About that National Gaurd service thing again

135

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 85
    midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by johnq

    http://www.sid-ss.net/mil/bc-lettr.htm



    The timeline is accurate but disregard any biased commentary. Sources are cited for the factual stuff.



    Not sure what you mean about the Rhodes scholarship. Who cares how important or prestigious it is? He only was able to go to Oxford in the first place because preferential treatment at his local draft board gave him the time to go to Oxford.



    It's not as if he was at Oxford and then the war started.



    </offtopic>




    Damn it! I somehow managed to lose my first reply. Crap.



    What I mean about the Rhodes is that it is quite simply one of the most prestigious scholarships an American can receive (the other being the Marshall, which is a scholarship to Cambridge).



    To my understanding, Clinton simply got a draft deferment from his local board like many other people, and his, apparently, was an educational deferment (again, like many others).



    As for the timeline: applying for a Rhodes is a long and arduous process and takes around a year just to get to the finalist position. If Clinton was on his second year of his Rhodes when he wrote that letter, it is possible, then, that he knew he was a finalist three years prior to writing it.



    Your remark "who cares how important or prestigious it is" suggests that you actually don't know just how big of a deal it is to get one. It's not uncommon, I've found--especially among those who make a flippant remark about Clinton's "vacationing in England to avoid the draft." (Not that you said that; it's just the tenor of the typical complaint). There are so few Rhodes given out every year (only 32 from the entire college student population in the United States) that the odds of you knowing someone who got one--or who even applied--are slim. People often stare at me blankly when I point out that Clinton was a Rhodes scholar, which should explain his avoiding the draft. It is a once in a lifetime opportunity to get a free advanced degree (i.e. an M.phil) at one of, if not the, most respected and oldest universities in the world (Oxford's history as a university dates back nearly a thousand years).



    My point is this: even if his draft number hadn't come up, to argue--or even suggest--that he should simply give up his Rhodes and go to Vietnam to fight in a war he opposed is simply preposterous. Only the tiniest minority of Rhodes Scholars (if any at all) would do this.



    Not even Wesley Clark gave up his Rhodes, and he finished in '66.
  • Reply 42 of 85
    jubelumjubelum Posts: 4,490member
    Pfflam... excellent way to follow the talking points response to Kerry's little medal throwing problem. You are right in line.

  • Reply 43 of 85
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Jubelum

    Pfflam... excellent way to follow the talking points response to Kerry's little medal throwing problem. You are right in line.





    Unlike some here, I don't go to 'talking point' counsel to get my ideas.



    But thanks for recognizing my genius.
  • Reply 44 of 85
    curiousuburbcuriousuburb Posts: 3,325member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by pfflam

    SIDE BY SIDE



    Now that's what people should be reading when they want to compare records.
  • Reply 45 of 85
    7e77e7 Posts: 146member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by kneelbeforezod

    Source?







    You need a source for that? Give me a break...



    You must not know any Vietnam veterans then.
  • Reply 46 of 85
    7e77e7 Posts: 146member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by addabox

    And I regard people who denigrate those who saw combat and were wounded in service to their country as little more than treasonous dogs.



    It's clear that questioning the particulars of John Kerry's service record equals spitting on the honor of every person who served in the Navy, and that to do so is to declare oneself the enemy of these United States and a traitor.



    So can we drop this horse-shit "they besmirch the honor of the guard" now?




    Oh please... Spare us the drama.



