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

[johnc]

I reiterate the prediciton I made back in March, Bush will beat Kerry by a very large margin - comparable to Mondale or Dukakis' defeats. The only thing that has been sustaining Kerry as a viable candidate were the extraordinary efforts by the NYT, WaPost, CBS, NBC, ABC, and CNN to keep him alive and the campaign interesting. But, with these poll numbers, the media can smell blood in the water and all of the support will vanish.

 

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/09-04-2004/0002244238&EDATE=

 

http://www.time.com/time/press_releases/article/0,8599,692562,00.html

 

These numbers are especially telling:

 

Bush vs. Kerry:

 

The economy: 47% trust President Bush more to handle the economy, while 45% trust Kerry.

Health care: 48% trust Senator Kerry to handle health care issues, while 42% trust Bush.

 

Iraq: 53% trust Bush to handle the situation in Iraq, while 41% trust Kerry.

Terrorism: 57% trust Bush to handle the war on terrorism, while 36% trust Kerry.

 

Understanding the needs of people: 47% said they trust Kerry to understand the needs of people like themselves, while 44% trusted Bush to understand their needs.

 

Providing strong leadership: 56% said they trust Bush to provide strong leadership in difficult times, while 37% said they trust Kerry to provide leadership in difficult times.

 

Tax policy: 49% trust Bush to handle tax policy, while 40% trust Kerry.

 

Commanding the Armed Forces: 54% said they trust Bush to be commander-in-chief of the armed forces, while 39% said they trust Kerry.

[Moridin]

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.

 

Hmmm...Let me think. The same sort of thing happened here roughly 5 or 6 years ago I believe. We don't even need terrorists to cause those problems. We have our own children to gun down students in schools, just like Columbine. I'm not saying that people haven't liked us before, or will like us in the future, I'm saying Bush's actions have escalated the hatred to a point were I fear people may be more likely to act on it. We must also ask why people of other countries don't like us. Could it be that we supported sanctions against imports against them, i.e. Iraq? What is happening in Russia has very little to do with us or Bush somehow preventing it. Its another spin on an event to make it look like the current administration is doing an excellent job.

 

Smear charges? (I'm guessing you mean some sort of slander) I know a bunch about the current administration. Don't know enough about Kerry, but I'm sure that many can source some up here.

 

- Between Bush and Cheney, there are 3 D.U.I offenses. I believe Bush has one and Cheney two. I can't believe people can trust someone who gets in a car drunk once, let alone twice.

 

- Government passed Haliburton oil contracts through for Iraq before we had even invaded. Cheney used to run Haliburton. Funny

 

- Bush claims to be a family man, even though his two daughters were caught more than once out drinking under age at bars. If you don't know what your children are doing, how do you put yourself out there as a family man?

 

- Bush said he spoke to God about invading Iraq, and God told him to do it. That is really scary to me. Those P.O.S. terrorists that bombed the Twin Towers more than likely did it, because God told them to, too. What happens when God tells the North Koreans to nuke the U.S.?

 

- I remember Bush in the debates for the 2000 election saying he was going to be more isolationist. Not extend our military overseas. What happened?

 

I'm sure the list is just as long as Kerry's, but I do want to clear one thing up about Kerry. People say he flip flops on issues. That is wrong. He supports the war in Iraq, but voted against it, because he didn't believe we were sending enough troups or had the right plan.

 

Anyway, this thread just gets more interesting. I want to make the right decision at the polls, so the more information that I get, the better.

[Moridin]

I reiterate the prediciton I made back in March' date=' Bush will beat Kerry by a very large margin - comparable to Mondale or Dukakis' defeats. The only thing that has been sustaining Kerry as a viable candidate were the extraordinary efforts by the NYT, WaPost, CBS, NBC, ABC, and CNN to keep him alive and the campaign interesting. But, with these poll numbers, the media can smell blood in the water and all of the support will vanish.

 

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/09-04-2004/0002244238&EDATE=

 

http://www.time.com/time/press_releases/article/0,8599,692562,00.html

 

These numbers are especially telling:

 

Bush vs. Kerry:

 

The economy: 47% trust President Bush more to handle the economy, while 45% trust Kerry.

Health care: 48% trust Senator Kerry to handle health care issues, while 42% trust Bush.

 

[b']Iraq: 53% trust Bush to handle the situation in Iraq, while 41% trust Kerry.

