Because he didn't. Maybe he should be asked that. I for one would like to hear his answer.
No. And neither do you, so don't pretend that you do.
"Probably." I love it. In other words, you're suggesting that "probably" Kerry chunked his ribbons over the fence and then high-tailed it to the army surplus to pick up a few replacements? Care to back that up?
Maybe he didn't throw the medals themselves away because he left them at home that day? Maybe he kept them because his parents and family wanted him to keep them, despite his political feelings?
This "penchant" is up for debate, and thus you use one entirely made up position and a debatable "penchant" to support a conclusion that is as wrong-headed as it is disgusting.
You really ought to give up this game, since you're just digging deeper hole. You're "sure he was probably"? Make up your mind. You're either positive about something you can't possibly know or you're just making things up to support an indefensible position.
But let's play the game: there were lots of vets who only tossed their ribbons. Were they also being dishonest? Each and every one of them? Every vet who opposed the war and didn't throw his actual medals onto the steps of Congress is dishonest? Is a liar?
I love it. Let me ask you this:
If he were being so openly dishonest with his "anti-war colleagues" (you make it sound like a group of 5-6 guys), do you really think they would have allowed him to keep the position of leadership that he did? You don't think someone would've said something before now?
This is a weak and vulgar argument, and you should be ashamed of yourself for making it. There are a great many issues on which Kerry might rightfully be attacked; this isn't one of them.
Please note again that the ribbons are actually called medals.
I say again that this thread is shameful.
Sigh... You are all missing the point. What amuses me is how all of you are so willing to accept all these tortured explanations from Kerry and Clinton that attempt to explain away what really happened in their particular situations. I detest people who parse their words so much when they are caught in a compromising situation - it is just embarrassing to watch. Why can't they just admit that they were wrong? I would have more respect for Kerry if had done that from the very beginning but this half-assed manner in which he tries to explain what was an obvious gaff on his part is what makes people question his honesty. In a political campaign, credibility is pretty much everything. If you cannot believe anything a guy says most people will never vote for him. I cannot believe people like you are willing to accept these lame explanations from him about this issue. He was definitely grandstanding on this medal throwing thing and he went on TV to talk about it. He definitely left the impression to the viewers that he through his medals away PERMANENTLY and was more than happy to do it to protest what he saw as an unjust war. He certainly gave no impression in that interview that he valued those awards and that he planned on keeping them. That to me is being dishonest and misleading.
A lot of you here hate President Bush and that is fine. But at least he gives the voters a clear choice. You know where he stands on the issues and he does not waver from his views. If he does not support your issues and you don't agree with his stances on the issues than he is not your man and you won't vote for him. Kerry on the other hand is the typical politician who tries to be things to all people and ends up satisfying only a small number of them. How do you know what he says today will be what he believes tomorrow or two months from now? How do you know that he won't sell you out? Just be careful of what you wish for...
A LOT of Vietnam veterans are still pissed at Kerry for throwing away the awards and for making those contoversial statements (which he now has backing away from considerbly since then) he made under oath in that 1971 Senate hearing and they earned their right to disagree with his position. Does that make their stance vulgar? I am not the only one who has questions about Kerry's integrity and there are a lot of people out there that served as long or longer than Kerry in that terrible war who have the same tough questions. We still had troops on the ground in Vietnam at the time he made those outrageous statements and that is one of the things that upsets a lot of veterans the most. Kerry went to Vietnam and he served. I am thankful for his service but this does not somehow give him carte blanche from answering questions about what he did after he came back from Vietnam. You can actually be a war hero and still have no integrity or credibility. A man's life is not defined by one thing in particular - it is the sum total of what he has done during the course of a lifetime.
One other Kerry inconsistency for you is this: in 1992, as Democratic candidate Bill Clinton faced criticism for avoiding service in Vietnam, Kerry said, "We do not need to divide America over who served and how. I have personally always believed that many served in many different ways."
Gee, what a change he has had in his position since then. Considering the fact that Kerry has now gone on the offensive against Bush regarding his National Guard service then one cannot help but point out the hypocrisy here. Are we beginning to notice a distinct pattern with this guy?
Real patriots care enough about America to criticize her mistakes and work to correct them.
On the face of this statement, I can agree, however, the way it is used to defend bad behavior here is wrong.
First, trying to frame yourself as a "real patriot" by making this statement is pathetic. To imply that just the fact that you criticize GWB and Co. makes you a patriot, only manifests self-righteousness. This is especially true in light of the fact that it seems only to be republicans at fault. Your criticisms are purely political and not motivated at righting any common wrong.
Second, the wrongs that you claim to want to fix are viewed by the majority of your countrymen as right.
Thirdly, criticism comes in many forms, some produce positive results. Constructive criticism is the kind that helps people progress and solve problems. I see only destructive language being used against this president and hence against the government. How is that helping the greater good?
I have heard that argument so many times when certain people have nothing else to add. These people are assuming a lot to call themselves patriots for simply trying to destroy people they don't agree with politically, or in the case of JFKerry to simply further his political career.
No. We're really not. And considering you just made up a bunch of random stuff about Kerry and then tried to use it to smear him hardly puts you in the position to take the moral high ground with that "sigh."
Quote:
What amuses me is how all of you are so willing to accept all these tortured explanations from Kerry and Clinton
Whu? huh? where the hell did CLINTON come in? You guys just can't believe that he's not in office any more. Jesus. I'm ready to vote his sorry ass back in just so you guys will stop derailing every political debate by bringing up some president who's not in office.
Quote:
I detest people who parse their words so much when they are caught in a compromising situation - it is just embarrassing to watch.
Yes it is. Weapons of mass destruction program related activities....
I don't have time for the rest of this, since I need to get to the office. Hopefully later this afternoon.
The Boston Globe columnist Thomas Oliphant covered the 1971 rally in question.
"From what I could observe firsthand about Friday, April 23, 1971, Kerry did not make even the slightest effort to pretend that he was throwing all of his military decorations over that fence. He did what he did in plain view, and in my case in the view of someone close enough to kick him in the shins. It was clear to me that Kerry had arrived here with only the ribbons he wore on his shirt -- which, by the way, were referred to as 'medals' by the late Stuart Symington of Missouri, one of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee members present for his famous antiwar statement ... It was clear from our conversations back then and ever since that Kerry made no distinction among his various decorations, though others have ..."
"I have always found the political junk served up by Kerry's detractors to be undignified as well as largely inaccurate. I write now because the political junk is much higher profile now, though no less misleading -- and not, by the way, because in her fourth job in the public arena, my daughter just joined Kerry's staff. I just happened to be there that long-ago day. I saw what happened and heard what Kerry said and know what he meant. The truth happens to be with him."
On the face of this statement, I can agree, however, the way it is used to defend bad behavior here is wrong.
First, trying to frame yourself as a "real patriot" by making this statement is pathetic. To imply that just the fact that you criticize GWB and Co. makes you a patriot, only manifests self-righteousness. This is especially true in light of the fact that it seems only to be republicans at fault. Your criticisms are purely political and not motivated at righting any common wrong.
Second, the wrongs that you claim to want to fix are viewed by the majority of your countrymen as right.
Thirdly, criticism comes in many forms, some produce positive results. Constructive criticism is the kind that helps people progress and solve problems. I see only destructive language being used against this president and hence against the government. How is that helping the greater good?
