Food For Thought about JOHN KERRY'S Military Records!!!!!!!

[2126]

SportZ2, Well put!!! It always seems that the guys on top of the heap, as in king-of-the-hill, are always the ones that are precieved as the bad guys and everyone flings dirt at them and says how wrong they are. Well, I say that if you want to be weak and passive about protecting our country and the rights we so dearly love, then pack up your stuff and move to the 3rd world country of your choice. Then see how you like it there!!! I'm a proud American and we've been kicking ass our entire history....that why we still have a free nation. Remember, freedom is not FREE. All this country needs is more whiney bleeding heart liberals to bring it to it's knees!

[Moridin]

No more you need to be a millionaire to run our country. That's not right.

 

With John Kerry we would have our first billionaire president.

 

Isn't that his wife?

[Moridin]

Everyone should be happy we're kicking some a$$ around the world (instead of dropping some bombs on a few dirt mounds and calling it a day). We could be Russia and look what's happening to them. Fight them over there instead of over here. You won't be singing the praises of negotiation when a bomb explodes near you. Haven't you noticed that North Korea and Iran have quited down since we went into Iraq. They realise that the US will no longer sit back and negotiate.

 

Kerry can't make a decision on how to run his campaign. How do you expect him to make the right decisions for us.

 

Here's an interesting account of an unofficial US inspection of North Korean nuclear facilities: http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2004_hr/012104hecker.pdf

 

As far as I know, there is no conclusive evidence that North Korea has quieted down, because of the U.S actions in Iraq. Its a possibility, but personally, I haven't seen anything to prove this. As far as Iran goes, I believe the U.S. has on and off relations with them for years and years. This goes back to the Iran-Contra affair and even before that when we gave both Iran and Iraq weapons to fight each other.

 

Unfortunately, as a result of the current the United States' current offensive, a precedent for the rest of the world has been set, or at least a perceived one. No country will have the balls to militarily act against the U.S. on its own soil. Terrorists will. I can very easily see relatives of dead Iraqis joining some sort of anti-American terrorist group to bring what is happening in Israel here. You talk about bombs becoming more than likely being dropped, because of negotiation. but I say we've created a situation even more prone to terrorist attack. That is just my opinion, because I cannot accurately comment on what our intelligence agencies are doing to stop any sort of acts of terrorism. So far they've done a wonderful job, but how much longer will that happen (Hopefully forever).

 

With Iraq, the current U.S. administration has created a situation of fear around the world (just as 9/11 created it here). This has not done well for our international economy or relations.

 

Just one person's opinions versus another, because I don't have the facts to back any of it up. Maybe someone can provide some more information.

[SportZ2]

Bottom line is no president before Bush (Regan and Clinton) took a hardline stand and terrorist acts were commited on both watches. Yes, even Regan was a little soft. Political fallout scares alot of people. Right or wrong Bush makes a stand and doesn't back down because of political pressure and it's about time. We can be very thankful that what's happening over in Russia right now isn't happening over hear. And don't think for a minute that terrorist wouldn't stoop to that level here in the states if the door was open to them. We need to stay one step ahead and not worry about what some other countries think of us when they don't like us in the first place. And other countries not liking us wasn't invented by Bush. It's a trend that has been going on way before he was president and it will go on long after he is gone.

[Dp351zcar]

Gee and I thought this was a CAR SITE

[Brad-ManQ45]

A recession is defined as three quarters of economic downturn. There was one in the Clinton administration. It's been 4 years. How long will W blame his shortcomings on the previous administration? Anyone can be a good captain when the sea is calm.

 

So you're admitting the Democrats ruined a perfectly good economy in 8 years and can't give the same amount of time to the people who inherited the problem - sounds like typical Democratic thinking - little logic and lots of hyperbole to confuse the masses.

 

We have already found trucks used to transport gasses. If we search long enough, or wait long enough, we will either find or have pointed out some WMD. By the way - Russia, Britain and Israel also had intelligence pointing to this capability.

 

I guess you'll just have to mark me down as one of the 40% that support the war.

