John Kerry: War Hero

[sambino510]

It's alleged that Kerry met with V.C. representatives during the Vietnam conflict while on vacation in Paris while he was still in the Navy reserves. Is it treason?

Posting things like this is just going to fan the fires. Until the allegations go from allegations to convictions, all this does is breed speculative contempt towards a man that very few people can prove did anything wrong.

However, to answer your question, no, I do not believe that is treason, even if he DID meet with them. Treason to me would be if he gave them information or helped them attack our soldiers, if he was a "double agent" so to speak. Yet, there is absolutely no proof of that.

You can't simply say that things are "alleged" and then discuss things like they are fact. I do not necessarily blame you for this, but there are many people on this website and in society as a whole that ignore the word "suspected" or "alleged" and simply read everything else. We as debaters and posters have to know this and word our sentences accordingly, making it strictly clear that these allegations are indeed ONLY allegations.

 

[whitehall]

It's alleged that Kerry met with V.C. representatives during the Vietnam conflict while on vacation in Paris while he was still in the Navy reserves. Is it treason?

Posting things like this is just going to fan the fires. Until the allegations go from allegations to convictions, all this does is breed speculative contempt towards a man that very few people can prove did anything wrong.

However, to answer your question, no, I do not believe that is treason, even if he DID meet with them. Treason to me would be if he gave them information or helped them attack our soldiers, if he was a "double agent" so to speak. Yet, there is absolutely no proof of that.

You can't simply say that things are "alleged" and then discuss things like they are fact. I do not necessarily blame you for this, but there are many people on this website and in society as a whole that ignore the word "suspected" or "alleged" and simply read everything else. We as debaters and posters have to know this and word our sentences accordingly, making it strictly clear that these allegations are indeed ONLY allegations.

I was trying to be diplomatic by saying "alleged" but an easy google search reveals that Kerry admitted meeting with V.C. representatives in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations committee.

 

[sambino510]

It's alleged that Kerry met with V.C. representatives during the Vietnam conflict while on vacation in Paris while he was still in the Navy reserves. Is it treason?

Posting things like this is just going to fan the fires. Until the allegations go from allegations to convictions, all this does is breed speculative contempt towards a man that very few people can prove did anything wrong.

However, to answer your question, no, I do not believe that is treason, even if he DID meet with them. Treason to me would be if he gave them information or helped them attack our soldiers, if he was a "double agent" so to speak. Yet, there is absolutely no proof of that.

You can't simply say that things are "alleged" and then discuss things like they are fact. I do not necessarily blame you for this, but there are many people on this website and in society as a whole that ignore the word "suspected" or "alleged" and simply read everything else. We as debaters and posters have to know this and word our sentences accordingly, making it strictly clear that these allegations are indeed ONLY allegations.

I was trying to be diplomatic by saying "alleged" but an easy google search reveals that Kerry admitted meeting with V.C. representatives in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations committee.

Ah, I'm sorry, I obviously mis-interpreted what you were trying to prove. I appreciate your concern for being diplomatic. However, I think my point about it fanning the fires still stands. For the record, though, I watched Kerry's testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and saw no mention of him admitting to meeting Viet Cong representatives in Paris. The video of his testimony is in one of my earlier posts on this thread. It's certainly POSSIBLE that whatever mention there was of his meeting with these Viet Cong representatives was edited out, but that's complete speculation. I see no reason the Viet Cong would even want to meet with him to be honest.

Anyways, sorry if I got on your case a bit too much about your post. I just get frustrated when I see the words "alleged" or "suspected" or "supposedly" and then other people take those things as facts.

 

[sambino510]

Upon realizing that the earlier Youtube video I posted was shortened, and did not include all of John Kerry's congressional testimony, I found this; a complete transcript of his comments and the comments of the Senate Foreign Relations committee. This should provide a more accurate picture than my previous video.

WinterSoldier.com - <p>Complete John Kerry Testimony, 04/22/71

 

[sambino510]

It's alleged that Kerry met with V.C. representatives during the Vietnam conflict while on vacation in Paris while he was still in the Navy reserves. Is it treason?