I have heard that argument so many times when certain people have nothing else to add. These people are assuming a lot to call themselves patriots for simply trying to destroy people they don't agree with politically, or in the case of JFKerry to simply further his political career.
Context, daddy-o.
The context is Kerry. Kerry is being accused of being "anti-American" because his experience in Vietnam turned him against the way that war was being prosecuted. He was certainly not alone in that, as before it was all said and done the majority of Americans had come to the same conclusion.
Republican strategists would clearly like to conflate Vietnam with the WOT, and imply that being against that war then = "soft on terror" now.
One way to do this is the usual politically expedient "either you're for us or against us", with no allowance being made for changing circumstances or the passage of time.
Since Kerry's positions have changed, and (surprise surprise) vary according to the specific circumstance, the charge is also leveled that he is a "flip-flopper"; i.e. capable of responding differently to differing times and places.
On top of that, we have the sorry spectacle of the right attempting to neutralize any perceived advantage Kerry might enjoy over Bush on the military service thing by spreading FUD in re the man's service record.
So now all of you good right wing thugs are in the attractive position of belittling someone who willingly put their life on the line in service to their country (unless you want to start to parse the whole idea of "where where is" and insinuate he wasn't really ever in Vietnam because some character flaw disqualifies Kerry from ever being anywhere, really) while you champion a man who has never taken responsibility for anything in his life.
It's all about character, right? No it's not. Not a one of you give a flying shit about character. It's about politics, and winning, and being on the winning team, and shoving your defeated enemy's face in the dirt.
Gore: a "serial liar" who "would say anything to get elected". Not a word about policy, or the direction of the country.
Kerry: a "flip-flopper" who will "say anything to get elected". Not a word about policy, or the direction of the country.
No. We're really not. And considering you just made up a bunch of random stuff about Kerry and then tried to use it to smear him hardly puts you in the position to take the moral high ground with that "sigh."
Whu? huh? where the hell did CLINTON come in? You guys just can't believe that he's not in office any more. Jesus. I'm ready to vote his sorry ass back in just so you guys will stop derailing every political debate by bringing up some president who's not in office.
Yes it is. Weapons of mass destruction program related activities....
I don't have time for the rest of this, since I need to get to the office. Hopefully later this afternoon.
Cheers
Scott
I brought Bill Clinton up because his situation is similar in that he parsed his words in a very similar manner and liberals have defended both men in a similar way. I was bringing context to this issue to show that this defense of Kerry was not an isolated case. Bringing him up clearly struck a nerve with you which I find amusing. A lot of people who publicly defended the guy I suspect in private are glad he is gone because I have to say a lot of you looked very foolish defending somebody who was so clearly lying at the time.
This is not random made up stuff about Kerry. The random made up stuff is the stuff the liberals are slinging about Bush's National Guard service. I have heard people have made claims that he was AWOL or that he showed up drunk for duty and that is the kind of stuff that is really irresponsible and not proven by the facts. Bush got an honorable discharge and the records show he earned all the points necessary to get it. The same people who say that Kerry earned all of his awards (I mean the military gave them to him so they must be legitimate beyond any doubt) are the same people who claim Bush was AWOL from the National Guard. But Bush never would have gotten an honorable discharge if he had been AWOL. I will concede that Kerry earned his awards if people here will concede that Bush got an honorable discharge from the Guard - meaning that yes he did complete he service satisfactorily. In looking at this issue, you cannot claim one thing happened and then at the same time claim the other did not. In both cases you are assuming that the military in okaying Kerry's awards and Bush's honorable discharge were following standard and accepted practices.
I will be looking forward to hearing what Kerry has to say should he accept the invitation. Maybe he will actually provide some insight into what he plans to do to protect the nation from outside threats and what he plans to do differently in Iraq. He has really said very little about this and what he has said has been very vague and very short of details about how he plans to implement his strategies. I saw a large portion of Cheney's speech and what he said about Kerry was quite correct. I don't see how Kerry is going to get greater international involvement in Iraq when he has basically downplayed and outright trashed the efforts of those who are with us already as being nothing more than "window dressing." That is hardly the way to treat allies who are standing by us.
I brought Bill Clinton up because his situation is similar in that he parsed his words in a very similar manner and liberals have defended both men in a similar way. I was bringing context to this issue to show that this defense of Kerry was not an isolated case. Bringing him up clearly struck a nerve with you which I find amusing. A lot of people who publicly defended the guy I suspect in private are glad he is gone because I have to say a lot of you looked very foolish defending somebody who was so clearly lying at the time.
This is not random made up stuff about Kerry. The random made up stuff is the stuff the liberals are slinging about Bush's National Guard service. I have heard people have made claims that he was AWOL or that he showed up drunk for duty and that is the kind of stuff that is really irresponsible and not proven by the facts. Bush got an honorable discharge and the records show he earned all the points necessary to get it. The same people who say that Kerry earned all of his awards (I mean the military gave them to him so they must be legitimate beyond any doubt) are the same people who claim Bush was AWOL from the National Guard. But Bush never would have gotten an honorable discharge if he had been AWOL. I will concede that Kerry earned his awards if people here will concede that Bush got an honorable discharge from the Guard - meaning that yes he did complete he service satisfactorily. In looking at this issue, you cannot claim one thing happened and then at the same time claim the other did not. In both cases you are assuming that the military in okaying Kerry's awards and Bush's honorable discharge were following standard and accepted practices.
Why would we have to necessarily accept the same conclusion for different situations?
Why would we have to necessarily accept the same conclusion for different situations?
Because all we really have in both cases is the fact that Kerry got his awards and Bush got his honorable discharge. Are you saying that in Kerry's case he definitely deserved his medals but Bush did not deserve his honorable discharge? Are you saying that the military was only being honest in Kerry's case but were part of some vast criminal conspiracy in approving Bush's honorable discharge from the Guard?
Because all we really have in both cases is the fact that Kerry got his awards and Bush got his honorable discharge. Are you saying that in Kerry's case he definitely deserved his medals but Bush did not deserve his honorable discharge? Are you saying that the military was only being honest in Kerry's case but were part of some vast criminal conspiracy in approving Bush's honorable discharge from the Guard?
There's no logical reason why I couldn't necessarily believe that. That view is made more appealing by the fact that Kerry actually did deserve his medals according to military standards while the claim that Bush deserved an honorable discharge is arguable at best. You could argue whether he deserved entrance into the National Guard to begin with... whether his father's political connections undeservingly got him in there ahead of other, less fortunate sons. That's certainly up for debate.
I brought Bill Clinton up because his situation is similar in that he parsed his words in a very similar manner and liberals have defended both men in a similar way.
No. Really. Clinton and Kerry have not parsed words in the same manner. Clinton lied to the American people and then under oath about an affair he'd had. Then he tried to weasel his way out of it.
John Kerry is a highly-decorated Vietnam veteran who, 30 years ago, threw his ribbons over the fence in a show of protest. He referred to the ribbons as medals, and even the Navy's own site indicates that the two term are used interchangeably. Everything I've read about this issue indicates that he used the terms interchangeably.
It is you and your fellow vulgarians who are parsing words here, and for no other reason than to slander the military record of a decorated Vietnam veteran.
Quote:
I was bringing context to this issue to show that this defense of Kerry was not an isolated case.
I don't recall anyone "defending" Clinton in the same way. Clinton lied. Those who defended him, I imagine, simply pointed out that he lied about an issue totally unrelated to anything he was being investigated for. The proper analogy would be if, in the process of investigating whether or not Kerry perjored himself in 1971, the Republicans catch him in a lie about whether or not he ate a hot dog that day.
