I was suprised that you would suggest that I do not have an understanding of duty, honor and sacrifice for what appears to be absolutely no reason at all. Nothing I’ve written even mentions those things, or my “position” on them (of course, who ISN’T for “duty, honor and sacrifice?), and I didn’t give anyone a clue as to who I really am. So, the attack is baseless and unimportant. Apparently, you just don’t like those that are different than you.

By the way, if you had ever served you would know that military personnel, like the country at large, is somewhat evenly divided between liberal and conservative, left and right, Democrat and Republican, Kerry and Bush. Certainly the right carries a majority, and it’s definitely the stereotype, but it’s closer than most think. Duty, honor and sacrifice are not ideals that belong to any political party.

Thank you.

George (not my real first name, for obvious reasons)

2. “It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51 day operation.” Really? On what basis do you say that we have taken Iraq? Do you really believe the war is over? Here’s a little bit of trivia that highlights this. After an end to hostilities were declared in Germany in World War II, do you know how many American soldiers were killed? Not a single one.

3. I am doubly amused by the complaints about the “liberal media” that permeate this page and the fact that the “liberal media” in the form of the Lowell Sun is then used to support a position on John Kerry’s election. That was a truly embarrassing move on someone’s part.

I get a kick out of reading posts like that last one above. If only people like that could put as much energy into actually thinking for themselves and understanding what is important and relevant, we’d all be so much better off. But alas, the right wing is mired in hatred and even jealousy of the left in this country, and around the world. Constantly confused by why the conservative viewpoint seldom seems to make headway in the world (when, almost by definition, it’s a losing proposition), the right invents conspiracy theories, and sticks with them, no matter what, to explain their failures over decades of American history. It’s the liberal media’s fault! That’s why we’re losing! The UN restrains us and that’s why things don’t work! The French…it’s the fault of the French! Clinton! Reno! Kennedy! Those bastards have ruined everything.

The right is so focused on what is wrong in the world and in the country and with defending the little patch they’ve staked out, no matter what (“It’s hard work! It’s hard work!), there is no room for joy, for love, for compassion, for understanding the world at large, for honoring the history and strengths of this country, for realizing that “the war and the warrior” are two different entities. No room for good, common, sense and certainly no room for improvement. I guess it’s OK that 39 soldiers died last month to the dillweed above. What a sick view of the world that is! Maybe you should send a note to the families “hey, don’t worry that you’re son was blown to bits, happens all the time in Detroit. No big deal.”

For liberals and the rest of the thinking world, That’s not acceptable. I want to live in a world without terror, without war, with a healthy economy, without 40 homicides per month in any city. One where the word “liberal” (or any other political position) is not made to be a pejorative (I’ll wait here while you go look that up) and where the right wing disavows the conspiracies and complaints, sheds the close-minded, arrogant celebrities that lead the charge and come back to the fold to be a part of this great experiment called the United States to help build it up instead of continually tearing it down. I know that won’t happen today, but we are here for you.

FDR… led us into World War II. Germany never! attacked us: Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.

Truman… finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average 18,334 per year.

John F. Kennedy… started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us.

Johnson… turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.
Clinton… went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent, Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden’s head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.

In the two years since terrorists attacked us President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.

The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking, but…

It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51 day operation.

We’ve been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.

It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!!

Our Commander-In-Chief is doing a GREAT JOB! The Military morale is high!
The biased media hopes we are too ignorant to realize the facts.

I should also add that I really don’t give a fuck who you vote for George.

Both John O?neill and John Kerry requested to have a meeting with President Nixon and while O?neill was granted that opportunity, It must be noted that Kerry was not afforded that opportunity because of the way he presented himself. His physical appearance showed a total lack of respect for the military and his blanket statements about the soldiers in Vietnam left that administration with the impression that nothing good would come from any such meeting. It should be noted that Kerry was still serving in a military capacity!
O?neill was praised by Nixon for speaking out against the Vietnam Veterans Against The War , but also warned of the persecution that doing so would incite. I think it is a bit much to try to say that O?neill was working for or working with that administration and furthermore nothing at that time or in O?neill?s then future would indicate so. Again I would suggest that you read ?Unfit for Command? and base that on my own experience reading it.

With that said I would like to say that I have a different perspective on Iraq and the ongoing war as I was deployed during the First Gulf War! I witnessed first hand the devastation from the Oil well fires that were set in the Yarmadi Oil fields. I witnessed the total disregard for life and hope that I never see another disaster as the one I saw in Kuwait. I?m including a link to the National Geographic article written just after Operation Desert Storm/Shield.
Most people believe that the worst oil spill in history was the Exxon Valdez but the truth is that it was the intentional spill ordered by Saddam as they were leaving Kuwait. I would like to agree with you that the war is unjust and we should pull our troops but I believe that the U.S??No I believe that the World is a better place today. Saddam thumbed his nose at us and would only cave in as a last resort. He was making a mockery of us and the U.N. I will include a link to the 13 U.N. resolutions created after the 1st. Gulf war, each one was created after his relentless disregard to the conditions of ending the 1st. Gulf War.