Posting things like this is just going to fan the fires. Until the allegations go from allegations to convictions, all this does is breed speculative contempt towards a man that very few people can prove did anything wrong.

However, to answer your question, no, I do not believe that is treason, even if he DID meet with them. Treason to me would be if he gave them information or helped them attack our soldiers, if he was a "double agent" so to speak. Yet, there is absolutely no proof of that.

You can't simply say that things are "alleged" and then discuss things like they are fact. I do not necessarily blame you for this, but there are many people on this website and in society as a whole that ignore the word "suspected" or "alleged" and simply read everything else. We as debaters and posters have to know this and word our sentences accordingly, making it strictly clear that these allegations are indeed ONLY allegations.

I was trying to be diplomatic by saying "alleged" but an easy google search reveals that Kerry admitted meeting with V.C. representatives in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations committee.

This is to correct my earlier point that Kerry never admitted to meeting in Paris with delegations from the North Vietnamese.

"I have been to Paris. I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government and of all eight of Madam Binh's points it has been stated time and time again, and was stated by Senator Vance Hartke when he returned from Paris, and it has been stated by many other officials of this Government, if the United States were to set a date for withdrawal the prisoners of war would be returned." - John Kerry

Somehow I must have missed this point when I was watching the video, as it was actually in the original Youtube video I posted. However, judging by the nature of his comments, that he met with both sides at "peace talks", the statement that he met with Viet Cong on a vacation in Paris seems completely false. Paraphrasing and simply saying that Kerry went on a personal trip to Paris to meet specifically with the Viet Cong is completely different than saying that he met and talked with both sides, and implies that he was doing so secretly and with malicious intentions when he was doing nothing of the sort. On the contrary, for whatever reason, it seems he was simply present at the negotiating process between the North and South Vietnamese in Paris

Most likely, I feel, John Kerry was there as a simple observer with very little to no influence, and certainly no direct ties or sentiments with the Viet Cong themselves. So no, if various U.S. senators, leaders, military men and otherwise met with the North Vietnamese in negotiations, then I do not think it constitutes treason if John Kerry has a discussion with the North Vietnamese.

 

[9thIDdoc]

sambino510

I just watched the complete footage of his congressional testimony for the first time, and I found nothing particularly offensive or disparaging to the troops. John Kerry did not support the war effort as a whole, and thus the troops, by proxy, were not supported by him either. However, it seemed to me like his sentiments arose out of having experienced the war first-hand as a participant, not because he had any particular hatred or disrespect for his fellow troops. All this being said, in this testimony he was acting as a representative of the veterans against Vietnam. Thus, despite his relatively limited experience in the war due to his injuries, his stories or accounts of the war crimes of soldiers do not necessarily come from his own eyes, and I presume come from stories he has heard from other veterans. I see no purpose as to why he or others would lie about crimes committed by their fellow troops.

The fact of the matter is that Kerry swore under oath that the allegations he was making were from particular people who held particular positions in a particular place at a particular time. His testimony was investigated and many of these people were simply not who and what they claimed and some of the rest never participated in the duties they described. Some had never been in the military or anywhere near Vietnam much less been involved in. The investigation found only one allegation that was worthy of further follow up and in the end no chargeable crime was found.
His injuries never any loss of duty time what-so-ever.
He never had "fellow troops". He was a Navy officer who ran boats up and down rivers for a little while and had no way of knowing what was going on elsewhere.
Most troops considered it highly disrespectful to be accused of all sorts of dishonorable conduct and being the target of nasty lies.

" I don't mean to speculate in such a way, but ..."

Then maybe you should avoid doing so lest your speculations prove as untrue as your presumption above.

Regarding his Purple Hearts, many, many soldiers received Purple Hearts, "against their will" so to speak, for injuries minor to severe. Some deserved it, some did not, but to my knowledge it was not the soldier who decided whether they should receive a Purple Heart.