 

I'll stand by what Zell and Dick stated about Kerry - they just paraphrased me elaborately and in Zell's case much more elegantly - or at least effectively.

 

My last post on the subject because I won't debate with people that cab't use logic to support their rebuttals.

 

I like Arnie's take on who is a Republican - If you think you can spend your money better than the government....

 

Democrats want to take more and more to make the people dependent upon them - that's where they get most of their support - the masses that don't want top think and just want to get taken care of.

[johnc]

Something I never thought of...

 

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/19107.htm

[SportZ2]

It's been funny to watch Kerry give two different answers to one question. But it will become really sad when the republicans truely start to exploit it. It's hard to watch someone on a national stage get cornered with no way out. I think you have to be crazy to want to be President of the United States.

[Guest Phil1934]

 

So you're admitting the Democrats ruined a perfectly good economy in 8 years and can't give the same amount of time to the people who inherited the problem - sounds like typical Democratic thinking - little logic and lots of hyperbole to confuse the masses.

 

Huh?

OK I'm done too. Just nice to see Kerry finally get fired up and answer some of these smear charges. If you wondered, since GA usually goes 70% Republican, I vote Libertarian so at least my vote gets noticed.

[SportZ2]

Phil1934, I would love for you to list all the smear charges. And to be fair please list all of them from both sides. That way I can see just what all this smear talk is all about. I want to be as much as an informed voter as I can. Thanks

[Guest Phil1934]

Today he said he would not have his commitment to defend this country questioned by a man who used 5 deferments to avoid military service and another who used his family connections and who mislead our nation into war with Iraq. I say about time. I also thought the purple heart bandages were an insult to all military personnel. He also said someone is unfit for duty if if they do nothing while this nation loses millions of jobs and 45 million Americans go without health care and someone who lets the Saudi royal family control our energy costs and hands out billions of dollars of government contracts to Halliburton while you're still on their payroll is unfit. But as I have said Nam is not a big issue with me. Kerry has run with as low a profile as possible, but it's time to get steer the campaign instead of staying on the defensive. Bush's refusal to testify before the 9/11 commision, refusal to disclose energy planning meetings with Enron, the shadow government (remember that one?) all should be argued, not Nam. However the RNC was drag out the old military commanders, a speech by Gen'l Franks ( who managed to get several references to his new book in, I thought I was watching Oprah), the flag waving background, the Iwo Jima memorial. And all the time Bush saying an attack would not happen on his watch. Well it did, but that fact has not been hammered. As to issues I care about there were only vague references and no background as to why they were not even addressed in the first four years. Hell, they were not even acknowledged as problems. " The economy is the strongest it's ever been." I think the DJA was 11,700 4 years ago. It's about 10,700 now. Instead he says he was responsible for lowering interest rates to make housing affordable. The dozen cuts in interest rate were to shore up the DJA. His friends may put their money there, but most people I know like banks, and to ask old folks to cut interest earnings to shore up fat cat stock investors doesn't get my vote.

[SportZ2]

I'm trying to take what you said and learn from it.

 

Okay, so what you are telling me is that everything that is associated with Bush should be looked at and Kerry should be left alone? My specific question was to list the smear charges and to make it fair I asked for both sides. That way I can compare them side by side. I read your response a few times and could not find it. I thought my question was pretty simple, two lists from both sides and all I read was democratic talking points.

 

I'll try to break this down so I can understand it better. I'll start with the economy. If Bush said it's the strongest it's ever been, I would call that a stretch. There have probably been better times but they were before I was born (I'm guessing since my life on a day to day basis hasn't been effected all that much no matter which party holds the presidency). Now from what I understand Kerry's campaign says that the economy is bad. Of coarse I expect to hear the complete opposite (it wouldn't be a contest if both sides agreed). Interesting, I find that to be a stretch as well. So from what I can see from this is that both sides are stretching it.

