangers and he says it was bull.

Back from the tangent:

I hate to say it but Nam is not an issue for many voters and a few soldiers for that matter. The Swifties are basically preeching to the choir. Their effectivness will fizzle....

The Shrub is hardly the steller candidate. If he was Kerry would have gone home already.

The next two debates are probably going to hurt the shrub bad! Debating Gore was easy. Both had the same public speaking abilities. Now the shrub faces a guy that is basically a used car salesmen.

faces a guy that is basically a used car salesmen.
with all the sleaze and lies, yet none of the personality.

Which is the personal attack?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CanuckHeaven
So what do you think it would be like to have your head surgically removed from your butt?
*************************
This is a personal attack - implying I have my head where the sun don't shine and not posting material to disprove my sources.
*************************

Quote:
Originally Posted by Independant Turkeys
Ah yes, the ole standard personal attack because you have nothing to back up your opinion. Prove the material bogus or apologies. I bet you'll do neither and will most likely make another personal attack or ignore this post.
*************************
First sentence replies to CanuckHeaven's personal attack. Second one challenges CanuckHeaven to do one of two things. Third sentence is my personal observation of what most posts of this type are replied with and maybe a bit of a goad to get CanuckHeaven to disprove my source.
*************************

OK?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x884953

It's a lot to read. That's why I didn't copy and paste. Go there and read it.

When will these Swift Boat Liars give up their lying? :mad:

Man; who would have thought that a group called the 'Democratic Underground' would have a piece calling a 527 against their candidate 'liars?' We surely never saw that one coming; talk about being oblivious to the possibilities.

Awesome, its great to hear a bunch of punk kids calling a group of Vietnam Vets liars because the tarnish the image of the guy who happens to be running against Bush and is therefore the candidate of choice.

I don't know what happened, you don't know what happened, they were there, and at the least they have a right to be heard. If you wanna complain about these guys, how bout another article complaining about the assholes from MoveOn and the like, comparing Bush to Hitler and so on. But no, lets decry Vets who happen to disagree with us, many of whom are in fact Democrats or were on the McCain campaign, because they happen to have received about a tenth of their funding from a Republican in Texas. Meanwhile, Soros, a Hungarian drug-dealer who has tried to get heroin legalized for years, can pour millions into pro-Kerry 527 groups and no one cares.

Wonderful.

Awesome, its great to hear a bunch of punk kids calling a group of Vietnam Vets liars because the tarnish the image of the guy who happens to be running against Bush and is therefore the candidate of choice.

I don't know what happened, you don't know what happened, they were there, and at the least they have a right to be heard. If you wanna complain about these guys, how bout another article complaining about the assholes from MoveOn and the like, comparing Bush to Hitler and so on. But no, lets decry Vets who happen to disagree with us, many of whom are in fact Democrats or were on the McCain campaign, because they happen to have received about a tenth of their funding from a Republican in Texas. Meanwhile, Soros, a Hungarian drug-dealer who has tried to get heroin legalized for years, can pour millions into pro-Kerry 527 groups and no one cares.

Wonderful.

Wow, you're wrong on so many levels it hurts.

1) The Swifties are PROVEN liars. They have shown innacuracies. They have purposefully told things that are not the truth.

2) MoveOn never compared Bush to Hitler, you idiot. Look up the facts.

3) interesting you mentioned McCain. You know, Bush attacked him viciously too. Does that make him a punk kid? You stupid shit.

4) Honestly, all of this stuff has been posted SO many times it's NO LONGER FUNNY. SOOOO, here are your choices:

a) Read up on common knowledge, learn actual FACTS, then post

b) SHUT THE FUCK UP.

Wow, you're wrong on so many levels it hurts.

1) The Swifties are PROVEN liars. They have shown innacuracies. They have purposefully told things that are not the truth.

2) MoveOn never compared Bush to Hitler, you idiot. Look up the facts.

3) interesting you mentioned McCain. You know, Bush attacked him viciously too. Does that make him a punk kid? You stupid shit.