It is alarming that people don?t remember the ?No-Fly Zones and the reason for the creation of these areas! We had to bomb their Nuclear facility because of the lack of cooperation by Saddam. They were constantly targeting coalition planes and lets not forget the hell that they put the weapons inspectors through, to include kicking them out of their country. Now I should add that each one of these violations was a green light for combat operations to resume in Iraq ! Saddam was paying for suicide bombers and had placed a bounty on U.S soldiers. After September 11th. Bush, Myself, You, John Kerry, and the rest of the world believed that Iraq was sponsoring terror and was in possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction ! Should
we have disregarded that information? Regardless I could care less about the Weapons I wanted him removed at all cost and will not be swayed to believe different.

Kerry (IMHO) is bad news, his Senate presence is deplorable, He flips on every issue, and he undermines operations in Iraq. He says that ?He can separate the war from the soldier? But as he stated it is a mistake and therefore lowers troop morale. Can you imagine being on the ground in Iraq and hearing that you are there for nothing. You are risking your life for nothing, you are sacrificing everything you own and will ever own?.For nothing ! My God , WTF should we just pull our troops out, apologize and maybe pay the Iraqi?s some reparations? He could probably talk to the insurgents and work out a good plan for our surrender. Do you see where I?m going with this ? John Forbes Kerry is a self serving piece of crap and has a long history of betraying America. He is a pussy and a sellout and I hope he rots in hell for the paths that he?s chosen. Bush has a plan, VICTORY. Kerry also has a plan , Becoming the President ! I like Bush?s plan .

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/100best/storyD_story.html

http://www.terrorismcentral.com/Library/Teasers/ChemIraq.html

Think through the reality of that. Ignore John Kerry for a moment. The real question is this: Has GWB earned another four years based on his performance?

Consider first the war on Terrorism. Second the war with Iraq, third onternational pursuits and fourth domestic issues. Can you type into this forum reasons why GWB deserves your vote based on those issues, or other issues which you identify as important? I’ve read back a few weeks here and see no reason to vote for GWB except that a group of swiftboat veterans (whose service is appreciated and applauded) think that JFK did not do good enough of a job.

Somebody tell me why to vote FOR GWB and I will. Really…I will. I may question your response, but don’t be scared. I want to know!!!

Now that’s a powerhouse of journalism. I get the Sun News too…every Thursday. I usually take a gander at the garage sales that are going on. Amazingly, I don’t pay much attention to the editorial page when it strays past the topic of local roads….

It doesn’t make them wrong on this, of course, but it certainly doesn’t figure into much. If it does, you’re really searching for something to support the position you’ve already ended up at!

Where do you live, Dean? I live in Ohio…Cuyahoga County, where Cleveland is. The poorest city in the nation.

As for this opinion article:

1. How does the Lowell Sun know what’s top on my list?

2. Yes, in one sense, one leader has protected. George W. Bush. Of course, he is the only person in the entire world that has that opportunity. He has done a good job, but that does not mean that the more honest John Kerry will not match or supersede his efforts.

3. I had planned on addressing more of this article, but as I re-read it, I cannot find anything worthwhile to talk about. Certainly there is a better position supporting Bush out there than this drivel?

With respect for your beliefs…but not not much for the position…I sign off…

Below is an endorsement of President Bush by the Lowell Sun in Lowell, Massachusetts.
This is the same congressional district where John Kerry first ran
for Congress in 1972.
Endorsement: George W. Bush for president
Sunday, October 03, 2004 – It’s about national security.
That’s the key issue on the minds of Americans planning
to vote in the Nov. 2 presidential election.
They must decide whether Republican President George W. Bush
or Sen. John F. Kerry, a Democrat, can provide the leadership to safeguard America from foreign terrorism.

Americans aren’t fools. They know that without safe cities and towns,
America will lose its greatness. Our cherished freedoms and sacred liberties
will be diminished, along with our opportunities for economic prosperity and our basic pursuit of happiness.
Our children and their children will live vastly different lives if we fail
to guarantee a future free of turmoil.
Islamic extremists, both here and abroad, have one purpose:
To destroy America and halt the spread of democracy and religious tolerance around the globe.

They’d like to be plotting in our streets right now. They’d like to be
sowing murder and mayhem with suicide bombers and hostage-takings, and spreading fear in the heartland
and everywhere else.
They’d like to be wearing us down
and bringing our nation to its knees.
Since the devastating terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001,
one American leader has maintained an unbending resolve to protect
our homeland and interest against Islamic savages and those foreign governments appeasing them.

That leader is President Bush.
While out-of-touch U.S. politicians and world leaders have attacked
President Bush’s tactics, they can’t question his steely commitment to keep America safe.
In the ashes of ground zero, where nearly 3,000 innocent
Americans perished,
President Bush vowed to find the perpetrators, in domestic cells and distant lands,
and bring them to justice.
He said he will do all that is humanly possible and necessary to make certain that terrorists
never strike again on U.S. soil.

Can anyone deny that President Bush has not delivered?
America the terrorists’ No. 1 target has recovered from its
tragic wounds and rebounded. It remains safe to this day.
What might a lesser leader have done, faced with the daunting
task of deciding America’s course against withering, partisan
attacks from Democrats, media propagandists, disingenuous
U.N. officials and disloyal White House
operatives selling their souls for profit during a time of war?
A lesser leader might have caved in. President Bush has stood his ground.
In this year’s election, the question isn’t whether we are safer
now than we were four years ago. We already know the answer.
Sure we are and that’s because of President Bush.
The critical question is: Four years from now, will
America be safer than it is today?
In our book, Americans have to place their trust in President Bush.
He’s proven to be as sturdy as a mighty oak when it comes to
saying what he means, meaning what he says and acting decisively.
When it comes to the war on terror, President Bush means to
keep our military strong and our country secure.
John Kerry, on the other hand,
has all the attributes of the shape of water when it comes
to telling us what he believes and what
he’d do for America.
Like incoming and outgoing tides, Kerry is content to go with the flow.
In a dangerous world infested with sharks, Kerry would be chum at America’s expense.

