PDA

View Full Version : The SWIFT BOAT VETS ARE Drawing Blood!!!!



Section126
08-19-2004, 07:31 PM
http://www.finheaven.com/clear.gif

Today John "F" Kerry started his smear campaign of the Vets....The VFW jeered and hissed through his speech a couple of days ago with some tepid applause, while some Vets turned their backs to the podium............The Book "Unfit for Command" has debuted at #3 on the NY Times Best Seller List.....Amazon and Barnes and Noble were not taking orders yesterday because the book "sold out" (It is available today)

It is finally breaking as a widely reported News Story..........I guess the media finally got bored at listening to Lurch all the time.......

ohall
08-19-2004, 08:17 PM
http://www.finheaven.com/clear.gif

Today John "F" Kerry started his smear campaign of the Vets....The VFW jeered and hissed through his speech a couple of days ago with some tepid applause, while some Vets turned their backs to the podium............The Book "Unfit for Command" has debuted at #3 on the NY Times Best Seller List.....Amazon and Barnes and Noble were not taking orders yesterday because the book "sold out" (It is available today)

It is finally breaking as a widely reported News Story..........I guess the media finally got bored at listening to Lurch all the time.......

He made a mistake blaming Bush for these adds. Now he's going to have to prove that or he's going to look even more stupid than he has the last 6 months.

Oliver...

Section126
08-19-2004, 08:23 PM
Make no mistake...I am here to Bury John Kerry...not to praise him..... :lol:

Here is an excerpt that is jermain to the issue of what happened on the "Rassman" day....


Kerry’s March 13, 1969, “Medals”

According to the records, Kerry claimed in the casualty report he prepared on March 13, 1969, that he was wounded as a result of a mine explosion. Within a short period, he presented his request to go home on the basis of three Purple Hearts. By March 17, 1969, Kerry’s short career in Vietnam was over.


Regarding the action on March 13.1969, Kerry’s medals were once again a complete fraud. Notwithstanding the fake submission for his Bronze Star, Kerry was never wounded or bleeding from his arm. All reports, including the medical reports, make clear that he suffered a minor bruise on his arm and minor shrapnel wounds on his buttocks. The minor bruise on his arm would never have justified a Purple Heart and is not mentioned in the citation.


This leaves only Kerry’s rear-end wound. This wound, like the Cam Ranh Bay wound, was of the minor tweezer-and-Band-Aid variety. How did Kerry receive a shrapnel wound in his buttocks from an explosion of an underwater mine, as his report suggests? Many participants in the incident state that neither weapons fire nor a mine explosion occurred near Kerry during the incident.


Larry Thurlow, an experienced, genuine hero and PCF veteran, commanded the boat behind Kerry on March 13, 1969. Thurlow was on the shore with Kerry and a group of Nung soldiers (mercenaries working with the South Vietnamese) that morning of March 13, 1969. Thurlow recalls that Kerry had that morning wounded himself in the buttocks with a grenade that he set off too close to a stock of rice he was trying to destroy. The incident is all too reminiscent of the M-79 grenade Kerry exploded too close to some rocks on shore, causing the wound at Cam Ranh Bay that resulted in his first Purple Heart. As the Boston Globe biographers note:

“At one point, Kerry and Rassmann threw grenades into a huge rice cache that had been captured from the Vietcong and was thus slated for destruction. After tossing the grenades, the two dove for cover. Rassmann escaped the ensuing explosion of rice, but Kerry was not as lucky – thousands of grains stuck to him. The result was hilarious, and the two men formed a bond.


Very probably, the incident Rassmann describes that resulted in Kerry’s self-inflicted wound is the very wound that Kerry used to claim his final Purple Heart. Indeed, Kerry’s report for that day mentions the rice he destroyed. He dishonestly transferred the time and cause of the injury to coincide with the PCF action later in the day and claimed the cause of the injury was the mine exploding during the action.


By March 1969, most of Kerry’s peers at An Thoi were aware of his reputation as an unscrupulous self-promoter with an insatiable appetite for medals. But no one actually understood what Kerry pulled off. When Thurlow finally realized that the PCF 3 incident was the same incident described by the Kerry advertisement and in Tour of Duty, Thurlow instantly knew that Kerry had used the PCF 3 mine explosion and tragedy for its crew as his ticket home. Thurlow was astounded by the metamorphosis that had taken place in the explanation of Kerry’s wound: from Kerry’s own grenade as a cause, which Thurlow knew about; to a grenade error by a friendly forces in the absence of hostile fire (Kerry’s secret journal and Tour of Duty; and then finally to the mine explosion (Kerry’s report and Purple Heart citation).


Unfortunately for Kerry, he ended up telling the truth by mistake. On page 313 of Tour of Duty and evidently in his secret journal written on or about March 13, 1969, which is quoted in the book, Kerry relates his injury from the rice stock explosion, although he tries to place the time and context of the incident later in the day and tries to claim that it resulted from friendly forces (the Nungs) but at a time in which there was no hostile fire:


The Nung blew up some huge bins of rice they had found, as it was assumed, as always, that these were the local stockpiles earmarked to feed the hungry VC moving through the Delta smuggling weapons. “I got a piece of small grenade in my *** from one of the rice-bin explosions and then we started to move back to the boats, firing to our rear as we went.”


Unless one believes in the amazing coincidence that Kerry got two wounds in the same place on the same day and from the same type of incident, then Kerry’s wound of March 13, 1969, was not the result of hostile fire at all but, once again, simply a self-inflicted minor wound about which he lied to get a Purple Heart. Whatever the facts of the March 13 incident, it seems incontrovertible that: (1) Kerry lied in the Bronze Star citation about having any arm wound other than a minor bruise; and (2) Kerry fraudulently secured a Purple Heart by falsely attributing his self-inflicted “piece of small grenade in my ***” to the mine explosion hitting PCF 3 or to any other hostile action.







What Actually Happened

In addition to fabricating wounds from hostile fire to gain his third Purple Hear, a Bronze Star, and a quick trip home, Kerry falsely described the incident in his 1969 operating report, in his campaign biography, in his advertising, and even on his 2004 campaign website. On March 13, 1969, Jack Chenoweth commanded the boat in front of Kerry, and his gunner, Van Odell, had a clear view of the entire incident. Dick Pease commanded PCF 3, which was blown up by the mine that day. None of these Swiftees recognized the incident as described by Kerry in his report, by Douglas Brinkley in Tour of Duty, or on Kerry’s website. They were furious when they realized Kerry’s fraudulent account.


In reality, Kerry’s boat was on the right side of the river when a mine went off on the opposite side, under PCF 3. The boat’s crewmen were thrown into the water. The officers of PCF 3 were injured by the explosion and suffered concussions. A Viet Cong sympathizer in an adjoining bunker had touched off the mine. Besides the mine exploding under PCF 3, there was no other hostile fire and there were no other mines, according to Chenoweth, Odell, Pease, and Thurlow. The boats had begun firing after the mine exploded, but they ceased after a short time because of the lack of hostile fire.


Despite the absence of hostile fire, Kerry fled the scene. The remaining PCFs, in accord with standard doctrine, stood to defend the disabled PCF 3 and its crewmen in the water. Kerry disappeared several hundred yards away, returning only when it was clear that there was no return fire.


Chenoweth (who received no medal) picked up the PCF 3 crewmen thrown into the water. As a result of the explosion, PCF 3’s engines were knocked out on one side and frozen on 500 RPM on the other side. The boat weaved dangerously, hitting sandbars, with a dazed or unconscious crew aboard. Thurlow sought a secure hold on his boat so he could jump across and board PCF 3. However, he was thrown into the water as his first attempt to board PCF 3 failed and the boat hit the sandbars. Later, Thurlow brought PCF 3 to a stop, and the boat slowly began to sink.


During the incident, Jim Rassmann had fallen or had been knocked off either Kerry’s boat or PCF 35. When he was spotted in the water, Chenoweth’s boat, with the PCF 3 crew aboard, went to pick him up. Kerry’s boat, returning to the scene after its flight, reached him about twenty yards before Chenoweth.


Kerry did the decent thing by going a short distance to pick up Rassmann, justifiably earning Rassmann’s gratitude. The claim that Kerry “returned” to a hostile fire zone is a lie according to Chenoweth, Thurlow, and many others. Meanwhile, the serious work of saving PCF 3 continued.


Kerry’s false after-action report, prepared to justify his medals, reports “5,000 meters” – about two and a half miles of heavy fire, about the same distance as a large Civil War battlefield. Not a shot of fire was heard by Chenoweth, Thurlow, Odell, or Pease. Kerry’s false after-action report ignores Chenoweth’s heroic action in rescuing the PCF 3 survivors and Thurlow’s action in saving PCF 3, while highlighting his own routine pickup of Rassmann and PCF 94’s minor role in saving PCF 3.


When Chenoweth’s boat left a second time to deliver the wounded PCF 3 crewmen to a Coast Guard cutter offshore, Kerry jumped into the boat, leaving the few remaining officers and men the job of saving PCF 3, which was then in terrible condition, sinking just outside the river. Kerry’s eagerness to secure his third and final Purple Heart evidently outweighed any feelings he may have had of loyalty, duty, or honor with regard to his fellow sailors. Thurlow and the brave sailors who saved PCF 3 and towed it out did not seek Purple Hearts for their “minor contusions.” Indeed, several of the PCF 3 sailors did not seek or receive Purple Hearts. Chenoweth, Odell, and their boatmates who fished out and saved the sailors of PCF 3 likewise had no thought of seeking medals but only of rescuing their comrades and saving PCF 3. Kerry, however, portrays himself towing the disabled PCF 3 to safety after saving it. Another lie: The damage control done on PCF 3 was done by Thurlow. While Kerry’s boat, PCF 94, participated in towing PCF 3, Kerry was no longer on it for most of the trip (he was safely on the Coast Guard cutter), and Thurlow and Chenoweth are certain that Kerry played no role in saving PCF 3 or its crew.


