In watching the convention last night, I saw how important Kerry's war record will be in addressing the concerns of those voters who think he may not be as strong a leader as Bush in foreign affairs.

The polls show that this concern about Kerry is his weakest point in the minds of Americans right now.  The Bush strategists will emphasize the dangerousness of the post-9/11 world, and the foolishness of changing leaders while we are still threatened by terrorists.  This is their strongest play, since most voters have come to view Bush as the "rich people's president", and think that they would personally be better off economically with Kerry as president.  

Tne Democratic strategy will be to counter voters' concerns by showing that Kerry has been in a war, has personally seen the horrors of war even while behaving in a personally heroic way, that he will not hesitate to do what is necessary in our relationships with other nations to keep America safe (including working with allies), but will not lead us into unnecessary wars like the present war in Iraq.

With Kerry already having the advantage in the voters' minds in most other areas of concern to them, he will win the election if this Democratic strategy is successful.

John Kerry is in big trouble if his whole campaign is based on FOUR months in Vietnam. Earlier this year more than 200 veterans who served with Kerry in Vietnam signed a petition stating that Kerry is unfit to be President. These soldiers included 19 of the 23 officers he served with including commanding officers. Both his commanding officer and the Doctor who treated John Kerry for the injury that got him his first Purple Heart said that it was nothing more than a scratch, of course John Kerry refuses to release the medical records which might put this issue to bed.

OK, I admit it - I'm quoting myself here, from an earlier post:

"Charges that Kerry somehow did not deserve the medals he was awarded will seem small-minded to most Americans, who will reason that Kerry was indisputably at least willing to put himself in danger by going to Vietnam.  Again, they will compare him to George Bush, who also supported the war but avoided combat".

The veterans you refer to will not be seen by as many members of the public as will the veterans who Kerry served with who  will speak well of him at the nationally televised Democratic convention.  The Kerry-supporting veterans will be seen by more people, and so will have more impact on the voters.


-- Modified on 7/27/2004 9:14:35 PM

If there were a petition circulating to determine wether Bush was fit to be pres. or not, I am sure it would get MANY MORE than 200 signatures of people that have witnessed Bush' poor judgement calls that have affected an entire country.

Petitions are nothing more than forms with signatures of people stating their opinions.

What a crock! His so-called first tour was on a destroyer with the carrier task force off the coast of Vietnam. If I had spent my time on a ship off of the coast, not on combat duty, I wouldn't call myself a Vietnam veteran. Easy duty, not eligible for combat pay. I spent two 13 month tours with the US Marines and I know what I'm talking about. The only people who think of him as a "hero" or even a real 'Nam vet are people who never served in combat, wannabes and phonys like him. Combat vets know him for what he is, a fraud, a traitor, a liar and a coward. He was there just long enough to get his "ticket punched" then di-di back to the world for his ersatz JFK political career! No decent, honorable officer would ever ask for a purple heart (over the objections of his commanding officer) for a scratch treated by bacitracin and a band-aid! Like a lot of people, George W. Bush didn't serve in Vietnam, but he never pretended to be something he wasn't. Every vet I know knows he'd rather have Dubya next to him in a fighting hole than "Liveshot" Kerry. You could trust Bush with your life, but you couldn't trust that maggot Kerry with your lunch.    

"The Kerry campaign featured the photograph in an advertisement released in May titled Lifetime. Swift Boat Veterans for Truth contacted surviving members of this group to find out how many actually support John Kerry, and discovered that of 19 Swift boat skippers pictured other than Kerry, 11 consider him unfit, 4 are neutral, two have died, and 2 are working with the Kerry campaign. Four other officers were not present for the photo session; all oppose Kerry."

One thing I have to give him, though, he is America's most successful gigolo! How many guys can say they divorced one hieress (Julia Thorne of the Pennsylvania Thornes) worth 300 million to marry a widowed goldigger worth a billion.

Check out all the Vet sites where the fraud is reviled!

http://kerrylied.com/
http://www.swiftvets.com/
http://www.usvetdsp.com/jf_kerry.htm
http://members.aol.com/viperash50/page2/
http://www.vnsfvetakerry.com/

Howie Carr, a long time reporter in Boston knows Kerry for what he is too!
http://www.wrko.com/listingsEntry.asp?ID=177492&PT=
http://www.howiecarr.org/


-- Modified on 7/28/2004 7:45:42 AM

How can he flaunt four months of active duty, as if he was a hero, and also be proud of throwing away his medals (which he apparently lied about) and actively opposing the war?
 Which is it, Kerry?  War hero or anti-war activist?

One of which was largely uneventful, on a destroyer, and one of which involved 4 months of serious danger.  

