Nice diversion. Heaven forbid you address the topic. Did Kerry deserve the medals? Yes, buy all accounts he met the criteria of the purple hearts. The only naysayers are a former commander who did not deny the chit(s) Kerry dropped for the Purple Heart(s).
Remember this?
I find this funny because you claim how honorable and noble and upright Zumwalt was, yet out of the other side of your mouth you question Zumwalt integrity. How can that be. Zumwalt himself stood by Kerrys side when there were alligatins of war crimes. Zumwalt himself approved the stars. So which is killer? Is Zumwalt honorable or a scoundrel?
Another question. If Zumwalt did say those things about Kerry why were they not brought up when Kerry was accused of war crimes? Why did WST wait until Zumwalt was no longer with us to step forward?
As far as MJ goes, your absolutly right it is a Left wing pub. I'm not disputing that. I posted it because (if you had taken the time to look at it) it is a side-by-side comparison of the coward-in-cheif vs Kerry from 66 to 73. I used the MJ article because a) if you do this http://www.google.com/search?q=kerry...UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 google search its the top entry. b) I was too lazy to find a publication to suit your needs. c) like it or not the comparison of the two side by side is well liad out and telling.
Next, I questioned the motives of two men: WST and Hibbard. Thompson had ample opportunity to come forward with what he had to say yet he decided to wait 30 years. Moreover, there was a more appropriate time (when there were questions about Kerrys war crimes) for the information to brought forward yet WST said nothing. Then during an election year when the shrub is struggling wham WST finally comes forward (after Zumwalt had passed on). Hmmm sounds pretty partisan to me. That's when I threw in the "Yup he's a former Reagan aid republican." I didn't say Hibbard was a repub, I just questioned his timing. Why didn't Hibbard deny the chits? Why did Hibbard wait 30 years to come forward?
Again, when are you going to start using links to back your claims? You've posted the straw men a couple of times yet no links. The few names you have posted I've refuted. Zumwalt probably didn't say what WST claims he did. Zumwalt defended Kerry in 96.
The reason this stuff is comming up is the GOP has a real problem with honest to goodness war heros. Maybe because the GOP only has one and even then they did their best to discredit McCain in 2000 using his record against him. These questions about Kerry's war record are red Herring arguments designed to divert attention from all of Bush's failed policies and put Kerry on the defensive. You say you've seen your fair share of evidence against Kerry; well then killer share it with us. Link us to these articles or statements to support your claims.
I never realized that Googling is so hard for you people. It is easy to find this stuff and I figured you guys were intelligent enough to find this stuff without too much problem - it took me less than a minute to find the article. Just because I did not post a link does not mean I made it up. Try www.hackworth.com and check out what the Colonel has to say about military awards. I am not making this stuff up. He is a hell of a lot more credible than motherjones.com - he has been in more firefights than just about anybody in the history of modern warfare.
What are all of Bush's failed policies? Just because the Iraq situation has not been solved in one year means that it was a mistake. The reconstruction of Germany and Japan took a long time as well so why do you guys have such little patience now? Oh, it is just because you despise Bush so much that you are too blind to look at things rationally. You guys look at Iraq and you scream out quagmire like you can compare Iraq to Vietnam. Let us get a little perspective here.
And I have to say I get tired of how you guys call the President "Shrub." It is very disrespectful. I despised Clinton but he was still Bill Clinton. And the polls I have seen show him leading Kerry. So who is struggling?
And when might you respond to John Kerry's ever evolving positions on so many issues? Does his lack of consistency bother any of you? You would think that by his age he might actually have some solid positions on the issues. I cannot trust somebody who says one thing and the exact opposite two months later. Now that bothers me...
I never realized that Googling is so hard for you people. It is easy to find this stuff and I figured you guys were intelligent enough to find this stuff without too much problem - it took me less than a minute to find the article. Just because I did not post a link does not mean I made it up. Try www.hackworth.com and check out what the Colonel has to say about military awards. I am not making this stuff up. He is a hell of a lot more credible than motherjones.com - he has been in more firefights than just about anybody in the history of modern warfare.
What are all of Bush's failed policies? Just because the Iraq situation has not been solved in one year means that it was a mistake. The reconstruction of Germany and Japan took a long time as well so why do you guys have such little patience now? Oh, it is just because you despise Bush so much that you are too blind to look at things rationally. You guys look at Iraq and you scream out quagmire like you can compare Iraq to Vietnam. Let us get a little perspective here.