    My biggest problem with John Kerry were his actions after he returned from Vietnam. He made statements that clearly were lies about alleged war crimes and atrocities he claimed to have seen (and in one quote from him I have seen he says he participated in atrocities) or that were related to him by others who served. He did this under oath in his testimony to the U.S. Senate in 1971. He has since backed away from those statements. Soon after returning from Vietnam Kerry wrote a book called the "New Soldier" in which the cover has people making a mockery of the famous WWII photo of U.S. Marines at Iwo Jima by raising the American flag upside down and this book goes on to lay out the war crimes he testified to in the Senate hearing. This is a book which Kerry does not want the American people to see now (it is so rare that it will fetch hundreds of dollars on eBay - if you can actually get a copy of it). You won't find any references to this book on his official campaign website. And you want to know why? Because he refuses to stand by what he wrote so to me his "deeply held convictions" about Vietnam that all these liberals on this forum admire so much are not worth a damn thing in my view. He has not stood by the things he said and he trashed the reputations of his fellow soldiers (many who were still over their serving their country when he did so) by making all those unsubstantiated claims about war crimes he heard about and allegedly saw. Then you have the ribbon/medal throwing thing which only further illustrates how opportunistic he is as a person. He wanted everybody to believe that he wanted nothing to do with the awards he won in an unjust and immoral war and all this time he kept his awards so he could later trot them out for display when being a Vietnam War hero became in vogue. As a person he has always wanted it both ways and that is conduct I find to be very distasteful and quite frankly disgusting.



    If you still think this is being unfair to someone who served his country then you are missing the point entirely. As I said in a previous post that I will refrain from questioning aspects of Kerry's service while he served in Vietnam. There certainly are unanswered questions about his record but I doubt that there is any way to prove or disprove the official record anymore than we can do likewise regarding Bush's National Guard service. There is no definitive evidence in either case that Kerry didn't earn his awards and that Bush did not satisfactorily complete his military commitment in the Guard. And you can say all you want about Kerry's service in Vietnam being more valuable than Bush's service in the National Guard and I will say that is your right to feel that way although I don't think it is fair to knock somebody who served his country in a different capacity - there are other ways to serve. Even a lot of members of the active duty military in that era did not go to Vietnam and I hardly think they are less valued members of our society than those who took part in the war.



    Unfortunately, Kerry really dropped the ball with his conduct afterwards by telling lies and sea stories about events that did not actually happen and that caused great pain for a lot of veterans of that war. Quite honestly, Kerry devalued his service to his country all by himself. If the stuff he had said had been proven true then he would have been a true patriot. But alas they were not and his admissions that what he said were "over the top" and exaggerations only shows a man that is incapable of telling the truth - especially when it really counts.
  • Reply 47 of 85
    7e77e7 Posts: 146member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by pfflam

    This is partisan misscharacterization.



    I think it should read:

    Plan for political future. Join up. Then risk your kife and get wounded enough to recieve medals of commendation. Fulfill the duty for which you willfully signed a contract. Experience what you feared was the case: the war was tragic and not the best course of action for America. Come home and stand up for what you believe, with the leverage of having seen first hand what was really going on.



    Kerry got a more difficult assignment than he expected, and he performed his duty beyond satisfactory. Doubts as to his performance arise only on ultra-right smear tabloids and web-sites. After a brief four monthes filled with enough 'Duty' to warrant medals the likes that Geo might get to glance at in history books, he managed an early out and went home.



    His is no disgrace.

    while on thr other hand . . . .





    SIDE BY SIDE




    Ah, yes. He came home and stood up for what he believed in. Too bad he lied about pretty much the whole thing and admits that he did so - he certainly is not standing by those comments anymore and he certainly isn't posting pages of "The New Soldier" on his official website so we can see and read about all the atrocities he claims to have seen and taken part in. Does one not find that odd that for a guy who practically bases his entire campaign on his service in Vietnam that all that stuff does not rate a single mention on his website? About the only reference I can find about John Kerry's immediate post-war conduct is that he is described as being a prominent member of the anti-war movenment. They sure are leaving out some important little details. As such I can see why you left that part out of your little spiel as well. I know it is not convenient for your argument but why let the facts get in the way of a good John Kerry lovefest, right?
  • Reply 48 of 85
    billybobskybillybobsky Posts: 1,914member
    This has to be quick as i need to get to work...



