1
   

The truth about Kerry in Nam coming to light

 
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Aug, 2004 06:12 pm
DEEEEEEEEbunked.

Not too Swift.

What doo-doo will you smear on yourselves next, Republicans?
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Aug, 2004 08:34 pm
Karzaks jelus. He only wishes that Bush had some honoreable accomplishments in his pre selection years.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Aug, 2004 09:11 pm
Quote:
Everyday I think there will be a line the Republicans won't cross, I try to hold onto the hope that they possess at least of shred even if barely visble of shame. Yet each day I am disappointed for they seem to be void of shame or conscience for that matter principle. These are the people who want to lead this nation. I have to wonder, do they honestly want to create a nation as void of these elements as they seem to be? God help us all.


Funny, I was thinking the same thing, only everyday I think there will be a line the Democrats won't cross. God help us all, indeed.
0 Replies
 
Linkat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Aug, 2004 07:09 am
Again Karzak - you only believe the eyewitnesses you want to believe - those that share your point of view. You do not believe those that were closer to the action that were also eyewitnesses. You give a rat's behind only on those that share your viewpoint. You were not an eyewitness. So your viewpoint does not hold any water. In order to make an unbiased decision, you need to look at all eyewitness accounts. You choice only to listen to those further from the action. I looked at all accounts and considered the motivation of all.

Like I stated before, unless you were there you cannot know what happened 100%. If I were to listen to eyewitnesses at an accident scene I would get as many accounts as there were witnesses. If there was a witness standing right where the accident occurred versus one across the street which account would be more likely to be closer to the truth? If some one involved in the accident, Mr. A was to say to an eyewitness something, which made him angry. This same eyewitness states that the accident was Mr. A's fault, while other eyewitnesses closer to the accident, say it was Mr. B's fault, which is more likely to be closer to the truth?
0 Replies
 
Karzak
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Aug, 2004 09:45 am
Linkat wrote:
Again Karzak - you only believe the eyewitnesses you want to believe - those that share your point of view. You do not believe those that were closer to the action that were also eyewitnesses.


There isn't a lot of discrepancy here, between the two.

Kerry supporters just want to deny the truth, it's just another vast right wing conspiracy!
0 Replies
 
Redheat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Aug, 2004 10:00 am
Quote:
Funny, I was thinking the same thing, only everyday I think there will be a line the Democrats won't cross. God help us all, indeed.


Given that you don't bother to cite examples or provide us with anything that would allow us to compare the actions of both, your post seems to be swimming in irrelevance and does nothing to dispute or counter the quote you provided.

Quote:
A key figure in a veterans' anti-Kerry campaign, Kerry's former commanding officer, admitted today he lied when he said the Democratic candidate for President did not deserve the Silver Star.

Lieutenant Commander George Elliott now says he made a ''terrible mistake" in signing an affidavit that suggests Kerry did not deserve the Silver Star -- one of the main allegations in a new book, "Unfit For Command," which questions Kerry's fitness for President.


Source
0 Replies
 
Karzak
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Aug, 2004 10:18 am
LOL, why source it from such a liberal source? A cite like that is worthless.

BTW, he never admitted he lied, he just said he made a mistake, like Kerry did when he shot that kid in the back no doubt. Or gunned down a woman and baby, or several south vietnamese.
0 Replies
 
Linkat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Aug, 2004 10:58 am
You make my point exactly Karzak you are biased and unable to see beyond that bias. You give no further explanation than to say it is a right wing conspiracy. It can just as easily be explained away in reverse by saying, "it's just another left wing conspiracy."

Karzak - have you even given any source? Well this story is on all the news not just that one source sited by redheat.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/08/06/veteran_retracts_criticism_of_kerry/

"…Lt Commander Elliott said he had made a ''terrible mistake" in signing an affidavit suggesting Kerry did not deserve the Silver Star -- one of the main allegations in the book. Elliott is quoted as saying that Kerry ''lied about what occurred in Vietnam . . . for example, in connection with his Silver Star, I was never informed that he had simply shot a wounded, fleeing Viet Cong in the back."

