Olliver North's Letter to John Kerry

[System]

Dear John,

As usual, you have it wrong. You don't have a beef with President George Bush about your war record. He's been exceedingly generous about your military service. Your complaint is with the 2.5 million of us who served honorably in a war that ended 29 years ago and which you, not the president, made the centerpiece of this campaign.

I talk to a lot of vets, John, and this really isn't about your medals or how you got them. Like you, I have a Silver Star and a Bronze Star. I only have two Purple Hearts, though. I turned down the others so that I could stay with the Marines in my rifle platoon. But I think you might agree with me, though I've never heard you say it, that the officers always got more medals than they earned and the youngsters we led never got as many medals as they deserved.

This really isn't about how early you came home from that war, either, John. There have always been guys in every war who want to go home. There are also lots of guys, like those in my rifle platoon in Vietnam, who did a full 13 months in the field. And there are, thankfully, lots of young Americans today in Iraq and Afghanistan who volunteered to return to war because, as one of them told me in Ramadi a few weeks ago, "the job isn't finished."

Nor is this about whether you were in Cambodia on Christmas Eve, 1968. Heck John, people get lost going on vacation. If you got lost, just say so. Your campaign has admitted that you now know that you really weren't in Cambodia that night and that Richard Nixon wasn't really president when you thought he was. Now would be a good time to explain to us how you could have all that bogus stuff "seared" into your memory -- especially since you want to have your finger on our nation's nuclear trigger.

But that's not really the problem, either. The trouble you're having, John, isn't about your medals or coming home early or getting lost -- or even Richard Nixon. The issue is what you did to us when you came home, John.

When you got home, you co-founded Vietnam Veterans Against the War and wrote "The New Soldier," which denounced those of us who served -- and were still serving -- on the battlefields of a thankless war. Worst of all, John, you then accused me -- and all of us who served in Vietnam -- of committing terrible crimes and atrocities.

On April 22, 1971, under oath, you told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that you had knowledge that American troops "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 Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam." And you admitted on television that "yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed."

And for good measure you stated, "(America is) more guilty than any other body, of violations of (the) Geneva Conventions ... the torture of prisoners, the killing of prisoners."

Your "antiwar" statements and activities were painful for those of us carrying the scars of Vietnam and trying to move on with our lives. And for those who were still there, it was even more hurtful. But those who suffered the most from what you said and did were the hundreds of American prisoners of war being held by Hanoi. Here's what some of them endured because of you, John:

Capt. James Warner had already spent four years in Vietnamese custody when he was handed a copy of your testimony by his captors. Warner says that for his captors, your statements "were proof I deserved to be punished." He wasn't released until March 14, 1973.

Maj. Kenneth Cordier, an Air Force pilot who was in Vietnamese custody for 2,284 days, says his captors "repeated incessantly" your one-liner about being "the last man to die" for a lost cause. Cordier was released March 4, 1973.

Navy Lt. Paul Galanti says your accusations "were as demoralizing as solitary (confinement) ... and a prime reason the war dragged on." He remained in North Vietnamese hands until February 12, 1973.

John, did you think they would forget? When Tim Russert asked about your claim that you and others in Vietnam committed "atrocities," instead of standing by your sworn testimony, you confessed that your words "were a bit over the top." Does that mean you lied under oath? Or does it mean you are a war criminal? You can't have this one both ways, John. Either way, you're not fit to be a prison guard at Abu Ghraib, much less commander in chief.

One last thing, John. In 1988, Jane Fonda said: "I would like to say something ... to men who were in Vietnam, who I hurt, or whose pain I caused to deepen because of things that I said or did. I was trying to help end the killing and the war, but there were times when I was thoughtless and careless about it and I'm ... very sorry that I hurt them. And I want to apologize to them and their families."

Even Jane Fonda apologized. Will you, John?

[mantra4]

:thumbsup

[stimmerman]

Are any of you under the impression that the accusations that Kerry made about what soldiers did in Vietnam never happened?

[System]

Are any of you under the impression that the accusations that Kerry made about what soldiers did in Vietnam never happened?

I don't believe that the actions of a small small small percentage should define an entire generations that went to war.

That would be saying all memebers of the armed forces in Iraq to today abuse prisnors....only a small few did that.....

[stimmerman]

I don't believe that the actions of a small small small percentage should define an entire generations that went to war.

That would be saying all memebers of the armed forces in Iraq to today abuse prisnors....only a small few did that.....
Did Kerry define the number of soldiers he was referring to?

[System]

Did Kerry define the number of soldiers he was referring to?

Don't think so, but when you still have his so called "brothers" over there fighting. He should have stayed like a bunch of them did. They did what they had to do to survive...i can't blame them for that.

[stimmerman]

Don't think so, but when you still have his so called "brothers" over there fighting. He should have stayed like a bunch of them did. They did what they had to do to survive...i can't blame them for that.
I'm with you on that. I just don't think it was Kerry's intention to dishonor any of his fellow soldiers. It was just a tactic to bring to light the disparity of the war.

[dougseh142]

For all of those "anyone but Bush" people out there, please take a hard look at the man that you'd consider replacing him with. That's all I hope for.

[cyberhound]

Did Kerry define the number of soldiers he was referring to?
He said "thousands." Of course that doesn't really matter. What matter's is that he counted himself among them.

[Mickey Carson]

It amazes me that Republicans are blindly following their party so much that they consider Bush/Cheney more qualified to lead our military. It seems so paradoxical to me how Republicans, who are supposed to be for strong military leadership, can blindly support Bush-who joined the Guard in order to avoid being sent to Vietnam (his words not mine) and frequently failed to show up for duty throughout much of his time in the military. But they have no qualms about bashing Kerry, a decorated war hero, and quizzically support Cheney-a man who asked for, and received, an astounding five deferments in order to avoid serving his country in Vietnam.

[cyberhound]

It amazes me that Republicans are blindly following their party so much that they consider Bush/Cheney more qualified to lead our military. It seems so paradoxical to me how Republicans, who are supposed to be for strong military leadership, can blindly support Bush-who joined the Guard in order to avoid being sent to Vietnam (his words not mine) and frequently failed to show up for duty throughout much of his time in the military. But they have no qualms about bashing Kerry, a decorated war hero, and quizzically support Cheney-a man who asked for, and received, an astounding five deferments in order to avoid serving his country in Vietnam.
On one hand we have a draft "avoider" (I guess dodger isn't technically correct), and on the other hand we have an admitted war criminal. It seems pardoxical to me how Democrats want to tout a war criminal as a better choice than a draft avoider. Neither is a great choice, but if we were going to choose a preident soley on Vietnam service, I'd take the "avoider" over the war criminal anyday.

[stimmerman]

Neither is a great choice, but if we were going to choose a president soley on Vietnam service, I'd take the "avoider" over the war criminal anyday.
Hopefully, no one is stupid enough to do that.

[cyberhound]

Hopefully, no one is stupid enough to do that.So do I, but if some here want to get into a pretentious pissing match about who is a "war hero" and who is a "war zero", they might keep in mind that true heroes don't commit atrocities. Bush's service was a joke, no doubt, but Kerry's "service" is nothing he or we should be proud of.

[jrock5730]

could a new Presidential candidate please stand up...........