4) Honestly, all of this stuff has been posted SO many times it's NO LONGER FUNNY. SOOOO, here are your choices:

a) Read up on common knowledge, learn actual FACTS, then post

b) SHUT THE @UCK UP.

My my, a bit abusive, to say the least.

1) There was a differance of opinion when it comes to the Swifties statements - not lies. They were there, were you?

2) Technically they did not run the ads, but most likely, they would have if a big stink over them had not come up when the ads were put on Moveon.com's website. They were running a contest.
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36446

3) Politics is hell - if you can not stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. McCain is still here so he showed his metal. I commend him and all American soldiers that have served thier country.

4) Lies are still lies, no matter how many times they are stated. You need to do a better job of replying to a post by using facts instead being rather rude.

Have a Blessed Day.

My my, a bit abusive, to say the least.

1) There was a differance of opinion when it comes to the Swifties statements - not lies. They were there, were you?

2) Technically they did not run the ads, but most likely, they would have if a big stink over them had not come up when the ads were put on Moveon.com's website. They were running a contest.
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36446
I'll just reply to the first two. There were blatant lies in the Swift Vets first commercial--the statement that the boats were not under fire has been contradicted not only by other people serving on the same boats as Kerry and the people making the false charges, but is also refuted by Navy documents, and Letson's claim that he treated Kerry's first wound is a lie--he's not the medical officer mentioned in the report. Deliberate falsification is a lie, plain and simple.

As to the Moveon ad, as a person who saw the ad while it was a part of the contest, and who voted it as low as it could be voted, let me tell you something--that ad was never in the running for the finals, even if it hadn't been pulled before the contest was over. It was running in the low 2's, and the top rating was 5. My girlfriend wrote the script for one of the finalists, so I was on top of the situation. You really do need to get your facts straight, bub.

Thanks Incert ;). Pretty much said what I needed to, only much nicer :p

Like the old joke goes - how do you know John Kerry is lying, his lips are moving. Anyway try these on for size:

Trying them on...let's take 'em in order, and then wait for your retraction of these "facts".

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/30/1510259

Yes, this is a transcript. Can you please point to the discrepancy? Because your second link:

http://www.gopusa.com/news/2004/february/0224_kerry_antiwar_book.shtml

doesn't work. Care to make the argument yourself, or is your way of being convincing just posting a bunch of links?

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/pacepa200402260828.asp

This is the most absurd piece of "journalism" I've read in some time. The author is using nothing but personal anecdotes without any evidentiary support (kinda like the Swift Boat ads already criticized in this thread so far), and you seem to think that it's the smoking gun. Absurd. Show me the documents he claims were "verbatim" what Kerry said. Oh wait, the author actually said, "The quote from Senator Kerry is unmistakable Soviet-style sloganeering from this period. I believe it is very like a direct quote from one of these organizations' propaganda sheets." I believe! Yes! That must be it!

http://www.nationalreview.com/flashback/wfb200402040837.asp

Buckley's speech, while rhetorically well-designed, seems to be lacking in a major component: warranted arguments. I won't make this post 80 pages long by doing the line-by-line, but the level of logical fallacy that Buckley invites us to partake in makes my mind reel. For instance, Buckley's all-or-nothing argument, "The wells of regeneration are infinitely deep, but the stain described by John Kerry goes too deep to be bleached out by conventional remorse or resolution: better the destruction of America" is an absolutely laughable claim. Yes, I'm sure there's no other alternative between America as it is and has been and its utter destruction. This is the fallacy referred to as "false choice". It's one of the many devious ploys utilized in this speech to gloss over the various subtleties and nuances of the humyn language and attempt to make Kerry's position out to be completely for America or completely against America, all based on his testimony in front of the Senate. Wow. Excellent foundation for an argument. :rolleyes:

Read the transcripts. Read the rebuttals. Read the truth. Read "Unfit for Command". Do your homework.