''I still don't think he shot the guy in the back," Elliott said. ''It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words. I'm the one in trouble here." Elliott said he did feel ''time pressure" from those involved in the book. The affidavit contradicted earlier statements by Elliott, during Kerry's 1996 Senate campaign defending Kerry on similar charges, saying that Kerry acted properly and deserved the Silver Star.

All of Kerry's crewmates who participated and are still living said in interviews last year that the action was necessary and appropriate, and it was Elliott who recommended Kerry for the Silver Star.

The book raises questions about the action of March 13, 1969, which Kerry was awarded a Bronze Star and his third Purple Heart. Kerry rescued James Rassmann, who went overboard as a result of an explosion. Rassmann appeared by Kerry's side during the Iowa caucus campaign and the DNC, telling the story of how Kerry pulled him out of the water while his boat was under fire.

According to the recommendation, a mine exploded under a boat accompanying Kerry's craft. ''Almost simultaneously, another mine detonated close aboard Kerry's PCF-94, knocking First Lieutenant Rassman into the water and wounding Lt. Kerry in the right arm." Kerry ''managed to pull. Rassman aboard despite the painful wound in his right arm." Kerry had been ''calm, professional, and highly courageous in the face of enemy fire."

Naval documents state Kerry ''received shrapnel wounds in left buttocks and contusions on right forearm when a mine detonated close to PCF 94 while engaged in operations on river. Condition and prognosis excellent. Result of hostile action." Rassmann said there were two separate events: One earlier in the day, when he and Kerry blew up a rice cache, the explosion caused some of the rice to hit Kerry, and perhaps some weapon fragments as well. The second involved a mine explosion as Kerry and Rassmann were on patrol. The explosion knocked him overboard and threw Kerry against the pilothouse, injuring his arm.

Rassmann said Kerry deserved the third Purple Heart because such awards are given for injuries incurred in combat, and Kerry's arm injury qualified. He also stood by his recollection that he was under fire when rescued by Kerry. Those questioning Kerry's medals, Rassmann said, are ''angry about John speaking out against the [Vietnam] war."
0 Replies
 
Linkat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Aug, 2004 11:14 am
Even President Bush does not want to question Kerry's military career…"We have not and will not question Senator Kerry's service in Vietnam," White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters aboard Air Force One. "The president is calling for an immediate cessation to all the unregulated soft money activity." http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040805-115811-6900r.htm
0 Replies
 
jpinMilwaukee
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Aug, 2004 11:21 am
So all this proves that roughly half of these guys like him for president and half of them don't... just like the rest of the country. If he had just kept his word to not use his service in Vietnam in the first place we wouldn't be having these useless discussions.

September 7, 2002, New York Times, Editorial/OP Ed


Watching Movies With Senator Kerry
By BILL KELLER

WASHINGTON

A couple of columns ago, while plowing through a crowd
of Democrats who want to be president, I threw an
elbow at Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts. I
suggested that his claim to be a global thinker leaned
rather excessively on his 30-year-old heroism in
Vietnam. And, relying on a report in the usually
dependable Boston Globe, I mocked him for pulling out
a movie camera after a shootout in the Mekong Delta
and re-enacting the exploit, as if preening for
campaign commercials to come.


Cheap shot, the senator's people said of the notion
that he belabors his war record. And just plain wrong
about those movies.


Which is how I came to be sitting in a wing chair in
the senator's office the other day while he plugged in
a videocassette and fumbled with a balky remote.


"It is so innocent," he said by way of introducing his
youthful cinematic effort, adding a little
defensively, "I have no intention of using it" for
campaign purposes.
0 Replies
 
swolf
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Aug, 2004 11:22 am
Redheat wrote:


Everyday I think there will be a line the Republicans won't cross, I try to hold onto the hope that they possess at least of shred even if barely visble of shame. Yet each day I am disappointed for they seem to be void of shame or conscience for that matter principle.


I've got problems with the republican party myself, but they don't begin to compare with the problems I have with the demmunists.