[timmyt23]

True heroes don't talk about what they did. Heroes are average people in extraordinary circumstances.

[System]

True heroes don't talk about what they did. Heroes are average people in extraordinary circumstances.

I drink to that...

I say if we want a Military Leader.

Colin Powell as President and


Storman Norman Shwartzkoff as VP

and then Rudy Guiliani as intellegence Czar

[Mickey Carson]

If we were going to choose a preident soley on Vietnam service, I'd take the "avoider" over the war criminal anyday.
Fair enough...but if I have to choose a military leader based on their record in the military, I'd choose the guy who has shown the ability to quickly react when the safety of Americans is on the line. Kerry instantly reacted in Vietnam when faced with the prospect of American lives (soldiers) being lost. He knew that he had to react quickly in order to defeat the enemy, unlike Bush who is told that a plane has struck the World Trade Center (a previous target of terrorist activities and by this point Bush had been briefed on the threat of planes being used as weapons by terrorists) and decides to go ahead with his public appearance/photo op in the elementary classroom. He's then told that "America is under attack." Instead of reacting quickly and ascertaining the danger that we may be in (since the severity of the attack is unknown by Bush at this point), he has no clue what to do and instead feels that as the leader of our military, that continuing to read My Pet Goat with the kids for 7 or so minutes is more important.

[cyberhound]

Fair enough...but if I have to choose a military leader based on their record in the military, I'd choose the guy who has shown the ability to quickly react when the safety of Americans is on the line. Kerry instantly reacted in Vietnam when faced with the prospect of American lives (soldiers) being lost. He knew that he had to react quickly in order to defeat the enemy, unlike Bush who is told that a plane has struck the World Trade Center (a previous target of terrorist activities and by this point Bush had been briefed on the threat of planes being used as weapons by terrorists) and decides to go ahead with his public appearance/photo op in the elementary classroom. He's then told that "America is under attack." Instead of reacting quickly and ascertaining the danger that we may be in (since the severity of the attack is unknown by Bush at this point), he has no clue what to do and instead feels that as the leader of our military, that continuing to read My Pet Goat with the kids for 7 or so minutes is more important.
Umm..yeah..nice logic. Suppose you tell me specifically what you or Kerry would have done differently in that situation and then we will discuss the merits of how that would have changed anything that happened that day.

[SMN43]

True heroes don't talk about what they did. Heroes are average people in extraordinary circumstances.
which makes the fact that kerry rams his service record down people's throats instead of offering a stance on anything hilarious.

[SMN43]

just because a man sits for a few minutes to gather his thoughts and not alarm the children around him doesn't make him a pussy, it makes him calm under pressure. use your mind to think Mickey Carson. that is a trivial point, and a real stretch.

[Mickey Carson]

Umm..yeah..nice logic. Suppose you tell me specifically what you or Kerry would have done differently in that situation and then we will discuss the merits of how that would have changed anything that happened that day.
Umm...yeah...I would have politely excused myself from the room, told the kids to have a great day, and start figuring out what the hell was going on before another I hear about another plane crashing into our country.

And yes, in hindsight we know that him acting quickly wouldn't have altered anything that happened that day...but in that moment, for all we know more attacks could have occurred while he's doing nothing.

[Mickey Carson]

just because a man sits for a few minutes to gather his thoughts and not alarm the children around him doesn't make him a pussy, it makes him calm under pressure. use your mind to think Mickey Carson. that is a trivial point, and a real stretch.
I fail to see how him saying "Excuse me kids, I have to leave on official President business but I really enjoyed being here," alarms children. When we're being attacked, we don't need a "calm" President who is more worried about disrupting a classroom than trying to immediately gain information and possibly make an executive decision in order to immediately improve our safety.

[SMN43]

I fail to see how him saying "Excuse me kids, I have to leave on official President business but I really enjoyed being here," alarms children. When we're being attacked, we don't need a "calm" President who is more worried about disrupting a classroom than trying to immediately gain information and possibly make an executive decision in order to immediately improve our safety.
and his running out of the room or excusing himself "immediately" would have changed what was happening? he needed a moment to gather his thoughts and think about the situation. he is human like the rest of us, back off his ass and fight him on his positions if you feel you need to, but this argument is just so damn petty and trivial.

[nubby]

I wonder if someone could make the case that our President is a war criminal?

[Davenumber40]

I wonder if someone could make the case that our President is a war criminal?


Moveon.org could make the case that George Bush eats babies for dinner.


I think the interesting thing in all this Vietnam nonsense is whether or not John Kerry was in Cambodia. Either he was and the men in his unit are lying, or he made that up.

[cyberhound]

I wonder if someone could make the case that our President is a war criminal?
Perhaps, but thus far he hasn't gone on record and admitted to being one while accusing thousands of others of doing the same things.

[Davenumber40]

Perhaps, but thus far he hasn't gone on record and admitted to being one while accusing thousands of others of doing the same things.

What do you mean?

[cyberhound]

What do you mean?
Kerry did just that.

[nubby]

Well I want to see the exact sworn testimony because Ollie even misquoted Kerry in a previous letter where he said that Kerry testified that he had seen all these attrocities occuring when in fact his statement was that he had heard stories of those attrocities occuring. There is a huge difference.

[Davenumber40]

Kerry did just that.

Gotcha. Sorry I misread what you were saying.

[cyberhound]

Well I want to see the exact sworn testimony because Ollie even misquoted Kerry in a previous letter where he said that Kerry testified that he had seen all these attrocities occuring when in fact his statement was that he had heard stories of those attrocities occuring. There is a huge difference.
"There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals."

Kerry doesn't specify what he saw or heard of. But he does say that thousands of others did the same thing. Did such things take place? Yes, probably so. But by thousands? Who knows? But those are Kerry's words.

[nubby]

Show me your source, I can't find that anywhere in his 1971 sworn testimony.
edit: ok I found it. Will comment in a few moments after I read it all.

hmm this is what the sworn testimony says:
"We are here in Washington also to say that the problem of this war is not just a question of war and diplomacy. It is part and parcel of everything that we are trying as human beings to communicate to people in this country, the question of racism, which is rampant in the military, and so many other questions also, the use of weapons, the hypocrisy in our taking umbrage in the Geneva Conventions and using that as justification for a continuation of this war, when we are more guilty than any other body of violations of those Geneva Conventions, in the use of free fire zones, harassment interdiction fire, search and destroy missions, the bombings, the torture of prisoners, the killing of prisoners, accepted policy by many units in South Vietnam. That is what we are trying to say. It is party and parcel of everything. "

Those are far differen't perhaps you have a different source? Link?

[saygoodbye12]

Are any of you under the impression that the accusations that Kerry made about what soldiers did in Vietnam never happened?
I'm under the impression that if you care about your fellow Americans you don't go out in public saying they are committing atrocities while they are still over there and some are being held as POWs. But that's just me.

[nubby]

I'm under the impression that if you care about your fellow Americans you don't go out in public saying they are committing atrocities while they are still over there and some are being held as POWs. But that's just me.
I'm sorry if that hurts a few feelings but I think that is pretty fuckin important information for us to have.