And I have to say I get tired of how you guys call the President "Shrub." It is very disrespectful. I despised Clinton but he was still Bill Clinton. And the polls I have seen show him leading Kerry. So who is struggling?
And when might you respond to John Kerry's ever evolving positions on so many issues? Does his lack of consistency bother any of you? You would think that by his age he might actually have some solid positions on the issues. I cannot trust somebody who says one thing and the exact opposite two months later. Now that bothers me...
What happened to the other straw men? I thought you had first hand accounts from multiple sources which you used to sway your opinion. I thought you read articles from other GI's wwho made these accounts?
Quote:
only that the injury came as a result of enemy fire. One of Kerry's former commanders related that the injury he saw (the one where Kerry received his first Purple Heart) was nothing more than a scratch. Other Vietnam veterans have said that three Purple Hearts, a Silver Star and a Bronze Star in only four months of action makes for an extraordinary record - one that raises questions merely on its face. One former Navy helicopter pilot said that he and many colleagues came away with an array of scratches as Kerry did but most did not seek or accept Purple Heart awards for such injuries. Another combat medic in the Marines described Kerry's war record as being "superhuman." During his time he had never seen or heard of anybody getting three Purple Hearts in six or eight months let alone only four.
I like how you have tried to shift the argument from you original assertion that the medals were unwarranted at face value to most medals are unwarranted in the modern military. Kerry met the requirements for the medals. Case closed.
Again with the MJ article... Have taken the time to look at it. It is laid out using the publically available records as sources. It is factual. Like it or not it is correct and telling.
Being in Iraq in the first place is a failed policy. As I've stated in a previous post though this thread is not the time place for that discussion though.
The president's a big guy. He likes nicknames. The shrub fits...
What about Bush's flip-flops?
Finally this has to be your first presidential election if you think a sitting war time president leading by less than a handful of point by some accounts is not struggling. In the upcoming election, the looser will draw about 45% of the popular vote and the winner will draw about 55%. Both Kerry and Bush have a bsae of about 45% so there is a 10% or so margine of undecided voters... Undecided voters swing toward change in most cases. Bush is struggling and will be in more trouble when Kerry actually begins to campaign.
"I cannot trust somebody who says one thing and the exact opposite two months later."-- Didn't Bush vow to get UN support for the war and then not bother with that? Your guy has his fair share of evolving positions, so bringing this topic up requires that we look at both men. If you want you can dredge up a thread about this topic it ran about two weeks ago.
That's funny, Hackworth is a decorated soldier who . . . guess what . . thought of " the American war effort in Vietnam as tragically misguided"
that's from the he website that you linked to.
And what was it you were linking to anyway . . . I couldn't find it . . . is it just Hackworth's famous claim that awards are given too easily?!?!?
Ha
also to note, since you are citing Hackworth's site: he is known for having posted the famous articles bu Col Kawiakoski who wrote, in the recent past, about how the Neo-Cons infiltrated and over-ran the Pentagon and used it to desseminate Pro-Iraq war propaganda BEFORE 911 !!!!!
Hardly. You can't make the case that being anti-war is being pro-enemy. It's just a shameless attempt to equate the two and a great distortion of Kerry's position to boot. On the other hand, a doormat of "Give Bush the Boot" merely suggests the Democrats' intention- literally. Yeah, it's kind of lame, but it's an appropriate metaphor. Can you really substantiate that John Kerry supports the Viet Cong? No. Can you really substantiate that Democrats want to "Give Bush the Boot." Yes- literally.
You are correct that being anti-war isn't necessarily pro-enemy. However Kerry went much further than simply protesting the war. He called our own men war criminals and accused them of war crimes. Likewise, you are confusing your parts of speech. Democrats (at least most) do not literally want to kick Bush in the head. It is a metaphor for getting him out of office. Hanoi is a metephor that designates a term people apply to those they believe went to far in their actions to end the Vietnam war. This thread is in part discussing those actions and whether or not they went to far. By Kerry's own admissions, some of the actions and words were quite "excessive." So the two are quite equal in my book.
So tell me though Shawn, do you wish to literally put a boot to Bush's head, which is what you claimed, or is it metaphorically?
