Us presidential election 2004

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Do you simply believe what you're told or do you have the intellect to look up things for yourself?

.................I said some.....................

Tex,

Quote[/b] ]

MR. RUSSERT:  But, Senator, when you testified before the Senate, you talked about some of the hearings you had observed at the winter soldiers meeting and you said that people had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and on and on.  A lot of those stories have been discredited, and in hindsight was your testimony...

SEN. KERRY:  Actually, a lot of them have been documented.

MR. RUSSERT:  So you stand by that?

SEN. KERRY:  A lot of those stories have been documented.  Have some been discredited?  Sure, they have, Tim.  The problem is that's not where the focus should have been.  And, you know, when you're angry about something and you're young, you know, you're perfectly capable of not--I mean, if I had the kind of experience and time behind me that I have today, I'd have framed some of that differently. Needless to say, I'm proud that I stood up.  I don't want anybody to think twice about it.  I'm proud that I took the position that I took to oppose it.  I think we saved lives, and I'm proud that I stood up at a time when it was important to stand up, but I'm not going to quibble, you know, 35 years later that I might not have phrased things more artfully at times.

[billybob2002 0]

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040422-121900-7315r.htm

Quote[/b] ]

Upon inspection of the government documents posted on the Massachusetts Democrat's Web site, other questions arise such as the conflicting descriptions in official records of the injuries Mr. Kerry sustained on March 13, 1969. It was the commendations he earned that day — a Bronze Star and a third Purple Heart — that let Mr. Kerry request a transfer out of Vietnam and into a desk job eight months before his tour expired.

   The Personnel Casualty Report from that day says Mr. Kerry "suffered shrapnel wounds in his left buttocks and contusions on his right forearm when a mine detonated close aboard" his boat.

   But the citation for the Bronze Star that he was awarded for the same action described "his arm bleeding and in pain," saying nothing about arm bruises or shrapnel wounds anywhere.

Quote[/b] ]

"Superhuman" is how Ray Waller, a combat medic in the Marines, described Mr. Kerry's record of awards.

   "I don't remember anybody getting three Purple Hearts and leaving, even within six or eight months," said Mr. Waller, who as a medic was responsible for determining whether injuries warranted Purple Hearts. "And if they did, it was very, very rare — not to mention the Silver Star and the Bronze Star."

   He also was surprised that Mr. Kerry never missed duty for the wounds that earned him Purple Hearts. Although Mr. Kerry has said one of the injuries caused him to lose two days of service, there is no evidence he ever lost time for any injuries.

Quote[/b] ]Though the campaign released more than 120 pages of Navy records yesterday, Mr. Kerry still refused to release medical records that more thoroughly describe the injuries.

just postin......... (Still respect kerry for his duty. He needs to release his medical records to shut people up...)

[Schoeler 0]

You know the thing about after action report is that they are always muddy.  They are usually written by junior officers and noncoms coming down off the adrenaline of a firefight and the immediate possibility of death.  In most cases, a few people are interviewed, not always by the same person, the "facts" are assembled and a report is written.  Any two accounts of the same combat action are going to be dramatically different, just like any two eyewitness accounts of a robbery or shooting are almost always wildly inconsistent.

It's a cute trick the Republicans are pulling to try and discredit Kerry because all that needs to be done for it to be effective is to make the accusation and leave the rest up to ignorance and imagination.  Why?  Because what happened, happened 40 years ago and if people couldn't remember things clearly then, they sure as hell aren't going to remember them with total recall now.  The accusation needs no substantiation or grounding in facts and the rebuttal is all but impossible to obtain.  It's a dirty smear campaign pure and simple.

I'll bet if we looked at the after action reports for Audie Murphy's medals of honor or for Chesty Puller or for Alvin York, they all are inconsistent, and some people will believe they deserved the medal and some won't.  Does that mean we should smear them and strip them of the medals they earned?

Fuck no it doesn't.  Personally I think anyone who wasn't there on that day and involved in that action should just shut the fuck up and quit talking out of their ass, because they don't know what really happened, and they NEVER will.

Who are any of us, who never saw combat to judge the honor and courage of those who have?

