1. #76
    Forum Member
    xploded's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    88

    Default

    [QUOTE]Originally posted by scfire86
    [B]

    I did live during those days. And the reason Kerry, like others didn't face charges is there were no charges to bring.

    Treason has a very narrow description as defined by the Constitution and Supreme Court. Kerry's actions did not fit the criteria.

    With all that has gone on, someone in opposition to Kerry would have come forward and reinforced your case. Yet no one has. Other than these rambling missives.

    Here's one for you Lt.

    "Bush spoke to members of the National Guard at a convention in Las Vegas. A lot of those guys were really excited to see him. A lot of them have been waiting since the early 70s to see him, for him to show up."



    You seem to be stuck on the notion that he wasn't a traitor because he wasn't legally charged with it. He was a traitor in the moral sense. He is not liked or disliked on the basis of whether legal charges were brought. It is a much deeper issue that strikes to the heart of the vets who did serve honorably and those that feel a high pride for their service. Put yourself in the place of these other guys. Your sitting for years in the prison camps and then here comes a speech used against you by one of your own. The returning vets spit on and called baby killers, he may not have been the sole reason that vets were treated this way but he sure contributed to it. My friend this hits a lot deeper then legal issues. This is one of the reasons that people on this forum and many others not on this forum have such strong feelings about this issue. Myself included.

  2. #77
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,325

    Default

    Originally posted by xploded
    Originally posted by scfire86


    You seem to be stuck on the notion that he wasn't a traitor because he wasn't legally charged with it. He was a traitor in the moral sense. He is not liked or disliked on the basis of whether legal charges were brought.
    Using that as a standard. I believe Bush should be charged with cowardice in the face of the enemy.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  3. #78
    Forum Member
    FireCapt1951retired's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Between here and there
    Posts
    790

    Default

    The POW/MIA issue is another one where Kerry s@rewed the pooch so to speak.


    Pulitzer-prize winning author Sydney H. Schanberg (who states that he is anti-Bush) presents compelling evidence, including witness testimony to the Senate documenting paper shredding and witness/evidence supression,that Kerry handled the POW/MIA senate inquiry in such a way so as to end the controversy quickly and normalize relations with Vietnam. His series of three Village Voice articles on the subject is at

    http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0408/schanberg.php
    http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0408/schanberg2.php
    http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0431/schanberg.php

    It is the first article that has this amazing illustration of Kerry the gravedigger. Check it out! And in the Village Voice no less!

    Less than a year after that slate was cleaned, as trade was being established, Colliers, a global real estate management and consulting firm, was granted a multi-billion dollar long term exclusive contract to rebuild Vietnam's infrastructure. Colliers is owned by the Kerry family. At the time of the contract being granted, Colliers was headed up by Kerry's first cousin, Stuart Forbes, who was also in charge of Kerry's "blind" trust. At the time this created ethics questions (hey, it's not exactly rocket science!). A few weeks after the Senate panel’s hearings had concluded, according to Center for Public Integrity, Kerry’s participation in the committee became “controversial” when Hanoi announced the awarding of the contract to the Kerry family firm, Colliers International.

    Here's the 'background' page documenting that Kerry worked for Colliers:

    http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilse...nformation.pdf

    Here's further discussion and analysis.

    http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...7/164944.shtml



    In his last article detailing Cheney's close working relationship with Kerry on the POW/MIA committee, Schanberg wonders about Kerry's motives in effectively burying our MIAs and POWs in the hell of Communist Vietnam's slave labor camps. Schanberg actually wonders if Kerry was doing this out of some altruistic desire to help America move on. Oh brother, how naive! He must not have known about Colliers and the Cash and Kerry money trail; HE DOES NOW.

  4. #79
    Forum Member
    ThNozzleman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Jefferson City, TN
    Posts
    4,339