[cyberhound]

Show me your source, I can't find that anywhere in his 1971 sworn testimony.
edit: ok I found it. Will comment in a few moments after I read it all.

hmm this is what the sworn testimony says:
"We are here in Washington also to say that the problem of this war is not just a question of war and diplomacy. It is part and parcel of everything that we are trying as human beings to communicate to people in this country, the question of racism, which is rampant in the military, and so many other questions also, the use of weapons, the hypocrisy in our taking umbrage in the Geneva Conventions and using that as justification for a continuation of this war, when we are more guilty than any other body of violations of those Geneva Conventions, in the use of free fire zones, harassment interdiction fire, search and destroy missions, the bombings, the torture of prisoners, the killing of prisoners, accepted policy by many units in South Vietnam. That is what we are trying to say. It is party and parcel of everything. "

Those are far differen't perhaps you have a different source? Link?
Hear it for yourself:

http://www.wintersoldier.com/video/kerryMTP.wmv

[saygoodbye12]

I'm sorry if that hurts a few feelings but I think that is pretty fuckin important information for us to have.
I wonder if the POW's who were being held at the time and thus suffered the punishment of him saying what he said, feel the same way as you.

[nubby]

I wonder if the POW's who were being held at the time and thus suffered the punishment of him saying what he said, feel the same way as you.
That depends on if the VC were watching american television in english in 1971... you're pretty bright.

[saygoodbye12]

That depends on if the VC were watching american television in english in 1971... you're pretty bright.
Are you really this stupid? Please say no.

[nubby]

I know that this is just a technicality but that was an interview not a sworn testimony in front of congress. I can't listen to it now at work but I will later and comment further.

[cyberhound]

That depends on if the VC were watching american television in english in 1971... you're pretty bright.
Apparently the North Vietnamese were. That's why they used that testimony as yet another reason to torture prisoners.

[nubby]

Are you really this stupid? Please say no.
Do you honestly believe that the POW sitting in those prisons were in the least effected by his testimony? If so explain your logic.

[nubby]

Apparently the North Vietnamese were. That's why they used that testimony as yet another reason to torture prisoners.
Right, it was the testimony that allowed them to do so... jesus christ get a grip on reality.

[saygoodbye12]

Do you honestly believe that the POW sitting in those prisons were in the least effected by his testimony? If so explain your logic. Former POW Jim Warner today told HUMAN EVENTS that he first learned about Lt. John Kerry in a North Vietnamese prison camp. When his captors brought him out of solitary confinement in the infamous Skid Row punishment camp for an interrogation, they made him read the typewritten transcript of a statement by Kerry, speaking in the United States. His interrogator kept pointing at Kerry's words, saying, 'See? This officer from your Navy says you deserve to be punished.'"

"Tom Collins, another Vietnam POW whose plane was shot down in 1965, was made to listen to Kerry's testimony on tape during his captivity. He explained that the North Vietnamese were constantly trying to elicit confessions of war crimes from Americans, promising them better treatment."

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1199976/posts


and you can check out this site as well:

http://www.vnsfvetakerry.com/LettersPOWS.htm

[cyberhound]

Right, it was the testimony that allowed them to do so... jesus christ get a grip on reality.
The Vietnamese using it as a reason and them allowing themselves to do so are different things. They could have done so because they were in a bad mood one day. But, they specifically pointed to this testimony as a reason to do so on some occasions.

[Davenumber40]

I know that this is just a technicality but that was an interview not a sworn testimony in front of congress. I can't listen to it now at work but I will later and comment further.

So you can say whatever you want as long as you aren't under oath without consequence.

[Tulip]

One last thing, John. In 1988, Jane Fonda said: "I would like to say something ... to men who were in Vietnam, who I hurt, or whose pain I caused to deepen because of things that I said or did. I was trying to help end the killing and the war, but there were times when I was thoughtless and careless about it and I'm ... very sorry that I hurt them. And I want to apologize to them and their families."

Even Jane Fonda apologized. Will you, John?
Pres. Bush never apologized, and we all know he never will, for messing up in this war. It's just a political thing, when you apologize as a political figure you just look more guilty than before. Jane Fonda is not a political figure.

Besides, anyone ever think about this? John Kerry was there to witness the war firsthand and yes, he killed a person/people. Maybe he, like any other human being, didn't like doing that, and as a result, when he got back to the U.S., he made it a point to let others know that this killing of other human beings was unnecessary and should be avoided at all costs. His strategy was to offer the statement that he gave at that time, 30 years ago. I don't agree with his strategy. He probably didn't know he was going to be running for president at that time... And it was the 70's when anti-war movement was very strong, so he may have used words, like Jane Fonda mentioned, that were "over the top." You have to remember it was an emotional time and if even Jane Fonda used words that were exaggerated, then you can just guess that their feelings towards the war were very strong.

Yeah, perhaps John Kerry used an anti-war strategy that is now biting him in the arse, and he shouldn't have exaggerated or tried to use knowledge that he heard from someone else, but he's the one paying for it now, and the point is, you have to look at his reason for giving those statements. I guess Fonda said it best, "I was trying to help end the killing and the war..." He didn't give that statement to tarnish the image of our nation's soldiers, because he made it a point to include himself in there. He gave it as a sort of, "well our country sent us in there to fight a just war, and it turns out that we found not much justice to be fighting for over there, by serving the orders of my country I was forced to do things that I wish I would have never done and I hope no one else ever has to. We were forced to do inhuman things by the directive of our country. (We soldiers aren't ourselves inhuman, we were following orders and sent there by our country.)" In short, he was saying, 30 years ago, "our country is headed in the wrong direction (with this war)." He included himself in those so-called war crimes because, yes, he killed a person, and no, he didn't think that it was unavoidable. After killing a person, and hearing stories of other injustices, he felt that the entire thing could have been avoided had we not gone to war. That's what his statement was for, he could have just made it clearer, but he had no idea that at the time, his words were over the top. Why would anyone want to include him or herself in the same group of people as they are trying to tarnish the image of? He wasn't tarnishing their image, he was trying to say, hey, our country is headed in the wrong direction when it sends people like me and other soldiers I served with to do their dirty work, and claim it for a noble cause. You can just imagine the guilt he had in having to kill another human being, and that was his own conscience talking when he replied to the question with, "yes, I am one of those soldiers who committed war crimes." He was so unhappy and dissatisfied, disgusted if you will, with what he saw and had to do over there, just as many in the nation were, just because some guy who was president decided we were going to war. I mean, if you killed someone in service of this country, and felt bad about it, wouldn't you want to tell other people that war was unecessary? All he was saying was, look, I was there and all this bad stuff happened. I'm not blaming myself or my fellow soldiers, because this never would have happened had the nation not called for us to be there. If you really use your mind to think about it, he WAS blaming the leadership that put him and the rest of the soldiers there (he just counted on those listening to him to have a brain of their own). He wasn't blaming himself or the other soldiers because I'm sure as heck he wouldn't have wanted to kill that guy if he didn't have to. And he knows that the other soldiers wouldn't have done the things they supposedly did if the whole situation wasn't as volatile and out of control as it was. The point is, he and the soldiers HAD TO because his nation put him there to do just that, and it is the leadership of this nation that caused that to happen. The nation putting the soldiers there is what let all those bad things happen. (By the way, he isn't the only one who claimed that bad stuff happened over there. Just look at EVERY SINGLE movie about the war... It seems just to be general consensus that bad stuff WAS happening over there, even if it was just a few soldiers. What's so wrong with coming out and saying it?)

