Now, if I recall, it was The Dems who first brought up the "Service Record" deal ... about 5 years ago, now, and its gotten them nowhere other than excited among themselves. It truly is a non-issue, and the current resurection attempt says to me The Dems are panic-stricken. And as I recall, it was Kerry who decided, over 40 years ago, to make his Vietnam Service the centerpoint of his political carreer ... pehaps the only aspect of his carreer which has remained constant. Now, for the first time in his political life, Kerry's military record has come under scrutiny, with the result that not mere unlocatable records but actual irregularities, mis-statements, and erroneous claims have been and continue to be revealed.
That so much inconvenience has fallen Kerry's way from the weakly funded efforts of a couple hundred folks taking issue with 18 weeks of Kerry's behavior says a lot in general about the the Democratic Party with all its Millions of dollars, its general Mainstream Media and massive 527 Group support, and in particular the viability of Kerry's Candicacy ... sorta like a tank being crippled by a BB Gun, if you ask me. And neither Kerry's anti-war activities nor his legislative record have yet really hit the fan. They will. Soon.
None of this is gonna get any better for Kerry, I figure; in fact, I doubt the real hammerin' has even begun. The boy may have been to a war, but this is the first real fight he's ever been in, and he just don't pack the gear.
0 Replies
dare2think
1
Reply
Sun 5 Sep, 2004 10:20 pm
Baldimo wrote:
dare2think wrote:
Ohhh, you Republicans are so desperate, how exciting to see you all squirm.
Kerry served in the military, he went to war, can't say the same for bush, huh?
Last itme looked, which was today, Bush is leading by 11 points in several polls. I would say that is bad for Kerry.
Last time I looked, Kerry was leading in the electoral by over 100 pts. I would say that is bad for bush!
0 Replies
timberlandko
1
Reply
Sun 5 Sep, 2004 10:28 pm
dare2think wrote:
Last time I looked, Kerry was leading in the electoral by over 100 pts. I would say that is bad for bush!
Musta been a while since you looked.
0 Replies
dare2think
1
Reply
Sun 5 Sep, 2004 10:29 pm
timberlandko... in the end, the Republicans dirty campaigning doesn't work.
0 Replies
timberlandko
1
Reply
Sun 5 Sep, 2004 10:36 pm
Whining and blaming one's failures on "dirty tricks from the other side" never works, dare2think. If that's the way The Dems choose to play it, so be it.
0 Replies
dare2think
1
Reply
Sun 5 Sep, 2004 10:43 pm
Are the Republicans finally admitting that bush ran out on his guard duty?
0 Replies
dare2think
1
Reply
Sun 5 Sep, 2004 10:49 pm
timberlandko wrote:
Whining and blaming one's failures on "dirty tricks from the other side" never works, dare2think. If that's the way The Dems choose to play it, so be it.
Dirty tricks are what the Republicans always do. Smear and lies are their specialty, they cannot campaign on bush's accomplishments, BECAUSE THERE NONE. Don't you think that if bush was so good, the Republicans would be campaigning on his record, but instead they are campaigning on smearing his opponent.
0 Replies
timberlandko
1
Reply
Mon 6 Sep, 2004 12:46 am
Well, lets see here ... on Sept 10, 2001, the key terrorist-sponsoring states were Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Iran, North Korea, and Syria. That list has been cut in half, while 50 Million people have been liberated from the brutal yokes of the despotic, tyranical regimes of two former members of that list . Meanwhile, The US has been prosecuting a global war on terror, achieving significant disruption of numerous terrorist networks and the killing or capture of many of their principals, while suffering no terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11/01. The Economy, despite inheriting a recession and suffering the effects of 9/11, is growing at the fastest rate since Reagan, while unemployment is below the average rate for the '70s, 80.s, and '90s. US home ownership is at the highest level in history, interest rates, inflation, and federal tax rates are at historic lows, the corporate and institutional financial criminals who flourished under the blind eye of The Previous Administration have been and are being brought to justice and laws preventing their practices have been and are being enacted, the first major healthcare reform in a generation has been passed, The Department of Education and The Department of Veterans Affairs have been beneficiaries of the largest spending increases either have seen since the Kennedy Era ... there's more, much more, and much more will be said of it in the coming weeks, but then, none of that is significant to folks who don't want to hear it. Go ahead and think what you wish; reality doesn't depend on your perceptions or preferances
0 Replies
FreeDuck
1
Reply
Mon 6 Sep, 2004 07:39 am
timberlandko wrote:
Now, if I recall, it was The Dems who first brought up the "Service Record" deal ... about 5 years ago, now, and its gotten them nowhere other than excited among themselves.
Actually, I think it was the Reps who brought it up against Clinton. In fact, I think it's been an issue in every election I can remember. Vietnam is an open gaping wound in the American conscience and our politicians are all too willing to pour salt in it all day long for a chance at getting or retaining power.