    Default

    The returning vets spit on and called baby killers, he may not have been the sole reason that vets were treated this way but he sure contributed to it.
    While there may have been isolated incidents of this sort of thing happening, it really has reached proportions of urban myth.
    ThomasPaine.com
    http://northcoastcafe.typepad.com/no...t_spat_on.html
    Many (including members of this forum) attempt to group anyone who disagrees with the current war in Iraq in with the types of people who allegedly did these terrible things to returning Vietnam veterans. To be against a war which we feel was stupid and needless is propped up as figuratively spitting on the soldiers who are fighting it. We are labeled as "un-American" and "commies." We are accused of not supporting the troops, and even of treason, being traitiors, and providing aid and comfort to the enemy. It is all bunk. The actions of a few extremists (then and now) do NOT reflect the actual feelings of someone who disagrees with the war. In truth, we care about the soldiers who are forced to be there very much. We didn't want them there in the first place, and we now want them out of there as soon as possible. Just as in the Vietnam era, the vast majority of people who are labeled "anti-war" or "anti-troops" are against the government's choice to start the war; not against the troops, themselves. I know that some of the knee-jerk right wing radio dittohead Ollie listeners on these forums just can't grasp this concept, but it's the truth. We're sick of being labeled "anti-American" and of being "un-patriotic." It's an outright lie, and to continually bring up unsubstantiated stories of soldiers being spit on, as well as to claim that we are figuratively "spitting" on the soldiers is outrageous. You cannot shame us into submission, so you might as well give up.

  5. #80
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    1,098

    Default

    I know that some of the knee-jerk right wing radio dittohead Ollie listeners on these forums
    Baseless personal attack. Stop being a Hypocrite.
    Proud Right-Wing Extremist since 1992

    "Extreme Liberalism is a Mental Disorder"- Michael Savage

  6. #81
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,325

    Default

    [i]Originally posted by FireLt1951
    [B]The POW/MIA issue is another one where Kerry screwed the pooch so to speak.
    You seem more than willing to blast away at Kerry but give Cheney (5 deferments, count 'em 5) a free pass. There could be a very real possibility that no POWs/MIAs exist. I saw the Stallone and Norris movies as well. But after years of public and private inquiries nothing substantial has been proven. Kinda sad that Schanberg has sunk this low.

    Since you are giving the Village Voice a shred of credibility as a news source (notice I didn't blast away at NewsMax, which is easily done) I thought I would include an article written in one of their CA affiliates.




    February 20 - 26, 2004

    Daily Brief with Ray McGovern

    Bush, Tenet, Iraq, Conservatives, Vietnam and Sept. 11 through the eyes of a 27-year CIA analyst

    by Nathan Callahan


    When I ask Ray McGovern if the findings of President Bush’s commission on intelligence failures in Iraq will give us answers—even if it doesn’t get them to us until well after the November election—he has a one-word answer: "No."

    McGovern is a measured man with a steady voice. For 27 years—from JFK to George H.W. Bush—he worked as a CIA analyst, chairing National Intelligence Estimates and preparing the president’s Daily Brief. He’s now co-director of Servant Leadership School in Washington, D.C., an inner-city school that provides training and other support for the poor.

    I take McGovern’s thumbs-down on Bush’s commission as part of my daily brief. What I need next is a rundown on current CIA director George Tenet, the man who is to intelligence what Mel Gibson is to crucifixions.

    "I think Tenet will be around at least through the election," McGovern says. "There are two reasons for this—the same two reasons that kept him around after Sept. 11, 2001."

    "Explain," I say trying to sound presidential.

    "One would have thought that the raison d’ętre for the Central Intelligence Agency was to prevent another Pearl Harbor," McGovern says. "One would have thought that the person most responsible for this would have been cashiered on Sept. 12. Not so. So the question is: Why not so?"

    "So, why not?" I ask.

    "First of all, George Tenet warned the president of the United States about the threat of terrorism almost ad nauseam during the entire spring and summer of 2001. In the final analysis, the president had been warned often enough and long enough. He should have done something about it."

    "Why didn’t he?" I wonder.

    "Because Bush didn’t know what to do," McGovern says. "And Condoleezza Rice, his adviser on such things, didn’t know a thing about terrorism. By her own admission, she hadn’t opened the file that [Clinton National Security Advisor] Sandy Berger left behind that said, ‘Read This File First.’ She knew a lot about the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe but nothing about terrorism. The charitable explanation for why nothing was done is gross ineptitude and gross malfeasance."

    "What about Tenet?"

    "George Tenet no doubt has a little computer disc with the 27 or so warnings that he gave the president starting in spring and going right up until September 2001," says McGovern. "The president and his advisers in the White House, knowing this, didn’t dismiss Tenet after Sept. 11 because it was too much of a risk. Were they to have dismissed Tenet on Sept. 12, they could not have been sure that he wouldn’t have said, ‘Wait a second. Let me print off some of these warnings. Let me show you what I told the president in the President’s Daily Brief on Aug. 6, 2001.’ So that’s reason No. 1.

