Steve Gardner was there with Kerry

[musicman]

Hey, if everyone can throw around some smut about Kerry, why can't I do the same about Bush without getting my post "edited"? You really want me to go find you a link with the same level of substance as the crap previously posted about Kerry? There's a few thousand out there. Which one do you want?

Telling the truth about John Kerry = spreading smut.

 

[musicman]

Oh, I never look dumb, you should know that by now. As I've said many times already, this is an assinine strategy to use against Kerry. Kerry risked his life defending his country, Bush did not. That's all there is to this, it will backfire on Bush.

Wishful thinking. It is Kerry's outrageous claims of heroism that will backfire on HIM. Keep chanting your mantra, though. I'm sure it's helping.

 

[nakedemperor]

Ok so why is KERRY being criticized for getting purple hearts he allegedly "didn't deserve"? Did he APPLY for them? He should be allowed to proudly acknowledge recieving them. Why not criticize the army and doctors who GAVE them to him?

Second, for those who criticized Kerry for going into the water to save a soldier, saying he didn't deserve the Bronze Star, because there wasn't any firefight during the rescue. Ok, well the green beret (a registered Republican) recommended him for the bronze star, what POSSIBLE other motivations could he have other than thinking that Kerry actually deserved it? why is KERRY getting criticized for recieving this Bronze star and wearing it proudly?

And in reference to Kerry's service being just as honorable as John Kerry's during the war: Bush was a draft dodger, Kerry was not. That's the cut and dry difference. In the short time I've been posting on this site the otherwise extraordinarily partisan conservatives on this site have acknowledged this, and put it off as "youthful indescretion", and "lots of people were doing it". Fine, but this doesn't make his partially-fulfilled duty to the armed services as honorable as Kerry's.

Also, in reference to calling Kerry a Benedict Arnold: to say that someone who supports the warriors but not the war is a traitor and unpatriotic is to buy into the binary Bush tactic of with us or against us crap. As Doonesbury teaches us, its a wonderful exercise to support the warriors on the grind WHILE dissenting from the reasons to go to war.

 

[Avatar4321]

And in reference to Kerry's service being just as honorable as John Kerry's during the war: Bush was a draft dodger, Kerry was not. That's the cut and dry difference. In the short time I've been posting on this site the otherwise extraordinarily partisan conservatives on this site have acknowledged this, and put it off as "youthful indescretion", and "lots of people were doing it". Fine, but this doesn't make his partially-fulfilled duty to the armed services as honorable as Kerry's.

Also, in reference to calling Kerry a Benedict Arnold: to say that someone who supports the warriors but not the war is a traitor and unpatriotic is to buy into the binary Bush tactic of with us or against us crap. As Doonesbury teaches us, its a wonderful exercise to support the warriors on the grind WHILE dissenting from the reasons to go to war.

First, im going to ignore your obvious error as its a moot point in this discussion. im sure you know what it is by now and will probably edit it the next time you actually read.

Second, Bush wasnt a draft dodger. He honorably served in the National Guard. That isnt dodging the draft. the National Guard can be called up at any time and sent into military action. They are in Iraq as we speak. To somehow equate the President's service in the national guard to fleeing to canada or europe to avoid going to war is an insult to all the men and women who serve and who have given their life in the national guard.

Third, As ive pointed out Bush's service in the National Guard is irrelevant because he isnt using it as a reason to vote for him. He is running on his record of liberating nations and his strong foriegn policy agenda and the domestic policy places for the second term. Kerry is running on his Vietnam service, therefore his record is relevant to his qualifications as President.

Fourth. you missed the point with Benedict arnold. I was using it in this reference to point out that just because he is a war hero doesnt mean his war hero status somehow makes him a immunized from answering for his actions after his service such as his poor Senate record. On a side issue though, he is considered A benedict Arnold by most because he lied about his fellow soldiers and gave aid and comfort to the enemy by undermining the war effort at home.

Fifth, Its impossible to support the soldiers without helping them do their job. If you try to keep them from doing the things they volunteered to do, you arent supporting them at all. You cant oppose what the troops do and say you support them. Any more you can support a construction company and actively put obstacles in their way to keep them from building anything.