You are correct that being anti-war isn't necessarily pro-enemy. However Kerry went much further than simply protesting the war. He called our own men war criminals and accused them of war crimes. Likewise, you are confusing your parts of speech. Democrats (at least most) do not literally want to kick Bush in the head. It is a metaphor for getting him out of office. Hanoi is a metephor that designates a term people apply to those they believe went to far in their actions to end the Vietnam war. This thread is in part discussing those actions and whether or not they went to far. By Kerry's own admissions, some of the actions and words were quite "excessive." So the two are quite equal in my book.
So tell me though Shawn, do you wish to literally put a boot to Bush's head, which is what you claimed, or is it metaphorically?
Nick
Inane points.
Doormat:
The doormat was a way for some Democrats to literally give the "boot" to an image of Bush-- while simultaneously working to figuratively give Bush the "boot" out of office.
Hanoi John:
Regardless of the extent of his criticism against U.S. military involvement in Vietnam, John Kerry never supported our enemy-- which is what the "Hanoi John" poster pretty explicitly suggests. He's wearing a VC hat/helmet after all. The connection should confuse no one...
The doormat was a way for some Democrats to literally give the "boot" to an image of Bush-- while simultaneously working to figuratively give Bush the "boot" out of office.
Hanoi John:
Regardless of the extent of his criticism against U.S. military involvement in Vietnam, John Kerry never supported our enemy-- which is what the "Hanoi John" poster pretty explicitly suggests. He's wearing a VC hat/helmet after all. The connection should confuse no one...
The doormat was a way for some Democrats to literally give the "boot" to an image of Bush-- while simultaneously working to figuratively give Bush the "boot" out of office.
Hanoi John:
Regardless of the extent of his criticism against U.S. military involvement in Vietnam, John Kerry never supported our enemy-- which is what the "Hanoi John" poster pretty explicitly suggests. He's wearing a VC hat/helmet after all. The connection should confuse no one...
Kerry can use lies to cover up what he was truly doing and supporting but the truth can and will come out.
Just breaking from Drudge...
Quote:
1971 VIDEO: KERRY ADMITS THROWING OWN MEDALS; CONTRADICTS CURRENT CLAIMS
In an interview published Friday in the LOS ANGELES TIMES, Dem presidential hopeful John Kerry claimed he "never ever implied" that he threw his own medals during a Hill protest in 1971 to appear as an antiwar hero.
But a new shock video shows John Kerry -- in his own voice -- saying he did!
ABC's GOOD MORNING AMERICA is set to rock the political world Monday morning with an airing of Kerry's specific 1971 boast, sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT.
The video was made by a local news station in 1971.
Kerry, and his supporters act like they can draw a line in the sand and claim that any action on one side of it is only protesting the war, and not supporting the enemy. That just isn't true in my book. You can claim tossing medals, hanging the flag upside down on the cover or your own book, and calling your own troops war criminals isn't supporting the enemy, but I disagree. That isn't criticizing America in hopes of bringing troops home. That is attempting to damage the troops themselves, the country itself, and the military itself. Damage is the domain of the enemy. Criticism is the realm of a friend. Kerry was not just criticizing America and it's institutions in hopes of bringing about change. He was damaging and destroying them.
You don't call your own troops rapists, baby killers, war criminals and worse and then excuse it because you want to bring those "baby killers, war criminals and rapists home safe and sound."
You've got to be *trolling* me. I bet if you just read his testimony, John Kerry frames things in a way that consciously supports our country-- i.e., how the war damages us on several fronts. BR, or anybody with enough patience to put up with this style of un-fact-checked argumentation--you want this one?
You don't call your own troops rapists, baby killers, war criminals and worse and then excuse it because you want to bring those "baby killers, war criminals and rapists home safe and sound."
Nick
Don't be obtuse Nick. He didn't say that every American soldier was that. He said some were and he was outraged by it. He also said that those soldiers who weren't (which made up the majority) should come home. Give me a fvcking break.
Kerry can use lies to cover up what he was truly doing and supporting but the truth can and will come out.
Just breaking from Drudge...
Kerry, and his supporters act like they can draw a line in the sand and claim that any action on one side of it is only protesting the war, and not supporting the enemy. That just isn't true in my book. You can claim tossing medals, hanging the flag upside down on the cover or your own book, and calling your own troops war criminals isn't supporting the enemy, but I disagree. That isn't criticizing America in hopes of bringing troops home. That is attempting to damage the troops themselves, the country itself, and the military itself. Damage is the domain of the enemy. Criticism is the realm of a friend. Kerry was not just criticizing America and it's institutions in hopes of bringing about change. He was damaging and destroying them.