    "Reason No. 2 is that Tenet is simply too useful of a guy to have around," McGovern continues. "He does what he’s told. If he’s told to do an estimate and told to make sure the conclusions come out the same as a Dick Cheney speech from the month before, he’ll do it."

    McGovern is referring to the National Intelligence Estimate that Tenet cranked out after Cheney’s August 2002 WMD pep rally. It was a cart-before-the-horse exercise in policy-making: Cheney makes unsubstantiated claims in public. The intelligence agency fashions a report to cover his backside. According to an article penned by McGovern for TomPaine.com, "The conclusions of that estimate have now been proven—pure and simple—wrong."

    The real reasons for the Iraq War, he says, are to be found online at the neo-conservative website the Project for the New American Century (newamericancentury.org). "And I would simply add, not as an afterthought but as a core part of this whole calculus, that this war was fought as much for Israeli strategic objectives as it was for American strategic objectives. As a matter of fact, the people running our policy toward Iraq have great difficulty distinguishing between the two."

    As McGovern is speaking, I notice a slight rise in the pitch of his voice—an almost imperceptible quarter-step jump.

    "If I’m sounding a little angry here," he says, "well, there’s no word to describe it." There’s a silence. "Outrage is just too pale a word to describe how we intelligence officials feel about George Tenet being so willing to prostitute our intelligence product, to cook it up to the recipe of high policy. That is the unpardonable sin of intelligence, and he’s still doing it."

    An image of George Tenet pandering outside the Capitol in a bustier, fishnet stockings and spiked heals interrupts my train of thought. The big eyebrows have got to go.

    McGovern erases the image. Apparently, he experienced this type of intelligence whoring first-hand. "I saw it in Vietnam," he says. "And usually it was the president himself or the White House that was responsible in the final analysis. Think Gulf of Tonkin."

    On Aug. 5, 1964, intelligence officials told the media that North Vietnamese gunboats had attacked U.S. Navy destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin. It was pure fiction, but it became Lyndon Johnson’s rationale for escalating the U.S.’s involvement in Vietnam and cleared the way for a decade of war.

    "We knew that there was no incident that night," McGovern says. "McGeorge Bundy [Johnson’s National Security Advisor] knew that there was no incident that night. And yet LBJ, with his towering presence, his total power—corrupting totally—leaned over and said, ‘McGeorge, are you going up to the Hill to sell this resolution?’ Bundy [later] admitted on McNeil-Lehrer Newshour, one painful show: ‘So I went. I went up, and I lied to Congress.’"

    "So it’s happened before," McGovern continues. "What’s different this time is that we have a situation where, over a two-year period, an incredible, cleverly orchestrated campaign was waged to exploit the trauma of the American people, the trauma of Sept. 11, and to exploit it in such a way as to achieve the aims of the . . ."

    McGovern stops to find the right word. "I don’t call them neo-conservatives," he says, "because I’m conservative. I call them neo-fascists because that’s what they are. And what these neo-fascists did was see Sept. 11 as a golden opportunity."

    Neo-fascists? I ask McGovern if he’s using Mussolini’s definition of fascism. As Il Duce said, "Fascism should rightly be called corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power." Think Halliburton, USA.

    McGovern agrees but adds more. "I’m also talking about the measures that were taken in Nazi Germany after the fire that burned down the Reichstag, Germany’s parliament building, in 1933. It was that fire that allowed Hitler to institute his own legislation."

    McGovern draws a parallel between Sept. 11 and the Reichstag fire. After claiming that communists committed arson, Hitler used the incident to declare a state of emergency and suspend some of the constitutionally protected personal freedoms of German citizens. These rights included freedom of speech and assembly. "Very much like post-Sept. 11 legislation instituted here in this country to curtail civil liberties," McGovern says, "to make people feel that if they speak out against what is happening, they are unpatriotic."

    My briefing is almost over. One final question: How does the Arab world see us?

    "It’s really remarkable," McGovern says. "People like Donald Rumsfeld are intelligent, but it’s embarrassing how they scratch their heads, and they say, ‘I don’t know what makes a suicide bomber. I don’t know what makes people do that.’