The VAST majority of combat veterans spent a great deal of their time in boring, uneventful, tedious service, punctuated by short bursts of extremely dangerous battle action under fire.  There is nothing at all unusual about Kerry's experience in this regard, serving a full tour, and then a partial 2nd tour.  Which BTW, is 1 full tour, plus 4 months, more service in the theater of battle than his opponent in the election served.

I suggest that you apply the same standards of rigor to Bush's service (or lack thereof) as you apply to Kerry's, and see who made a greater contribution to our war effort, and who demonstrated more courage under fire.

The most amazing thing is- you could be totally right- AND KERRY IS STILL A BETTER CHOICE THAN BUSH!  By going in-theatre, he pounds Bush on War record!  My Mom would be a better War leader than Bush (actually as she was Blitzed out of 2 houses- she's got chops)!

Even if Kerry were to be a total phony- still vastly preferable to Bush!  

I think you have chosen to forget what a total zero Bush is.  Remember- he truly believes that the world , nay the Universe was created in 144 hours, thus removing himself from capably discussing ANY scientific or scientific/political question.

How the particular deck chairs were arranged during a failure of US foreign policy is not a huge issue for me.  While you were wasting your time up the coast, he was wasting his time off shore.  Then he gave local boating a chance.  

That a bunch of ex-military guys are confused politically is no big event.  In a lot of countries the same guys might have been involved in a couple of coups.  That they might find his values too progressive for their taste is not necessarily a knock on him.  They might be proto fascisti for all I know.  That they are allowing a morally bankrupt admin to use their views shows you that they were probably on his right to begin with and that theirs is a stunt as political as any he has tried.

At least he figured out that it was a waste, and earlier than most .  That and a steady record of progressive voting make him the best choice we have available.

When the GOP gets a candidate worth  voting for- come back and share.  Until then our flip floppin' commie pinko is a world of improvement on your chicken hawk dim-witted country bumpkin cum stain.


And c'mon- don't we wish we could all marry wealth?

Here's the best summaries of Bush's and Kerry's records during Vietnam:

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/John_Kerry    
(about a third of the way down the page)

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/George_W._Bush_military_service_controversy

-- Modified on 7/28/2004 4:31:35 PM

you could marry wealth so you could afford to pay the diseased harridans who frequent this board to bone you up the ass with a strap-on. Don't worry though, that doesn't  make you gay! Half-wits like you cannot understand that countries don't have permanent friends, only permanent interests and that nothing destroys alliances quicker than success. France and much of Europe are no longer our friends and won't be for the foreseeable future. The implosion of the Soviet Union makes that political reality inevitable. If I were the leader of France I would oppose American hegemony too, not because of any moral reasoning, but out of purely Machiavellian calculations. Fool, it does not matter who our elected leader is, France and the rest of cowardly Europe will be opposed to American power out of their own narrow self-interest. (the only self-interest they are capable of) What you have in John "Liveshot" Kerry is a whore (member of a class of persons you have, apparently, experience with) who will pander to nations with interests opposed to ours for short term political advantage. I think George Bush's IQ is about 110, mine is at least 30 points higher and I am not the least concerned about his ability to handle the job of President. Why would it be a concern for someone like yourself who is probably a full standard deviation below the mean IQ score of the American population? If you were a little less affectacious you would be less irritating!

And in fact, he served 1 complete tour on a destroyer, and where he received Swift boat training and then a second tour, which he served for 4 months in command of a Swift boat.

It takes COURAGE to serve in a war you oppose from day one.  The fact that he served makes him MORE CREDIBLE as an anti-war activist.

It takes MORE COURAGE to come back and tell the nation's leaders that the war you served in, where your friends continued to serve in, where brave men were dying, and being forced to kill others for no valid purpose was WRONG.  

Anyone who had the guts to serve deserves your admiration and gratitude.  And Kerry deserves EVEN MORE of your admiration for having the courage to tell truth to power, that the mission was wrong.

Kerry's not a war hero for shooting up villages in the Mekong Delta.  He's a war hero for saving the lives of his own people, at great personal risk.   There is nothing whatsoever which that bit of heroism contradicts a recognition that the war was wrong, and a willingness to put ones self on the line to communicate that message.