 

The 9/11 debate. Who is at fault. Bush, Clinton. Regan, Carter. I could list every president but that would take too much time. I don't blame one person, the sad part about this is that both parties are to blame in one way or another and it has to do with failed policies going back as far as you would like to look. But the problem I see from both parties is that no one wants to blame the people that did it and leave it at that. My guess is, that would be too easy and again both sides would have nothing to argue about. If we are going to blame a president for what happened on 9/11 then we better go back and find out which president to blame for allowing the bombing of Pearl Harbor. You can't tell me there weren't warning signs.

 

I will say that what I have said here has no spin on it. It's just my opinion. I'm not picking sides, I'm just trying to compare the differences without saying what has already been said by reporters, papers and political strategists. I was going to write more about taxes, healthcare, political records of both Bush and Kerry and abortion but I find that this is not as fun as it is to just read what others have to say.

 

My original question still stands if you would like to answer it. Just a simple list of smear charges from both campaigns.

[JustAFantaZ]

Isn't the OP's post taken from http://www.catiiimusicpublishing.com/?

 

C'mon dude' date=' if you have opinions, make 'em your own.[/quote']That site only lists a small portion of what OP says...I would like a link for the rest because it is interesting info. As far as I can tell, Based on records obtained FROM: Director AuthentiSeal / SEAL Authentication Team / A.L. "Steve" Nash, MAC Ret., UDT / SEAL - # 707 is the source, but is there a link to a Website or a quote from this source?

[Guest Phil1934]

To be fair, Cheney said he did not serve because he had other priorities. Bush said he did, but a request of his records by the AP from the Pentagon got the response his records were destroyed while transferring them to microfile. I would suggest you test this theory by applying for retirement benefits and saying your records must have been lost with his. You can let me know the likelihood from Leavenworth. As to our local fanatic. Zell Miller, blasting Kerry's vetoing of defense weapons programs, this was while Cheney was in charge and recommended a 30% cut. This is why it's important to look at the whole issue.

 

The economy is a complicated issue, but if someone wants credit for the good times, they have to expect blame for the bad. But an example of not even acknowledging there is a problem is the unemployment figures. Bush says the standard measure of polling businesses is not as accurate as polling households, which shows a lower number. This number compares favorably with past numbers. However if past numbers were counted that way, they would be lower, too. No mention is made as to quality of jobs, either. That this administration counted flipping hamburgers as a manufacturing job shows some desperation. In one of my original posts, I said my main objection with Bush is he doesn't realize the consequences of his actions. Just as his father stood befuddled before a supermarket scanner, this president does not even have the capacity to understand the middle class. Medicare premiums took a big jump today. Don't look for a Presidential response because he can't see or understand the concern.

 

Asd to 9/11 the World Trade Center has been bombed by terrrorists before, I think on Reagan's term. But we didn't start a war that will eventually destabilize the entire Mid East, a war with a country that had no links to the incident.

[Pop N Wood]

... that will eventually destabilize the entire Mid East...

 

Humorous. It was such a picture of tranquility before Bush arrived.

 

All I can say is double digit lead....

[Guest Phil1934]

All I can say is double digit lead....

And after all, isn't that the only thing that matters?

[COZY Z COLE]

Isn't the OP's post taken from http://www.catiiimusicpublishing.com/?

 

C'mon dude' date=' if you have opinions, make 'em your own.[/quote']That site only lists a small portion of what OP says...I would like a link for the rest because it is interesting info. As far as I can tell, Based on records obtained FROM: Director AuthentiSeal / SEAL Authentication Team / A.L. "Steve" Nash, MAC Ret., UDT / SEAL - # 707 is the source, but is there a link to a Website or a quote from this source?

 

First of all I never heard of the first link mentioned and no I didn't take it from there!!

Second, my post was from an e-mail I recieved and I thought it was interesting and posted it. I premised it with the title "Food for thought" and that is exactly what it is.

Third, yes I have lots of opinions and trust me they are my own!!!!

 

Put this into Google search for more info on the AL NASH, Director of AuthentiSeal letter.

 

UDT/SEAL SEAL Authentication Team

 

 

 

 

LARRY

[tannji]

All I can say is double digit lead....