    "Well, if he watched Al Jazeera for a couple of nights, if he watched Israeli bulldozers knocking down Palestinians homes and he saw Israelis shooting up Palestinians in the occupied territories, then maybe he would get some sense as to why people of Palestinian or Arab or Islamic heritage—why they might look askance at the one country that they know makes this all possible. That’s the United States of America."


    Hear Nathan Callahan on Weekly Signals on KUCI-FM 89.9. Tues., 8-9 a.m. Or visit nathancallahan.com.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  7. #82
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Rural Iowa
    Posts
    3,106

    Default

    The wacko libs here apparently refer to some french document when they deny Kerry's treason. My reference is to the US Constitution

    Article III
    Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.


    Kerry is guilty of Treason. He is also changeable under numerous sections of the UCMJ in that he committed treason while serving the Naval Reserve. That he has not yet been charged is irrelevant. There is NO statue of limitations on treason. On 3Nov Kerry should be charged with treason, tried and punished. He has had 30+ years of mercy, this should end. If Kerry wins the election obviously Americans have given him an acquittal on treason.

    There is a difference between Hanoi Jane and the various "antiwar" socialists. Kerry was a sworn officer in the armed forces of the United States, the rest were just anti-American nutters/fools, or drugged out hippie guys looking to get laid.

  8. #83
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,325

    Default

    Originally posted by neiowa
    The wacko libs here apparently refer to some french document when they deny Kerry's treason. My reference is to the US Constitution

    Article III
    Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.


    Fortunately for the normal part of America the Supreme Court has determined in numerous court cases that treason is not quite that simple a charge.

    We harken back to the colonial times in America. The writers of the Constitution were still shedding the yolk of oppression that had been put upon them by the British. Under British rule almost anything was considered treason. Look at a British soldier crosseyed…..bam….hanged. If you called the King a wacko (and by all accounts George III was in fact insane)….bam…hanged. Speak out against a government official….bam…hanged. So with that in mind treason was and is a very serious charge to bring and an even more difficult charge to convict. Over the course of the past 200+ years the Supreme Court has determined treasonous behavior meet a three pronged test:

    1. Giving secret information
    2. To a foreign power
    3. With the intent of harming the U.S.

    Now where did I learn all this you might add. My senior year in college I was fortunate to take a class in 1st Ammendment law from a guest professor named Frank Snepp. Before you get all wacko on me about him being a Frenchy lib I suggest you read the man's credentials on the link I posted. I recall him being not only very conservative, but also a huge supporter of Ronald Reagan. And this was after his legal predicaments he had incurred with the C.I.A. If we used your definition of treason and sedition, any number of conservatives committed the same during the Clinton administration.

    Give the treason argument a rest. Kerry didn't commit treason under any of the statutes you post. But I have to admit I am greatly amused by firehouse lawyers. Try not to believe all you hear on drugboy Limbaugh or the rest of AM hate radio. You only reinforce the wacko right wing stereotype. And it isn't pretty.
    Last edited by scfire86; 09-17-2004 at 01:17 PM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  9. #84
    Forum Member
    ThNozzleman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Jefferson City, TN
    Posts
    4,339

    Default

    It is the first article that has this amazing illustration of Kerry the gravedigger. Check it out! And in the Village Voice no less!
    The whole Vietnam War POW ordeal is an affair we may likely never get the straight story on; however, to post a link to Schanberg's articles does more harm to your cause than it does to support it. John Kerry cannot be condemned alone for the POW affair; the whole system (including many of your guys) is to blame. You obviously did this in order to smear Kerry, but I suggest you read the rest of Mr. Schanberg's works, as well. Just like Schanberg, I agree that Kerry is no angel; but he's a far better choice than Bush. We need democracy, not lock-step ideology, in this nation.

  10. #85
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    1,098

    Default

    Limbaugh is a Conservative? Sheesh, all this time I thought he was a bit left of center for my tastes. I like Michael Savage Personally.
    Proud Right-Wing Extremist since 1992

    "Extreme Liberalism is a Mental Disorder"- Michael Savage

  11. #86
    Forum Member
    FireCapt1951retired's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Between here and there
    Posts
    790

    Default

    BYRON YORK

    Bush’s National Guard years

    What do you really know about George W. Bush’s time in the Air National Guard?
    That he didn’t show up for duty in Alabama? That he missed a physical? That his daddy got him in?