 

[nakedemperor]

First, im going to ignore your obvious error as its a moot point in this discussion. im sure you know what it is by now and will probably edit it the next time you actually read.

Second, Bush wasnt a draft dodger. He honorably served in the National Guard. That isnt dodging the draft. the National Guard can be called up at any time and sent into military action. They are in Iraq as we speak. To somehow equate the President's service in the national guard to fleeing to canada or europe to avoid going to war is an insult to all the men and women who serve and who have given their life in the national guard.

Third, As ive pointed out Bush's service in the National Guard is irrelevant because he isnt using it as a reason to vote for him. He is running on his record of liberating nations and his strong foriegn policy agenda and the domestic policy places for the second term. Kerry is running on his Vietnam service, therefore his record is relevant to his qualifications as President.

Fourth. you missed the point with Benedict arnold. I was using it in this reference to point out that just because he is a war hero doesnt mean his war hero status somehow makes him a immunized from answering for his actions after his service such as his poor Senate record. On a side issue though, he is considered A benedict Arnold by most because he lied about his fellow soldiers and gave aid and comfort to the enemy by undermining the war effort at home.

Fifth, Its impossible to support the soldiers without helping them do their job. If you try to keep them from doing the things they volunteered to do, you arent supporting them at all. You cant oppose what the troops do and say you support them. Any more you can support a construction company and actively put obstacles in their way to keep them from building anything.

Your metaphor about the construction company holds now water whatsoever. As a dissenter, believing that the war is wrong and expressing that opinion, keeping them from doing what their doing is EXACTLY what I'm trying to do. That isn't to say I'm taking the bullets out of their guns or tying their arms behind their backs so the enemy can shoot them, I'm asking that the GOVERNMENT stop USING THE MILITARY in the way that they're being used. However, until that happens, the lesser of two evils is to wish the troops well, and hope that they do their job well so they don't get killed. I support the men on the ground who DON'T HAVE A CHOICE. I do NOT support the men WITH a choice who put the troops there. I hope you see the difference, because it is essential to any kind of political dissent.

Second, George W. Bush signed up for the Texas AIR National Guard. He did so in order to AVOID being drafted. Any other reason for his volunteering there, and skipping over 100+ better qualified applicants, is just being silly. THAT'S WHY HE DID IT. He also knew that by joining the Texas AIR (those are the guys in planes) National Guard, his odds of going to Vietnam were slim to none. The national guard members in Iraq are INFANTRY UNITS lugging rifles. Therefore, his intention in joining the guard was to AVOID going to Vietnam.

Also-- his record of liberating nations? Please. We did NOT go into Iraq to liberate the Iraqis. We went there to avoid a weapon of mass destruction being unleashed on U.S. soil. Liberation was a BYPRODUCT (a noble, admirable one) but it was NOT why he decided to take us to Iraq. It DOES make for a great excuse as to why we did find the 29,000 chemical-payload missles he told us were there. Or the 100-500 tons of serin and VX (colin powell's "conservative estimate"). Or the mobile weapons labs we were told were there with "100% certainty". They "KNEW" these things were in Iraq... but they're not. David Copperfield couldn't have pulled that one off. Oh, and why don't we go squelch the brutal dictator in North Korea. We KNOW about his nuclear capabilities.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Your metaphor about the construction company holds now water whatsoever. As a dissenter, believing that the war is wrong and expressing that opinion, keeping them from doing what their doing is EXACTLY what I'm trying to do. That isn't to say I'm taking the bullets out of their guns or tying their arms behind their backs so the enemy can shoot them, I'm asking that the GOVERNMENT stop USING THE MILITARY in the way that they're being used. However, until that happens, the lesser of two evils is to wish the troops well, and hope that they do their job well so they don't get killed. I support the men on the ground who DON'T HAVE A CHOICE. I do NOT support the men WITH a choice who put the troops there. I hope you see the difference, because it is essential to any kind of political dissent.