    7E7, sorry, what Kerry said was probably true about his experiences in Vietnam. Again, what vets feel with regard to war crimes etc has no relevance now or then. Being unaware of international law is not an excuse. What Kerry has backed down from was his language and the extreme position that he took (one that indefensibly claimed that almost everyone participated in a war crime, just as soldiers on the other side were indefensibly claiming that no soldiers committed war crimes). It doesn't mean there weren't war crimes committed, but it does mean that perhaps not everyone committed a war crime. Regardless, Kerry's claims were important for this nation to re-examine how we deal enemy civilians during war time... and that is something that no one seems to recognize.
  • Reply 49 of 85
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,464member
    I think Pfflam has fallen for, or perhaps is a part of George Bush's secret plan for reelection.



    Because while posts like this keep everyone discussing what happened 30 years ago. No one is discussing the ideas that Kerry could use TODAY to beat George Bush.



    So Pfflam and the others, you are either part of the plan or unwilling accomplices. You've wasted HOURS on here and no one knows one IOTA more about why they should choose Kerry over Bush. You can waste your time on minutia and who cares about it politically enough to change their vote, you can complain that the other side does it too, does it first, does it best, etc.



    Or, GASP, you could stop wasting time Bush Bashing (tm) and actually get on to discussing the IDEAS of John Kerry.



    That is of course assuming he has any.



    Nick
  • Reply 50 of 85
    billybobskybillybobsky Posts: 1,914member
    which is why trumpt kerry's site doesn't mention much at all about his life 30 years ago...



    we can distract you all too you know...
  • Reply 51 of 85
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,665member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by 7E7

    Oh please... Spare us the drama.



    Quote:

    Excellent observations, johnq. I agree with you - it makes me sick at how these people are denegrating people who served in the Guard. They ought to be ashamed of themselves.



    Um, right. Whatever you say...







    Quote:

    My biggest problem with John Kerry were his actions after he returned from Vietnam. He made statements that clearly were lies about alleged war crimes and atrocities he claimed to have seen (and in one quote from him I have seen he says he participated in atrocities) or that were related to him by others who served. He did this under oath in his testimony to the U.S. Senate in 1971.



    Except this is just a fantasy you keep repeating, without any substantiating evidence.





    Quote:

    He has since backed away from those statements. Soon after returning from Vietnam Kerry wrote a book called the "New Soldier" in which the cover has people making a mockery of the famous WWII photo of U.S. Marines at Iwo Jima by raising the American flag upside down and this book goes on to lay out the war crimes he testified to in the Senate hearing. This is a book which Kerry does not want the American people to see now (it is so rare that it will fetch hundreds of dollars on eBay - if you can actually get a copy of it). You won't find any references to this book on his official campaign website. And you want to know why? Because he refuses to stand by what he wrote so to me his "deeply held convictions" about Vietnam that all these liberals on this forum admire so much are not worth a damn thing in my view.



    And of course he is not allowed to have different opinions now than he did 30 years ago. Or are you of the opinion that each person gets to pick one set of "deeply held convictions" at the age of 20 and any variation thereafter is a sign of bad character? Anybody who hasn't evolved their beliefs in 30 years is an idiot, or the president.



    Quote:

    He has not stood by the things he said and he trashed the reputations of his fellow soldiers (many who were still over their serving their country when he did so) by making all those unsubstantiated claims about war crimes he heard about and allegedly saw. Then you have the ribbon/medal throwing thing which only further illustrates how opportunistic he is as a person. He wanted everybody to believe that he wanted nothing to do with the awards he won in an unjust and immoral war and all this time he kept his awards so he could later trot them out for display when being a Vietnam War hero became in vogue. As a person he has always wanted it both ways and that is conduct I find to be very distasteful and quite frankly disgusting.