    News coverage of the president’s years in the Guard has tended to focus on one brief portion of that time — to the exclusion of virtually everything else. So just for the record, here, in full, is what Bush did:

    The future president joined the Guard in May 1968. Almost immediately, he began an extended period of training. Six weeks of basic training. Fifty-three weeks of flight training. Twenty-one weeks of fighter-interceptor training.

    That was 80 weeks to begin with, and there were other training periods thrown in as well. It was full-time work. By the time it was over, Bush had served nearly two years.

    Not two years of weekends. Two years.

    After training, Bush kept flying, racking up hundreds of hours in F-102 jets. As he did, he accumulated points toward his National Guard service requirements. At the time, guardsmen were required to accumulate a minimum of 50 points to meet their yearly obligation.

    According to records released earlier this year, Bush earned 253 points in his first year, May 1968 to May 1969 (since he joined in May 1968, his service thereafter was measured on a May-to-May basis).

    Bush earned 340 points in 1969-1970. He earned 137 points in 1970-1971. And he earned 112 points in 1971-1972. The numbers indicate that in his first four years, Bush not only showed up, he showed up a lot. Did you know that?

    That brings the story to May 1972 — the time that has been the focus of so many news reports — when Bush “deserted” (according to anti-Bush filmmaker Michael Moore) or went “AWOL” (according to Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee).

    Bush asked for permission to go to Alabama to work on a Senate campaign. His superior officers said OK. Requests like that weren’t unusual, says retired Col. William Campenni, who flew with Bush in 1970 and 1971.

    “In 1972, there was an enormous glut of pilots,” Campenni says. “The Vietnam War was winding down, and the Air Force was putting pilots in desk jobs. In ’72 or ’73, if you were a pilot, active or Guard, and you had an obligation and wanted to get out, no problem. In fact, you were helping them solve their problem.”

    So Bush stopped flying. From May 1972 to May 1973, he earned just 56 points — not much, but enough to meet his requirement.

    Then, in 1973, as Bush made plans to leave the Guard and go to Harvard Business School, he again started showing up frequently.

    In June and July of 1973, he accumulated 56 points, enough to meet the minimum requirement for the 1973-1974 year.

    Then, at his request, he was given permission to go. Bush received an honorable discharge after serving five years, four months and five days of his original six-year commitment. By that time, however, he had accumulated enough points in each year to cover six years of service.

    During his service, Bush received high marks as a pilot.

    A 1970 evaluation said Bush “clearly stands out as a top notch fighter interceptor pilot” and was “a natural leader whom his contemporaries look to for leadership.”

    A 1971 evaluation called Bush “an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot” who “continually flies intercept missions with the unit to increase his proficiency even further.” And a 1972 evaluation called Bush “an exceptional fighter interceptor pilot and officer.”

    Now, it is only natural that news reports questioning Bush’s service — in The Boston Globe and The New York Times, on CBS and in other outlets — would come out now. Democrats are spitting mad over attacks on John Kerry’s record by the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

    And, as it is with Kerry, it’s reasonable to look at a candidate’s entire record, including his military service — or lack of it. Voters are perfectly able to decide whether it’s important or not in November.

    The Kerry camp blames Bush for the Swift boat veterans’ attack, but anyone who has spent much time talking to the Swifties gets the sense that they are doing it entirely for their own reasons.

    And it should be noted in passing that Kerry has personally questioned Bush’s service, while Bush has not personally questioned Kerry’s.

    In April — before the Swift boat veterans had said a word — Kerry said Bush “has yet to explain to America whether or not, and tell the truth, about whether he showed up for duty.” Earlier, Kerry said, “Just because you get an honorable discharge does not, in fact, answer that question.”

    Now, after the Swift boat episode, the spotlight has returned to Bush.

    That’s fine. We should know as much as we can.

    And perhaps someday Kerry will release more of his military records as well.


    Byron York is a White House correspondent for National Review. His column appears in The Hill each week. E-mail: byork@thehill.com

  12. #87
    Forum Member
    xploded's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    88

    Default

    Originally posted by scfire86


    Using that as a standard. I believe Bush should be charged with cowardice in the face of the enemy.



    What the hell are you talking about??? So any one that served in the Guard should be tried for cowardice? I thought that us war mongers were the ones with the wacky ideas. Again your excuse of someone being charged. As I said it goes much deeper then a legal charge. You also in bringing up VP Cheney and the deferments fail to mention that Hanoi John originally applied for a deferment. When he couldn't get one he joined the Navy to keep from being drafted to the infantry. So that lib talking point is lost on me as is your straw argument about treason.