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Bushs new Ad! "DOUBLESPEAK"

Only in the US the term "liberal" is considered as an insult!

[theavonlady 2]

Bushs new Ad! "DOUBLESPEAK"

For other formats and bandwidths of the same commerical, see the Bush For President site.

Quote[/b] ]Only in the US the term "liberal" is considered as an insult!

Only a liberal would say that.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Bushs new Ad! "DOUBLESPEAK"

For other formats and bandwidths of the same commerical, see the Bush For President site.

Quote[/b] ]Only in the US the term "liberal" is considered as an insult!

Only a liberal would say that.

 

"Hey buddy, I think you are getting too liberal, too openminded there. Watch out that you dont believe in your own judgement one day!"

Awesome, from now on I will insult everyone in my town as liberal.

"geee, that tastes so goddamn liberal, did you cook that?"

"Is this a liberal office here or why do I have to wait so long?"

"No, this shop is for liberals, I rather pay a bit more and get the right quality"

"this is a terrible liberal behaviour for your age, young man, so behave"

I wish people would stop being so liberal and return to the traditional values such as prejudice, rigidity, racism, ignorance and subjectivity!

[theavonlady 2]

Bushs new Ad! "DOUBLESPEAK"

For other formats and bandwidths of the same commerical, see the Bush For President site.

Quote[/b] ]Only in the US the term "liberal" is considered as an insult!

Only a liberal would say that.

 

"Hey buddy, I think you are getting too liberal, too openminded there. Watch out that you dont believe in your own judgement one day!"

Awesome, from now on I will insult everyone in my town as liberal.

"geee, that tastes so goddamn liberal, did you cook that?"

"Is this a liberal office here or why do I have to wait so long?"

"No, this shop is for liberals, I rather pay a bit more and get the right quality"

"this is a terrible liberal behaviour for your age, young man, so beahve"

Just to point out that the word "liberal" on its own is not what the ad highlights. It's "liberal like Ted Kennedy", for example.

I'm sure we can easily do the same for conservatives on the other end of the spectrum.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

On a different forum I had a simillar discussion. I pointed out to him that calling someone "damn lib" means nothing else than insulting him for relying on his own judgements. His response was that "liberal" in an american connotation has a different meaning than the european term.   Oh is that what they mean when they say " it is a latin-american" word?

[theavonlady 2]

On a different forum I had a simillar discussion. I pointed out to him that calling someone "damn lib" means nothing else than insulting him for relying on his own judgements.

Well, it definitely is true that people can dismiss an entire way of thinking. If someone's characterist is fully liberal or conservative, the opposite type of person's outlook may be considered damned.

Quote[/b] ]His response was that "liberal" in an american connotation has a different meaning than the european term. Oh is that what they mean when they say " it is a latin-american" word?

Now you've confused me, too.

[denoir 0]

The term 'liberal' has different meaning in the US and in Europe. It's not an uncommon source of confusion in political debates that go across the atlantic.

[theavonlady 2]

The term 'liberal' has different meaning in the US and in Europe. It's not an uncommon source of confusion in political debates that go across the atlantic.

The political equivalent of "you say tomato and I say tomato".

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

The term 'liberal' has different meaning in the US and in Europe. It's not an uncommon source of confusion in political debates that go across the atlantic.

The political equivalent of "you say tomato and I say tomato".

"tomatoe" you damn liberal israeli!

[denoir 0]

The term 'liberal' has different meaning in the US and in Europe. It's not an uncommon source of confusion in political debates that go across the atlantic.

The political equivalent of "you say tomato and I say tomato".

Not quite. There is a significant difference. In the US "liberal" is connected to a socialist point of view, rather than anything to do with libertas - liberty. Liberalsim simply advocates that you should have a lot of rights as an individual and that the state (or church for that matter) should not interfere with your life. And that's the meaning that it has kept in Europe.

In US politics things are a bit more messy as the two parties are not really consistent if you try put them on a traditional political map. For instance the Republicans are actually ultra-liberals in most cases ("no big government etc...") but also have the classical conservative role ("family values, religion,military...")

Democrats on the other hand are more social-democrats (with serious right wing tendencies) than liberals. They are liberals in the social scene ("gay rights, secularization...") but socialists when it comes to economics and the general structure of government.