And after all' date=' isn't that the only thing that matters?[/quote']

 

All I can really say, not wanting to an apologist for EITHER party, is that the United states has always and always should to one extent or another, looked out for its interests internationally. In spite of various recessions and political ballyhoo, we have enjoyed prosperity and freedom on a level like no other country in the world. I pay very little attention to liberal criticism of our foreign policy (regardless of what MY opinion of said foreign policy is.... = ) because liberal foreign policy doesnt have a stellar track record in the past 50 years. Our foreign policy has far more impact on our daily lives than people either know, or in some cases, like to admit. I wont make excuses for Bush and his "fixation" on WMD as justification for invading Iraq, but I will say that we were justified in going there, MORE for its impact on the rest of the terrorist world than for any WMD Iraq may or may not have. Keep in mind, WMD was only one of the justifcations, the base premise was Iraq's refusal to entirely cooperate with the UN resolutions. I wish we had had more confidence in our mandate under the resolutions to go do that job, instead of making a political decision to use WMD as a justification.

[2many280s]

I usually don't get into political threads, because I've honestly never seen a politician (from the president all the way down to state/city government) that wasn't a lieing crook that would say anything for a vote.

 

I have to admit, Bush has had his bad parts just as any other president in history has. Things that were his fault, and things that are blamed on him even though the president has little control over what he's being blamed for. But, in the end, I think he's done the right thing with most of his decisions. Including the ones he's been dogged on the most for.

 

When it comes to the Iraq war... We threatened use of force if Saddam didn't allow inspection... If you remember, Saddam said no at first and then a few weeks later said ok. Now, that looks very suspicious no matter how you look at it. I think I remember him kicking the inspectors out again before the war, but I may be thinking of the previous wars with him (that should have both been finished instead of walking away from) Now with our threat of force without inspection, and him denying inspection... Sorry, but we look like a big bully thats all talk if we didn't do anything. You can't just keep threatening someone and not backing it up or else they will do just as Saddam did, give ya the finger and walk away. Its sad that we have to be the babysitter to the world... but its true, and a strict babysitter gets a bit more respect and less back talk than the pushover.

 

Now, that is the part I agree on, but I disagree on practically bailing on Afghanistan in order to push Iraq. Yes, Saddam was a big supporter of terrorists (not the ones that attacked us, but many others) And still counts as a target in the war on terrorism... but, the first objective of the WoT was Bin Laden. Someone we still haven't found and is still causing problems. That goes back to the other part really, by just letting him go and looking for someone a little easier to catch, just made us look like we aren't serious about it and doing it all for show.

 

Yes the rest of the world hates us (always has, nothing has changed, and not Bush's fault).

 

As for the economy being in a massive slump. Honestly, I don't blame much of that on him either. To me the economy went into the crapper the day of 9/11. I went from making roughly 5k a week in commssioned sales down to less than 1k that month and never recovered since. I honestly think that if that had happened on any other presidents watch, we would be in the same boat. The president doesn't control the economy, the people do.

 

So in the end, Both candidates are full of it. But, when it comes to what this country needs in a leader.... Sorry, but Kerry just doesn't have it. He can talk the talk better than Bush. He can spread the BS a little thicker with only a slight smell of manure...But Bush, simpleton or not, has the right attitude for a country our size. Don't start none, there won't be none.

[SportZ2]

Ok, still no answer to my simple question, just more talking points and spin.

 

Phil1934, I noticed your last comment:

 

"And to 9/11 the World Trade Center has been bombed by terrorists before, I think on Reagan's term. But we didn't start a war that will eventually destabilize the entire Mid East, a war with a country that had no links to the incident."

 

Regan left office in 88, so the WTC bombing happened under Clintons watch.

 

How can we destabilize the middle east when it has never been stable in the first place.

 

My question still stands: smearing charges, side by side from both parties.

 

One more thing. Will Bush be blamed for the economy dropping a bit because of Francis. My guess is yes, because we all know that natural disasters are the presidents fault. I heard a rumor that Air Force 1 was spotted in the south Atlantic seeding the clouds to create more hurricanes. Run with it guys.