Kerry: War History [Archive] - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

Dave Schwartz

01-29-2004, 11:54 AM

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/0104/29garlock.html

(Complete text below)

Vietnam stance irks veterans
By TERRY GARLOCK

Terry L. Garlock of Peachtree City was a Cobra helicopter pilot in Vietnam.

File
John Kerry, who headed a veterans' group opposed to the Vietnam War,
receives support from a gallery of peace demonstrators and tourists as he
testifies before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971.

Forum:
.. Were John Kerry's protests against the Vietnam War inappropriate?

Now that U.S. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) is claiming the veteran vote based
on his war record, both sides of that story should be told.
To appreciate the dark side of Kerry's war record, you should know a few
things about Vietnam veterans.
The public and the press make a mistake when they divide us into decorated
veterans like Kerry and then all the others.

We like to think of ourselves as brothers -- those who fought the enemy
directly in combat and those who provided vital support in protected areas
that were in many cases exposed to attack.
Even today, when two Vietnam veterans meet for the first time, they might
say, "Welcome home, brother!" because many were never welcomed home. They
met the cold shoulder of an ungrateful nation on their return.
Those of us whose job was combat feel an even deeper sense of brotherhood.
We learned to trust our brothers on the ground, on the water and in the air
to do the right things to protect one another, a bond that cannot be fully
explained in words.

We quietly feared dying in battle, but there was something we feared even
more. We knew if we should panic under fire and fail to do our job, we might
lose our brothers' trust or we might lose their lives, and this we feared
more than anything.

Like Kerry, I have a couple of medals, but who has what medal among combat
veterans doesn't make a dime's worth of difference between us. What matters
is that we are, for the rest of our life, brothers who kept faith with one
another in a miserable war.

A young Kerry, however, broke faith with his brothers when he returned to
the United States. With the financial aid of Jane Fonda, he led highly
visible protests against the war. He wrote a book that many considered to be
pro-Hanoi, titled "The New Soldier."

The cover photo of his book depicted veterans in a mismatch of military
uniforms mocking the legendary image of Marines raising the American flag
atop Mount Suribachi in the 1945 battle for Iwo Jima, holding the American
flag upside down.

Kerry publicly supported Hanoi's position to use our POWs as a bargaining
chip in negotiations for a peace agreement. Kerry threw what appeared to be
his medals over a fence in front of the Capitol building in protest, on
camera of course, but was caught in his lie years later when his medals
turned up displayed on his office wall.

Many good and decent people opposed the Vietnam War. Many of us who fought
it hated it, too. I know I did.
But like Fonda's infamous visit to Hanoi in 1972, Kerry's public actions
encouraged our enemy at a time they were killing America's sons. Decades
after the war was done, interviews with our former enemy's leaders confirmed
that public protests in the United States, like Kerry's, played a
significant role in their strategy.
Many of us wonder which of our brothers who died young would be alive today
had people like Jane Fonda and Kerry objected to the war in a more suitable
way.

Now that it serves his ambition to be president, Kerry reminds the public of
his war record daily. But the dark side of that record is not being told.
Many Vietnam veterans have taken notice, and many of us will vigorously
oppose Kerry's election to any office.

Terry L. Garlock of Peachtree City was a Cobra helicopter pilot in Vietnam.
He received the Purple Heart, Bronze Star and Distinguished Flying Cross.

Larry Hamilton

01-29-2004, 12:16 PM

I would like to remind you that this sentimient should not be viewed as a commentary of an episode through a single window of time which may be easily forgotten 30 years later..it is timeless.

The hatred I feel for those citizens of Oakland/SanFan who spat on my bus and called me baby killer will never subside. It is also the reason I am offended by the statement, "I support our soldiers in (fill in blank), but..."

kenwoodallpromos

01-29-2004, 02:34 PM

He voted to go to Iraq 2003, then voted no on funding, thus screwing over our guys in the worst way possible. At this point makes Nam protersts irrelevant.

Suff

01-29-2004, 05:31 PM

http://20th-century-history-books.com/0679767495.html

Lefty

01-29-2004, 05:58 PM

Larry, I hate it what happened to our Vietnam veterans. Been in a few bar fights with idiots that disrespected them.
The blank in your sentence is: "but I won't vote any money to help keep them safe."

Secretariat

01-29-2004, 06:05 PM

Suggest you guys get the Spetember 2003 issue of American Legion magazine and read Kerry's words to the Senate. That issue is devoted to Vietnam with both viewpoints, and John Kerry wasn't alone in speaking out against that mess.

Secretariat

01-29-2004, 06:16 PM

Kendallwood,

Yes, Kerry voted to support working through the UN and for inspections to work, and a global coalition before any attack on Iraq would be contemplated. Additionally, he was working with intel which has since proven faulty according to David Kay, a former Reagan subordinate. Perhaps Kerry should not have voted initially to support working through the UN, and building a coalition. If you remember correctly, Bush did not have the support of Congress or Britain, UNLESS Bush went through the UN. The problem is Bush circumvented that UN process and decided to go it alone with a coalition basically made up of English Speaking nations stating with conviction that "Iraq HAS weapons of mass destruction." Can you blame Kerry or Edwards for voting against that second bill? No one even projected the costs. We were told that the Iraqi oil would pay for all the rebuilding of infrastructure and the war, and that our coalition partners would be assisting. Now it is PRimarily left to the american taxpayers who are already sifting through massive recordbreaking deficits.

Believe me, having been in Nam, it makes me sick what a few jerks did in San Fran as well, but I was greeted well in my home town when I got back, and if they had ended that damn Vietnam travesty a lot earlier, I'd be calling a few buddies who ain't with us no more.

