News: Swift Boat Vets are liars and Bush tools

[dennis_t]

Wow, didn't take long for the light of day to send the roaches scurrying.

Several of the Swift Boat Vets have long and continuing ties to Bush's campaign -- one was a steering committee member as last as Aug. 19, this Thursday. (http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:7Mtcv7gCB14J:www.georgewbush.com/Veterans/SteeringCommittee.aspx+Cordier+NAM-POWs.&hl=en)

A Bush campaign worker in Florida was caught handing out promotional materials for the Swift Boat Smearers, even though the campaign continues to say it has nothing to do with the group or its ad. (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/8/20/18115/6359)

And it's taking very little work for journalists to find that many of the Swift Boat Vets have praised Kerry effusively in the past. There's this from Knight Ridder:

Kerry's commanding officer in Vietnam, George Elliott, said in an attack ad: "John Kerry has not been honest about what happened in Vietnam."

But during the Vietnam War, Elliott recommended Kerry for the Silver and Bronze Star medals for valor in combat and gave him the highest possible praise in his officer efficiency reports.

"In a combat environment often requiring independent, decisive action, LTjg Kerry was unsurpassed," Elliott wrote in 1969. He went on to rate Kerry as "calm, professional and highly courageous in the face of enemy fire."

Elliott added: "(Kerry) emerges as the acknowledged leader in his peer group." In 16 categories on Kerry's officer efficiency report, ranging from professional knowledge to moral courage to military bearing to reliability, Elliott gave Kerry the highest possible rating - "is not exceeded" - in 11 categories, and the second highest, "one of the top 10" in five other categories.

Elliott in 1996 supported Kerry in his re-election campaign for the Senate and during an appearance in Boston declared that Kerry had earned the Silver Star "for an act of courage."

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/9455159.

And this from the New York Times:

Several of those now declaring Mr. Kerry "unfit" had lavished praise on him, some as recently as last year.

In an unpublished interview in March 2003 with Mr. Kerry's authorized biographer, Douglas Brinkley, provided by Mr. Brinkley to The New York Times, Roy F. Hoffmann, a retired rear admiral and a leader of the group, allowed that he had disagreed with Mr. Kerry's antiwar positions but said, "I am not going to say anything negative about him." He added, "He's a good man."

In a profile of the candidate that ran in The Boston Globe in June 2003, Mr. Hoffmann approvingly recalled the actions that led to Mr. Kerry's Silver Star: "It took guts, and I admire that."

George Elliott, one of the Vietnam veterans in the group, flew from his home in Delaware to Boston in 1996 to stand up for Mr. Kerry during a tough re-election fight, declaring at a news conference that the action that won Mr. Kerry a Silver Star was "an act of courage." At that same event, Adrian L. Lonsdale, another Vietnam veteran now speaking out against Mr. Kerry, supported him with a statement about the "bravado and courage of the young officers that ran the Swift boats."

"Senator Kerry was no exception," Mr. Lonsdale told the reporters and cameras assembled at the Charlestown Navy Yard. "He was among the finest of those Swift boat drivers."

Those comments echoed the official record. In an evaluation of Mr. Kerry in 1969, Mr. Elliott, who was one of his commanders, ranked him as "not exceeded" in 11 categories, including moral courage, judgment and decisiveness, and "one of the top few" - the second-highest distinction - in the remaining five. In written comments, he called Mr. Kerry "unsurpassed," "beyond reproach" and "the acknowledged leader in his peer group."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/politics/campaign/20swift.html?ei=5090&en=8afa4fded4046b86&ex=125065 4400&partner=rssuserland&pagewanted=all&position=

Again, I ask -- is there any level to which Republicans will not stoop in their drive for power? Have they no sense of shame or decency? Or do they figure the country is just one big open sewer, so what's a little more slime going to hurt? If their ideas are so good, why do they have to smear and lie to get votes?

[JSweeney]

If you think only the Republicans are involved in dirty politics, you're naive.
If you're absolutely certain that the Democrat's aren't, you're stupid.

[dennis_t]

If you think only the Republicans are involved in dirty politics, you're naive.
If you're absolutely certain that the Democrat's aren't, you're stupid.

I just gave you a proven example of Republican dirty tricks.

Now give me a similar example from the Democrats.

"Everyone does it" is not much an argument, and it's even less of one if you don't bother proving it.

[bmulligan]

Hate to tread on your hero-worship:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_2004_March_1/ai_113363774

[Quackzilla]

Hate to tread on your hero-worship:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_2004_March_1/ai_113363774

Wow, your an idiot.

[Sarang01]

Hate to tread on your hero-worship:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_2004_March_1/ai_113363774

Since you're putting out that link how about you check out this one too: www.democracynow.org/ . Also how about you LISTEN to the show?

[Quackzilla]

Thats a good show, they had the whole 'winter soldier' speech before congress (not the testimony).

It is public television at its best.

[Sarang01]

It's intelligent media not like that CRAP on NPR for Political. No offense but to Conservatives but NPR isn't what I'd remotely consider Left leaning and they don't really open peoples eyes to much although I DID appreciate a story done on a guy who wrote a book about America's prisons. They discussed some of the argument of "Rehabilitation vs. Reincarnceration", something we don't hear discussed often enough. Quite often the...
Shit never mind I'm digressing here. Anyway check out the book if you're interested in reading up on some of the problems. "A History Of Injustice: The Crisis In America's Prisons".

[gamefreak]

Again, I ask -- is there any level to which Republicans will not stoop in their drive for power? Have they no sense of shame or decency? Or do they figure the country is just one big open sewer, so what's a little more slime going to hurt? If their ideas are so good, why do they have to smear and lie to get votes?

Again, I ask -- is there any level to which Democrats will not stoop in their drive for power?

Making up stories about Vietnam, potentially self-inflicted wounds. Hell, this guy has personallly commited war crimes by his own words. Bush might be bad but he hasn't violated the Geneva Conventions yet.

[helava]

Ah, so you've bought the GOP's new meme, eh?

1.) "Self inflicted" wounds are still wounds in the course of duty, and still eligible for the Purple heart.

2.) The wounds in question were caused by a grenade. A grenade of the type that Kerry's crewmates insist were not present on his boat.

In terms of the war crimes he committed, if you are a soldier, you do as you're ordered. that's one of the reasons I don't find say, Lynndie England necessarily responsible for Abu Ghraib - if someone tells you to do something, in the military, it is your job to do it, however repusive. What are you other options? Insubordination? Fragging your commander? The point was that Kerry was protesting the policy, and the command - not the individual soldliers, or their actions.

Bush, incidentally, has violated the Geneva Conventions, from the command side - something Kerry *hasn't* done. The Guantanamo Bay prisoners, for instance, and the "ghost" prisoners in Iraq, who were never reported to the Red Cross, are in fact explicit violations of the Geneva Conventions.

So, now, gamefreak - tell me - you think it' the Democrats who are stooping? the Swift Boat Veterans are liars - GOP-funded liars, coordinating with the Bush-Cheney campaign. Both those labels are *proven*, 100%, and documented. Something the Swift Boat Vets' claims are explicitly *not*.

Try again, gamefreak. Try harder.

seppo

[gamefreak]

Ah, so you've bought the GOP's new meme, eh?

1.) "Self inflicted" wounds are still wounds in the course of duty, and still eligible for the Purple heart.

2.) The wounds in question were caused by a grenade. A grenade of the type that Kerry's crewmates insist were not present on his boat.

In terms of the war crimes he committed, if you are a soldier, you do as you're ordered. that's one of the reasons I don't find say, Lynndie England necessarily responsible for Abu Ghraib - if someone tells you to do something, in the military, it is your job to do it, however repusive. What are you other options? Insubordination? Fragging your commander? The point was that Kerry was protesting the policy, and the command - not the individual soldliers, or their actions.

Bush, incidentally, has violated the Geneva Conventions, from the command side - something Kerry *hasn't* done. The Guantanamo Bay prisoners, for instance, and the "ghost" prisoners in Iraq, who were never reported to the Red Cross, are in fact explicit violations of the Geneva Conventions.

So, now, gamefreak - tell me - you think it' the Democrats who are stooping? the Swift Boat Veterans are liars - GOP-funded liars, coordinating with the Bush-Cheney campaign. Both those labels are *proven*, 100%, and documented. Something the Swift Boat Vets' claims are explicitly *not*.

Try again, gamefreak. Try harder.

seppo

I didn't say that self inflicted wound were "out of the question" or what have you. Purposfully hurtting yourself to get out of the war is a downright irresponsible and dirty thing to do. I am extreamly hesitant to take Kerry's word, one that he has changed many times, over a group of soldiers.

So Kerry knew what he was doing was wrong but didn't stand up for the "American Way" and whatnot? You'd have someone as president who'd rather shrink his duties and do what others say instead of what is right?

[Quackzilla]

Look, there is a HUGE difference between self-inflicted wounds and freindly fire.

AND ONLY ONE OF THE SWIFT VETS ACTUALLY KNEW KERRY! THEY WERE TOTAL STRANGERS WHO SAID THEY FOUGHT BESIDE HIM! THEY ARE LIARS!

[Cracka]

more than likely Bush doesnt have anything to do with them, and the fact that his promotional person was handing out fliers supporting them, doesnt mean that he has anything to do with what their saying. If i was running for office, and there were some people out saying something that made me look better, i'd probably give out fliers telling about them too.

[Quackzilla]

See? Its an issue of morals which you don't know anything about.