When Chenoweth and Thurlow (as well as several other Swiftees who were there on March 13, 1969) first saw the Kerry ads, they believed the event that Kerry had described in his campaign biography and that was portrayed in his campaign television ads (as well as in the medal citations) had to be different events involving different people. What they had experienced on March 13, 1969, was so unlike the incident Kerry described that they could not imagine he was describing the same event. They were horrified when they finally realized Kerry had received medals for the incident they remembered.


Rassmann appeared for a spontaneous embrace of Kerry at a campaign event in Iowa. He was understandably grateful to Kerry for fishing him out of the river, and he was evidently happy to participate in the “no man left behind” version of the story being told by Kerry in his “war hero” mode. As with most Kerry campaigns, Iowa ended with Kerry, the Vietnam hero. Still, the other Swiftees who learned of Kerry’s fraudulent citations and ads felt betrayed. William Franke writes,


You’ve just got to make them understand. We went out to operate and survive. We had no time to deal with the crap of John Kerry. We weren’t thinking of self-promotion like him. Just survival and doing the job. We didn’t want him around and we were happy he was gone.


Tom Wright, another PCF commander at An Thoi, discussed John Kerry with several other Swiftees on base right after the March 13 incident. They were aware of the three Purple Heart rule that sounded like “three strikes and you’re out.” John Kerry could be sent home. So Wright approached Kerry one night and proposed to him that several fellow Swiftees on the base felt that it might be best for everybody if Kerry simply left. The next thing Wright knew, Kerry was gone, the exact result Wright hoped to achieve.



Coming Home

Kerry followed up the March Purple Heart with a request to head home, the only Swiftee in the history of Coastal Division 11 to do so before the end of a tour, except of course, those who suffered a serious wound. Kerry arrived home in New York, completing his “one-year tour” in the record time of four months. According to his biography, when he got off the airplane at Kennedy Airport in New York to meet his fiancée, Julia Thorne, Kerry was supposedly so “bandaged” that “some of it was sticking out.” Whether this was just another example of Kerry political theater is not clear. It is certain that Kerry had only a minor bruise on his arm and a minor self-inflicted wound on his buttocks from some two weeks earlier. It is unclear how either of these wounds could have accounted for bandages “sticking out” from his clothing.


In his 1971 debate on the Dick Cavett Show with John O’Neill, Kerry made it seem as if his decision process to leave Vietnam had been tortured:


The fact of the matter remains that after I received my third wound, I was told that I could return to the United States. I deliberated for about two weeks because you have an opportunity to go, but I finally made the decision to go back and leave of my own volition because I felt I could do more against the war back here…. When I got back here…I wrote a letter through him [an admiral] requesting that I be released from the Navy early because of my opposition.


This “deliberation” was once again a complete lie. Kerry was “wounded” on March 13, 1969, on the Bay Hap River, but by March 17, 1969, at 7:42 a.m., his request for reassignment to the United States (having been typed up far away in An Thoi and signed by the commander there) was at the Navy Department in Washington. His subsequent request to leave the Navy late in 1969 mentions nothing about his “opposition to the war,” but only his ambition to run for Congress.


The real Kerry “homecoming” that most Swiftees will never forget occurred at St. Albans Naval Hospital in early April 1969, where Tedd Peck, the commander of PCF 94, lay recovering from terrible wounds that he suffered on January 29, 1969. Peck was horrified when he learned that PCF 94 and his crew had been turned over to Kerry after Peck had been wounded. He thought, “How could the Navy do this to me after all I’ve suffered?"


Still in pain and suffering from his wounds, Peck was stunned to see a well-groomed John Kerry pop into his room, complete with dress whites and attaché cord. “Kerry, you son of a *****,” Peck said, “what the hell are you doing here? You were only there a couple of months.”


Kerry replied (lying about his own request to come home), “Tedd, the Navy decided it was time for me to come home.” Kerry explained that he was visiting the wounded as an admiral’s aide.


Within a short time, Kerry sought to recruit Peck for the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW), which Kerry described as a group he had organized. Peck, dumbfounded, ask Kerry, “John, how can you do this? All of our guys are still over there, in Vietnam?


Kerry had no answer.


We have never been given any more of a real answer from John Kerry than the one Tedd Peck received while lying in his hospital bed.

iceblizzard69
08-19-2004, 08:24 PM
He made a mistake blaming Bush for these adds. Now he's going to have to prove that or he's going to look even more stupid than he has the last 6 months.

Oliver...

He still won't ever look as stupid as Bush has for the last 3.5 years....

ohall
08-19-2004, 08:26 PM
He still won't ever look as stupid as Bush has for the last 3.5 years....

Want to bet?

Oliver...

DolFan31
08-19-2004, 08:41 PM
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=231

:rolleyes:

Section126
08-19-2004, 09:00 PM
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=231

:rolleyes:

SO?

Read the excerpt and try to defend Kerry...Just try.....

ohall
08-19-2004, 09:05 PM
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=231

:rolleyes:

LoL that is damning to Kerry not Bush #43. I swear sometimes you guys crack me up!

Oliver...

DolFan31
08-19-2004, 09:37 PM
LoL that is damning to Kerry not Bush #43. I swear sometimes you guys crack me up!

Oliver...


The Bronze Star
The Bronze Star

The most serious allegation in the ad is that Kerry received both the Bronze Star, his second-highest decoration, and his third purple heart, which allowed him to be sent home early, under false pretenses. But that account is flatly contradicted by Jim Rassmann, the former Army Lieutenant whom Kerry rescued that day.

Van O'Dell, a former Navy enlisted man who says he was the gunner on another Swift Boat, states in his affidavit that he was "a few yards away" from Kerry's boat on March 13, 1969 when Kerry pulled Rassman from the water. According to the official medal citations, Kerry's boat was under enemy fire at the time, and Kerry had been wounded when an enemy mine exploded near his own boat. O'Dell insists "there was no fire" at the time, adding: "I did not hear any shots, nor did any hostile fire hit any boats" other than his own, PCF-3.

Others in the ad back up that account. Jack Chenoweth, who was a Lieutenant (junior grade) commanding PCF-3, said Kerry's boat "fled the scene" after a mine blast disabled PCF-3, and returned only later "when it was apparent that there was no return fire." And Larry Thurlow, who says he commanded a third Swift Boat that day, says "Kerry fled while we stayed to fight," and returned only later "after no return fire occurred."

A serious discrepancy in the account of Kerry's accusers came to light Aug. 19, when the Washington Post reported that Navy records describe Thurlow himself as dodging enemy bullets during the same incident, for which Thurlow also was awarded the Bronze Star.

Thurlow's citation - which the Post said it obtained under the Freedom of Information Act - says that "all units began receiving enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire from the river banks" after the first explosion. The citation describes Thurlow as leaping aboard the damaged PCF-3 and rendering aid "while still under enemy fire," and adds: "His actions and courage in the face of enemy fire . . . were in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service."
A separate document that recommended Thurlow for that decoration states that all Thurlow's actions "took place under constant enemy small arms fire." It was signed by Elliott.

The Post quoted Thurlow as saying he had lost his citation years earlier and had been under the impression that he received the award for aiding the damaged boat and its crew, and that his own award would be "fraudulent" if based on his facing enemy fire. The Post reported that, after hearing the citation read to him, Thurlow said: "It's like a Hollywood presentation here, which wasn't the case. . . My personal feeling was always that I got the award for coming to the rescue of the boat that was mined. This casts doubt on anybody's awards. It is sickening and disgusting. . . . I am here to state that we weren't under fire."

None of those in the attack ad by the Swift Boat group actually served on Kerry's boat. And their statements are contrary to the accounts of Kerry and those who served under him. a

Jim Rassmann was the Army Special Forces lieutenant whom Kerry plucked from the water. Rassmann has said all along that he was under sniper fire from both banks of the river when Kerry, wounded, helped him aboard. Rassmann is featured in an earlier Kerry ad, in fact, (see script at left) saying "he (Kerry) risked his life to save mine."

On Aug. 10, Rassmann wrote a vivid account of the rescue in the Wall Street Journal that contradicts the Kerry accusers. Rassmann said that after the first explosion that disabled PCF-3:

Rassmann: Machine-gun fire erupted from both banks of the river and a second explosion followed moments later. The second blast blew me off John's swift boat, PCF-94, throwing me into the river. Fearing that the other boats would run me over, I swam to the bottom of the river and stayed there as long as I could hold my breath.

When I surfaced, all the swift boats had left, and I was alone taking fire from both banks. To avoid the incoming fire I repeatedly swam under water as long as I could hold my breath, attempting to make it to the north bank of the river. I thought I would die right there. The odds were against me avoiding the incoming fire and, even if I made it out of the river, I thought I thought I'd be captured and executed. Kerry must have seen me in the water and directed his driver, Del Sandusky, to turn the boat around. Kerry's boat ran up to me in the water, bow on, and I was able to climb up a cargo net to the lip of the deck. But, because I was nearly upside down, I couldn't make it over the edge of the deck. This left me hanging out in the open, a perfect target. John, already wounded by the explosion that threw me off his boat, came out onto the bow, exposing himself to the fire directed at us from the jungle, and pulled me aboard.