Suff

01-29-2004, 06:39 PM

Some issues scare me on a horse racing board... I dip a toe in the water from time to time. But I rarely go deep into very personal beliefs I hold. I could'nt sustain a membership here if I was compelled to go into detail about my views on decisive issues like Vietnam. I will only say

I did'nt serve in Vietnam. I volunteered in 1977. 60 days after my 17th birthday. Two months into my Senior year in high school under the delayed enlistment program. I was with security police in the United States Airforce. Did the Majority of tour at CAMP NEW AMSTERDAM in ZIEST , Netherlands. Its a very small and peculiar base. I guarded a HOT BOX. A hangar with two LIVE F-15 Eagles....armed to the teeth with HEAT SEEKERS...and two Pilots Alsleep on COTS at the Bottom of the Ladder leading to the cockpit. Airborne and COMBAT READY in 7 minutes...door to trigger. We had other things on the base that required everyone stationed there to have a classification adjustment. The Military gave me alot more than I ever gave it. And so has this Country.

Mostly what I remember about Vietnam was 1970 when my Friends Older Brother was KIA. His mother cried for 2 years straight and Killed herself.. the father sunk into the bottle...my friend the drugs. They're both gone too. They all died in 1970..just took 15 years to make it official.

That'll be it from me on this topic.

ljb

01-29-2004, 07:50 PM

Will someone start a thread titled Bush:War History, I started the thread on kay no wmd's and jr got upset.
Oh wait a minute Bush was AWOL, never mind.

Lefty

01-29-2004, 08:12 PM

Yeah, right after the post about Clinton's War History. At least Bush didn't semonstrate against the war on foreign soil.

Tom

01-29-2004, 08:50 PM

This report came to me from Deep Throat two days ago, but in the interests of national security, all intelligence reports are now subject to a 48 hour wating period while background checks are performed.
We have established that Deep Throat was not drunk or stoned when he wrote this report and so it can now be revealed:

Bill Clinton registers for the draft on September 08, 1964, accepting all contractual conditions of registering for the draft. Given Selective Service Number 3 26 46 228.

Bill Clinton classified 2-S on November 17, 1964.

Bill Clinton reclassified 1-A on March 20, 1968.

Bill Clinton ordered to report for induction on July 28, 1969.

Bill Clinton dishonors order to report and is not inducted into the
military.

Bill Clinton reclassified 1-D after enlisting in the United States Army Reserves on August 07, 1969 under authority of Col. E. Holmes.

Clinton signs enlistment papers and takes oath of enlistment.

Bill Clinton fails to report to his duty station at the University of
Arkansas ROTC, September 1969.

Bill Clinton reclassified 1-A on October 30, 1969, as enlistment with Army Reserves is revoked by Colonel E. Holmes and Clinton now AWOL and subject to arrest under Public Law 90-40 (2)(a) "registrant who has failed to report...remain liable for induction".

Bill Clinton's birth date lottery number is 311, drawn December 1, 1969, but anyone who has already been ordered to report for induction is INELIGIBLE!

Bill Clinton runs for Congress (1974), while a fugitive from justice
under Public Law 90-40.

Bill Clinton runs for Arkansas Attorney General (1976), while a fugitive from justice.

Bill Clinton receives pardon on January 21, 1977, from Carter.

Bill Clinton (FIRST PARDONED FEDERAL FELON) ever to serve as President.

All these facts come from Freedom of Information requests, public laws, and various books that have been published, and have not been refuted by Clinton.

After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six and injured 1,000; President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five U.S. military personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 and injured 200 U.S. military personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa, which killed 224 and injured 5,000; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 39 U.S. sailors; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

Maybe if Clinton had kept those promises, an estimated 3,000 people in New York and Washington, D.C. that are now dead would be alive today.

AN INTERESTING QUESTION:

This question was raised on a Philly radio call-in show. Without casting stones, it is a legitimate question.

There are two men, both extremely wealthy. One develops relatively cheap software and gives billions of dollars to charity. The other sponsors terrorism. That being the case, why was it that the Clinton Administration spent more money chasing down Bill Gates over the eight years in office, than Osama bin Laden?

THINK ABOUT IT!

It is a strange turn of events. Hillary gets $8 Million for her
forthcoming memoir. Bill gets about $12 Million for his memoir yet to be written. This from two people who spent 8 years being unable to recall anything about past events while under oath!

freeneasy

01-29-2004, 11:57 PM

just unfkgbelieveable

ljb

01-30-2004, 12:02 AM

Tom and Lefty,
Are your replies supposed to mean?
Clintons war record better then Kerry but worse then Bush?
Clintons war record better then Bush but worse then Kerry?
Clintons war record better the Kerry and better then Bush?
Clintons war record worse then kerry but better then Bush?
Clintons war record worse then Bush but better then Kerry?
Bush's war record better then Clinton but worse then Kerry?
Bush's war record better then Kerry but worse then Clinton?
Bush's war record non-existance he was AWOL?
Your attempts at obfuscation are meaningless.
Clinton not running this time, Bill that is.

Lefty

01-30-2004, 02:25 AM

The point is you libs gave Clinton a pass on his atrocious conduct and want to rain all over Bush because he wasn't in the war. You guys aren't consistent. Clinton even as Pres was AWOL on the war on terror Bush is front and center. Case closed.

ljb

01-30-2004, 09:37 AM

The point is you rightys brought up Kerry's war record. Fine , compare it to Bush's. Case closed.

Larry Hamilton

01-30-2004, 10:07 AM

Braggin' on Kerry the war hero is like braggin' on Al Capone the alter boy.

Secretariat

01-30-2004, 11:26 AM

Larry,

I would certainly take Kerry's military service record over the one below:

Here are what appear to be the known facts [about President Bush's miltiary record] , laid out recently in considerable detail and documentation by retired pilot and Air National Guard First Lt. Robert A. Rogers, and in a 2003 book, “The Lies of George W. Bush,” by David Corn.

1. George W. Bush graduated from Yale in 1968 when the war in Vietnam was at its most deadly and the military draft was in effect. Like many of his social class and age, he sought to enter the National Guard, which made Vietnam service unlikely, and fulfill his military obligation. Competition for slots was intense; there was a long waiting list. Bush took the Air Force officer and pilot qualification tests on Jan. 17, 1968, and scored the lowest allowed passing grade on the pilot aptitude portion.