I agree with him about it being the leadership. I would never blame the soldiers for things they did, people they killed in a war. Because when they signed up for the military, they basically dedicated their lives to a nation and service to that nation. But it is up to the nation (or leadership) to decide what to do with them. They are always put where they are stationed because they are told to do so, they don't really have a choice as to where they go, with whom, or when. All they are trained to do is to fight the enemy when they see them. In a way, they are just like worker ants (pardon the pun). Their default is to kill the enemy and to make it harder for them to win in any way. It is the leadership of the nation that decides who they will attack. They don't really have any choice in it but to do what they're trained, and to trust in faith that the nation is doing the right thing. Even if they have to kill people or do unthinkable things, they are still the honorable ones because they had such faith and dedication of their lives to the nation that the rest of us can't claim to have. In my mind, the soldiers themselves are never the ones to blame. They would never have been there had it not been for those in charge that put them there.

I would rather vote for a person who was there, put his life on the line for his country, but after what happened, decided he didn't like what he saw, and wanted to change it and avoid it in the future, and had conscience enough to admit that he committed a crime of humanity (killing a person), and call him a war criminal if you will. Than to vote for two guys who were too privileged and chicken shoot to even enter the military. But now want to control who they fight and where they go.

My 10 cents, I guess, since this was so long. It's just my opinion, so if you don't agree, please don't try to kill me. I'd be glad to hear your opinion. :rolleyes: :angel

[saygoodbye12]

I would rather vote for a person who was there, put his life on the line for his country, but after what happened, decided he didn't like what he saw, and wanted to change it and avoid it in the future, and had conscience enough to admit that he committed a crime of humanity (killing a person), and call him a war criminal if you will. Than to vote for two guys who were too privileged and chicken shoot to even enter the military. But now want to control who they fight and where they go.

I'd rather not base my vote for president in the year 2004 on whether they went to war more than 30 years ago. Unless of course you can provide me with some proof that having fought in Viet Nam automatically makes you a better president.

[System]

Moveon.org could make the case that George Bush eats babies for dinner.


I think the interesting thing in all this Vietnam nonsense is whether or not John Kerry was in Cambodia. Either he was and the men in his unit are lying, or he made that up.

Didn't you hear?

Kerry killed Ho Chi Minh, it where he got one of his purple hearts...

He fell out of bed dreaming he was actually in a fire fight

[Tulip]

I'd rather not base my vote for president in the year 2004 on whether they went to war more than 30 years ago. Unless of course you can provide me with some proof that having fought in Viet Nam automatically makes you a better president.
Not a better president, just one who knows what he is getting his citizens into when he sends them into a war. (And whether not it is really necessary.) And yes, his having been to the war is not the reason why I'd vote for him, I'm just tired of people trying to make a mountain out of a molehill because of what he said 30 years ago. If you won't vote for him because he went to war 30 years ago, then don't hold him to and blast him for something he specifically said 30 years ago. It all goes hand in hand... and since people seem to care what he said 3 decades ago, then I'll sure as heck care what he actually DID back then. Actions speak louder than words.

[cyberhound]

I would rather vote for a person who was there, put his life on the line for his country, but after what happened, decided he didn't like what he saw, and wanted to change it and avoid it in the future, and had conscience enough to admit that he committed a crime of humanity (killing a person), and call him a war criminal if you will. Than to vote for two guys who were too privileged and chicken shoot to even enter the military. But now want to control who they fight and where they go.


Perhaps if he didn't use the clout of his confession of conscience and those atrocities to launch a political career, and then use that war every chance he got to further his political ambitions whether or not he was being truthful, and then largely base his candidacy on his service in that war, all this could be avoided.

[cyberhound]

Not a better president, just one who knows what he is getting his citizens into when he sends them into a war. (And whether not it is really necessary.) And yes, his having been to the war is not the reason why I'd vote for him, I'm just tired of people trying to make a mountain out of a molehill because of what he said 30 years ago. If you won't vote for him because he went to war 30 years ago, then don't hold him to and blast him for something he specifically said 30 years ago. It all goes hand in hand... and since people seem to care what he said 3 decades ago, then I'll sure as heck care what he actually DID back then. Actions speak louder than words.
When did war crimes become a molehill?

[Tulip]

Perhaps if he didn't use the clout of his confession of conscience and those atrocities to launch a political career, and then use that war every chance he got to further his political ambitions When haven't political candidates used military service to further their careers? Mr. Schwarzkopf, or Mr. Powell, by any chance? It's something they did which others did not, and thus they should be proud of. I'll bet if Bush had been in a war, which he hasn't, he would drop that at every chance.


When did war crimes become a molehill?If you had read what I wrote, you would see that I don't personally believe he was guilty of a war crime. He just said that to further his anti-war stance, which I also don't think was a good strategy. It makes him look like a war criminal even though the evidence seems to be that he never did commit any.

Hmm, you seem to have your guns out ready for a fight. :violent I did say it was my opinion, and you are allowed to have yours. I'm not going to try and beat everybody with a stick who doesn't agree with me. :twak If ya don't think I'm right, then so be it.

With your questions, you are still personally attacking Kerry and not the issues of the election--economy, environment, social programs, etc. Is that all the Republicans are capable of, personal attacks? The issue of this thread, I thought, was to prove that Mr. Kerry soiled the reputation of his fellow soldiers, or rather in my meager opinion, to distract people from the real issues of the election. (The fact that Bush messed up.) I was just addressing the fact that many people misinterpret his words as attacking the soldiers when they were, in fact, attacking the leadership.


-2lip

[ambysshrink]

On one hand we have a draft "avoider" (I guess dodger isn't technically correct), and on the other hand we have an admitted war criminal.
:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

[chevman]

Anyone else find the whole idea of war 'crimes' ironic?

I would say that war, IN GENERAL, is pretty fucked up. You shot some people with guns? Ok. You shot some people without guns? Ok. Maybe we can create some sort of morality barometer, but I think in any sort of larger sense, it's all messed up shit that leads to nothing good.

Look at Vietnam - FUCKING 30 years ago and we're still hearing about that shit on the news. Let's all fess up and acknowledge that during that time people made some bad decisions, some good decisions too, but on the whole it wasn't exactly our shining moment as a country.

[Tulip]

To explain: I only posted at all because I didn't think too many out there share my opinion. Not to start a fight. Guess I was asking for it though, so therefore, I'm ending my political discussion here, and staying away from them. See you all at a Dave show... Peace

-2lip

[ambysshrink]

Also, I"m still waiting for CyberHound to show us where John Kerry called himself a "war criminal," as opposed to saying he committed atrocities like other soldiers who are sent into a wrongful war.

I'm not even going to explain how the two are completely different given the context. If anyone can't understand that, they're retarded or ignorant or both.

[Dancing Ants]

Umm...yeah...I would have politely excused myself from the room, told the kids to have a great day, and start figuring out what the hell was going on before another I hear about another plane crashing into our country.