Rassmann said he recommended Kerry for the Silver Star for that action, and learned only later that the Bronze Star had been awarded instead. "To this day I still believe he deserved the Silver Star for his courage," he wrote. Rassmann described himself as a retired lieutenant with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. "I am a Republican, and for more than 30 years I have largely voted for Republicans," Rassmann said. But he said Kerry "will be a great commander in chief."

"This smear campaign has been launched by people without decency," Rassmann said. "Their new charges are false; their stories are fabricated, made up by people who did not serve with Kerry in Vietnam."




There's a few...did you read the whole thing or just parts as usual? Or did you not read it at all thinking its a liberal bias site or no one would read it because you said it favors bush?

pats4life
08-19-2004, 09:45 PM
Bush's people should be smarter than that. This ad is going to backfire and people are going to feel for Kerry and that will translate into votes come Nov. Not a smart move by the RNC by not distancing its self from this B.S. and that is what it is and people are smart enough to grasp that fact. Lets be honest if this crap was true dont you think bush would be babbling his way through a speach on it? But they say that they will not and never will question his service why is that? but they wont condone the ads but they believe Kerry served honorably? Bush should learn to be a man and either come out in favor of the ads or slam the people responsible for putting them out there!

ohall
08-19-2004, 10:05 PM
There's a few...did you read the whole thing or just parts as usual? Or did you not read it at all thinking its a liberal bias site or no one would read it because you said it favors bush?

I read it all, did you?

It's damning to Kerry not Bush.

Oliver...

ohall
08-19-2004, 10:06 PM
Bush's people should be smarter than that. This ad is going to backfire and people are going to feel for Kerry and that will translate into votes come Nov. Not a smart move by the RNC by not distancing its self from this B.S. and that is what it is and people are smart enough to grasp that fact. Lets be honest if this crap was true dont you think bush would be babbling his way through a speach on it? But they say that they will not and never will question his service why is that? but they wont condone the ads but they believe Kerry served honorably? Bush should learn to be a man and either come out in favor of the ads or slam the people responsible for putting them out there!

Bush is not running the ad, that's problem with what you're saying. plus he has denounced all these 2nd teir adds, that includes this one something Kerry has yet to do.

Oliver...

PhinPhan1227
08-19-2004, 10:28 PM
Tell you what...when Kerry condemns MoveOn, Bush can condemn SwiftBoats. Until then KErry should STFU.

Section126
08-19-2004, 10:36 PM
Dolfan31.....please read the excerpt......JOHN KERRY ADMITTED that he had injured himself earlier that day when he threw a grenade into a vat of rice at a VC village (Tour of Duty: His own book) and the rice blew up and a few pieces flew out and embedded itself into his Butt.....

He then later that day has the Rassman incident where NOT one other Swiftboat Captain says that they were under fire and LOW AND BEHOLD...Kerry puts in for his 3rd Purple Heart (Automatic out) based on his injuries of which the one on the arm was laughed off by the Medical officer in charge and was then awarded his out with his BUTT wound........

THAT ALONE makes Mr. Kerry a COWARD........deal with it......

TorontoFin
08-19-2004, 11:30 PM
Tell you what...when Kerry condemns MoveOn, Bush can condemn SwiftBoats. Until then KErry should STFU.
That's right. Bush has to distance himself from a group of soldiers, but there's no problem if JFK continues to support George Sorros' millions, which are at work equating Bush to Hitler. Sounds pretty intellectually bankrupt for Mr. Nuanced if you ask me.

MDFINFAN
08-19-2004, 11:42 PM
You're going to put up something from people who didn't like him coming back to tell the truth about something that happen there, and expect someone to fall for this...pleassssse. Opps, I forgot you guys can't handle the truth. Rose colored glasses are better, like Iraq has WMD and even after we find they don't, keep defending a mistake. What has our country come to. No wonder we're losing respect all over the world. Every generation will get worst. It's coming true.

TorontoFin
08-19-2004, 11:54 PM
of course the media was in overdrive giving the swiftboats some ink...But it took a rising best seller and nationally aired ads to do it. It was quite shortlived. Now the NYT and the wash post are falling all over themselves to discredit the swift boats. why? well 'cause the Ketchup King says it just aint true. Whether it is, or kinda is, or whether the leader of the swift boats was lets say, financially motivated, the real story is this: All but a tiny handful of his 'band of brothers", including his commanding officers, are opposed to his candidacy. I wonder if on Cheney's bid for the presidency, it turns out that 99% of Halliburton's BofD and 80% of shareholders opposed him, if the media wouldn't go ape sh--t using that to bring him down?
Mr. Reporting For Duty brought this on himself. With nothing to run on -- surely not his Swiss finishing school upbringing, his atrocious voting record on all Military and Cold war matters, his chumming around with Fonda -- he only has 4 months of Vietnam to fall back on. I guess no one told him that with everything going on, no one wants to hear about a war they've spent the last 30+ years trying to forget.

TorontoFin
08-20-2004, 12:03 AM
What has our country come to. No wonder we're losing respect all over the world. Every generation will get worst. It's coming true.
that's right, " respect of the World" for you so called multilateralists has now shrunk down to France, germany, Russia, China, and a handful of basket-case Arab leauge despots. How "worldly" that thinking is. And Bush is supposed to be the guy who has such a narrow view on geopolitics????

MDFINFAN
08-20-2004, 12:21 AM
that's right, " respect of the World" for you so called multilateralists has now shrunk down to France, germany, Russia, China, and a handful of basket-case Arab leauge despots. How "worldly" that thinking is. And Bush is supposed to be the guy who has such a narrow view on geopolitics????

Dude we don't live in this world alone, and at this point and time, couldn't. So get use to it.

ohall
08-20-2004, 12:25 AM
Dude we don't live in this world alone, and at this point and time, couldn't. So get use to it.

We don't? Sheesh I'm sure that's news to every REP out there. The problem is if you like having a free America you had always better put America 1st and last. Let's be honest here, do you think any country will put America or another country ahead of their own needs?

When you answer that question honestly you'll understand why France, Germany and Russia were never going to go into Iraq to free those 25 million ppl from a madman that was working his way to try and take over the world just like his HERO Hitler tried to do.

Oliver...

TorontoFin
08-20-2004, 12:35 AM
No dude, we don't. but you don't seem to understand that France isn't the "world". Italy poland australia and Japan and Eng (all of a sudden an irrelivant nation) are too, as are dozens and dozens of others participating in their limited capacity. Ghana for example has a few dozens troops, that by an equivilant ratio, would be like France sending 25,000. But ghana for you is a joke, i bet? why? why is their role any less important than say, Sudan's opposition to it. except that the latter -- which is currently the chair of the UNs human rights council, if you can believe it, is in the middle of a state- sponsored genoicide against its black Christian minority. But why shouldn't their opinion matter, right?
I'm quite aware of my world, my friend, and know I'm not the only one in it. Some people would wish I and you weren't in it at all, however.

MDFINFAN
08-20-2004, 12:37 AM
We don't? Sheesh I'm sure that's news to every REP out there. The problem is if you like having a free America you had always better put America 1st and last. Let's be honest here, do you think any country will put America or another country ahead of their own needs?

When you answer that question honestly you'll understand why France, Germany and Russia were never going to go into Iraq to free those 25 million ppl from a madman that was working his way to try and take over the world just like his HERO Hitler tried to do.

Oliver...

Err, that's not the reason we went into Iraq, that's the reason after the 1st reason didn't materialize. :D

MDFINFAN
08-20-2004, 12:41 AM
No dude, we don't. but you don't seem to understand that France isn't the "world". Italy poland australia and Japan and Eng (all of a sudden an irrelivant nation) are too, as are dozens and dozens of others participating in their limited capacity. Ghana for example has a few dozens troops, that by an equivilant ratio, would be like France sending 25,000. But ghana for you is a joke, i bet? why? why is their role any less important than say, Sudan's opposition to it. except that the latter -- which is currently the chair of the UNs human rights council, if you can believe it, is in the middle of a state- sponsored genoicide against its black Christian minority. But why shouldn't their opinion matter, right?
I'm quite aware of my world, my friend, and know I'm not the only one in it. Some people would wish I and you weren't in it at all, however.


There are more countries than you're naming that don't respect us as much, namely their citizenry. Even some of the countries who went with us, their people weren't exactly with them on it. We need a lot of others to be with us to fight terriorists, especially our allies.

ohall
08-20-2004, 12:47 AM
Err, that's not the reason we went into Iraq, that's the reason after the 1st reason didn't materialize. :D

Tell me did we go into Europe to help Britain out because of all the Jews that were being killed in Germany?

For someone who thinks he has a good understanding of things you constantly show your azz!

Oliver...

MDFINFAN
08-20-2004, 12:55 AM
Tell me did we go into Europe to help Britain out because of all the Jews that were being killed in Germany?

For someone who thinks he has a good understanding of things you constantly show your azz!

Oliver...

Why does truth bring out such nastiness? We were talking about why we went to Iraq and I merely pointed out the reason and you come back with showing my azz, :confused: The jews definetly wasn't why we went to war in europe. You have to stick to the subject of why we went to Iraq, remember they were suppose to be a threat because they had WDM, and that was a possible threat to our security, remember. They had ties to Al Quida and all that stuff, remember. The freeing of the people was a byproduct, remember now..It was after the war that freeing the people became more the buzz words from the administration. I'm not trying to show my azz, just stating as closely as I remember the sequence of events.