2. He, nevertheless, was sworn in on May 27, 1968, for a six-year commitment. After a few weeks of basic training, Bush received an appointment as a second lieutenant – a rank usually reserved for those completing four years of ROTC or 18 months active duty service. Bush then went to flight school and trained on the F-102 interceptor fighter jet. Fighter pilots were in great demand in Vietnam at the time, but Bush wound up serving as a “weekend warrior” in Houston, where his father’s congressional district was centered.

A Houston Chronicle story published in 1994, quoted in Corn’s book, has Bush saying: “I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes.”

3. Sometime after May 1971, young Lt. Bush stopped participating regularly in Guard activities. According to Texas Air National Guard records, he had fewer than the required flight duty days and was short of the minimum service owed the Guard. Records indicate that Bush never flew after May 1972, despite his expensive training and even though he still owed the National Guard two more years.

4. On May 24, 1972, Bush asked to be transferred to an inactive reserve unit in Alabama, where he also would be working on a Republican senate candidate’s campaign. The request was denied. For months, Bush apparently put in no time at all in Guard service. In August 1972, Bush was grounded -- suspended from flying duties -- for failing to submit to an annual physical exam. (Why wouldn't he take this exam from a doctor?)

5. During his 2000 presidential campaign, Bush’s staff said he recalled doing duty in Alabama and then returning to Houston for still more duty. But the commander of the Montgomery, AL, unit where Bush said he served told the Boston Globe that he had no recollection of Bush – son of a congressman – ever reporting, nor are there records, as there should be, supporting Bush’s claim. Asked at a press conference in Alabama on June 23, 2000 what duties he had performed as a Guardsman in that state, Bush said he could not recall, “but I was there.”

6. In May, June and July, 1973, Bush suddenly started participating in Guard activities back in Houston again – pulling 36 days at Ellington Air Base in that short period. On Oct. 1, 1973, eight months short of his six-year service obligation and scheduled discharge, Bush apparently was discharged with honors from the Texas Air National Guard (eight months short of his six-year commitment). He then went to Harvard Business School.

Documents supporting these reports, released under Freedom of Information Act requests, appear along with Rogers’ article on the web at http://democrats.com/display.cfm?id=154.

In the absence of full disclosure by the President or his supporters, only the President and perhaps a few family or other close associates know the whole truth. And they’re not talking.

Bush was apparently absent without official leave from his assigned military service for as little as seven months (New York Times) or as much as 17 months (Boston Globe) during a time when 500,000 American troops were fighting the Vietnam War. The Army defines a “deserter” -- also known as a DFR, for “dropped from rolls” – as one who is AWOL 31 days or more: www-ari.army.mil/pdf/s51.pdf.

Lefty

01-30-2004, 11:42 AM

I never brght up his war record myself. I thank him for his service. But a war record does not qualify you to be the Pres. Otherwise Audie Murphy would have been Pres. Gen. Grant was the architect of the North winning the Civil war yet his record as Pres leaves a lot to be desired.
I'm more concerned with Kerry's voting record than his war record.

ljb

01-30-2004, 12:32 PM

Lefty said
" A war record does not qualify you to be Pres.
.... I am more concerned with Kerry's voting record then his war record.'

Then why are you posting on this thread?

Lefty

01-30-2004, 12:55 PM

lbj, why not? Look at name of thread. Why are you posting about Bush on this thread? Let PA decide what goes where and stop trying to moderate or censor.

ljb

01-30-2004, 01:20 PM

This thread is about Kerry:war history.
Kerry running for President
Bush running for President
Compare both records.
Lefty "War records don't mean anything, voting records mean something"
Why are you posting on a thread which is meaningless to you?
As you have said "connect the dots"

delayjf

01-30-2004, 02:01 PM

Sec,

Being commisioned a 2LT right out of College is nothing new. All services today require a college degree before commissioning. Thats why ROTC member don't recieve a commission while in school. I, like Bush, had already graduated college when I got commissioned, only ten weeks after first entering service and completing boot camp. That this article is using this non issue as fodder against Bush causes me to question the article.

Be it Vietman or the US, Bush took a chance each time he strapped on a jet, that's more than can be said of Clinton. Who was quoted as saying that he "loathed the military". I seriously doubt that either he or Hillary really care how many US men and women die in Iraq.

ljb

01-30-2004, 07:45 PM

Delayjf,
Please consult with Lefty, Clinton is not running for President!
just compare those that are. Let's keep this honest.

Lefty

01-30-2004, 08:56 PM

lbj, You cannot act as if Clinton never existed. You aren't going to denigrate one man and not the other on the same information. I will speakout every damn time.

KerrY:1994: voted to cut one billion from the counter terrorism prgm.
1995: voted to cut inttelligence by 300 million. You keep saying ask congress for an investigation. Why? This stuff is public record.

ljb

01-30-2004, 09:47 PM

Lefty,
Oh I would never say Clinton never existed. I remember well those times of peace and prosperity.
This topic is/Kerry:War History.
My contention is. Let us consider the service records of any/all candidates for President.
I am not asking for a congrssional investigation of anyones war history. That is under the Kay, No WMDs thread and i again want to ask you if you have contacted your representatives in Washington?
Please don't hesitate, the safety of all Americans depends on your support.
Thank you

Lefty

01-30-2004, 11:06 PM

Once again with feeling: This is politics, war records mean nothing. Voting records do. This man part of the defunding of the intelligence community and you want to put America's safety in his hands? Not me.
Clinton, the prosperity was not his as anyone with slightest understanding of economics knows and the peace was just an illusion because there were unanswered terrorist attacks all over the place until the big one on 9-11; the direct result of Clinton's failing to arrest bin laden when he had the chance. But you know all that but prefer to disregard it.

Dave Schwartz

01-30-2004, 11:09 PM

Whenever I discuss the war (which war? any war.) with a L-L-L... a person strongly to the left of center... they ultimately get around to how they (personally) think that war is wrong. PERIOD.