Terrorism: 57% trust Bush to handle the war on terrorism, while 36% trust Kerry.[/b]

 

Understanding the needs of people: 47% said they trust Kerry to understand the needs of people like themselves, while 44% trusted Bush to understand their needs.

 

Providing strong leadership: 56% said they trust Bush to provide strong leadership in difficult times, while 37% said they trust Kerry to provide leadership in difficult times.

 

Tax policy: 49% trust Bush to handle tax policy, while 40% trust Kerry.

 

Commanding the Armed Forces: 54% said they trust Bush to be commander-in-chief of the armed forces, while 39% said they trust Kerry.

 

Those numbers are very scary and telling at the same time. I still can't believe the last one though. People would trust a man who has never seen war, and not someone who spent time in the thick of it.

[SportZ2]

Explain to me how Bush having never been in combat and being president and Clinton never being in combat and being president is any different. when Clinton was running, I'm guessing you were siding with his campaigns view that it wasn't an issue. It wasn't an issue with me then and it isn't an issue with me now (Kerry wants to make it an issue). And in case you were wondering I voted for Clinton so don't label me a hardline republican. I voted for who I thought was the best person for the job at that time. And I'll do the same thing this time.

 

My last few posts started out asking a simple question. If there are smear campaigns going on by all means list them. But to be fair list both sides. So far all I get is talking points that are no different than what I can find on TV and the paper. I'm just asking for a list, I can't imagine how hard it would be to answer if I asked for real proof to back up each point.

[johnc]

People would trust a man who has never seen war, and not someone who spent time in the thick of it.

 

That's an odd statement.

 

Lincoln never served in the military, Wilson served but never saw war, FDR never served, Truman served but never saw war, Clinton never served. Eisenhower, JFK, and LBJ served and saw war and all three directly got us involved and escalated the war in Vietnam. Carter served and saw war and screwed up the Iran rescue mission (Desert One) by requiring all field decisions to go through the White House. Nixon never served and took 6 years to pull out of Vietnam.

 

My point is that military service has NEVER been a determining factor in how well a president conducts a war. That's somehting that is well known by every historian and is mentioned in almost all presidential biographies. Why does the media propogate BS like this?

 

I just finished reading (for the second time) "Dereliction of Duty" by HR McMaster. Its a very good alaysis of the lies and political decisions that JFK, LBJ, McNamera, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff did to get us into the Vietnam war. It got outstanding reviews by the NYT Book Review, WaPost, Washington Monthly, the New Yorker, and many others. I highly recommend the book.

 

As always, do your own research and look to history to find out what's going to happen in the future.

[tannji]

Thank you JohnC... you beat me to it, and probably one-upped me at the same time. (I havent read that book, but will now)

 

I did think this was funny or sanctimonious, or something....

 

- Bush claims to be a family man, even though his two daughters were caught more than once out drinking under age at bars. If you don't know what your children are doing, how do you put yourself out there as a family man?

 

You mean you never did anything behind your parents back as a child or teen? Perhaps you were a virgin birth as well....

 

I know it is unreasonable to expect grounded comments that arent self-serving.... but every now and then I forget to check myself... Polititicians and their histories are like the bible, anyone can spin anything to mean whatever they want. Naive comments about telling little events in a man's life are just redundant here... we have the media for that. Just wish so many people didnt base their votes on them.

[Guest Phil1934]

This thread is heading down the path that the networks will increasingly go in the coming weeks, campaign coverage that only tells who is ahead in the polls, as if this is a horse race and the object is to pick the winner. Even a vote for a losing candidate gets noticed, and if substantial, will force the winner to adopt part of that platform to gain endorsement, or possibly pick up those voters next time. There was an election here where the incumbent barely got re-elected. I don't remember, but I think Barr. And he came on TV and promised to be more responsive to the voters, etc. Polls serve a purpose when they define which issues are favored or opposed, but I think popularity polls should be banned. They only serve to increase the winning margin as opponents think there is no point in voting as my winner take all state will go to the other candidate. I am sure Bush will win this election. Does this mean I am on the losing side or should not even bother to vote? Not if I vote my conscience. The news should be the ones defining the difference between the candidates, not them. However network news assumes the average listener does not have enough attention span to get beyond the headlines, so they repeat them four times per broadcast. PBS does better, but the paper is the best. I read the editorial pages. There's more thought provoking material there than anywhere. Oh, and I apologize for trying to give Reagan credit for not over reacting to the first WTC bombing. I should have realized it was Clinton. I wonder how Bob Barr is taking the news of Clinton's surgery?