PhinPhan1227
08-20-2004, 01:01 AM
Why does truth bring out such nastiness? We were talking about why we went to Iraq and I merely pointed out the reason and you come back with showing my azz, :confused: The jews definetly wasn't why we went to war in europe. You have to stick to the subject of why we went to Iraq, remember they were suppose to be a threat because they had WDM, and that was a possible threat to our security, remember. They had ties to Al Quida and all that stuff, remember. The freeing of the people was a byproduct, remember now..It was after the war that freeing the people became more the buzz words from the administration. I'm not trying to show my azz, just stating as closely as I remember the sequence of events.

The reason we went to war in Iraq...to combat terrorism. A free and stable Iraq will make HUGE strides towards combating terrorism. The execution has been rough, but I have yet to see ANYONE present any other long term solutions.

TorontoFin
08-20-2004, 01:05 AM
There are more countries than you're naming that don't respect us as much, namely their citizenry. Even some of the countries who went with us, their people weren't exactly with them on it. We need a lot of others to be with us to fight terriorists, especially our allies.
So now its the citizenary? Newsflash, but half of your own country opposes this far, for both the right and wrong reasons...no suprise that even more of the "citizenary" of those other countries opposes it as well. By the way, not evey country is like spain, berlusconni and Blair both lead in polls despite the mass opposition you saw on the streets during the communist-sponsored protests of 02/03 in both their countries..Can't speak for poland or australia..so we'll see soon enough just how loud the citizanary will scream at election time.
Oh and BTW just a little tid-bit from up north, if you take socialist wasteland Quebec out of the equation (you know the same province that opposed Canadian involvement in WWII despite their french brethren getting invaded) 59% of canadian actually supported the war.
Don't underestimate the silent majority in those countries

ohall
08-20-2004, 01:05 AM
Why does truth bring out such nastiness? We were talking about why we went to Iraq and I merely pointed out the reason and you come back with showing my azz, :confused: The jews definetly wasn't why we went to war in europe. You have to stick to the subject of why we went to Iraq, remember they were suppose to be a threat because they had WDM, and that was a possible threat to our security, remember. They had ties to Al Quida and all that stuff, remember. The freeing of the people was a byproduct, remember now..It was after the war that freeing the people became more the buzz words from the administration. I'm not trying to show my azz, just stating as closely as I remember the sequence of events.

Believe me I was not being nasty, if you could have read what I originally typed you'd understand. :D

I am sticking to the subject yet you miss the point again. Rarely do the reasons a country enters a war stay the same when they finish or exit that war. I would have thought that was obvious.

The only difference now is DEM's of today have liberalized this country so much they can now play this immature gotcha game they are currently playing on Bush #43 with this WMD stuff that everyone got wrong including MOST of the DEM’s and specifically your Presidential ticket. You should be real proud of how your political party has evolved.

Sorry the way you remember things is not how I remember things. Any administration, DEM or REP would have made the WMD the main case, because after all 9/11 had just taken place. The difference would have been if it was a DEM President the REP's wouldn't be playing this gotcha game. They are smart enough to understand every time they would bash that DEM President on that they would be in fact bashing themselves as well. This is something your party has not quite caught onto yet. Some how I think they won't figure this out until it's too late.

Oliver...

ohall
08-20-2004, 01:07 AM
So now its the citizenary? Newsflash, but half of your own country opposes this far, for both the right and wrong reasons...no suprise that even more of the "citizenary" of those other countries opposes it as well. By the way, not evey country is like spain, berlusconni and Blair both lead in polls despite the mass opposition you saw on the streets during the communist-sponsored protests of 02/03 in both their countries..Can't speak for poland or australia..so we'll see soon enough just how loud the citizanary will scream at election time.
Oh and BTW just a little tid-bit from up north, if you take socialist wasteland Quebec out of the equation (you know the same province that opposed Canadian involvement in WWII despite their french brethren getting invaded) 59% of canadian actually supported the war.
Don't underestimate the silent majority in those countries

God I wish my Canadian familiy members were like you! You are a breath of fresh air for this American!

Oliver...

MDFINFAN
08-20-2004, 01:08 AM
The reason we went to war in Iraq...to combat terrorism. A free and stable Iraq will make HUGE strides towards combating terrorism. The execution has been rough, but I have yet to see ANYONE present any other long term solutions.


Darn PP1227, I told you you should have worked for Bush :D , this is good, now you know I'm not going to agree with this as written. It's very carefully crafted, but does leave out a weed bit of the presidents speech to us before going to war. Now it does cover all his speech and intensions in a way that just mades me proud of your skills :lol: But you do have to mention WMD to get the full favor of his reasons.. :cooldude:

TorontoFin
08-20-2004, 01:10 AM
Why does truth bring out such nastiness? We were talking about why we went to Iraq and I merely pointed out the reason and you come back with showing my azz, :confused: The jews definetly wasn't why we went to war in europe. You have to stick to the subject of why we went to Iraq, remember they were suppose to be a threat because they had WDM, and that was a possible threat to our security, remember. They had ties to Al Quida and all that stuff, remember. The freeing of the people was a byproduct, remember now..It was after the war that freeing the people became more the buzz words from the administration. I'm not trying to show my azz, just stating as closely as I remember the sequence of events.
Oh, you mean the WMDs that the UN, Clinton, baby kennedy, and yes, John Kerry were harping on an on about in the late 90s?

TorontoFin
08-20-2004, 01:19 AM
God I wish my Canadian familiy members were like you! You are a breath of fresh air for this American!

Oliver...
thanks. believe me it's not easy in toronto, I have to listen and fight Anti-americanism every day. I'm waiting for Alberta to separate, so I can move there. The truth is that I'd be American right now, if the need to be close to family and friends didn't outweigh my embarrassment for the leaders- for-life in my country

MDFINFAN
08-20-2004, 01:43 AM
Believe me I was not being nasty, if you could have read what I originally typed you'd understand. :D

I am sticking to the subject yet you miss the point again. Rarely do the reasons a country enters a war stay the same when they finish or exit that war. I would have thought that was obvious.

The only difference now is DEM's of today have liberalized this country so much they can now play this immature gotcha game they are currently playing on Bush #43 with this WMD stuff that everyone got wrong including MOST of the DEM’s and specifically your Presidential ticket. You should be real proud of how your political party has evolved.

Sorry the way you remember things is not how I remember things. Any administration, DEM or REP would have made the WMD the main case, because after all 9/11 had just taken place. The difference would have been if it was a DEM President the REP's wouldn't be playing this gotcha game. They are smart enough to understand every time they would bash that DEM President on that they would be in fact bashing themselves as well. This is something your party has not quite caught onto yet. Some how I think they won't figure this out until it's too late.

Oliver...

I hear ya, ohal, also glad I didn't get your first response. :D But it's not just the dem's who are doing the things you point out, it's both parties. The reason I disagree with you is there's too many other countries under the same circumstances that Iraq's in. We don't try to free all them from Brutal dictators. So it had to be more, and the admin clearly pointed out security of our nation. The Repubs don't have a monoply on securing this nation, it's been done under both parties. It's hard for me to argue with you alone party lines since I don't subscribe to either the Dem's or Repub's. I generally respond to these threads as a independent view. My views in this forum seem demo because of my dislike of bush, so I assume everyone thinks I'm a dem. In 1980 I voted for Regan. didn't like Bush 1 or Dufus the Dem he ran against. I did like Clinton better than Bush 1, I had a lot of Questions about Bush 2 when he came into Office and he kind of walk right into my bad thoughts of him, especially when he was on vacation all the time at the beginning of his Admin. Just reminded me of a rich boy who thought he deserved the presidency and didn't have to work at it. Since then this admin has been so secretive that I'm not sure what they're doing and when they do come out, it's our way or you're not patriotic. That gives me pause for concern. I listen to them and what they say just doesn't jive with reality. So I looked into Bush more and I just didn't like what I found. So at this point, he's isn't the type of man I want as President. I'm researching Kerry more now. I guest at this point he's the lesser of 2 evils for me. I really don't like either one.

MDFINFAN
08-20-2004, 01:46 AM
Oh, you mean the WMDs that the UN, Clinton, baby kennedy, and yes, John Kerry were harping on an on about in the late 90s?

Yes and No, yes I mean the ones no one was sure about and No, I mean the ones we couldn't find. :tongue:

PhinPhan1227
08-20-2004, 02:09 AM
Darn PP1227, I told you you should have worked for Bush :D , this is good, now you know I'm not going to agree with this as written. It's very carefully crafted, but does leave out a weed bit of the presidents speech to us before going to war. Now it does cover all his speech and intensions in a way that just mades me proud of your skills :lol: But you do have to mention WMD to get the full favor of his reasons.. :cooldude:


I disagreed with the WMD argument then, and I disagree with it now. It was stupid PR on the Presidents part.