And yes, in hindsight we know that him acting quickly wouldn't have altered anything that happened that day...but in that moment, for all we know more attacks could have occurred while he's doing nothing.

that argument is old. if he "politely excuses himself" he still freaks people out. the President of the United States doesn't "excuse" himself from many things. Not only that, but what he was told when he was reading was that "we think a plane has hit the WTC", and at the time, they did not know that it was a terrorist action. don't you remember, or maybe you didn't hear, that for the first 15-20 minutes, people thought someone had accidently flown like a Cessna into the building. And by people I mean people who weren't in the area, who were only passing info along.

[Mickey Carson]

that argument is old. if he "politely excuses himself" he still freaks people out. the President of the United States doesn't "excuse" himself from many things. Not only that, but what he was told when he was reading was that "we think a plane has hit the WTC", and at the time, they did not know that it was a terrorist action. don't you remember, or maybe you didn't hear, that for the first 15-20 minutes, people thought someone had accidently flown like a Cessna into the building. And by people I mean people who weren't in the area, who were only passing info along.

First, before Bush entered the Florida elementary school, he was pulled aside by Karl Rove who told Bush that a plane had hit the WTC. At that time, yes it may have been an accident and it's quite possible that Bush thought so. Although by that time he had been briefed on terrorists possibly using planes as weapons and was obviously familiar with the previous attack on the WTC so hopefully he was already contemplating that it may indeed be a terrorist attack. That happened shortly before 9am. The President goes into the classroom anyway (which he can't be faulted for since it's still unclear if it's a terrorist plot or an accident).

At 9:05 a.m., Andrew Card Jr., came into the class and whispered to Bush that "A second plane hit the other tower, and America's under attack." It was at this point that Bush remains in the class for 7 minutes. He's heard that America is "under attack" but does nothing except continuing to listen to 2nd-grade students read My Pet Goat. The Boston Globe has reported that he actually spent nearly a half an hour in the class after Card whispered "America's under attack" to him...but it appears that it was 7 minutes before he abruptly left. As commander-in-chief this was the first test of Bush's ability and he hesitated. It didn't affect the violence that occurred that day, but hindsight is 20-20.

[cyberhound]

When haven't political candidates used military service to further their careers? Mr. Schwarzkopf, or Mr. Powell, by any chance? It's something they did which others did not, and thus they should be proud of. I'll bet if Bush had been in a war, which he hasn't, he would drop that at every chance.


If you had read what I wrote, you would see that I don't personally believe he was guilty of a war crime. He just said that to further his anti-war stance, which I also don't think was a good strategy. It makes him look like a war criminal even though the evidence seems to be that he never did commit any.

Hmm, you seem to have your guns out ready for a fight. :violent I did say it was my opinion, and you are allowed to have yours. I'm not going to try and beat everybody with a stick who doesn't agree with me. :twak If ya don't think I'm right, then so be it.

With your questions, you are still personally attacking Kerry and not the issues of the election--economy, environment, social programs, etc. Is that all the Republicans are capable of, personal attacks? The issue of this thread, I thought, was to prove that Mr. Kerry soiled the reputation of his fellow soldiers, or rather in my meager opinion, to distract people from the real issues of the election. (The fact that Bush messed up.) I was just addressing the fact that many people misinterpret his words as attacking the soldiers when they were, in fact, attacking the leadership.


-2lip
Again...Perhaps if he didn't use the clout of his confession of conscience and those atrocities to launch a political career, and then use that war every chance he got to further his political ambitions whether or not he was being truthful, and then largely base his candidacy on his service in that war, all this could be avoided.

None of the others you mentioned confessed to committing atrocities and tried to use that to their political advantage. And in the course of his attacking leader ship he accused THOUSANDS of committing the same atrocities he committed. Of course now, thats coming back to bite him.

It's also nice that you assume I'm all Republicans. Perhaps you'd like to bring up some of the issues Kerry has run on besides his Vietnam service for us to discuss?

[cyberhound]

Also, I"m still waiting for CyberHound to show us where John Kerry called himself a "war criminal," as opposed to saying he committed atrocities like other soldiers who are sent into a wrongful war.

I'm not even going to explain how the two are completely different given the context. If anyone can't understand that, they're retarded or ignorant or both.
It's good to see you understand how to use "retarded" in context. Kerry admitted to atrocities that were deemed war crimes under the Geneva convention.

(Audiotape, April 18, 1971):

MR. CROSBY NOYES (Washington Evening Star): Mr. Kerry, you said at one time or another that you think our policies in Vietnam are tantamount to genocide and that the responsibility lies at all chains of command over there. Do you consider that you personally as a Naval officer committed atrocities in Vietnam or crimes punishable by law in this country?

SEN. KERRY: There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals.

Psst...so to are war criminals, the soldiers who carry out such orders.

[ugahairydawgs]

Did Kerry define the number of soldiers he was referring to?
Yep...narrowed it down to EVERY soldier in the US Armed Forces. He is an opportunistic backstabber and a man that is not to be trusted. I wouldn't want him running a McDonalds, much less being the leader of the free world.

[cyberhound]

Yep...narrowed it down to EVERY soldier in the US Armed Forces. He is an opportunistic backstabber and a man that is not to be trusted. I wouldn't want him running a McDonalds, much less being the leader of the free world.
I haven't seen where he said every soldier. He did say "thousands of soldiers" though.

[barefoot]

When haven't political candidates used military service to further their careers? Mr. Schwarzkopf, or Mr. Powell, by any chance? It's something they did which others did not, and thus they should be proud of. I'll bet if Bush had been in a war, which he hasn't, he would drop that at every chance.


If you had read what I wrote, you would see that I don't personally believe he was guilty of a war crime. He just said that to further his anti-war stance, which I also don't think was a good strategy. It makes him look like a war criminal even though the evidence seems to be that he never did commit any.

Hmm, you seem to have your guns out ready for a fight. :violent I did say it was my opinion, and you are allowed to have yours. I'm not going to try and beat everybody with a stick who doesn't agree with me. :twak If ya don't think I'm right, then so be it.

With your questions, you are still personally attacking Kerry and not the issues of the election--economy, environment, social programs, etc. Is that all the Republicans are capable of, personal attacks? The issue of this thread, I thought, was to prove that Mr. Kerry soiled the reputation of his fellow soldiers, or rather in my meager opinion, to distract people from the real issues of the election. (The fact that Bush messed up.) I was just addressing the fact that many people misinterpret his words as attacking the soldiers when they were, in fact, attacking the leadership.


-2lip
His anit war stance was so furthered that he voted for the invasion of Iraq.

[ambysshrink]

Kerry admitted to atrocities that were deemed war crimes under the Geneva convention.
Are you sure you wanted to be the one to bring up war crimes? Do you recognize that the foundation of the Bush Doctrine is a blantent violation of international law? In fact, the US committed a "war crime" simply by preemptively going into Iraq.

[Dancing Ants]

Loftin (Cyberhound) isn't a Republican.

[cyberhound]

Are you sure you wanted to be the one to bring up war crimes? Do you recognize that the foundation of the Bush Doctrine is a blantent violation of international law? In fact, the US committed a "war crime" simply by preemptively going into Iraq.
There you go assuming again Sparky. I was and still am against that war, and Bush for that matter.

[marco j]

I don't believe that the actions of a small small small percentage should define an entire generations that went to war.

That would be saying all memebers of the armed forces in Iraq to today abuse prisnors....only a small few did that.....


wrong

on both accounts.

my dad was in vietnam and trust me bad shit was going down all over the place.

