The Worst President in History?

cicerone, I've been through all of that spin and counter spin. Hours of it. I do not wish to plow that ground again, and lay out all the evidence only to have you disbelieve it because you simply want to. I was in Vietnam and know what went on there. Kerry grossly misrepresented Vietnam and what went on there, and there is good evidence he grossly misrepresented his own service, and the Swift Boat people simply pointed it out, not one point, but many. I don't have time to explain it all to you. If you wish to follow your particular spin by your chosen politicians, go ahead, but I am perfectly settled and 100% convinced as to what the likely truth is. The Swift Boat people are pretty credible and Kerry simply was not. I don't care if you believe it or not. As I said, I contributed more than once to their cause and I would do it again.

okie, So you are also questioning the honesty of William B Rood who was there with Kerry during that action, and confirmed the first hand account?

Were you there too? Where in Vietnam were you when that action took place? What's your real name?

Bullcrap. How about the ones who praised Kerry in the past, and then turned around and denounced him - once they'd recieved the money?

You do know where the money to create their group came from, don't you? Of course you do, you're very well-informed about them. Right?

Cycloptichorn

People like okie doeesn't know how to put 2+2 together; the Bush campaign even destroyed John McCain, a "republican" with lies. Their heads are so screwed up, there's no chance it'll ever gain back common sense and logic.

The Bush campaign strategy to destroy the other candidates worked, because of the war chest they had. Money does funny things to people's ethics, especially if they had none to begin with.

Kerry destroyed his own campaign because he was perceived a phony that he was. The saddest chapter of his whole campaign was when he drove the boat into Boston, then when he began his speech with a salute. The man is a study in contradiction. Same with his party.

P.S. U.S. Army Big Red One and 25th after Nixon withdrew 1st Division.

okie, That Kerry blew his own campaign is not the issue: it's about lies perpetrated by the Swift Boat Vets for Truth. DUH!

Okie- First of all, thanks for your service. I know who you were with, I did Fort Bragg and the 82nd years ago. I think most of the people who don't know about these things were the protestors in the late sixties and early seventies who never outgrew their hippie outlook.

You will note that Cicerone Imposter and Cyclopitchorn do not present any evidence. They only cry --no, no,no,-your're wrong about Kerry.

Note Kerry's activities as outlined in "Unfit for Command"

While Kerry was still in the Naval Reserves(letter of 2 January 1970, US Navy, signed by T. Vanstrydonck, which said--"You are advised that your release from active duty does not terminate YOUR STATUS AS A MEMBER OF THE US NAVAL RESERVE. While on inactive duty you are subject to involuntary recall to active lduty to the extent authorized by federal statute) here is a list of the activities( a real patriot- he) Kerry was engaged in----

l. Meeting with the enemy in Paris and coordinating ongoing meetings with various members of the VVAW, both in Paris and Hanoi to arrange the release of American POW's to the VVAW. THESE MEETINGS ALSO PROVIDED AID AND SUPPORT TO THE NORTH VIETNAMESE COMMUNISTS IN THE FORM OF RADIO BROADCASTS AND OTHER INDOCTRINATION METHODS AIMED AT ENCOURAGING US SOLDIERS IN THE FIELD TO LAY DOWN THEIR ARMS AND DESERT THE MILITARY.

2. Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the United States was implementing a military policy in Vietnam that caused American soldiers to committ war crimes and atrocities, and that this criminal military policy extended up the entire chain of command.

3.Giving a press conference in Washington D.C. in which he advocated a surrender on enemy terms, followed by the payment of war damage reparations by the United States to the VIETNAMESE COMMUNISTS>


With officers like that, Okie, the name of Benedict Arnold is again recalled.

Now, Okie, Cyclopitchorn and Cicerone Imposter may object but they cannot provide PROOF that Kerry was not involved in the items listed above.

Evidence was provided, but fools don't understand the English language. If you can challenge the person that was on the scene with Kerry that confirmed what Kerry did, go ahead. Most of us would like to see it; but not from third party idiots who think they "know" something from their own experience in Vietnam. Ever try to analyze a car crash that was one block away from you? Can't be done that easily except from evidence at the scene.