PhinPhan1227
08-20-2004, 02:10 AM
Yes and No, yes I mean the ones no one was sure about and No, I mean the ones we couldn't find. :tongue:


The UN, and Clinton stated that they were sure about the WMD's.

ohall
08-20-2004, 02:13 AM
I hear ya, ohal, also glad I didn't get your first response. :D But it's not just the dem's who are doing the things you point out, it's both parties. The reason I disagree with you is there's too many other countries under the same circumstances that Iraq's in. We don't try to free all them from Brutal dictators. So it had to be more, and the admin clearly pointed out security of our nation. The Repubs don't have a monoply on securing this nation, it's been done under both parties. It's hard for me to argue with you alone party lines since I don't subscribe to either the Dem's or Repub's. I generally respond to these threads as a independent view. My views in this forum seem demo because of my dislike of bush, so I assume everyone thinks I'm a dem. In 1980 I voted for Regan. didn't like Bush 1 or Dufus the Dem he ran against. I did like Clinton better than Bush 1, I had a lot of Questions about Bush 2 when he came into Office and he kind of walk right into my bad thoughts of him, especially when he was on vacation all the time at the beginning of his Admin. Just reminded me of a rich boy who thought he deserved the presidency and didn't have to work at it. Since then this admin has been so secretive that I'm not sure what they're doing and when they do come out, it's our way or you're not patriotic. That gives me pause for concern. I listen to them and what they say just doesn't jive with reality. So I looked into Bush more and I just didn't like what I found. So at this point, he's isn't the type of man I want as President. I'm researching Kerry more now. I guest at this point he's the lesser of 2 evils for me. I really don't like either one.

Iraq was a very unique situation. Many ppl have tried to explain this to you, but you refuse to acknowledge this fact. I doubt I'll be any more successful in trying so I'm not going to try.

Sorry dude you constantly contradict yourself. You say you like Reagan, most ppl understand as President he spent the most time in history away from the White House. What you call vacation. Most ppl understand the President is never on vacation. It seems like a poor reason to start to dislike someone.

The only Presidents in recent history who were not born rich were Clinton and I believe Nixon. Someone being rich or not also seems to be a poor reason to not like a Presidential candidate seeing as how the wide majority of them all have silver spoons stuck in their mouths from birth.

I have no idea why you think this administration did not have good cause to be secretive after the Clinton administration that leaked secret info to China because they were too open. Further I have yet to hear anyone from this administration question anyone’s patriotism. The only ppl I hear doing that are DEM's all on their own. I think it's guilt showing up from how they treated the Vietnam Vets during the 70’s.

I have no doubt what they say does not jive with your reality. I can't say what I've seen you type comes close to what I call reality either. The views you have expressed here appear to be one based in paranoia and fear of being controlled by rich ppl. IMO you let your fear control your vote rather than your best intentions and hopes for this country. I know a lot of ppl like you. It could be worse, I know a lot of women or even men who decide who they are going to vote for by how good looking the Presidential candidate are.

I don't think you should vote for Bush. In fact I hope you don't. I just hope you understand the other guy is not any better as far as what you chose to judge Presidents by. In fact in most areas he's prob much worse. If I was you I'd just sit this one out until you find a more left wing candidate. Kerry is not far enough left for someone like you. He'll only disappoint you as well.

Oliver...

VJ1252
08-20-2004, 03:39 AM
He made a mistake blaming Bush for these adds. Now he's going to have to prove that or he's going to look even more stupid than he has the last 6 months.

Oliver...
these ads are funded by texas republican. gee I wonder if he would stop the ads if bush asked him too:rolleyes:

VJ1252
08-20-2004, 03:46 AM
The reason we went to war in Iraq...to combat terrorism. A free and stable Iraq will make HUGE strides towards combating terrorism. The execution has been rough, but I have yet to see ANYONE present any other long term solutions.
A free and stable saudi arabia or pakistan would have been a lot more helpful to combating terrorism.

ohall
08-20-2004, 03:59 AM
these ads are funded by texas republican. gee I wonder if he would stop the ads if bush asked him too:rolleyes:

No they wouldn't stop it, they have said as much. Bush has nothing to do with this, and Kerry is going to have a hell of time proving his accusation directed at Bush today.

Oliver...

PhinPhan1227
08-20-2004, 05:44 AM
A free and stable saudi arabia or pakistan would have been a lot more helpful to combating terrorism.

Nifty...if Saudi Arabia or Pakistan attempts to conquer their neighbors we can do just that. BTW, Saudi Arabia is quite stable. And they are making progress in allowing Democracy to develop.

DeDolfan
08-20-2004, 11:52 AM
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=231

:rolleyes:

Personally, I would take the word of the men that were actually ON Kerry's boat as opposed to the word of others on other boats. It really makes me "wonder" just how accurate their descriptions could possibly be under combat conditions, etc. In other words, while I was serving, I was more concerned with the things going on right atound me and my immediate fellow servicemen as oppsed to what was happening to other units at the time. So, if we were concerned about our own immediate well being, I find it hard to be able to give an accurate description of what was happening or going on with other units at the time. Simply hard to imagine in the least !! ;)

PhinPhan1227
08-20-2004, 12:19 PM
Personally, I would take the word of the men that were actually ON Kerry's boat as opposed to the word of others on other boats. It really makes me "wonder" just how accurate their descriptions could possibly be under combat conditions, etc. In other words, while I was serving, I was more concerned with the things going on right atound me and my immediate fellow servicemen as oppsed to what was happening to other units at the time. So, if we were concerned about our own immediate well being, I find it hard to be able to give an accurate description of what was happening or going on with other units at the time. Simply hard to imagine in the least !! ;)


It's pretty simple actually...if you were on a boat 45 feet away than I'd say you know just as well whether you and the other guy are under enemy fire. It's not like the NVA or VC were using silencers on their AK 47's.

DeDolfan
08-20-2004, 12:28 PM
It's pretty simple actually...if you were on a boat 45 feet away than I'd say you know just as well whether you and the other guy are under enemy fire. It's not like the NVA or VC were using silencers on their AK 47's.

That's just my point. When everyone is being fired upon, you are concerned with your immediate well being and for the moment, pretty much oblivious to what is going on elsewhere around you.

PhinPhan1227
08-20-2004, 12:56 PM
That's just my point. When everyone is being fired upon, you are concerned with your immediate well being and for the moment, pretty much oblivious to what is going on elsewhere around you.

Not if you are ANY kind of a decent soldier. If you drop down behind cover and stay there when the first shots are fired than you're pretty useless. All that aside however, there's the basic difference. The guy from Swift Boats says that there WASN'T fire coming in. So even if he WAS the kind of guy who ducks down when the bullets fly, he says there were no bullets to duck. It's not like he's saying that Kerry's boat got hit with 5 bullets instead of 15...he's saying there were no bullets firing. BTW, none of the boats came back with any bullet holes in them according to every account I have read...if they WERE being fired upon, those NVA must have been some REALLY bad shots. :lol:

DeDolfan
08-20-2004, 01:17 PM
Not if you are ANY kind of a decent soldier. If you drop down behind cover and stay there when the first shots are fired than you're pretty useless. All that aside however, there's the basic difference. The guy from Swift Boats says that there WASN'T fire coming in. So even if he WAS the kind of guy who ducks down when the bullets fly, he says there were no bullets to duck. It's not like he's saying that Kerry's boat got hit with 5 bullets instead of 15...he's saying there were no bullets firing. BTW, none of the boats came back with any bullet holes in them according to every account I have read...if they WERE being fired upon, those NVA must have been some REALLY bad shots. :lol:

i'm not ezactly sure what you mean by your 1st sentence, other than the obvious. One thing i do know is that by nature, when under fire, one will try to neutralize or eliminate the immediate threat to himself and those around him before he can be concerned about what else is going on elswehere.
bTW, if you claim there were no shots fired, how come is it that the guys on the same boat with him supported the story of how he pulled wounded guy/s from the river, thus earning the silver/bronze stars. Funny thing how these "right-wingers" are suddenly voicing their opposition to this 35 years later instead of back then when it happened. iMO, that doesn't give much merit to their claims. It's sort of like how some ppl bring all these frivolous lawsuits against someone years after the fact. IMO, if it wasn't a problem way back when, then why is it so important now all of a sudden?? Pure and simple, poppycock!!

PhinPhan1227
08-20-2004, 01:25 PM
i'm not ezactly sure what you mean by your 1st sentence, other than the obvious. One thing i do know is that by nature, when under fire, one will try to neutralize or eliminate the immediate threat to himself and those around him before he can be concerned about what else is going on elswehere.
bTW, if you claim there were no shots fired, how come is it that the guys on the same boat with him supported the story of how he pulled wounded guy/s from the river, thus earning the silver/bronze stars. Funny thing how these "right-wingers" are suddenly voicing their opposition to this 35 years later instead of back then when it happened. iMO, that doesn't give much merit to their claims. It's sort of like how some ppl bring all these frivolous lawsuits against someone years after the fact. IMO, if it wasn't a problem way back when, then why is it so important now all of a sudden?? Pure and simple, poppycock!!


If it were 1-2, or even 10-20 guys I'd agree with you. But are you going to tell me that Kerry was the ONLY Democrat out of his entire Unit? Other than the guys on his boat with him(and NOT all of THEM), virtually the ENTIRE unit, close to 300 men have come out agaisnt John Kerry. That's an AWFULLY high percentage of "Right Wingers", isn't it? I mean, lets look at the number...the Navy puts together a unit with 280something Right Wingers, 8 honest moderates, and 1 Liberal Democrat? Damn, that personell department must have been SOMETHING!! As to my first comment, the job of a soldier is to react under fire. If you are in a boat on a river as part of a patrol with OTHER boats, if you come under fire its from the shore. You are actually closer to the other boat than you are to the person shooting at you. Part of your job is to support the guy next to you. That's what defines a soldier from the mob. If he's under fire you're suppossed to help him out. None of which changes the fact however that this guy says that THERE WAS NO FIRE TO CONCENTRATE ON.