How can you possibly keep your face straight while trying to claim that the republicans lack shame or conscience? I mean, after eight years of the Klintler regime and then four years of this constant barrage of lies and hatred against George W. Bush including this nazi propaganda film of Michael fat-drunk-and-stupid-is-no-way-to-go-thgrough-life Moore's?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Aug, 2004 11:27 am
Quote:
I mean, after eight years of the Klintler regime and then four years of this constant barrage of lies and hatred against George W. Bush including this nazi propaganda film of Michael fat-drunk-and-stupid-is-no-way-to-go-thgrough-life Moore's?


How can you make statements like this and actually expect people to take you seriously, Flows?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
swolf
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Aug, 2004 11:51 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
I mean, after eight years of the Klintler regime and then four years of this constant barrage of lies and hatred against George W. Bush including this nazi propaganda film of Michael fat-drunk-and-stupid-is-no-way-to-go-thgrough-life Moore's?


How can you make statements like this and actually expect people to take you seriously, Flows?

Cycloptichorn



Consider our last demmunist president, just three and a half short years ago...



You're a serious, died-in-the-wool gangster, and you succeed beyond your wildest dreams; you take over the United States and assume the office of president. What are your first moves going to be? Basically, you will want to seal off every possible avenue of political and legal redress against gangsterism which you might have committed in the past, and against further gangsterism which you might hope to perpetrate in the future. You might start by expropriating 1100 raw FBI files on every conceivable political opponent, and making a database out of them:

http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1998/12/16/135337

That would pretty much seal off most avenues of political redress. A next step or several steps might consist of replacing with your own people as many as possible of the little people, whitehouse career employees and what not, with whom a president and his entourage must interact, to eliminate to the extent possible any possibilities of one of these employees seeing something and then telling reporters about it. The episode called Travelgate is one example of this approach:

http://www.counterclintonlibrary.com/VTTravelGate.htm

Next, you will want to neutralize the US Justice Department. To this end, you might want to hire an attorney general who is politically ambitious and, at the same time, has so ungodly an assortment of skeletons in her closet, that she can be absolutely controlled and prevented from ever allowing any of the justice departments myriad flashlights from shining in on anything rsembling whitehouse gangsterism.

Jack Thompson ran against Janet Reno in a Dade County election once, and has been publically daring Reno, the Florida Bar, and the Democrat party to sue him for the last ten years. He describes Reno, occasionally on high-profile radio programs, as a predatory lesbian who has been stopped with female prostitutes in the back seat of cars in mall parking lots, who has been pulled over DWI numerous times, and hwo has major kinds of mob ties. Info on this topic is not difficult to find on the net. One version resides at:

http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/stonewall_renostarr.html

But the major part of Janet Reno's skeleton collection involves something totally different. In the 1980's, a new variation on the medieval theme of witchcraft trials arose in America, the so-called "ritual abuse" trial, using recovered memories as evidence. This began with the celebrated McMartin case at Manhatten Beach and quickly spread over the land, every unscrupulous DA in the country trying to add one such case to his/her resume in much the same manner in which professional hunters like to have one elephant or one rhino on their resumes. All except Janet Reno, that is. She made a cottage industry out of sending people to prison for long periods of time for things which, not only had they not done, but which in fact had never happened at all.

Her most famous case, that of decorated Florida policeman Grant Snowden, has been overturned by a federal appeals court after Snowden spent 13 years in prison:

http://www.ags.uci.edu/~dehill/witchhunt/cases/snowden.htm

In the case of Bobby Fijnje, an innocent 14-year-old boy was held without bond for 18 months and tried as an adult for more crimes which never happened. The family was told that unless they copped a plea, Bobby would be in an adult prison population and would be dead from AIDS within two years. A jury found Bobby innocent on seven of seven charges. One of Reno's henchmen, asked what had gone wrong with the prosecution on which 3 million dollars of the Dade County taxpayers' money had been spent, replied that they hadn't spent enough money; new charges were being drawn up the same night and the Fijnje family fled to Holland. Fijnje's Father sent an incindiary letter to The NY Times upon learning of Reno's appointment to AG:

http://www.ags.uci.edu/~dehill/witchhunt/ccla/pages/fijnje.htm

But the worst case of all was that of the Fusters:

http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/4/25/93805

This activity was in fact Reno's major claim to fame. Her concern for children is undoubtedly what caused her to sign off on the Waco deal, in which a number of children were rescued from more imaginary sexual abuse by being firebombed (the firebombing was real and not imaginary):

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/WACO/waco.html

Check the before and after pictures, near the bottom of the www page. The technique IS effective; I don't think those kids had to worry about being abused again after Reno finished with them...