",,,to my knowledge..." What knowledge would that be? Apparently you don't have any related to Kerry or Vietnam and what little you think you have is wrong. The fact that Kerry campaigned for his medals is part of the record.

 

[sambino510]

sambino510

I just watched the complete footage of his congressional testimony for the first time, and I found nothing particularly offensive or disparaging to the troops. John Kerry did not support the war effort as a whole, and thus the troops, by proxy, were not supported by him either. However, it seemed to me like his sentiments arose out of having experienced the war first-hand as a participant, not because he had any particular hatred or disrespect for his fellow troops. All this being said, in this testimony he was acting as a representative of the veterans against Vietnam. Thus, despite his relatively limited experience in the war due to his injuries, his stories or accounts of the war crimes of soldiers do not necessarily come from his own eyes, and I presume come from stories he has heard from other veterans. I see no purpose as to why he or others would lie about crimes committed by their fellow troops.

The fact of the matter is that Kerry swore under oath that the allegations he was making were from particular people who held particular positions in a particular place at a particular time. His testimony was investigated and many of these people were simply not who and what they claimed and some of the rest never participated in the duties they described. Some had never been in the military or anywhere near Vietnam much less been involved in. The investigation found only one allegation that was worthy of further follow up and in the end no chargeable crime was found.
His injuries never any loss of duty time what-so-ever.
He never had "fellow troops". He was a Navy officer who ran boats up and down rivers for a little while and had no way of knowing what was going on elsewhere.
Most troops considered it highly disrespectful to be accused of all sorts of dishonorable conduct and being the target of nasty lies.

" I don't mean to speculate in such a way, but ..."

Then maybe you should avoid doing so lest your speculations prove as untrue as your presumption above.

Regarding his Purple Hearts, many, many soldiers received Purple Hearts, "against their will" so to speak, for injuries minor to severe. Some deserved it, some did not, but to my knowledge it was not the soldier who decided whether they should receive a Purple Heart.

",,,to my knowledge..." What knowledge would that be? Apparently you don't have any related to Kerry or Vietnam and what little you think you have is wrong. The fact that Kerry campaigned for his medals is part of the record.

No need to attack my personal intelligence or knowledge of the Vietnam War. I have admitted my shortcomings, and acknowledged that much of what I say is, indeed, speculation. Just out of curiosity, what shows that Kerry campaigned and actively advocated for his medals and awards? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just have never heard anything of the sort.

Indeed, I understand the frustration other soldiers would have if Kerry did accuse them of such heinous crimes if they were not guilty of them. However, in his testimony I did not notice anything that seemed to make a blanket statement that all U.S. soldiers were horrible, horrible people. I know very little about follow-up investigations as to his specific allegations towards specific soldiers. Could you give me a link?

Also, I once again do not think it's hard to imagine that incidents like My Lai occured more than once. Even if they did not, I think the carpet bombers and indiscriminate Napalm bombs of entire forests deserves some attention as well.

Once again, as I have stated in my previous discussions with you, it's a matter of perspective. There may or may not be times when I present information that is false, but I make a pretty serious effort at backing up my statements with evidence or facts. I do not actively try to lie.

 

[9thIDdoc]

QandO: The Fraud of the Winter Soldier

February 16, 2004

The Fraud of the Winter Soldier
Posted by McQ



Many statements have been made that because John Kerry participated in Viet Nam, he had earned the right to protest the war. I want to say an unequivocal &#8220;I agree&#8221;. But that being said, I&#8217;d agree that ANY American has that right. Dissent is critical to the maintenance of freedom and I&#8217;d not deny that right to anyone for any reason.

However, as with any right, there come responsibilities. One of the responsibilities incumbent upon any who dissent is to do so in a PRINCIPLED fashion. It is their right to dissent, but it is their duty to do so responsibly.

THAT is the crux of my problem with John Kerry&#8217;s dissent. For the most part it was based on fraud. His dissent was NOT based in truth. His dissent was not conducted responsibly. It was, in my opinion, based on mischaracterization, outright lies, and fraud.