MDFINFAN
08-20-2004, 03:34 PM
If it were 1-2, or even 10-20 guys I'd agree with you. But are you going to tell me that Kerry was the ONLY Democrat out of his entire Unit? Other than the guys on his boat with him(and NOT all of THEM), virtually the ENTIRE unit, close to 300 men have come out agaisnt John Kerry. That's an AWFULLY high percentage of "Right Wingers", isn't it? I mean, lets look at the number...the Navy puts together a unit with 280something Right Wingers, 8 honest moderates, and 1 Liberal Democrat? Damn, that personell department must have been SOMETHING!! As to my first comment, the job of a soldier is to react under fire. If you are in a boat on a river as part of a patrol with OTHER boats, if you come under fire its from the shore. You are actually closer to the other boat than you are to the person shooting at you. Part of your job is to support the guy next to you. That's what defines a soldier from the mob. If he's under fire you're suppossed to help him out. None of which changes the fact however that this guy says that THERE WAS NO FIRE TO CONCENTRATE ON.

And PP1227 you know we're a close knit group in the Military and if one break ranks and go and tell on the others, you know exactly how that one would be treated. There's no mystery here, it's good ol politics. You will be ostracized and never forgiven, and you know this to be true.

PhinPhan1227
08-20-2004, 03:55 PM
And PP1227 you know we're a close knit group in the Military and if one break ranks and go and tell on the others, you know exactly how that one would be treated. There's no mystery here, it's good ol politics. You will be ostracized and never forgiven, and you know this to be true.


These guys came together 30 years later. I doubt if most of them maintain any contact with each other. If 100, 50, heck 20 of the 280 disagreed I could almost go with your argument. But there's no reason for these men to be coming forward in this. Unless...again...you think that all 280 are right wing wacko's, which again, boggles the statistical mind.

MDFINFAN
08-20-2004, 04:13 PM
These guys came together 30 years later. I doubt if most of them maintain any contact with each other. If 100, 50, heck 20 of the 280 disagreed I could almost go with your argument. But there's no reason for these men to be coming forward in this. Unless...again...you think that all 280 are right wing wacko's, which again, boggles the statistical mind.

They haven't forgotten what transpired, especially with it being replayed on TV. If they were so anti Kerry, as you've said, why wait 30 years? Why let him be a senator for all these years? Why not continuously blast him doing his years in the senate? This is strictly politics, an organized effort, bringing them together for one purpose at this point. It's an election year type of thing, we should understand and ignore. Over and out. :cooldude:

ohall
08-20-2004, 04:21 PM
That's just my point. When everyone is being fired upon, you are concerned with your immediate well being and for the moment, pretty much oblivious to what is going on elsewhere around you.

They weren't under fire, that's the point they are trying to make. And being 45 feet away or so they would know if they were under intense fire or not.

Oliver...

ohall
08-20-2004, 04:22 PM
And PP1227 you know we're a close knit group in the Military and if one break ranks and go and tell on the others, you know exactly how that one would be treated. There's no mystery here, it's good ol politics. You will be ostracized and never forgiven, and you know this to be true.

Kerry never should said the things he said when he returned home from Vietnam. That is why he is going thru this right now. If he had just shut up these men would not have been motivated to expose more of his lies.

Oliver...

PhinPhan1227
08-20-2004, 04:23 PM
They haven't forgotten what transpired, especially with it being replayed on TV. If they were so anti Kerry, as you've said, why wait 30 years? Why let him be a senator for all these years? Why not continuously blast him doing his years in the senate? This is strictly politics, an organized effort, bringing them together for one purpose at this point. It's an election year type of thing, we should understand and ignore. Over and out. :cooldude:


#1-It's hard to get excited over a Senator.

#2-If Jesus came out and called Kerry the Anti-Christ, MAss would still elect him so long as Teddy Kennedy endorsed him, so why bother?

Bottom line, almost his entire unit has come out against him. It was considered a bad thing that Bush's unit couldn't remember him...doesn't it say something that virtually the entire unit is against KErry? I don't really care whether Kerry earned his medals. I DO care that almost nobody there supports him. And I also GREATLY care about his behavior once he returned home.

ABrownLamp
08-20-2004, 05:01 PM
5{\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0han1227]These guys came together 30 years later. I doubt if most of them maintain any contact with each other. If 100, 50, heck 20 of the 280 disagreed I could almost go with your argument. But there's no reason for these men to be coming forward in this. Unless...again...you think that all 280 are right wing wacko's, which again, boggles the statistical mind.[/QUOTE]

I don't know why you keep insisting that everyone is against him. EVERY member of his swift boat stood in support of him and were present during the DNC.

PhinPhan1227
08-20-2004, 05:09 PM
5{\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0han1227]These guys came together 30 years later. I doubt if most of them maintain any contact with each other. If 100, 50, heck 20 of the 280 disagreed I could almost go with your argument. But there's no reason for these men to be coming forward in this. Unless...again...you think that all 280 are right wing wacko's, which again, boggles the statistical mind.

I don't know why you keep insisting that everyone is against him. EVERY member of his swift boat stood in support of him and were present during the DNC.[/QUOTE]

#1-AHHH WRONG, thanks for playing!! Steven Gardner was a crewmate of Kerry's (he was his gunner)and he is STAUNCHLY agaisnt him.

#2-Out of a group of roughly 300 men who work, sleep, and eat together, if 8 of them are in favor of KErry and the other 280 are against him, statistically, that's pretty much ALL of them.

MDFINFAN
08-20-2004, 05:18 PM
Kerry never should said the things he said when he returned home from Vietnam. That is why he is going thru this right now. If he had just shut up these men would not have been motivated to expose more of his lies.

Oliver...

But the point is that they're not exposing anything, they didn't serve on the same boat as him. They're the ones lying. Politics, ignore all this. I ignore him and them on this one. :cooldude:

ohall
08-20-2004, 05:21 PM
But the point is that they're not exposing anything, they didn't serve on the same boat as him. They're the ones lying. Politics, ignore all this. I ignore him and them on this one. :cooldude:

They served with him. You do understand what this means correct? I mean you were a soldier, you should know what this means. You do know these boats did not go on patrol alone right? You do know that there were always at least 3 boats on a tour?

8-12 men support Kerry, and almost 300 men that served with Kerry say he is a liar. Why would you think those 8-12 men are the ones telling the truth?

Kerry's own words are going to eat him alive. I told you guys this months ago.

Oliver...

MDFINFAN
08-20-2004, 05:24 PM
They served with him. You do understand what this means correct? I mean you were a soldier, you should know what this means. You do know these boats did not go on patrol alone right? You do know that there were always at least 3 boats on a tour?

8-12 men support Kerry, and almost 300 men that served with Kerry say he is a liar. Why would you think those 8-12 men are the ones telling the truth?

Kerry's own words are going to eat him alive. I told you guys this months ago.

Oliver...

And Kerry came back and did what, told on them. Do you think they're not mad at him? This is politics, it's called payback..as I said, as far as this stuff, just ignore.

ohall
08-20-2004, 05:30 PM
And Kerry came back and did what, told on them. Do you think they're not mad at him? This is politics, it's called payback..as I said, as far as this stuff, just ignore.

To be specific, Kerry came and said he and his soldier in arms commited attrosaties against the Vietcon. Specifically engaging in free fire zones, raping, beheading of the vietcon.

I will not ignore it, and I don’t think you should either. Kerry has a record, and what started him is a record based on lies. None of those things that Kerry accused his soldiers in arms of is true. None of those things he talked about were ever confirmed or verified. This is a man that came back to America and became a star of the anti-War movement. Don’t you get it? Why aren’t you mad that someone like him could have done the same thing to you and dirtied and soiled your service in the military?

This is the root issue as far as I can see. You either believe a liar like Kerry or you have to ignore almost 300 men that know what he's made of because they served with him when his best worst was there for all of them to see. Why would all these men lie? I think that is the question you should ask yourself.

Oliver...

ABrownLamp
08-20-2004, 05:58 PM
#1-AHHH WRONG, thanks for playing!! Steven Gardner was a crewmate of Kerry's (he was his gunner)and he is STAUNCHLY agaisnt him.

#2-Out of a group of roughly 300 men who work, sleep, and eat together, if 8 of them are in favor of KErry and the other 280 are against him, statistically, that's pretty much ALL of them.

#1 Speaking of "statistically, that's pretty much ALL of them..." Don't you find it funny that THESE people in particular are the "only" ones supporting him.

#2 I have only heard reports from a select few of those men. Certainly not 280 of them. I don't know where you received the info from 280 different people. I find it hard to beleive that it just so happens that the only people supporting Kerry happen to be on his boat. Don't you find that odd? Or maybe, they are not the only people supporting him. I tried to find reports online that corroborated 280 people against him, but I couldn't find any. Link?

PhinPhan1227
08-20-2004, 06:28 PM
#1 Speaking of "statistically, that's pretty much ALL of them..." Don't you find it funny that THESE people in particular are the "only" ones supporting him.

#2 I have only heard reports from a select few of those men. Certainly not 280 of them. I don't know where you received the info from 280 different people. I find it hard to beleive that it just so happens that the only people supporting Kerry happen to be on his boat. Don't you find that odd? Or maybe, they are not the only people supporting him. I tried to find reports online that corroborated 280 people against him, but I couldn't find any. Link?