Other than that, the use of recovered memories for anything has since been declared to be a criminal activity in England.

Your next step, as gangster president, might be to have this well-chosen new attorney general summarily fire and replace all 93 federal attorneys:

http://www.tocquevillian.com/articles/0099.html

Having thus sealed all avenues of political and legal redress and reasonably assured your own security from external forces, your next step, as America's first gangster president, might be to try to achieve some measure of security from INTERNAL forces, i.e. to commission some sort of a serious psychiatric profile/assessment of yourself so as to know in which areas your personna might could stand improvement. Slick, of course, did not do this. Had he, what would have turned up might have been the following:

http://www.reason.com/9411/fe.efron.9411.html
http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/unifiedclinton.html

Your next step, after all of this, would be to turn again to one of your favorite hobbies and most major skills in life, fundraising, not only for the purpose of further political campaigns, but also to insure a ready supply of cash for buying the silence of people who know too much but who for whatever reason, it would appear clumsy or mean-spirited to simply kill. Jerome Zeifman, the chief council for the house judiciary committee at the time of Watergate and the man most responsible for getting rid of Nixon, noted that he would impeach Clinton for three obvious cases of bribery, i.e.

"In his conduct of the office of the president of the United States, William J. Clinton has given or received bribes with respect to one or more of the following:

"(1) Approving, condoning or acquiescing in the surreptitious payment of bribes for the purpose of obtaining the silence or influencing the testimony of Webster Hubbell as a witness or potential witness in criminal proceedings.

"(2) Approving, condoning or acquiescing in the use of political influence by Vernon Jordan in obtaining employment for the purpose of obtaining the silence or influencing the testimony of Monica Lewinsky as a witness or potential witness in civil or criminal proceedings;
and

"(3) Approving, condoning or acquiescing in the receipt of bribes in connection with the issuance of an executive order which had the effect of giving Indonesia a monopoly on the sale of certain types of coal."

Item three, in fact, clearly shows the worst aspects of democrat gangsterism. The real problem here is that the democrats no longer truly represent anybody who could support a political party either in terms of money or in terms of votes, and so they are seen raising cash in every country on earth other than the United States in which they supposedly live, and trying to forge voting majorities out of collections of little imaginary victim groups.

The fundraising activities, in particular, are highly leveraged in that very large items of national treasure and assets are being sold off for relatively miniscule sums of campaign cash. In the case of Utahgate which Zeifman mentions as item 3, something like a trillion dollars was pulled out of the American economy for the benefit of Clinton's Lippo buddies in Indonesia, whose donations to the various slick slush funds could not have amounted to more than a few tens of
millions at most.


The costs to the country of Slicks Chinese deals are similarly massive, including a large and growing trade imbalance along with the illegal technology transfers we've read about. Slick taking money from the chicom army is no different in principle from the idea of FDR taking campaign donations from Hitler or Stalin. Ask yourself why FDR never did that; try to imagine how happy it would have made old uncle Adolph to be able to control Washington D.C. for a few measly million here and there to the democratic campaign funds.

Having thus taken care of every mundane problem and care associated with running the vast and complex machinery of the United States government, your next concern as gangster president would probably be to get in on the most major perk which the job entails:

P - U - S - S - Y

One rather unfortunate aspect of life as a gangster is that it does not teach one the virtue of moderation. One of the Tripp tapes, according to internet sources, has Monica asking Slick why he doesn't simply pay Paula Jones off and have done with it. Slick answers that they'd all come up and want money if he did that; Monica replies "All of them?? How many could there be??" and Slick replies "Hundreds..."