  13. #88
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,325

    Default

    Originally posted by xploded


    What the hell are you talking about??? So any one that served in the Guard should be tried for cowardice?
    I'm using the same logic for cowardice as you are for treason. A case for neither exists.

    Sorry if you didn't understand....again.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  14. #89
    Forum Member
    ThNozzleman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Jefferson City, TN
    Posts
    4,339

    Default

    What the hell are you talking about??? So any one that served in the Guard should be tried for cowardice?
    Again, nobody has ever stated this; give it up.
    I thought that us war mongers were the ones with the wacky ideas.
    You wrote it, not us.
    As I said it goes much deeper then a legal charge.
    Treason is treason is treason; if the acts do not meet legal requirments, then it is NOT treason. Of course, little details like this never stop guys like you from arbitrarily throwing around such terms to smear someone you don't agree with.
    http://www.vnsfvetakerry.com/Alleged%20Treason.htm
    You may not LIKE Kerry, or what he did in his efforts to end a stupid war that had killed thousands; but that does NOT constitute treason in any way, shape, or form.
    When he couldn't get one he joined the Navy to keep from being drafted to the infantry. So that lib talking point is lost on me as is your straw argument about treason.
    The man VOUNTEERED for combat duty, while your man hid out in Texas and EXPLICITLY stated that he did not want to serve his country in combat overseas. Now, you can twist that any way you like to fit your current nationalistic and ideological views; but it will not change the fact that Kerry is a highly decorated combat veteran, and George Bush is NOT. I know that it's hard for you guys to accept this...but I know you can grasp it if you try REALLY hard. Hell, even Al Gore went to Vietnam. Face it; your man is a chickenhawk.

  15. #90
    Forum Member
    FireCapt1951retired's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Between here and there
    Posts
    790

  16. #91
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,325

    Default

    Originally posted by ThNozzleman

    The man VOUNTEERED for combat duty, while your man hid out in Texas and EXPLICITLY stated that he did not want to serve his country in combat overseas. Now, you can twist that any way you like to fit your current nationalistic and ideological views; but it will not change the fact that Kerry is a highly decorated combat veteran, and George Bush is NOT. I know that it's hard for you guys to accept this...but I know you can grasp it if you try REALLY hard. Hell, even Al Gore went to Vietnam. Face it; your man is a chickenhawk.
    Nozzleman leave them alone. Conservatives all want to believe their hero is all tough because he swaggers and talks that way.

    The truth is when the bugle called he made sure he went no where
    near the fighting. In fact he found a way to run the other way.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  17. #92
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,325

    Default

    Originally posted by FireLt1951
    LEST WE FORGET!

    FLt. I watched and noticed Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Hannity, Limbaugh, Gramm, Delay, or any of the others are nowhere to be found. I bet all the troops shown in that footage had the opportunity to go work on a political campaign in Alabama.

    The conversation would have gone something like this:

    TROOP: "Hey Sarge, I know my unit needs me here in the bush (no pun intended) to fight back against those heathen commies shooting at us, but I believe my talents are more useful back home working on a political campaign."

    SERGEANT: "Sure soldier, just fill out requisition T-93dash08..."

    TROOP: "Thanks Sarge. I be right back after the election in November. Give my best to the guys, I'm sure they'll understand."

    SERGEANT: "No sweat troop, it's people like you working on political campaigns is the reason we're out here fighting the commies. Write us and let us know how it's going. You better not be working for any of those pinko, anti American, commie, long haired hippy protestor types. They're trying to end the war. Everyone knows we'd rather stay here."
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  18. #93
    the 4-1-4
    Jasper 45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    ...A great place, on a Great Lake
    Posts
    2,784