-- Modified on 7/29/2004 9:42:10 AM

No he did NOT deserve the medals he was awarded. He went to Vietnam equipped with a camera, to get his "ticket punched" for his future political aspirations.  This is a "man" who practiced his signature to make it look like John F. Kennedy's signature. He is representative of the low life officers who took turns awarding each other medals and disregarded their obligations to the enlisted men for whom they were responsible. I was lucky as a Marine, we had officers made of sterner stuff. They put the mission first, and then the men they commanded. That's the way it should be. John "Liveshot" Kerry had different priorities, to be the "new" JFK. The worthless faggot invoked a obscure regulation that allowed him to leave Vietnam after Three Purple Hearts, one of which was especially questionable, after all, he had what he needed. Four and a fraction months! A new book written by the officer who took command of the swift boat Kerry left behind says that Kerry staged a re-enactment of his supposed "heroic" actions for the camera.  If you are not a combat veteran and wonder why most veterans and active duty military hate Kerry and love Bush, maybe you needed to ask yourself a few questions.

-- Modified on 7/28/2004 7:42:17 PM

That makes 1 full tour, plus 4 months, MORE active service than George W. Bush and Dick Cheney combined.

And suppose he only legitimately earned TWO Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star, and a Silver Star.   That makes TWO Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star, and a Silver Star more than Bush and Cheney combined.

The only Citation Bush got during the war was a DUI citation.

At tonight's convention, you will see MANY veterans, and MANY senior officers from the U.S. Military High Command who are endorsing John Kerry.  Ask yourself WHY?  It's because they know that the current President has no leadership ability, and has taken us into a war foolishly, and is squandering many brave young lives.  And they know we need a leader who has experienced the horror of war to make INFORMED decisions in extracting us from Bush's foolhardy Iraq war.

Thanks, Watts, at least one person on this board is on the up and up! You sound like a veteran. Every day there are fewer and fewer of us. These wannabes don't want to hear the truth!

The TRUTH is, George W. Bush's military record reflects his personal cowardice and unwillingness to fulfill his commitment, while John Kerry's military record demonstrates both courage, and principles, and his following that up with leadership in the Anti-war movement represents the highest fulfilment of those principles.


-- Modified on 7/29/2004 9:40:55 AM

What are you nuts? On the destroyer he was not in danger, in Nam, he playerd a faggot game. What is your problem?

Are you sure about those IQ numbers?  Not that it matters as they have pretty much been discredited in figuring out intellect.

I have to admit to being taken aback by the sheer vitriol displayed here, so removed from reality as it sounds.  Did you perchance forget to check the meds level before you logged on?  Spewing purest bile without benefit of humour or an actual point is a new move here, but I am game.

What a fanciful world you live in.  As a student of world Military history, I can tell you that you seem to lack any knowledge whatsoever of organised violence, or for that matter American history.  Americans are no braver than Euros and Euros have been known to have strong back-bones on occasions indeed.  You might even recall that when Bush tried to browbeat the Euros into joining our little Iraq adventure, they stood up to him and told him to get knotted!  There was some moral strength.

Were you aware that Britain and France, and then Britain and the Free French (a collection of Colonial possessions that defied Vichy) and then Britain, Russia, and the Free Europeans opposed the Nazis w/o any American involvement for 3 years of WWII?  That Britain and France gave the flower of their youth w/o US aid  in WWI for almost 4 years.  Clearly not.

But then, the blueness of the sky and oceans probably throws you for a loop.  And the persistence of the sun in rising each day.  You seem so far way from human intercourse...

And dude- If you object to whoring....

DON'T BRING YOUR SHIT HERE, CUZ THAT'S WHAT THIS SITE IS ALL ABOUT!

Oops- forgot- you don't quite have the clue to figure that out...

Note to Staff:  Are we sure we want to continue the billboard trades with the sites for the Mentally Ill?  We'll just get more stuff like this...

There are numerous examples of soldier changing their minds about their experience in wartime.  Did you see Born on the 4th of July?

If he was both at the same time, I might agree with you that the laws of physics were broken, but there was a development of his feelings about the war.  Ever hear of McNamara?  not a soldier, but a transition nonetheless.

A lot of guys who were originally gung -ho turned against the war after Tet showed we were not being as successful as we claimed.  And the venal nature of the ARVN leadership was becoming so obvious, it was harder and harder to buy in.  Even tho Tet was a military victory of sorts for us in that it effectively ended VC strength in a lot of provinces, the fact that an attacklike that could happen proved that we were facing a stronger political will than our own.

I think Kerry was right to oppose the war, it was a poor policy, and a waste of effort.  The only good part of it was the Soviets seeing that we were so serious about stopping their aggressive moves that we were willing to make tremendous blunders and take losses, which might have given them cause for reflection about attacks in other areas.

Iblog- oh ye of the small mind and the large ego-

What exactly did you do in 'Nam?  Care to enlighten us?  Perhaps you are the fire eater you claim to be, but my experience with real combat vets (admittedly most I have hung with were foreigners) is that they are loathe to discuss it.

And I think you need to take up the Navy Vets issue with the Navy, as they DO call the legion of guys who served in the Gulf of Tonkin Vets!