[Much of what I&#8217;m going to quote here comes from an excellent book that I urge all to read concerning this specifically and Viet Nam and its veterans in general. The book is &#8220;Stolen Valor&#8221; by B.G. Burkett. I&#8217;ll append &#8220;[BG]&#8221; after those quotes so excerpted.]

Neil Sheehan, certainly not a proponent of the war in Viet Nam by any stretch, characterized what was going on at that time quite well. Sheehan destroyed the credibility of Mark Lane&#8217;s book &#8220;Conversations with Americans&#8221; by revealing most of the &#8220;veterans&#8221; who&#8217;s &#8220;atrocities&#8221; Lane quoted hadn&#8217;t been in combat or even in Vietnam in many cases :

&#8221;This kind of reasoning," Sheehan wrote, "amounts to a new McCarthyism, this time from the left. Any accusation, any innuendo, any rumor, is repeated and published as truth."[BG}

It was, however, Lane&#8217;s book which inspired the &#8220;Winter Solder investigation&#8221;. The major organizers of the so-called &#8220;investigation&#8221; staged in Detroit in 1971 included Jane Fonda, Dick Gregory, Phil Ochs, Graham Nash, David Crosby, Tom Hayden, Daniel Berrigan actor Donald Sutherland and activist lawyer and writer Mark Lane - the same guy who&#8217;d already been revealed as a fake. Also deeply involved in the organization of the event was the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) which included John Kerry who was on the VVAW Executive committee.




Kerry hooked up with an organization called Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW). Two events cooked up by this group went a long way toward cementing in the public mind the image of Vietnam as one big atrocity. The first of these was the January 31, 1971, "Winter Soldier Investigation," organized by "the usual suspects" among antiwar celebrities such as Jane Fonda, Dick Gregory, and Kennedy-assassination conspiracy theorist, Mark Lane. Here, individuals purporting to be Vietnam veterans told horrible stories of atrocities in Vietnam: using prisoners for target practice, throwing them out of helicopters, cutting off the ears of dead Viet Cong soldiers, burning villages, and gang-raping women as a matter of course.


To reveal the depth of dishonesty present, Al Hubbard, one of the founders of the VVAW and its Executive Secretary, claimed to be an Air Force pilot, wounded in Viet Nam. In fact, Hubbard was never an officer, never wounded and never in Viet Nam. VVAW members Elton Mazione, John Laboon, Eddie Swetz and Kenneth Van Lesser all claimed to have been a part of the Phoenix program in Viet Nam where they routinely killed children and removed body parts as a part of their duty. They were shown to have never been in the Phoenix program nor had they ever been in Viet Nam. And the list of more frauds later found within the organization is mind-boggling.

So this is the organization with which Kerry was associated when he used the &#8220;horrible stories&#8221; generated by Mark Lane and the VVAW&#8217;s &#8220;Winter Soldier investigation&#8221; as the basis of his Congressional &#8220;testimony&#8221; later that year, saying at one point:

I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.&#8221; [emphasis added]

Not content with this outright lie, he stated further on in his &#8220;testimony&#8221;:

&#8221;It is part and parcel of everything that we are trying as human beings to communicate to people in this country: the question of racism which is rampant in the military, and so many other questions; also the use of weapons, the hypocrisy in our taking umbrage in the Geneva Conventions and using that as justification for a continuation of this war, when we are more guilty than any other body of violations of those Geneva Conventions, in the use of free-fire zones, harassment, interdiction fire, search-and-destroy missions, the bombings, the torture of prisoners, the killing of prisoners - accepted policy in many units in South Vietnam.&#8221;

This too is a complete and utter lie. For instance, to pretend that torturing or killing prisoners was an &#8220;accepted policy in many units in South Vietnam&#8221; is to DISHONOR those who served in Vietnam because it requires one to then believe that gross human rights violations were encouraged by the chain-of-command and therefore committed &#8220;routinely&#8221;,as a matter of policy, by our soldiers.