You don't call your own troops rapists, baby killers, war criminals and worse and then excuse it because you want to bring those "baby killers, war criminals and rapists home safe and sound."
Nick
The enemy thought it was helping them, so much so that they played and read excerpts of JK's testimony to US soldiers to try to break them.
So saying that you weren't helping the enemy, doesn't stop them from using it as a help.
Yeah bring them home to be shunned and ridiculed by the public that you convinced that they are baby killers.
So then does everyone that is a christian and tries to live and promote that lifestyle.
But then, you don't believe that garbage, do you?
You said it not me. One can be christian and still have tact enough to refrain from ending speeches with "god bless America" when our enemies think this is a holy war. Bush saying "god bless America" is no different than Bin Laden saying "allah bless Al Qaeda."
You said it not me. One can be christian and still have tact enough to refrain from ending speeches with "god bless America" when our enemies think this is a holy war. Bush saying "god bless America" is no different than Bin Laden saying "allah bless Al Qaeda."
It doesn't matter what I think about either cause. It matters what THE OTHER SIDE thinks about the cause. Bin Laden and his cronies have as much contempt for the US as we do for them. Thus, it is just as sickening for either side to hear in either speech that either god should bless either cause.
Comments
Originally posted by faust9
Nice diversion. Heaven forbid you address the topic. Did Kerry deserve the medals? Yes, buy all accounts he met the criteria of the purple hearts. The only naysayers are a former commander who did not deny the chit(s) Kerry dropped for the Purple Heart(s).
Remember this?
I find this funny because you claim how honorable and noble and upright Zumwalt was, yet out of the other side of your mouth you question Zumwalt integrity. How can that be. Zumwalt himself stood by Kerrys side when there were alligatins of war crimes. Zumwalt himself approved the stars. So which is killer? Is Zumwalt honorable or a scoundrel?
Another question. If Zumwalt did say those things about Kerry why were they not brought up when Kerry was accused of war crimes? Why did WST wait until Zumwalt was no longer with us to step forward?
As far as MJ goes, your absolutly right it is a Left wing pub. I'm not disputing that. I posted it because (if you had taken the time to look at it) it is a side-by-side comparison of the coward-in-cheif vs Kerry from 66 to 73. I used the MJ article because a) if you do this http://www.google.com/search?q=kerry...UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 google search its the top entry. b) I was too lazy to find a publication to suit your needs. c) like it or not the comparison of the two side by side is well liad out and telling.
Next, I questioned the motives of two men: WST and Hibbard. Thompson had ample opportunity to come forward with what he had to say yet he decided to wait 30 years. Moreover, there was a more appropriate time (when there were questions about Kerrys war crimes) for the information to brought forward yet WST said nothing. Then during an election year when the shrub is struggling wham WST finally comes forward (after Zumwalt had passed on). Hmmm sounds pretty partisan to me. That's when I threw in the "Yup he's a former Reagan aid republican." I didn't say Hibbard was a repub, I just questioned his timing. Why didn't Hibbard deny the chits? Why did Hibbard wait 30 years to come forward?
Again, when are you going to start using links to back your claims? You've posted the straw men a couple of times yet no links. The few names you have posted I've refuted. Zumwalt probably didn't say what WST claims he did. Zumwalt defended Kerry in 96.
The reason this stuff is comming up is the GOP has a real problem with honest to goodness war heros. Maybe because the GOP only has one and even then they did their best to discredit McCain in 2000 using his record against him. These questions about Kerry's war record are red Herring arguments designed to divert attention from all of Bush's failed policies and put Kerry on the defensive. You say you've seen your fair share of evidence against Kerry; well then killer share it with us. Link us to these articles or statements to support your claims.
I never realized that Googling is so hard for you people. It is easy to find this stuff and I figured you guys were intelligent enough to find this stuff without too much problem - it took me less than a minute to find the article. Just because I did not post a link does not mean I made it up. Try www.hackworth.com and check out what the Colonel has to say about military awards. I am not making this stuff up. He is a hell of a lot more credible than motherjones.com - he has been in more firefights than just about anybody in the history of modern warfare.
What are all of Bush's failed policies? Just because the Iraq situation has not been solved in one year means that it was a mistake. The reconstruction of Germany and Japan took a long time as well so why do you guys have such little patience now? Oh, it is just because you despise Bush so much that you are too blind to look at things rationally. You guys look at Iraq and you scream out quagmire like you can compare Iraq to Vietnam. Let us get a little perspective here.
