John Kerry the war criminal: Unfit to command, part 2

[Ming]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
When do we get to the accusation that he sodomized Vietnamese villager's sows before putting them on a spit for a BBQ?

Is that one due out the Monday before the election?

Will that be a feature film labeled as a documentary

[Pekka]

I don't understand these accusations. While he might have been accepting medals for no good reasons, and while he was anti-war after the war, there is only fact that I personally care about, and that is that he SERVED and fought in Vietnam, which is better than 99% of us can say, and yet we bash him for it? Jeesh.

Saying he dishonours the vets by going anti-war after he serves? How the hell could he do that? There are lot of vets who are aganist the ongoing war, and they have THE RIGHT to be against the war. They FOUGHT in it. They protect democracy and freedom of speech and opinion, so they can sure as hell have that opinion also, and the rest of us turning on him because he protested against the war, us, who didn't even fight for it.. Jeesh.

The fact is, that the only people who have the right to be offended or what ever is the vets of the Vietnam war. And there is no 100% support on hating him in that group. Some are hating him, some are not.

Who offends the uniform more. A man who gets some medals on wrong facts, a man who protests against the war AFTER he fought in it... or the man who puts the uniform all the time when he doesn't in fact deserve to put it on, when he dodged the war, and when he still acts like a fighter pilot, for the image? I ask everyone, who disses the uniform more.

Every fighting man who has served in a REAL war, has the right to their opinion like we do, and they can say they are against the war and the people who turn against him who don't even serve in their shoudl be more respectful. And no one should talk for the veterans, the only people who talk for the veterans are veterans themselves.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Tingkai


Everyone's war record?

Seems to me that it's just the Republicans who like attacking veterans.

The Democrats are just going after a two spoiled rich kids who used connections to avoid the war, including the one who found part-time duty was too much work.

Two spoiled rich cousins. Don't forget this is a family affair.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Lincoln
It's still not too late to campaign for Nadar, Mike...

Which is just a way of campaigning for Bush. The more wailing and gnashing of teeth I hear about Kerry, the more I realize the right is insecure about the chances for their boy to get elected.

"The Dallas Morning News reported yesterday that the organization has also received two $100,000 checks from Houston home builder Bob Perry, who backed George W. Bush's campaigns for Texas governor and for president."

So much for the "independence" of the SBVfT. I wonder when Richard Mellon Scaife is going to send in his check.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ming


Will that be a feature film labeled as a documentary

If it is, it won't be nearly as good as that other one, featuring the Bushies making fools of themselves in so many interesting ways.

[Lincoln]

Why is it because a group gets support from someone who supports Bush they must be suspected liars or part of some grand conspiracy to get 200 or so veterans to lie in concert? Where would you expect them to seek support, from the Kerry campaign? The fact is that they didn't have much money and some rich Bush supporters as well as hundreds of small contributors decided to suppport them. Shoud they refuse the money and continue to try and get their message accross by writing letters to the editor? Be consistent, Mike. Kerry supporters receive money from people who support Kerry. That is the way the world goes round.

[MRT144]

lincoln, ask the question of both of republicans and democrats. if both are guilty then its a non issue, and a matter of fact.

[Lincoln]

Exactly, It is a non issue. People get money from those who support their cause (except for some corporations and others who play both sides of the fence in case the other guy wins).

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Pekka
I don't understand these accusations. While he might have been accepting medals for no good reasons, and while he was anti-war after the war…

Saying he dishonours the vets by going anti-war after he serves? How the hell could he do that? …

Yes, obviously you do not understand the accusations. Kerry is the one who wants to simultaneously present himself as a war hero (who went around torching villages) and an anti-war hero (who tarred his fellow soldiers by assuming they all acted as he had done).

You can't have it both ways. If Kerry were not promoting his vet status as a primary point of reference his record would not be a primary point of conflict. The point of Swift Vets is that Kerry has misrepresented almost everything about his service.

Every fighting man who has served in a REAL war, has the right to their opinion like we do, and they can say they are against the war and the people who turn against him who don't even serve in their shoudl be more respectful. And no one should talk for the veterans, the only people who talk for the veterans are veterans themselves.