1 out of 8 is a MUCH higher percentage than 8 out of 280. And that figure comes from the signators of the letter against John Kerry which is what got Swift Boats started. Look up that letter and you will see where he number comes from. As for his support coming from those on his boat, for the most part I'd say that's probably because they have a closer personal relationship. Hey, I never said Kerry wasn't a likable guy. If you want to continue with the conspiracy theory however...which is easier...paying off 8 guys or paying off the rest of the unit?

ABrownLamp
08-21-2004, 02:41 PM
1 out of 8 is a MUCH higher percentage than 8 out of 280. And that figure comes from the signators of the letter against John Kerry which is what got Swift Boats started. Look up that letter and you will see where he number comes from. As for his support coming from those on his boat, for the most part I'd say that's probably because they have a closer personal relationship. Hey, I never said Kerry wasn't a likable guy. If you want to continue with the conspiracy theory however...which is easier...paying off 8 guys or paying off the rest of the unit?

That letter is total BS. It was a letter sent out by those swift boats for "truth" members. Those signatures are signatures from random people that CLAIM they served with or around John Kerry at the time. Much like the doctor who said he treated Kerry's wounds. Regardless of whether or not they like what he did following the war, the ONLY people actually speaking out against Kerry are the select few in that commercial. Every member of his own swift boat call him heroic and say he saved their lives. All you'll listen to are Republican lies such as "there were no bullets fired" "There were no bullet holes in his boat." BS to both of those claims. The guy was a war hero. Bottom line.

Section126
08-21-2004, 07:01 PM
That letter is total BS. It was a letter sent out by those swift boats for "truth" members. Those signatures are signatures from random people that CLAIM they served with or around John Kerry at the time. Much like the doctor who said he treated Kerry's wounds. Regardless of whether or not they like what he did following the war, the ONLY people actually speaking out against Kerry are the select few in that commercial. Every member of his own swift boat call him heroic and say he saved their lives. All you'll listen to are Republican lies such as "there were no bullets fired" "There were no bullet holes in his boat." BS to both of those claims. The guy was a war hero. Bottom line.


The problem is that THERE WERE NO BULLETS FIRED at them anyway...and there were NO Bullet holes resulting from fire that day in hanybody's boat....the damage on the boats was documented as being reported the DAY BEFORE.

PhinPhan1227
08-22-2004, 05:46 AM
That letter is total BS. It was a letter sent out by those swift boats for "truth" members. Those signatures are signatures from random people that CLAIM they served with or around John Kerry at the time. Much like the doctor who said he treated Kerry's wounds. Regardless of whether or not they like what he did following the war, the ONLY people actually speaking out against Kerry are the select few in that commercial. Every member of his own swift boat call him heroic and say he saved their lives. All you'll listen to are Republican lies such as "there were no bullets fired" "There were no bullet holes in his boat." BS to both of those claims. The guy was a war hero. Bottom line.


Do you need me to get the Webster definition of "every" for you? Steven Gardener served ON John Kerry's boat. KErry was HIS commander. Gardener is VEHEMENTLY oppossed to KErry. On what planet does that mean that EVERY member of his boat calls him heroic? I've said this to you once, so you can't blame ignorance here...are you being obtuse on purpose, or is it a lack of reading comprehension?

ABrownLamp
08-22-2004, 02:06 PM
Do you need me to get the Webster definition of "every" for you? Steven Gardener served ON John Kerry's boat. KErry was HIS commander. Gardener is VEHEMENTLY oppossed to KErry. On what planet does that mean that EVERY member of his boat calls him heroic? I've said this to you once, so you can't blame ignorance here...are you being obtuse on purpose, or is it a lack of reading comprehension?

I have not heard anything about his accounts, you will have to excuse me. If it's true, he will have been the ONLY one aboard Kerry's boat to make those calims. Everyone else calls him a hero. And the facts heaviy support this angle

ABrownLamp
08-22-2004, 02:16 PM
The problem is that THERE WERE NO BULLETS FIRED at them anyway...and there were NO Bullet holes resulting from fire that day in hanybody's boat....the damage on the boats was documented as being reported the DAY BEFORE.

No, the problem is that you are listening to factless conspiracy theorists. Information regarding Much of the debate over who is telling the truth boils down to whether the two-page after-action report and other Navy records are accurate or whether they have been embellished by Kerry or someone else.
In "Unfit for Command," the author describes the after-action report as "Kerry's report." He claims that language in Thurlow's Bronze Star citation referring to "enemy bullets flying about him" must also have come from "Kerry's after-action report."

This same author has said that the initials "KJW" on the bottom of the report "identified" it as having been written by Kerry. It is unclear to me as to why this should be so, since Kerry's initials are JFK. A review of other Swift boat after-action reports at the Naval Historical Center reveals several that include the initials "KJW" but describe incidents at which Kerry was not present.

Even if Kerry did write the March 13 after-action report, it seems unlikely to me that he would have been the source of the information about "enemy bullets" flying around Larry Thurlow, one of Kerry's accusers. The official witness to those events, according to Thurlow's medal recommendation form, was his own leading petty officer, Robert Lambert, who himself won a Bronze Star for "courage under fire" in going to Thurlow's rescue after he fell into the river.

It's all BS

PhinPhan1227
08-22-2004, 02:57 PM
I have not heard anything about his accounts, you will have to excuse me. If it's true, he will have been the ONLY one aboard Kerry's boat to make those calims. Everyone else calls him a hero. And the facts heaviy support this angle


Of course you haven't...there's no media bias. Gardener was a gunners mate on Kerry's boat. He disputes several aspects of Kerry's stories.

ABrownLamp
08-22-2004, 03:23 PM
Of course you haven't...there's no media bias. Gardener was a gunners mate on Kerry's boat. He disputes several aspects of Kerry's stories.

It's all crap. See my response to Section above, so I don't have to type it out again.

ohall
08-22-2004, 03:39 PM
It's all crap. See my response to Section above, so I don't have to type it out again.

The point you are missing is this hurts Kerry no matter what. His name is getting drug thru the mud even worse than it was before. He suffers from this no matter what. When 300 hero's are bashing you when you claim to be a hero you are in serious trouble.

Oliver...

ABrownLamp
08-22-2004, 03:50 PM
The point you are missing is this hurts Kerry no matter what. His name is getting drug thru the mud even worse than it was before. He suffers from this no matter what. When 300 hero's are bashing you when you claim to be a hero you are in serious trouble.

Oliver...

It definitely hurts Kerry. You're right. But it's the fact that what is hurting him are a bunch of lies that bothers me. A recent poll suggest that following this whole ordeal 31% of those that have seen the ads now question Kerry's valor in war. That's absurd. BTW where did it state that those men were "heros"

PhinPhan1227
08-22-2004, 10:04 PM
It's all crap. See my response to Section above, so I don't have to type it out again.


So this guy who was on the boat is lying...and the almost 300 guys who signed that letter are lying....damn...Oliver Stone wouldn't write a movie with THIS much suspension of disbelief.

PhinPhan1227
08-22-2004, 10:12 PM
It definitely hurts Kerry. You're right. But it's the fact that what is hurting him are a bunch of lies that bothers me. A recent poll suggest that following this whole ordeal 31% of those that have seen the ads now question Kerry's valor in war. That's absurd. BTW where did it state that those men were "heros"

Almost all of them are purple heart recipients, many if not most have won either the bronze or silver star. If Kerry is a hero, so are all of them.

ohall
08-22-2004, 11:27 PM
It definitely hurts Kerry. You're right. But it's the fact that what is hurting him are a bunch of lies that bothers me. A recent poll suggest that following this whole ordeal 31% of those that have seen the ads now question Kerry's valor in war. That's absurd. BTW where did it state that those men were "heros"

I don't know how you know that they are telling lies. I think that's a huge assumption on your part. Kerry has changed his story on so many Vietnam specific things I don't know how can you can trust him so darn much on that issue.

These allegation hit Kerry at his root, the root truth about the man. He has no backbone, and that's because to him there is no truth, there are only degrees of truth.

Oliver...

ABrownLamp
08-23-2004, 12:51 PM
So this guy who was on the boat is lying...and the almost 300 guys who signed that letter are lying....damn...Oliver Stone wouldn't write a movie with THIS much suspension of disbelief.

You are misinterpreting things. Of course, there are hundreds, but more probably, thousands of soldiers who were stationed in Vietnam around the time Kerry was there that absolutely hate him. They hate him for what he did after the war with such a rage that it still hasn't subsided 30 years later. I have no question about that. I am sure that MOST of those signatures on that letter really are from people that feel this way...here's the problem...this isn't about who dislikes Kerry... this debate revoles around whether or not Kerry was in fact a war hero. The problem with these Swift Boat members for Truth and books like "Unfit For Command" is that things don't add up. They have these nebulous stories that either don't coincide with one another or don't make sense when contrasted with certain facts. Who even knows how valid any of those signatures are or who it was that signed.

ABrownLamp
08-23-2004, 12:55 PM
Almost all of them are purple heart recipients, many if not most have won either the bronze or silver star. If Kerry is a hero, so are all of them.

How do you know that? So wait a minute. You're telling me that all of the other 250 something people that were in Kerry's platoon received bronze and silver stars? If they weren't around him all the time then who are they to give their opinon?

ABrownLamp
08-23-2004, 12:58 PM
I don't know how you know that they are telling lies. I think that's a huge assumption on your part. Kerry has changed his story on so many Vietnam specific things I don't know how can you can trust him so darn much on that issue.

These allegation hit Kerry at his root, the root truth about the man. He has no backbone, and that's because to him there is no truth, there are only degrees of truth.