[spyhunterk19]

Ah, so you've bought the GOP's new meme, eh?

1.) "Self inflicted" wounds are still wounds in the course of duty, and still eligible for the Purple heart.

2.) The wounds in question were caused by a grenade. A grenade of the type that Kerry's crewmates insist were not present on his boat.

In terms of the war crimes he committed, if you are a soldier, you do as you're ordered. that's one of the reasons I don't find say, Lynndie England necessarily responsible for Abu Ghraib - if someone tells you to do something, in the military, it is your job to do it, however repusive. What are you other options? Insubordination? Fragging your commander? The point was that Kerry was protesting the policy, and the command - not the individual soldliers, or their actions.

Bush, incidentally, has violated the Geneva Conventions, from the command side - something Kerry *hasn't* done. The Guantanamo Bay prisoners, for instance, and the "ghost" prisoners in Iraq, who were never reported to the Red Cross, are in fact explicit violations of the Geneva Conventions.

So, now, gamefreak - tell me - you think it' the Democrats who are stooping? the Swift Boat Veterans are liars - GOP-funded liars, coordinating with the Bush-Cheney campaign. Both those labels are *proven*, 100%, and documented. Something the Swift Boat Vets' claims are explicitly *not*.

Try again, gamefreak. Try harder.

seppo

I didn't say that self inflicted wound were "out of the question" or what have you. Purposfully hurtting yourself to get out of the war is a downright irresponsible and dirty thing to do. I am extreamly hesitant to take Kerry's word, one that he has changed many times, over a group of soldiers.

So Kerry knew what he was doing was wrong but didn't stand up for the "American Way" and whatnot? You'd have someone as president who'd rather shrink his duties and do what others say instead of what is right?


Dear god, a brain can come in quite handy.....

I cant belive that you have the nerve to say that kerry was trying to get out of the war by hurting himself when HE volunteered for it, while Gerogie boy, for all intensive purposes, DODGED THE WAR, "Dont throw stones when u live in a glass house" -out

[gamefreak]

Ah, so you've bought the GOP's new meme, eh?

1.) "Self inflicted" wounds are still wounds in the course of duty, and still eligible for the Purple heart.

2.) The wounds in question were caused by a grenade. A grenade of the type that Kerry's crewmates insist were not present on his boat.

In terms of the war crimes he committed, if you are a soldier, you do as you're ordered. that's one of the reasons I don't find say, Lynndie England necessarily responsible for Abu Ghraib - if someone tells you to do something, in the military, it is your job to do it, however repusive. What are you other options? Insubordination? Fragging your commander? The point was that Kerry was protesting the policy, and the command - not the individual soldliers, or their actions.

Bush, incidentally, has violated the Geneva Conventions, from the command side - something Kerry *hasn't* done. The Guantanamo Bay prisoners, for instance, and the "ghost" prisoners in Iraq, who were never reported to the Red Cross, are in fact explicit violations of the Geneva Conventions.

So, now, gamefreak - tell me - you think it' the Democrats who are stooping? the Swift Boat Veterans are liars - GOP-funded liars, coordinating with the Bush-Cheney campaign. Both those labels are *proven*, 100%, and documented. Something the Swift Boat Vets' claims are explicitly *not*.

Try again, gamefreak. Try harder.

seppo

I didn't say that self inflicted wound were "out of the question" or what have you. Purposfully hurtting yourself to get out of the war is a downright irresponsible and dirty thing to do. I am extreamly hesitant to take Kerry's word, one that he has changed many times, over a group of soldiers.

So Kerry knew what he was doing was wrong but didn't stand up for the "American Way" and whatnot? You'd have someone as president who'd rather shrink his duties and do what others say instead of what is right?


Dear god, a brain can come in quite handy.....

I cant belive that you have the nerve to say that kerry was trying to get out of the war by hurting himself when HE volunteered for it, while Gerogie boy, for all intensive purposes, DODGED THE WAR, "Dont throw stones when u live in a glass house" -out

And? He didn't lie about it. He didn't commit war crimes. He didn't rape, cut of heads, shoot at random civilizans, and so forth.

I have a question for you. Would you rather Saddam be in power right this instant? Let me remind you, he has gassed, raped, murdered, and overall made Iraq a not nice place for his people. I can also guarentee you the fact that he would not have stepped down had France et al demanded it. Can you honestly condone the things he has done? How could you wish such horrible things on the Iraqi people and the world overall?

[Sarang01]

I'm so sick of this "Oh me, oh my!" crap about Sadaam doing all these wretched things. Where the FUCK are the Republicans OR Democrats for that matter when China is committing Human Right's abuses. Did George Bush pull MFTN status from them when this track continued? China never does ANYTHING about it and all they do is get critisized a bit and nothing happens so before you or Democrats but especially Republicans or anyone pulls the "Look at what Sadaam did." I say look at people tolerating China's behavior. Granted it's not as bad but it's still a valid critisizm to people decrying what Sadaam did or a far better example would be for Republicans to have critisized Reagan for ruining...Panama or whichever country it was down in South America. God I'm out of it. Be consistent I guess I should say.

[spyhunterk19]

Ah, so you've bought the GOP's new meme, eh?

1.) "Self inflicted" wounds are still wounds in the course of duty, and still eligible for the Purple heart.

2.) The wounds in question were caused by a grenade. A grenade of the type that Kerry's crewmates insist were not present on his boat.

In terms of the war crimes he committed, if you are a soldier, you do as you're ordered. that's one of the reasons I don't find say, Lynndie England necessarily responsible for Abu Ghraib - if someone tells you to do something, in the military, it is your job to do it, however repusive. What are you other options? Insubordination? Fragging your commander? The point was that Kerry was protesting the policy, and the command - not the individual soldliers, or their actions.

Bush, incidentally, has violated the Geneva Conventions, from the command side - something Kerry *hasn't* done. The Guantanamo Bay prisoners, for instance, and the "ghost" prisoners in Iraq, who were never reported to the Red Cross, are in fact explicit violations of the Geneva Conventions.

So, now, gamefreak - tell me - you think it' the Democrats who are stooping? the Swift Boat Veterans are liars - GOP-funded liars, coordinating with the Bush-Cheney campaign. Both those labels are *proven*, 100%, and documented. Something the Swift Boat Vets' claims are explicitly *not*.

Try again, gamefreak. Try harder.

seppo

I didn't say that self inflicted wound were "out of the question" or what have you. Purposfully hurtting yourself to get out of the war is a downright irresponsible and dirty thing to do. I am extreamly hesitant to take Kerry's word, one that he has changed many times, over a group of soldiers.

So Kerry knew what he was doing was wrong but didn't stand up for the "American Way" and whatnot? You'd have someone as president who'd rather shrink his duties and do what others say instead of what is right?


Dear god, a brain can come in quite handy.....

I cant belive that you have the nerve to say that kerry was trying to get out of the war by hurting himself when HE volunteered for it, while Gerogie boy, for all intensive purposes, DODGED THE WAR, "Dont throw stones when u live in a glass house" -out

And? He didn't lie about it. He didn't commit war crimes. He didn't rape, cut of heads, shoot at random civilizans, and so forth.

I have a question for you. Would you rather Saddam be in power right this instant? Let me remind you, he has gassed, raped, murdered, and overall made Iraq a not nice place for his people. I can also guarentee you the fact that he would not have stepped down had France et al demanded it. Can you honestly condone the things he has done? How could you wish such horrible things on the Iraqi people and the world overall?

You cant be serios right, lmao, where the hell does saddam come in? we were talking about the candidates vietnam record(or lack there of in gop case) every time a gop feels thretend they bring up non related subjects, go home.

[rumblebear]

Ah, so you've bought the GOP's new meme, eh?

1.) "Self inflicted" wounds are still wounds in the course of duty, and still eligible for the Purple heart.

2.) The wounds in question were caused by a grenade. A grenade of the type that Kerry's crewmates insist were not present on his boat.

In terms of the war crimes he committed, if you are a soldier, you do as you're ordered. that's one of the reasons I don't find say, Lynndie England necessarily responsible for Abu Ghraib - if someone tells you to do something, in the military, it is your job to do it, however repusive. What are you other options? Insubordination? Fragging your commander? The point was that Kerry was protesting the policy, and the command - not the individual soldliers, or their actions.

Bush, incidentally, has violated the Geneva Conventions, from the command side - something Kerry *hasn't* done. The Guantanamo Bay prisoners, for instance, and the "ghost" prisoners in Iraq, who were never reported to the Red Cross, are in fact explicit violations of the Geneva Conventions.

So, now, gamefreak - tell me - you think it' the Democrats who are stooping? the Swift Boat Veterans are liars - GOP-funded liars, coordinating with the Bush-Cheney campaign. Both those labels are *proven*, 100%, and documented. Something the Swift Boat Vets' claims are explicitly *not*.

Try again, gamefreak. Try harder.

seppo

I didn't say that self inflicted wound were "out of the question" or what have you. Purposfully hurtting yourself to get out of the war is a downright irresponsible and dirty thing to do. I am extreamly hesitant to take Kerry's word, one that he has changed many times, over a group of soldiers.

So Kerry knew what he was doing was wrong but didn't stand up for the "American Way" and whatnot? You'd have someone as president who'd rather shrink his duties and do what others say instead of what is right?


Dear god, a brain can come in quite handy.....