There are several inherent problems with trying to
set the numeric records ala Don Giovanni and make it with literally hundreds of different women over a course of a few years. One is that the first thing which goes straight out the window is any notion of quality; you'll see these guys come home with Marilyn Monroe one night, and then either Phyllis Diller or Aunt Jemima the next, with the same stupid ****-eating grin on their faces, since it's all really just the same to them.

Another problem in the case of politicians is that they make prime targets for blackmail and manipulation of themselves by conducting themselves like that. Slick couldn't get the simplest kind of security clearance which you'd need to be a janitor or a guard at the gate at any military base in America, and he's supposed to be commander in chief of our armed forces. That's insane.

Another problem in the case of liberals particularly, is that it appears to be a vanishingly small step from believing oneself above man's laws to believing oneself above things like the laws of physics and the law of averages. For instance, thinking "I'm a Kennedy; there's no reason on Earth why I shouldn't be able to ski downhill, operate a camcorder, and play football all at the same time, the trees will get out of the way!" Or, in the case of Slick, thinking he could put the make on 50 different women in one day, and that all 50 would be happy about it.

Something like that could lead to a psychic problem with taking "no" for an answer and, if we're to believe even a small fraction of what we read, it has. The claim which you read around the net is that the Paula Jones testimony includes something like a dozen different allegations of sexual assault and rape, that Slick has been out of control for a long time, and that a professional organization has been in place to keep a lid on this by means of bribery, intimidation, and whatever else gets the job done, and that this has invariably worked because, in each individual case, you had some poor woman on her own without any real resources up against an organization with the resources of one of the fifty states. Documentation for these claims is not difficult to find on the net. One opinion worth noting resides
at:

http://chblue.com/Feb1999/022599/clintonwomen022599.htm

In particular, it is not possible that Hillary Clinton has not known about all of this very nearly from day one.

Given this lack of moderation, it will sometimes happen that, despite all precautions and despite the workings of a spin machine which puts the Nazi German propaganda organ of Joseph Goebbels to shame, some sort of an unflattering story about rape, porking teenage interns, lying about rape or porking teenage interns, or some particularly flagrant act of fundraising daring-do will begin to take up an uncomfortable amount of space in the headlines of the nation's newspapers. What does the gangster president do then?

The answer is obvious. The president of the United States, in these days and times, has the power to start wars, and nothing can compete for front page newspaper space with a good war. We thus have witnessed three of these dog-wagging episodes within one year.

The first case involved blowing up an aspirin factory in Sudan, apparently with the approval of no more than one of the joint chiefs (the rotten apple in that particular barrel):

http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/khartoumbomb.html

The second dog-wagging episode involved bombing Iraq the day before Slick was to be impeached:

http://www.salisburypost.com/editorials/editorial121798.htm

The standard definition of "chutzvah" in Yiddish dictionaries involved the example of the kid who murdered his parents and then demanded leniency because he was an orphan. That will change. The new definition will use the example of the president who starts a war the day before he's impeached and then has some flunky like Dick Gephardt try to keep his face straight while claiming that it's unpatriotic to start an impeachment with a war in progress.

But the prize of them all was dog-wagging episode III (to take the Broaddrick story off the front pages) , in which a totally innocent slavic orthodox Christian nation was bombed into the stone age for the benefit of white trash, narco-terrorists, and barbarians. I mention the fact that Serbia is a slavic orthodox Christian nation because Russia is also a slavic orthodox Christian nation, i.e. because this third dog-wagging episode involved the risk of a thermonuclear war.

Any serious research into this one will reveal that the Western public was fed an unadulterated diet of BS from the NATO propaganda organ, the Clinton spin machine, and a shiftless Western establishment media which simply included the propaganda on its pages and called it news rather than doing any real reporting. Moreover, the entire picture of the situation in the Balkans which the West has seen in its media over the last decade is rendered hugely suspect since it arises from the same kinds of sources.