    Default

    I never pesonally liked the term "anti-war", because that is to imply that I am pro-war. I am not. War is the most horrendous choice that can be made, but yet I realize it is necessary, because of evil doers in this world. My dislike for the peace protestors is based on media coverage today. I don't like their methods of protest though. I do beleive that the marches and visible protests give aid to our enemies motivation. I do feel that those people such as Sean Penn and Jane Fonda, and thier actions are treasonous. If people have a dislike for a policy our government engages in, use your telephone, use your e-mail, stop by your representation offices. Don't take it to the streets. I have always felt this way, and most likely I always will. Our media today are manipulated and used, so even a minor rally or protest can be made to look far bigger than it perhaps is.Not once will you hear me try to prevent someone's freedom of speach, I just wish people would think about how their actions might have an impact on those tasked to keep their rights free. Do something that congress and the senate will hear. Phone them, mail them, and stop at their offices. They do listen. Trust me, I know they listen. Russ Feingold is my U.S. Senator, I call him at least once a week. I have been by his local office countless times. I have visited his office in D.C. while on vacation (I am sure I am on an FBI watch list somewhere). He doesn't vote the way I wish, but he has returned some calls, and I have recieved literature from his office. I feel that is a more effective way of change, which does ultimately include your move in the voting booth. I do think that protests only do bad, and I will argue till the day I die that they (protests) do nothing but harm for our troops. Besides, do you think the protests actually get anyone to change their minds? I don't think so.Just so you will know I have consistancy on this topic, John Kerry was in town here several weeks ago. One of his approximately 100 visits since his nomination. Benefit I guess of being in a battle ground state. There were a number of Bush supporters present at his rally. You might remember it, it was where Theresa said we were living in a "hell". Anyhow, I was just as angered by their actions as I was about the protesting that went on at both conventions. These supporters of Bush were chanting "4 more years", not beating up policemen however. Protestors, demonstrators or whatever monicker do their cause more harm than good. In my opinion.I will stand by my position though. "Anti-war" protestors/demonstrators I feel do in fact harm our troops. Stand opposed to the war, if that is what your conscience dictates. Spit on a soldier, and if I see it I will kick your *****. That I promise you. I feel as strongly about burning of the flag as well, even though our courts have recognized that as "free speach". My only point is to think about your actions, and voice your position to your elected officials. Do it with professionalism, with care and well founded logic and reasoning. Above all else, remember that "free speach" is not free, it was bought and is still being paid for, even today, while we sit in our nice and comfortable homes arguing about what a hero Kerry is, or what a "loser drunk" President Bush is.On another note, I was under the impression this whole Vietnam "hero" stuff was settled. President Bush has stated numerous times that Kerry and his Vietnam service was more heroic than his flying of fighters. End of story. The left is continully bringing it up; why I have no clue. The fabrication by CBS of Bush's service points to the this statement as well, they just won't let it die. War service did NOT matter when it was Clinton running. It does not matter now. If it matters now, it should have mattered then, in 1992 and again in 1996. We can't change the past so therefore military service is of no consequence for a President. Story closed.
    Last edited by jasper45; 09-17-2004 at 03:15 PM.

  19. #94
    Forum Member
    VinnieB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    On the couch in my skivvies
    Posts
    2,316

    Default

    Weeeewwww....I just finished reading through these 6 pages....I've been dormint for awhile...after frequent stops due to fits of laughter...I must say...a couple of you have definatley OD's on Kool-Aid. I noticed a post from SCFIRE about the VVAW and Kerry "helping to end the war...which saved millions....well except for Cambodia and when Saigon fell in April of '75, and the Chinese/Vietnamese border war....do your homework. And SCFIRE also implies GWB spent his time in the 60's driving drunk, but you attack GEORGEWT for going after Kerry's Treason...you make a mention about "Legalities".....I guess that does not apply to your argument eh?...

    I am not going to go on about hippocrates....anyone can read all 6 pages and figure that bit out...

    I agree that Kerry was absoulutly wrong when he went to Vietnam in 72 to wage his political war. He was still a member of the US Military and subject to the UCMJ. The reason I gather why he was not charged with Treason...is because the US Military rarely ever goes after anyone in the IRR. They usually "drop" them...its easier and cost a-lot less money than if they were to charge him and try him. At that point they would have to reactivate him to AD, quarter, feed, and after a year or so...let him go...unlike Enlisted men...Officers can not be reduced in grade...that takes an act of Congress.