We in Massachusetts know John Kerry. He got his first taste of
politics 32 years ago in the cities and towns of Greater Lowell.
In his 20 years in the U.S. Senate, Kerry, a Navy war hero,
hasn’t risen above the rank of seaman for his uninspiring legislative record. He’s been inconsistent on major issues.
First he’s for the 1991 Persian Gulf War, then he
opposes it. First he’s for the war in Iraq, then he’s against it.
First he’s for a strong U.S. defense, then he votes against military weapons programs.
First he’s for the U.S. Patriot Act, then he opposes it.
Kerry’s solution to stop terrorism? He’d go to the U.N. and build a
consensus. How naive. France’s Jacques Chirac, Germany’s Gerhard Schroeder,
U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan and other Iraq oil-for-food scam artists don’t want America to succeed.
They want us brought down to their level.
And more and more, Kerry sounds just like them. In a recent campaign speech, Kerry said
America was in the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.
No doubt John Kerry sincerely wants to serve his country,
but we believe he’s the wrong man, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.
Americans should think back three years ago to the
smoldering ruins of the World Trade Center.
There among the mist lay the images and memories of
fallen firefighters, police, a Catholic chaplain and ordinary working citizens moms, dads, sons, daughters.
President Bush, through heartfelt tears, told us never to forget the twisted carnage and the massacre of the innocents.
Yet some of us are forgetting.
President Bush told us the attacks must never happen again.
Yet some of us are wavering because of the brave
sacrifice of soldiers that our nation’s security demands.
Well, President Bush hasn’t forgotten.
Nor has he lost the courage and
conviction to do what is right for America.
We know if there is one thing the enemy fears above all else,
it is that George Bush’s iron will is stronger than his iron won’t.

The Sun proudly endorses the re-election of President George W. Bush.

The transcripts are all over the Internet. Here’s just a brief sample that indicate meetings with Nixon/Haldeman, Nixon/O’Neill.

June 2, 1971: Oval Office meeting with Bob Haldeman
Haldeman: We got these guys now forming this Veterans for a ? Peace with Justice, or uh ? the veterans ?
Nixon: They came in to see me? Are they here?
Haldeman: No we don?t want them to be able to see you yet. We don?t want to ?
Nixon: Who are they?
Haldeman: Well, it?s this guy, uh, he?s got a beard, one of ?em, and there?s this Navy officer [John O'Neill], just got out yesterday ?
President: Yeah.
Haldeman: — crew cut, real sharp looking guy who is more articulate than Kerry. He?s not as eloquent; he isn?t the ham that Kerry is. But he?s more believable.

[edit]

Haldeman: Colson put this together.

[edit]

Haldeman: This guy now [O?Neill], is gonna, he?s gonna move on Kerry. He?s gonna move around the country.

June 16, 1971: Oval Office meeting with John O?Neill
Nixon: I really feel that what you?re doing, you?ll take brickbats, you go on some of these TV shows like the Cavett thing, you?re gonna get banged, but ? you?ll get terribly discouraged and say the whole country?s ? and so forth. But I think ya gotta remember, uh, you have to remember, that uh, that uh, now {unintelligible] in Vietnam should be enough, that now you would have the [unint] to get back and reassure people that those few that come back ? like Kerry and the rest ? don?t speak for all.

[edit]

Nixon: That?s great. Give it to him, give it to him. And you can do it, because you have a pleasant manner, too, because you?ve got ? and I think it?s a great service to the country.

[edit]

Nixon: You fellows have been out there. You?ve got to know, seeing the barbarians that we?re up against, you?ve got to know what we?re doing in that horrible swamp that North Vietnam is. 33:40 You?ve got to know from all our faults of what we have in this country that, that what we?re doing is right. You?ve got to know too, people are critics. Critics of the war, critics of [unint], run America down. Those that are, uh ? well in every respect, either get out of Vietnam, get out of [unint], get out of the world, etcetera etcetera. You?ve gotta know that you?re on the winning s?that, that you?re on the right side.

As to your other points, no, I’m not an idiot. And I don’t hate Bush. I also don’t care one bit whether Kerry or Bush served or showed up or won medals or did anything else thirty years ago. Both of these guys were from wealthy, powerful backgrounds and were (arguably) on a track to the Presidency, the Senate or some other significant position. It appears that neither of these guys have been completely forthright about their service and neither of them is Audie Murphy, now are they? For both candidates, military service is a one or two line item on their resumes, tops.

I do, however, think that this administration has made a huge error in taking us to war with Iraq. Not a lie, not a conspiracy, not as bad as it feels sometimes. But Iraq was clearly not the “right” target at the “right” time in a war on terror. This administration had preconceived notions about the world stage and in their arrogance (and I’ll note here that arrogance is not all bad), they made poor decisions.