Often they go on to say that under no circumstances would they ever serve in the military; they'd run to Canada, shoot their toe off, go to jail, whatever. Yet (as has been voiced by some people on this board) they feel that this qualifies them as a "patriot," because they stand up for their conviction.

See, this is the whole point of the military issue.

Ask any soldier that has ever been in combat: "Did you ever disagree with the orders of a superior and still carry them out without a lot of complaining?"

Of course they did. That is because they recognized the authority granted over them. (Now, we are not talking about illegal acts, here. There is no excuse for that.)

That is how I feel about my country, even today. I may not like the guy in office. I may even campaign against him. But while he is in office, I will support HIS OFFICE because I feel that it is the DUTY of every American to do so.

Now, perhaps I am wrong about this, but it appears that the C's are more likely to agree with me than the L's on this issue.

And, just for the record, I am sick of George Bush. I do not like many of the things he is doing or done. (That would be for discussion in some other thread; it is not germaine to this one.) And I may very well change my political affiliation before the presidential election. (No, I won't become a Democrat, either. - More likely a Libertarian. - LOL)

BUT, and this is a huge BUT...

But, I support the President of the United States because it is to the advantage of the entire country to do so. We need to be UNITED. (Catchy word, that.)

In my opinion, being a "patriot" demands that we support our leaders. If Kerry gets elected, I will support him. I may still disagree with him, but he will get my support while he is in office.

I supported Clinton as well. Okay, so I did laugh at the bumper sticker (recycled from the Nixon years), "Lee Harvey Oswald, Where are you when we need you?"

But seriously, this is what the military teaches: Submission to authority. And it seems that many in the flower-power generation never learned that lesson.

Look at the problems we have in this country today. How many of them are caused by leaders being more committed to the party than the country? There is very little cooperation in congress. And I don't mean "deal-making." I mean cooperation.

Even with all my jokes and small shots at liberals - The truth is that they have many good ideas; Ideas that we could use in our government today. But we can't do it "their" way any more than we can do it "our" way.

Our leaders must learn to set aside the partisan attitudes once the elections are over. Why can't they learn that? For that matter, why can't WE learn that?

Okay, so now I am pretty much done.

Oh, my point? That was supposed to be that I have no problem with a guy that "avoids" the military legally and ethically. Hey, if you don't want to get drafted in war time and can manage a deferment, congratulations. But, if you are called, will you serve? Will you do your "duty" or will you hide behind your so-called morals and (effectively) run and hide while someone else is put in harm's way in your stead?

If a candidate disagreed with war, fine. I can accept that. If he disagreed and SERVED, so much the better. If he served and then DISHONORED his soldier-brothers, well I just naturally have a problem with that.

Okay, I am really done now.

Regards to all,
Dave Schwartz

Who has still not mastered the art of tag lines. <G>

Secretariat

01-30-2004, 11:44 PM

Originally posted by Dave Schwartz
...
That is how I feel about my country, even today. I may not like the guy in office. I may even campaign against him. But while he is in office, I will support HIS OFFICE because I feel that it is the DUTY of every American to do so.

Now, perhaps I am wrong about this, but it appears that the C's are more likely to agree with me than the L's on this issue.

And, just for the record, I am sick of George Bush. I do not like many of the things he is doing or done. (That would be for discussion in some other thread; it is not germaine to this one.) And I may very well change my political affiliation before the presidential election. (No, I won't become a Democrat, either. - More likely a Libertarian. - LOL)

BUT, and this is a huge BUT...

But, I support the President of the United States because it is to the advantage of the entire country to do so. We need to be UNITED. (Catchy word, that.)

In my opinion, being a "patriot" demands that we support our leaders. If Kerry gets elected, I will support him. I may still disagree with him, but he will get my support while he is in office.

....

<G>

Dave,

I agreed with much of what you said in your post, but strongly disagree about the meaning of patriotism and the role of dissent. This country is bigger than any one person, and the selection of a leader doesn't acquiesce our duty to hold that leader accountable to the people for our faith in his decision making. And not just election time, but every day he serves the public.

I stand with Teddy below:

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." - Theodore Roosevelt, The Kansas City Star, May 7, 1918

As to Kerry’s war record, the Sante Fe New Mexican and Detroit Free Press endorsed him today:

"Kerry, a Navy lieutenant, had little time for the long knives wielded among the higher ranks; he was being shot at by snipers along the Mekong River. A Silver Star, a Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts attest to his bravery. No Republican of sound mind will call Kerry's character into question...he offers America's Democratic majority the best chance of winning the popular -- and electoral -- vote."
--Santa Fe New Mexican, January 29, 2004

"Michigan Democrats can contribute to the cause at their Feb. 7 caucus by voting for Massachusetts Senator John Kerry to be the party's nominee for president...Kerry, 60, offers serious differences from Bush, both in background and on issues...Kerry has genuine military experience -- heroic, in fact -- and was an important leader in the effort to end the war in Vietnam."
-- Detroit Free Press, January 29, 2004

Frankly, this war record stuff is a little distasteful to me as is the Iraq war debate. I'd much rather see a thread on issues like how Bush is going to reduce the deficit effectively (and Lefty, even his own party says cutting non-military, non-discretionary spending ain't gonna cut it, especially since, by the White House's own admission they understated the cost of the Medicare Punishment Act by about 200 billion), or a debate on the increased monopoly control of the mass media, or the destruction of our environment, or how he is going to turn around the exportation of American jobs, or how he is going to deal with the Israel-Palestinian issue, or how he is going to address North Korea's threat, or how he is goign to control the spiraling costs of Health Care premiums, or how..well, you get the idea. I realize Iraq and terror are big issues, but I hope we can move away from this war record stuff. It makes me sick. I'm sorry I got sucked into the damn thing myself.

Dave Schwartz

01-31-2004, 12:31 AM

Secretariat,

And I also agree with much of what you said. <G>

I do believe that we should be able to question a serving President (as evidenced by my statement about being "sick of Bush).

(Not to beat a dead horse; just clarifying my position) - I have no problem with a dissenting opinion. I certainly have them myself. My problem is with those who would like to see the country STOP because their personal agreement has not been achieved.