This thread, and these tactics, are disgusting.
Quote:
Bringing him up clearly struck a nerve with you which I find amusing.
It struck a "nerve" only because Bill Clinton occupies such a central position in popular Republican ideology. He made the modern Republican party, which went from being highly fractured to rallying around their demonization of him. The problem with the party now is that it's spent so long attacking clinton that it doesn't know what else to do. And so people like you dredge up Clinton out of sheer habit.
Quote:
A lot of people who publicly defended the guy I suspect in private are glad he is gone because I have to say a lot of you looked very foolish defending somebody who was so clearly lying at the time.
You really ought to quit suspecting and supposing, because you look silly when you do it. Clinton served two terms in office, oversaw the greatest economic expansion and peacetime the country has ever seen, and did so while being subjected to the kind of rhetoric that is usually reserved for enemies of the state. He, his wife, and his young daughter were subject to some of the most appalling attacks in recent history. Did he deserve some of it? You bet. I'm no fan of Clinton other than that he was an articulate and masterful politician. Indeed, not every liberal liked Clinton.
Let me 'splain something to you: Clinton was a "New Democrat," which means that he was effectively a moderate Republican on most issues. Indeed, I've argued before that when he calls himself a liberal, he gives liberalism a bad name. I'd argue, actually, that the primary reason he was so vilified by the right was simply that he kept co-opting their agenda items and getting credit for getting them passed.
Quote:
This is not random made up stuff about Kerry.
Oh, but yes it was. This is a typical kind of Limbaugh tactic: suppose a hypothetical (yours was that he raced over to the army surplus to pick up some replacement ribbons) and then attack the opponent for the hypothetical. You did a great deal of supposing and probably-ing just a few posts ago and then turned around and attacked Kerry for what you supposed and probably-ed. You can't say now that you didn't. Don't try to parse words now, mate.
Quote:
The random made up stuff is the stuff the liberals are slinging about Bush's National Guard service. I have heard people have made claims that he was AWOL or that he showed up drunk for duty and that is the kind of stuff that is really irresponsible and not proven by the facts.
The fact remains (and you really ought not have brought this issue up--just as a debate tactic) that Bush cannot account for his missing year. All we have seen are pay stubs and a torn attendance sheet. That's it. He has yet to disclose fully his military records.
Quote:
Bush got an honorable discharge and the records show he earned all the points necessary to get it.
OK. But that still doesn't account for the missing year. Nor does it account for why no one in Alabama remembers him. Nor does it account for why he allowed himself to be grounded. Nor does it account for how he managed to get into the TANG to begin with. Nor does it account for how he got into the particular "champagne unit" he was assigned to.
Quote:
The same people who say that Kerry earned all of his awards (I mean the military gave them to him so they must be legitimate beyond any doubt) are the same people who claim Bush was AWOL from the National Guard. But Bush never would have gotten an honorable discharge if he had been AWOL.
Perhaps. Indeed, that's likely. Although we would both he foolish not to admit that Bush (and Kerry, too) come from powerful and influential families, both of which are fully capable of pulling strings when necessary. But that's neither here nor there. Bush earned his points and got out. Case closed.
Now let's all shut up about Kerry with these vulgar and disgusting allegations.
Quote:
I will concede that Kerry earned his awards if people here will concede that Bush got an honorable discharge from the Guard - meaning that yes he did complete he service satisfactorily.
That really isn't up for debate, and so there's nothing to concede. Kerry was awarded 3 purple hearts, a bronze star, and a silver star. It's idiotic to say that he wasn't.
And yes, I will gladly concede that Bush received an honorable discharge. Now where are the rest of his Military records?
Quote:
In looking at this issue, you cannot claim one thing happened and then at the same time claim the other did not. In both cases you are assuming that the military in okaying Kerry's awards and Bush's honorable discharge were following standard and accepted practices.
That's clever what you did right there. This yoking together of the two. You've successfully shifted the discussion away from trying to paint Kerry as a flip-flopping anti-American to a discussion of how "the military gave them both of their awards," which thus equates a highly-decorated Vietnam veteran with someone who simply didn't get kicked out of the TANG.
They are not the same.
I say again, this thread and this debate are disgusting.
No. Really. Clinton and Kerry have not parsed words in the same manner. Clinton lied to the American people and then under oath about an affair he'd had. Then he tried to weasel his way out of it.
John Kerry is a highly-decorated Vietnam veteran who, 30 years ago, threw his ribbons over the fence in a show of protest. He referred to the ribbons as medals, and even the Navy's own site indicates that the two term are used interchangeably. Everything I've read about this issue indicates that he used the terms interchangeably.
It is you and your fellow vulgarians who are parsing words here, and for no other reason than to slander the military record of a decorated Vietnam veteran.
I don't recall anyone "defending" Clinton in the same way. Clinton lied. Those who defended him, I imagine, simply pointed out that he lied about an issue totally unrelated to anything he was being investigated for. The proper analogy would be if, in the process of investigating whether or not Kerry perjored himself in 1971, the Republicans catch him in a lie about whether or not he ate a hot dog that day.
This thread, and these tactics, are disgusting.
It struck a "nerve" only because Bill Clinton occupies such a central position in popular Republican ideology. He made the modern Republican party, which went from being highly fractured to rallying around their demonization of him. The problem with the party now is that it's spent so long attacking clinton that it doesn't know what else to do. And so people like you dredge up Clinton out of sheer habit.
You really ought to quit suspecting and supposing, because you look silly when you do it. Clinton served two terms in office, oversaw the greatest economic expansion and peacetime the country has ever seen, and did so while being subjected to the kind of rhetoric that is usually reserved for enemies of the state. He, his wife, and his young daughter were subject to some of the most appalling attacks in recent history. Did he deserve some of it? You bet. I'm no fan of Clinton other than that he was an articulate and masterful politician. Indeed, not every liberal liked Clinton.
Let me 'splain something to you: Clinton was a "New Democrat," which means that he was effectively a moderate Republican on most issues. Indeed, I've argued before that when he calls himself a liberal, he gives liberalism a bad name. I'd argue, actually, that the primary reason he was so vilified by the right was simply that he kept co-opting their agenda items and getting credit for getting them passed.
Oh, but yes it was. This is a typical kind of Limbaugh tactic: suppose a hypothetical (yours was that he raced over to the army surplus to pick up some replacement ribbons) and then attack the opponent for the hypothetical. You did a great deal of supposing and probably-ing just a few posts ago and then turned around and attacked Kerry for what you supposed and probably-ed. You can't say now that you didn't. Don't try to parse words now, mate.
The fact remains (and you really ought not have brought this issue up--just as a debate tactic) that Bush cannot account for his missing year. All we have seen are pay stubs and a torn attendance sheet. That's it. He has yet to disclose fully his military records.
OK. But that still doesn't account for the missing year. Nor does it account for why no one in Alabama remembers him. Nor does it account for why he allowed himself to be grounded. Nor does it account for how he managed to get into the TANG to begin with. Nor does it account for how he got into the particular "champagne unit" he was assigned to.
Perhaps. Indeed, that's likely. Although we would both he foolish not to admit that Bush (and Kerry, too) come from powerful and influential families, both of which are fully capable of pulling strings when necessary. But that's neither here nor there. Bush earned his points and got out. Case closed.