Any sort of a thorough research will turn up the reality that the whole problem in Kosovo was always the Albanian Kosovars and not the Serbs. The present problems seemingly began with Miloshevich rescinding the autonomy of the region in 1989. The truth is that he had no options, and that all other ethnic groups in Kosovo were being brutalized by the Albanian Kosovars:

http://www.srpska-mreza.com/ddj/Kosovo/articles/Binder87NYT.htm

Further readings and articles from the 80's tell much the same story:

http://members.tripod.com/~sarant_2/ksm.html

What about before that? The truth is that, despite the endless villification and demonization which they come in for from the Clinton spin machine and the NATO propaganda arm, the Serbs are the closest thing there is to normal, rational, decent people in the balkans. They fought with the allies in WW-II and in fact held Hitler for seven months and sent him into Russia in the dead of winter rather than on schedule, but for which the whole world might be sporting swastikas now. They in fact saved 500 allied airmen who were shot down on raids over Ploesti and other targets in the region:

http://www.geocities.com/kumbayaaa/yugosavingallies.html

Needless to say, any allied airman who was ever shot down over one of the states surrounding Serbia was killed. The states surrounding Serbia all sided with Hitler, e.g.:

http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/thompson/rootsof.htm

The Serbs paid a horrific price for all of this. Hundreds of thousands of them were murdered, many in Nazi-style death camps set up in the surrounding states.

Nonetheless, history does not count for much amongst gangsters. Clinton and his NWO pals had numerous reasons for wishing to dismantle Yugoslavia, not the least of which was the 5 - 20 trillion in mineral wealth of the Trepca mines. Check out:

www.tenc.net

for background materials on that sort of topic.

The "Racak massacre" which Clinton and Albright used as a pretext for the NATO action turns out to be more propaganda BS:

http://www.emperors-clothes.com/analysis/meetmr.htm

and the Rambouillet ultimatum, particularly Appendix B, section 8, which the Serbs refused to sign, turns out to look like something which King George might have written. No nation on Earth would ever sign off on such a thing:

http://www.state.gov/www/regions/eur/ksvo_rambouillet_text.html

It turns out that the entire case against Serbia was never anything but a bunch of bullshit. There was never any "ethnic cleansing" going on:

http://www.iraqwar.org/germanreport.htm

and there was never anything remotely like genocide going on:

http://eha.no-ip.org/eHa/63

nothing but a bunch of fabricated bullshit and a bunch of poor sorry people (Serbs) having to defend themselves against an armed insurrection supported and supplied by outside powers.

The laws of war have changed substantially since the end of WW-II. The kinds of things we were doing to the Japanese and Germans, legal then, would be war crimes now. In the Kosovo operation, American forces knew that they had a tough and dangerous adversary to deal with and they knew that they also were doing this for an utterly base and ignoble cause which they could not possibly ask any NATO pilot to die for, and that dog-wagging was again involved. They therefore limited all operations to 15,000 feet or higher. When they discovered that they could not harm the Serbian military from that height, they embarked upon an entire series of war crimes, such as bombing out bridges in the middle of little towns like Varvarin in the middle of the day when, guaranteed, nothing was going to be on them other than people like Sanja Milenkovic running errands. It thus comes as no surprise that even Amnesty International is accusing NATO of war crimes now. Aside from that, they began to bomb out the entire civilian infrastructure of Serbia, including factories, water plants, electrical grids, and basically everything the civilian population of Serbia needs to stay alive. That's all criminal activity.

Walter Rockler, a surviving American prosecutor from the Nuremberg trubunal, claims that NATO is every bit as guilty of war crimes as the nazis were:

http://suc.org/kosovo_crisis/html/0523_ct.html

So much for William J. (Slick) Clinton, our first gangster president. Everybody who reads pretty much knows what Clinton is about by now. Many are still deluded inasmuch as they like to believe that it's possible for a guy like Slick to end up in charge of a good cause by some perverse quirk of fate. That doesn't happen in the real world; a guy like Slick being in charge of a cause invariably means the cause is messed up.

