Dole asking Kerry about Nam.

isn't he the bitter old guy who can't exit a stage witout falling who them whored himself out for coke and viagara ads?

Very reliable guy.....

actually I like Bob Dole and like those ads he does......I just thought it would be friendly like to post a response similar in tone and content to the ones the originator of this thread is so fond of making...... :wink:

Caught Bob Dole on one of the morning newsmaker progs--

He had an interesting point.

A guy gets two Purple Hearts in one day, and didn't spend a day in a hospital.

That in itself is the point most are trying to make.

Some, like Clinton and Cheney, completely dodged. Accumilating Purple Hearts to get out early is also a dodge, to me. He spent not one day in a hospital. To campaign for a Purple Hearts for wounds that didn't even require a hospitalization, when many men DID require hopitalization--and refused Purple Hearts--tells a lot about Kerry.

<shrugs>

Clinton and Bush dodged going there.

Kerry did not. He even volunteered.

That, once he was there and found himself in the hell Vietnam was, he wanted to get out again as soon as possible, I find wholly understandable.

Meanwhile, he did serve four months in that hell. Bush hid. Clinton dodged. He did not. He was there. And in the four months until he got to get out, he did not shirk his role - he's even blamed now by some adversaries for having to be too bold. And in the four months he was there, he earned the loyalty and admiration of all but one of the men who served under him.

He volunteered to fight for his country. Good for him. He fought hard and became liked and admired by those he commanded. Good for him. He made sure he got out of that hell as soon as the rules allowed him to. Good for him. When he came back, he testified to the hell that he'd seen. Good for him.

He received 2 Purple Hearts for 'injuries' that did not require a day in the hospital.

Bad for him.

perhaps I missed the part where the military specifies how many hours/days/weeks of hospitalization are required to receive a purple heart. I suggest you take the matter up with the pentagon to revise their criteria post hoc thereby revoking this scumbags medals.(oh yeah, and anyone else that got a purple heart sans required time spent in hospital.) probably only a few million.

Why? Its not against the rules. The rules dont say anything about the seriousness of the wounds - only that they need to be inflicted by enemy forces. (Thats why the SVFT people also inserted allegations of the wounds being self-inflicted, which is not supported by the evidence).

He was there, didnt avoid the fights, fought them valorously - and used whatever he could about them to get to getting out of Vietnam asap. Can you blame him? He used the legal opportunities to get out when they came up - I woulda, too. Yet he didn't flag in his tasks as a skipper until he got out. Good enough for me - can't say I know I'da been able to.

dys--

This issue, IMO, shouldn't really be discussed. Most Republicans gave Kerry his due, considered his service noble--and left it at that.

Everyone who signed up put their life on the line. This in itself deserves a medal, IMO.

But, because Kerry made it his sole criteria in the Presidential sweepstakes, and the resulting hullabaloo has made it such a provocative item of discussion--I feel I can give my opinion.

It does give me pause to sit back at my computer and discuss what was done by men in a hot swamp under conditions I haven't experienced.

But, given the story, the implications--I do wonder about the men who fought, were seriously wounded, served years, and came home quietly--juxtaposed with the story surrounding John Kerry's medal-laden four months and the fact he didn't require hospitalization.

I wouldn't take any medals from anyone--but he has made his service fodder for perusal.

You mean lies, smears and the usual Karl Rove treatment.

Bush never questioned Kerry's service.

he can't afford to.

That's right; he always has someone else do his dirty work.

Just like he did when he slid out of serving in Vietnam and just like he did when he sent our troops to fight his $50 oil war in Iraq.

I agree. So he didn't.
This is the ONLY thing Bush wouldn't want to contrast with Kerry.
I bet Bush would like the whole thing stifled as much as Kerry.
A political advisor to Bush would say--give him his due quietly and quickly, and move on to substanitive differences.

Kerry may be glad this crap is keeping his service at the top of the news cycles. It keeps it off of his voting record.

Trust me--this Vietnam mess is not good for Bush. Kerry is benefitting. No one is talking about his record. Or his plans for the Presidency...

Don't worry, the media will put a show on spotlighting Kerry's record and plans. It will be sandwiched in between "America's Funniest Dipshits" and the new monster hit comedy, "Jim Belushi Eats His Belly Button Lint!" about three days before the election. Mark your calendars! It's going to be the most interesting, informative, and important twenty-three minutes of television all year!

You make a fine case for the Smear Vets to STFU, Sofia.

Why do you suppose they won't?

STFU?

(With the FU, I wonder how gluttonous for punishment I am.)

Actually the polls have moved in Bush's favor since the truth about Kerrys war record was exposed.

But, how much more would they change if the country had been adequately informed of Kerry's 'plan for Iraq', 'plan for terrorism', plan for education'---juxtaposed with his voting record of these same things...

About as much as the bounce after they are informed after the GOP Convention...

He has lost a few vet points.
He will lose much more.

Well, when in the debates Kerry gets asked about his "secret" plans, he will lose even more votes.