I don't have much of a dog in this hunt, but it is clear that the burden of proof is on you to show that these events and activities did take place.

Not that I have much problem with two and three. Freedom of speech, and all that.

You have no problem with # 2 and # 3, Drew Dad? What about # 1? Is that a fiction?

You want PROOF that RELIABLE NEWS SOURCES REPORTED ON HIS MEETINGS WITH THE ENEMY IN PARIS?

Try Kranish and Healy-"Kerry spoke of Meeting Negotiators in Paris"
The Boston Globe- March 25th 2004

or "Anti-War Veteran Accused of Exploiting P.O.W. issue- New York Times, July 23, 1971

or FBI CONFIDENTIAL SURVEILLANCE REPORT- Nov. 19, 1971

If that is not enough for you, I have more!!

BR wrote:
2. Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the United States was implementing a military policy in Vietnam that caused American soldiers to committ war crimes and atrocities, and that this criminal military policy extended up the entire chain of command.

A: The 'REAL' crime was perpetrated by our government. They started the Vietnam war on lies. As for the atrocities in Vietnam by American soldiers, they are now legend. All one needs to do is do a Google Search.

3.Giving a press conference in Washington D.C. in which he advocated a surrender on enemy terms, followed by the payment of war damage reparations by the United States to the VIETNAMESE COMMUNISTS>

A: Since the US started this war with lies, the solution to surrender on any term was logical, even paying reparations by the US to the Vietnamese. That would have saved both Vietnamese and Americans lives.

As for #1, I have no reliable information on what information was exchanged with the enemy. If the US government felt Kerry was guilty of any crime, they should have charged him with it. That's how our legal system is supposed to work in this country.

You have a point, Drew Dad. You state:

quote Drew Dad

As for #1, I have no reliable information on what information was exchanged with the enemy. If the US government felt Kerry was guilty of any crime, they should have charged him with it. That's how our legal system is supposed to work in this country.

End of Quote

OF course, your realize that there is no "reliable" information that President Bush is a "liar". If the Congress of the United States felt Bush was guilty of any crime, they should have charged him with it. THAT'S HOW OUR LEGAL SYSTEM IS SUPPOSED TO WORK IN THIS COUNTRY.

Sir: you must realize that is exactly what many have been saying throughout this thread. The charge that President Bush lied is certainly linked to information which is NO MORE RELIABLE than the information concerning Kerry( at least you say it is not reliable). Therefore, the Idea that Bush lied is as spurious as any charges about Kerry.

But, not for the left wing which will do anything and state any lie or any unproved or unprovable charge to denigrate President Bush because they are political partisans.

Again, President Clinton lied repeatedly but THE ONLY LIE THAT CAN BE PROVEN TO BE A LIE IS THE ONE WHICH HE ADMITTED IN HIS PLEA BARGAIN.

There have been no instances in which President Bush has admitted lying or has proved to be lying in a legal sense.

The only "lies" President Bush has told are "lies" only to the partisan left wingers.

THE FACTS

The Washington Post reported an explosive story that a secret, fact-finding team of scientists and engineers sponsored by the Pentagon determined in May 2003 that two small trailers captured by U.S. and Kurdish troops were not evidence of an Iraqi biological weapons program. The nine-member team "transmitted their unanimous findings to Washington in a field report on May 27, 2003."

Despite having authoritative evidence that the biological laboratories claim was false, the administration continued to peddle the myth over the next four months.

LIES:

Guantanamo Detainees

These are people picked up off the battlefield in Afghanistan. They weren't wearing uniforms . . . but were there to kill. (President Bush 06/20/05)

These detainees are dangerous enemy combatants . . . They were picked up on the battlefield, fighting American forces, trying to kill American forces. (Scott McClellan 06/21/05)

The people that are there are people we picked up on the battlefield, primarily in Afghanistan. They're terrorists. They're bomb makers. They're facilitators of terror. They're members of Al Qaeda and the Taliban....We've let go those that we've deemed not to be a continuing threat. But the 520-some that are there now are serious, deadly threats to the United States. (Vice President Cheney 06/23/05)

FACTS:

THE FACTS
Defense Department Data. Counsel for the detainees released a report based entirely on the Defense Department's own data which found:

1.