I think that the administration mismanaged the intelligence they received before the war, severely hampered our international relationships (which, despite the spin, are critically important to us militarily, diplomatically and economically) and were unwilling or unable to be straightforward and consistent with the American public which served to alienate a very many people. These egregious errors have continued “since” the war. Perhaps not as bad as it sometimes looks or is sometimes reported, but the war effort has been mismanaged in many ways and divisive rhetoric has continued to divide. I do appreciate that Bush may have unwittingly worked his way into a corner and now has limited options for communicating, and certainly the need to campaign further divides us (from both directions).

Bottom line with that war effort, for me, is that (a) management has been sorely lacking and (b) communication has been sorely lacking. This is all the more astonishing because most of Bush’s group is damn smart (here I think of Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld and Cheney). I cannot know for sure, but this indicates to me some serious, fundamental, flaw that is “poisoning” the entire effort.

I disagree with Bush on many other topics as well. I do not think that he is committed to defending the Constitution to the degree that I want to see. I’m not sure he is interested in defending it all, to be quite honest. This also relates to his desire to impress his ideological beliefs on the country at large, which is troublesome in part, as people used to point out with Clinton, because he does not have any clear “mandate” from the American people on these topics to support that effort.

I like Bush’s commitment to a plan, his consistency (except that he is consistent even when wrong). I like his tax cuts. I think I like his educational reforms to date. I like a number of things on the record. I voted for him in 2000 on the basis of the things I did like but considered voting for Gore, in part, based on the things I was unhappy with about Bush.

Despite his flaws (in my view), I would vote for George W. Bush because I think that national security is the most important issue facing this country (although I would probably define that more broadly than most). Unfortunately, I don’t think that this administration is up to the task. It’s odd, because under different circumstances, these guys would be perfect (it would be difficult to imagine a better handling of the time immediately following 9/11 and our invasion into Afghanistan, for example). But I do not see any reason to believe that there will be an improvement in the problems I enumerated above, and the current performance is substandard.

At worse, Kerry will do no worse of a job and offers a possibility for much more. Simply changing horses (yes, in midstream) may be the approach that is needed.

On top of that, for me, I think that Kerry is the better choice on most of the topics that were listed in a post above.

As for O’Neill’s book being on the best seller list, I’d point out that a lot of dreck sells a lot, and that selling a lot of books doesn’t mean it is good. One list I looked at puts “Quotations From Chairman Mao Tse-Tung” as the number two selling book of all time, behind the Bible. I suspect you would not be happy with this and would think that it’s a bad book. A book by Bob Woodward (critical of the Bush administration) and a Michael Moore thome are on the current NY Times Best Seller List. So if “Unfit” is good because it sold, then these must be as well. I assume you get the point. There’s a lot of chest thumping nowadays about how the “public” should ignore the “main stream media” and make their own decisions. More generally stated, this means basing your decisions not on any single book (whose view you probably agreed with wholeheartedly before you even read it) but rather on a more personal, broad-based basis.

Oh…by the way, Kerry wouldn’t sue the swift boat group or others because (a) he is in the middle of a campaign, (b) slander is extraordinarily difficult to prove or disprove (when’s the last time you heard of a slander case going to trial?) and (c) having Edwards as his running mate would have absolutely nothing to do with him suing anyone.

Also I should add that ?His rambling book? Yeah that is the one there on the NY Times Best Seller list !

Also is this your post from October 4 ?????? Up 4 or 5 posts ?

John Kerry, War Hero? Guess again.
John O?Neill was the naval officer who took over John Kerry?s swift boat in the muddy waters of Vietnam. What he learned convinced him?and convinced the majority of veterans who served directly with Kerry?that John Kerry was and is unfit for command at the lowliest rank in the Navy, let alone as commander in chief of the United States.
In this stunning new book, John O?Neill and his coauthor Dr. Jerome Corsi (an expert on the anti-Vietnam War movement) have interviewed dozens of veterans who served with Kerry and have meticulously documented a shameful record of betrayal and deception on the part of John Kerry.
In Unfit for Command you?ll learn:
How two of John Kerry?s three Purple Heart decorations resulted from self-inflicted wounds, not suffered under enemy fire
Why John Kerry?s third Purple Heart ?fanny wound? was the highlight of his much touted ?no man left behind? Bronze Star
How John Kerry turned the tragic death of a father and small child in a Vietnamese fishing boat into an act of ?heroism? by filing a false report on the incident.
How John Kerry entered an abandoned Vietnamese village and slaughtered the domestic animals owned by the civilians and burned down their homes with his Zippo lighter
How John Kerry?s reckless behavior convinced his colleagues that he had to go?becoming the only swift boat veteran to serve only four-months in Vietnam
How as a leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War, John Kerry attended a meeting where plans were discussed to assassinate prominent United States Senators who supported the war
How Kerry met secretly with communist delegates at the Paris Peace Conference during the Vietnam War, and why some believe he violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice and federal law
Based on detailed interviews with Swift Boat veterans who served in Vietnam with John Kerry and on recently released FBI surveillance reports of John Kerry?s anti-war activities, Unfit for Command is a shocking indictment of a politician who slandered his fellow veterans, danced on the edge of treason, and has shamelessly exaggerated his own war service for political ends.