Second, George W. Bush signed up for the Texas AIR National Guard. He did so in order to AVOID being drafted. Any other reason for his volunteering there, and skipping over 100+ better qualified applicants, is just being silly. THAT'S WHY HE DID IT. He also knew that by joining the Texas AIR (those are the guys in planes) National Guard, his odds of going to Vietnam were slim to none. The national guard members in Iraq are INFANTRY UNITS lugging rifles. Therefore, his intention in joining the guard was to AVOID going to Vietnam.

Also-- his record of liberating nations? Please. We did NOT go into Iraq to liberate the Iraqis. We went there to avoid a weapon of mass destruction being unleashed on U.S. soil. Liberation was a BYPRODUCT (a noble, admirable one) but it was NOT why he decided to take us to Iraq. It DOES make for a great excuse as to why we did find the 29,000 chemical-payload missles he told us were there. Or the 100-500 tons of serin and VX (colin powell's "conservative estimate"). Or the mobile weapons labs we were told were there with "100% certainty". They "KNEW" these things were in Iraq... but they're not. David Copperfield couldn't have pulled that one off. Oh, and why don't we go squelch the brutal dictator in North Korea. We KNOW about his nuclear capabilities.

Avatar's metaphor of the construction company was a good one. Also the government IS using the military exactly the way they are supposed to be used. Being put in the line of fire to defend our country is exactly where they are supposed to be. The military is not composed of "children" who must be coddled and protected. They are a fighting machine out there to protect the rest of us - and doing a fine job of it I might add.

You keep accusing Bush of avoiding the Vietnam war. OK so he did not want to actually go there - so what? That was his decision. It does not make him a wimp. He had 2 years of active duty flying F102s which were considered to be pretty dangerous to fly and he was rated in the top 5%. He served and he served well. Plus pages and pages of his military records have been made available to the public. Can't say that for Kerry can you?

Also is there even 1 person who served with Bush who is publicly accusing Bush of lying about his service performance? No. However, Steve Gardner is. He was a gunner right there on the boat with Kerry. He was the one who shot the guy and the boy son on the sampan. He is accusing Kerry of not being truthful. Plus there are plenty more servicemen saying the same thing for various other reasons. Does Bush have about 200 military people who served along side of him saying negative things about him? No. Get a clue man.

 

[freeandfun1]

Ok so why is KERRY being criticized for getting purple hearts he allegedly "didn't deserve"? Did he APPLY for them? He should be allowed to proudly acknowledge recieving them. Why not criticize the army and doctors who GAVE them to him?

Medics do not nominate soldiers for Purple Hearts. Commanders do. Kerry's Commander at the time of his first Purple Heart clearly states he DENIED Kerry's application for the first Purple Heart. But somehow, Kerry went direct to Saigon to get it approved. So yes, Kerry did nominate himself. If he didn't, then why won't he sign "Standard Form 180" and release ALL his military recoreds?

Second, for those who criticized Kerry for going into the water to save a soldier, saying he didn't deserve the Bronze Star, because there wasn't any firefight during the rescue. Ok, well the green beret (a registered Republican) recommended him for the bronze star, what POSSIBLE other motivations could he have other than thinking that Kerry actually deserved it? why is KERRY getting criticized for recieving this Bronze star and wearing it proudly?

First off, Rass, stated on Hannity and Colmes that he IS NOT registered Republican, that he considers himself Republican, but he hasn't voted Republican in over 20 years. I don't consider that a republican. As for the Bronze Star, I haven't taken issue with this medal at all although I do take exception with his version of the story. Nevertheless, I have seen guys get Bronze Stars for much less, so this one is not really an issue to me.

Funny, most of what I am reading is the objection to his Silver Star, but you keep mentioning his Bronze Star. There is a HUGE difference between the two. A Silver Star requires an investigation and two witness statements. Again, if he would sign a "Standard Form 180" we would know MORE about the true story behind his Silver Star.

And in reference to Kerry's service being just as honorable as John Kerry's during the war: Bush was a draft dodger, Kerry was not. That's the cut and dry difference. In the short time I've been posting on this site the otherwise extraordinarily partisan conservatives on this site have acknowledged this, and put it off as "youthful indescretion", and "lots of people were doing it". Fine, but this doesn't make his partially-fulfilled duty to the armed services as honorable as Kerry's.