[johnc]

And always remember too, the Executive is traditionally the weakest branch of the US government. There are only three conditions when the Executive reaches par with the Legislative and Judicial branches: 1) when the President wins an election by a large margin, 2) when both houses of the Legislature is controlled by the president's party, and 3) when the nation is at war.

 

2004 might see a confluence of al three of these conditions. I think FDR was the last president to enjoy this alignment. The country didn't fall apart as a result back then and it won't under Bush.

[tannji]

Another thing that FDR enjoyed was 4 terms.... in this day and age, I think it is almost impossible to accomplish a whole lot domestically in one term, and very difficult to give anything domestic significant momentum or staying power in less than 2 terms. Bush is signaling a shift (as much as is possible with terror and Iraqi concerns) back to domestic agendas.... Imagine what could be accomplished with 4 terms and some cooperation..... sadly, that will never happen again for any president.

[JMortensen]

I'm really surprised to see JohnC and tannji holding up FDR as some sort of guide as to how presidents should be.

 

I think if you both look into his presidency you might find some stuff that you don't necessarily agree with. When I think of FDR I think of the Great Depression and the New Deal and "Uncle Joe", and what those things still mean for us today. We're still suffering from the effects of FDR's administration.

[tannji]

There were reasons for enacting the term limit for presidents, and I hold no illusions to FDR being a saint. He was however a strong president, and represented the USA well to the world at large. You can dig dirt on just about any president you want to, regardless....

I personally "like" Silent Cal" Coolidge... but I dont know that he would have even been able to get elected, much less function in todays world of sound-bites, spin, and spoonfed populace.

[Guest Phil1934]

A clear cut victory would allow Ken Lay to postpone his trial even more. If it looks close he will have to start the trial after the election so he does not detract from the Bush campaign, but finish the trial before inauguration day so he may be pardoned. With same party control of both Congress and the Presidency, continued spending at curent rates should put us beyond the point of no return. When Reagan last did this, it was speculated he had to know the effects so it was a calculated move to force the nation to give up its social programs. Interest payments now rank third behind defense and social programs, so four more years will guarantee severe cuts. The Republican party has moved to the extreme without even checks within its own party. I kept scanning the crowd at the RNC for signs of Colin Powell, a moderate Republican, to no avail. Instead we wree treated to a rather pathetic attempt at inclusion with the black Texas railroad commisioner and the senator-elect from FLA. I hope Powell writes a book, but it will come too late.

[Chaparral2f]

I've been studiously avoiding this thread for as long as I could, but it just wouldn't go away. There was a time that I had a lot of respect for Powell, but lately the only word that comes to mind is "Sellout".(Does anyone remember the "Powell Doctrine"? You know, the one that said we should have an exit stratigy before going to war.) So doesn't anyone recallthat both Powell and Rice said that Sadaam was effectivly bottled up, and no threat. After the Trade Center was attacked during Clinton's term there were people caught, tried and sent to prison. Shrub, as I recall when he finally finished his photo op with the kids ranted and raved that we would get Osama dead or alive, Well we didn't. When was the last time that you heard any of our fearless leaders mention his name? ("Oh hell, lets go get Sadaam, we know where he is")

The war in Iraq was in the planning stages for years. Check out the Plan for a New American Century. (PNAC) Written by Perle, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeldt, and several other right wingers.

PNAC stated that we should establish a military presence in Iraq to be used as a pivot point to attack Syria and then Iran. The Same neo cons who are running our government now wrote the plan up years ago. They tried to sell it to Netenyaho [sp] but Isreal wouldn't go for it. George the first wouldn't buy it. neither would Carter or Clinton. All of them knew that attacking Iraq would end up just as it has, a mess with no end in sight.

 

They say Mousilini made the trains run on time, so maybe there is hope that the fascists in power can do something for amtrack!

[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?

 

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

I already did a Google search based on the original post before you posted that, and what I found was no direct link between that Navy SEAL organization and what you posted in the first post. In fact, Hanoi John's military records have nothing to do with the work that they do on that site. They expose phony SEALs, whereas, Hanoi John had nothing to do with Navy SEAL's. He was a Swift Boat officer. I don't see anything at that site to show why they would be investigating Kerry's records. 1) There is no link on that site that I found corroborating your first post; 2) That organization only investigates phony NAVY SEALs, not discrepencies in regular Navy personnel records.

 

I just want to see a link to a Web site PROVING those claims so I can use it in a debate. I don't use hearsay and innuendo. Right now, I can't see whether the claims are true or not.