As an example, if one does not believe in abortion (perhaps one of the most emotional subjects) then by all means take any legal means to protest. But illegal acts (such as fire bombing an abortion clinic or picketing in such a manner as to intimidate those legally entering an abortion clinic is wrong.

The "I-would-prefer-anarchy-and-chaos" attitude is just not okay.

As for Kerry, although I posted the original thread, it was not because I have particularly strong opinions about the man. Ultimately, I will need to do further research to determine if he really represents what he appears on the surface to represent.

Finally, I stress that the issue here is that a patriot is a person who thinks of their country before their party. Tell me... Where do we find such a candidate?

Regards,
Dave Schwartz

Secretariat

01-31-2004, 02:25 AM

Originally posted by Dave Schwartz
Secretariat,
... Finally, I stress that the issue here is that a patriot is a person who thinks of their country before their party. Tell me... Where do we find such a candidate?

Regards,
Dave Schwartz

Obviously, there are boundaries we all set. Breaking the law is one of them (for example, the abortion clinic bombers you cite), but then civil disobedience such as Gandhi or Martin Luther King also broke laws. We often wish more German citizens would have broken laws and toppled Hitler in WW II, or soldiers in China would have resisted thier superiors at Tinannemen Square. It's a touchy issue, and ones in which courses in Ethics and Morality courses prompt heated debates. When does one's individual morality supersede the state's decrees and decisions on morality? This is an age old question which will be argued for millenia.

As to your above last question, "Where do we find such a candidate?" . . . Perhaps in another plane of existence. No matter what we say here, we are generally defending or supporting people we don't know personally, and are "hopeful" they are not mouthpieces for a party, but in fact, party machines and contributors of money lead us to the candidates we are left with.

Kerry is probably too liberal for some here, but my own research into him thus far shows him to be a man of conviction, a man of courage, and a champion of environmental issues. Will he get us out of this deficit mess? Seriously, I doubt it. It'll take decades to do that by any of the candidates, especially with the baby boomer generation approaching social security. And those boomers ain't gonna be to happy having the rug pulled out from under them after paying for 40+ years into a system. I think Kerry understands war, and its effect on the psyche of a nation long term. I think he realizes we are in a health care crisis. I'm not sure he gets the trade issue strongly enough. Free trade doesn't mean giving away the store. I just hope this election doesn't boil down to emotive issues like "family values" or "school prayer stuff" or "displaying the ten commandments outside buildings". And I'd like to see some good debates. Debates in which members of the PA Forum ask the questions and we get to trash them.

Tom

01-31-2004, 02:06 PM

I am typing this real s-l-o-w so it will be easy to understand.:D
Talking about war records - in reference to what? Bringing Clinton's into is give us a frame of historical reference to compare Kerry and Bush's to.
As far as the peacful CLinton years, they were certainly peaceful if you totally ignore the forst attacks on the WTC, the Bombing of the Cole, the US embassy attacks, and all the other terroist activities, like he did. Kind of like the French vivhy governemtn-things aren't too bad when you give up your country, your rights, sell out your people, and reap the reqwards of cwardice. Things can get really peaceful and prosperous that way.

hcap

01-31-2004, 02:33 PM

I am not sure of the weight one should give to a presidential candidates' war record. Depends on ones' bs detector.
For example, if the military record is aluded to, and is paraded like a strutting chicken on an aircraft carrier-- when the parading fool ducked out of earlier military obligations, probably a lot.

If it is used later to denounce an unjust war like Vietnam, as Kerry did, probably also a lot

John Kerry-- honorable war record, many medals.

George Bush-- "absent without official leave from his assigned military service for as little as seven months (New York Times) or as much as 17 months (Boston Globe) during a time when 500,000 American troops were fighting the Vietnam War."
--- thank you Secretariat

PaceAdvantage

01-31-2004, 02:34 PM

It's funny how people conveniently forget certain events.....thanks for bringing all those "peaceful" events back to light Tom....

Tom

01-31-2004, 03:32 PM

I need to find a better spell checker!
:mad:

wes

01-31-2004, 06:29 PM

we do not need anyone in the whitehouse that will not kick ass if need be.
Ask your self one question. If ole BL could vote which one would he vote for?

wes

ljb

01-31-2004, 10:09 PM

Tom,
I'm in a rush here. Could you just give me body counts.
Thanks.
To keep up to date just add a meter to current ones count.

Tom

01-31-2004, 11:22 PM

Originally posted by wes
we do not need anyone in the whitehouse that will not kick ass if need be.
Ask your self one question. If ole BL could vote which one would he vote for?

wes

OK, I think we have post of the month right here. Who would Bin Laden vote for? Genius.
A tip of the ole turban to Wes.

Dave Schwartz

02-06-2004, 12:54 AM

http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com/

Lefty

02-06-2004, 01:57 AM

Thanks, Dave. Great link.

ljb

02-06-2004, 09:35 AM

Lefty,
Here's another great link.
www.awolbush.com

VetScratch

02-06-2004, 09:55 AM

Originally posted by wes
we do not need anyone in the whitehouse that will not kick ass if need be.
Ask your self one question. If ole BL could vote which one would he vote for?wes Osama bin Laden would undoubtedly vote for Bush. What do you think the purpose of 9/11 was? Just as in Viet Nam, the enemy's strategy is to evoke a $10,000,000 response to every $1,000 invested in provocation, especially when life is cheap among the ranks of the enemy.

Secretariat

02-06-2004, 10:55 AM

Originally posted by Dave Schwartz
http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com/

Boy, you know the opposition is getting desperate when they are quoting Spiro Agnew.