0 Replies
mysteryman
1
Reply
Mon 6 Sep, 2004 12:06 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
timberlandko wrote:
Now, if I recall, it was The Dems who first brought up the "Service Record" deal ... about 5 years ago, now, and its gotten them nowhere other than excited among themselves.
Actually, I think it was the Reps who brought it up against Clinton. In fact, I think it's been an issue in every election I can remember. Vietnam is an open gaping wound in the American conscience and our politicians are all too willing to pour salt in it all day long for a chance at getting or retaining power.
If you had bothered to look,you would see that During the first Bush administration,the Democrats (Michael Dukakis and company) attacked Dan Quayle for not going to Vietnam.
So,the Dems actually started it.
0 Replies
kelticwizard
1
Reply
Mon 6 Sep, 2004 02:32 pm
Kerry has already revealed all the records the military gave him.
Kerry has five medals and three Purple Hearts.
I just love the way the Republicans think they are going to work over Kerry's military record. Once the Swift Boaters are even further revealed as liars-their stories have several inconsistencies-we have left a comparison of two military records, which strongly favors Kerry in every way.
Bush applied for the Texas Air National Guard with 12 days left on his college deferment. He leapfrogs over a waiting list of 500 applicants, many of them college graduates. He gets to be appointed to be an officer, despite not having taken ROTC, which is usually the only way that happens. In fact, being appointed an officer when you go into the military after college is the entire purpose of the ROTC. If they gave the officership to eveyone, they wouldn't even need the entire ROTC program, would they?
Once having been appointed an officer, he gets training on a plane, the F-102, which just happens to be slated to be withdrawn from VietNam within days of his graduation from flight school. It should be pointed out that his father, the Congressman, was in position to know when each plane was going to be decommissioned. The Air force has to tell him. He's a Congressman, he votes on the bills, so they have to tell him these things.
All this incredible fixing is done in 1968, while 300 American men are killed each week in VietNam.
Kerry was out there, facing the bullets and taking some. Bush was here, making sure he wouldn't have to face those bullets.
There is simply no comparison between the two men's records. That is why Bush supporters criticizing Kerry's record is such a joke. I don't care if Bush showed up at every class. He cheated to get into a place safe from the war, hell, the least he could do is show up at every class. Kerry was facing the bullets. I frankly don't care if he went to class when he came home or not, and I doubt did the service at the time, either.
0 Replies
kelticwizard
1
Reply
Mon 6 Sep, 2004 02:43 pm
timberlandko wrote:
The boy may have been to a war, but this is the first real fight he's ever been in...
This is a joke, right? The guy was out there facing real bullets, surrounded by real people dying. He's supposed to be afraid of a fight with the mighty George Bush Jr, who tries to impress reporters how fast he can ride his mountain bike before he flops over on his back?
Please.
0 Replies
McGentrix
1
Reply
Mon 6 Sep, 2004 02:43 pm
timberlandko wrote:
Well, lets see here ... on Sept 10, 2001, the key terrorist-sponsoring states were Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Iran, North Korea, and Syria. That list has been cut in half, while 50 Million people have been liberated from the brutal yokes of the despotic, tyranical regimes of two former members of that list . Meanwhile, The US has been prosecuting a global war on terror, achieving significant disruption of numerous terrorist networks and the killing or capture of many of their principals, while suffering no terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11/01. The Economy, despite inheriting a recession and suffering the effects of 9/11, is growing at the fastest rate since Reagan, while unemployment is below the average rate for the '70s, 80.s, and '90s. US home ownership is at the highest level in history, interest rates, inflation, and federal tax rates are at historic lows, the corporate and institutional financial criminals who flourished under the blind eye of The Previous Administration have been and are being brought to justice and laws preventing their practices have been and are being enacted, the first major healthcare reform in a generation has been passed, The Department of Education and The Department of Veterans Affairs have been beneficiaries of the largest spending increases either have seen since the Kennedy Era ... there's more, much more, and much more will be said of it in the coming weeks, but then, none of that is significant to folks who don't want to hear it. Go ahead and think what you wish; reality doesn't depend on your perceptions or preferances
This should be posted everywhere.
0 Replies
mysteryman
1
Reply
Mon 6 Sep, 2004 02:43 pm
Actually,the F-102 was the first plane used in the "wild weasel" anti-radar missions.
The AF pulled them AFTER they found out it wasnt the right plane for the job.
The F-102 did stay tasked for continental air defense.
Even if you dont like Bush,dont try and change the facts.
Also,I didnt say a word about Bush,I showed the OFFICIAL navt records for Kerry.Those records ar NOT on his website,and neither are 98 more pages.He didnt release his medical records at all.