Which is exactly what the Swift Vets group is doing. So why do you say they should not do so? Or are you saying we should allow them to speak, but never quote or cite them? This isn't Heinlein's Starship Troopers milieu, where only veterans are franchised.

Your position is indefensible. I suggest you regroup.

[MRT144]

on a larger scale though, this whole bull**** about vietnam war records, from either person is stupid because no matter what someone did, there will always be someone else to criticize it and make you look bad.

[Straybow]

MtG, I don't hear you complaining about Soros' $20 million in gifts to supposed "independent" partisan hacks. Where was it Moore got his funding from?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Pekka
I don't understand these accusations.

It's easy Pekka.

Some wealthy people with influence 'arrange' to have their loved ones avoid an unpleasant war, by spending time defending the coastline against seagulls, or saving Indiana from the Viet Cong.

These loved ones join a political party and end up as Vice President or President.


The opposing party's last president was also someone who 'avoided' the war.

This time around though, they have a war veteran, so the draft dodger accusation can't be disinterred.

Therefore, his record in the war needs to be as besmirched as possible, with or without regard to anything as unpleasant as a fact, while at the same time playing down the incumbent President's lack of time spent in combat zones, not flanked by security or in air conditioned limousines.



The more muck thrown, the more scared you come to realize the current government and their supporters are, of being turfed out.

[Pekka]

I don't blame the Swift Vets group doing what they do. Obviosuly they have a beef with Kerry. Maybe he wasn't the man in the war he let's everyone to think now, and they got pissed off about it and wants to make everyone know how it really went down. I'd be pissed off too if I saw couple of my army comrades going for president and claim they served full time with honours.

But YES, I think that Kerry took it TOO FAR, IF these accusations are true. Let's not forget, he did portray himself as a super hero of the war. Everyone is a hero who fights in war, or more so if they give their lives in it, but if you don't do super acts in war, then they shouldn't portray themselves like Kerry is doign right now. I'm not very much disagreeing here.

I just feel, that he was in there, and that's enough. Yes he is riding with the thing now, so who knows, but for me personally the most important thing is he went there and that's all that matters to me.

I didn't say they shouldn't attack Kerry for it. I said people like me and you should be careful when we attack him for it, because we weren't there, we haven't been in a war. Like said, veterans I think are the only ones who have a right to attack him for this. Then I said that some are haters and some are not. Of course we can quote them. But we are now more saying these thigns as our opinions when we attack, and not actually quoting.

I'm not defending Kerry so much as I'm countering some of the attacks made by non-vets.

[chequita guevara]

O'Neal, who seems to the the spokesperson for the Swift Boat Vets, got his start when Nixon basically unleashed him on Kerry, back in '71. Nixon hated Kerry, was going ****in' apesh*t over Kerry, and ordered the Navy to investigate him and turn up any dirt they could.

They failed to do so. The Secretary of the Navy at that time is today a Senator from Viginia, John Warner (Rep.), and he recalls today that nothing in the investigation they turned up contradicted Kerry's testimony then or now. So you have two Republican Senators (inclduing McCain) standing up for Kerry, and some guy who's had a personal vendetta with Kerry for over 30 years.

If Thurlow stands by his current version of events, he needs to return his bronze star, which he got for valourous action under fire in the same action in which Kerry got his silver star.

As for besmirching fellow soldiers, citizens of the United States have a higher duty to the American people and to truth than they do their fellow soldiers. The truth is, war crimes and attrocties were exceedingly common in Vietnam, and had the United States been held to acount for it, a lot of vets (and commanders and politicians) should have served prison time or been executed. You don't kill two million people by not targetting civilians.

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
When do we get to the accusation that he sodomized Vietnamese villager's sows before putting them on a spit for a BBQ?

Is that one due out the Monday before the election?

Oh, the wailing and gnashing of teeth, and the Anti-Bush hasn't even been elected yet.

All we want is a thorough discussion of Kerry's war record, which he introduced as a reason to vote for him. Why shouldn't this be investigated?