I use the word "socialist" here in a relative sense. The most right-wing European parties are more left-wing than the Democrats.

[walker 0]

Hi all

If you think about the Vietnam War Dodger George Bush Jnr. all you see is the man who no one remembers but records prove he was a vietnam war dodger without even the courage to go to jail for burning his draft card.

TBA and their cronies in the likes of Halibuton are more interested in ripping off the US tax payer and serving soldiers. Then TBA have the afrontery to rip off Veterans benefits.

The George Bush Jnr. the US's only ever un-President does not know how to lead. George Bush Jnr and his cronies in TBA missed the warning signs of 9/11 when they were supposed to be on watch.

George Bush Jnr. un-President of war mis-lead the nation into a senseless stupid war in Iraq.

Contrast that with J. F. Kerry

Quote[/b] ]We were one helluva target," Kerry recalls, 35 years after serving in Vietnam. For nearly three months, his lightly armed patrol boats had been sitting ducks for Viet Cong snipers. The usual response was to clear the ambush zone and shoot back from a safer distance. Sailors stayed on board.

But the young officer had a more "creative" plan on Feb. 28, 1969. This time, Kerry beached his boat toward the attacking VC. He jumped ashore, chased a startled, armed guerrilla and killed him. Crewmates say the audacious move saved their lives. Kerry was awarded the Silver Star, the Navy's third-highest combat award.

http://www.usatoday.com/news....m_x.htm

Quote[/b] ]A new, dangerous mission

But shortly after arriving at Cam Ranh Bay in November 1968, he was assigned to Operation Sealords. The new mission sent six-man boats deep into Viet Cong territory to "show the flag" and harass enemy forces who controlled the dense, remote jungles south of Saigon.

Vice Adm. Elmo Zumwalt, the Navy's commander in Vietnam, later wrote that Sealords sailors had a 75% casualty rate.

"The level of danger was extremely high," says Jim Rassmann, the Army Special Forces officer who rode PCF-94 for nearly a month before Kerry saved his life during a ferocious river battle. The noisy boats "had no place to hide. People could hear them coming a half-mile away."

Ambushes were a constant. Viet Cong lurked among civilians. Boat officers were given wide berth in "free-fire" zones where troops were allowed to shoot first and ask questions later. Kerry preferred caution unless fired upon.

"He wouldn't let you go randomly down the river shooting up everything in sight," says Stephen Hatch, who served on the first of Kerry's two boats.

Still, innocents were sometimes killed. One pitch-black night, Kerry's PCF-94 stopped a Vietnamese sampan boat after curfew in a free-fire zone. Kerry told his gunner to fire a warning round, but in the ensuing confusion the entire crew began shooting. Moments later, they learned to their horror that they had killed a small child, the limp body already covered by the child's mother. Although they had done nothing technically wrong, Kerry refused to uncover the body for fear, he later wrote, that the face would haunt him forever.

"The image of that child on that pile of rice in the night will never leave me," he says. "And the terror in the eyes of the faces of civilians. The look of our own wounded, and seeing someone carrying a human being in two halves. Those things stay with you."

Such incidents convinced Kerry and other officers that the river excursions, which took no terrain but resulted in many casualties, made more enemies than friends. But the missions continued.

On the February 1969 mission to transport South Vietnamese troops deep into enemy territory, three boats under Kerry's tactical command came under small-arms fire. But this time, the convoy did the unexpected.

"Zero-Nine-Zero. All boats turn," Kerry ordered. Whipping sharply to shore, the boats terrified the ambushers, who were quickly overwhelmed. The tactic, Kerry recalled, "worked superbly."

Hearing shots ahead, Kerry headed farther up the river, where his boat was attacked a second time. Kerry signaled Sandusky, his driver, to ram the shoreline again. They hit just 10 feet from a bamboo-covered spider hole. A panicked guerrilla wearing a loincloth and wielding a B-40 rocket launcher sprang up and started to run.

Kerry jumped onto the bank and chased him. The guerrilla fell when his leg was grazed by fire, but quickly got up and ran down a path. He was about to duck out of sight behind a hut when Kerry "dispatched him" with his M-16, says radio operator Michael Medeiros, who followed close behind.