Now let's all shut up about Kerry with these vulgar and disgusting allegations.
That really isn't up for debate, and so there's nothing to concede. Kerry was awarded 3 purple hearts, a bronze star, and a silver star. It's idiotic to say that he wasn't.
And yes, I will gladly concede that Bush received an honorable discharge. Now where are the rest of his Military records?
That's clever what you did right there. This yoking together of the two. You've successfully shifted the discussion away from trying to paint Kerry as a flip-flopping anti-American to a discussion of how "the military gave them both of their awards," which thus equates a highly-decorated Vietnam veteran with someone who simply didn't get kicked out of the TANG.
They are not the same.
I say again, this thread and this debate are disgusting.
Bush has released far more records related to his military service than Kerry has. And some of what Kerry released already related to somebody else's service - not his own.
If Bush got an honorable discharge why is the release of these alleged missing records (if they truly exist as you claim) relevant? You guys are not arguing that Kerry needs to release his complete service record so why harp on Bush when the bottom line is that he completed his service and got his honorable discharge? Why are you trying to make a story out of nothing? Kerry himself in 1992 said (and I am paraphrasing here) that people served in different ways and it was time to move on from the issue of who served in Vietnam and who did not.
Bush allowed himself to be grounded because he was taking an interest in civic affairs and was pursuing his interests in being a campaign manager for somebody running for U.S. Senate. Bush's superiors were satisfied with his actions here and were happy to accomodate his request as they felt he would represent the Guard very positively in this capacity. At this time as the Vietnam war was winding down there was a large surplus of pilots in the National Guard and the active duty military and more often than not a pilot's request to pursue other obligations was granted.
I can say without reservation that the attacks on Bush from the left rival anything we saw during Clinton's two terms. The fact of the matter is Clinton perjured himself and engaged in conduct unbecoming of the President of the United States. All these accusations that Bush lied and misled the nation about Iraq are nothing more than unsubstantiated allegations that are not supported by the facts. Perhaps our intelligence was not as good as it should have been but you all are being very presumptuous in laying that solely at the President's feet. There were a ton of people out there that thought we would find WMD in Iraq and I am still not convinced that we can close the book on that issue as of yet. The Clintons gave conservatives plenty of ammunition with all of the ethical lapses they displayed over an eight year period and as such bare an awesome responsibility for the nastiness that ensued. Your assertion that Chelsea Clinton was the subject of vicious attacks as well leave me a bit confused as I do not recall anything negative that was said about her. Maybe you are confusing the "vast right-wing conspiracy" with the supermarket tabloids which don't seem to have any political leanings at all as they seem to be equal opportunity slanderers.
Did you know that the manner in which Bush "allowed himself to be grounded" (great phrasing, HAHA) is ordinarily followed by an in depth investigation which then result in some form of disciplinary action taken against said self-grounding pilot?
What about that? Where are those records? where is the investigation?
Why only partial and thouroughly vetted records?
These "attacks" are so far from what was thrown at Clinton it is amazing . . . the circumstances are driving these questions, whereas Clinton's "Whitewater Affair" was purely fiction!
It shouldn't be partisan to ask these question of the man leading our troops: he escaped duty through nefarious means not beffitting a soldier much less commander in chief . . . or did he? and that is the question.
Quote:
Kerry himself in 1992 said (and I am paraphrasing here) that people served in different ways and it was time to move on from the issue of who served in Vietnam and who did not.
Now why would that seem to come from your mouth all of a sudden?
faced with the obvious discrepency between attacking someone who both fought valorously and then had the courage to put himself forward for what he believed on one hand, and, someone who silver-spooned his way through state paid flying lessons in the "Champagne Squadron" and then may or may not have missed years of service, but definitly failed to take a required exam to keep flying, on the other hand? . . . .
could that discrepency suddenly make it feel like thirty years ago?
I will be looking forward to hearing what Kerry has to say should he accept the invitation. Maybe he will actually provide some insight into what he plans to do to protect the nation from outside threats and what he plans to do differently in Iraq. He has really said very little about this and what he has said has been very vague and very short of details about how he plans to implement his strategies. I saw a large portion of Cheney's speech and what he said about Kerry was quite correct. I don't see how Kerry is going to get greater international involvement in Iraq when he has basically downplayed and outright trashed the efforts of those who are with us already as being nothing more than "window dressing." That is hardly the way to treat allies who are standing by us.
Certainly he can do a better job than Bush did. As far as Iraq goes the milk's been spilled.We now have a big problem there that won't go away ( no matter what Bush says ) for years. As far as our allies go Bush has pissed most of them off by his actions.
As far as how Bush can handle things I only have to ask one question to settle that : Where's the WOMD?
Certainly he can do a better job than Bush did. As far as Iraq goes the milk's been spilled.We now have a big problem there that won't go away ( no matter what Bush says ) for years. As far as our allies go Bush has pissed most of them off by his actions.
As far as how Bush can handle things I only have to ask one question to settle that : Where's the WOMD?
Your assertion that Chelsea Clinton was the subject of vicious attacks as well leave me a bit confused as I do not recall anything negative that was said about her. Maybe you are confusing the "vast right-wing conspiracy" with the supermarket tabloids which don't seem to have any political leanings at all as they seem to be equal opportunity slanderers.
You must not've watched rush LImbaugh's television show, then. Let me take you waaaaay back to 1993, when Chelsea Clinton was twelve years old:
"Everyone knows the Clintons have a cat. Socks is the White House cat. But did you know there is a White House dog?" With that, Limbaugh held up a picture of Chelsea Clinton, then a well-liked, 12-year-old girl whose political career at the time consisted of her grade-school civics class." (source)
Bush has released far more records related to his military service than Kerry has. And some of what Kerry released already related to somebody else's service - not his own.
If Bush got an honorable discharge why is the release of these alleged missing records (if they truly exist as you claim) relevant?
Because I want to see them. And if he doesn't release them, he's clearly got something to hide.
See how that works? Fun, isn't it!
Quote:
You guys are not arguing that Kerry needs to release his complete service record so why harp on Bush when the bottom line is that he completed his service and got his honorable discharge?
I don't know what "guys" you're talking about. No one here, to my knowledge, argued that Kerry shouldn't release his records. If he's going to make it an issue, which he has, he ought to make them public.
Quote:
Why are you trying to make a story out of nothing?
Because, in the case of Bush, we won't know whether or not it's "nothing" until we get the records. Just because you say it's nothing doesn't mean it's nothing.
Quote:
Kerry himself in 1992 said (and I am paraphrasing here) that people served in different ways and it was time to move on from the issue of who served in Vietnam and who did not.
Indeed. This is *exactly* the line that the Bush campaign needs to use, because they're going to continue to get their asses kicked if they keep on trying to attack Kerry on the grounds that he didn't get enough medals when they can't even prove that their candidate showed up for air national guard duty.
More later. Kerry's on Hardball tonight, everyone. I'm personally waiting for some flamethrower, gauntlet-throwing nastiness.
Indeed. This is *exactly* the line that the Bush campaign needs to use, because they're going to continue to get their asses kicked if they keep on trying to attack Kerry on the grounds that he didn't get enough medals when they can't even prove that their candidate showed up for air national guard duty.
I think maybe the Republicans would like to set a new standard for being injured in combat: you're not really a patriot unless you lose a limb or two.
Comments
Originally posted by midwinter
Because he didn't. Maybe he should be asked that. I for one would like to hear his answer.