    Well, I'm sure we're all very impressed with your "frank disgust", but since it requires you to believe things that aren't true I'm not sure how much sympathy I can afford. He didn't "slander" "soldiers", he told of his experience and shared the experience of soldiers he served with. He stood up and read the accounts of men who were there, and were haunted by their actions. Only a stone headed fool would continue to insist that 'Nam was an ennobling war and it's critics are somehow out of line, particularly when that critic was in a position to know what he was talking about, having been there.



    Quote:

    If you still think this is being unfair to someone who served his country then you are missing the point entirely. As I said in a previous post that I will refrain from questioning aspects of Kerry's service while he served in Vietnam. There certainly are unanswered questions about his record but I doubt that there is any way to prove or disprove the official record anymore than we can do likewise regarding Bush's National Guard service. There is no definitive evidence in either case that Kerry didn't earn his awards and that Bush did not satisfactorily complete his military commitment in the Guard. And you can say all you want about Kerry's service in Vietnam being more valuable than Bush's service in the National Guard and I will say that is your right to feel that way although I don't think it is fair to knock somebody who served his country in a different capacity - there are other ways to serve. Even a lot of members of the active duty military in that era did not go to Vietnam and I hardly think they are less valued members of our society than those who took part in the war.



    Complete nonsense-- see my earlier post. The idea that there is some deal to be struck, Bush's honor for Kerry's, is total bullshit straight up and down.

    Phrases like "There is no definitive evidence in either case that Kerry didn't earn his awards and that Bush did not satisfactorily complete his military commitment in the Guard." are so fundamentally dishonest as to make me wonder if you even care about the truth. I'll grant you that there is no fundamental evidence that Bush is a child molester, so I guess you owe me a pass on whatever the next trumped up charge against Kerry emerges, right?

    Jesus.





    Quote:

    Unfortunately, Kerry really dropped the ball with his conduct afterwards by telling lies and sea stories about events that did not actually happen and that caused great pain for a lot of veterans of that war. Quite honestly, Kerry devalued his service to his country all by himself. If the stuff he had said had been proven true then he would have been a true patriot. But alas they were not and his admissions that what he said were "over the top" and exaggerations only shows a man that is incapable of telling the truth - especially when it really counts. [/B]



    And we finish up with more fantasy. Sickening.
  • Reply 52 of 85
    northgatenorthgate Posts: 4,461member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    I think Pfflam has fallen for, or perhaps is a part of George Bush's secret plan for reelection.



    Because while posts like this keep everyone discussing what happened 30 years ago. No one is discussing the ideas that Kerry could use TODAY to beat George Bush.




    Nick, you're a real piece of work. To accuse Democrats of starting this whole friggin' thing is disingenuous and tantamount to lying. How short are our attention spans that we can't remember back five simple months ago. This thing exploded simply because Republicans were attacking Howard Dean for skiing his way through Vietnam.



    You can't have it both ways guys. You can't say that dodging Vietnam is cool for Bush, but not cool for anyone else. THIS is why Bush's Nation Guard record was reopened and discussed. YOU guys made it an issue as a way to ATTACK Dean.



    Now that Kerry's the nominee and he actually has a stellar Vietnam record, which demolishes the president's own record, you resort innuendo and patent responses like the one you posted above.



    You take the cake, Nick. You really do.
  • Reply 53 of 85
    7e77e7 Posts: 146member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by addabox

    Um, right. Whatever you say...











    Except this is just a fantasy you keep repeating, without any substantiating evidence.









    And of course he is not allowed to have different opinions now than he did 30 years ago. Or are you of the opinion that each person gets to pick one set of "deeply held convictions" at the age of 20 and any variation thereafter is a sign of bad character? Anybody who hasn't evolved their beliefs in 30 years is an idiot, or the president.







    Well, I'm sure we're all very impressed with your "frank disgust", but since it requires you to believe things that aren't true I'm not sure how much sympathy I can afford. He didn't "slander" "soldiers", he told of his experience and shared the experience of soldiers he served with. He stood up and read the accounts of men who were there, and were haunted by their actions. Only a stone headed fool would continue to insist that 'Nam was an ennobling war and it's critics are somehow out of line, particularly when that critic was in a position to know what he was talking about, having been there.