Some critics have cited remarks at the time by George Elliott, Kerry's division commander, for sparking questions about Kerry's actions. After the battle, Elliott says he cracked "tongue-in-cheek" that he didn't know whether to court-martial Kerry or give him a medal. But in a recent interview, he was clear: "This was an exemplary action. There's no question about it."

Sounds like scenes from Apocalypse Now.

J. F. Kerry has never forgotten his friends in the forces and is a tireless fighter for US veterans that is why so many past and present US troops will be voting for him.

I draw your attention to this last part

Quote[/b] ]

In an evaluation written in late 1969, Elliott said Kerry's decisiveness was "unsurpassed" and he was an "acknowledged leader in his peer group. His bearing and appearance are above reproach."

"When he recognizes a threat or problem that is serious, many of us would become defensive and perhaps try to move ourselves from the threat," says Skip Barker, a retired Navy captain who met Kerry during swift boat training in Coronado, Calif. "John's reaction is different. It gets his attention. He focuses on it and goes after it."

J. F. Kerry will give the US a Real War President one who understands war and veterans and who wont short change the troops.

Kind Regards Walker

[Akira 0]

Bush - Kerry Military Comparison

Pretty much speaks for itself.

[denoir 0]

I am sorry but I am really not buying this. What? Are you saying that Bush would have been a better president/man had he been napalming vietnamese villages instead of hobby-flying over Texas?

You have to put it into context. The vietnam war was a nasty war of agression that ended in a miserable failure. I don't see how you can hold not participating against a man, regardless of his motives.

[walker 0]

I am sorry but I am really not buying this. What? Are you saying that Bush would have been a better president/man had he been napalming vietnamese villages instead of hobby-flying over Texas?

You have to put it into context. The vietnam war was a nasty war of agression that ended in a miserable failure. I don't see how you can hold not participating against a man, regardless of his motives.

Hi Denoir

No I am saying that The Vietnam War Dodger George Bush Jnr. is a proven failure as a leader. 9/11 the Iraq war and the parlerous state of the US economy prove that.

As I said in a previous post he did not have the courage to burn his draft card and at least if he had joined Joan Baez's husband and gone to prison for his beliefs that would have been honourable.

Instead the gold bricker George Bush Jnr. Dodged the Vietnam War by getting his family connections to get him a cushy spot in a bunch of champaign flyers who even the Air National Guard are ashamed of.

The contrasts are between a deceiving Vietnam War Dodger and an honourable man of proven integrety and courage.

J. F.Kerry has shown and proven qualities required in a leader. Who argued against the war but who despite his reservations served honourably then argued against the war once again when he was out of service.

The question is a fundamental one about character of the man in charge.

Do you want an un-President George Bush Jnr. who cheats his way out of serving his country.

or

A real war leader like J. F. kerry who has the courage and honour to risk his life for his country and the courage to argue against what is wrong in a war.

The only way you can judge two people is on what they did in the same circumstances.

The Vietnam war does that

The vietnam war defines the charcter of George Bush Junior as a Shiftless Layabout Vietnam War Dodger who was only concerned about himself. One who was not prepared to serve but argued others should and hypocriticaly denegrated those who argued against US involvement.

The vietnam war defines the charcter of J. F. Kerry as a Vietnam War Hero who cared for those under his charge and one who was farsighted enough to have argued against a wrong war before it happened and who as soon as his legal requirements of service lapsed once more argued against the war.

It is a question of character Denior; a question of character.

Kind Regards Walker

[SpongeBob 0]

Quote[/b] ]It is a question of character

Killing babies? You go my vote.  

Quote[/b] ]Although they had done nothing technically wrong, Kerry refused to uncover the body for fear, he later wrote, that the face would haunt him forever.

[Balschoiw 0]

And maybe a man who served in vietnam and opposed the war strongly afterwards is a better man to judge the effects of war than an military uneducated bollock who ever preferred to run away.

I guess Kerry has a better insight to war than Bush will ever have.

I don´t know if Kerry is the better man for the job, but at least he knows what he´s talking about.