No. And neither do you, so don't pretend that you do.
"Probably." I love it. In other words, you're suggesting that "probably" Kerry chunked his ribbons over the fence and then high-tailed it to the army surplus to pick up a few replacements? Care to back that up?
Maybe he didn't throw the medals themselves away because he left them at home that day? Maybe he kept them because his parents and family wanted him to keep them, despite his political feelings?
This "penchant" is up for debate, and thus you use one entirely made up position and a debatable "penchant" to support a conclusion that is as wrong-headed as it is disgusting.
You really ought to give up this game, since you're just digging deeper hole. You're "sure he was probably"? Make up your mind. You're either positive about something you can't possibly know or you're just making things up to support an indefensible position.
But let's play the game: there were lots of vets who only tossed their ribbons. Were they also being dishonest? Each and every one of them? Every vet who opposed the war and didn't throw his actual medals onto the steps of Congress is dishonest? Is a liar?
I love it. Let me ask you this:
If he were being so openly dishonest with his "anti-war colleagues" (you make it sound like a group of 5-6 guys), do you really think they would have allowed him to keep the position of leadership that he did? You don't think someone would've said something before now?
This is a weak and vulgar argument, and you should be ashamed of yourself for making it. There are a great many issues on which Kerry might rightfully be attacked; this isn't one of them.
Please note again that the ribbons are actually called medals.
I say again that this thread is shameful.
Sigh... You are all missing the point. What amuses me is how all of you are so willing to accept all these tortured explanations from Kerry and Clinton that attempt to explain away what really happened in their particular situations. I detest people who parse their words so much when they are caught in a compromising situation - it is just embarrassing to watch. Why can't they just admit that they were wrong? I would have more respect for Kerry if had done that from the very beginning but this half-assed manner in which he tries to explain what was an obvious gaff on his part is what makes people question his honesty. In a political campaign, credibility is pretty much everything. If you cannot believe anything a guy says most people will never vote for him. I cannot believe people like you are willing to accept these lame explanations from him about this issue. He was definitely grandstanding on this medal throwing thing and he went on TV to talk about it. He definitely left the impression to the viewers that he through his medals away PERMANENTLY and was more than happy to do it to protest what he saw as an unjust war. He certainly gave no impression in that interview that he valued those awards and that he planned on keeping them. That to me is being dishonest and misleading.
A lot of you here hate President Bush and that is fine. But at least he gives the voters a clear choice. You know where he stands on the issues and he does not waver from his views. If he does not support your issues and you don't agree with his stances on the issues than he is not your man and you won't vote for him. Kerry on the other hand is the typical politician who tries to be things to all people and ends up satisfying only a small number of them. How do you know what he says today will be what he believes tomorrow or two months from now? How do you know that he won't sell you out? Just be careful of what you wish for...
A LOT of Vietnam veterans are still pissed at Kerry for throwing away the awards and for making those contoversial statements (which he now has backing away from considerbly since then) he made under oath in that 1971 Senate hearing and they earned their right to disagree with his position. Does that make their stance vulgar? I am not the only one who has questions about Kerry's integrity and there are a lot of people out there that served as long or longer than Kerry in that terrible war who have the same tough questions. We still had troops on the ground in Vietnam at the time he made those outrageous statements and that is one of the things that upsets a lot of veterans the most. Kerry went to Vietnam and he served. I am thankful for his service but this does not somehow give him carte blanche from answering questions about what he did after he came back from Vietnam. You can actually be a war hero and still have no integrity or credibility. A man's life is not defined by one thing in particular - it is the sum total of what he has done during the course of a lifetime.
One other Kerry inconsistency for you is this: in 1992, as Democratic candidate Bill Clinton faced criticism for avoiding service in Vietnam, Kerry said, "We do not need to divide America over who served and how. I have personally always believed that many served in many different ways."
Gee, what a change he has had in his position since then. Considering the fact that Kerry has now gone on the offensive against Bush regarding his National Guard service then one cannot help but point out the hypocrisy here. Are we beginning to notice a distinct pattern with this guy?
Originally posted by addabox
Real patriots care enough about America to criticize her mistakes and work to correct them.
On the face of this statement, I can agree, however, the way it is used to defend bad behavior here is wrong.
First, trying to frame yourself as a "real patriot" by making this statement is pathetic. To imply that just the fact that you criticize GWB and Co. makes you a patriot, only manifests self-righteousness. This is especially true in light of the fact that it seems only to be republicans at fault. Your criticisms are purely political and not motivated at righting any common wrong.
Second, the wrongs that you claim to want to fix are viewed by the majority of your countrymen as right.
Thirdly, criticism comes in many forms, some produce positive results. Constructive criticism is the kind that helps people progress and solve problems. I see only destructive language being used against this president and hence against the government. How is that helping the greater good?
I have heard that argument so many times when certain people have nothing else to add. These people are assuming a lot to call themselves patriots for simply trying to destroy people they don't agree with politically, or in the case of JFKerry to simply further his political career.
Originally posted by 7E7
Sigh... You are all missing the point.
No. We're really not. And considering you just made up a bunch of random stuff about Kerry and then tried to use it to smear him hardly puts you in the position to take the moral high ground with that "sigh."
What amuses me is how all of you are so willing to accept all these tortured explanations from Kerry and Clinton
Whu? huh? where the hell did CLINTON come in? You guys just can't believe that he's not in office any more. Jesus. I'm ready to vote his sorry ass back in just so you guys will stop derailing every political debate by bringing up some president who's not in office.
I detest people who parse their words so much when they are caught in a compromising situation - it is just embarrassing to watch.
Yes it is. Weapons of mass destruction program related activities....
I don't have time for the rest of this, since I need to get to the office. Hopefully later this afternoon.
Cheers
Scott
"From what I could observe firsthand about Friday, April 23, 1971, Kerry did not make even the slightest effort to pretend that he was throwing all of his military decorations over that fence. He did what he did in plain view, and in my case in the view of someone close enough to kick him in the shins. It was clear to me that Kerry had arrived here with only the ribbons he wore on his shirt -- which, by the way, were referred to as 'medals' by the late Stuart Symington of Missouri, one of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee members present for his famous antiwar statement ... It was clear from our conversations back then and ever since that Kerry made no distinction among his various decorations, though others have ..."
"I have always found the political junk served up by Kerry's detractors to be undignified as well as largely inaccurate. I write now because the political junk is much higher profile now, though no less misleading -- and not, by the way, because in her fourth job in the public arena, my daughter just joined Kerry's staff. I just happened to be there that long-ago day. I saw what happened and heard what Kerry said and know what he meant. The truth happens to be with him."
Originally posted by NaplesX
On the face of this statement, I can agree, however, the way it is used to defend bad behavior here is wrong.
First, trying to frame yourself as a "real patriot" by making this statement is pathetic. To imply that just the fact that you criticize GWB and Co. makes you a patriot, only manifests self-righteousness. This is especially true in light of the fact that it seems only to be republicans at fault. Your criticisms are purely political and not motivated at righting any common wrong.
Second, the wrongs that you claim to want to fix are viewed by the majority of your countrymen as right.
Thirdly, criticism comes in many forms, some produce positive results. Constructive criticism is the kind that helps people progress and solve problems. I see only destructive language being used against this president and hence against the government. How is that helping the greater good?
I have heard that argument so many times when certain people have nothing else to add. These people are assuming a lot to call themselves patriots for simply trying to destroy people they don't agree with politically, or in the case of JFKerry to simply further his political career.