And I have to say I get tired of how you guys call the President "Shrub." It is very disrespectful. I despised Clinton but he was still Bill Clinton. And the polls I have seen show him leading Kerry. So who is struggling?
And when might you respond to John Kerry's ever evolving positions on so many issues? Does his lack of consistency bother any of you? You would think that by his age he might actually have some solid positions on the issues. I cannot trust somebody who says one thing and the exact opposite two months later. Now that bothers me...
Originally posted by 7E7
I never realized that Googling is so hard for you people. It is easy to find this stuff and I figured you guys were intelligent enough to find this stuff without too much problem - it took me less than a minute to find the article. Just because I did not post a link does not mean I made it up. Try www.hackworth.com and check out what the Colonel has to say about military awards. I am not making this stuff up. He is a hell of a lot more credible than motherjones.com - he has been in more firefights than just about anybody in the history of modern warfare.
What are all of Bush's failed policies? Just because the Iraq situation has not been solved in one year means that it was a mistake. The reconstruction of Germany and Japan took a long time as well so why do you guys have such little patience now? Oh, it is just because you despise Bush so much that you are too blind to look at things rationally. You guys look at Iraq and you scream out quagmire like you can compare Iraq to Vietnam. Let us get a little perspective here.
And I have to say I get tired of how you guys call the President "Shrub." It is very disrespectful. I despised Clinton but he was still Bill Clinton. And the polls I have seen show him leading Kerry. So who is struggling?
And when might you respond to John Kerry's ever evolving positions on so many issues? Does his lack of consistency bother any of you? You would think that by his age he might actually have some solid positions on the issues. I cannot trust somebody who says one thing and the exact opposite two months later. Now that bothers me...
What happened to the other straw men? I thought you had first hand accounts from multiple sources which you used to sway your opinion. I thought you read articles from other GI's wwho made these accounts?
only that the injury came as a result of enemy fire. One of Kerry's former commanders related that the injury he saw (the one where Kerry received his first Purple Heart) was nothing more than a scratch. Other Vietnam veterans have said that three Purple Hearts, a Silver Star and a Bronze Star in only four months of action makes for an extraordinary record - one that raises questions merely on its face. One former Navy helicopter pilot said that he and many colleagues came away with an array of scratches as Kerry did but most did not seek or accept Purple Heart awards for such injuries. Another combat medic in the Marines described Kerry's war record as being "superhuman." During his time he had never seen or heard of anybody getting three Purple Hearts in six or eight months let alone only four.
I like how you have tried to shift the argument from you original assertion that the medals were unwarranted at face value to most medals are unwarranted in the modern military. Kerry met the requirements for the medals. Case closed.
Again with the MJ article... Have taken the time to look at it. It is laid out using the publically available records as sources. It is factual. Like it or not it is correct and telling.
Being in Iraq in the first place is a failed policy. As I've stated in a previous post though this thread is not the time place for that discussion though.
The president's a big guy. He likes nicknames. The shrub fits...
What about Bush's flip-flops?
Finally this has to be your first presidential election if you think a sitting war time president leading by less than a handful of point by some accounts is not struggling. In the upcoming election, the looser will draw about 45% of the popular vote and the winner will draw about 55%. Both Kerry and Bush have a bsae of about 45% so there is a 10% or so margine of undecided voters... Undecided voters swing toward change in most cases. Bush is struggling and will be in more trouble when Kerry actually begins to campaign.
"I cannot trust somebody who says one thing and the exact opposite two months later."-- Didn't Bush vow to get UN support for the war and then not bother with that? Your guy has his fair share of evolving positions, so bringing this topic up requires that we look at both men. If you want you can dredge up a thread about this topic it ran about two weeks ago.
That's funny, Hackworth is a decorated soldier who . . . guess what . . thought of " the American war effort in Vietnam as tragically misguided"
that's from the he website that you linked to.
And what was it you were linking to anyway . . . I couldn't find it . . . is it just Hackworth's famous claim that awards are given too easily?!?!?
Ha
also to note, since you are citing Hackworth's site: he is known for having posted the famous articles bu Col Kawiakoski who wrote, in the recent past, about how the Neo-Cons infiltrated and over-ran the Pentagon and used it to desseminate Pro-Iraq war propaganda BEFORE 911 !!!!!