[System]

wrong

on both accounts.

my dad was in vietnam and trust me bad shit was going down all over the place.


So you are calling your dad a baby killer?

And you calling my friends over in Iraq right now are baby killers and killed civilians?

I would never deny that anything bad doesn't go on in war. But a war like Vietnam many did what they did to survive.

War is hell, while I have never been there myself. It is hell.

How do you justify in your own mind that it is either me or them? They are trying to kill me, so i better kill them first? I am sure if i was over there I would have lost my sanity trying to deal with the mental aspect of it.

But don't make a general statement saying that all or most of the soldiers in country in both Nam and Iraq are baby killing, POW abusing, Village burning barbarians.

cause i am sure if you say that to the wrong person they would immediately set you straight to the ground (seen it happen, funniest thing ever)

[marco j]

i didn't say most people in iraq are abusing people.

but the prison scandal spreads through the whole country. and more than 15000 civilians have been killed trying to 'free' them.

do i call my dad a baby killer?

no he never killed a baby, but he did cut ears off of dead viet cong (or is it kong?)
anyways.
the point is when you put your military most of which is under trained in a situation where they can't tell 'who' the enemy is when a 12-15 year old kid (boy/girl)
will pull a gun on you . we as americans do not know how to deal with this.
and like you said we basically fight to survive. these same kids come home mentally disturbed and sometimes can never recover. and remember for what???
what was this Iraq war for???
if you still believe to make us safer, then i will never be able to convince you otherwise because you will shut me out.

also it's sad that you tink someone being punched 'straight to the ground' is the funniest thing ever. grow up.

[System]

but the prison scandal spreads through the whole country. and more than 15000 civilians have been killed trying to 'free' them.


There are no complete civilians in a war zone. There is acceptable collarteral damage.


no he never killed a baby, but he did cut ears off of dead viet cong (or is it kong?)
anyways.


intresting point...and it is Viet Cong

we as americans do not know how to deal with this.
and like you said we basically fight to survive. these same kids come home mentally disturbed and sometimes can never recover. and remember for what???
what was this Iraq war for???
if you still believe to make us safer, then i will never be able to convince you otherwise because you will shut me out.



We have learned from past on how to treat soldiers for this. some can not handle it and others can. Nothign against the person they just can't handle the mental stress of combat. i am not sure what i would do never being there. but they knew the risks when they joined up, and the top leaders do everything in their power to help people adjust to civilian life after the military



also it's sad that you tink someone being punched 'straight to the ground' is the funniest thing ever. grow up.

Random Guy: "You fucking baby killer" (after he found out my friend was a Marine
My Friend: "I am a what?"
RG: "Baby Killer"
*Whack* *Thud*
My Friend: "Call me that again and i will kill you"

Yes it was funny, watching him drop this loud mouth with one punch and stand over him and tell him that....

[marco j]

our top leaders DO NOT try to help our vets out the best they can. why did bush just take away more funding for vets then?!?

and again why is it so funny that your friend couldn't show any intelligence other than hitting this guy ?!?

it's pathetic.

[System]

our top leaders DO NOT try to help our vets out the best they can. why did bush just take away more funding for vets then?!?

and again why is it so funny that your friend couldn't show any intelligence other than hitting this guy ?!?

it's pathetic.

Top Military leaders is who I was refering too.

Cause, this guy thought he was some bad ass all roided out, trying to impress some ladies and my buddy goes about 5'8 at the most and is kinda skinny...just to see him get dropped was awesome....Not pathetic...funny....a guy trying to act cool and get his shit knocked out. just pure funny

[marco j]

Top Military leaders is who I was refering too.

Cause, this guy thought he was some bad ass all roided out, trying to impress some ladies and my buddy goes about 5'8 at the most and is kinda skinny...just to see him get dropped was awesome....Not pathetic...funny....a guy trying to act cool and get his shit knocked out. just pure funny


i don't know i guess i like the 'good will hunting' way better. beat them with your brains and if they still wont listen to reason invite them outside to meet reason.

i still think your skinny friend showed no intelligence and made other marines look bad. he probably hit him when he wasn't expecting it anyways. why not invite him outside too see if this guy was even 'willing to take it to that level'
it's still narrow minded and pathetic.

[System]

i don't know i guess i like the 'good will hunting' way better. beat them with your brains and if they still wont listen to reason invite them outside to meet reason.

i still think your skinny friend showed no intelligence and made other marines look bad. he probably hit him when he wasn't expecting it anyways. why not invite him outside too see if this guy was even 'willing to take it to that level'
it's still narrow minded and pathetic.

Ya, so what if my friend and i are narrow minded about some stuff. He insulted my friend as he was just getting home from Iraq. and if somebody makes a stupid and uniformed saying like "You are a baby killer" the quickest way to their brain is by kicking his ass...

[marco j]

Ya, so what if my friend and i are narrow minded about some stuff. He insulted my friend as he was just getting home from Iraq. and if somebody makes a stupid and uniformed saying like "You are a baby killer" the quickest way to their brain is by kicking his ass...



:rolleyes: ok whatever.

[ambysshrink]

There you go assuming again Sparky. I was and still am against that war, and Bush for that matter.
No you're not. Or, if you are, you don't give it much priority. It's easy to say "I'm against the war." That war is an example of everything that Bush stands for, and that fact is recognized by Democrats and Republicans alike. Taking a stance against the war and in favor of Bush is just paradoxical in nature.

[cyberhound]

No you're not. Or, if you are, you don't give it much priority. It's easy to say "I'm against the war." That war is an example of everything that Bush stands for, and that fact is recognized by Democrats and Republicans alike. Taking a stance against the war and in favor of Bush is just paradoxical in nature.
And of course you can show me where I have said I was for the war and for Bush. And that war is not all Bush stands for. Since you won't be able to find any statement where I have supported that war, I'll give you a little help on some on at least one of my statements about the war before it even started:


03-02-2003, 08:22 AM
http://www.antsmarching.org/forum/showthread.php?t=50668

[EatSleepJeep]

To those that criticize John Kerry for his testimony regarding soldiers' improper conduct:

Ever heard the phrase "Zippo raid"
I'm sure that every village that US soldiers destroyed in southeast asia was aligned with the north vietnamese. Why? Because if they were not aligned before we torched them, I'm sure they were afterwards.

Ever heard of the My Lai massacre?
If not, read here
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mylai/mylai.htm

There were tons of atrocities in Southeast Asia that were done by US forces, and we've only heard of a fraction. Too many people believe that the US is above that, but if you go to any area that surrounds a US military base that sits on foriegn soil, the locals will give you an earful about assaults, sexual assults, rapes, robberies, murders, and plenty of other property crimes too.

[cyberhound]

To those that criticize John Kerry for his testimony regarding soldiers' improper conduct:

Ever heard the phrase "Zippo raid"
I'm sure that every village that US soldiers destroyed in southeast asia was aligned with the north vietnamese. Why? Because if they were not aligned before we torched them, I'm sure they were afterwards.

Ever heard of the My Lai massacre?
If not, read here
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mylai/mylai.htm

There were tons of atrocities in Southeast Asia that were done by US forces, and we've only heard of a fraction. Too many people believe that the US is above that, but if you go to any area that surrounds a US military base that sits on foriegn soil, the locals will give you an earful about assaults, sexual assults, rapes, robberies, murders, and plenty of other property crimes too.
Thus proving what about John Kerry?