[denoir 0]

It is a question of character Denior; a question of character.

Doing what your country orders you to do is not necessarily the right thing to do. Most people, including Americans have acknowledged that Vietnam was a big mistake and that a lot of people died needlessly. Why should it be a merit to have participated in such a failure that ended in thousands of US soldiers dead and hundreds of thousands if not million dead civilians? Sure, Bush used his daddy's contacts to get himself out. It certainly is a question of character and overall I'd say it is very typical of Bush.

It is not however more 'moral' to have participated in a war that was a big slaugter of innocent civillians. It is cerainly not something you should be bragging about.

[Akira 0]

I don't know. Maybe as a European it is hard to understand the US point of view in the matter. For us it boils down to who is going to be a better leader of the country? What better way to show that then military service, as military service has always been an important factor in US election, possibly more so because one has to volunteer and take a measure of self-sacrifice.

Taking that into account who clearly would be better leading the country? One who is decorated and been praised for their leadership, or one who used connections to get out of any form of combat and hardly showed up to his NG duties?

Add to this the horrible failure of Iraq and Afghanistan and the point becomes even more clear.

The debate over military service really has nothing to do with "killing babies" or "napalming villages." And even if it did, Kerry came back and lobbied for the end of the war, and at the time exposed many things that the general US public had no knowledge of or would accept to hear our boys doing.

As I said. It is a character issue for leadership, and as I said Kerry seems to have it in abundance while Bush never had it.

[Schoeler 0]

It is a question of character Denior; a question of character.

Doing what your country orders you to do is not necessarily the right thing to do. Most people, including Americans have acknowledged that Vietnam was a big mistake and that a lot of people died needlessly. Why should it be a merit to have participated in such a failure that ended in thousands of US soldiers dead and hundreds of thousands if not million dead civilians? Sure, Bush used his daddy's contacts to get himself out. It certainly is a question of character and overall I'd say it is very typical of Bush.

It is not however more 'moral' to have participated in a war that was a big slaugter of innocent civillians. It is cerainly not something you should be bragging about.

Denoir, I'm shocked that you can't see the character in Kerrys actions. It is right up there with greek philosophical virtue. Don't tell me you never read about the citizen-soldier and duty in greek philosophy. Abandoning civilian life and serving honorably when called, then returning home to civilian life has always been considered a mark of character in western thinking as has speaking out for what is moral and just against what is immoral and unjust. A man who susepcts the war is wrong and says so, but cannot abandon his higher duty to fellow citizen and country and elects to humbly serve anyway, then speaks out against the war despite criticism after learning for sure that the war was wrong is a man of virtue in my book and Socrate's too.

[denoir 0]

I don't know. Maybe as a European it is hard to understand the US point of view in the matter.

To me it is like a (To Albert: sorry  you may punch me or call me a liberal or another nasty thing for bringing this example ) post WW2 German politician bragging about his heroism for the Führer and attacking that his opponent did not step up when called by the Fatherland. Yes it is very difficult for me to understand. Doing what your country wants you to do is not by default the right thing to do. So, in 30 years, you'll be praising the next presidential candidate who will brag how he dropped cluster munitions on Iraqi towns?  

Quote[/b] ]For us it boils down to who is going to be a better leader of the country?

This is the really scary part. You think that military qualifications equal political qualifications? How many wars are you planning? If this is the American sentiment, then America is truly a danger to the peace in the world. In my part of the world killing other human beings is not a merit. It can be a regrettable necessary fact, but hardly something you brag about on cocktail parties.

Quote[/b] ]The debate over military service really has nothing to do with "killing babies" or "napalming villages." And even if it did, Kerry came back and lobbied for the end of the war, and at the time exposed many things that the general US public had no knowledge of or would accept to hear our boys doing.

Oh yeah right. He started opposing the war at the stage when everybody already realized it was going to hell. Incidentally he's doing the same thing with Iraq now.