It is also interesting that not one man who served with Kerry are denigrating his service or denying his claims. If the Republicans wish to trot out the blind justifcations for the Vietnam war, I'll tell ya I just can't wait. As Kerry says, "Bring it on!" Thank God for VVAW movement. Otherwise how many more soldiers would have died needlessly. In Kerry's Senate speech he states, "There were 150 honorably discharged veterans that can attest to those war crimes." So let's not just say that Kerry is making those claims. Besides My Lai is on record. Additionally, a few excerpts:

"We found that not only was it a civil war [Vietnam], an effort by people who had for years been seeking thier liberation from any colonial influence whatsoever, but also we found that the Vietnamese whom we had enthusastically modeled after our own image were hard put to take up the fight agaisnt the threat we wee supposedly saving them from. We found most people didn't even know the difference between communism and democracy. They only wanted to work in rice paddies without helicopters strafing them and bombs with napalm burning thier villages and tearing their country apart. They wanted everything to do with the war, particularly with the foregin presence of the United States of America, to leave them alone in peace, and they practiced the art of survival by siding with whatever military force was present at a particular time, be it Viet Cong, North Vietnamese, or American."

"We found also that all too often American men were dying in those rice paddies for want of support from thier allies."

"We watched the United States falsification of body counts.."

"We listened while moth after month we were told the back of the enemy was about to break"

"We watched while men charged up hills because a general said that hill has to be taken, and after losing one platoon or two platoons, they marched away to leave the hill for reccupation by North Vietnamese."

"How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"

Even McNamara, the Secy. of Defense, admitted later it was a giant mistake. NOTICE, not that the soldiers weren't loyal, NOT that the VVAW was wrong, but THAT THE GOVERNMENT AND THE POLICY WAS WRONG. Nixon's only concern was "that he wouldn't be the first president to lose a war." What an ass.

Reading this stuff again brings back those times, and it brings out memories that is going to inflame this nation if the Republicans bring it up...so bring it on....bring on the Spiro Agnew quotes: the only man kicked out of being VP while in office due to his criminal activity. This is exactly the people I want challenging Jon Kerry's patriotism. Where the hell were Cheyney and Bush during this anyway?

Lefty

02-06-2004, 11:45 AM

Hey, guys, like I said. Kerry and others tried this AWOL crap in 2000 and it didn't work then and it won't work now.
In 1993 Kerry, trying to excuse the draft dodging of Clinton, said words like, Vietnam was a longtime ago and shouldn't matter if the Pres served in that war or not. Now all ,of a sudden, the medals are back on and Vietnam matters again.
Kerry supposodly threw his medals away and then, mysteriously, they reappeared. He's been in and out of those medals more often than a stripper gets in and out of her costume.
Libs love having it both ways.

Lefty

02-06-2004, 11:50 AM

sec, hypocritical how you give Macnamara a big 'ol pass and denigrate Nixon. The war was lost when Nixon took office and he brght the soldiers home instead of getting more killed. I think Mac and Johnson were the asses, not Nixon.

ljb

02-06-2004, 02:05 PM

Lefty,
You can spin all you want. But facts are facts.
Just check out the link. www.awolbush.com you will see what the truth is.
You are going to have to find another item to beat Kerry on. War record is a loser for Bushites.

Secretariat

02-06-2004, 03:12 PM

Originally posted by Lefty
sec, hypocritical how you give Macnamara a big 'ol pass and denigrate Nixon. The war was lost when Nixon took office and he brght the soldiers home instead of getting more killed. I think Mac and Johnson were the asses, not Nixon.

Lefty,

As Reagan said, "There you go again." Where did I ever give McNamara a pass in my post? The only thing I stated is he finally (and it took long enough) admitted that the goverment had made a drastic mistake and the US policy in Vietnam was flawed. I'm glad he made the statement. That in no way washes clean his hands for the men lost needlessly in Vietnam, or Johnson's hands for that matter. They both F...ed up! BUT, at least mcNamara admitted the mistake. Nixon on the other hand was only concerned with how his own neck looked in the history books. READ HIS OWN WORDS. Nixon made trade deals with China (one of the largest suppliers of arms to North Vietnam) while men were being killed over in S. Vietnam. That I'll never forgive. Don't tell me he brought the boys home through any friggin noble purpose. He was an idiot, and the fact that you can even defend the likes of him shows how partisan you are. In fact Lefty, do you ever criticize ANY Republican action? The way you always try to spin it Lefty, is that if Johnson made a mistake, then Nixon couldn't have. You do this all the time. Bush's AWOL issue is brought up and you'll bring up Bill Clinton as if that has any connection with Kerry. You'll applaud Bush's non-911, non-imminent threat invasion of 911, and you'll blame it on Clinton for his failure to act, which totally flies in the face of Kay's own allegations suggestion that Clinton's 98 missles wiped out any vestiges of Hussein's WMD program, and somehow you tie this all to John Kerry. As if Clinton and Kerry are the same person. Again, I say, please Lefty, keep defending Nixon's Vietnam War policies this election, and please keep attacking John Kerry's patriotism and war record. If these are the issues you want to emphasize, it's shows just how weak the Republican platform really is.

VetScratch

02-06-2004, 03:37 PM

Lefty,

Aren't we better off that Bush was AWOL? All he knows about the military is how to squander resources. Maybe they discreetly asked him to stay AWOL.

For example, it probably costs at least $5-million to schedule and use a huge operational aircraft carrier and crew as the backdrop for a photo opportunity.

One veteran who served in Korea emailed CNN to suggest that Harry Truman would have probably stopped by a photo booth at the local mall rather than waste a fortune and mock our troops by asking them to pose for him.

ljb

02-06-2004, 04:06 PM

Lefty,
Republican Senator McCain from Arizona said " He always slept better when he was being held prisoner in Viet Nam knowing that G.W.Bush was back here guarding the shores of Texas". Good thing he didn't know about the AWOL thing back then hey!:D

hcap

02-06-2004, 04:22 PM

Lefty, if it turns out that this war was a war of choice, as it is beginning to look, impeachment will be an issue before the elections. Just before an election.
Even if it only becomes a press bonanza and leads to no political action, the commander in chief role will ring hollow.

Don't think the press won't eat it up, remember what you guys did to Clinton over a bj. This time however countless Iraqi civilians, inocent civilians and inocent americans died for what is beginning to look like a stupendous blunder, and not just sex between 2 adults and the lies Clinton told about it. Major difference.