Just one guy (O’Neill) telling stories to destroy the competition. In Kerry’s case, those stories started with Nixon during his presidency. Your “conspiracy” phrase suggests that it’s made up. However, this stuff is on tape, the transcripts of which are readily available.

Ahhhhh yes! The vast right-wing conspiracy thickens……………Another good quote I can use now is from Homer Simpson. “D’ohhhh”

2. Look up what treason is.

3. Answers to your questions about the Republican National Convention:

Do you believe that we are safe from terrorists? No.

Do you believe that anything productive arose from this kind of behavior? Yes.

And I should also add that this was headline news on Al Jezera news! Do you think that this motivated the terrorists? No.

Do you believe that the media here influences attacks on American soldiers? No.

Do you believe that American Soldiers will die because of our upcoming election? No.

Is it alright to burn a likeness of our president? Yes.

Is it alright for someone to knock down my Bush lawn sign? No.

Do you feel alright with people burn the flag in protest? Yes.

At what point would you say that your freedoms are being exploited or mocked? The moment that Federal or State government attempt to limit my freedoms in any way, even when done so with the best of intentions.

4. Your claim that American soldiers/POWs died because of something John Kerry said or did, instead of at the hands of enemy combatants is shameful. Combined with your suggestion that U.S. citizens, news reports and elections cause terrorist and military attacks, this is akin to blaming the United States for the attack by Al Qaida on September 11, 2001.

They give people the Purple Heart when they are wounded in combat. They usually pin this on the pillow of the soldier, as it is usually at the hospital where this is presented. The Purple Heart is a revered medal and in most cases is presented after the person has died. (OK. But those “usually” cases you mention above are far from any sort of requirement. Your implication is that John Kerry wasn’t injured “enough”. That’s just wrong.)– {My position is that John Kerry admitted to getting the First Purple Heart as a result of his own actions and not from enemy fire. #2 and #3 have also been questioned although the First is the only one that Kerry has admitted was obtained fraudulently!}

The only reason that any of this is an issue is because Kerry used it as his platform. All of his bids for office, going all the way back to the seventies. (OK. I would too.){Maybe it would work for you although all the Veterans that I know, Do Not wear there military service on their sleeve. Most vets are humble and unless in the company of other Veterans will avoid the topic altogether. I?m not saying that one should be ashamed of his/her service but am saying that it is not flaunted. It always looks bad in the presence of Veterans as they are well aware of what duty and service to country means. We are the fortunate ones who made it home to our families and now we have an obligation to those that did not. It would be disrespectful to their memory to boast about such things as Medals and Getting shot at On Christmas Eve in Cambodia. My suggestion is to go visit your local Veterans Hospital and ask questions. These are the unsung heroes who are just grunts and cooks and mechanics. They have stories of valor and honor and as I stated earlier in this thread that when you are in combat it becomes about only getting yourself and your fellow soldiers home alive.}

Back to our story: Now Kerry is deployed and while in Vietnam, He is put into a Swiftboat unit. They patrolled the rivers and deltas. While there He is awarded Three Purple Hearts, A Bronze Star and a Silver Star, All this in four months. (Sounds like an active, engaged, soldier to me. The awards, which I’ll point out here are not awarded by John Kerry to himself, but by superiors that probably don’t have any vested interest in his decorations, appear to be fairly impressive.) {It?s funny that you point out, ?were not awarded by John Kerry to himself?, although he was the author of all of the After Action Reports that led to his awards. You hit the nail on the head as the awards that we speak of are still under question and the commanders who authorized these awards are saying that they did not.}

Next he uses a military provision that allows a person who has received Three Purple hearts a ticket home. Walking I should add! (Three Purple Hearts sounds like a legitimate reason to go home, and it seems as though his superiors thought so too. You are correct, however. He could have volunteered for more action.) {I pointed out earlier that his fellow soldiers had labeled him a ?Purple Heart Hunter? and thought that he was of no use to anyone but himself. Please read O?neill?s ?Unfit For Command? if you haven?t already done so. I?m not going to beg you to read this although I feel it is necessary reading to create an informed decision on the upcoming election.}

Kerry went home and immediately helped form the VVAW (Vietnam Veterans Against The War). He was very active in his protests and you’re right Kevin “there is nothing wrong with having a voice”. (That’s right)

Opinion-Only Items
==================
His fellow soldiers didn’t object as they had already labeled him a Purple Heart hunter and self serving and In combat that is the worst label that one can receive. (Some soldiers may have thought this. Others may have not. A few may have even been envious. What others might think now is perhaps different than what they thought then while they were all getting shot at.) {Reference: ?Unfit for command?}
He made serious claims of brutal atrocities that he had witnessed while serving. (Brutal atrocities are part of the legacy of Vietnam, unfortunately.) You are correct. The problem is that John Kerry generalized and said all soldiers in Nam were guilty, Including himself. Could I say that Detroit has a high murder rate? Yes! Could I say that all Detroiters are murderers? No!
He also IMHO endangered the lives of American soldiers who were engaged in battle or were prisoners of war. (In your opinion, OK. It may even be true. The peace movement may also have saved thousands of lives. Impossible to know.) {This is not just my opinion but also the thoughts of quite a few historians and military strategists as well as POW?s that were tortured because of Kerry?s statements. It is also know that Ho Chi Mihn has made statements that the war was drug out for years because of his hopes that the peace movement in the states would explode into civil war. Also as you agree with in the next statement! }
Our enemies exploit civil unrest, They see it as a tool to help their cause. (That makes sense, sure.)