Fifty-five percent (55%) of the detainees are not determined to have committed any hostile acts against the United States or its coalition allies.
2.

Only 8% of the detainees were characterized as al Qaeda fighters. Of the remaining detainees, 40% have no definitive connection with al Qaeda at all and 18% are have no definitive affiliation with either al Qaeda or the Taliban.
3. The Government has detained numerous persons based on mere affiliations with a large number of groups that in fact, are not on the Department of Homeland Security terrorist watchlist. Moreover, the nexus between such a detainee and such organizations varies considerably. Eight percent are detained because they are deemed "fighters for;" 30% considered "members of;" a large majority - 60% -- are detained merely because they are "associated with" a group or groups the Government asserts are terrorist organizations. For 2% of the prisoners their nexus to any terrorist group is unidentified.
4. Only 5% of the detainees were captured by United States forces. 86% of the detainees were arrested by either Pakistan or the Northern Alliance and turned over to United States custody. This 86% of the detainees captured by Pakistan or the Northern Alliance were handed over to the United States at a time in which the United States offered large bounties for capture of suspected enemies.
5. Finally, the population of persons deemed not to be enemy combatants - mostly Uighers - are in fact accused of more serious allegations than a great many persons still deemed to be enemy combatants.



National Journal Review of Defense Department Filings in Habeas Petitions. National Journal reviewed the transcripts for 314 Gitmo prisoners and found the following:

1. A high percentage, perhaps the majority, of the 500-odd men now held at Guantanamo were not captured on any battlefield, let alone on "the battlefield in Afghanistan" (as Bush asserted) while "trying to kill American forces" (as McClellan claimed).
2. Fewer than 20 percent of the Guantanamo detainees, the best available evidence suggests, have ever been Qaeda members.
3. Many scores, and perhaps hundreds, of the detainees were not even Taliban foot soldiers, let alone Qaeda terrorists. They were innocent, wrongly seized noncombatants with no intention of joining the Qaeda campaign to murder Americans.
4. The majority were not captured by U.S. forces but rather handed over by reward-seeking Pakistanis and Afghan warlords and by villagers of highly doubtful reliability.
5. Seventy-five of the 132 men, or more than half the group, are -- like -- not accused of taking part in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. (The 75 include 10 detainees whom the U.S. government "no longer" considers enemy combatants, although at least eight of the 10 are still being held at Guantanamo.) Typically, documents describe these men as "associated" with the Taliban or with Al Qaeda -- sometimes directly so, and sometimes through only weak or distant connections. Several men worked for charities that had some ties to Al Qaeda; one detainee lived in a house associated with the Taliban.
6. Some of the "associated" men are said to have attended jihadist training camps before September 11, an accusation admitted by some and denied by others. The U.S. government says that some of the suspected jihadists trained in Afghanistan, even though other records show that they had not yet entered the country at the time of the training camps. Just 57 of the 132 men, or 43 percent, are accused of being on a battlefield in post-9/11 Afghanistan.
7. The government's documents tie only eight of the 132 men directly to plans for terrorist attacks outside of Afghanistan.
8. At least eight prisoners at Guantanamo are there even though they are no longer designated as enemy combatants. One perplexed attorney, whose client does not want public attention, learned that the man was no longer considered an enemy combatant only by reading a footnote in a Justice Department motion asking a federal judge to put a slew of habeas corpus cases on hold. The attorney doesn't know why the man is still in Cuba.

Oh, please, Cicerone Imposter, How can we review your sources if you do not provide a link. By a link I mean a http:www..etc.

I really cannot accept your information since some of it seems to be clearly erroneous.

Supply a link to which we can all link to so we can see where it came from.

BD, It's no use providing links to people like you; you end up lambasting the source, and not the content of the message.

What you must do if you question the content is to challenge them with your own sources. We, then, have something to talk about.

You must challenge the Defense Department Data provided as FACT in the statement. Comprende?

I'll wait for your challenge.

How do I know that you didn't rearrange the wording or leave out critical parts?

Come on, either give a link or admit that your information is incomplete.

ha ha ha...you're dodging the quetion. They're supported by the Washington Post and the Defense Department Data. It's up to you to challenge them that what they claim are wrong. Good luck! You need it.