I’m still angry about these lying scumbags. They are no better than the insurgents in Iraq, for they have attacked the American institution of democracy. I don’t think being sued for liable is enough. They should be arrested and charged. I’m going to write my Republican congressman and demand action.
I’m still waiting for Kerry’s secret plan.
Interesting, Richardm – one could argue that the Swift Boat Vets also made a tangible contribution to the deaths of American soldiers in the present war. By helping Bush get re-elected, they helped a leader stay in power who has consistently ignored the safety of his troops.
However, I suppose the Swift Boat Vets are only a symptom of the truth-challenged position that many Republicans find themselves in these days, though.
What’s Kerry’s secret plan? Will he tell us now that he lost? Or is he being unAmerican by keeping it for Hillary in 2008? hahaha
Not so secret.
And yes, I know the election is over and I accept the results, but I think that allowing the fraud to go unpunished will just encourage more of the same next time and probably worse.
[quote=“mofangongren”]Interesting, Richardm – one could argue that the Swift Boat Vets also made a tangible contribution to the deaths of American soldiers in the present war. By helping Bush get re-elected, they helped a leader stay in power who has consistently ignored the safety of his troops.
However, I suppose the Swift Boat Vets are only a symptom of the truth-challenged position that many Republicans find themselves in these days, though.[/quote]
yadda yadda yadda
[quote=“mofangongren”]Interesting, Richardm – one could argue that the Swift Boat Vets also made a tangible contribution to the deaths of American soldiers in the present war. By helping Bush get re-elected, they helped a leader stay in power who has consistently ignored the safety of his troops.
However, I suppose the Swift Boat Vets are only a symptom of the truth-challenged position that many Republicans find themselves in these days, though.[/quote]
:loco: Muy loco en el cabeza…and damn laughable also.
Lets make it easier for some to understand…"… one could argue that the Swift Boat Vets also made a tangible contribution to the deaths of American soldiers in the present war…"…is a damned lie.
The Swift Vets for Truth performed a valuable service to the USA.
Kerry was outed as the da,med liar he is, and has been, and was held accountable for his actions.
If the Swift Vets lied, where are the slander/libel suits?
Got an answer to that one?
How so? Did they present any truth? Oops… looks like they didn’t. Since they had nothing honest to contribute, it would appear that they were just a bunch of smearartists.
Outed as a liar? Hmmm… looks like the smearboaters were exposed as liars. These Republiconmen jackasses were tripping all over each other’s lies trying to outdo each other’s whoppers. They tried to say Kerry’s wounds weren’t real… but the guy telling that fib wasn’t even treating Kerry. They tried to say Kerry wasn’t under enemy fire, but their own medal citations for the same day show clearly that they were under fire. Then they spoke up in ads how they “served with” Kerry – but some of them weren’t even anywhere near Kerry. I guess my great-uncle served with Ike because he was one of a zillion guys at D-Day. I guess my grandfather served with Nimitz and JFK, then.
[quote=“TainanCowboy”]If the Swift Vets lied, where are the slander/libel suits?
Got an answer to that one? [/quote]
Perhaps they will come, perhaps not. It’s up to Kerry to make that decision. However, time and again, the Swifties have been proven to be liars.
How so? Did they present any truth? Oops… looks like they didn’t. Since they had nothing honest to contribute, it would appear that they were just a bunch of smearartists.
Outed as a liar? Hmmm… looks like the smearboaters were exposed as liars. These Republiconmen jackasses were tripping all over each other’s lies trying to outdo each other’s whoppers. They tried to say Kerry’s wounds weren’t real… but the guy telling that fib wasn’t even treating Kerry. They tried to say Kerry wasn’t under enemy fire, but their own medal citations for the same day show clearly that they were under fire. Then they spoke up in ads how they “served with” Kerry – but some of them weren’t even anywhere near Kerry. I guess my great-uncle served with Ike because he was one of a zillion guys at D-Day. I guess my grandfather served with Nimitz and JFK, then.
[quote=“TainanCowboy”]If the Swift Vets lied, where are the slander/libel suits?
Got an answer to that one? [/quote]
Perhaps they will come, perhaps not. It’s up to Kerry to make that decision. However, time and again, the Swifties have been proven to be liars.[/quote]
Show your sources. Substantiate your posts.
Prove it.
You have been running on mouth and hot air.
Where’s the facts?
Yeah MFGR:
Prove it. Prove it. Can you PROVE it!!!
Where there’s smoke there’s fire but where there ain’t no smoke there probably ain’t no fire and denial aint a river in Egypt.
mofan and richard, do you think kerry spent christmas in cambodia?
I do not understand US politics. Bush could stay at home and joing the National Guard for learning how to cook coffee, Kerry served in Vietnam but you blame Kerry for being a coward.
Actually I would have done it the Bush way by myself. But I would not call the guy joining the war a coward.
But not my business. Just suprised.
hmmm… gives me to think, what it takes to be BRAVE. Stay at home? Wash the dishes?
[quote=“bob_honest”]
hmmm… gives me to think, what it takes to be BRAVE. Stay at home? Wash the dishes?[/quote]
Well if you f*** it up mrs. honest will probably give you a reason to be brave
Kerry did everything in his power to avoid serving in Vietnam. And the first chance he got he ran home and cried. He was the only officer serving in his division who didn’t complete his full tour. Bush volunteered for Vietnam twice and was refused because he didn’t have enough flight time.
Most people don’t look at Kerry as a coward so much as a traitor. And that’s completely different.
I think the Bush campaign used one - and only one - honest wedge in the SBVT affair. The honest question was this: was Kerry moral in his post-war, anti-war actions?
