Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
How would he be 'pressuring' an entire meeting of 150+ veterans on the spot, when all he was was a relatively nameless lieutenant in the audience? Random guessing about what he might have done without anything to back it up does not make him guilty of perjury.
I guess you're saying it's unreasonable to trust the word of a veteran because you disagree with him politically?
How would he be 'pressuring' an entire meeting of 150+ veterans on the spot, when all he was was a relatively nameless lieutenant in the audience? Random guessing about what he might have done without anything to back it up does not make him guilty of perjury.
I guess you're saying it's unreasonable to trust the word of a veteran because you disagree with him politically?
No, I'm saying it's unreasonable to trust the word of a veteran because he propagated lies, knowingly or unknowingly, about American servicemen; and also because he illegally met with officials of a nation we were engaged in hostilities with to rubber-stamp their terms for a US surrender.
You're defending the indefensible. Just sayin'.How would he be 'pressuring' an entire meeting of 150+ veterans on the spot, when all he was was a relatively nameless lieutenant in the audience? Random guessing about what he might have done without anything to back it up does not make him guilty of perjury.
I guess you're saying it's unreasonable to trust the word of a veteran because you disagree with him politically?
No, I'm saying it's unreasonable to trust the word of a veteran because he propagated lies, knowingly or unknowingly, about American servicemen; and also because he illegally met with officials of a nation we were engaged in hostilities with to rubber-stamp their terms for a US surrender.
And how would he know they lied? He didn't. Does that mean that "The Malcontent" should never be trusted because he 'unknowingly' propgated lies about american servicemen (i.e Kerry)
So you whine about the "lies" told about Kerry -- but give him a pass for illegally meeting with representatives of Hanoi in in Paris to accept their terms for a US surrender?The indefensible : People take a US veteran's service, LIE to influence a presidential election, and it is unjust to examine these closely and note that yes, all the paperwork does line up, he did deserve the medals, and he did not commit perjury?
That's shameful. I guess anyone who serves his country and disagrees with Republican policies can just be smeared with nasty rumors and thrown away like so much garbage. It's indefensible to disagree, I guess.
It was a stupid *beeping* idea when the left encouraged the military to speak out against the CiC, and its a bad *beeping beeping* idea now.
It comes down to this: The Constitution, highest law of the land, puts the President and the civilian authorities at the top of the chain of command. If there are issues, they need to be passed up the chain. Airing your issues with a superior out for the public to see is a no no in the chain of command for a good reason.
Its bad for the Republic as a whole to allow the Military to try to do an end run around the White House. I don't care about your opinion of the man, but if you're in the Armed Forces, respect the Office and respect your Oath.
And what would that oath be? and who or what is the oath made to?
You swear to uphold the Constitution, which put the President, no matter who that currently is, at the head of the Armed Forces making him your higher up in the Chain of Command.
There's a good reason the Constitution did that, or would you rather the Military ran the Government?
Lt. Kerry didn't break into the embarrassment threshold.
I'd have to concur. A comparison is being drawn here between disparaging personal remarks from a general and his top aides appearing in Rolling Stone and critical but measured testimony given to the U.S. Senate by a young lieutenant. That's a tough comparison to make.
Well, unless Lying to the US Senate about what you Witnessed and your Testimony being Used by the Enemy to Torture our POW's isn't "Embarrassing"...
peace...
I'd have to concur. A comparison is being drawn here between disparaging personal remarks from a general and his top aides appearing in Rolling Stone and critical but measured testimony given to the U.S. Senate by a young lieutenant. That's a tough comparison to make.
Well, unless Lying to the US Senate about what you Witnessed and your Testimony being Used by the Enemy to Torture our POW's isn't "Embarrassing"...
peace...
Thats embarrassing to no one but himself. Not the CinC.
Well, unless Lying to the US Senate about what you Witnessed and your Testimony being Used by the Enemy to Torture our POW's isn't "Embarrassing"...
peace...
Thats embarrassing to no one but himself. Not the CinC.
Good Lord... The General's Comments weren't Embarrassing to Obama... And if they were, were they Lies?...
The CiC should have Thicker Fucking Skin...
peace...
Thats embarrassing to no one but himself. Not the CinC.
Good Lord... The General's Comments weren't Embarrassing to Obama... And if they were, were they Lies?...
The CiC should have Thicker Fucking Skin...
peace...
Yeah, they were an embarrassment to the admin.