So let me ask you this. Are the troops on the ground here at home that are supporting our soldiers overseas right now not honorable?

You are an ass and outta shut your mouth. Have you ever served?

Also, in reference to calling Kerry a Benedict Arnold: to say that someone who supports the warriors but not the war is a traitor and unpatriotic is to buy into the binary Bush tactic of with us or against us crap. As Doonesbury teaches us, its a wonderful exercise to support the warriors on the grind WHILE dissenting from the reasons to go to war.

Is is also a wonderful exercise to vote for the war but to then vote against a bill authorizing needed supplies for the military? That is one helluva way to "dissent". I see Kerry HAS NOT changed much since his anti-Vietnam days.

 

[Flying Duck]

Also-- his record of liberating nations? Please. We did NOT go into Iraq to liberate the Iraqis. We went there to avoid a weapon of mass destruction being unleashed on U.S. soil. Liberation was a BYPRODUCT (a noble, admirable one) but it was NOT why he decided to take us to Iraq. It DOES make for a great excuse as to why we did find the 29,000 chemical-payload missles he told us were there. Or the 100-500 tons of serin and VX (colin powell's "conservative estimate"). Or the mobile weapons labs we were told were there with "100% certainty". They "KNEW" these things were in Iraq... but they're not. David Copperfield couldn't have pulled that one off. Oh, and why don't we go squelch the brutal dictator in North Korea. We KNOW about his nuclear capabilities.

This is an incredibly shallow and inaccurate analysis. First, and most importantly, liberation of the Iraqi people was not a BYPRODCT, it was one of the MANY reasons why the US Congress and the President took Saddam out of power. If you'd like to see a complete compendium of the reasons why we took Saddam, I'll just refer you to the house joint reoslution authorizing the use of force or one of many speeches given by adminstration members prior to taking Saddam out of power.

Second, everyone else also thought Saddam had WMD's. It wasn't only US intelligence but that of numerous other nations (Russia and the UK to name a couple) who thought Saddam still probably had WMDs. Heck, even the French weren't claiming that they trusted Saddam and knew that he did not still possess stockpiles of WMDs. And I don't recall any of the anti-war protestors claiming that they knew Saddam had disposed of all of his WMDs either.

Third, he still had all of the WMD knowledge and technology, even if he didn't have thousands of tons of precursors or the weapons themselves. In addition to the risk of Saddam using WMDs, there was the post 9/11 risk was that he would share the technology with terrorists. This is evidenced not only by his general support of anti-US, anti-Israeli terrorists but by the numerous murals (in schools and elsewhere) glorifying the attack on the WTC. Not to mention his virulent anti-US rhetoric.

Fourth, as unaminously agreed in the almighty UN, Saddam posed a threat to regional and international security. (Refer to 1441.)

Sixth, Saddam did not comply with the terms of 1441. Was this an indicator to you that he'd gotten rid of the WMDs? Most rational people saw this as a clear sign that he was hiding something.

Finally, the fact that it appears as though there were no stockpiles is mere hindsight and not relevant to decisions made in early 2003.

 

[dilloduck]

No matter---the flip flop man now says he would have gone into Iraq too


who woulda thunk it------even the dems are saying they need to get on the same page with this one.

 

[tim_duncan2000]

I think it's funny how most of the same people who defended Clinton the draft dodger are the same people trashing Bush and talking about how Kerry is a good choice because he served.

I also can't figure out why they mention his service in Vietnam but they never mention how he accused his fellow veterans of atrocities and even claimed to have committed some himself. Of course, he's proud of his service now. How can this be? He is either lying now or he was lying then.

Kerry is bringing all of this on himself when he refuses to tell the whole story.