As Guenter Lewey pointed out in his book &#8220;America in Vietnam&#8221;,

"Yet these incidents either (as in the destruction of hamlets) did not violate the law of war or took place in breach of existing regulations," Lewy wrote. &#8220;Those responsible were tired and punished. In either case, they were not, as alleged, part of a 'criminal policy,'" [BG]

We&#8217;ve also since learned that John Kerry&#8217;s &#8220;impassioned&#8221; and &#8220;impromptu&#8221; testimony wasn&#8217;t even written by him and certainly, as he claimed, NOT &#8216;impromptu&#8217;.

And Kerry's emotional, from-the-heart speech had been carefully crafted by a speech writer for Robert Kennedy named Adam Walinsky, who also tutored him on how to present it.[BG]

But that didn&#8217;t stop Kerry from mischaracterizing it to Congress:

&#8221;I would simply like to speak in very general terms. I apologize if my statement is general because I received notification yesterday you would like to hear me and I am afraid because of the injunction I was up most of the night and haven&#8217;t had a great deal of time to prepare.&#8221;

So what about the famous &#8220;Winter Soldier investigation&#8221; which was the basis for Kerry&#8217;s testimony?

The same disrespect for the truth was in operation during the Winter Soldier hearings. After all the atrocities were dutifully taken down, the transcript was inserted into the Congressional Record by Sen. Mark O. Hatfield, who asked the commandant of the Marine Corps to investigate the many crimes, particularly those perpetrated by Marines.
"The results of this investigation, carried out by the Naval Investigative Service are interesting and revealing," said historian Guenter Lewy in his book America in Vietnam. His history of the war was one of the first to rely on previously classified documents in the National Archives. "Many of the veterans, although assured that they would not be questioned atrocities they might have committed personally, refused to be interviewed. One of the active members of the VVAW told investigators that the leadership had directed the entire membership not to cooperate with military authorizes.

One black Marine who testified at Winter Soldier did agree to talk with the investigators. Although he had claimed during the hearing that Vietnam was "one huge atrocity" and a "racist plot," he could provide no details of any actual crimes. Lewy said the question of atrocities had not occurred to the Marine until he left Vietnam. His testimony had been substantially "assisted" by a member of the Nation of Islam.

"But the most damaging finding consisted of the sworn statements of several veterans, corroborated by witnesses, that they had in fact not attended the hearing in Detroit," Lewy wrote, "One of them had never been to Detroit in his life." Fake "witnesses" had appropriated the names of real Vietnam veterans.
Lewy pointed out that incidents similar to those described at the Winter Soldier hearings did occur. "Yet these incidents either (as in the destruction of hamlets) did not violate the law of war or took place in breach of existing regulations," Lewy wrote. Those responsible were tired and punished.

"In either case, they were not, as alleged, part of a 'criminal policy,'" Lewy said. Despite the antiwar movement's contention that military policies protecting civilians in Vietnam were routinely ignored, Lewy said the rules of engagement were implemented and taken very seriously, although at times the rules were not communicated properly and the training was inadequate. That's what made the failure so notable. [BG]


Lewey&#8217;s findings?

"The VVAW's use of fake witnesses and the failure to cooperate with military authorities and to provide crucial details of the incidents further cast serious doubt on the professed desire to server the causes of justice and humanity." Lewy wrote. "It is more likely that this inquiry, like others earlier and later, had primarily political motives and goals.&#8221;[BG]

Although the &#8220;Winter Soldier investigations&#8221; were thoroughly discredited, they continued to be used to discredit the Vietnam era military, such as in a 1993 &#8220;Newsweek&#8221; story by Brownmiller about gang rape by soldiers. They also continue to be the basis for the myths and stereotypes which linger, even today, about Viet Nam veterans.

Bottom Line:

Was John Kerry entitled to protest the war in Viet Nam - Yes.

Was John Kerry&#8217;s dissent principled and responsible &#8211; NO

It was John Kerry&#8217;s responsibility to ensure his dissent was both principled and responsible. He instead participated in a fraud and a sham known as the &#8220;Winter Soldier investigation&#8221; and then compounded that by using the fraudulent &#8216;testimony&#8217; from that event as the STATED basis of his testimony to Congress. He made no effort to determine the truth of what he testified to, or if he did, chose to ignore the results. He completely failed the test of 'responsible dissent'.