Why not?
0 Replies
kelticwizard
1
Reply
Mon 6 Sep, 2004 03:01 pm
Ws the F-102 taken out of VietNam just days after Bush graduated from flight school?
Yes.
So who is changing the facts?
0 Replies
kelticwizard
1
Reply
Mon 6 Sep, 2004 03:16 pm
Kerry's service is obviously not at issue here.
He's got three Purple Hearts, five medal overall, and the citations to prove them.
Sorry, Mr. District Attorney, but you've got all the records any sane person could possibly need.
Bush never went to VietNam. He applied for the Air National Guard and got appointed over a waiting list of 500 other people, many of them collge graduates.
That needs explaining.
Bush got appointed to be an officer without going through Officer's Candidate School, despite never having gone to ROTC.
That needs explaining.
Bush gets trained to fly a plane which was taken out of VietNam just a few days after he graduates flight school trained for only that plane. His father, the Congressman, was in position ot know of those plans-he votes for the military appropriations.
All this fixing happened in 1968, when 300 American men were getting killed in VietNam.
That needs explaining.
Kerry doesn't need explaining. He went, he volunteered for some of the most dangerous details of the war, got wounded three times, and got sent home because the service says if you have gotten wounded three times you have already done more than your country has a right to expect.
It's all right there on readily availble records. That's all you need to know.
Kerry's record doesn't need explaining. Kerry was there.
Bush's record needs explaining. Because Bush wasn't there.
Everybody got that?
0 Replies
dyslexia
1
Reply
Mon 6 Sep, 2004 03:26 pm
well golly, I am pretty sure George was in Vietnam, on a secret mission that kept his records hidden to protect the reputation of the rich and famous politicans and their friends in high places. I heard many of them say at the time, that George fella, he's gonna go far in politics someday, just you wait and see. I heard this on good authority over at the barber shop just last tuesday from a guy that gets his shoes shined there every other wednsday. Now what's this crap about Bush in Alabama? I thought everyone knew by now he was secretly in Cambodia during that entire xmas vacation playing dominoes. At least that's my theory.
have a nice day.
0 Replies
mysteryman
1
Reply
Mon 6 Sep, 2004 04:59 pm
So,since Bush qualified as a fighter pilot (which is more then everyone on here has done,I guess that means he is smarter then us,huh),on a plane that was pulled from Vietnam combat duty,that means he was avoiding service,right?
My uncle John was a fighter pilot with the California ANG during the late 60's,and he also flew the F-102.
Are you saying that all the ANG F-102 pilots were just trying to avoid service?
That would be a bald faced lie.
Also,since none of you are now or have ever been fighter pilots,you don't have any room to talk about it,do you.After all,you wweren'tthere,you don't know.
Keltic,your right.We do have all the records we need.
We have Kerry ADMITTING he went to Paris and meeting with the North Vietnamese.He was still an officer in the USNR at the time,and he did NOT have permission of the US Government to do that.He ADMITS to breaking that law,he ADMITS to throwing "his" medals away,he ADMITS to crimes that people like John McCain,Everett Alvarez,and every other POW in Hanoi was being tortured to confess to, he ADMITS he burned down a civilian village(that is a war crime according to the Geneva Convention),he ADMITS he lied about being in Cambodia,the list goes on.
All I want to know is why there are NO RECORDS of him ever doing his reserve time and going to his reserve meetings.
That info was NOT released with the partial records he released.
0 Replies
mysteryman
1
Reply
Mon 6 Sep, 2004 05:04 pm
Keltic,
Were you there?
And can you prove it?
If you werent there,why not?
Did you dodge the draft? Did you join the NG or reserves to avoid going?
Show us your records that prove you went to Vietnam.
0 Replies
Baldimo
1
Reply
Mon 6 Sep, 2004 05:25 pm
mysteryman wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
timberlandko wrote:
Now, if I recall, it was The Dems who first brought up the "Service Record" deal ... about 5 years ago, now, and its gotten them nowhere other than excited among themselves.
Actually, I think it was the Reps who brought it up against Clinton. In fact, I think it's been an issue in every election I can remember. Vietnam is an open gaping wound in the American conscience and our politicians are all too willing to pour salt in it all day long for a chance at getting or retaining power.
If you had bothered to look,you would see that During the first Bush administration,the Democrats (Michael Dukakis and company) attacked Dan Quayle for not going to Vietnam.
So,the Dems actually started it.
Don't forget it was Kerry that started to bring up Vietnam again this time. He asked for Vietnam to be an issue and so it has become one. He wanted to talk about it now everyone wants it to be dropped after they realized it wasn't going to go as smoothly as they were hoping it was going to go. Thank you Mr. Kerry, and by the way I'm happy I'm going to have to call him boss.