Context, daddy-o.
The context is Kerry. Kerry is being accused of being "anti-American" because his experience in Vietnam turned him against the way that war was being prosecuted. He was certainly not alone in that, as before it was all said and done the majority of Americans had come to the same conclusion.
Republican strategists would clearly like to conflate Vietnam with the WOT, and imply that being against that war then = "soft on terror" now.
One way to do this is the usual politically expedient "either you're for us or against us", with no allowance being made for changing circumstances or the passage of time.
Since Kerry's positions have changed, and (surprise surprise) vary according to the specific circumstance, the charge is also leveled that he is a "flip-flopper"; i.e. capable of responding differently to differing times and places.
On top of that, we have the sorry spectacle of the right attempting to neutralize any perceived advantage Kerry might enjoy over Bush on the military service thing by spreading FUD in re the man's service record.
So now all of you good right wing thugs are in the attractive position of belittling someone who willingly put their life on the line in service to their country (unless you want to start to parse the whole idea of "where where is" and insinuate he wasn't really ever in Vietnam because some character flaw disqualifies Kerry from ever being anywhere, really) while you champion a man who has never taken responsibility for anything in his life.
It's all about character, right? No it's not. Not a one of you give a flying shit about character. It's about politics, and winning, and being on the winning team, and shoving your defeated enemy's face in the dirt.
Gore: a "serial liar" who "would say anything to get elected". Not a word about policy, or the direction of the country.
Kerry: a "flip-flopper" who will "say anything to get elected". Not a word about policy, or the direction of the country.
Just win, baby.
Originally posted by midwinter
No. We're really not. And considering you just made up a bunch of random stuff about Kerry and then tried to use it to smear him hardly puts you in the position to take the moral high ground with that "sigh."
Whu? huh? where the hell did CLINTON come in? You guys just can't believe that he's not in office any more. Jesus. I'm ready to vote his sorry ass back in just so you guys will stop derailing every political debate by bringing up some president who's not in office.
Yes it is. Weapons of mass destruction program related activities....
I don't have time for the rest of this, since I need to get to the office. Hopefully later this afternoon.
Cheers
Scott
I brought Bill Clinton up because his situation is similar in that he parsed his words in a very similar manner and liberals have defended both men in a similar way. I was bringing context to this issue to show that this defense of Kerry was not an isolated case. Bringing him up clearly struck a nerve with you which I find amusing. A lot of people who publicly defended the guy I suspect in private are glad he is gone because I have to say a lot of you looked very foolish defending somebody who was so clearly lying at the time.
This is not random made up stuff about Kerry. The random made up stuff is the stuff the liberals are slinging about Bush's National Guard service. I have heard people have made claims that he was AWOL or that he showed up drunk for duty and that is the kind of stuff that is really irresponsible and not proven by the facts. Bush got an honorable discharge and the records show he earned all the points necessary to get it. The same people who say that Kerry earned all of his awards (I mean the military gave them to him so they must be legitimate beyond any doubt) are the same people who claim Bush was AWOL from the National Guard. But Bush never would have gotten an honorable discharge if he had been AWOL. I will concede that Kerry earned his awards if people here will concede that Bush got an honorable discharge from the Guard - meaning that yes he did complete he service satisfactorily. In looking at this issue, you cannot claim one thing happened and then at the same time claim the other did not. In both cases you are assuming that the military in okaying Kerry's awards and Bush's honorable discharge were following standard and accepted practices.
Originally posted by jimmac
Here's a little something else relating to this situation.....http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/....ap/index.html
I will be looking forward to hearing what Kerry has to say should he accept the invitation. Maybe he will actually provide some insight into what he plans to do to protect the nation from outside threats and what he plans to do differently in Iraq. He has really said very little about this and what he has said has been very vague and very short of details about how he plans to implement his strategies. I saw a large portion of Cheney's speech and what he said about Kerry was quite correct. I don't see how Kerry is going to get greater international involvement in Iraq when he has basically downplayed and outright trashed the efforts of those who are with us already as being nothing more than "window dressing." That is hardly the way to treat allies who are standing by us.
Originally posted by 7E7
I brought Bill Clinton up because his situation is similar in that he parsed his words in a very similar manner and liberals have defended both men in a similar way. I was bringing context to this issue to show that this defense of Kerry was not an isolated case. Bringing him up clearly struck a nerve with you which I find amusing. A lot of people who publicly defended the guy I suspect in private are glad he is gone because I have to say a lot of you looked very foolish defending somebody who was so clearly lying at the time.
This is not random made up stuff about Kerry. The random made up stuff is the stuff the liberals are slinging about Bush's National Guard service. I have heard people have made claims that he was AWOL or that he showed up drunk for duty and that is the kind of stuff that is really irresponsible and not proven by the facts. Bush got an honorable discharge and the records show he earned all the points necessary to get it. The same people who say that Kerry earned all of his awards (I mean the military gave them to him so they must be legitimate beyond any doubt) are the same people who claim Bush was AWOL from the National Guard. But Bush never would have gotten an honorable discharge if he had been AWOL. I will concede that Kerry earned his awards if people here will concede that Bush got an honorable discharge from the Guard - meaning that yes he did complete he service satisfactorily. In looking at this issue, you cannot claim one thing happened and then at the same time claim the other did not. In both cases you are assuming that the military in okaying Kerry's awards and Bush's honorable discharge were following standard and accepted practices.
Why would we have to necessarily accept the same conclusion for different situations?
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Why would we have to necessarily accept the same conclusion for different situations?
Because all we really have in both cases is the fact that Kerry got his awards and Bush got his honorable discharge. Are you saying that in Kerry's case he definitely deserved his medals but Bush did not deserve his honorable discharge? Are you saying that the military was only being honest in Kerry's case but were part of some vast criminal conspiracy in approving Bush's honorable discharge from the Guard?
Originally posted by 7E7
Because all we really have in both cases is the fact that Kerry got his awards and Bush got his honorable discharge. Are you saying that in Kerry's case he definitely deserved his medals but Bush did not deserve his honorable discharge? Are you saying that the military was only being honest in Kerry's case but were part of some vast criminal conspiracy in approving Bush's honorable discharge from the Guard?
There's no logical reason why I couldn't necessarily believe that. That view is made more appealing by the fact that Kerry actually did deserve his medals according to military standards while the claim that Bush deserved an honorable discharge is arguable at best. You could argue whether he deserved entrance into the National Guard to begin with... whether his father's political connections undeservingly got him in there ahead of other, less fortunate sons. That's certainly up for debate.
Originally posted by 7E7
I brought Bill Clinton up because his situation is similar in that he parsed his words in a very similar manner and liberals have defended both men in a similar way.
No. Really. Clinton and Kerry have not parsed words in the same manner. Clinton lied to the American people and then under oath about an affair he'd had. Then he tried to weasel his way out of it.
John Kerry is a highly-decorated Vietnam veteran who, 30 years ago, threw his ribbons over the fence in a show of protest. He referred to the ribbons as medals, and even the Navy's own site indicates that the two term are used interchangeably. Everything I've read about this issue indicates that he used the terms interchangeably.
It is you and your fellow vulgarians who are parsing words here, and for no other reason than to slander the military record of a decorated Vietnam veteran.
I was bringing context to this issue to show that this defense of Kerry was not an isolated case.