The dems will not waver in their ant- bush feelings, the independents will mostly be sympathetic, and some repubs who supported bush are becomming disillusioned.

Kerry or any democrat will be in the cat birds seat.

With Kerrys' war record, and bush unable to strut his trumped up commander in chief bs, the presidential debates will deflate bush even further.

He'll probably have to start rehearsing now to pronounce "nukular" corectly

delayjf

02-06-2004, 05:27 PM

speaking of war records the way I see it is
Bush 2-0
Kerry 0-1

I think we've come to a mutuel understanding here. Looks to me like Kerry's best destiny was to serve in the field as a soldier. Were as Bush's was to serve in the White House. So in the best intest of the nation, Bush remains in office and Kerry gets shipped off the Afganistan to hunt BL.

My feelings are that when someone undermines our war effort in the manner of Jane Fonda and John Kerry, soldiers in the field get killed.

Interviews with NVA leaders have documented the fact that a major reason for not throwing in the towel after the massive bombing campaign was the growing anti-war movement concerning the war back in the US. The NVA rightly reasoned that the Americans would not be willing to fight the conflict to the end. And they were right. This reasoning lead to the TET offensive, which although was a military disaster, it furthered the cause of the anti-war movement. John Kerry was a big part of that movement.

Bendict Arnold was also an American war hero (Saratoga).

Vetscratch
5,000,000 million for one Jet ride?? How much did Hillary's trip to Afgan/Saudi Cost?? I can assure you a lot more than G.W's. If it did cost 5 mil, must have gotten there fuel from Hallibuton. and that's fine with me, I own so much Halliburton stock I could buy my own air craft carrier.

Simply exercising ones rights does not make one a patriot. That's one thing I've always hated about the radical left. There're the first to call their lawyers when they feel their rights have been violated, but they'd be the last to pick up a rifle if they were ever threatened. I'm not apply that to anyone here, I don't know you. But that is what I feel about one future Presidential candicate previously mentioned. I'm sure she feels the same contempt toward me and my brothers and sisters in arms. after all, if we can't carry her shopping bags at the mall, then as she so eliquantly put "What good are you".

Secretariat

02-06-2004, 06:46 PM

Originally posted by Dave Schwartz
http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com/

Dave,

This site is unbelievable. Can you beleive they would doctor the first picture of John Kerry sitting in front of a Viet cong flag, when in reality, it is his testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in Washington. This is as bad as putting a Nazi flag behind Bush due to his grandfather's links to the Third Reich. It's appalling, and to take anything serious on this site is laughable. I am surprised they were not able to find a Kerry- Hanoi Jane pix. I figured if they couldn't find one, they would have at least have doctored one like the Viet Cong flag

VetScratch

02-06-2004, 07:43 PM

Delayjf,

Many 60-second commercials cost $-millions.

You obviously have no idea what it costs to deploy a U.S. President and operational aircraft carrier for a production shoot on location while at sea. Think of what it cost to screen, hire, costume, and ferry all the photo-op extras to and from the carrier. I suppose you think the real crew enjoyed being cooped up beneath the flight deck. ;)

=============
Say NO to Bush and Kerry!

Tom

02-06-2004, 08:13 PM

Originally posted by VetScratch
Osama bin Laden would undoubtedly vote for Bush. What do you think the purpose of 9/11 was? Just as in Viet Nam, the enemy's strategy is to evoke a $10,000,000 response to every $1,000 invested in provocation, especially when life is cheap among the ranks of the enemy.

What an extremely sick person you are. You are a disgrace.

Lefty

02-06-2004, 08:13 PM

Nobody is going after Kerry on his war record. But he made a speech giving Clinton a "pass" On Vietnam. Now all of a sudden to make Vietnam important again is flipping and flopping to suit an agenda. aND THAT'S A FACT.
Maybe you guys can vote for a guy who's voted to weaKEN OUR INTELLIGENCE AND DEFENSE SYSTEMS, BUT NOT ME. i STILL REMEMBER 9-11.(caps unintentional)

Lefty

02-06-2004, 08:24 PM

hcap, this war has saved lives, but you libs don't get it, will never get it. You are all socialists at heart and will say anything to undermine the U.S. That much is clear. If Kerry is elected, more 9-11's coming because terrorist don't fear weak willed liberals.

Secretariat

02-06-2004, 09:06 PM

Originally posted by Lefty
hcap, this war has saved lives, but you libs don't get it, will never get it. You are all socialists at heart and will say anything to undermine the U.S. That much is clear. If Kerry is elected, more 9-11's coming because terrorist don't fear weak willed liberals.

sorry, Hcap, gotta reply to this.

Lefty,

Have heard all this before. If you oppose Vietnam you're a communist. Now if you oppose Iraq, you're a socialist.

And there it is again...the name calling..weak, willed liberals. Well, I'd rather be a weak, willed liberal than a cocksure conservative who ends up looking like an idiot for invading a country under false pretenses.

VetScratch

02-06-2004, 09:44 PM

Tom,

Your problem is that you don't understand the fundamental strategy of guerrilla/terrorist organizations. Nothing could please bin Laden and other terrorist leaders more than what has transpired in the aftermath of 9/11. In his wildest dreams, bin Laden probably didn't imagine that his $2-million plot could precipitate so much wasteful havoc and expense.

Bin Laden, his terrorist counterparts, and their successors want us to expend our resources at the rate of $500-billion per year while they spend nothing in comparison and suffer only minor casualties that they can replace with relative ease.

Tom

02-06-2004, 09:54 PM

Oh, and of course YOU are an expert in that field. Oh, wait, you are and expert in EVERY field.
Silly me. I thought you were just another...........(remember the rules, remember the rules)..........amature.

VetScratch

02-06-2004, 10:07 PM

Tom,

The strategy and objectives of guerrilla/terrorist factions haven't changed since Hadrian's Wall was erected nineteen hundred years ago.

Tom

02-06-2004, 10:15 PM

Ay, Lassie, if ya say it is so it is so.
Ya can't defy the laws of physics.