With his testimony he indicted an entire generation of soldiers as war criminals, committing war crimes &#8220;not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.&#8221;

For that, for his total lack of responsible dissent, I find his anti-war activities to have been despicable, reprehensible and unforgivable.

And, because of that patent fraud, and irresponsible behavior, I also find him to be totally unsuited to be President of the United States.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Albrektson Family Web » Blog Archive » John Kerry: War Hero

John Kerry: War Hero

Raymond, 29 July 2004, No comments
Categories: Opinion


Am I the only one who feels a stirring in my gag reflex whenever John Kerry dons the mantle of Vietnam veteran and military hero? Last night (July 28, 2004) John Edwards alleged in his DNC speech, &#8220;When John Kerry graduated college [sic], he volunteered for military service, volunteered to go to Vietnam, volunteered to captain a swiftboat, one of the most dangerous duties in Vietnam that you could have. As a result, he was wounded, honored for his valor.&#8221;
Let&#8217;s get this straight: John Kerry volunteered for military service the way Clinton volunteered for impeachment. He couldn&#8217;t avoid it! Which is, in itself, surprising, since he was the golden-haired scion of a super-rich East-coast family that almost never saw their sons sail into harm&#8217;s way. What went wrong?
We&#8217;ll probably never know why Kerry&#8217;s draft board refused his request for an additional deferral to &#8220;study in Paris,&#8221; but when the writing was on the wall (i.e., the draft was looming), then Kerry &#8220;volunteered&#8221; for military service.
But his blue-blooded luck held&#8211;he got a super-safe berth on a guided-missile frigate and in a ridiculously short period, was given the golden handshake: his own command at an even younger age than the original JFK.
And Kerry made the most of those next four months of skippering of his own boat: he shot reel after reel of self-glorifying film footage of himself being heroic, won a Silver Star (for actions that included putting a bullet into the head of a wounded Viet-Cong and retrieving his empty weapon), and got three Band-Aid wounds for each of which he applied for and was awarded a Purple Heart.
And I&#8217;m sure the limbless, blind, and disabled veterans of American military history don&#8217;t begrudge Kerry those Purple Hearts. After all, those medals gave him the legal justification (the &#8220;controlling legal authority&#8221 he needed to apply for a cushy reassignment stateside&#8211;an application that was in the mail less than a week after they put the third Band-Aid on his arm.
Let&#8217;s not even mention Kerry&#8217;s despicable anti-war protest while still in uniform (and technically still assigned as an admiral&#8217;s aid), his self-confessed war crimes, his persecution of other Vietnam veterans, or the truthfulness of his different accounts regarding the medal-throwing episode.
Do I have a right to resent a fellow Vietnam-era veteran? You bet I do. He can&#8217;t help being a silver-spoon sucking prep-school blue-blooded rich kid, but he chose his own Vietnam identity: a self-glorifying, show-boating hothead who transformed four months or random acts of violence into a &#8220;heroic tour of military duty&#8221; and the foundation for a presidential run as the &#8220;real war hero.&#8221;
Gag me&#8211;with a silver spoon.

 

[9thIDdoc]

 

[RKMBrown]

Was watching a program where they were showing Kerry testifying before a Senate committee in the '70's where he called American troops war criminals and baby killers. The truth about Kerry was he was a gutless coward. The policy at the time he was in Viet Nam was that if you were awarded 3 Purple Hearts you got sent home. Kerry served a total of 120 days in country on a gunboat. He was awarded 3 Purple Hearts but did not spend 1 day in a field hospital. How is that possible? He was sent home, joined a group of veterans against the war, led protests and threw his medals over the fence at the Whitehouse. That made him enough of a hero to the commies in the Peoples Republic of Massachusetts to get him elected to the senate. Now the SOB is the Secretary of State. Great job America!