    I am not basing my vote on Vietnam...Kerry went and George didn't...and Clinton, like a coward...left the country....Kerry got a couple of Medals...do I think there fishy..yes I do...but I am not going to judge him on his merits in a jungle 35 years ago...he is running for President...not the Chief on Naval Operations...he completed is obligation. GWB completed his obligation too....He did what are called RIDTs and ADSWs. They are days of active duty done in groups..for pay and points. 1 day of AD is = to 1 point. He had "sat" years. He did get out early....early discharges are approved for higher education...they have to be approved by the members Commanding Officer....you know...they guy who "supposedly" wrote those "memos" about how terrible GWB was.... I am voting based on character and achievements. In my mind Kerry has no Character and Achievements...19 years as a Senator...he has done nothing...furthermore...A leader needs to have Courage of his Convictions....I think GWB fits that trait to the "T". He has done what he has said. I may not agree with everything GWB does...or "says"...but I believe he has big brass balls...and he has certainly "manned up". Kerry on the other hand can not make up his mind on anything...except healthcare... ....even his own staff are clueless as to what his "plans" are...just watch any news station...they all just stu..stu..stutter.
    IACOJ Member

  20. #95
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,325

    Default

    VinnieB.

    Everyone is allowed their opinion. I am just tired of being told that if I don't support the war I don't support the troops. I am personally offended by that remark as I have done volunteer work for homeless vets and have donated money to the USO for phone cards for troops stationed in the mid East. I am very patriotic and proud to be an American. However, I am not jingoistic. There is a huge difference. And as Trent Lott (R-MS) said in 1999, "I can support the troops without supporting the President." If it was okay for the then Senate Majority Leader, it should be okay for me as well.

    You want to call Clinton a coward. That is your prerogative. The man was overseas as a Rhodes Scholar on an educational deferment. Using your logic I get to call Cheney a triple coward since he received three educational deferments, and Cheney is one heartbeat away from the Oval Office. Theoretically.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  21. #96
    Forum Member
    DeputyChiefGonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Somewhere between genius and insanity!
    Posts
    13,584

    Default Vietnam was 30 years ago....

    What I want to know is...

    What will George W. Bush and John F. Kerry do if they win election?

    Don't tell me what you've done...tell me what you are going to and how you are going to make America stronger, safer and what you plan to do to have a more vibrant economy!


    Is that too much to ask in return for my vote?
    ‎"The education of a firefighter and the continued education of a firefighter is what makes "real" firefighters. Continuous skill development is the core of progressive firefighting. We learn by doing and doing it again and again, both on the training ground and the fireground."
    Lt. Ray McCormack, FDNY

  22. #97
    Senior Member
    Dalmatian90's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2000
    Posts
    3,120

    Default

    What I want to know is...

    What will George W. Bush and John F. Kerry do if they win election?


    Keep the seat warm until McCain is coronated in 2008?
    IACOJ Canine Officer
    20/50

  23. #98
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Rural Iowa
    Posts
    3,106

    Default

    Originally posted by scfire86
    If we used your definition of treason and sedition, any number of conservatives committed the same during the Clinton administration.
    Don't drive home or get on a truck please you have to be at least .02. You're way past grape coolaid

    The Constitution is not a statute. What conservatives during the 1990s consorted with what governments at war with the US? Or even at a stretch conspired with; say the chicoms, UN, french? Decenting with an incompetent president is not treason. Names, dates, events, specifics of you charge. Have you contacted a attorney general with your revelations? Perhaps Jan Reno is available.

  24. #99
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,325

    Default

    Originally posted by neiowa


    Don't drive home or get on a truck please you have to be at least .02. You're way past grape coolaid

    The Constitution is not a statute. What conservatives during the 1990s consorted with what governments at war with the US? Or even at a stretch conspired with; say the chicoms, UN, french? Decenting with an incompetent president is not treason. Names, dates, events, specifics of you charge. Have you contacted a attorney general with your revelations? Perhaps Jan Reno is available.
    More legalese from a firehouse lawyer. Keep going. When someone is shooting themselves in the foot, I'm more than happy to hand them more bullets.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  25. #100
    Forum Member
    DeputyChiefGonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Somewhere between genius and insanity!
    Posts
    13,584

    Default

    However, there are several here who routinely lump anyone who opposes Bush into the "pinko commie anti/un-American pro-terrorist" category.
    On the other hand, there are several here who lump anyone who supports Bush into the "right wing nazi/fascist/racist pro- war" category.
    Originally posted by ThNozzleman

    I'd sure like to see those posts.
    Okay nozz... show me the "pinko commie anti/un-American pro-terrorist" category.... if you can. Once again... you overreacted...
    ‎"The education of a firefighter and the continued education of a firefighter is what makes "real" firefighters. Continuous skill development is the core of progressive firefighting. We learn by doing and doing it again and again, both on the training ground and the fireground."
    Lt. Ray McCormack, FDNY

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register