I cant belive that you have the nerve to say that kerry was trying to get out of the war by hurting himself when HE volunteered for it, while Gerogie boy, for all intensive purposes, DODGED THE WAR, "Dont throw stones when u live in a glass house" -out

And? He didn't lie about it. He didn't commit war crimes. He didn't rape, cut of heads, shoot at random civilizans, and so forth.
I have a question for you. Would you rather Saddam be in power right this instant? Let me remind you, he has gassed, raped, murdered, and overall made Iraq a not nice place for his people. I can also guarentee you the fact that he would not have stepped down had France et al demanded it. Can you honestly condone the things he has done? How could you wish such horrible things on the Iraqi people and the world overall?

Don't make yourself look like an idiot by implying Kerry cut off heads, rape, etc. He was quoting some of the winter soldier's statements. If you even bothered to read couple of words before it....

[spyhunterk19]

Gamefreak, get out of this forum, u dont know what ur talking about, u just keep making up G.O.P bullshit that ur mis-repeating from P.A.D, at least PAD makes points (even if they are flawed) ur just a repeating monkey, please go home.

[gamefreak]

Gamefreak, get out of this forum, u dont know what ur talking about, u just keep making up G.O.P bullshit that ur mis-repeating from P.A.D, at least PAD makes points (even if they are flawed) ur just a repeating monkey, please go home.

First off, this is a free forum. Telling people during an argument/debate to get out is just childish.

Second, why do you hate George Bush? If it's because of the Iraqi war, see the above statement I have made. If it's about the economy, I have a site you should view.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11%2C_2001_attacks

I'll give you a hint, when a country is hit by something like 9-11, the economy doesn't exactly skyrocket. People become scared, they stop spending. Jobs are cut. And you can't exactly wave a magic wand and make everything ok.

If you hate him because of the drilling in Alaska: Alaska is bigger than Texas. While it might not be the best thing to do, the carbau still have plenty of land and now we don't have to pay people money which they can in turn use to buy guns to shoot at us with.

[Quackzilla]

Wow, you have no grasp of economics or ecology, do you?

[spyhunterk19]

Ur posting is just annoying, i hate when you and the gop tries to tell people what THEY want.....Georgie boy dosn't understand that Iraqis WANT to be IRAQIs, they dont want to be Americans, and theyre never gonna relize that, and btw, can we go back to the VIETNAM record topic, not ur campaign speach for bush that isn't backed up by any facts but a link u found to wikipedia, wow good job there. Oh, and btw, i took microeconomics at duke, answer me this , whats marginal revenue supposed to equal? Oh, darn , wikipedia dosnt' tell u that one now does it.

Ok, back to vietnam, i hate when people bash kerry for the one purple heart that might have not been that serios, ok, so what! even if that never happend, he still got 2 purple hearts and more awards , while george was trying to start up his 3rd failed oil company backed by saudi money, ur glass house just got shattered.

[Quackzilla]

^what he said

[helava]

I have a question for you. Would you rather Saddam be in power right this instant? Let me remind you, he has gassed, raped, murdered, and overall made Iraq a not nice place for his people. I can also guarentee you the fact that he would not have stepped down had France et al demanded it. Can you honestly condone the things he has done? How could you wish such horrible things on the Iraqi people and the world overall?

Ah, lovely. So it comes back to Saddam was a bad man. Seriously, I love the fact that people keep falling back on this, because it's *so easy* to see how stupid an argument this is.

I would rather Saddam was not in power. There's your straw man. But the *real* question is not, do you wish he was in power or not - the real question is, was the price we paid to get him out of power worth it?

No.

Not by a long shot.

We didn't need to sacrifice a thousand of our brothers, sisters, children, fathers, to get him out of power. We didn't need to alienate our allies to get him out of power. We didn't need to create a terrorist breeding ground, and really thoroughly piss off the entire Middle East by invading a sovereign nation that was no threat to us to get him out of power.

If anything, the inspections post-invasion have shown that the measures we took against him in the past were working. He had no capability to make WMD's. He was no threat to his neighbors, much less to us.

There are far worse people in power - that the US has installed by overthrowing democratically elected governments to place in power, than Saddam Hussein.

There are far greater immediate threats to the US that Hussein. North Korea, for instance, threatens not only South Korea, Japan, and all their immediate neighbors, but us as well. And it's Bush's fault, directly, that they potentially have nuclear capability, because he was too petulent to negotiate with them and work through the Sunshine policy that was in place before.

Am I glad that Saddam Hussein is out of power? Sure. But I would *NOT* have paid the price we have to get him out of power. Not by a long shot.

Had we had competant leadership, which would have worked with the international community, then by all means, we should have done it. But we didn't. Bush did this alone, being prodded by the AEI in the rest of the neocons. He caused this problem. He made us pay such a heavy price to depose a tyrant we propped up in the first place, who was no direct threat to us, and no ally of Bin Laden, not to mention completely uninvolved in 9/11.

Now. Would *you* have paid this price to remove Hussein? Then let me ask *you* a question. Who would you *not* have paid that price to remove, and why? Kim Jong Il? The leadership in Iran? Rwanda? Where does it end? What justification do we use? They might potentially be a threat at some point in the future, so we have to deal with them now? They might have terrorist ties, maybe, so we have to remove them? We can't prove jack or shit that they're doing *anything*, but I've got a hunch, so I'm gonna send a thousand Americans to die because I'm a completely fucking moron?

Try again, Gamefreak. But I ask you to please, grow a god damned brain before you do.

seppo

[Sarang01]

[quote=gamefreak]
There are far worse people in power - that the US has installed by overthrowing democratically elected governments to place in power, than Saddam Hussein.

There are far greater immediate threats to the US that Hussein. North Korea, for instance, threatens not only South Korea, Japan, and all their immediate neighbors, but us as well. And it's Bush's fault, directly, that they potentially have nuclear capability, because he was too petulent to negotiate with them and work through the Sunshine policy that was in place before.

Am I glad that Saddam Hussein is out of power? Sure. But I would *NOT* have paid the price we have to get him out of power. Not by a long shot.

Had we had competant leadership, which would have worked with the international community, then by all means, we should have done it. But we didn't. Bush did this alone, being prodded by the AEI in the rest of the neocons. He caused this problem. He made us pay such a heavy price to depose a tyrant we propped up in the first place, who was no direct threat to us, and no ally of Bin Laden, not to mention completely uninvolved in 9/11.

Now. Would *you* have paid this price to remove Hussein? Then let me ask *you* a question. Who would you *not* have paid that price to remove, and why? Kim Jong Il? The leadership in Iran? Rwanda? Where does it end? What justification do we use? They might potentially be a threat at some point in the future, so we have to deal with them now? They might have terrorist ties, maybe, so we have to remove them? We can't prove jack or shit that they're doing *anything*, but I've got a hunch, so I'm gonna send a thousand Americans to die because I'm a completely shaq-fuing moron?

Try again, Gamefreak. But I ask you to please, grow a god damned brain before you do.

seppo

"There are far worse people in power - that the US has installed by overthrowing democratically elected governments to place in power, than Saddam Hussein.".
Chile anyone? Btw Henry Kissinger you're still wanted to be tried for War Crimes you son of a bitch.
If we really want to look at the problem in the Middle East seriously Bush needs to look in the family tree. Look at Iran. If I'm not mistaken one of his lineage helped create it.
Honestly if we'd try to be FAIR about this shit and not let corporations pwn us whenever possible we wouldn't deal with as much of this bullshit and maybe not have a 9-11. Who knows though? Maybe shit like Nicaragua would still lead up to it.
Yes Kim Jong Il is dangerous. I remember watching a thing on 60 Minutes how they further twisted Anne Frank's story to brainwash the students into being "Killbots" for their "beloved leader". They called Frank weak because she didn't get out there and fight the Germans.
Anyway, I'm getting off subject. I re-iterate WHY Kerry did this whole war thing. Conservatives or rather Republicans would LIKE to believe they own the Military or are the only one's who give a shit about it when it's not simply the case. Kerry used the "War Hero" bit to take away their thunder and frankly the Republicans don't like it. They also don't like considering the fact that someone who was in the military or is in it would NOT vote Republican and I know another person as well. Anyway, soon enough Republicans won't have a lock on any of their "key" issues except for a few like "Prayer In School" for example. chuckles.

[coffman]

Gamefreak, get out of this forum, u dont know what ur talking about, u just keep making up G.O.P bullshit that ur mis-repeating from P.A.D, at least PAD makes points (even if they are flawed) ur just a repeating monkey, please go home.

First off, this is a free forum. Telling people during an argument/debate to get out is just childish.

Second, why do you hate George Bush? If it's because of the Iraqi war, see the above statement I have made. If it's about the economy, I have a site you should view.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11%2C_2001_attacks

I'll give you a hint, when a country is hit by something like 9-11, the economy doesn't exactly skyrocket. People become scared, they stop spending. Jobs are cut. And you can't exactly wave a magic wand and make everything ok.

If you hate him because of the drilling in Alaska: Alaska is bigger than Texas. While it might not be the best thing to do, the carbau still have plenty of land and now we don't have to pay people money which they can in turn use to buy guns to shoot at us with.

According to the U.S. Geological Survey, there is only enough oil in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge to last for 6 months. Is it worth destroying this natural resource for such a small amount of oil? The Republicans say yes, but that oil won't make a bit of difference. It is less than 1% of what the U.S. imports.