See my thread ABOUT THE PENTAGON NEO-CONs & Col Kiakowski
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Hardly. You can't make the case that being anti-war is being pro-enemy. It's just a shameless attempt to equate the two and a great distortion of Kerry's position to boot. On the other hand, a doormat of "Give Bush the Boot" merely suggests the Democrats' intention- literally. Yeah, it's kind of lame, but it's an appropriate metaphor. Can you really substantiate that John Kerry supports the Viet Cong? No. Can you really substantiate that Democrats want to "Give Bush the Boot." Yes- literally.
You are correct that being anti-war isn't necessarily pro-enemy. However Kerry went much further than simply protesting the war. He called our own men war criminals and accused them of war crimes. Likewise, you are confusing your parts of speech. Democrats (at least most) do not literally want to kick Bush in the head. It is a metaphor for getting him out of office. Hanoi is a metephor that designates a term people apply to those they believe went to far in their actions to end the Vietnam war. This thread is in part discussing those actions and whether or not they went to far. By Kerry's own admissions, some of the actions and words were quite "excessive." So the two are quite equal in my book.
So tell me though Shawn, do you wish to literally put a boot to Bush's head, which is what you claimed, or is it metaphorically?
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
You are correct that being anti-war isn't necessarily pro-enemy. However Kerry went much further than simply protesting the war. He called our own men war criminals and accused them of war crimes. Likewise, you are confusing your parts of speech. Democrats (at least most) do not literally want to kick Bush in the head. It is a metaphor for getting him out of office. Hanoi is a metephor that designates a term people apply to those they believe went to far in their actions to end the Vietnam war. This thread is in part discussing those actions and whether or not they went to far. By Kerry's own admissions, some of the actions and words were quite "excessive." So the two are quite equal in my book.
So tell me though Shawn, do you wish to literally put a boot to Bush's head, which is what you claimed, or is it metaphorically?
Nick
Inane points.
Doormat:
The doormat was a way for some Democrats to literally give the "boot" to an image of Bush-- while simultaneously working to figuratively give Bush the "boot" out of office.
Hanoi John:
Regardless of the extent of his criticism against U.S. military involvement in Vietnam, John Kerry never supported our enemy-- which is what the "Hanoi John" poster pretty explicitly suggests. He's wearing a VC hat/helmet after all. The connection should confuse no one...
You can't equate the two.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Inane points.
Doormat:
The doormat was a way for some Democrats to literally give the "boot" to an image of Bush-- while simultaneously working to figuratively give Bush the "boot" out of office.
Hanoi John:
Regardless of the extent of his criticism against U.S. military involvement in Vietnam, John Kerry never supported our enemy-- which is what the "Hanoi John" poster pretty explicitly suggests. He's wearing a VC hat/helmet after all. The connection should confuse no one...
You can't equate the two.
But I can equate the two, and already did.
Nick
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Inane points.
Doormat:
The doormat was a way for some Democrats to literally give the "boot" to an image of Bush-- while simultaneously working to figuratively give Bush the "boot" out of office.
Hanoi John:
Regardless of the extent of his criticism against U.S. military involvement in Vietnam, John Kerry never supported our enemy-- which is what the "Hanoi John" poster pretty explicitly suggests. He's wearing a VC hat/helmet after all. The connection should confuse no one...
You can't equate the two.
I'm with you on this one.
Originally posted by BR
I'm with you on this one.
Kerry can use lies to cover up what he was truly doing and supporting but the truth can and will come out.
Just breaking from Drudge...
1971 VIDEO: KERRY ADMITS THROWING OWN MEDALS; CONTRADICTS CURRENT CLAIMS
In an interview published Friday in the LOS ANGELES TIMES, Dem presidential hopeful John Kerry claimed he "never ever implied" that he threw his own medals during a Hill protest in 1971 to appear as an antiwar hero.
But a new shock video shows John Kerry -- in his own voice -- saying he did!
ABC's GOOD MORNING AMERICA is set to rock the political world Monday morning with an airing of Kerry's specific 1971 boast, sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT.
The video was made by a local news station in 1971.
Kerry, and his supporters act like they can draw a line in the sand and claim that any action on one side of it is only protesting the war, and not supporting the enemy. That just isn't true in my book. You can claim tossing medals, hanging the flag upside down on the cover or your own book, and calling your own troops war criminals isn't supporting the enemy, but I disagree. That isn't criticizing America in hopes of bringing troops home. That is attempting to damage the troops themselves, the country itself, and the military itself. Damage is the domain of the enemy. Criticism is the realm of a friend. Kerry was not just criticizing America and it's institutions in hopes of bringing about change. He was damaging and destroying them.