Oliver...

Because there is much more evidence to support Kerry's claims ABOUT HIS HEROISM than there is otherwise.

Dude, he's a politican, you could give the truth speech about any of them. That's not fair to single him out.

PhinPhan1227
08-23-2004, 02:17 PM
How do you know that? So wait a minute. You're telling me that all of the other 250 something people that were in Kerry's platoon received bronze and silver stars? If they weren't around him all the time then who are they to give their opinon?

Did you see the word "all" associated with bronze/silver stars? I believe the words were "many if not most". Again, do we need Mr Websters help here? Most of these men were in Vietnam for at least a year if not more. Kerry was there for 4 months. During that time these men WERE around Kerry. But they were also in country 3 times as long. Because a man won the Silver star doesn't mean Kerry was there at the time. Think man...THINK!! As for how I know that they recieved these medals, I have read the letter and seen the signatures. The men who signed included their awards.

PhinPhan1227
08-23-2004, 02:20 PM
You are misinterpreting things. Of course, there are hundreds, but more probably, thousands of soldiers who were stationed in Vietnam around the time Kerry was there that absolutely hate him. They hate him for what he did after the war with such a rage that it still hasn't subsided 30 years later. I have no question about that. I am sure that MOST of those signatures on that letter really are from people that feel this way...here's the problem...this isn't about who dislikes Kerry... this debate revoles around whether or not Kerry was in fact a war hero. The problem with these Swift Boat members for Truth and books like "Unfit For Command" is that things don't add up. They have these nebulous stories that either don't coincide with one another or don't make sense when contrasted with certain facts. Who even knows how valid any of those signatures are or who it was that signed.


These aren't men who were in Vietnam at the same time...these are men WHO WERE IN HIS UNIT. Out of roughly 300 men in his unit how many are supporting him? 10? If I show you a guy and tell you that out of his 300 coworkers, roughly 10 think he deserves a job...what are you going to think of that man? Further, the information being produced to impeach the 280, were in all likelihood written for the most part by John Kerry. Anyone ever explain a circular definition to you?

ABrownLamp
08-23-2004, 05:37 PM
These aren't men who were in Vietnam at the same time...these are men WHO WERE IN HIS UNIT. Out of roughly 300 men in his unit how many are supporting him? 10? If I show you a guy and tell you that out of his 300 coworkers, roughly 10 think he deserves a job...what are you going to think of that man? Further, the information being produced to impeach the 280, were in all likelihood written for the most part by John Kerry. Anyone ever explain a circular definition to you?

You are assuming that they were in his unit. For God's sake they had a doctor on a nationwide commercial that said he treated Kerry for innocuous, non purple heart worthy wounds...that never treated him. Again, I am not disagreeing with you that there are people that hate him...of which there are many. I am saying that the things he did in Vietnam for which he received medals for were honorable. And that these people are simply angry vets that support Bush who are still today hurt by John Kerry's post war antics. But...John Kerry deserved his medals, is the point.

ABrownLamp
08-23-2004, 05:41 PM
Did you see the word "all" associated with bronze/silver stars? I believe the words were "many if not most". Again, do we need Mr Websters help here? Most of these men were in Vietnam for at least a year if not more. Kerry was there for 4 months. During that time these men WERE around Kerry. But they were also in country 3 times as long. Because a man won the Silver star doesn't mean Kerry was there at the time. Think man...THINK!! As for how I know that they recieved these medals, I have read the letter and seen the signatures. The men who signed included their awards.

MORE REPUBLICAN PROPOGANDA. John Kerry was in Vietnam for four months...ON HIS SECOND TOUR OF DUTY!!! Didn't know that did you? Again, these men (whether or not they actually knew or were Kerry is debatable) hate him for what he did FOLLOWING the war. Even 30 years later.

dolfan3033
08-24-2004, 10:48 AM
I usually don't take part in these discussions because most people who come to these message boards are strongly in favor of a particular candidate, in which it is unlikely anyone will change their minds. However, I do have somethings I would like to share.

1) Most of the financing for this swift boat group was financed by a guy named Bob Perry, a wealthy home builder and huge Republican donor. There is a tie to the GOP right there.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/05/gop.donor.ap/index.html

2) There are several veterans that are coming to defend Kerry, one by the name of William Rood, who works for as an editor for a newspaper. According to him, "There were three swift boats on the river that day in Vietnam more than 35 years ago -- three officers and 15 crew members. Only two of those officers remain to talk about what happened on February 28, 1969. One is John Kerry ... who won a Silver Star for what happened on that date. I am the other." When you want to take into account the veterans that were against Kerry for one reason or another, you also have to account for the others who support him. Otherwise, your looking at the issue through a partisan eye.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ep/20040823/en_bpiep/journalistbreakssilencetodefendkerryagainstswiftboaters

3) Col. Ken Cordier had to leave the Bush Re-election Team because he appeared in the swift boat commercials. That is illegal within itself. There can be absolutly no connection between this group and the Bush campaign.
http://www.indiadaily.com/breaking_news/6041.asp

Also, there are claims (true or untrue) that GOP officials in around Gainsville, FL advertised the swift boat group.
"Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" were distributed at the Alachua GOP headquarters, which houses the local Bush campaign office." If this is true, this is another illegal action taken.
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/breaking_news/9455663.htm?1c

4) This smear campaign can be compared to those of John McCain of the Republican primary with the first Bush and also in Georgia with Max Cleland, where he lost 2 legs and an arm and they questioned his patriotism.

You can agree or disagree with this. I have provided links to every one of my claims. If your a staunce Bush supporter, it will be obvious to me that you will not agree. My position is... if you have veterans that have no proof that Kerry lied..( http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040822/us_nm/campaign_kerry_dc_45 ) I find it hard to just take their word for it when others are saying Kerry is telling the truth. It is up to you, but personally I believe this is a smear campaign. Bush himself is saying that Kerry served "Admirably" ( http://www.crosswalk.com/news/1280618.html ).

Section126
08-24-2004, 10:54 AM
How bout Kerry's OWN Journal in which he writes in his own handwriting "We have yet to be shot at." 9 days after the rassman incident......

Your links are the same rehash of a bunch of crap that the Kerry campaign is spewing.....tell them to fax you some new stuff..

BTW...of course republicans are going to help fund this group....what do you expect? Democrats to fund an Anti-Kerry group?

dolfan3033
08-24-2004, 10:59 AM
Regarding the Dole criticism in one of my links, I do believe he was a WWII veteran. Wrong war, Mr. Dole.

dolfan3033
08-24-2004, 11:03 AM
How bout Kerry's OWN Journal in which he writes in his own handwriting "We have yet to be shot at." 9 days after the rassman incident......

Your links are the same rehash of a bunch of crap that the Kerry campaign is spewing.....tell them to fax you some new stuff..

BTW...of course republicans are going to help fund this group....what do you expect? Democrats to fund an Anti-Kerry group?
Like I said, if your a staunch Bush supporter, you will disagree. Involving the Republican donor with the swift boat group, I will compare it to another PAC, MoveOn.org. MoveOn received small donations from millions of people, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth had mainly one supporter financially who also puts millions into the Bush Campaign.

I haven't seen Kerry's Journal, but I will look for it when I get home this afternoon, so I can't comment on that. See... I can be non-partisan.

dolfan3033
08-24-2004, 11:04 AM
May I have a link that is credible and not biased information that is distorted to support your views?

ohall
08-24-2004, 11:35 AM
Like I said, if your a staunch Bush supporter, you will disagree.

Then why even post any of this?

I don't get it.

Oliver...

PhinPhan1227
08-24-2004, 11:51 AM
MORE REPUBLICAN PROPOGANDA. John Kerry was in Vietnam for four months...ON HIS SECOND TOUR OF DUTY!!! Didn't know that did you? Again, these men (whether or not they actually knew or were Kerry is debatable) hate him for what he did FOLLOWING the war. Even 30 years later.


Lets see a link. Kerry served in the US, but I haven't seen a single word about him spending more than 4 months in country.

dolfan3033
08-24-2004, 01:41 PM
Then why even post any of this?

I don't get it.

Oliver...
Then why post anything? Why post what you have to say? Because it's what I think. Why don't you try to explain the substance of my post rather than a technicality.

ABrownLamp
08-24-2004, 02:09 PM
Lets see a link. Kerry served in the US, but I haven't seen a single word about him spending more than 4 months in country.

It's the liberal media...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerry

PhinPhan1227
08-24-2004, 02:34 PM
It's the liberal media...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerry

You must be reading something I'm not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerry#Commission.2C_training.2C_and_tour_of_duty_on_the_USS_Gridley

This page says that he only did 4 months as a SwiftBoat Commander, and never spent any other time in Vietnam.

And THIS line...

"After an application for a 12-month deferment to study in Paris was denied, Kerry joined the United States Navy on February 18, 1966. "

Says that John Kerry joined the Navy because he couldn't get a deferrement. He didn't "join", to serve his country, he joined so he wouldn't get drafted!!

P4E
08-24-2004, 07:31 PM
Further, the information being produced to impeach the 280, were in all likelihood written for the most part by John Kerry. Anyone ever explain a circular definition to you?
"Paging Mr. Des Cartes... Mr. Rene Des Cartes...."

:roflmao:

ohall
08-24-2004, 08:00 PM
Then why post anything? Why post what you have to say? Because it's what I think. Why don't you try to explain the substance of my post rather than a technicality.

I have many times.

Oliver...