[Sarang01]

I've heard this account before but I've really heard varying accounts of the amount of Oil but I still don't think we should drill there.
Look at how we're progressing right now. I saw some of a show on PBS discussing alternative fuel cars and it was great stuff. Supposedly some of this may be coming in the next few years even.

[JSweeney]

[quote=gamefreak]
There are far worse people in power - that the US has installed by overthrowing democratically elected governments to place in power, than Saddam Hussein.

There are far greater immediate threats to the US that Hussein. North Korea, for instance, threatens not only South Korea, Japan, and all their immediate neighbors, but us as well. And it's Bush's fault, directly, that they potentially have nuclear capability, because he was too petulent to negotiate with them and work through the Sunshine policy that was in place before.

Am I glad that Saddam Hussein is out of power? Sure. But I would *NOT* have paid the price we have to get him out of power. Not by a long shot.

Had we had competant leadership, which would have worked with the international community, then by all means, we should have done it. But we didn't. Bush did this alone, being prodded by the AEI in the rest of the neocons. He caused this problem. He made us pay such a heavy price to depose a tyrant we propped up in the first place, who was no direct threat to us, and no ally of Bin Laden, not to mention completely uninvolved in 9/11.

Now. Would *you* have paid this price to remove Hussein? Then let me ask *you* a question. Who would you *not* have paid that price to remove, and why? Kim Jong Il? The leadership in Iran? Rwanda? Where does it end? What justification do we use? They might potentially be a threat at some point in the future, so we have to deal with them now? They might have terrorist ties, maybe, so we have to remove them? We can't prove jack or shit that they're doing *anything*, but I've got a hunch, so I'm gonna send a thousand Americans to die because I'm a completely shaq-fuing moron?

Try again, Gamefreak. But I ask you to please, grow a god damned brain before you do.

seppo

"There are far worse people in power - that the US has installed by overthrowing democratically elected governments to place in power, than Saddam Hussein.".
Chile anyone? Btw Henry Kissinger you're still wanted to be tried for War Crimes you son of a bitch.
If we really want to look at the problem in the Middle East seriously Bush needs to look in the family tree. Look at Iran. If I'm not mistaken one of his lineage helped create it.
Honestly if we'd try to be FAIR about this shit and not let corporations pwn us whenever possible we wouldn't deal with as much of this bullshit and maybe not have a 9-11. Who knows though? Maybe shit like Nicaragua would still lead up to it.
Yes Kim Jong Il is dangerous. I remember watching a thing on 60 Minutes how they further twisted Anne Frank's story to brainwash the students into being "Killbots" for their "beloved leader". They called Frank weak because she didn't get out there and fight the Germans.
Anyway, I'm getting off subject. I re-iterate WHY Kerry did this whole war thing. Conservatives or rather Republicans would LIKE to believe they own the Military or are the only one's who give a shit about it when it's not simply the case. Kerry used the "War Hero" bit to take away their thunder and frankly the Republicans don't like it. They also don't like considering the fact that someone who was in the military or is in it would NOT vote Republican and I know another person as well. Anyway, soon enough Republicans won't have a lock on any of their "key" issues except for a few like "Prayer In School" for example. chuckles.

It would likely be better for Kerry to focus on other things than his war record, as he's begining to look like your run of the mill duplicitous two-faced politician. How does it make any sense to get up and say America's involvment in that war was a terrible, horrible thing, and then around 20 years later try and use your medals and service record from that terrible, horrible thing as a way to bolster your political aims?

I really wish they'd stop hashing this over and just get back to issues that really matter.

[gamefreak]

Ur posting is just annoying, i hate when you...

I <3 teh ur spelin 2!!!!!



I have a question for you. Would you rather Saddam be in power right this instant? Let me remind you, he has gassed, raped, murdered, and overall made Iraq a not nice place for his people. I can also guarentee you the fact that he would not have stepped down had France et al demanded it. Can you honestly condone the things he has done? How could you wish such horrible things on the Iraqi people and the world overall?

Ah, lovely. So it comes back to Saddam was a bad man. Seriously, I love the fact that people keep falling back on this, because it's *so easy* to see how stupid an argument this is.

I would rather Saddam was not in power. There's your straw man. But the *real* question is not, do you wish he was in power or not - the real question is, was the price we paid to get him out of power worth it?

No.

Not by a long shot.

We didn't need to sacrifice a thousand of our brothers, sisters, children, fathers, to get him out of power. We didn't need to alienate our allies to get him out of power. We didn't need to create a terrorist breeding ground, and really thoroughly piss off the entire Middle East by invading a sovereign nation that was no threat to us to get him out of power.

If anything, the inspections post-invasion have shown that the measures we took against him in the past were working. He had no capability to make WMD's. He was no threat to his neighbors, much less to us.

There are far worse people in power - that the US has installed by overthrowing democratically elected governments to place in power, than Saddam Hussein.

There are far greater immediate threats to the US that Hussein. North Korea, for instance, threatens not only South Korea, Japan, and all their immediate neighbors, but us as well. And it's Bush's fault, directly, that they potentially have nuclear capability, because he was too petulent to negotiate with them and work through the Sunshine policy that was in place before.

Am I glad that Saddam Hussein is out of power? Sure. But I would *NOT* have paid the price we have to get him out of power. Not by a long shot.

Had we had competant leadership, which would have worked with the international community, then by all means, we should have done it. But we didn't. Bush did this alone, being prodded by the AEI in the rest of the neocons. He caused this problem. He made us pay such a heavy price to depose a tyrant we propped up in the first place, who was no direct threat to us, and no ally of Bin Laden, not to mention completely uninvolved in 9/11.

Now. Would *you* have paid this price to remove Hussein? Then let me ask *you* a question. Who would you *not* have paid that price to remove, and why? Kim Jong Il? The leadership in Iran? Rwanda? Where does it end? What justification do we use? They might potentially be a threat at some point in the future, so we have to deal with them now? They might have terrorist ties, maybe, so we have to remove them? We can't prove jack or shit that they're doing *anything*, but I've got a hunch, so I'm gonna send a thousand Americans to die because I'm a completely shaq-fuing moron?

Try again, Gamefreak. But I ask you to please, grow a god damned brain before you do.

seppo

That seppo is probably the most consise well written anti-Bush blurb I've ever read (anywhere).

Anyway. Would you be willing to pay the price of a chemical bomb going off in a city? Maybe even a small nuclear weapon? People in Saddam's government thought they could make/had WMD, heck, he might have even thought so. As far as diplomacy, Saddam wasn't cooperating. Sure, "I'll let you interview my scientists with my personal thugs standing in the background" sounds like it would get results but it's a bit of a stretch. Let me remind you that this little bit is against the Non-Proliferation Treaty. So the UN basically just quits right there. Are we to let someone who thinks they have WMD run free? If you're in a movie theater with an insane man who might have a gun, do you get security to check or do you let him wait untill he can use it?

I'll answer your question with another; where would you be willing to pay the price? Jong Il? Mussolini? Hitler? If people like Saddam were to gain enough power I am certain they would hesistate not one second in using it in destructive means like the aforementioned.

[MrBadExample]

It would likely be better for Kerry to focus on other things than his war record, as he's begining to look like your run of the mill duplicitous two-faced politician. How does it make any sense to get up and say America's involvment in that war was a terrible, horrible thing, and then around 20 years later try and use your medals and service record from that terrible, horrible thing as a way to bolster your political aims?

I really wish they'd stop hashing this over and just get back to issues that really matter.

You know it is possible for someone to perform heroically defending his fellow soldiers in a horrible, terrible war that you disagree with politically.

[Ikohn4ever]

The swift boat veterans smear campaign is very similar to the smear campaign used against McCain in the 2000 primary. People who think that the rich texans who support bush and are responsible for the ad money have nothing in common are too far up bush's ass to see the shit.

[JSweeney]

It would likely be better for Kerry to focus on other things than his war record, as he's begining to look like your run of the mill duplicitous two-faced politician. How does it make any sense to get up and say America's involvment in that war was a terrible, horrible thing, and then around 20 years later try and use your medals and service record from that terrible, horrible thing as a way to bolster your political aims?

I really wish they'd stop hashing this over and just get back to issues that really matter.

You know it is possible for someone to perform heroically defending his fellow soldiers in a horrible, terrible war that you disagree with politically.

Yes, that's true. But if you're so politically against that war, you don't go around using those medals which you treated with such disdain then and pick them back up 20 years later to use as badges of honor.

You can't have it both ways...

[MrBadExample]

It would likely be better for Kerry to focus on other things than his war record, as he's begining to look like your run of the mill duplicitous two-faced politician. How does it make any sense to get up and say America's involvment in that war was a terrible, horrible thing, and then around 20 years later try and use your medals and service record from that terrible, horrible thing as a way to bolster your political aims?

I really wish they'd stop hashing this over and just get back to issues that really matter.

You know it is possible for someone to perform heroically defending his fellow soldiers in a horrible, terrible war that you disagree with politically.

Yes, that's true. But if you're so politically against that war, you don't go around using those medals which you treated with such disdain then and pick them back up 20 years later to use as badges of honor.

You can't have it both ways...

He volunteered for service and didn't speak out against the war until after he had experienced it. I see nothing wrong with him being proud of the medals he earned there. If he had received those medals for commiting any atrocities, that would be a problem. But he received his for defending his boat and fellow soldiers.

[Ikohn4ever]

^^-He can be proud that he served when his country needed him, he can be angry how he was used and the reasons for the war. They are 2 dif things.