You don't call your own troops rapists, baby killers, war criminals and worse and then excuse it because you want to bring those "baby killers, war criminals and rapists home safe and sound."
Nick
Edit: Read the whole thing.
Originally posted by trumptman
You don't call your own troops rapists, baby killers, war criminals and worse and then excuse it because you want to bring those "baby killers, war criminals and rapists home safe and sound."
Nick
Don't be obtuse Nick. He didn't say that every American soldier was that. He said some were and he was outraged by it. He also said that those soldiers who weren't (which made up the majority) should come home. Give me a fvcking break.
Originally posted by trumptman
Kerry can use lies to cover up what he was truly doing and supporting but the truth can and will come out.
Just breaking from Drudge...
Kerry, and his supporters act like they can draw a line in the sand and claim that any action on one side of it is only protesting the war, and not supporting the enemy. That just isn't true in my book. You can claim tossing medals, hanging the flag upside down on the cover or your own book, and calling your own troops war criminals isn't supporting the enemy, but I disagree. That isn't criticizing America in hopes of bringing troops home. That is attempting to damage the troops themselves, the country itself, and the military itself. Damage is the domain of the enemy. Criticism is the realm of a friend. Kerry was not just criticizing America and it's institutions in hopes of bringing about change. He was damaging and destroying them.
You don't call your own troops rapists, baby killers, war criminals and worse and then excuse it because you want to bring those "baby killers, war criminals and rapists home safe and sound."
Nick
The enemy thought it was helping them, so much so that they played and read excerpts of JK's testimony to US soldiers to try to break them.
So saying that you weren't helping the enemy, doesn't stop them from using it as a help.
Yeah bring them home to be shunned and ridiculed by the public that you convinced that they are baby killers.
Originally posted by NaplesX
The enemy thought it was helping them, so much so that they played and read excerpts of JK's testimony to US soldiers to try to break them.
So saying that you weren't helping the enemy, doesn't stop them from using it as a help.
Yeah bring them home to be shunned and ridiculed by the public that you convinced that they are baby killers.
George Bush ending every stupid speech with "god bless America" helps the enemy incite their people into believing that this is a religious crusade.
Naples, if it's good for the goose it's good for the gander.
Originally posted by BR
George Bush ending every stupid speech with "god bless America" helps the enemy incite their people into believing that this is a religious crusade.
Naples, if it's good for the goose it's good for the gander.
BR, don't you get it?? Criticizing the president = helping the enemy. If you're not with us, you're against us. Dissent is treason.
Originally posted by BR
George Bush ending every stupid speech with "god bless America" helps the enemy incite their people into believing that this is a religious crusade.
Naples, if it's good for the goose it's good for the gander.
So then does everyone that is a christian and tries to live and promote that lifestyle.
But then, you don't believe that garbage, do you?
Originally posted by NaplesX
So then does everyone that is a christian and tries to live and promote that lifestyle.
But then, you don't believe that garbage, do you?
You do realize that by attacking his analogy you just undid your own argument, right?
Originally posted by NaplesX
So then does everyone that is a christian and tries to live and promote that lifestyle.
But then, you don't believe that garbage, do you?
You said it not me. One can be christian and still have tact enough to refrain from ending speeches with "god bless America" when our enemies think this is a holy war. Bush saying "god bless America" is no different than Bin Laden saying "allah bless Al Qaeda."
Originally posted by midwinter
BR, don't you get it?? Criticizing the president = helping the enemy. If you're not with us, you're against us. Dissent is treason.
It's sad that those statements are true now. Free speech zones 2 miles away from Bush's appearances. What a crock. They make me sick.
Originally posted by BR
You said it not me. One can be christian and still have tact enough to refrain from ending speeches with "god bless America" when our enemies think this is a holy war. Bush saying "god bless America" is no different than Bin Laden saying "allah bless Al Qaeda."
Only if you view both causes as equal.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Only if you view both causes as equal.
It doesn't matter what I think about either cause. It matters what THE OTHER SIDE thinks about the cause. Bin Laden and his cronies have as much contempt for the US as we do for them. Thus, it is just as sickening for either side to hear in either speech that either god should bless either cause.