    Complete nonsense-- see my earlier post. The idea that there is some deal to be struck, Bush's honor for Kerry's, is total bullshit straight up and down.

    Phrases like "There is no definitive evidence in either case that Kerry didn't earn his awards and that Bush did not satisfactorily complete his military commitment in the Guard." are so fundamentally dishonest as to make me wonder if you even care about the truth. I'll grant you that there is no fundamental evidence that Bush is a child molester, so I guess you owe me a pass on whatever the next trumped up charge against Kerry emerges, right?

    Jesus.









    And we finish up with more fantasy. Sickening.




    More drivel - nothing more than liberal talking points. I agree that it is perfectly fine to have a change in heart about the values you hold at an early age - that is a natural process of evolution for the human species. Experiences shape your opinions and your values and as such change is normal and healthy. Being an anti-war protestor after serving is perfectly fine. I applaud him for his stand. But you cannot tell lies about what happened - that has nothing to do with being allowed to change your mind about the things you believed in. He accused people of WAR CRIMES and that is a serious allegation. The facts show Kerry made allegations of atrocities and a large portions of his assertions were later proven to be false. A large number of the accounts he gave were from men who were never in Vietnam. Also in an earlier statement he admitted to committing atrocities and now he backs away from that characterization as well. He really needed to check out his facts before testifying under oath before the U.S. Senate. And he does not stand by those statements today. Period. End of story.





    The OFFICIAL records show Kerry deserved his awards and Bush did his duty and earned his honorable discharge. You don't have the evidence to prove otherwise so what is your problem with that line of thinking? Oh, we only will choose to believe the military in one instance but they are involved in a vast criminal conspiracy in the other. What a foolish little man you are...



    I am not claiming that Bush's service is more valuable than Kerry's. Get the argument straight here. The fact is both men served their country and that is the bottom line. You can argue the merits of one type of service over another but that is irrelevant as once you have fulfilled your duty you don't need to defend it to anybody. Kerry does not have to defend his war record and Bush likewise does not either. What Kerry has to answer are questions regarding his POST-WAR conduct. He said things he does not stand by now and made trumped-up accusations that did in fact cause pain for his fellow soldiers who served and were actively serving in Vietnam at the time he made the statements. If he told the truth then why does he back away from his allegations now? And why is there no reference to his allegations on his campaign website? Oh, he does not stand by them now. Sir, get a clue...
  • Reply 54 of 85
    northgatenorthgate Posts: 4,461member
    Maybe the talking points are true.
  • Reply 55 of 85
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,665member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by 7E7

    More drivel - nothing more than liberal talking points. I agree that it is perfectly fine to have a change in heart about the values you hold at an early age - that is a natural process of evolution for the human species. Experiences shape your opinions and your values and as such change is normal and healthy. Being an anti-war protestor after serving is perfectly fine. I applaud him for his stand. But you cannot tell lies about what happened - that has nothing to do with being allowed to change your mind about the things you believed in. He accused people of WAR CRIMES and that is a serious allegation. The facts show Kerry made allegations of atrocities and a large portions of his assertions were later proven to be false. A large number of the accounts he gave were from men who were never in Vietnam. Also in an earlier statement he admitted to committing atrocities and now he backs away from that characterization as well. He really needed to check out his facts before testifying under oath before the U.S. Senate. And he does not stand by those statements today. Period. End of story.





    The OFFICIAL records show Kerry deserved his awards and Bush did his duty and earned his honorable discharge. You don't have the evidence to prove otherwise so what is your problem with that line of thinking? Oh, we only will choose to believe the military in one instance but they are involved in a vast criminal conspiracy in the other. What a foolish little man you are...