[MrBadExample]

Anyway. Would you be willing to pay the price of a chemical bomb going off in a city? Maybe even a small nuclear weapon? People in Saddam's government thought they could make/had WMD, heck, he might have even thought so. As far as diplomacy, Saddam wasn't cooperating. Sure, "I'll let you interview my scientists with my personal thugs standing in the background" sounds like it would get results but it's a bit of a stretch. Let me remind you that this little bit is against the Non-Proliferation Treaty. So the UN basically just quits right there. Are we to let someone who thinks they have WMD run free? If you're in a movie theater with an insane man who might have a gun, do you get security to check or do you let him wait untill he can use it?

I'll answer your question with another; where would you be willing to pay the price? Jong Il? Mussolini? Hitler? If people like Saddam were to gain enough power I am certain they would hesistate not one second in using it in destructive means like the aforementioned.

Are you saying those are the only two options? Let the UN continue inneffective inspections or start a war that leaves a power vacuum and creates a breeding ground for new terrorists?

Why couldn't we have supported the UN with tougher sanctions and punishments for Saddam for not complying? Containment was working for Saddam, he was no longer a threat to anyone outside of Iraq. Yes, that sucks big time for the people inside of Iraq but it was not in our best interests to invade the country and create the political instability that we have now.

We could have been more involved with the UN and ferreted out the corruption in the Oil for Food program.

War should be a last resort, not one of our first.

[gamefreak]

Anyway. Would you be willing to pay the price of a chemical bomb going off in a city? Maybe even a small nuclear weapon? People in Saddam's government thought they could make/had WMD, heck, he might have even thought so. As far as diplomacy, Saddam wasn't cooperating. Sure, "I'll let you interview my scientists with my personal thugs standing in the background" sounds like it would get results but it's a bit of a stretch. Let me remind you that this little bit is against the Non-Proliferation Treaty. So the UN basically just quits right there. Are we to let someone who thinks they have WMD run free? If you're in a movie theater with an insane man who might have a gun, do you get security to check or do you let him wait untill he can use it?

I'll answer your question with another; where would you be willing to pay the price? Jong Il? Mussolini? Hitler? If people like Saddam were to gain enough power I am certain they would hesistate not one second in using it in destructive means like the aforementioned.

Are you saying those are the only two options? Let the UN continue inneffective inspections or start a war that leaves a power vacuum and creates a breeding ground for new terrorists?

Why couldn't we have supported the UN with tougher sanctions and punishments for Saddam for not complying? Containment was working for Saddam, he was no longer a threat to anyone outside of Iraq. Yes, that sucks big time for the people inside of Iraq but it was not in our best interests to invade the country and create the political instability that we have now.

We could have been more involved with the UN and ferreted out the corruption in the Oil for Food program.

War should be a last resort, not one of our first.

Sanctions that would do what? He has all the food and toys he needs, his people are the ones suffering. And we can't exactly not buy any more oil.

[Ikohn4ever]

^ and they are still suffering, whats your point

[ZarathosNY]

Anyway. Would you be willing to pay the price of a chemical bomb going off in a city? Maybe even a small nuclear weapon? People in Saddam's government thought they could make/had WMD, heck, he might have even thought so. As far as diplomacy, Saddam wasn't cooperating. Sure, "I'll let you interview my scientists with my personal thugs standing in the background" sounds like it would get results but it's a bit of a stretch. Let me remind you that this little bit is against the Non-Proliferation Treaty. So the UN basically just quits right there. Are we to let someone who thinks they have WMD run free? If you're in a movie theater with an insane man who might have a gun, do you get security to check or do you let him wait untill he can use it?

I'll answer your question with another; where would you be willing to pay the price? Jong Il? Mussolini? Hitler? If people like Saddam were to gain enough power I am certain they would hesistate not one second in using it in destructive means like the aforementioned.

Are you saying those are the only two options? Let the UN continue inneffective inspections or start a war that leaves a power vacuum and creates a breeding ground for new terrorists?

Why couldn't we have supported the UN with tougher sanctions and punishments for Saddam for not complying? Containment was working for Saddam, he was no longer a threat to anyone outside of Iraq. Yes, that sucks big time for the people inside of Iraq but it was not in our best interests to invade the country and create the political instability that we have now.

We could have been more involved with the UN and ferreted out the corruption in the Oil for Food program.

War should be a last resort, not one of our first.

Sanctions that would do what? He has all the food and toys he needs, his people are the ones suffering. And we can't exactly not buy any more oil.

The sanctions prevented him from building the weapons that we couldn't find

[gamefreak]

^ and they are still suffering, whats your point

Yes, your right; Saddam and his cronies are still out there murdering and raping people daily.

[Ikohn4ever]

^ and they are still suffering, whats your point

Yes, your right; Saddam and his cronies are still out there murdering and raping people daily.

Theres a big news story today u might have missed it, Saddam was captured!!!!! Ohh wait the date reads 12/3/03. We are doing harm their and there is still battling where innocense is caught in the crossfire

[bignick]

If you think only the Republicans are involved in dirty politics, you're naive.
If you're absolutely certain that the Democrat's aren't, you're stupid.

:applause:

[ZarathosNY]

Getting back on topic, here is an op-ed written by someone who was actually there with Kerry

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/082204Y.shtml

[gamefreak]

^ and they are still suffering, whats your point

Yes, your right; Saddam and his cronies are still out there murdering and raping people daily.

Theres a big news story today u might have missed it, Saddam was captured!!!!! Ohh wait the date reads 12/3/03. We are doing harm their and there is still battling where innocense is caught in the crossfire

It was sarcasm. At least now no one is killing them on purpose.

[JSweeney]

It would likely be better for Kerry to focus on other things than his war record, as he's begining to look like your run of the mill duplicitous two-faced politician. How does it make any sense to get up and say America's involvment in that war was a terrible, horrible thing, and then around 20 years later try and use your medals and service record from that terrible, horrible thing as a way to bolster your political aims?

I really wish they'd stop hashing this over and just get back to issues that really matter.

You know it is possible for someone to perform heroically defending his fellow soldiers in a horrible, terrible war that you disagree with politically.

Yes, that's true. But if you're so politically against that war, you don't go around using those medals which you treated with such disdain then and pick them back up 20 years later to use as badges of honor.

You can't have it both ways...

He volunteered for service and didn't speak out against the war until after he had experienced it. I see nothing wrong with him being proud of the medals he earned there. If he had received those medals for commiting any atrocities, that would be a problem. But he received his for defending his boat and fellow soldiers.


http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Politics/Investigation/kerry_vietnam_medals_040425-1.html

I'm sorry, but there is a bunch of wordplay there and Kerry still seems to be trying to play both sides of the fence.

Ribbons and medals are basically the same thing...each part of one award. The ribbons are always worn, but the medals are worn with only with the dress uniform. Throwing away part of the award (the ribbon) and not the other as part of a political statement, and then saying you didn't throw the medal (award) away is just splitting hairs.

He's on the record playing up both sides of the issue, and in my eyes that really hurts his credibility.

[Ikohn4ever]

Its easy to call someone a flip flopper when it fits your needs. If a Democrat switched parties and became a Republican, u would never here anything about him changing his mind or crap like that. Its good to have a new opinion everyonce in awhile. Better than our new president never admitting he did one thing wrong

[Quackzilla]

He needed the medals to take on Nixon.

He needed those medals to show the media and people that he was what he said he was, it was a sort of damage control when another leading anti-war veteran lied about his rank and what medals he had earned.

[gamefreak]

Its easy to call someone a flip flopper when it fits your needs. If a Democrat switched parties and became a Republican, u would never here anything about him changing his mind or crap like that. Its good to have a new opinion everyonce in awhile. Better than our new president never admitting he did one thing wrong

It's auctually quite easy, espically when you have evidence.

Kerry voted for many of the things he is now critizing Bush for. The war in Iraq and the Patriot Act being only two.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4356093/ for more.

[Sarang01]

Anyway. Would you be willing to pay the price of a chemical bomb going off in a city? Maybe even a small nuclear weapon? People in Saddam's government thought they could make/had WMD, heck, he might have even thought so. As far as diplomacy, Saddam wasn't cooperating. Sure, "I'll let you interview my scientists with my personal thugs standing in the background" sounds like it would get results but it's a bit of a stretch. Let me remind you that this little bit is against the Non-Proliferation Treaty. So the UN basically just quits right there. Are we to let someone who thinks they have WMD run free? If you're in a movie theater with an insane man who might have a gun, do you get security to check or do you let him wait untill he can use it?

If you're gonna call that let's be fair and bring Israel up on violating the Non-Proliferation pact as well. It's only fair and to be honest they SHOULD be brought up on it. We all know they're probably the most flagrant violator of that but they get away with it because they're our baby and the only one's with Democracy in the Middle East with the exception of Turkey and they got problem too.

[JSweeney]

Its easy to call someone a flip flopper when it fits your needs. If a Democrat switched parties and became a Republican, u would never here anything about him changing his mind or crap like that. Its good to have a new opinion everyonce in awhile. Better than our new president never admitting he did one thing wrong

That's the mindset I hate.. if someone disagrees with you, they obviously support the other party. I hate what the Republicans have done.
I hate what the Democrats have done. I disdain partisan politics.

I am neither a democrat nor a republican. I vote my conscience every election, and so far, neither of the candidates seem like a person I'd like to put in charge of the country.