[JustAFantaZ]

I already found evidence to back up the claim that a federal crime was committed based on the Silver Star award "with Combat V" added to it.

 

http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14743

 

http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/DD214.pdf

 

In particular, I would like to see some backup evidence for myself to show that Hanoi John actually went AWOL and/or didn't finish his military commitment.

 

Another thing I found interesting while researching the matter was that Hanoi John actually volunteered for swift boat duty because he wanted to stay AWAY from combat as much as possible. This is opposed to his claim that he wanted to serve his country and be a war hero or all that bullcr@p he's been spouting during his "campaign".

[johnc]

I'm really surprised to see JohnC and tannji holding up FDR as some sort of guide as to how presidents should be.

 

FDR was cited as an example of a president who effectively handled the biggest war we ever were involved in. Not as a example of other aspects of his administrations. A president can be brilliant in one area and ignorant in another.

[Mikelly]

OK, Time out... Let's take a breath, shall we?

 

Emotion and politics are two things that should never ever go together... And why we continue to elect idiots who I would never invite into my own home.

 

Here is something I'll throw out to you guys... Swift Boat... Who cares? John Kerry GOT three medals. Period. That is fact. Whether or not he got them legitimately was the conflict. What did his detractors do? They instilled DOUBT in his ability to lead in a time of war, which is what we currently are in. Doubt... That was the intention... Kerry sat back and took the advice of his staff and did NOTHING for three weeks while this swelled... Amazing. In my opinion, it doesn't matter if he deserved the medals or not, he got them... But the American Sheople now have doubt instilled in their opinions of the man... They have to get around that issue in order to vote for him. That issue alone is his stumble... Now he will fall...

 

Before you guys start hammering each other again about FDR, and other politicians... Think about it... They are politicians... Chenney? 30+ years as a career... P-O-L-I-T-I-C-I-A-N! Same thing for Rumsfeld, and Powell. They have been around for quite some time. And they have worked in other administrations... Condi Rice is the only exception.

 

Make yourselves a list of the things that are most important to each of you, and then find out what you can about what EACH candidate's stance is on those things... Remove emotion, or you will not get a fair shake out of this... Forget party lines boys and girls... Forget them and make your list... Then YOU decide, based on the research of the candidates... And don't go to your traditional sites... Dig deap... 8)

 

Then make your choice...

However, After last week's convention, and the poor response from Kerry over these other issues, I fully believe Bush has this one in the bag... It's curtains for Kerry and I'd bet money on it...

 

I still want to know where my moderate candidate is... I still have no one to vote for...

Mike

[Chaparral2f]

Mike,

 

"Sheople?" Was that a typo? Not that it matters. Even though I know that its wrong to steal from other members of this board, I love that word, and now it is a permanant part of my limited vocabulary.

[Mikelly]

Chaparral, Use at your own discretion!

 

I just saw the latest Newsweek and CNN poles (Was watching the news while we ate lunch...) Kerry better pull one out in the debate or his goose is cooked... Now, Bush being the silvered tongued devil he isn't, might just hand Kerry the election in this debate. But I doubt it. He won the last election with Gore on debate night. But seriously, this is Kerry's last chance... 60 days out and he has a new staff, is relying on advice from Clinton, who is in the hospital facing a quad bypass, and Kerry has 11% to close to tie Bush... We couldn't write a better script...

 

You diehard democrats better get your swing voters in line, and hope like hell Kerry screws his head on straight and gets a clue... 'Course he hasn't to this point... Maybe Billy boy will give him some more of his priceless widsom , you know, like how to remove stains... from dresses... I kill me!

 

So are you guys gonna be sheople, or are you gonna take the pepsi challenge, make your lists, do your research (Not going to your favorite democrat or republican websites), or are you gonna be lazy and just continue the same whine about the current non-issues... You know, like the rest of the sheople? Do I need to provide cheese with my next response?

 

Times a tickin'

Mike aka the fence sitter

[2126]

Mikelly, thank you for saying what you said! I couldn't agree with you more. Regarding making a list and researching to determine which candidate will get my vote......got my list, did my research, and made my determination on a candidate! REMEMBER TO VOTE FOR GEORGE BUSH FOR PRESIDENT IN NOVEMBER!!! Kerry is a dead parrot, so let's get back to something more mechanically fun.......like Z cars, big HP, forced induction or something! Thank you.........

 

 

Hey, I heard that Mr. Bush is an avid fan and collector of old Z cars............just kidding.