My Feelings on the Swift Boat stuff...

[insein]

The recent swift boat vets against Kerry book is turning into nothing more than a Michael Moore equivalent attack against Kerry. Thankfully Bush has stated that he has no ties with this group and doesnt condone anything they say. There in lies the difference between Republicans and Democrats.

This type of attack is wrong. What Kerry did during his time of war should not be the issue here. Kerry's record as a senator should be the main focus here. Some people are losing sight of the issues when they are attacking ones character. This in my opinion is on the same level as most of Dems attacks on Bush. They scream all day about every imperfection he has without offering legitimite criticism or any ideas on how to fix things.

My hope is that people will steer clear of the BS from the fringe elements on both sides and focus on the issues at hand. Kerry's record as a senator is more than enough to show that he is unfit to serve as President. Bush's record as president shows ample evidence that he deserves to be reelected.

Lets focus on that people. After all, everyone does dumb things when they were young. ITs how you learn to grow and better yourselves in life that makes you a good person.

 

[Merlin1047]

This type of attack is wrong. What Kerry did during his time of war should not be the issue here. Kerry's record as a senator should be the main focus here. Some people are losing sight of the issues when they are attacking ones character. This in my opinion is on the same level as most of Dems attacks on Bush. They scream all day about every imperfection he has without offering legitimite criticism or any ideas on how to fix things.

Insein I really have to take issue with you on this one. In my opinion, character is a far more critical issue than any other single aspect of a candidate for public office. Character, or lack thereof, defines a person. For example - Bill Clinton COULD have been a great president. He was an excellent communicator, he was outgoing and likeable, he was intelligent. But he lacked character and that is why he will never rank among the great leaders of this nation. That is why he embarrassed this country and degraded the office of President of the United States.

Joe Lieberman is waaaaay too liberal for me. But he is forthright, honest and sincere. His character is such that he inspires trust. I would listen to Lieberman's opinions because I know that he believes them and that his positions have been filtered through a reliable set of ethics.

Lack of character is why I despise kerry. Yes, I thoroughly disagree with his politics, but worse than that, I am SUSPICIOUS of his politics. I am suspicious because I believe kerry to lack character. I believe he is a thoroughly reprehensible, self-serving, opportunistic liar who will say and do anything to achieve his goals.

When both candidates are of good character, then issues should be the only topic for discussion. But when a candidate is as lacking in character as kerry, then it needs to be trumpeted to anyone who will slow down to listen. Because not only is character an issue, it is THE issue that defines a president and therefore will define the nation during his term in office. For proof of that assertion, one need look no further than the Clinton administration.

 

[insein]

Let me rephrase it then. Personal attacks based on a person's actions. Like calling Bush stupid for not being able to speak well. Comparing Bush to hitler for his actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. Calling Kerry a murderer for killing enemy combatants of any age.

Admittedly, the whole Vietnam thing would NOT be an issue if KErry hadnt brought it up. Thats why i tolerate it to a point. I draw the line on any questions of what he did in battle. War is hell. Many things that humans normally wouldnt do under NORMAL circumstances, do them during war.

Personally, i feel that attacking Kerry's character by showing points where he has contradicted himself works well. Calling him a murderer for killing a young boy armed with a grenade launcher during a war is where i draw the line.

 

[freeandfun1]

Let me rephrase it then. Personal attacks based on a person's actions. Like calling Bush stupid for not being able to speak well. Comparing Bush to hitler for his actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. Calling Kerry a murderer for killing enemy combatants of any age.

Admittedly, the whole Vietnam thing would NOT be an issue if KErry hadnt brought it up. Thats why i tolerate it to a point. I draw the line on any questions of what he did in battle. War is hell. Many things that humans normally wouldnt do under NORMAL circumstances, do them during war.

Personally, i feel that attacking Kerry's character by showing points where he has contradicted himself works well. Calling him a murderer for killing a young boy armed with a grenade launcher during a war is where i draw the line.

I haven't heard ANYBODY call Kerry a murderer. But they are questioning his medals and such based on the fact, for example, that he PUT HIMSELF in for his Silver Star, no Silver Star investigation, as required, was conducted and there were no statements from the minimum two witnesses as required. Furthermore, his own commander at the time says that HE disapproved Kerry's request for his first Purple Heart and so, Kerry then went around HIS CHAIN OF COMMAND and submitted the request directly to the personnel office in Saigon.

Those two issues alone give me pause and make me question his character. I spent 8 years on active duty and spent quite a bit of time in troublesome spots of the world as an Infantryman. I cannot even fathom putting myself in for an award. If he truly deserved the awards, why did HE nominate himself? Why didn't his chain of command or fellow soldiers (as is the NORMAL case) do it instead? Truly heroic actions, I am confident, would have been recognized if merited.