For democrats the measure of greatness is how big a piece of dung you are.

 

[9thIDdoc]

 

[whitehall]

As an independent commander of a Swift Boat Kerry got to recommend his crew for medals and oh yeah himself too. It seems he was rather lavish in self praise when he recommended himself for a Silver Star for shooting a single (unarmed?) V.C.

 

[Surfer]

Kerry simply pointed out that the educated have more options about their future. He didn't call those who had less options and chose the military losers. You did. It's called projection. Your surgeon friends are heroes, but the grunts are loosers?

Bull. Kerry is a condescending, arrogant @sshole. Everyone knows it. I never said anything about the grunts. I think all Conservative military personnel are heroes. The liberals who b*tch and moan the whole time they're serving, who are only there because it was that or prison, who are just there for the benefits and who give/sell our secrets to our enemies etc are maggots.

Thanks for clearing that up. Folks who agree with you are heroes and those that don't are maggots or at least not worthy of appreciation for their service.

I, like most good, decent Americans am fed up with liberals pretend/fake/alleged patriotism. Most are liars and frauds. They only want to use this country for its benefits like welfare, freedom of speech, free education, good healthcare etc. Most contribute nothing and suck us dry financially. Most breed like rats and demand the working people pay up. The godless commie liberal military members can go fck themselves. The honorable, patriotic, Republican, Independent, Christians and Jews are heroes.

 

[RKMBrown]

Bull. Kerry is a condescending, arrogant @sshole. Everyone knows it. I never said anything about the grunts. I think all Conservative military personnel are heroes. The liberals who b*tch and moan the whole time they're serving, who are only there because it was that or prison, who are just there for the benefits and who give/sell our secrets to our enemies etc are maggots.

Thanks for clearing that up. Folks who agree with you are heroes and those that don't are maggots or at least not worthy of appreciation for their service.

I, like most good, decent Americans am fed up with liberals pretend/fake/alleged patriotism. Most are liars and frauds. They only want to use this country for its benefits like welfare, freedom of speech, free education, good healthcare etc. Most contribute nothing and suck us dry financially. Most breed like rats and demand the working people pay up. The godless commie liberal military members can go fck themselves. The honorable, patriotic, Republican, Independent, Christians and Jews are heroes.

There are some heroes that are not Republican or Independent or Christian or Jewish. Just sayin.

 

[sambino510]

Bull. Kerry is a condescending, arrogant @sshole. Everyone knows it. I never said anything about the grunts. I think all Conservative military personnel are heroes. The liberals who b*tch and moan the whole time they're serving, who are only there because it was that or prison, who are just there for the benefits and who give/sell our secrets to our enemies etc are maggots.

Thanks for clearing that up. Folks who agree with you are heroes and those that don't are maggots or at least not worthy of appreciation for their service.

I, like most good, decent Americans am fed up with liberals pretend/fake/alleged patriotism. Most are liars and frauds. They only want to use this country for its benefits like welfare, freedom of speech, free education, good healthcare etc. Most contribute nothing and suck us dry financially. Most breed like rats and demand the working people pay up. The godless commie liberal military members can go fck themselves. The honorable, patriotic, Republican, Independent, Christians and Jews are heroes.

It's pretty assumptive to say that it is only the Republicans and Western religions that are the honorable people. It is also assumptive to say that all liberals are "godless commies". I have many Democratic family members and friends (even though I'm Independent) who all believe in God. In the same way that people should not stereotype Republicans, I would urge you to avoid stereotyping Democrats. I guarantee you there are many useless Republicans too, many of which also use things like food stamps or free education.

 

[whitehall]

Thanks for clearing that up. Folks who agree with you are heroes and those that don't are maggots or at least not worthy of appreciation for their service.

I, like most good, decent Americans am fed up with liberals pretend/fake/alleged patriotism. Most are liars and frauds. They only want to use this country for its benefits like welfare, freedom of speech, free education, good healthcare etc. Most contribute nothing and suck us dry financially. Most breed like rats and demand the working people pay up. The godless commie liberal military members can go fck themselves. The honorable, patriotic, Republican, Independent, Christians and Jews are heroes.