Good Lord... The General's Comments weren't Embarrassing to Obama... And if they were, were they Lies?...
The CiC should have Thicker Fucking Skin...
peace...
Yeah, they were an embarrassment to the admin.
Were they Lies about War Crimes?... Were they Lies AT ALL?...
And the Administration IS an Embarrassment... On just about EVERY level.
(43) is Looking like the GREATEST POTUS EVAH! by Comparison right about now... And he wasn't.
peace...
So you whine about the "lies" told about Kerry -- but give him a pass for illegally meeting with representatives of Hanoi in in Paris to accept their terms for a US surrender?The indefensible : People take a US veteran's service, LIE to influence a presidential election, and it is unjust to examine these closely and note that yes, all the paperwork does line up, he did deserve the medals, and he did not commit perjury?
That's shameful. I guess anyone who serves his country and disagrees with Republican policies can just be smeared with nasty rumors and thrown away like so much garbage. It's indefensible to disagree, I guess.
Some people would consider that treason. I'm one of them.
Wow. You sure are emotionally invested in the loser.So you whine about the "lies" told about Kerry -- but give him a pass for illegally meeting with representatives of Hanoi in in Paris to accept their terms for a US surrender?The indefensible : People take a US veteran's service, LIE to influence a presidential election, and it is unjust to examine these closely and note that yes, all the paperwork does line up, he did deserve the medals, and he did not commit perjury?
That's shameful. I guess anyone who serves his country and disagrees with Republican policies can just be smeared with nasty rumors and thrown away like so much garbage. It's indefensible to disagree, I guess.
Some people would consider that treason. I'm one of them.
Hm, this one is sort of interesting
From the civilian standpoint.. it wasn't treason - not even close. The crime was is 'negotiating' on the behalf of the united states, not merely going to a peace meeting and making a few pointless gestures. Considering he talked about it in front of congress, including the legal aspects of it, you can pretty clearly see he wasn't in the wrong there, especially as he wasn't even capable of negotiating a surrender in the first place even if he wanted to (obviously not?). There's a difference between a ceasefire and a peace treaty and a surrender, anyway. There's been countless wars that ended without one side totally conquering the other, and therein lies the difference.
From the military standpoint is where you might get him.. on a technicality.. considering he was no longer active duty, in training, or on inactive duty, and only barely affiliated with the military at all (relatively speaking) by that point. Obviously the /intention/ of the law is to prevent the supplying of useful information to enemy combatants, not to execute practically retired people at a peace meeting that you disagree with.
For the deal with his speeches, he did not say that his testimony to congress was a mistake to youth, he was referring to the specific interview where he exaggerated the thing he personally saw - but it wasn't to congress
hnn.us/articles/3552.html has that interview and his rejection.
The second ad, portraying his statements where he said 'they cut off heads.. etc." was quoting them in their own words from the aforementioned meeting - he was not slandering them, he was quoting them. The veterans whom he quoted were from the investigation Daveman mentioned - they were 'admitting' to war crimes, and he was listing their admissions, not broadly generalizing veterans in general, just this specific group.
As far as the 'nuances' accusation goes, therein lies the problem. The 'nuances' are what the swift-boaters brought up in the first place. The accusations usually involved things like 'He got a medal for shooting Vietnamese that were running away in the back', when the reality is 'He got a medal for organizing the assault that lead to them running away in the first place' - perhaps a 'nuance', but there's obviously a massive difference, and it makes it more obvious why the commander gave him a medal in the first place.
It's also relevant in that he's essentially not guilty of treason in any rational way, but only through legal nitpicking over at what point one is no longer subject to the UCMJ, when the whole point of the law is to prevent spying and selling of information to the enemy.
The same factcheck.org/article231.html shows all the official government documentation (a lot of it 'new' since the 2004 election, because it was unclassified between 2004 and now) showing how he did qualify for all 3 purple hearts.
The main importance here is how official documentation and eyewitness accounts from nonbiased observers (as they gave the report long before the presidential election), contradict blatantly with many of the statements given by the few people who testified to Kerry not deserving his medals, in many cases, the accusers were not even remotely near.
If everyone's so quick to accuse Kerry of manipulating his story for political purposes, I wonder why people who wait to accuse him until a presidential election don't get the same scrutiny?
The only real thing you've got on him is him unintentionally violating the UMCJ when he assumed he was operating under civilian laws, but there you go.. if you consider lawyering to be a valid reason for treason, I dunno what to say.