Just the opinion of a vet.

 

[insein]

I haven't heard ANYBODY call Kerry a murderer. But they are questioning his medals and such based on the fact, for example, that he PUT HIMSELF in for his Silver Star, no Silver Star investigation, as required, was conducted and there were no statements from the minimum two witnesses as required. Furthermore, his own commander at the time says that HE disapproved Kerry's request for his first Purple Heart and so, Kerry then went around HIS CHAIN OF COMMAND and submitted the request directly to the personnel office in Saigon.

Those two issues alone give me pause and make me question his character. I spent 8 years on active duty and spent quite a bit of time in troublesome spots of the world as an Infantryman. I cannot even fathom putting myself in for an award. If he truly deserved the awards, why did HE nominate himself? Why didn't his chain of command or fellow soldiers (as is the NORMAL case) do it instead? Truly heroic actions, I am confident, would have been recognized if merited.

Just the opinion of a vet.

those kinds of things yes. I have no problem with that because Kerry brought it on himself. However, i have heard people call him a murderer (not on here but other places). I draw the line there because that dives into Michael Moore territory. There's plenty to attack Kerry's character with that he generates. There's no need to push half-truths.

I just don't want to see Republicans stoop to Democratic tactics.

 

[Merlin1047]

Let me rephrase it then. Personal attacks based on a person's actions. Like calling Bush stupid for not being able to speak well. Comparing Bush to hitler for his actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. Calling Kerry a murderer for killing enemy combatants of any age.

Oh, very well. I can agree with that.

 

[freeandfun1]

I just don't want to see Republicans stoop to Democratic tactics.

I agree. Look, I have been in combat, albeit limited, and I have seen people shoot people and vehicles where I am sure, some would question their actions (in particular, I was involved in the Rumalia Oil Field battle during GWI and our entire Division was charged, by Seymour (see more bullshit) Hersh with war crimes over that battle and the "highway of death". So I don't throw around the term "murderer" when it comes to combat easily and I won't do it here with Kerry.

Here is an arial photo of the "Highway of Death".

 

[krisy]

My opinion on this one is...if Kerry wouldn't have thrown his service in everyone's face constantly,this wouldn't happen to him. These veterans are doing nothing more than telling their side,which they say is the truth. If they are telling the truth,Kerry deserves what he is getting. We have listened day and night to him talking about his service as if he were the only man ever in combat.He is using it to get elected,and I personally see nothing wrong with these men using it to keep him fron getting elected,if they are telling the truth. This is politics and I think Kerry's comment about Bush on 9-11 was far more dirty than anything I have seen from the Republicans thus far.

 

[Annie]

I guess without more info, I'm tending towards the position that Insein is taking. I certainly have problems with Kerry, such as his positions and flip flops. Found an interesting column by Max Boot. As President, especially during wartime, do we want a leader or follower? Bush, for better or worse, whatever you take, has led. He convinced Congress to grant him the powers, he stated what he needed from UN and got the first resolution. When they failed to act; he acted, leading 19 partners in a coalition. Bowing to the UN or France is NOT leading:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion...,2066460.column?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

After winning election to the Senate in 1984, he was a vocal critic of support for the Contras fighting to free Nicaragua from the Sandinista dictatorship; he even journeyed to Managua to shake hands with strongman Daniel Ortega. He consistently voted against defense spending and in favor of a nuclear freeze. He opposed the 1983 invasion of Grenada ("a bully's show of force against a weak Third World nation") and the 1991 Persian Gulf War ("a war for pride, not for vital interests"). It did not matter to Kerry that the U.N. Security Council had voted unanimously to authorize military action to free Kuwait; at that point, isolationism was more important to him than multilateralism. ...
Surely it's no coincidence that his stances track precisely mainstream Democratic opinion, which was isolationist in the 1970s and 1980s, idealistically interventionist in the 1990s and coldly realist since 2001. When the Democrats were split, as they were over Iraq in 2002 and 2003, he clumsily tried to appease both hawks and doves. Where he will wind up nobody knows — not even, I suspect, him.

 

[MtnBiker]

Kerry's record as a senator should be the main focus here.

I very much agree Insein, and I'm sure that is what the Bush campaign will be doing.

Whatever experience or leadership ablilities Kerry may try to put forward it still does not compare to being the CIC.

 

[krisy]

I think insein and Kathianne do have good points. I guess I just feel that if Kerry is lying,someone has to tell the American people and they have right to know. Definitely the whole election should not be centered around this,it just bugs me because I think it is disrespectful to other veterans that served and were injured in combat. I look at like this-if it were important what Clinton was doing in the White House with Lewinsky,then Kerry lying about his war record is important. I do agree though,that people should focus on the issues firstand decide who is better on the war on terror.