If a Republican candidate did the exact same thing, I'd dislike it just as much. I have plenty of issues with Bush, but that doesn't change that what Kerry (or those handling him) is doing is disingenuous at best, and duplicitous at worst.

[JSweeney]

He needed the medals to take on Nixon.

He needed those medals to show the media and people that he was what he said he was, it was a sort of damage control when another leading anti-war veteran lied about his rank and what medals he had earned.

So you wave your medals in front of the government, tell them that they can take them back, tell people that you've given back your medals, and then 20-30 years later pull them out of a drawer and proclaim yourself a war hero if it will benefit your bid for the presidency?

[Indiana]

Ah, so you've bought the GOP's new meme, eh?

1.) "Self inflicted" wounds are still wounds in the course of duty, and still eligible for the Purple heart.

2.) The wounds in question were caused by a grenade. A grenade of the type that Kerry's crewmates insist were not present on his boat.

In terms of the war crimes he committed, if you are a soldier, you do as you're ordered. that's one of the reasons I don't find say, Lynndie England necessarily responsible for Abu Ghraib - if someone tells you to do something, in the military, it is your job to do it, however repusive. What are you other options? Insubordination? Fragging your commander? The point was that Kerry was protesting the policy, and the command - not the individual soldliers, or their actions.

Bush, incidentally, has violated the Geneva Conventions, from the command side - something Kerry *hasn't* done. The Guantanamo Bay prisoners, for instance, and the "ghost" prisoners in Iraq, who were never reported to the Red Cross, are in fact explicit violations of the Geneva Conventions.

So, now, gamefreak - tell me - you think it' the Democrats who are stooping? the Swift Boat Veterans are liars - GOP-funded liars, coordinating with the Bush-Cheney campaign. Both those labels are *proven*, 100%, and documented. Something the Swift Boat Vets' claims are explicitly *not*.

Try again, gamefreak. Try harder.

seppo

I didn't say that self inflicted wound were "out of the question" or what have you. Purposfully hurtting yourself to get out of the war is a downright irresponsible and dirty thing to do. I am extreamly hesitant to take Kerry's word, one that he has changed many times, over a group of soldiers.

So Kerry knew what he was doing was wrong but didn't stand up for the "American Way" and whatnot? You'd have someone as president who'd rather shrink his duties and do what others say instead of what is right?


Dear god, a brain can come in quite handy.....

I cant belive that you have the nerve to say that kerry was trying to get out of the war by hurting himself when HE volunteered for it, while Gerogie boy, for all intensive purposes, DODGED THE WAR, "Dont throw stones when u live in a glass house" -out

And? He didn't lie about it. He didn't commit war crimes. He didn't rape, cut of heads, shoot at random civilizans, and so forth.

I have a question for you. Would you rather Saddam be in power right this instant? Let me remind you, he has gassed, raped, murdered, and overall made Iraq a not nice place for his people. I can also guarentee you the fact that he would not have stepped down had France et al demanded it. Can you honestly condone the things he has done? How could you wish such horrible things on the Iraqi people and the world overall?

Do you know how many innocent IRAQ CIVILIANS died in this war? We killed 1,000 of innocent people. So don't tell me that we made things better for the people of Iraq.

[Indiana]

Its easy to call someone a flip flopper when it fits your needs. If a Democrat switched parties and became a Republican, u would never here anything about him changing his mind or crap like that. Its good to have a new opinion everyonce in awhile. Better than our new president never admitting he did one thing wrong

It's auctually quite easy, espically when you have evidence.

Kerry voted for many of the things he is now critizing Bush for. The war in Iraq and the Patriot Act being only two.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4356093/ for more.

Remember that Bush had intelligence about Iraq that he did not provide to Congress. He refused to provide congress the information he had. He just said "Trust us they have weapons of mass destruction and links to Al Qaeda". Of course both of those things have been proven false. Bush used 9/11 as his chance to get back at his father's arch enemy plain and simple.

[Cracka]

dont try and make it seem like Bush himself had the info and was keeping it from people. The CIA were the ones that had info that said Saddam had WMD, also the British said they had info that Saddam had WMD.


and something i still dont understand is that.. Kerry was in Vietnam. He was against the war. He doesnt think it should have been fought. He protested against it. And he talks bad about Bush b/c Bush went into the National Guard instead of fighting in Vietnam? I'm still not understanding this argument.

[elprincipe]

There are far greater immediate threats to the US that Hussein. North Korea, for instance, threatens not only South Korea, Japan, and all their immediate neighbors, but us as well. And it's Bush's fault, directly, that they potentially have nuclear capability, because he was too petulent to negotiate with them and work through the Sunshine policy that was in place before.

Nice try, but those of us who know our history know that it was Bill Clinton who appeased the North Koreans with nuclear power plants and is responsible for the mess that is the Korean situation today. Bush has made little progress, but after all Clinton's 1994 Agreed Framework did to further North Korea's nuclear ambitions, that cannot be too surprising. And why are you saying Bush isn't negotiating with them when he is? The "sunshine" policy was a huge failure, evidenced by North Korea's continued clandestine nuclear program the entire time it was being attempted, and thus was rightly abandoned as a mistake.

[elprincipe]

It would likely be better for Kerry to focus on other things than his war record, as he's begining to look like your run of the mill duplicitous two-faced politician. How does it make any sense to get up and say America's involvment in that war was a terrible, horrible thing, and then around 20 years later try and use your medals and service record from that terrible, horrible thing as a way to bolster your political aims?

I really wish they'd stop hashing this over and just get back to issues that really matter.

You know it is possible for someone to perform heroically defending his fellow soldiers in a horrible, terrible war that you disagree with politically.

Yes, that's true. But if you're so politically against that war, you don't go around using those medals which you treated with such disdain then and pick them back up 20 years later to use as badges of honor.

You can't have it both ways...

He volunteered for service and didn't speak out against the war until after he had experienced it. I see nothing wrong with him being proud of the medals he earned there. If he had received those medals for commiting any atrocities, that would be a problem. But he received his for defending his boat and fellow soldiers.

What about the atrocities he soon afterwards described himself as committing, and his fellow soldiers also?

[phillip1887]

It would likely be better for Kerry to focus on other things than his war record, as he's begining to look like your run of the mill duplicitous two-faced politician. How does it make any sense to get up and say America's involvment in that war was a terrible, horrible thing, and then around 20 years later try and use your medals and service record from that terrible, horrible thing as a way to bolster your political aims?

I really wish they'd stop hashing this over and just get back to issues that really matter.

You know it is possible for someone to perform heroically defending his fellow soldiers in a horrible, terrible war that you disagree with politically.

Yes, that's true. But if you're so politically against that war, you don't go around using those medals which you treated with such disdain then and pick them back up 20 years later to use as badges of honor.

You can't have it both ways...

He volunteered for service and didn't speak out against the war until after he had experienced it. I see nothing wrong with him being proud of the medals he earned there. If he had received those medals for commiting any atrocities, that would be a problem. But he received his for defending his boat and fellow soldiers.

What about the atrocities he soon afterwards described himself as committing, and his fellow soldiers also?

Below is the FULL text of John Kerry's 1971 testimony before the House Foreign Relations Committee that is featured in the new "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" Ad (as well as a link to PBS documenting the testimony). Please do notice that John Kerry is merely relaying the actual testimony of 150 former Vietnam Veterns given at a meeting in Detroit. He is not making allegations that all veterans committed these atrocities. As for Senator Kerry's remarks on the Dick Cavet show in the now famous debate between him and John O'Neil, Kerry spoke of standard battlefield tactics that took place in Vietnam, sanctioned by higher ranking officers, and that occurred during the fog of war. I fully appreciate robust political discussion, however, merely parrotting dishonest talking points without investigating the claim yourself is not debate. As a closing comment I would like to stress that this is a very important election and I encourage everyone to register, become informed voters, and then vote for the candidate that you feel will be best for our nation. Political parties shouldn't be treated like the baseball pennant race or the videogame system wars because a "win" for your side can result in a loss for the rest of the nation. We are at a crossroads and this election isn't about the repubs vs. the dems or the liberals vs. the conservatives, it's about the future of this nation. Without further adieu, here's the actual full quote from Sen. Kerry's testimony:

"I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago, in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged, and many very highly decorated, veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia. These were not isolated incidents, but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis, with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command. It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit--the emotions in the room, and the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.

They told stories that, at times, they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam,in addition to the normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country."
http://www.pbs.org/greatspeeches/timeline/j_kerry_s.html

[Quackzilla]

He needed the medals to take on Nixon.

He needed those medals to show the media and people that he was what he said he was, it was a sort of damage control when another leading anti-war veteran lied about his rank and what medals he had earned.

So you wave your medals in front of the government, tell them that they can take them back, tell people that you've given back your medals, and then 20-30 years later pull them out of a drawer and proclaim yourself a war hero if it will benefit your bid for the presidency?

Do you know what it was like then?
Do you know what Kerry was up against?
Have you heard the Nixon tapes?

AND HE NEVER CLAIMED TO HAVE THROWN AWAY HIS MEDALS, HE SAID HE THREW AWAY HIS RIBBONS AND A FREINDS MEDALS. HIS FREIND, WHO WAS UNABLE TO ATTEND (most likely in a hospital at the time) REQUESTED THAT KERRY THROW HIS MEDAL FOR HIM BECAUSE HE WAS DISGUSTED WITH THE NIXON ADMINISTRATION.

TAKE A FUCKING HISTORY LESSON!