Kerry was neither a coward nor a traitor, but his post-Vietnam War actions were highly suspect because it was so obvious that he used his anti-war stance to get and keep political office. That in itself isn’t perhaps fatally poisonous, but most importantly his anti-war actions were tied up with a kind of ideological “purity”, American style - popular at the time with the political left - which merged with that of Ho Chi Min, Mao, and other anti-West, anti-democracy voices of the day. In other words, Kerry’s anti-war stance was fused to an anti-American anti-war stance, and Kerry chose to run for political office and to win by piggybacking on the passion of the far-left’s irrational, near-mystical attachment to all things Eastern, including Ho and especially Mao, et al.
Kerry’s lifelong political opportunism - first established through his anti-war activities - is really what the SBVT guys hated about him in this campaign, I believe. Unfortunately, convincing Americans of this too-fine, too-bloodless point when less than six months remains before election means one must find a faster way, and that meant making a coarser argument. To wit, with proper funding and proper access, it is possible to “establish” that Kerry was first a coward, then a traitor (the order is important) with enough of the electorate to do the job.
Time was of the essence, and BC04 saw a way to kill two birds with one stone: win re-election and, hopefully, bury forever the left’s old love affair with the anti-democratic East. Note that this fits Bush’s political MO: any means justifies almost all of Bush’s ends.
You left out an important qualifer, and your omission may mislead bob honest.
If you are concerned with accuracy, you should have written:
Most Americans believe he was neither, as do most people. I believe most Americans, including many red state Americans, understand that the argument BC04 made against Kerry’s anti-Vietnam War activities was a time-rushed one.
To answer Richiardm’s question, then: if I’m correct, then no, they won’t “get away with it” because it will be seen for what it was, a political smear used to tackle a political opponent’s greatest strength head-on - one that was loathsome in its eagerness to drive a toxic wedge neatly through the American electorate and to revise American history while simultaneously destroying a political enemy. America’s political pendulum is near its zero-velocity point on the right and, just as it swung away from the zero-velocity point on the left (at Mao, Ho, et al) a generation ago, it will begin to fall to the center now.
If I’m wrong above, then no, the SBVT will not “get away with it.” America’s political pendulum is still moving to the right. Instead, their view merely reflects that of the majority of Americans. They’ll “get away with it” only as Americans “get away with” believing the US single-handedly won WWII. Re-opening musty military service records for current examination will become de rigeur in American politics, and every American will be forced to swim his/her own way through what’s there before a judgment about the candidate is possible. What is actually true about military service will become negotiable in the same way it’s negotiable whether Crest toothpaste is better than Colgate. The quality of American military service will become meaningful to the military alone, the US military will degrade into a warrior class, and the old civilian-soldier underpinning of American society - already threatened by an all-volunteer millitary - will be lost, just as it was lost to Rome, because military culture will no longer communicate with American civilian culture or, in the worst case, answer to civilian leadership. Many of Bush’s supporters believe that Bush believes (no one really knows, it seems) that the West is facing another Chalons in islamofascists like Osama bin Laden. From there, they feel free to conclude that any means justifies nearly all of Bush’s ends (because his are the ends of Aetius). If that means that the American civilian-soldier becomes a civilian-warrior, so be it (note: Rome’s civilian-warrior was replaced by barbarian mercenaries long before Chalons).
So I guess I say the answer is no, the SBVT won’t “get away with it.” “It” being, of course, the singular tactic of using today’s standards to judge yesterday’s military service whenever political office is at stake.
Really? Any proof of that? To actual appearances, it would seem he did one tour off the coast in a destroyer and then followed that up with a request to be on the swift boats. I would think the Republicans could get a bit better with their facts.
He did what he was supposed to do, and those who really served with him (as opposed to the fakey folks put forward by the smearboaters) had no issues with him.
Yeah, right. He checked off the form for “no” re: overseas service. Perhaps Bush could’ve had more “flight time” if he wasn’t so busy avoiding even the easy and safe duties that he had in the Texas Air National Guard. Maybe he would have had more flight time if he’d actually taken his flight physical when he was supposed to. Shouldn’t soldiers actually be ready to fight? I guess that new drug test they were implementing right then seemed to frighten Bush off, but I guess that’s “heroic” behavior in GOP circles.
Well, as a “traitor” he would have had to have done something other than exercise his constitutional right to free speech. Some people would say it’s highly “American” to serve your nation as a member of the armed services but be willing to speak your own mind when in civilian life. Kerry did.
[quote=“mofangongren”]
Well, as a “traitor” he would have had to have done something other than exercise his constitutional right to free speech. Some people would say it’s highly “American” to serve your nation as a member of the armed services but be willing to speak your own mind when in civilian life. Kerry did.[/quote]
Don’t know much about your hero, do you? Kerry should have been discharged in 1972 but wasn’t [i]granted[/i] a discharge from the Navy until 16 Feb, 1978. I wonder why? Unlike President Bush, Kerry refused to sign a Standard Form 180 which would have allowed the Navy to release all of his military records.
johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservi … eserve.pdf
BTW, have you ever received a discharge from any branch of service from any country? If so, what kind?
mofa -
Hmmm…still no sourcing for your allegation?
Hmmm…still powered by mouth and hot air?
Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the actual facts provided by the Swift Boat Vets, but of course you’ve already done this.
Surely you wouldn’t make specious comments regarding a subject you have absolutely no knowledge about…would you?
still haven’t answered the question, mofan. do you believe kerry spent christmas in cambodia?
I do.