 

[JIHADTHIS]

Sorry Insein, I respectfully disagree.

Every 5th word out of Kerry is Vietnam. He brought this upon himself. The fact that the highlight of his Reinvention Convention was his 4 months in Vietnam speaks volumes about him. He's is running on what he did 30 years ago because he has no worthy accomplishments since then.

The hypocrisy on display by the Dems is stunning. In the 60's they were all bra burning, dope smoking, sandal wearing, Hendrix listening, acid dropping peaceniks who spit on soldiers as they returned from Vietnam. Now they are all standing their cheering "warrior John" and saying how great he is for going over there and killing people.

I will be sad and sick to my stomach if the American public keeps falliing for this crap and we end up re-living the 60's in the next 4 years. Kerry is looking to be worse then Clinton at this point, and I can only hope that he's only going to look worse in the coming weeks.

It is nice to see that the Swift Boat book is # 1 at amazon, there may be hope for us yet!

 

[smirkinjesus]

Sorry Insein, I respectfully disagree.

Every 5th word out of Kerry is Vietnam. He brought this upon himself. The fact that the highlight of his Reinvention Convention was his 4 months in Vietnam speaks volumes about him. He's is running on what he did 30 years ago because he has no worthy accomplishments since then.

The hypocrisy on display by the Dems is stunning. In the 60's they were all bra burning, dope smoking, sandal wearing, Hendrix listening, acid dropping peaceniks who spit on soldiers as they returned from Vietnam. Now they are all standing their cheering "warrior John" and saying how great he is for going over there and killing people.

I will be sad and sick to my stomach if the American public keeps falliing for this crap and we end up re-living the 60's in the next 4 years. Kerry is looking to be worse then Clinton at this point, and I can only hope that he's only going to look worse in the coming weeks.

It is nice to see that the Swift Boat book is # 1 at amazon, there may be hope for us yet!

Kerry will be a fine President. We will fight a much more effective war on terror. Let's face it, we can't win through brute force. There is no army for us to fight, no cities to destroy, no fleet to sink. This war must be won through cunning, creative solutions. We have to undermind the support for terrorism in Islam. We have to outwit them, we have to win the PR war, we have to infiltrate their organizations, we have to get to their children. We need the full support of all our allies to do it.
Bush is a nice guy, but I and many people who don't just hate Bush for hate's sake, believe that he simply cannot put together such a complex system. The most obvious symptom is the almost universal distrust our best allies have of our current government. That didn't have to happen. The way I see it, you guys got to bomb and destroy and get your revenge, America needed to do that to get the blood lust out of our system. You folks did your part, now its time to get out of the way and let us do the real job of changing the system that breed these monsters. A Reagan military build-up isn't going to fix this problem, that was great for beating back the Soviets. This problem requires diplomacy, cooperation, ingenuity and intelligence and we are better at it then you. Kerry will do a fine job.

 

[JIHADTHIS]

Kerry will be a fine President.

Based on his 4 months in Vietnam?

We will fight a much more effective war on terror.

Based on his 4 months in Vietnam? Or the democrats performance during the 90's?

Let's face it, we can't win through brute force.

Rolling over would be better? We haven't used brute force. If we did, Fallujah would be a parking lot, and Sadr would be 6 feet under.

There is no army for us to fight, no cities to destroy, no fleet to sink. This war must be won through cunning, creative solutions. We have to undermind the support for terrorism in Islam. We have to outwit them, we have to win the PR war, we have to infiltrate their organizations, we have to get to their children. We need the full support of all our allies to do it.

Some validity there, but who are these mysterious allies that are going to "come to the rescue" ? The UN, France? It would help if certain Senators didn't vote to cut intelligence spending in the past **cough** cough** Kerry **cough**

Bush is a nice guy, but I and many people who don't just hate Bush for hate's sake, believe that he simply cannot put together such a complex system. The most obvious symptom is the almost universal distrust our best allies have of our current government. That didn't have to happen.

Our best allies at this point are Britain and Australia.

The way I see it, you guys got to bomb and destroy and get your revenge, America needed to do that to get the blood lust out of our system.

"You guys" "bloodlust" Theres part of your problem, us vs them.

You folks did your part, now its time to get out of the way and let us do the real job of changing the system that breed these monsters.

Surely you jest. "You" going to fix it the way Carter fixed Iran or the way Clinton fixed North Korea?

A Reagan military build-up isn't going to fix this problem, that was great for beating back the Soviets. This problem requires diplomacy, cooperation, ingenuity and intelligence and we are better at it then you. Kerry will do a fine job.

Based on his 4 months in Vietnam again I guess.

