Kerry wiped the floor with Bush

Attacking Bush when you should be defending Kerry... typical.

Bush didn't want to go to Vietnam. I don't blame him. Instead he used his connections to join the national guard. Why is that deemed so despicable? The blind hatred spewed about Bush is amazing in its stupidity.

Now, in defense of Bush, I could very easily discuss Clinton's whereabouts during the war and how he served our country during it's time of need, but that wouldn't be defending Bush, that would be attacking Clinton. Do you see the difference?

Probably not...

just replying to your asinine statement chuckling about Kerry in Vietnam...he went and he served ..nuff said.. do you get it? ...probably not :-)

Which was not the point of my statement which you obviously missed.

My point was that he has made his service 30 years ago a center peice of his campaign.

How many times did you hear Kerry say "Well, when I was in the senate I did..." or "As a senator I..."?

Not once.

He referred to his Vietnam service repeatedly. So much in fact that it became funny.

It's always fascinating to me that the left's former champion, Bill Clinton, was a confirmed draft dodger, and that was okay, but somewhat Bush serving his duty out in the National Guard is contemptible? Kerry is to be commended for joining the service even though he later said it was an immoral, illegal war, and he professed to have thrown away his medals........some time before he declared himself a war hero of course.

Now who is more commendable. Clinton who never served? Bush who did. Or Kerry who has been all over the map in his convictions?

There ya go, Foxfyre. When all else fails, bring out the Clinton bashing. Now that's funny.

That's once.

Meanwhile, how many Vietnam references can you find? I found ONE instance of the word Vietnam uttered by Kerry. I remember three references without the word, was taking a long time to slog through though.

That's not a centerpiece. It's relevant. The focus was on Iraq, and there are many lessons from Vietnam that should be applied. That's arguable, but not irrelevant.

Senators don't have a lot to do with foreign policy, and that was the focus of the debate.

How many times did he reference "knowing what the soldiers are going through." or "knowing about killing" etc. It's all said to remind everyone about his Vietnam experience.

You watched it same as I did, I am sure you picked up on his continuous references the same as I did.

He ran and hide alright. 4 months in Vietnam, 3 purple hearts and whatever many medals. All in 4 months! Sounds fishy to me.

When any other sodiers would have stuck it out with his crew, he ran home as soom as his rice-ridden ass allowed him to. That's not courage to me.... Couldn't wait to use his "experience" in Vietnam to run home and call him buddies, war criminals. Couldn't wait to use his "experiences" to run for office. He is the worst of the worst when it comes to politicians. He is no hero.

==========================================

In 1991, as cochairman of the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs, Kerry proved himself to be a masterful chameleon, displaying to the public at large what appeared to be an unbiased approach to resolving the lingering Vietnam POW/MIA issue.

But in reality, no one in the U.S. Senate pushed harder to bury the POW/MIA issue - the last obstacle preventing normalization of trade relations with Hanoi - than Kerry.

The Select Committee acknowledged in its January 1993 final report (page 6) that after the Vietnam War ended, American servicemen were left behind in captivity. In order to soft-pedal this abandonment, Kerry maintained there was "no proof" U.S. POWs continued to survive, but never produced evidence proving the abandoned POWs were dead, or who was responsible for their deaths, or where their remains were located.

Kerry never demanded that Vietnam explain.

On Sept. 6, 2001, by a vote of 410-1, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill known as the Vietnam Human Rights Act, which demanded that the government in Hanoi stop violating citizens' human rights. The bill would have cut off nonhumanitarian aid to Vietnam until it freed political prisoners, stopped persecuting ethnic minorities, and cracked down on the trafficking of women and children.

The bill was sent to a Senate subcommittee controlled by Kerry. From there it was never released to the Senate floor for a vote because Kerry, as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, put a hold on the bill.

Kerry, forever the Hanoi loyalist, said he stopped the bill because he does "not believe that human rights and change in Vietnam can be forced through sanctions."

Mike Benge, a former Vietnam POW, accurately observed that "John Kerry has fought harder for the Vietnamese communists than he fought against them in Vietnam."

Sampley is a former Green Beret who served two 12-month combat tours in Vietnam. His awards include four Bronze Stars, the Army Commendation Medal and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry. In late January, Sampley and two other Vietnam veterans organized Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry on the Internet at www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com.