I don't recall anyone "defending" Clinton in the same way. Clinton lied. Those who defended him, I imagine, simply pointed out that he lied about an issue totally unrelated to anything he was being investigated for. The proper analogy would be if, in the process of investigating whether or not Kerry perjored himself in 1971, the Republicans catch him in a lie about whether or not he ate a hot dog that day.
This thread, and these tactics, are disgusting.
Bringing him up clearly struck a nerve with you which I find amusing.
It struck a "nerve" only because Bill Clinton occupies such a central position in popular Republican ideology. He made the modern Republican party, which went from being highly fractured to rallying around their demonization of him. The problem with the party now is that it's spent so long attacking clinton that it doesn't know what else to do. And so people like you dredge up Clinton out of sheer habit.
A lot of people who publicly defended the guy I suspect in private are glad he is gone because I have to say a lot of you looked very foolish defending somebody who was so clearly lying at the time.
You really ought to quit suspecting and supposing, because you look silly when you do it. Clinton served two terms in office, oversaw the greatest economic expansion and peacetime the country has ever seen, and did so while being subjected to the kind of rhetoric that is usually reserved for enemies of the state. He, his wife, and his young daughter were subject to some of the most appalling attacks in recent history. Did he deserve some of it? You bet. I'm no fan of Clinton other than that he was an articulate and masterful politician. Indeed, not every liberal liked Clinton.
Let me 'splain something to you: Clinton was a "New Democrat," which means that he was effectively a moderate Republican on most issues. Indeed, I've argued before that when he calls himself a liberal, he gives liberalism a bad name. I'd argue, actually, that the primary reason he was so vilified by the right was simply that he kept co-opting their agenda items and getting credit for getting them passed.
This is not random made up stuff about Kerry.
Oh, but yes it was. This is a typical kind of Limbaugh tactic: suppose a hypothetical (yours was that he raced over to the army surplus to pick up some replacement ribbons) and then attack the opponent for the hypothetical. You did a great deal of supposing and probably-ing just a few posts ago and then turned around and attacked Kerry for what you supposed and probably-ed. You can't say now that you didn't. Don't try to parse words now, mate.
The random made up stuff is the stuff the liberals are slinging about Bush's National Guard service. I have heard people have made claims that he was AWOL or that he showed up drunk for duty and that is the kind of stuff that is really irresponsible and not proven by the facts.
The fact remains (and you really ought not have brought this issue up--just as a debate tactic) that Bush cannot account for his missing year. All we have seen are pay stubs and a torn attendance sheet. That's it. He has yet to disclose fully his military records.
Bush got an honorable discharge and the records show he earned all the points necessary to get it.
OK. But that still doesn't account for the missing year. Nor does it account for why no one in Alabama remembers him. Nor does it account for why he allowed himself to be grounded. Nor does it account for how he managed to get into the TANG to begin with. Nor does it account for how he got into the particular "champagne unit" he was assigned to.
The same people who say that Kerry earned all of his awards (I mean the military gave them to him so they must be legitimate beyond any doubt) are the same people who claim Bush was AWOL from the National Guard. But Bush never would have gotten an honorable discharge if he had been AWOL.
Perhaps. Indeed, that's likely. Although we would both he foolish not to admit that Bush (and Kerry, too) come from powerful and influential families, both of which are fully capable of pulling strings when necessary. But that's neither here nor there. Bush earned his points and got out. Case closed.
Now let's all shut up about Kerry with these vulgar and disgusting allegations.
I will concede that Kerry earned his awards if people here will concede that Bush got an honorable discharge from the Guard - meaning that yes he did complete he service satisfactorily.
That really isn't up for debate, and so there's nothing to concede. Kerry was awarded 3 purple hearts, a bronze star, and a silver star. It's idiotic to say that he wasn't.
And yes, I will gladly concede that Bush received an honorable discharge. Now where are the rest of his Military records?
In looking at this issue, you cannot claim one thing happened and then at the same time claim the other did not. In both cases you are assuming that the military in okaying Kerry's awards and Bush's honorable discharge were following standard and accepted practices.
That's clever what you did right there. This yoking together of the two. You've successfully shifted the discussion away from trying to paint Kerry as a flip-flopping anti-American to a discussion of how "the military gave them both of their awards," which thus equates a highly-decorated Vietnam veteran with someone who simply didn't get kicked out of the TANG.
They are not the same.
I say again, this thread and this debate are disgusting.
Originally posted by midwinter
No. Really. Clinton and Kerry have not parsed words in the same manner. Clinton lied to the American people and then under oath about an affair he'd had. Then he tried to weasel his way out of it.
John Kerry is a highly-decorated Vietnam veteran who, 30 years ago, threw his ribbons over the fence in a show of protest. He referred to the ribbons as medals, and even the Navy's own site indicates that the two term are used interchangeably. Everything I've read about this issue indicates that he used the terms interchangeably.
It is you and your fellow vulgarians who are parsing words here, and for no other reason than to slander the military record of a decorated Vietnam veteran.
I don't recall anyone "defending" Clinton in the same way. Clinton lied. Those who defended him, I imagine, simply pointed out that he lied about an issue totally unrelated to anything he was being investigated for. The proper analogy would be if, in the process of investigating whether or not Kerry perjored himself in 1971, the Republicans catch him in a lie about whether or not he ate a hot dog that day.
This thread, and these tactics, are disgusting.
It struck a "nerve" only because Bill Clinton occupies such a central position in popular Republican ideology. He made the modern Republican party, which went from being highly fractured to rallying around their demonization of him. The problem with the party now is that it's spent so long attacking clinton that it doesn't know what else to do. And so people like you dredge up Clinton out of sheer habit.
You really ought to quit suspecting and supposing, because you look silly when you do it. Clinton served two terms in office, oversaw the greatest economic expansion and peacetime the country has ever seen, and did so while being subjected to the kind of rhetoric that is usually reserved for enemies of the state. He, his wife, and his young daughter were subject to some of the most appalling attacks in recent history. Did he deserve some of it? You bet. I'm no fan of Clinton other than that he was an articulate and masterful politician. Indeed, not every liberal liked Clinton.
Let me 'splain something to you: Clinton was a "New Democrat," which means that he was effectively a moderate Republican on most issues. Indeed, I've argued before that when he calls himself a liberal, he gives liberalism a bad name. I'd argue, actually, that the primary reason he was so vilified by the right was simply that he kept co-opting their agenda items and getting credit for getting them passed.
Oh, but yes it was. This is a typical kind of Limbaugh tactic: suppose a hypothetical (yours was that he raced over to the army surplus to pick up some replacement ribbons) and then attack the opponent for the hypothetical. You did a great deal of supposing and probably-ing just a few posts ago and then turned around and attacked Kerry for what you supposed and probably-ed. You can't say now that you didn't. Don't try to parse words now, mate.
The fact remains (and you really ought not have brought this issue up--just as a debate tactic) that Bush cannot account for his missing year. All we have seen are pay stubs and a torn attendance sheet. That's it. He has yet to disclose fully his military records.
OK. But that still doesn't account for the missing year. Nor does it account for why no one in Alabama remembers him. Nor does it account for why he allowed himself to be grounded. Nor does it account for how he managed to get into the TANG to begin with. Nor does it account for how he got into the particular "champagne unit" he was assigned to.
Perhaps. Indeed, that's likely. Although we would both he foolish not to admit that Bush (and Kerry, too) come from powerful and influential families, both of which are fully capable of pulling strings when necessary. But that's neither here nor there. Bush earned his points and got out. Case closed.