Schoeler:

Quote[/b] ]Denoir, I'm shocked that you can't see the character in Kerrys actions.  It is right up there with greek philosophical virtue.  Don't tell me you never read about the citizen-soldier and duty in greek philosophy.  Abandoning civilian life and serving honorably when called, then returning home to civilian life has always been considered a mark of character in western thinking as has speaking out for what is moral and just against what is immoral and unjust.  A man who susepcts the war is wrong and says so, but cannot abandon his higher duty to fellow citizen and country and elects to humbly serve anyway, then speaks out against the war despite criticism after learning for sure that the war was wrong is a man of virtue in my book and Socrate's too.

Oh please. He volunteered to go and bomb the hell out of people that had done nothing to you. And when things turned sour and he developed a political interest he flipped position. Just like with the Iraq war. He voted for the war and was a Great Patriot. When things turned nasty, he saw his chance to attack Bush and did so. He supported the war. And don't give me the bed time story about TBA decieving him. At the time that congress voted it was very obvious what Bush was up to and that there was no justification for a war. Check our older Iraq threads and see the discussion that was going on. Bush never presented any evidence of WMD or cooperation with terrorists. Yet the congress most willingly approved his little war adventure. And had he managed to pull it off smoothly you can bet money on that Kerry would have been the last person to criticize the war. He's an ambitious opportunist. I would not let him lead my dog, much less a country. While my opinion of Bush may be even lower doesn't mean that Kerry is a good choice for president.

Howard Dean was the only person I remotely found acceptable.

[Schoeler 0]

Oh please. He volunteered to go and bomb the hell out of people that had done nothing to you. And when things turned sour and he developed a political interest he flipped position. Just like with the Iraq war. He voted for the war and was a Great Patriot. When things turned nasty, he saw his chance to attack Bush and did so. He supported the war. And don't give me the bed time story about TBA decieving him. At the time that congress voted it was very obvious what Bush was up to and that there was no justification for a war. Check our older Iraq threads and see the discussion that was going on. Bush never presented any evidence of WMD or cooperation with terrorists. Yet the congress most willingly approved his little war adventure. And had he managed to pull it off smoothly you can bet money on that Kerry would have been the last person to criticize the war. He's an ambitious opportunist. I would not let him lead my dog, much less a country. While my opinion of Bush may be even lower doesn't mean that Kerry is a good choice for president.

Howard Dean was the only person I remotely found acceptable.

Denoir, God forbid I ever end up as jaded as you!

Another example of greek virtue:

The Citizen Soldier

Here is a guy who abandoned his life despite the obvious benefits of staying put, yet he elected to do his duty to fellow citizen and country anyway. His choice is honorable.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]So, in 30 years, you'll be praising the next presidential candidate who will brag how he dropped cluster munitions on Iraqi towns?

I think you can hardly equate Vietnam and Iraq in this sense. 40 years ago people knew very little about the war. There wasn't the ability to have an international discussion as today between "common" people as here. Yes, there were the "hippies" but the majority of America just said "We must stop the Communists". The sociological progression from the 50's mentatlity to the revolution of the 60's-70's was hardly done when Kerry enlisted.

Quote[/b] ]This is the really scary part. You think that military qualifications equal political qualifications? How many wars are you planning? If this is the American sentiment, then America is truly a danger to the peace in the world. In my part of the world killing other human beings is not a merit. It can be a regrettable necessary fact, but hardly something you brag about on cocktail parties.

How did you completely not understand what I said. It has nothing to do with being "militarily" inclined nor about planning wars. It has to do with LEADERSHIP. The military is by far one of the better indicators of leadership ability. It has nothing to do with shooting people. I would rather have a decorated veteran who was praised by his superiors for his LEADERSHIP than one that never fulfilled his NG duties IN THE STATES, and even failed in an oil company in oil rich Texas.

Quote[/b] ]Oh yeah right. He started opposing the war at the stage when everybody already realized it was going to hell.

He opposed the war after got back from seeing it first hand. He was voted spokesman of a GROUP of veterans who opposed and lobbied for the end of the war after being there. Does that make them any less right or opportunistic? I think not.

And a lot of people have denounced Iraq after the fact. Does that make them any less wrong?

Quote[/b] ]Oh please. He volunteered to go and bomb the hell out of people that had done nothing to you. And when things turned sour and he developed a political interest he flipped position.

So anyone who changes position is opportunistic? I guess I am opportunistic as well due to my great political ambition...