YOU HAVE JUST THROWN AWAY ALL OF YOUR CREDIBILITY BY MAKING THAT SHIT UP.

I really hate you ignorant people who come out here like you know everything and start making stuff up. Its disgusting.

[Drocket]

Actually, he did say that he threw away his medals (what, you don't remember that little fiasco from a few months ago? He's said in the past that he threw away his medals, then when it was found out that he didn't, he claimed that he considers the medals and the ribbons to be the same thing, and that the only reason that he didn't throw the medals was that they weren't available at the time.) So even if we buy his own explaination, he did throw away his medals, in his own mind, at least.

Personally, though, I don't see a problem with all of that. When he returned from Vietnam, he was angry at the way that the military had treated him and all the other soldiers, as nothing more than pawns to be thrown away on doomed missions done for political reasons. He was far from alone in that feeling.

The fact that he and (and is, I would think) angry about an unjust war doesn't mean that he shouldn't be proud of his own accomplishments during that time. He may not have thought about it at the time (hey, he was young), but he's had plenty of time to think things over. Just like the current situation in Iraq, no matter what you think of the war, you have to respect the soldiers who are fighting it. You CAN differentiate between the war and the soldiers - something that Bush doesn't seem to understand.

[JSweeney]

Do you know what it was like then?
Do you know what Kerry was up against?
Have you heard the Nixon tapes?

I don't fault him for what he did... Sometimes it's harder to stand up for your conscience than to do anything else. But to resurect the medals that you stated earlier than you got rid of or returned the government due to your difference in thought and distaste for the reason you were presented them just because you think it will help your political aspirations in the here and now is pure crap.

AND HE NEVER CLAIMED TO HAVE THROWN AWAY HIS MEDALS, HE SAID HE THREW AWAY HIS RIBBONS AND A FREINDS MEDALS. HIS FREIND, WHO WAS UNABLE TO ATTEND (most likely in a hospital at the time) REQUESTED THAT KERRY THROW HIS MEDAL FOR HIM BECAUSE HE WAS DISGUSTED WITH THE NIXON ADMINISTRATION.

Calling it a "phony controversy" instigated by the Republican party, Kerry said on Good Morning America today that he has always accurately said what took place. "I threw my ribbons. I didn't have my medals. It is very simple."

He also said he — and the military — didn't make a distinction between medals and ribbons. "We threw away the symbols of what our country gave us for what we had gone through," he said.

And in an interview with ABCNEWS' Peter Jennings last December, he said it was a "myth."

But Kerry told a much different story on Viewpoints. Asked about the anti-war veterans who threw their medals away, Kerry said "they decided to give them back to their country."

Kerry was asked if he gave back the Bronze Star, Silver Star and three Purple Hearts he was awarded for combat duty as a Navy lieutenant in Vietnam. "Well, and above that, [I] gave back the others," he said.

The statement directly contradicts Kerry's most recent claims on the disputed subject to the Los Angeles Times last Friday. "I never ever implied that I did it, " Kerry told the newspaper, responding to the question of whether he threw away his medals in protest.

It's kind of hard to dispute what he did and didn't say when he is on the public record saying it. He's splitting hairs, since both the ribbon and medal are part of the same award, to say that you tossed away one in distaste, and are now using the other to boster your image with a demographic of voters is just crazy.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Politics/Investigation/kerry_vietnam_medals_040425-1.html

TAKE A shaq-fuing HISTORY LESSON!

YOU HAVE JUST THROWN AWAY ALL OF YOUR CREDIBILITY BY MAKING THAT SHIT UP.

I have that link to verify my claim that he keeps bouncing around his stance on his awards. I'm not trying to take anything away from his service record. To all reports, he served valiantly.When he came home, he stood up for his conscience and said horrible things happened and tried to work with the government to make changes. That's fine.

It just seems to be that there is a certain dishonesty is using your awards and commendations in a certain way when it suits you, and then in the complete opposite way when it suits you.

I really hate you ignorant people who come out here like you know everything and start making stuff up. Its disgusting

I have a link from a credible news organization that backs up what I'm saying and shows on the public record where Kerry refused his award.
I hardly call that making things up.

[JSweeney]

Actually, he did say that he threw away his medals (what, you don't remember that little fiasco from a few months ago? He's said in the past that he threw away his medals, then when it was found out that he didn't, he claimed that he considers the medals and the ribbons to be the same thing, and that the only reason that he didn't throw the medals was that they weren't available at the time.) So even if we buy his own explaination, he did throw away his medals, in his own mind, at least.

Personally, though, I don't see a problem with all of that. When he returned from Vietnam, he was angry at the way that the military had treated him and all the other soldiers, as nothing more than pawns to be thrown away on doomed missions done for political reasons. He was far from alone in that feeling.

The fact that he and (and is, I would think) angry about an unjust war doesn't mean that he shouldn't be proud of his own accomplishments during that time. He may not have thought about it at the time (hey, he was young), but he's had plenty of time to think things over. Just like the current situation in Iraq, no matter what you think of the war, you have to respect the soldiers who are fighting it. You CAN differentiate between the war and the soldiers - something that Bush doesn't seem to understand.

I guess it all depends how you frame it.

Perhaps his ire cooled with time.
Perhaps it's others in his campaign that tried to build up the "War Hero" image because they saw weakness in Bush's service record.

I don't dispute that he should be sticking up for himself and being protective of his accomplishments... but his medals are not his accomplishments.

He should dispute with every fiber of his being the claims that he never earned those medals. That talks to his actions during the war, and the actions that he took in defense of others. That's a good and honorable thing, and worth defending.

But to argue just as fiercly about not throwing them away as a display of distaste for policy, when you are on record stating that you did, is just silly.

[ZarathosNY]

There are far greater immediate threats to the US that Hussein. North Korea, for instance, threatens not only South Korea, Japan, and all their immediate neighbors, but us as well. And it's Bush's fault, directly, that they potentially have nuclear capability, because he was too petulent to negotiate with them and work through the Sunshine policy that was in place before.

Nice try, but those of us who know our history know that it was Bill Clinton who appeased the North Koreans with nuclear power plants and is responsible for the mess that is the Korean situation today. Bush has made little progress, but after all Clinton's 1994 Agreed Framework did to further North Korea's nuclear ambitions, that cannot be too surprising. And why are you saying Bush isn't negotiating with them when he is? The "sunshine" policy was a huge failure, evidenced by North Korea's continued clandestine nuclear program the entire time it was being attempted, and thus was rightly abandoned as a mistake.


Typical. Bush messes something up and it becomes Clinton's fault. Progress was being made with North Korea until Bush came into office. Bush decided to break off all negotiations with N Korea. When they saw that, they said hey, let's get our asses in gear and get us some nukes so we can stop Bush from coming in here. Now Bush realizes he screwed up and is now trying to continue the same policy that Clinton followed.

[elprincipe]

There are far greater immediate threats to the US that Hussein. North Korea, for instance, threatens not only South Korea, Japan, and all their immediate neighbors, but us as well. And it's Bush's fault, directly, that they potentially have nuclear capability, because he was too petulent to negotiate with them and work through the Sunshine policy that was in place before.

Nice try, but those of us who know our history know that it was Bill Clinton who appeased the North Koreans with nuclear power plants and is responsible for the mess that is the Korean situation today. Bush has made little progress, but after all Clinton's 1994 Agreed Framework did to further North Korea's nuclear ambitions, that cannot be too surprising. And why are you saying Bush isn't negotiating with them when he is? The "sunshine" policy was a huge failure, evidenced by North Korea's continued clandestine nuclear program the entire time it was being attempted, and thus was rightly abandoned as a mistake.


Typical. Bush messes something up and it becomes Clinton's fault. Progress was being made with North Korea until Bush came into office. Bush decided to break off all negotiations with N Korea. When they saw that, they said hey, let's get our asses in gear and get us some nukes so we can stop Bush from coming in here. Now Bush realizes he screwed up and is now trying to continue the same policy that Clinton followed.

Rewriting history just doesn't work when the people you're talking to know what they're talking about. Soon after the 1994 Agreed Framework, in which Clinton agreed to give economic assistance (including oil and building nuclear power plants) to North Korea, North Korea secretly restarted (if they ever stopped) their nuclear weapons program. All Clinton's "progress" did was to prop up the regime while they attempted to acquire nuclear weapons, tested missiles, and oppressed/starved their populace. Basically Bush hasn't made any big strides with North Korea or anything, but Clinton's policy was a disaster. Or I guess we could just keep helping them while they continue to move towards being a nuclear power, great "progress" there.

[David85]

He went on Good Morning America saying that he didn't throw his medals over the fense, he throw someone elses (like that makes it better) while on the other half of the screen it had the guy from 30 years ago talking to Kerry and then he throw his medals over the fense when Kerry of today was denying it. Great fun. :)


And the NK thing, they have always had nukes and just hide them until now. You really don't want to have an other war in Korea and with this time nukes.

[Sarang01]

He went on Good Morning America saying that he didn't throw his medals over the fense, he throw someone elses (like that makes it better) while on the other half of the screen it had the guy from 30 years ago talking to Kerry and then he throw his medals over the fense when Kerry of today was denying it. Great fun. :)


And the NK thing, they have always had nukes and just hide them until now. You really don't want to have an other war in Korea and with this time nukes.

Yeah and to be honest I don't want to go fight but if Bush ends up with a war between North and South Korea I WILL be there to defend South Korea. Yes I believe in Democracy like that.