[JanelleM]

I don't think what happened was being questioned...it's just sad he admits to taking part.

[stimmerman]

Yep...narrowed it down to EVERY soldier in the US Armed Forces. He is an opportunistic backstabber and a man that is not to be trusted. I wouldn't want him running a McDonalds, much less being the leader of the free world.
That's ridiculous. Prove it.

[ambysshrink]

And of course you can show me where I have said I was for the war and for Bush. And that war is not all Bush stands for. Since you won't be able to find any statement where I have supported that war, I'll give you a little help on some on at least one of my statements about the war before it even started:


03-02-2003, 08:22 AM
http://www.antsmarching.org/forum/showthread.php?t=50668
You're missing my point. I admit to unfairly implying that you supported Bush/The War. No question about it. My bad, my apologies.

I'm just saying that The War in Iraq exemplifies the Bush Doctrine. Plain and simple. It's a bad choice of an example, but it's the example Bush chose. I just don't see how you could be Pro-Bush and against the War. Again, if you're not voting for Bush, my bad, it's just the impression I got.

[nubby]

I haven't seen where he said every soldier. He did say "thousands of soldiers" though.
He did say it was a written policy in the chain of command from the top down. Sounds to me he was making the point that he was ordered to commit those crimes as were thousands of others.

[ambysshrink]

He did say it was a written policy in the chain of command from the top down. Sounds to me he was making the point that he was ordered to commit those crimes as were thousands of others.
:thumbsup :thumbsup

[cyberhound]

He did say it was a written policy in the chain of command from the top down. Sounds to me he was making the point that he was ordered to commit those crimes as were thousands of others.
The Nazi's said that too.

[ambysshrink]

The Nazi's said that too.
...And around in circles we go. This argument is pointless.

The subjectivity of Kerry's actions or Bush's lack thereof has nothing to do with either of their abilities to lead our contry right now. I never thought I'd have to say this, but it seems that politics are now completely arcane. If you [general, not you specifically cyberhound] base your vote on Kerry's Vietnam experience, or Bush's lack of Vietnam experience, then you do not understand the fundamentals of American politics.

[cyberhound]

...And around in circles we go. This argument is pointless.

The subjectivity of Kerry's actions or Bush's lack thereof has nothing to do with either of their abilities to lead our contry right now. I never thought I'd have to say this, but it seems that politics are now completely arcane. If you [general, not you specifically cyberhound] base your vote on Kerry's Vietnam experience, or Bush's lack of Vietnam experience, then you do not understand the fundamentals of American politics.
Actually, I'm not voting for either candidate because both have shown little or no real leadership ability and both have shown they have little concept and/or regard for individual liberties. And one of them wants to tax and spend us into oblivion while the other wants to borrow and spend us into oblivion. The only reason the Vietnam service of the candidates is an issue being discussed is because one of them decided to run on it. I'll agree that it has little to do with their ability to act as the chief executive of the country at this time. I do however hold Sen. Kerry in the highest contempt for what he admitted to doing.

[ambysshrink]

Actually, I'm not voting for either candidate because both have shown little or no real leadership ability and both have shown they have little concept and/or regard for individual liberties. And one of them wants to tax and spend us into oblivion while the other wants to borrow and spend us into oblivion. The only reason the Vietnam service of the candidates is an issue being discussed is because one of them decided to run on it. I'll agree that it has little to do with their ability to act as the chief executive of the country at this time. I do however hold Sen. Kerry in the highest contempt for what he admitted to doing.
Well, you're entitled to, and its not like I'm going to change your mind. I do believe Kerry is the better choice for reasons I've already stated. I think that Vietnam was a bad war and leaders are to be blamed. Just like I think Iraq was a bad war and I think the leaders are to be blamed. I don't blame the troops right now when they kill innocent Iraqis. I blame our administration.

[cyberhound]

Well, you're entitled to, and its not like I'm going to change your mind. I do believe Kerry is the better choice for reasons I've already stated. I think that Vietnam was a bad war and leaders are to be blamed. Just like I think Iraq was a bad war and I think the leaders are to be blamed. I don't blame the troops right now when they kill innocent Iraqis. I blame our administration.
I blame the troops when they knowingly violate rules, laws, and the Geneva Convention in killing or torturing innocent Iraqi's. Following orders is a poor excuse. Accidents do happen in war, and I don't fault people for those. Nor do I fault a soldier forced to make a choice between letting a kid with a rocket launcher do harm to himself or his comrades or shooting the kid.

[ambysshrink]

I'm just saying it's not always black and white. There are so many shades of gray in times of war.

[saygoodbye12]

First, before Bush entered the Florida elementary school, he was pulled aside by Karl Rove who told Bush that a plane had hit the WTC. At that time, yes it may have been an accident and it's quite possible that Bush thought so. Although by that time he had been briefed on terrorists possibly using planes as weapons and was obviously familiar with the previous attack on the WTC so hopefully he was already contemplating that it may indeed be a terrorist attack. That happened shortly before 9am. The President goes into the classroom anyway (which he can't be faulted for since it's still unclear if it's a terrorist plot or an accident).

At 9:05 a.m., Andrew Card Jr., came into the class and whispered to Bush that "A second plane hit the other tower, and America's under attack." It was at this point that Bush remains in the class for 7 minutes. He's heard that America is "under attack" but does nothing except continuing to listen to 2nd-grade students read My Pet Goat. The Boston Globe has reported that he actually spent nearly a half an hour in the class after Card whispered "America's under attack" to him...but it appears that it was 7 minutes before he abruptly left. As commander-in-chief this was the first test of Bush's ability and he hesitated. It didn't affect the violence that occurred that day, but hindsight is 20-20.
the Bush Administration was part of the 9-11 plot

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/9-11secretservice.html

I just don't understand the argument unless you think Bush did in fact have something to do with it..or he knew before 9/11 that it would happen.

The man knew he was on camera. He knew news people were there. If he or anyone else there were scared or didn't know what to do, do you think they would let him sit in front of the cameras? Why let him be "clueless" on tape rather than behind closed doors?

It just makes no sense. To think that because he was sitting there, nothing was being done is foolish.

[nubby]

The Nazi's said that too.
However only the ones in command paid the price. Which is what kerry was saying.

[EatSleepJeep]

Thus proving what about John Kerry?
Thus proving that the Swift Boat Veterans for Lies are out of place for criticizing him for telling people. This group seems to distort he facts more than any politician I've met.

War is hell. No one will disagree with that. Usually we engage in it to right a wrong, but if our soldiers are doing these kind of things, it tends to undermine our noble purpose. The world holds us to a higher standard, mainly because we walk around preaching how great we are.

Kerry has made his military service relevant because he went to Vietnam and fought. Cheney had 5 deferments, no one can prove where the hell Bush was. A man who has seen and experienced war firsthand will be a little more judicious about sending his citizens into it than someone who watched clips of it on TV and saw a few movies about it.

AND

Where the fuck does Oliver North get off telling anyone how to act, himself a weasely little weasel.