    I am not claiming that Bush's service is more valuable than Kerry's. Get the argument straight here. The fact is both men served their country and that is the bottom line. You can argue the merits of one type of service over another but that is irrelevant as once you have fulfilled your duty you don't need to defend it to anybody. Kerry does not have to defend his war record and Bush likewise does not either. What Kerry has to answer are questions regarding his POST-WAR conduct. He said things he does not stand by now and made trumped-up accusations that did in fact cause pain for his fellow soldiers who served and were actively serving in Vietnam at the time he made the statements. If he told the truth then why does he back away from his allegations now? And why is there no reference to his allegations on his campaign website? Oh, he does not stand by them now. Sir, get a clue...




    Nope. You have proffered no evidence whatsoever for your repeated assertions that Kerry's testimony in re Nam were "in large measure false" or that " a large number of the soldiers" who spoke out were never in Nam.



    Your probably thinking of the "Winter Soldier Investigation", organized by Viet Nam Veterans Against the War, were the vets themselves stood up and spoke of how American military policy led to atrocities which they had participated in.



    Note: this is not "John Kerry" slandering soldiers, these are the soldiers

    themselves speaking of their experience.



    There have been allegations that a few of the men who spoke were not, in fact, vets, but rather anti-war opportunists, which seems entirely possible to me. However, this small fact, which does nothing to undo the testimony of the many whose experiences had left them scarred and angry, has of course been inflated into some kind of "proof" that the bulk of the veterans testimony, as well as John Kerry's recounting of same, comprise a hoax intended to, oh, whatever right wing crap you like, undermine the resolve of the US, slander the troops, aid and abet the enemy, you know the drill.



    So by dismissing this testimony you cast the actual experience of veterans as nothing more than fodder for your fantasies of liberal malfeasance, which I consider an insult to these men. The shit went down, the fact that it's inconvenient for world view doesn't change that and makes you a bit of an ass.



    I see that now you want equivalency between "official records" as part of this insane notion that Bush's national guard problems are offset by Kerry's made up service problems.



    Kerry's official records are unequivocal, and to imply otherwise is just a plain old lie.



    Bush's national guard records remain full of questions. That's a fact, no matter how many times you type "case closed, period" (which actually doesn't substitute for argument, you may be dismayed to hear).



    Bush took the rich boy's easy way out. Kerry didn't. Deal with it.
  • Reply 56 of 85
    7e77e7 Posts: 146member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by addabox

    Nope. You have proffered no evidence whatsoever for your repeated assertions that Kerry's testimony in re Nam were "in large measure false" or that " a large number of the soldiers" who spoke out were never in Nam.



    Your probably thinking of the "Winter Soldier Investigation", organized by Viet Nam Veterans Against the War, were the vets themselves stood up and spoke of how American military policy led to atrocities which they had participated in.



    Note: this is not "John Kerry" slandering soldiers, these are the soldiers

    themselves speaking of their experience.



    There have been allegations that a few of the men who spoke were not, in fact, vets, but rather anti-war opportunists, which seems entirely possible to me. However, this small fact, which does nothing to undo the testimony of the many whose experiences had left them scarred and angry, has of course been inflated into some kind of "proof" that the bulk of the veterans testimony, as well as John Kerry's recounting of same, comprise a hoax intended to, oh, whatever right wing crap you like, undermine the resolve of the US, slander the troops, aid and abet the enemy, you know the drill.



    So by dismissing this testimony you cast the actual experience of veterans as nothing more than fodder for your fantasies of liberal malfeasance, which I consider an insult to these men. The shit went down, the fact that it's inconvenient for world view doesn't change that and makes you a bit of an ass.



    I see that now you want equivalency between "official records" as part of this insane notion that Bush's national guard problems are offset by Kerry's made up service problems.



    Kerry's official records are unequivocal, and to imply otherwise is just a plain old lie.