[bmulligan]

It doesn't mattter what Kerry threw over the fence. That and his 'winter soldier' campaign' demonstrates that Kerry was ashamed of his service in Vietnam. Now, suprisingly, he is proud of his service. He once thought that the fighting in Vietnam was wrong, now he claims he defended his country as a young man and he will defend it as president. But back in the 70's he thought the millitary action wasn't defending anybody and we should have pulled out the troops. It's almost exactly what he believes about Iraq today. He never says HOW he'll defend us now, we're just supposed to assume he'll do the right thing because he's a war hero. Yet, he doesn't even believe he is a hero.

Just another example that Kerry is a walking contradiction.

[bmulligan]

I forgot the inconsistencies about the medal throwing too. First he claimed he threw his medals over the fence. Then he claimed he only threw the ribbons. Then he said the medals and ribbons were the same thing. Then he said he threw another soldiers medals. Which is the truth? We'll never know with this guy. He's not even endearing when he's lying like Clinton was...

[Drocket]

So what you're saying is that any and all military action can be justified as defending our country? Regardless of who you invade, its OK because its in defense of our country?

Vietnam was not a war fought to defend the US. It was, ultimately, a war fought because certain individuals got into a pissing contest and couldn't bear to back down because they were afraid they'd look weak. It was a war doomed to fail, fought against an enemy that posed no threat to us. Despite the fact that we fought the war and (for all intents and purposes) LOST, nothing 'bad' happened to the US. All that was really accomplished was the slaughter of tens of thousands of people.

The Vietnam war had nothing at all to do with defending the US. The Iraq war - you can sorta make a case for it, though not a very strong one. Realistically, all we've probably done is create a few thousand new terrorists.

[Quackzilla]

It doesn't mattter what Kerry threw over the fence. That and his 'winter soldier' campaign' demonstrates that Kerry was ashamed of his service in Vietnam. Now, suprisingly, he is proud of his service. He once thought that the fighting in Vietnam was wrong, now he claims he defended his country as a young man and he will defend it as president. But back in the 70's he thought the millitary action wasn't defending anybody and we should have pulled out the troops. It's almost exactly what he believes about Iraq today. He never says HOW he'll defend us now, we're just supposed to assume he'll do the right thing because he's a war hero. Yet, he doesn't even believe he is a hero.

Just another example that Kerry is a walking contradiction.

I'm sorry to break this to you, but it is your parents, not Santa Claus, who puts the presents under the tree.

[elprincipe]

And the NK thing, they have always had nukes and just hide them until now. You really don't want to have an other war in Korea and with this time nukes.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Nobody wants to have a war in Korea, especially a potential nuclear war, that's for sure. At least nobody outside of North Korea. They've been working on nuclear weapons for a long time, Clinton attempted appeasement and failed -- that was the thrust of my post.

[ZarathosNY]

And the NK thing, they have always had nukes and just hide them until now. You really don't want to have an other war in Korea and with this time nukes.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Nobody wants to have a war in Korea, especially a potential nuclear war, that's for sure. At least nobody outside of North Korea. They've been working on nuclear weapons for a long time, Clinton attempted appeasement and failed -- that was the thrust of my post.

If "appeasement" is a failure, why is that the course Bush is following now? Instead in the beginning of his term, he decided that if Clinton did it, it was bad. So now we have a host of problems that have gotten worse under Bush. I do have to admit, Bush was correct when he said he would run the govt like he ran his companies. He ran all his companies into the ground.

[elprincipe]

And the NK thing, they have always had nukes and just hide them until now. You really don't want to have an other war in Korea and with this time nukes.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Nobody wants to have a war in Korea, especially a potential nuclear war, that's for sure. At least nobody outside of North Korea. They've been working on nuclear weapons for a long time, Clinton attempted appeasement and failed -- that was the thrust of my post.

If "appeasement" is a failure, why is that the course Bush is following now? Instead in the beginning of his term, he decided that if Clinton did it, it was bad. So now we have a host of problems that have gotten worse under Bush. I do have to admit, Bush was correct when he said he would run the govt like he ran his companies. He ran all his companies into the ground.

Yes, appeasement has been a failure in North Korea as it achieved none of its goals while helping our enemies (yes enemieS, since North Korea went on to share its knowledge with the likes of Iran). And agree or disagree with Bush's policy, he hasn't given nuclear power plants to the North Koreans like Clinton. We do still give them food aid and I believe oil to keep the death toll to a minimum, even though the despicable "dear leader" just uses it for the military while people are literally cannibalizing each other in the streets of Pyongyang (watch the History Channel if you don't believe me).

[guardian_owl]

And the NK thing, they have always had nukes and just hide them until now. You really don't want to have an other war in Korea and with this time nukes.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Nobody wants to have a war in Korea, especially a potential nuclear war, that's for sure. At least nobody outside of North Korea. They've been working on nuclear weapons for a long time, Clinton attempted appeasement and failed -- that was the thrust of my post.

If "appeasement" is a failure, why is that the course Bush is following now? Instead in the beginning of his term, he decided that if Clinton did it, it was bad. So now we have a host of problems that have gotten worse under Bush. I do have to admit, Bush was correct when he said he would run the govt like he ran his companies. He ran all his companies into the ground.

Yes, appeasement has been a failure in North Korea as it achieved none of its goals while helping our enemies (yes enemieS, since North Korea went on to share its knowledge with the likes of Iran). And agree or disagree with Bush's policy, he hasn't given nuclear power plants to the North Koreans like Clinton. We do still give them food aid and I believe oil to keep the death toll to a minimum, even though the despicable "dear leader" just uses it for the military while people are literally cannibalizing each other in the streets of Pyongyang (watch the History Channel if you don't believe me).

I had that history channel program on TV while doing homework, didn't it also say that the US never delivered on the power plants?

[Scrubking]

http://www.johnfkerrysucks.com/quiz.gif (www.johnfkerrysucks.com)

[Quackzilla]

http://www.johnfkerrysucks.com/quiz.gif (www.johnfkerrysucks.com)

Oh, wow.

Is that supposed to change my vote?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/rugby.asp

[Scrubking]

"Even as Sen. John Kerry and his cheerleaders in Big Media try to associate President Bush with the modestly funded Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, they remain silent about the links Kerry and the Democrat party have to multimillion-dollar Bush-hating groups. But they cannot keep concealing these ties, because NewsMax has uncovered multiple examples." (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/8/23/153719.shtml)

[bmulligan]

So what you're saying is that any and all military action can be justified as defending our country? Regardless of who you invade, its OK because its in defense of our country?


No, I'M not saying that, Kerry is. Kerry turns his renouncement of the Vietnam war into a 'proud' moment in defence of our country. It's contradictory. [/quote]

[Quackzilla]

Even as Sen. John Kerry and his cheerleaders in Big Media try to associate President Bush with the modestly funded Swift Boat Veterans for Truth

FOX NEWS, CNN, ABC are conservative news networks.

CBS, NBC are neutral.

That covers the big media outlets.

[elprincipe]

And the NK thing, they have always had nukes and just hide them until now. You really don't want to have an other war in Korea and with this time nukes.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Nobody wants to have a war in Korea, especially a potential nuclear war, that's for sure. At least nobody outside of North Korea. They've been working on nuclear weapons for a long time, Clinton attempted appeasement and failed -- that was the thrust of my post.

If "appeasement" is a failure, why is that the course Bush is following now? Instead in the beginning of his term, he decided that if Clinton did it, it was bad. So now we have a host of problems that have gotten worse under Bush. I do have to admit, Bush was correct when he said he would run the govt like he ran his companies. He ran all his companies into the ground.

Yes, appeasement has been a failure in North Korea as it achieved none of its goals while helping our enemies (yes enemieS, since North Korea went on to share its knowledge with the likes of Iran). And agree or disagree with Bush's policy, he hasn't given nuclear power plants to the North Koreans like Clinton. We do still give them food aid and I believe oil to keep the death toll to a minimum, even though the despicable "dear leader" just uses it for the military while people are literally cannibalizing each other in the streets of Pyongyang (watch the History Channel if you don't believe me).

I had that history channel program on TV while doing homework, didn't it also say that the US never delivered on the power plants?

IIRC we only had barely started when they started getting more belligerent and we stopped building them, although we continued our other stuff. I'd have to read more about what actually went through and what dates, but I do know that they were promised.

[elprincipe]

Even as Sen. John Kerry and his cheerleaders in Big Media try to associate President Bush with the modestly funded Swift Boat Veterans for Truth

FOX NEWS, CNN, ABC are conservative news networks.


CNN??!! :shock: :lol: :lol: :lol: :roll:

[Quackzilla]

Even as Sen. John Kerry and his cheerleaders in Big Media try to associate President Bush with the modestly funded Swift Boat Veterans for Truth

FOX NEWS, CNN, ABC are conservative news networks.


CNN??!! :shock: :lol: :lol: :lol: :roll:

CNN is mostly neutral but Wolf Blitzer throws it a little off balance to the right.

Watch his Daily Show interview where Jon Stewart is trying to make a joke and Wolf takes it seriously and starts defending Bush like a FOX News reporter.

[bmulligan]

Yes, because we all know that john stuart is a completely objective, fair and balanced comedian.....

...and CNN is mostly neutral...

[JSweeney]

He's an imbalanced comedian... what else is new?
:)

... at least it's not chemically. Guys like Sam Kinison never quite seem to make it to advanced agaes.