I've read this. Thank you for wasting my time and showing that instead of doing critical analysis yourself, you just regurgitate what William F. Buckley and a random Romanian defector have to say.

I put Mr. Buckley in there because I liked what he said as it related to Kerry. I did not regurgitate Mr. Buckley's speech, though I did get a little acid in the back of my throat has I read you polished regurgitation.

You believe what you want, you have the right to be wrong, just like everyone else. No amount of proof will sway you, you are Kerry koolaid drinking to the end. You only believe the people that back Kerry. You were not there. The military was wrong to give Kerry that first Purple Heart.

I put Mr. Buckley in there because I liked what he said as it related to Kerry. I did not regurgitate Mr. Buckley's speech, though I did get a little acid in the back of my throat has I read you polished regurgitation.

You don't even have original verbal jabs to throw at me. You just use mine. And the fact that you liked what he said, despite the numerous logical inconsistencies and outright fallacies in it indicate pretty clearly to me that you're the lemming in this thread. What's it feel like to tell others to "decide for themselves" when you haven't even read it critically? Oh wait, you "like" it, so I guess you're exempted from being critical of it. :rolleyes:

You believe what you want, you have the right to be wrong, just like everyone else. No amount of proof will sway you, you are Kerry koolaid drinking to the end. You only believe the people that back Kerry.

You have obviously 1) not answered any of my arguments and 2) ended up resorting to unwarranted ad homs that presume you have some insight into what I believe or don't believe. Just because your argument was trash (and that's your fault), doesn't mean I don't think there are valid arguments disagreeing with Kerry. I personally happen to think he's way to militaristic about "killing the terrorists" and hardly specific enough about constitutes a terrorist, but then I've been saying that the entire country is just permeating the world with hate for years now. Also, Bush happens to be just as bad if not worse than Kerry on that score, so it's not an issue that would justify me voting for Bush, that's for certain. But you go ahead and continue to cry when someone does the analysis and shows how your own was deficient.

You were not there. The military was wrong to give Kerry that first Purple Heart.

1. Who said anything about getting a purple heart? This is a complete non-sequitur. Nice try attempting to divert attention from the fact that me and several others have decimated your "arguments". Maybe you should quote the random Romanian's personal anecdotes as fact again.

2. Does anyone else find the irony in these 2 sentences delicious? You preface this statement with the fact that I'm not qualified to make a judgement because I wasn't there. Tell me, were you in Kerry's unit? Were you THERE when he was injured and received his purple heart? Please enlighten us with the reason you feel you are justified in making the claim while I am not.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x884953

It's a lot to read. That's why I didn't copy and paste. Go there and read it.

When will these Swift Boat Liars give up their lying? :mad:

I've said it before and I'll say it again and again and again ... the Swiftboat Veterans are NOT liars. As a matter of fact, I find myself wishing they would make many more ads than they do now.

Wow, you're wrong on so many levels it hurts.

you idiot. You stupid shit . SHUT THE FUCK UP.

How very mature of you. Certainly made ME want to believe what you say!

I've said it before and I'll say it again and again and again ... the Swiftboat Veterans are NOT liars. As a matter of fact, I find myself wishing they would make many more ads than they do now.

Define liars, then. Is it someone who presents false information? Or do we somehow have to know what their intentions were?

I've said it before and I'll say it again and again and again ... the Swiftboat Veterans are NOT liars. As a matter of fact, I find myself wishing they would make many more ads than they do now.So what do you call it when what a person in the Swift Boat ads says turns out to be a fabrication? For instance, how is Letson's claim that he treated Kerry's injury for which he won his first Purple Heart anything but a lie when it's been documented that he was not the person who treated Kerry? What do you consider a lie, Eutrusca?

So what do you call it when what a person in the Swift Boat ads says turns out to be a fabrication? For instance, how is Letson's claim that he treated Kerry's injury for which he won his first Purple Heart anything but a lie when it's been documented that he was not the person who treated Kerry? What do you consider a lie, Eutrusca?