Now let's all shut up about Kerry with these vulgar and disgusting allegations.
That really isn't up for debate, and so there's nothing to concede. Kerry was awarded 3 purple hearts, a bronze star, and a silver star. It's idiotic to say that he wasn't.
And yes, I will gladly concede that Bush received an honorable discharge. Now where are the rest of his Military records?
That's clever what you did right there. This yoking together of the two. You've successfully shifted the discussion away from trying to paint Kerry as a flip-flopping anti-American to a discussion of how "the military gave them both of their awards," which thus equates a highly-decorated Vietnam veteran with someone who simply didn't get kicked out of the TANG.
They are not the same.
I say again, this thread and this debate are disgusting.
Bush has released far more records related to his military service than Kerry has. And some of what Kerry released already related to somebody else's service - not his own.
If Bush got an honorable discharge why is the release of these alleged missing records (if they truly exist as you claim) relevant? You guys are not arguing that Kerry needs to release his complete service record so why harp on Bush when the bottom line is that he completed his service and got his honorable discharge? Why are you trying to make a story out of nothing? Kerry himself in 1992 said (and I am paraphrasing here) that people served in different ways and it was time to move on from the issue of who served in Vietnam and who did not.
Bush allowed himself to be grounded because he was taking an interest in civic affairs and was pursuing his interests in being a campaign manager for somebody running for U.S. Senate. Bush's superiors were satisfied with his actions here and were happy to accomodate his request as they felt he would represent the Guard very positively in this capacity. At this time as the Vietnam war was winding down there was a large surplus of pilots in the National Guard and the active duty military and more often than not a pilot's request to pursue other obligations was granted.
I can say without reservation that the attacks on Bush from the left rival anything we saw during Clinton's two terms. The fact of the matter is Clinton perjured himself and engaged in conduct unbecoming of the President of the United States. All these accusations that Bush lied and misled the nation about Iraq are nothing more than unsubstantiated allegations that are not supported by the facts. Perhaps our intelligence was not as good as it should have been but you all are being very presumptuous in laying that solely at the President's feet. There were a ton of people out there that thought we would find WMD in Iraq and I am still not convinced that we can close the book on that issue as of yet. The Clintons gave conservatives plenty of ammunition with all of the ethical lapses they displayed over an eight year period and as such bare an awesome responsibility for the nastiness that ensued. Your assertion that Chelsea Clinton was the subject of vicious attacks as well leave me a bit confused as I do not recall anything negative that was said about her. Maybe you are confusing the "vast right-wing conspiracy" with the supermarket tabloids which don't seem to have any political leanings at all as they seem to be equal opportunity slanderers.
What about that? Where are those records? where is the investigation?
Why only partial and thouroughly vetted records?
These "attacks" are so far from what was thrown at Clinton it is amazing . . . the circumstances are driving these questions, whereas Clinton's "Whitewater Affair" was purely fiction!
It shouldn't be partisan to ask these question of the man leading our troops: he escaped duty through nefarious means not beffitting a soldier much less commander in chief . . . or did he? and that is the question.
Kerry himself in 1992 said (and I am paraphrasing here) that people served in different ways and it was time to move on from the issue of who served in Vietnam and who did not.
Now why would that seem to come from your mouth all of a sudden?
faced with the obvious discrepency between attacking someone who both fought valorously and then had the courage to put himself forward for what he believed on one hand, and, someone who silver-spooned his way through state paid flying lessons in the "Champagne Squadron" and then may or may not have missed years of service, but definitly failed to take a required exam to keep flying, on the other hand? . . . .
could that discrepency suddenly make it feel like thirty years ago?
Originally posted by 7E7
I will be looking forward to hearing what Kerry has to say should he accept the invitation. Maybe he will actually provide some insight into what he plans to do to protect the nation from outside threats and what he plans to do differently in Iraq. He has really said very little about this and what he has said has been very vague and very short of details about how he plans to implement his strategies. I saw a large portion of Cheney's speech and what he said about Kerry was quite correct. I don't see how Kerry is going to get greater international involvement in Iraq when he has basically downplayed and outright trashed the efforts of those who are with us already as being nothing more than "window dressing." That is hardly the way to treat allies who are standing by us.
Certainly he can do a better job than Bush did. As far as Iraq goes the milk's been spilled.We now have a big problem there that won't go away ( no matter what Bush says ) for years. As far as our allies go Bush has pissed most of them off by his actions.
As far as how Bush can handle things I only have to ask one question to settle that : Where's the WOMD?
Originally posted by jimmac
Certainly he can do a better job than Bush did. As far as Iraq goes the milk's been spilled.We now have a big problem there that won't go away ( no matter what Bush says ) for years. As far as our allies go Bush has pissed most of them off by his actions.
As far as how Bush can handle things I only have to ask one question to settle that : Where's the WOMD?
Prophecy? You be the judge.
Originally posted by 7E7
Your assertion that Chelsea Clinton was the subject of vicious attacks as well leave me a bit confused as I do not recall anything negative that was said about her. Maybe you are confusing the "vast right-wing conspiracy" with the supermarket tabloids which don't seem to have any political leanings at all as they seem to be equal opportunity slanderers.
You must not've watched rush LImbaugh's television show, then. Let me take you waaaaay back to 1993, when Chelsea Clinton was twelve years old:
"Everyone knows the Clintons have a cat. Socks is the White House cat. But did you know there is a White House dog?" With that, Limbaugh held up a picture of Chelsea Clinton, then a well-liked, 12-year-old girl whose political career at the time consisted of her grade-school civics class." (source)
More later. Must work.
Originally posted by 7E7
Bush has released far more records related to his military service than Kerry has. And some of what Kerry released already related to somebody else's service - not his own.
One more thing.
Back to work for me.
Originally posted by 7E7
If Bush got an honorable discharge why is the release of these alleged missing records (if they truly exist as you claim) relevant?
Because I want to see them. And if he doesn't release them, he's clearly got something to hide.
See how that works? Fun, isn't it!
You guys are not arguing that Kerry needs to release his complete service record so why harp on Bush when the bottom line is that he completed his service and got his honorable discharge?
I don't know what "guys" you're talking about. No one here, to my knowledge, argued that Kerry shouldn't release his records. If he's going to make it an issue, which he has, he ought to make them public.
Why are you trying to make a story out of nothing?
Because, in the case of Bush, we won't know whether or not it's "nothing" until we get the records. Just because you say it's nothing doesn't mean it's nothing.
Kerry himself in 1992 said (and I am paraphrasing here) that people served in different ways and it was time to move on from the issue of who served in Vietnam and who did not.
Indeed. This is *exactly* the line that the Bush campaign needs to use, because they're going to continue to get their asses kicked if they keep on trying to attack Kerry on the grounds that he didn't get enough medals when they can't even prove that their candidate showed up for air national guard duty.
More later. Kerry's on Hardball tonight, everyone. I'm personally waiting for some flamethrower, gauntlet-throwing nastiness.
Originally posted by midwinter
Indeed. This is *exactly* the line that the Bush campaign needs to use, because they're going to continue to get their asses kicked if they keep on trying to attack Kerry on the grounds that he didn't get enough medals when they can't even prove that their candidate showed up for air national guard duty.
I think maybe the Republicans would like to set a new standard for being injured in combat: you're not really a patriot unless you lose a limb or two.
Oh wait.