Your whole response has absolutley nothing to do with the topic of this thread, but what else is new? The DNC has no talking points to deal with this yet. Bash Bush instead.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

This threads seems to have steered off topic (imagine that), but I'll try to put my 4 cents in.

Generally speaking I don't like the fact that negative ads can be run by outside parties. The candidate it benefits ends up either getting to much blame, or maybe not enough. I will agree with others on the board that, in a way, Kerry brought this on himself. Cramming his four months in Vietnam down everyone's throat while virtually ignoring his 25+ years in the Senate is like a lawyer advertising his senior year of high school but not mentioning college or law school. Eventually, someone was going to come out with something. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying that's how it is.

Now, that said, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

For months, President Bush has been called a traitor and a liar. People have accused him of knowing about the 9/11 attack, and some nuts have even said he was behind it, which is essentially accusing him of mass murder. There have been comparisons to Hitler and comments about brown shirts, as well as phrases like "The most crooked, lying bunch I've ever seen" coming from John Kerry himself. In a big way, it's about time something like this came out. There are a couple of other points that are worth mentioning. This swift boat ad comes from people who were there, not some fat guy from Michigan. I also haven't heard John Kerry deny anything in the ad yet, though maybe I just missed it.

I'm sure John Kerry will indeed make a fine president, that is if he chooses to run for president of the Jaycees or something come January. Let's not give him the oath of office for the job he's currently seeking just yet. It amazes me that there are people who still think the best way to deal with terrorism is a stand off, hands off, diplomatic approach. Some day maybe people will get it through their head that you cannot use diplomacy with terrorists, it didn't work in the years leading up to 9/11 and it certainly won't work now. This isn't like dealing with Japan or North Korea. There will never be a civil agreement to sit down and work out a peace treaty with terrorists. John Kerry wants to go back to dealing with terrorism the way we dealt with it for years, which is one of the things that led to the 9/11 attack to begin with, in my opinion.

 

[smirkinjesus]

We live in a new era. The nineties aren't applicable. The Bush team lives in the Eighties, his team has a cold war approach to this problem. Even the reverse-domino theory they have about a free Iraq spreading democracy accross the Middle East is just another Cold War anachronism. We need fresh people, new ideas. We have a chance to get that with a Kerry Presidency. That isn't going to come from the Bush folks, that's guaranteed. Four more years of the last four years won't do any good. It may make you feel better when we're bombing more countries, but feeling good won't make the problem go away.

 

[freeandfun1]

We live in a new era. The nineties aren't applicable. The Bush team lives in the Eighties, his team has a cold war approach to this problem. Even the reverse-domino theory they have about a free Iraq spreading democracy accross the Middle East is just another Cold War anachronism. We need fresh people, new ideas. We have a chance to get that with a Kerry Presidency. That isn't going to come from the Bush folks, that's guaranteed. Four more years of the last four years won't do any good. It may make you feel better when we're bombing more countries, but feeling good won't make the problem go away.

LMFAO! And Kerry is full of "fresh" ideas? He has, basically, said he will continue the Bush policy. You are so full of shit your eyes are turning yellow!

 

[smirkinjesus]

LMFAO! And Kerry is full of "fresh" ideas? He has, basically, said he will continue the Bush policy. You are so full of shit your eyes are turning yellow!

As I said, we have a chance with Kerry, he could fall flat on his face as bad as Bush has, its certainly possible. But with Bush, we have no chance to cure the root cause of the disease, he can only treat the symptoms and the disease is spreading. You know its true.

 

[freeandfun1]

As I said, we have a chance with Kerry, he could fall flat on his face as bad as Bush has, its certainly possible. But with Bush, we have no chance to cure the root cause of the disease, he can only treat the symptoms and the disease is spreading. You know its true.

So what is the "root" cause?

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

We live in a new era. The nineties aren't applicable. The Bush team lives in the Eighties, his team has a cold war approach to this problem. Even the reverse-domino theory they have about a free Iraq spreading democracy accross the Middle East is just another Cold War anachronism. We need fresh people, new ideas. We have a chance to get that with a Kerry Presidency. That isn't going to come from the Bush folks, that's guaranteed. Four more years of the last four years won't do any good. It may make you feel better when we're bombing more countries, but feeling good won't make the problem go away.

The Cold War was won by building up a military that was cut to the bone by the Carter administration, diplomacy, and a little luck having someone like Gorbachev come to power in Russia. We did not go to war with the Soviets, so how is it the same approach as today? That was dealing with an actual government, this is not.

This is indeed a new era. However, the Bush administration isn't stuck in the 80's, it's the Kerry camp that's apparently stuck in the 70's where we should just turn our head and hope it all goes away.