Where is this alleged documentation, please?

Where is this alleged documentation, please?

That brings us to the allegations that he misrepresented his own experiences. Here, Kerry's testimony was firsthand, so his veracity is on the line. Only two statements in the ad fall into this category. One comes from Louis Letson: "I know John Kerry is lying about his first Purple Heart because I treated him for that injury." The other comes from Van O'Dell: "John Kerry lied to get his Bronze Star. ... I know, I was there, I saw what happened."

Letson loses credibility right away for implying that he has firsthand knowledge about his allegation. He doesn't. The allegation has to do with the source of Kerry's injury, not its severity. According to Tuesday's Los Angeles Times, Letson told the paper that after treating Kerry, "[Letson] learned from some medical corpsmen that other crewmen had confided that there was no exchange of fire and that Kerry had accidentally wounded himself as he fired at the guerrillas. Letson said he didn't know if the crewmen giving this account were in the boat with Kerry or on other boats."

http://slate.msn.com/id/2105353/

Also, check out http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=231

Letson changed his own story in an interview from the one he told in the affidavit.

Eutrusca, still waiting to hear your definition of "liar".

That's right. If you can't refute him, and you can't label him a liar, just ingore him. Typical leftist ... ignore everything which comes even close to calling into question what you choose to believe.
I know this particular side-note is over but I wanted to interject.
The reason why someone puts another poster on the ignore list is usually because they find their post stupid/dumb/not worth the bandwith. There is also a good chance that they feel the ignored poster is either not listening to arguments and spouting rethorics or just plainly flame.

All my ignored posters come from these two categories:
1- Not debating, just preaching
2- Flaming or flame-baiting.

And I can tell you that Hickdumb is on my ignore list.

I'll just reply to the first two. There were blatant lies in the Swift Vets first commercial--the statement that the boats were not under fire has been contradicted not only by other people serving on the same boats as Kerry and the people making the false charges, but is also refuted by Navy documents, and Letson's claim that he treated Kerry's first wound is a lie--he's not the medical officer mentioned in the report. Deliberate falsification is a lie, plain and simple.

What you have is a bunch of people who were there that have different stories. They contradict each other and I maintain that you cannot tell who is lying if anyone is (lying to me is to intentionally tell an untruth). Written records are not always the truth especially if the written record was by someone who gained from same said report. How many times do you think a medic signed a report, even though someone else provided the initial treatment.


As to the Moveon ad, as a person who saw the ad while it was a part of the contest, and who voted it as low as it could be voted, let me tell you something--that ad was never in the running for the finals, even if it hadn't been pulled before the contest was over. It was running in the low 2's, and the top rating was 5. My girlfriend wrote the script for one of the finalists, so I was on top of the situation. You really do need to get your facts straight, bub.

What you are forgetting is that there were other people that have money and were thinking of using said contest ads. These people are BIG contributors to Movon.

What you have is a bunch of people who were there that have different stories. They contradict each other and I maintain that you cannot tell who is lying if anyone is (lying to me is to intentionally tell an untruth). Written records are not always the truth especially if the written record was by someone who gained from same said report. How many times do you think a medic signed a report, even though someone else provided the initial treatment.

Um, read my links. Letson changed his own story and admitted in an LA Times interview that he heard the knowledge third hand. That makes him a liar.

Um, read my links. Letson changed his own story and admitted in an LA Times interview that he heard the knowledge third hand. That makes him a liar.

Just saw it. Letson is a liar. 2 down 200 to go.

I was posting a reply to your other post and this damn Jolt logged me off and I lost the reply. Gotta go so I'll reply later.

What you are forgetting is that there were other people that have money and were thinking of using said contest ads. These people are BIG contributors to Movon.
Then it's hardly reasonable to say that Moveon was going to run the ads when they most certainly weren't. What independent people do with their own money is their own damn business, and has nothing to do with the organization Moveon.