It's pretty assumptive to say that it is only the Republicans and Western religions that are the honorable people. It is also assumptive to say that all liberals are "godless commies". I have many Democratic family members and friends (even though I'm Independent) who all believe in God. In the same way that people should not stereotype Republicans, I would urge you to avoid stereotyping Democrats. I guarantee you there are many useless Republicans too, many of which also use things like food stamps or free education.

Can you freaking (left wing) moderates ever focus on a freaking issue? Kerry was a fraud and a traitor and the freaking everything you hate until he ran as a democrat.

 

[regent]

I, like most good, decent Americans am fed up with liberals pretend/fake/alleged patriotism. Most are liars and frauds. They only want to use this country for its benefits like welfare, freedom of speech, free education, good healthcare etc. Most contribute nothing and suck us dry financially. Most breed like rats and demand the working people pay up. The godless commie liberal military members can go fck themselves. The honorable, patriotic, Republican, Independent, Christians and Jews are heroes.

It's pretty assumptive to say that it is only the Republicans and Western religions that are the honorable people. It is also assumptive to say that all liberals are "godless commies". I have many Democratic family members and friends (even though I'm Independent) who all believe in God. In the same way that people should not stereotype Republicans, I would urge you to avoid stereotyping Democrats. I guarantee you there are many useless Republicans too, many of which also use things like food stamps or free education.

Can you freaking (left wing) moderates ever focus on a freaking issue? Kerry was a fraud and a traitor and the freaking everything you hate until he ran as a democrat.

The navy didn't say he was a fraud, but said upon investigation that Kerry deserved the awards. If you are uncomfortable with the medals why not take it up with the navy, the navy gave the awards not the Democratic party.

 

[sambino510]

I, like most good, decent Americans am fed up with liberals pretend/fake/alleged patriotism. Most are liars and frauds. They only want to use this country for its benefits like welfare, freedom of speech, free education, good healthcare etc. Most contribute nothing and suck us dry financially. Most breed like rats and demand the working people pay up. The godless commie liberal military members can go fck themselves. The honorable, patriotic, Republican, Independent, Christians and Jews are heroes.

It's pretty assumptive to say that it is only the Republicans and Western religions that are the honorable people. It is also assumptive to say that all liberals are "godless commies". I have many Democratic family members and friends (even though I'm Independent) who all believe in God. In the same way that people should not stereotype Republicans, I would urge you to avoid stereotyping Democrats. I guarantee you there are many useless Republicans too, many of which also use things like food stamps or free education.

Can you freaking (left wing) moderates ever focus on a freaking issue? Kerry was a fraud and a traitor and the freaking everything you hate until he ran as a democrat.

I have no problem focusing on an issue. I was responding to the post made by Surfer, a post which happened to be a bit off topic.

 

[daveman]

Whenever someone tries to criticize John Kerry, this is all they can ever come up with. Last I checked, it is not a crime to be be critical of a military operation, especially something like Vietnam. I have not seen the footage of Kerry, and if he actually said that every soldier is a war criminal, then he shouldn't have made such a blanket statement. However, there were certainly various crimes committed by our soldiers in Vietnam. In terms of throwing his medals over the fence, if a man wins a medal and doesn't want it, feels he doesn't deserve it, or whatever, I think it's his choice to do with it as he pleases. Kerry was not the only returning soldier to protest the war; there were thousands.

I don't particularly like the man, but the smear campaign against him and his role in the Vietnam War is, I think, a joke, not to mention irrelevant. Criticize him on his policy and his actions today, not something from forty years ago.

I guess you haven't read my posts on Kerry.

The man met with representatives of the North Vietnamese government and rubber-stamped their terms for a US surrender.

Normal people call that treason.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/262447-john-kerry-unfit-for-service.html

I'm not saying you're wrong, but do you have a link to your sources that show that John Kerry met with the NVA leaders?

In the thread I linked. Reading is fun!