[cyberhound]

However only the ones in command paid the price. Which is what kerry was saying.
Sure and that's why John Demjanjuk was tried and sentenced for being Ivan the Terrible but later exonerated by Israel. He, Ivan the Terrible, wasn't in command my friend, he was a guard. If you want to give Kerry a pass for the things he admitted to and should have known better than doing, go right ahead.

[EatSleepJeep]

Sure and that's why John Demjanjuk was tried and sentenced for being Ivan the Terrible but later exonerated by Israel. He, Ivan the Terrible, wasn't in command my friend, he was a guard. If you want to give Kerry a pass for the things he admitted to and should have known better than doing, go right ahead.
Kerry didn't admit to anything, unless you get all your information from 29.5 second spots on TV sponsered by PACs. He spoke about things that were going on there.

[cyberhound]

Kerry didn't admit to anything, unless you get all your information from 29.5 second spots on TV sponsered by PACs. He spoke about things that were going on there.
Sigh...Why is it so hard for you dunderheads to comprehend this?

From Meet the Press, Meet the Press on April 18, 1971:

"There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals."

[nubby]

Sure and that's why John Demjanjuk was tried and sentenced for being Ivan the Terrible but later exonerated by Israel. He, Ivan the Terrible, wasn't in command my friend, he was a guard. If you want to give Kerry a pass for the things he admitted to and should have known better than doing, go right ahead.
Well, shall we hold people accountable or not... because if you want to give Bush a pass for using Cocaine or having DUI's then you are more than welcome to. It seems to me people want burn Kerry alive for his politically charged past claims about a war the majority of us haven't participated in and simultaneously act as if they are historical scholars on the subject. The sad truth is, Cyber, you never stepped foot in Vietnam and really have no fucking clue what went on over there. For you to sit here and judge Kerry on his self admitted warcrimes is not only rediculous but it makes you sound like a complete fucking moron. General Wes Clark endorsed Kerry and I think he has a little bit more at steak with that endorsement than you or I. If a man that devoted his life to the military can look past some political interview given over 30 years ago I think America should as well.

[nubby]

Thats right compare Kerry to a nazi war criminal that was a vicious guard at a death camp. How typical of a political spin artist like yourself Cyber.

[cyberhound]

Well, shall we hold people accountable or not... because if you want to give Bush a pass for using Cocaine or having DUI's then you are more than welcome to. It seems to me people want burn Kerry alive for his politically charged past claims about a war the majority of us haven't participated in and simultaneously act as if they are historical scholars on the subject. The sad truth is, Cyber, you never stepped foot in Vietnam and really have no fucking clue what went on over there. For you to sit here and judge Kerry on his self admitted warcrimes is not only rediculous but it makes you sound like a complete fucking moron. General Wes Clark endorsed Kerry and I think he has a little bit more at steak with that endorsement than you or I. If a man that devoted his life to the military can look past some political interview given over 30 years ago I think America should as well.
So since you never set foot in Vietnam, are you going to stop talking about it? Or should we just only allow Gen. Clark to do so? Why is it necessary for you build arguments that don't exist? Where have I given Bush a pass on his DUI or alleged cocaine use? Show me where or don't make up the argument. Because in doing so, you become the moron. Or rather you continue show yourself to be the ignorant hypocritical fool you truly are. I'm judging Kerry on his own actions and his own words, and not on what you or Gen. Clark think.

[cyberhound]

Thats right compare Kerry to a nazi war criminal that was a vicious guard at a death camp. How typical of a political spin artist like yourself Cyber.
And one last thing you sick little twit. This is yet another example of you fantasizing about yet another argument I never made. If you actually read and comprehended my words you would have found I was answering you on certain points, not comparing Kerry to a Ivan the Terrible. Of course, I know you aren't that dense, and that you comprehended what I posted. You are just spinning your own little line of typical hypocritical bullshit. Nice try, but you are wasting your time.

[ambysshrink]

Cyber--when you bring up the Nazi's along the same line as Kerry, what do you expect?

I mean, it's like saying "George Bush is like Hitler because he, too, led a country during a time of war."

[cyberhound]

Cyber--when you bring up the Nazi's along the same line as Kerry, what do you expect?

I mean, it's like saying "George Bush is like Hitler because he, too, led a country during a time of war."
Sure, yeah, whatever.

[ambysshrink]

Sure, yeah, whatever.
Don't get me wrong; I know what you mean. I'm just saying that when you make an analogy, you say a lot more than what you write.

[cyberhound]

Don't get me wrong; I know what you mean. I'm just saying that when you make an analogy, you say a lot more than what you write.
If had made an analogy, you might have a point. The only analogies made are in the minds and words of individuals other than myself, and purposefully so.

[ambysshrink]

If had made an analogy, you might have a point. The only analogies made are in the minds and words of individuals other than myself, and purposefully so.
Fine, my bad, I used the wrong word.

Comparison.

[cyberhound]

Fine, my bad, I used the wrong word.

Comparison.
You are getting warmer. I compared Nubby's argument:

He did say it was a written policy in the chain of command from the top down. Sounds to me he was making the point that he was ordered to commit those crimes as were thousands of others.
In particular this sentence: Sounds to me he was making the point that he was ordered to commit those crimes as were thousands of others.
to the arguments of the Nazi's who committed war crimes and used the same reasoning, not Kerry to a death camp guard.

The death camp guard issue came as response to Nubby saying only Nazi commanders were sought and tried as war criminals.

[ambysshrink]

I'm just saying that when you make an analogy, you say a lot more than what you write. :thumbsup :thumbsup

[cyberhound]

:thumbsup :thumbsup
Main Entry: anal·o·gy
Pronunciation: &-'na-l&-jE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -gies
1 : inference that if two or more things agree with one another in some respects they will prob. agree in others
2 a : resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unlike : SIMILARITY b : comparison based on such resemblance
3 : correspondence between the members of pairs or sets of linguistic forms that serves as a basis for the creation of another form
4 : correspondence in function between anatomical parts of different structure and origin -- compare HOMOLOGY

So, you tell me how I made an analogy between Kerry and Ivan the Terrible.

[ambysshrink]

He did say it was a written policy in the chain of command from the top down. Sounds to me he was making the point that he was ordered to commit those crimes as were thousands of others.
The Nazi's said that too.
Main Entry: anal·o·gy
Pronunciation: &-'na-l&-jE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -gies
1 : inference that if two or more things agree with one another in some respects they will prob. agree in others... :BANG :BANG

[marco j]

the Bush Administration was part of the 9-11 plot

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/9-11secretservice.html

I just don't understand the argument unless you think Bush did in fact have something to do with it..or he knew before 9/11 that it would happen.

The man knew he was on camera. He knew news people were there. If he or anyone else there were scared or didn't know what to do, do you think they would let him sit in front of the cameras? Why let him be "clueless" on tape rather than behind closed doors?



It just makes no sense. To think that because he was sitting there, nothing was being done is foolish.


:thumbsup :thumbsup :thumbsup
:

[cyberhound]

:BANG :BANG
I can see that you are about as sharp as nubby is.

[ambysshrink]

I can see that you are about as sharp as nubby is.
Well, I'm glad you think so. Keep dissing people. I'll keep winning the arguments.

[cyberhound]

Well, I'm glad you think so. Keep dissing people. I'll keep winning the arguments.
You are obtuse and insipid but at least you have self respect.