Then it's hardly reasonable to say that Moveon was going to run the ads when they most certainly weren't. What independent people do with their own money is their own damn business, and has nothing to do with the organization Moveon.

If they were not thinking of running it or trying to come up with a scheme to be able to disavowal the "contest ad", why was it on their webpage? I am quite sure that in their rules, they could refuse to put any submitted ad.

Great way to not air an ad but still have the ad aired on the news.

If they were not thinking of running it or trying to come up with a scheme to be able to disavowal the "contest ad", why was it on their webpage? I am quite sure that in their rules, they could refuse to put any submitted ad.

Great way to not air an ad but still have the ad aired on the news.Let me explain a little something to you about Moveon, especially at the time of this ad contest. Moveon is basically 7 people--the latest being a lawyer--with a couple hundred thousand people who volunteer time and money. At the time of the ad contest, Moveon was 6 people, and they expected about a hundred ads--they got 1,500. They were swamped, and they did reject a few entries from the contest, but they obviously missed one, and it got into the contest. They pulled it and apologized for it. It was on their webpage because every ad that was a part of the contest was on the webpage. It was an internet based contest. Where else would the ads be?

Except that it boarders on Libel...

Kerry could sue. Of course he wont because then he would have to testify under penalty of perjury as to what actually happened.
His story keeps a changing
The swiftboat vets have been entirely consistant. Who was that who's lying?
Kerry claimed to have been in Cambodia on Christmas day

In 1986, Kerry told the Senate:

"I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by the Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the president of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared – seared – in me."

Here are the facts:

Kerry was stationed at Coastal Division 13 in Cat Lo. Coastal Division 13’s patrol areas extended to Sa Dec, about 55 miles from the Cambodian border. Tom Anderson, Commander of River Division 531, who was in charge of PBRs (small river patrol crafts) confirmed that there were no Swifts anywhere in the area and they would have been stopped had they appeared.

All the living commanders in Kerry’s chain of command . . . deny that Kerry was ever ordered to Cambodia. They indicate that Kerry would have been seriously disciplined or court-martialed had he gone there. At least three of the five crewmen on Kerry’s boat, Bill Zaldonis, Steven Hatch, and Steve Gardner, deny that they or their boat were ever in Cambodia.

Decide for yourself who's lying.

Kerry could sue. Of course he wont because then he would have to testify under penalty of perjury as to what actually happened.
His story keeps a changing
The swiftboat vets have been entirely consistant. Who was that who's lying?
Kerry claimed to have been in Cambodia on Christmas day

In 1986, Kerry told the Senate:

"I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by the Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the president of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared – seared – in me."

Here are the facts:

Kerry was stationed at Coastal Division 13 in Cat Lo. Coastal Division 13’s patrol areas extended to Sa Dec, about 55 miles from the Cambodian border. Tom Anderson, Commander of River Division 531, who was in charge of PBRs (small river patrol crafts) confirmed that there were no Swifts anywhere in the area and they would have been stopped had they appeared.

All the living commanders in Kerry’s chain of command . . . deny that Kerry was ever ordered to Cambodia. They indicate that Kerry would have been seriously disciplined or court-martialed had he gone there. At least three of the five crewmen on Kerry’s boat, Bill Zaldonis, Steven Hatch, and Steve Gardner, deny that they or their boat were ever in Cambodia.

Decide for yourself who's lying.


The Swift Boat Vet's story hasn't changed? What world do you live in? Oh, and John O'Neill himself was caught on tape talking to Nixon himself saying that he was in Cambodia...and then years later saying that it was impossible for any swift boat to be in Cambodia.

Sorry, the overwhelming evidence (including an investigation by the Navy itself into Kerry's medals after the Swift Boat Vet controversy started,) shows that the SBVT are liars.

"I have been to Paris. I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government." - John Kerry

"Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both." - U.S. Code, Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 45, Section 953 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/953.html)

What does Bush Sr. do every time he speaks to the Saudi Royal family?