The Vietnamese government attribute the peace movement to the success of what they call the War of the Americans. (The Vietnamese government may think this although I’m sure they are much more likely to give the “victory” to their people and their military rather than to American peace protesters. Additionally, I don’t understand it to be the view of military experts, historians, active participants, etc. I prefer a studied interpretation of the war to one which has a purely political/nationalistic purpose to it.)
{Again I find it ironic that you use the word ?victory? as there was never a battle lost to American troops in Vietnam. The war was lost here at home and yes it was the peace movement that can take the bow for handing over our allies to be slaughtered like lamb. Kerry was instrumental in negotiating our ?surrender? not our withdrawal as some would suggest. He also negotiated prisoner of war exchanges and is directly responsible for the loss of an unknown amount of POW?s that the NV intentionally withheld to guarantee the terms of our surrender!}

Next Kerry meets with the North Vietnamese government accidentally while vacationing in Paris. This stuff is not made up and is well know unless you factor in the Non-existent MSM. By Kerry meeting with the enemy in Paris, He gave aid and comfort to the enemy and should have been arrested and jailed under the UCMJ (uniform code of military justice). Kerry was still in the military. (Yes, this is well documented, even in the “MSM”. It hasn’t been very notable because, well, it’s not all that notable. If his actions were as extreme as you point out and he gave “aid and comfort” to the enemy, he would have been arrested. He wasn’t.) {I should point out that there is speculation that Kerry?s actions in Paris did have some ill effects on his military career although because John Kerry refuses to sign his SF 180 form allowing public access to his military records we may never know. It is know that Kerry did not receive an honorable discharge from active duty until years later although this may be a result of the terms of his Naval contract. Regardless I see this as being treason, many agree.}

These are simply my views and about 600,000 other veterans of military service. (Actually, they are simply your views. The other 600,000 can speak for themselves, I’m sure. A few might even disagree with you.) {This should read 60,000 and not 600,000 and the number has grown to 76,000 and they are all members of Vets4Bush so it would be safe to assume that some would agree with me.
http://vets4bush.com
I think Kerry is a coward because he ran from the Pentagon like a scared little girl while others stood and became heroes. (Earning Three Purple Hearts, a Silver Star and a Bronze Star, or even just one minor decoration, or nothing at all; while actually standing on the ground in combat shooting at the enemy and being shot at, for four months, or even for four minutes, is not a coward in my book. Sounds like you would categorize a fair number of our soldiers would qualify as cowards!) {Just my humble opinion based on the information above. And please, Let?s not generalize and put words in my mouth. I think Kerry is a coward ! If ?In your Book? you draw different opinions of him then please feel free to. This is America and I respect your opinion, I don?t always agree but I do respect it.
I think he is a coward because he refuses to release all of his military records. (OK.)
I think Kerry is a coward because he left his fellow soldiers after only four months. (You keep repeating this one point, but as before, three Purple Hearts sounds like a legitimate reason to go home, and it seems as though his superiors though so too.) {Covered Above:}
I think he is a coward because he has exploited medals that me and all veterans hold sacred. (I’m not sure what you mean by “exploited medals.”) {Covered Above: Purple Heart Hunter, Lied about injuries, etc???..}
BTW, I was deployed as a unit and returned with my unit when I served! (I thank you for your service to my country.){Your welcome !}
His senate record sucks IMHO (OK)
He has no plan for Iraq IMHO (OK)
He has flipped on every issue imaginable. (OK)

Delusional Paranoid Items
=========================
He allowed or didn’t object to protesters swarming the Republican Nation Convention. He campaigned during the Republican Nation Convention, all of which is a violation and a disregard to Democracy as a whole. (Campaigning at any time is not illegal in any way whatsoever. Even if it were, calling it a disregard to democracy would be quite a stretch.) {There is unwritten rules that most abide by. For example: usually during the Party of the opposition the other party avoids making political statements and usually does not campaign. This again is unwritten and simply a respect given to the other to demonstrate the respect that we give to the process as a whole. By the way during the Democratic National Convention George W Bush was at Camp David and never once made any statements during the opposition?s nomination of the Democratic Candidate for President. Also he condemned any type of protesting on his behalf and has adamantly condemned the ad?s run by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. I can quote him as saying ?This is not good for the process?! Yeah! I stand by calling it a disregard to Democracy, although that is what I arrived at. Again I respect what conclusion you come to.}

The protesters by the way (IMHO) endangered homeland security by extending the resources of our military and police forces. It must be remembered that we are at war. (For one thing, the protestors are not John Kerry. As Benjamin Franklin said: “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Whether you agree with them or not, and whether you understand it or not, those protests are precisely what Franklin would have considered “essential liberty”.){I disagree with your interpretation of Franklins meaning here, I think he was referring to our right to freedom of speech and not so much our right to cause chaos and civil unrest. And if I?m Delusional and Paranoid at least I?m in good company as NY mayor Petacki and former mayor Guiliani And also every member of our Homeland Security would agree that it was a total disregard to America?s safety. Actually I think that of all the things you have said here this is the most important.
Do you believe that we are safe from terrorists?
Next: Do you believe that anything productive arose from this kind of behavior? And I should also add that this was headline news on Al Jezera news! Do you think that this motivated the terrorists? Do you believe that the media here influences attacks on American soldiers? Do you believe that American Soldiers will die because of our upcoming election ? Is it alright to burn a likeness of our president?
Is it alright for someone to knock down my Bush lawn sign ? Do you feel alright with people burn the flag in protest? At what point would you say that your freedoms are being exploited or mocked?}