 

[nakedemperor]

I don't check the message boards for 8 hours and I have half a dozen people responding to my posts, sorry to those of you whose responses I can't address, time constraints at work and such--

Screaming Eagle: In reference to the construction company metaphor, your're wrong, the metaphor is poor in that it implies that a dissenting public (the people phsyically preventing the construction company from building things) actually prevents the military on the ground from doing its job. It doesn't, that's plain to see. Its ramifications for affecting forces on the ground are nominal. What it aims to prevent are those politicians who sent the soldiers there from doing the sending. The difference is, dissent attempts to prevent or dissuade the government from asking the military TO do the job, but does not physically, in any sense, prevent deployed forces on the ground from doing the job the government asked them to do.

Second, you ask if there is 1 person who served with Bush publicly accusing him of lying? Well of course there isn't, concerning what Bush lied about, there IS no one he served with. The irony is, why are those people who Bush said he did serve with (at Dannelly Airforce Base in the second half on 1972) staying so conspicuously silent?

Lastly-- avoiding military action by joining the Air National Guard does not make him a wimp, you are 100% correct on that. I've read that he was a damn fine pilot before he voluntarily gave up his flight status 2 years before his service was complete. However, this man, who purports to be a "wartime president" (notice this shift from his claiming to be a "peactime president repeatedly while on the campagin trail) must have his past in (and in avoidance of) the military scrutinized as indicators of his wartime exceutive capabilities.

Tim Duncan: I don't know what actually happened to Kerry and his mates in Vietnam; who committed war crimes, who didn't. The simple fact of the matter is that marines, army regs, special forces, and sailors alike were all asked to commit war crimes in Vietnam. Whether soldiers were asked to burn a village for harboring VC, or pilots were asked to carpet bomb civilians in North Vietnam, etc. Circumstances, tactics, etc. as described by countless veterans, novelists, etc. were all things that contributed to a wartime environment like none the world had seen. This absolves no one, but can help non-combatants like me to understand how good people could have asked other good people to do bad things. As a dubious aside, after we fire-bombed Japanese civilian town after town in WWII, Curtis LeMay told an Admiral that had we lost the war, they would have been war criminals.

Freeandfun1: I am not an ass, and I'd ask you to refrain from misconstruing my words in the future. I did NOT say that serving on the front lines was "more honorable" than being a national guard member. I was merely pointing out how critically aware George W. Bush was of the odds of his actually serving in Vietnam when he joined the Texas Air National Guard. Therefore, I was critiquing his intentions as less honorable than John Kerry's, who did not seek to avoid serving his country on the front lines.

Dilloduck: Kerry voted for the war in Iraq based on the faulty, White House datamined CIA intelligence. He voted AGAINST the 80-something billion dollars to fund it because it would be borrowed money they were paying the war with. He voted FOR a resolution to roll-back a small fraction of Bush's tax-cuts to pay for Bush's war, a resolution which was soundly defeated.

This "flip-flopping" was Kerry voting for two seperate issues, not YES to Iraq and then NO to Iraq. However, conservative pundits have turned this into a "flip-flopping" issue. The most caustic of these pundits (including President Bush, Dick Cheney, etc) in 2002 accused the democrats who voted against the Homeland Security Bill of being UNPATRIOTIC and not concerned enough with out NATIONAL SAFETY! Ooooooo! Scary democrats want the terrorists to GET YOU! Well those people left out that the HOmeland Secuirty bill as proposed by the President left out any semblenace of job security for 170,000 federal employees that the Homeland Security branch would create! This twisting of logic is all too common. Re: Bush sics Karl Rove on Senator John McCain in South Carolina in 2002. Don't remember that one? That's why McCain privately hates the president. Bush cronies organized a mass-calling that telephoned 1,000s of voters in South Carolina saying: "Would you be more or less likely to vote for John McCain if you knew he sired an illegitimit black chikd?" This racist, disgusting perversion of the truth (McCain had ADOPTED a BANGLADESHI child) was approved by the President of United States.

 

[freeandfun1]

yesterday Kerry said he would have voted for the war and would have gone to war, regardless if there were WMD's or not.

 

[nakedemperor]

Freeandfun you wanna give a link to that? I'd be damn curious to read about that story.

 

[freeandfun1]

Freeandfun you wanna give a link to that? I'd be damn curious to read about that story.

