1
   

POLICE TO KERRY: STOP MISLEADING PUBLIC!

 
 
Reply Sun 17 Oct, 2004 07:38 am
Police Call on Kerry to Stop Misrepresenting Their Support

Today Chuck Canterbury, the President of the nation's largest police labor organization, called on John Kerry to stop making misleading statements regarding his support from the law enforcement community. Both on the campaign trail and in Wednesday night's debate in Tempe, AZ, Senator Kerry has alluded that he has the support of the majority of these brave men and women.

"As the elected leader of the largest organization representing America's Federal, State and local law enforcement officers, I believe it's important to point out yet again that we do not support his candidacy for President," Canterbury said. "And to be perfectly frank, the groups which do support him actually share the same membership rolls and, taken together, probably comprise less than one-quarter of our nation's police officers."

Canterbury further noted that unlike the organizations which Senator Kerry touts, F.O.P. members as a whole decided that the Fraternal Order of Police would endorse the reelection of President George W. Bush. They based their decision, he said, on the record of the Bush Administration in supporting America's first responders­-including helping to secure passage earlier this year of H.R. 218, the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, the organization's top legislative priority. Bush also successfully fought to greatly enhance the benefits for the families of officers killed in the line of duty.

"While Kerry was flying around the country campaigning and leaving the actual work of the nation to his colleagues in the Senate, the President was out there working on our behalf," Canterbury said. "Senators Kerry and Edwards have missed so many crucial votes this Congress that I was beginning to believe there were only 98 members of the U.S. Senate."

Canterbury also said it was the height of irony that Kerry would use his position on the reauthorization of the assault weapons ban as a reflection of his support from police. "First, if a police officer is killed by an AK-47, Kerry would oppose the death penalty for the killer," Canterbury said. "In addition, where was he when this issue was being discussed in the 108th Congress? Where was he when we were working to pass H.R. 218? When it came time to help push for final passage of legislation important to law enforcement, Senator Kerry was regrettably A.W.O.L."

"Given the facts, I would greatly appreciate it if Senator Kerry would refrain from making similar whimsical assertions regarding his support from the law enforcement community," Canterbury said. "The real majority of my fellow officers are standing behind President Bush, because he has been there for us."

The Fraternal Order of Police is the nation's largest law enforcement labor organization, representing more than 318,000 members.

Link
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 781 • Replies: 11
No top replies

 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Oct, 2004 07:49 am
Just another Kerry lie. Nothing new here...
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Oct, 2004 08:03 am
Oh, I think Mr. Canterbury's remarks will be making the rounds.....

A friend (who isn't terribly political) has told me that, like the military, the vast majority of officers he works with strongly support President Bush.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Oct, 2004 08:29 am
The military positively despises Kerry. Here's a link to the film which some of the controversy is over:


http://www.newsmax.com/adv/stolenhonor/
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Oct, 2004 08:34 am
The big question I have about democrats is a question of self respect. I mean, you watch the dems trying to drag the entire lower half of the human condition to the polls in buses, and you watch all the winos, crackheads and what not stumble out of those buses, and the question is, how could anybody ELSE with any self respect want to be part of that??

It's a mystery to me.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Oct, 2004 08:36 am
You are so correct, gungasnake: only Republicans should have the right to vote.
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Oct, 2004 08:46 am
From an article published today:

In the Oval Office in December 2002, the president met with a few ranking senators and members of the House, both Republicans and Democrats. In those days, there were high hopes that the United States-sponsored ''road map'' for the Israelis and Palestinians would be a pathway to peace, and the discussion that wintry day was, in part, about countries providing peacekeeping forces in the region. The problem, everyone agreed, was that a number of European countries, like France and Germany, had armies that were not trusted by either the Israelis or Palestinians. One congressman -- the Hungarian-born Tom Lantos, a Democrat from California and the only Holocaust survivor in Congress -- mentioned that the Scandinavian countries were viewed more positively. Lantos went on to describe for the president how the Swedish Army might be an ideal candidate to anchor a small peacekeeping force on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Sweden has a well-trained force of about 25,000. The president looked at him appraisingly, several people in the room recall.

''I don't know why you're talking about Sweden,'' Bush said. ''They're the neutral one. They don't have an army.''

Lantos paused, a little shocked, and offered a gentlemanly reply: ''Mr. President, you may have thought that I said Switzerland. They're the ones that are historically neutral, without an army.'' Then Lantos mentioned, in a gracious aside, that the Swiss do have a tough national guard to protect the country in the event of invasion.

Bush held to his view. ''No, no, it's Sweden that has no army.''

The room went silent, until someone changed the subject.

A few weeks later, members of Congress and their spouses gathered with administration officials and other dignitaries for the White House Christmas party. The president saw Lantos and grabbed him by the shoulder. ''You were right,'' he said, with bonhomie. ''Sweden does have an army.''


Source


If this is what you and the military wants to put on a pedestal...
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Oct, 2004 05:12 pm
Nobody would ever know that Sweden had an army from reading the history of WW-II or anything like that...
0 Replies
 
Einherjar
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Oct, 2004 06:47 pm
gungasnake wrote:
Nobody would ever know that Sweden had an army from reading the history of WW-II or anything like that...


Sweden was neutral, how does that transelate into not having an army?
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Oct, 2004 07:11 pm
squinney wrote:
From an article published today:

In the Oval Office in December 2002, the president met with a few ranking senators and members of the House, both Republicans and Democrats. In those days, there were high hopes that the United States-sponsored ''road map'' for the Israelis and Palestinians would be a pathway to peace, and the discussion that wintry day was, in part, about countries providing peacekeeping forces in the region. The problem, everyone agreed, was that a number of European countries, like France and Germany, had armies that were not trusted by either the Israelis or Palestinians. One congressman -- the Hungarian-born Tom Lantos, a Democrat from California and the only Holocaust survivor in Congress -- mentioned that the Scandinavian countries were viewed more positively. Lantos went on to describe for the president how the Swedish Army might be an ideal candidate to anchor a small peacekeeping force on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Sweden has a well-trained force of about 25,000. The president looked at him appraisingly, several people in the room recall.

''I don't know why you're talking about Sweden,'' Bush said. ''They're the neutral one. They don't have an army.''

Lantos paused, a little shocked, and offered a gentlemanly reply: ''Mr. President, you may have thought that I said Switzerland. They're the ones that are historically neutral, without an army.'' Then Lantos mentioned, in a gracious aside, that the Swiss do have a tough national guard to protect the country in the event of invasion.

Bush held to his view. ''No, no, it's Sweden that has no army.''

The room went silent, until someone changed the subject.

A few weeks later, members of Congress and their spouses gathered with administration officials and other dignitaries for the White House Christmas party. The president saw Lantos and grabbed him by the shoulder. ''You were right,'' he said, with bonhomie. ''Sweden does have an army.''


Source


If this is what you and the military wants to put on a pedestal...


How many times is this little tid-bit going to make an appearance in the threads?
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Oct, 2004 07:13 pm
As an active supporter of the FOP, I'm happy they are supporting Bush. I can't wait till I can become a full-fledged member.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Oct, 2004 07:16 pm
In Texan, it's prolly more like.....Sweeeeeee-den!

LOL!
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
 
  1. Forums
  2. » POLICE TO KERRY: STOP MISLEADING PUBLIC!
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/18/2024 at 11:23:52