    Bush's national guard records remain full of questions. That's a fact, no matter how many times you type "case closed, period" (which actually doesn't substitute for argument, you may be dismayed to hear).



    Bush took the rich boy's easy way out. Kerry didn't. Deal with it.




    The facts of Kerry's testimony are out there. He vouched for what other people claimed to have seen. And it is a fact that a lot of these people who related these stories to him never were in Vietnam. Kerry was gullible and so in a rush to make a name for himself in the anti-war movement he believed them without questions or reservations and by relating these stories he became an accessory to their lies. These facts are out there and if you choose to ignore them you are basically telling me that you believe ignorance is bliss. You can choose to ignore the facts but don't come back here with a bunch of made up crap to try to cloud the issue.



    Bush had no problems with his Guard service. These "problems" are nothing more then made up stories repeated verbatum by liberal hacks like yourself. No proof has ever been offered for any of your allegations so quite frankly you need to shut up until you get some evidence. The record shows that at no time did Bush fall short of the required service points for any period. Any gaps in his record were made up later during the same service period in accordance with National Guard practice. He accumulated enough points to qualify for his honorable discharge. And that truly is the end of the story despite your protests to the contrary. Allegations made by Michael Moore and Terry McAuliffe - two people who have never served their county in any capacity - that Bush was AWOL are not proven by the record. Get over it!



    There were atrocities committed in Vietnam (the My Lai massacre comes readily to mind) as have occurred in countless other wars. But Kerry's assertions that they were so widespread are not supported by the facts and he now concedes that his remarks back then were "over the top" and exaggerations. So he does not stand by his statements with any conviction. The "shit" did not go down as you claim to the degree in which Kerry tried to convince the American public that it did in 1971.



    The fact that you cannot understand reality makes you "a bit of an ass."
  • Reply 57 of 85
    wrong robotwrong robot Posts: 3,907member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by 7E7

    The facts of Kerry's testimony are out there. He vouched for what other people claimed to have seen. And it is a fact that a lot of these people who related these stories to him never were in Vietnam. Kerry was gullible and so in a rush to make a name for himself in the anti-war movement he believed them without questions or reservations and by relating these stories he became an accessory to their lies. These facts are out there and if you choose to ignore them you are basically telling me that you believe ignorance is bliss. You can choose to ignore the facts but don't come back here with a bunch of made up crap to try to cloud the issue.



    Then how come you haven't presented any? if they are so 'out there' that we have to choose to ignore them \
  • Reply 58 of 85
    northgatenorthgate Posts: 4,461member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by 7E7

    Bush had no problems with his Guard service. These "problems" are nothing more then made up stories repeated verbatum by liberal hacks like yourself. No proof has ever been offered for any of your allegations so quite frankly you need to shut up until you get some evidence.



    Mmm mm. Kool-Aid tastes good.
  • Reply 59 of 85
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,464member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Northgate

    Nick, you're a real piece of work. To accuse Democrats of starting this whole friggin' thing is disingenuous and tantamount to lying. How short are our attention spans that we can't remember back five simple months ago. This thing exploded simply because Republicans were attacking Howard Dean for skiing his way through Vietnam.



    You can't have it both ways guys. You can't say that dodging Vietnam is cool for Bush, but not cool for anyone else. THIS is why Bush's Nation Guard record was reopened and discussed. YOU guys made it an issue as a way to ATTACK Dean.



    Now that Kerry's the nominee and he actually has a stellar Vietnam record, which demolishes the president's own record, you resort innuendo and patent responses like the one you posted above.



    You take the cake, Nick. You really do.




    North,



    Lay off the venom man. I said Bush's secrect plan. That would attribute all the actions to...Bush.



    You can't even have fun when the smilies are out in full force.



    Nick
  • Reply 60 of 85
    msanttimsantti Posts: 1,377member
    Quote:

    Mmm mm. Kool-Aid tastes good



    Best response I have heard all day.



    You liberals are the best.
Sign In or Register to comment.