The Chicago mob was not a charitable organization which ended up under Al Capone via a stroke of bad luck; The German nazi party was not a religious order which ended up under Hitler due to a chance misfortune. The Kommunisticheskaya partiya in Russia did not fall under the sway of Stalin due to an isolated fluke or unlikely event, and the democratic party in America is not under the Clintons due to any quirk of fate.
0 Replies
 
Karzak
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Aug, 2004 12:11 pm
Linkat wrote:
You make my point exactly Karzak you are biased and unable to see beyond that bias.


LOL, the same is true for all those that deny the eyewitness accounts of scary kerry quite contrary at war.

The fact is you have two groups of eyewitness painting different pictures of kerrys actions. One group are kerry and his crew, the other group are the other boats crews who were there.

Personally, I would think kerrys crew would be the most biased and less believable.
0 Replies
 
JustanObserver
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Aug, 2004 12:20 pm
Uh, Swolf-

Stop. Please. Just do us all a favor and stop. Just when I don't think you can sink any lower with the crap you say, you do. Your worse than Karzak.

Seriously, your ruining the A2k experience. Until the two of you came in, the debates were at least halfway serious. A decent argument, I can handle. A ranting, baseless, hate filled screed? Not so much.
Please, stop.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Aug, 2004 12:27 pm
Not waste your breath, Justan. Some of these guys' sole purpose is to provoke aggravation. Thanks to the web, there's no end to the hate-filled nonesne they can find to support their views. They're like the kids in grade school who say "doo-doo" to get a rise out of the teacher...

Best to ignore them.
0 Replies
 
Linkat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Aug, 2004 12:31 pm
Swolf I agree to a certain extent to what you say. Both parties are guilty and show little shame or conscience. I guess that is why I feel better when I hear some one like McCain speak his mind. He says that Kerry served honorably, even though he is a Republican. He supports Bush, but yet can still say what is right about a Democratic candidate - that is rare.

Honestly, I do not think one party has the upper hand on lacking shame and conscience. The both have done some pretty heinous things and many times just to get a vote. Wouldn't it be refreshing if the candidates simply spoke of their qualifications, what they want to accomplish in their role and how they plan on accomplishing their goals?

I do not agree with the Michael Moore propaganda any more than I agree with Swift boat propaganda.

Karzak - I agree that you cannot deny eyewitness accounts of either. That is why I have not discounted the others. However, that is only a handful. They were not as close to what had happened as the others. Even one Lt. retracted what he said and signed. Why would the crew in Kerry's boat be any more biased? Not all crew in other boats had negative things to say.
0 Replies
 
Karzak
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Aug, 2004 12:42 pm
Linkat wrote:

They were not as close to what had happened as the others.


How do you know that they didn't have the clearer view of events? You don't.


Linkat wrote:
Even one Lt. retracted what he said and signed.


He wasn't a witness, he just went off of what he was told by others, and personally it looks to me like he bowed to political pressure.

Linkat wrote:
Why would the crew in Kerry's boat be any more biased?


Why would you be more biased toward a close comrade than a distant one? get real here.

Linkat wrote:
Not all crew in other boats had negative things to say.


Not all of Kerrys crew has nice things to say about him either.

There are several eyewitness accounts of misdeeds by kerry in nam covering several different events. There are a lot of politicians who were vets and none of them have this number of detractors.

Where there is smoke, there is fire.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Aug, 2004 12:59 pm
Karzak wrote:

There are a lot of politicians who were vets and none of them have this number of detractors.


That's because Kerry is the only one running against Bush.

LOL.
0 Replies
 
Linkat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Aug, 2004 01:14 pm
I guess I would be a little biased to some one who saved my life also, like First Lieutenant Rassman. I also would think being the one personally helped out of the water does make you a little closer to the action with a bit clearer view. How much clearer than you want, than some one touching and lifting you out? Unless the man is blind he does a have clearer view and personally experienced it.

According to reports I have read all Kerry's crewmen in his boat had only positive things to say. So who are these crewmen in his boat that did not?

There are several eyewitness accounts of heroic duties that Kerry performed in Vietnam. Yes there are many politicians that were vets and yes they did not detractors. Do you forget the negative Vet campaign against McCain? Coincidence that he was running against Bush? Where there is smoke, there is fire.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/19/2024 at 09:12:15