Another reason I find your attitude strange is that every leatherneck I ever talk to about 'Nam, who carried an M-14 or later, LOVED to see those Skyraiders from the carriers!  Puff the MD at night and plenty of Skyhawks, Skyraiders, and A-6s in the daylight, keepin' you all a touch safer when Charlie made his housecalls.

But I spose you were a fearless warrior- cuttin a swathe through the cong by your lonesome?

And while you were trashing 'Nam- did you know the British were WINNING their SE Asian War?  Read about Malaya and Sarawak and then call the Brits pussies!  Should I find some vets from the regiment to explain to you how to fight a war?

are more a student of perversion and degeneracy than history! You still haven't answered the basic question, do you pay whores to bone you up the ass with a strap-on? Well, do you bitch?

-- Modified on 7/28/2004 7:14:12 PM

Asshole, I was a forward observer and when I was there  no one carried M-14s, M-16s were the the TO weapon. I only talk about it when faggot wannabes like you ntalk shit. Youy silly faggot cocksucker!

-- Modified on 7/28/2004 7:49:12 PM

but only by silly cocksuckers like you!

So Sorry- I accept your right to talk as much shit as you want.  It's earned.

Doesn't make it more than shit- but I can deal with you saying it- at least you saw enough to have had a chance to catch a clue.  That it all seems to have been an excuse for you to smoke the fascist pipe is just another tragedy of that whole SEA mess. But a pretty minor one.

And dude- why the fascination with commercial sodomy?  Are you a regular on the TS board?

And at no time have I ever wanted to be a faggot. I saw too much of the life in SF- it's not easy to be gay, even now.

Are you happy now?  Can your ego deal?

Actually I am not a veteran but have the greatest respect for those that are. Kerry came home and disrespected thousands of brave men by calling them murderers, baby killers and worse. It is disgusting that he now wants to try to benefit from that.

I wonder how many of these Bush bashers were out supporting a real war hero such as Bob Dole when he ran against a draft dodger?

The fact is, the most important criteria for President of the United States is personal character.  Ant the 2nd most important is intellect.  And on the basis of those two criteria, I must conclude that Kerry TOWERS over George W. Bush.  It's not even a contest.

I loved Bob Dole- got tons of respect for him.  Loved his wit.

But I'd never have voted for him.  Have you heard of these things called policies?  His were largely conservative AND he made the "devils bargain" with the Christos, so he was never gonna get my vote.  I had hopes for him, like when he called Ronnie pops on the ever growing deficit.  But he gave way and was actually complicit in turning over my party to the loony right, even though he was a more centrist himself.  Lost my political respect there.

But personally?  Great guy.  Funny Guy. Fellow Brittany Spears fan. Great wife.  Proud to have him as an american.  Gave his body and soul to America.

Bush is not worthy to sniff Dole's jockstrap.  If you are a Bush man you'd do well not to remind us of Dole, as your boy will look even crappier.

-- Modified on 7/29/2004 9:48:14 PM

after his tour was over.  Yet he was still proud of his tour of duty.  So he wasn't a "baby killer" and could be proud of his service, but other GI's were?  He is two-faced, trying to pander to both the anti-war and pro-veteran elements of his party and voters in general.

His actions in battle, in saving the lives of his men, were heroic.  And then his opposition to the war was a national service - and I would argue, even more heroic.  You are welcome to disagree, but nobody can force you to be on the correct side of history.  You should acknowledge that the anti-war protests, while they might well have proven harmful to some veterans, served a very meaningful purpose in helping to get us out of Vietnam with fewer deaths and injuries than had we prevented it.

Our anti-war movement was one of the GREAT popular uprisings of our history.  And Kerry was a leader in that movement.  Who brought a credibility to that movement that was BECAUSE of his prior brave service.  And we are forever in his debt for that.

by helping to end the war early.  So a few thousand troops who's feelings of self-esteem were hurt by the anti-war protests, well frankly, that pales into insignificance next to the thousands of lives that were saved by accelerating the end of our participation in that war.  

You can't make an omlette without breaking some eggs.  Similarly, you can't force the end a war without hurting the feelings of some people who's self worth was tied up in their accomplishments in that war.   It's a trade-off.  And a trade-off that I would contend that the nation was FAR better off having made.

It's true, that we have learned something of value as a result, and that is, that the folks who did the hard work of combat were NOT the evil force.  The evil force was our misguided leadership that put our troops in intolerable situations, where they had to make instantaneous decisions no humans should have to make.  But, we were on the cutting edge.  Ending a war through a protest movement was not something that had ever been done before.   And feathers were ruffled along the way.  Nonetheless, the outcome was a vastly better future for our nation, and Kerry was instrumental in that role.