Here ya go! Read it and weep! Oh, wait, you will spin it however you must.

GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK, Senator John Kerry said that he would have voted to give the president the authority to invade Iraq even if he had known all he does now about the apparent dearth of unconventional weapons or a close connection to Al Qaeda.

 

[nakedemperor]

Also-- I stand by liberation being "byproduct" of invasion. The primary reason for going to war was Saddam's possesion (not capability to make) but POSSESION of WMDs. "Let's not let the smoking gun be a mushroom cloud." What horseshit. Regardless, had there been no WMDs and no substantive connection to al Qaeda, liberation would not have been enough to have us go to war. Why haven't we liberated any of the other countries with brutal dictators? Because "benevolent liberation" just isn't our thing. Although we like touting it if liberating countries is self-surving in other ways.

That isn't to say liberation is a noble thing. I for one would have supported war if it were undertaken for those benevolent humanitarian reasons. But they needed more, so they datamined information that the CIA had told them wasn't enough to go into Iraq on.

Again, for a good look at the process, watch Iraq Uncovered. Greenwald isby no means bipartisan, but his panel of experts is too impressively qualified to be ignored in their personal, bipartisan assesments.

 

[freeandfun1]

Also-- I stand by liberation being "byproduct" of invasion. The primary reason for going to war was Saddam's possesion (not capability to make) but POSSESION of WMDs. "Let's not let the smoking gun be a mushroom cloud." What horseshit. Regardless, had there been no WMDs and no substantive connection to al Qaeda, liberation would not have been enough to have us go to war. Why haven't we liberated any of the other countries with brutal dictators? Because "benevolent liberation" just isn't our thing. Although we like touting it if liberating countries is self-surving in other ways.

That isn't to say liberation is a noble thing. I for one would have supported war if it were undertaken for those benevolent humanitarian reasons. But they needed more, so they datamined information that the CIA had told them wasn't enough to go into Iraq on.

Again, for a good look at the process, watch Iraq Uncovered. Greenwald isby no means bipartisan, but his panel of experts is too impressively qualified to be ignored in their personal, bipartisan assesments.

Take up your issues with Kerry dude. He saw the SAME intelligence and didn't speak out at the time. Ask yourself this question..... WHY?

 

[nakedemperor]

Thanks for the link freeandfun. Just goes to show how spineless Kerry can be in order to get votes.

 

[freeandfun1]

Thanks for the link freeandfun. Just goes to show how spineless Kerry can be in order to get votes.

Just like HIS version of Vietnam, HIS version of being in Cambodia, HIS version of voting for and then against the War.

Seems like this tact is HIS version of how to get elected.

 

[nakedemperor]

And for the record, Kerry saw the "same" data-mined, outdated, in many places genuinely false intelligence that the Bush administration, most notably Colin Powell SHOWED him. EVERYONE had to come to the conclusion that Iraq was an imminent threat, but the fact remains that they weren't. Again, do your specific research. He showed the U.N. footage of an Iraqi plane capable of spraying mock-anthrax. THAT PLANE WAS KNOWN TO HAVE BEEN DESTORYED IN 1991. He showed them cartoons of mobile weapons labs. I say cartoons because they were drawings with ZERO factual evidence to back up their existance. He showed sattelite images of Iraqi chemical weapons facilities which U.N. inspectors have, on camera (Iraq: Uncovered), said that they had BEEN to, PERSONALLY, in the last 2 years before the war (WHEN the pictures were taken) and said that there were NO chemical facilities there. The list goes on and on and on, when I watched that movie I was appalled. Please watch it, it's an eye-opener.

 

[nakedemperor]

"HIS version of voting for and then against the war."

HE VOTED FOR THE WAR AND THEN AGAINST THE MANNER IN WHICH IT WAS TO BE FUNDED. STOP SPREADING THIS OVER-SIMPLIFIED STUFF ABOUT CONGRESS LOOKING AT THE SENATORS AND SAYING, INVADE? KERRY: YES! INVADE? KERRY: NO!

I'm not a Kerry fan and I'm lucid enough to know that its borderline propoganda!