Again this disregard for public safety tells me that he is only thinking of himself. (Again, the protestors are not John Kerry. In fact, the protestors of which you spoke were protesting against George Bush much more than they are clamoring for John Kerry.) Being the democratic choice for the election, It was Kerry?s responsibility to condemn this type of behavior. I?m not saying that the protesters have to listen but he should be responsible enough to understand that this created a safety issue for New York although I believe that it was the protests that have almost assured Bush a victory in November. I do know that all of the NYPD are now decided voters! And yes I can generalize here! Again, There is unwritten etiquette that gentleman and Americans follow, Then there is Kerry !

He shifts blame on Bush when the Swiftboat vets arrive and claims there is a Republican conspiracy against him, But yet he never condemns Michael Moore and the Smear Campaign that Moore waged against Bush. He is self-serving ! (Yes, of course.) Also Bush has never attacked Kerry?s military service and has condemned any attacks or smear campaigns that have arisen ! The Bottom line is that Bush has class and Kerry is a bottom feeder. This is of course just my humble opinion.

Attempted Humor But Not Funny Items I resent that ! Did you go to: http://www.footballfansfortruth.us/ Come on, Where is your sense of humor?

http://www.wjbo.com/shrimpboatvets.html

====================================
Anyway Kevin, I don’t see any reason to continue the personal bashing so your next post will dictate where this goes. Please remember that I do not endorse Bush, Kerry, Swiftvets for truth, or my favorite Football players for truth. Although I do endorse the ShrimpboatVeterans for truth. (At the very minimum, you did directly endorse the Swiftvets for Truth and I am quite sure that you would/do endorse George Bush for President.) {I stand corrected ! Bush is the only choice ! Kerry is ?Unfit?}

I feel the same way that most of the people that you have been arguing with do. This issue is (a) one that has either a lot evidence on either side, or little evidence on either side and therefore cannot be easily resolved and (b) is unimportant in the whole scheme of the election, especially when compared to George Bush’s military record. The value if any that you place on this topic is your opinion. I don?t and have not tried to pawn my ideas onto anyone. Read back on this thread and you will note that ! I must say that you are a refreshing change from the others I?ve encountered here! When John arrived and asked me to comment on the Senate hearings, I simply was after some give and take. John was not interested in investing anything into the conversation and I?m thinking has his own ideas although he never shared them. I did take the time to read the Senate Hearings and can only derive that John wanted me to see Kerry as a hero for his protesting the war. That is not going to happen and It must be noted that If a person lies or embellishes the truth to reach his desired point, Well he is still a liar and the point gets lost behind that fact ! Kevin?s attacks were a little abrasive as was Bill?s, Both couldn?t make an argument so they decided to take the low road. When I get writing it is usually written as it would be in my usual chat mode ! I?m embarrassed to say that spelling and structure sometimes falls to the whey side! I do think that I?m understood and I know for a fact that the comments that Bill made were out of spite. Kevin, Well Hee hee What ???enough said.
What is much more important are the actual issues (in no particular order):
Stem Cell Research
Patriotism and Freedom of Speech
Women’s Rights
The Economy
The War on Terror
The War in Iraq
Homeland Security
The Environment
International Relations
Energy Policy
Health Care
Those are the things that will affect my children, and what I will be voting on.

Kudos Ron, I agree 100% ! I hope that our children never see the likes of
September 11th. I hope that they never have to go to war ! I hope that they have a life without fear of being blown up by terrorists and I hope that they understand that the freedom that they enjoy was not free ! ?God Bless? and it has been a pleasure talking with you !}

I should also add that
The war on terror is being fought in Iraq !
The activist is the one cleaning up the polluted river and not the one crying that It?s dirty!

Dean

Irrelevant Items
================
John Kerry was sent to Vietnam during the war. A combat tour consists of usually 11 months on the ground although most are dedicated to staying with the unit and wind up extending. (“Usually” 11 months…”most” stay with the unit. That’s accurate.)

They give people the Purple Heart when they are wounded in combat. They usually pin this on the pillow of the soldier, as it is usally at the hospital where this is presented. The Purple Heart is a revered medal and in most cases is presented after the person has died. (OK. But those “usually” cases you mention above are far from any sort of requirement. Your implication is that John Kerry wasn’t injured “enough”. That’s just wrong.)

The only reason that any of this is an issue is because Kerry used it as his platform. All of his bids for office, going all the way back to the seventies. (OK. I would too.)

Back to our story: Now Kerry is deployed and while in Vietnam, He is put into a Swiftboat unit. They patroled the rivers and deltas. While there He is awarded Three Purple Hearts, A Bronze Star and a Silver Star, All this in four months. (Sounds like an active, engaged, soldier to me. The awards, which I’ll point out here are not awarded by John Kerry to himself, but by superiors that probably don’t have any vested interest in his decorations, appear to be fairly impressive.)