Just find 'em, McGentrix. Not saying they aren't there. I was slogging through and trying to find them and not wanting to leave any out and thought wait, why am I doing this? I didn't make the acccusation.

Find 'em, quote 'em, lay 'em out. Let's see how many there actually were, if they could be called a "centerpiece" or if they were merely a part of the larger picture and a reasonable thing for a longtime Senator who has wartime experience to say.

That's alright Sozobe. I don't care enough to do that.

One of Kerry's best lines from the debate last night:

"It was principally the United States, the America and Great Britain and one or two others. That's it."

Amazing Bush convinced both America and the United States to participate.

He said:

"It was principally the United States. America and Great Britain and one or two others. That's it."

It is, as my fourth grade teacher said, all in the punctuation.

Actually, I could name a couple of countries from America, who opposed the war.

Additionally, not Great Britain but the UK participated in the war :wink:

Typical of what? Believing that I should defend Kerry is implying that I am a part of the faction that supposes it should criticize the opposition irregardless of the facts at hand. I am part of no such assembly.

For this election I am to pick the candidate whom I feel is best qualified to execute the duties of the office. I happen to believe that a man who performed his duties when his country asked him to is more credible than a man who did everything he could to avoid his nation's call.

Why instead a man would use his connections to join the National Guard to dodge service in Vietnam rather than answer his nation's call to duty deemed despicable you ask? Because it shows cowardice, that's why. Because he didn't want to go to Vietnam is not an acceptable excuse. How many young men that went to Vietnam do you think wanted to go? Not many, I should think.

I am not spewing blind hatred as you presumed. The facts on THIS issue speak for themselves. Diverting the topic to an unrelated argument as you tried to do will not change the facts of this one.

One man chose to do his duty.

The other man chose to use his connections to NOT do his duty.

Do you see the difference?

Soz,

You are demanding links and cites as proof of what is both obvious and before your eyes.

From Kerry's numerous campaign remarks (one of the best was "I know what it's really like to serve on an aircraft carrier" - when in fact he has never in his life even been on one.), to his constant appearances during the primaries and the early stages of this campaign wearing a Naval Aviator's flight jacket, to the goofy salute and "John Kerry reporting for duty" bit at in his convention acceptance speech (fairly centerpointish, don't you think), and all the rest, it is obvious. Moreover, even those journalists who obviously support him acknowledge and often refer to his constant reference to his Navy service.

What I find most intriguing in all this is the fact that Kerry himself doesn't seem to understand (or perhaps care) how all this appears to those who did serve in Vietnam. This suggests either a very high degree of cynicism and willingness to deceive or a very narcissistic personality. Either way he is a bum, unfit for the office.

If it is that obvious, go ahead and get all of those quotes that prove that it's a "centerpiece" and not a reasonable response to foreign policy questions.

We (I don't think you and I specifically) have already gone into how the "centerpiece" thing is itself spin. Mentioned, yes, of course. But there were rather extensive citations done for how LITTLE it was actually emphasized during the Democratic convention, for example, vs. the Republican spin on how much it was mentioned.

And this is getting old ground again -- the new debate stuff is much more interesting -- but you do not speak for all Vietnam veterans. There are many -- including on this board -- who support Kerry.

At any rate, the main point I was making was not even about what Kerry did or did not say -- I'm willing to be convinced. Burden of proof on the accuser.

I don't know, if this is true [I've been on one, so it should be that difficult :wink: ], however, he surely hasn't subscribed for a "Mission Accomplished-tour".

McG apparently reserves the right to attack for HIS faction... his opposition is supposedly relegated to a purely defensive posture (?!!!)

Sounds like the perspective of "The Bully".


Principal: "Johnny, attacking the short kids is unacceptable."
Johnny: "But it was PRE-EMPTIVE!
The short kids were plotting against me!"

Yes one does not need to say the word "Vietnam" in order to refer to it. I counted at least three references but some say there were five. The full transcript of the debate can be found at the NY Times site.

Here's one. Go for it.

http://www.katu.com/news/story.asp?ID=71504

Again -- I'm not saying one way or another. I'm saying why am I the one doing the work rather than the one that brought it up?