Next he uses a military provision that allows a person who has recieved Three Purple hearts a ticket home. Walking I should add! (Three Purple Hearts sounds like a legitimate reason to go home, and it seems as though his superiors though so too. You are correct, however. He could have volunteered for more action.)

Kerry went home and immediately helped form the VVAW (Vietnam Veterans Against The War). He was very active in his protests and you’re right Kevin “there is nothing wrong with having a voice”. (That’s right)

Opinion-Only Items
==================
His fellow soldiers didn’t object as they had already labeled him a Purple Heart hunter and self serving and In combat that is the worst label that one can recieve. (Some soldiers may have thought this. Others may have not. A few may have even been envious. What others might think now is perhaps different than what they thought then while they were all getting shot at.)

He made serious claims of brutal atrocities that he had witnessed while serving. (Brutal atrocities are part of the legacy of Vietnam, unfortunately.)

He also IMHO endangered the lives of American soldiers who were engadged in battle or were prisoners of war. (In your opinion, OK. It may even be true. The peace movement may also have saved thousands of lives. Impossible to know.)

Our enemies exploit civil unrest, They see it as a tool to help their cause. (That makes sense, sure.)

The Vietnamese government atribute the peace movement to the sucess of what they call the War of the Americans. (The Vietnamese government may think this although I’m sure they are much more likely to give the “victory” to their people and their military rather than to American peace protesters. Additionally, I don’t understand it to be the view of military experts, historians, active participants, etc. I prefer a studied interpretation of the war to one which has a purely political/nationalistic purpose to it.)

Next Kerry meets with the North Vietnamese government accidently while vacationing in Paris. This stuff is not made up and is well know unless you factor in the Non-existant MSM. By Kerry meeting with the enemy in Paris, He gave aid and comfort to the enemy and should have been arrested and jailed under the UCMJ (uniform code of military justice). Kerry was still in the military. (Yes, this is well documented, even in the “MSM”. It hasn’t been very notable because, well, it’s not all that notable. If his actions were as extreme as you point out and he gave “aid and comfort” to the enemy, he would have been arrested. He wasn’t.)

These are simply my views and about 600,000 other veterans of military service. (Actually, they are simply your views. The other 600,000 can speak for themselves, I’m sure. A few might even disagree with you.)

I think Kerry is a coward because he ran from the Pentagon like a scared little girl while others stood and became heroes. (Earning Three Purple Hearts, a Silver Star and a Bronze Star, or even just one minor decoration, or nothing at all; while actually standing on the ground in combat shooting at the enemy and being shot at, for four months, or even for four minutes, is not a coward in my book. Sounds like you would categorize a fair number of our soldiers would qualify as cowards!)

I think he is a coward because he refuses to release all of his military records. (OK.)

I think Kerry is a coward because he left his fellow soldiers after only four months. (You keep repeating this one point, but as before, three Purple Hearts sounds like a legitimate reason to go home, and it seems as though his superiors though so too.)

I think he is a coward because he has exploited medals that me and all veterans hold sacred. (I’m not sure what you mean by “exploited medals.”)

BTW, I was deployed as a unit and returned with my unit when I served! (I thank you for your service to my country.)

His senate record sucks IMHO (OK)

He has no plan for Iraq IMHO (OK)

He has flipped on every issue imaginable. (OK)

Delusional Paranoid Items
=========================
He allowed or didn’t object to protesters swarming the Republican Nation Convention. He campaigned during the Republican Nation Convention, all of which is a violation and a disregard to Democracy as a whole. (Campaigning at any time is not illegal in any way whatsoever. Even if it were, calling it a disregard to democracy would be quite a stretch.)

The protesters by the way (IMHO) endangered homeland security by extending the resources of our military and police forces. It must be remembered that we are at war. (For one thing, the protestors are not John Kerry. As Benjamin Franklin said: “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Whether you agree with them or not, and whether you understand it or not, those protests are precisely what Franklin would have considered “essential liberty”.)

Again this disregard for public safety tells me that he is only thinking of himself. (Again, the protestors are not John Kerry. In fact, the protestors of which you spoke were protesting against George Bush much more than they are clamoring for John Kerry.)

He shifts blame on Bush when the Swiftboat vets arrive and claims there is a Republican conspiracy against him, But yet he never condems Michael Moore and the Smear Campaign that Moore waged against Bush. He is self-serving ! (Yes, of course.)

Attempted Humour But Not Funny Items
====================================
Anyway Kevin, I don’t see any reason to continue the personal bashing so your next post will dictate where this goes. Please remember that I do not endorse Bush, Kerry, Swiftvets for truth, or my favorite Football players for truth. Although I do endorse the ShrimpboatVeterans for truth. (At the very minimum, you did directly endorse the Swiftvets for Truth and I am quite sure that you would/do endorse George Bush for President.)

I feel the same way that most of the people that you have been arguing with do. This issue is (a) one that has either a lot evidence on either side, or little evidence on either side and therefore cannot be easily resolved and (b) is unimportant in the whole scheme of the election, especially when compared to George Bush’s military record.

What is much nmore important are the actual issues (in no particular order):

Stem Cell Research
Patriotism and Freedom of Speech
Women’s Rights
The Economy
The War on Terror
The War in Iraq
Homeland Security
The Environment
International Relations
Energy Policy
Health Care

Those are the things that will affect my children, and what I will be voting on.