Lefty

02-06-2004, 11:07 PM

sec, wasn't false pretenses but you guys masters of the old spin machine. I don't call you a socialist cause you oppose the war it's because you love to vote for people who raise taxes and play the "class" game, the rich against the poor. Kerry will do it cause the lib strategy doesn't change. And you hate Republicans who truly do want the american people to keep more of their own money and decide themselves where and who to spend it on.

Boris

02-07-2004, 07:04 AM

Originally posted by hcap
Lefty, if it turns out that this war was a war of choice, as it is beginning to look, impeachment will be an issue before the elections. Just before an election.
Even if it only becomes a press bonanza and leads to no political action, the commander in chief role will ring hollow.

Don't think the press won't eat it up, remember what you guys did to Clinton over a bj. This time however countless Iraqi civilians, inocent civilians and inocent americans died for what is beginning to look like a stupendous blunder, and not just sex between 2 adults and the lies Clinton told about it. Major difference.

The dems will not waver in their ant- bush feelings, the independents will mostly be sympathetic, and some repubs who supported bush are becomming disillusioned.

Kerry or any democrat will be in the cat birds seat.

With Kerrys' war record, and bush unable to strut his trumped up commander in chief bs, the presidential debates will deflate bush even further.

He'll probably have to start rehearsing now to pronounce "nukular" corectly

Congrats on getting your bong working. That's some deadly shit yer smoking.

hcap

02-07-2004, 08:11 AM

Hi Boris, long time no hear.
Just to set the record straight, I never inhaled. You guys, inhaling from a baby bush for the last 3+ years, are smoking an out of control "weed". Time to prune.

:cool: :cool:

Tom

02-07-2004, 10:37 AM

Originally posted by Boris
Congrats on getting your bong working. That's some deadly shit yer smoking.
Long time no hear.
As you can see, we have to clean out that bridge soon-more trolls have moved in. :eek:

Always love your perfect focus!:D

VetScratch

02-07-2004, 11:16 AM

The "electible" adjective got so much instant and universal traction in the media that Kerry's leap atop the heap may well signify that Bush has quietly been chumped and dumped, just like his dad.

Kerry's "magical mystery" surge means that this will be the first national election in history where two members of Skull & Bones will run against each other.

Beltway insiders are now betting that Bush has quietly been blackballed... and I mean by literally betting on Kerry with the U.K. bookmakers. I hope some PA board members were smart enough to get down on Kerry before Christmas!

================
Say NO to Bush and Kerry! :)

Lefty

02-07-2004, 11:40 AM

Boris, welcome back. Longtime no see the typing.
Hcap and other libs: When Congress gave Bush the right to go to war how do you figure it's impeachable to do what congress authorized? You're rubbing that magic lamp again and there ain't no Genii.
Once again you misrepresent: Clinton didn't get impeached for the BJ, he got impeached or perjury. There's people in jail for committing the same offense.

Tom

02-07-2004, 11:40 AM

See what I mean?

13

Lefty

02-07-2004, 11:43 AM

vs, quietly blackballed? By whom? By those mysterious forces you think rule the world? It's the american public that will be voting and when Kerry's voting record on defense and how he wanted to cancel virtually every weapon we now use, he becomes a bad bet.

Lefty

02-07-2004, 11:44 AM

vs, I just saw that say no to Bush and Kerry? Who then? Pray tell, who?

ljb

02-07-2004, 12:36 PM

Lefty,
Clinton's bj cost = $40 billion tax dollars in witch hunt. 0 lives
Bush's bj cost = $87 billion tax dollars and counting. 500 american lives and counting.
You do the math.

Boris

02-07-2004, 07:51 PM

Originally posted by hcap
Hi Boris, long time no hear.
Just to set the record straight, I never inhaled. You guys, inhaling from a baby bush for the last 3+ years, are smoking an out of control "weed". Time to prune.

:cool: :cool:

I've been around the ol' campus. Justa readin. Usually by the time I'm done catching up reading the OT board, I'm heaving up bile on my keyboard. Then I don't feel like having a "discussion". I'd rather throw a few Chinese Death Stars, and bury the bodies in PA's garage.

So why are we voting FOR Kerry anyway? Without a big Bush speech if possible. Other than being for the war in Iraq, why does he appeal to you guys? You realize that dude couldn't carry a Southern state if George Bush was caught in a threesome with Osama and Saddam.

NEWS FLASH: Sharpton has 11 votes in Washington with 76% of the vote in. That's ELEVEN indivdual votes. WTF??

To tell the truth, I'm looking forward to the Democratic Convention. What a collection of freaks that thing is. Any of you guys gonna attend?

Seeya. Let me know when one of you a-holes wants to book some of my futures bets on GWB.

Lefty

02-07-2004, 08:35 PM

lbj, either you can't read well or you purposely obfuscate. You know as well as I do Clinton's impeachment because lied to a judge. Perjury, they call it. You do the same and they will throw you in jail.
Math is easy: 500 lives lost, and it's terrible. But 50,000 freed and countless lives saved, some ours for ursurping Saddam's power before he was able to get it dully developed and able to use. I know such extrapolation prob. beyond you.
50,000 lives lost in Vietnam and NOTHING to show for it.

ljb

02-07-2004, 09:56 PM

Lefty,
What's the penalty for lying to the American public resulting in the loss of hundreds of Americans and billions of dollars?
Some have suggested censure but, I think unemployement would be a better penalty.
As you probably won't ask for censure, can i count on your help in voting him out?

Lefty

02-07-2004, 10:55 PM

The penalty for libs saying this was a lie when all the dems and the rest of the world said the same thing, but now trying to heap it all on Bush while noone will say they'd like to have Saddam back should be me slapping the crap outta them.

Lefty

02-07-2004, 10:57 PM

lbj, you can count on me for voting for the man who stood for America and said "bring it on." and I don't mean that liberal Kerry.

ljb

02-07-2004, 11:33 PM

Lefty,
I would guess all the young Americans being killed and maimed in Iraq would be those who would like a little less "bring it on".

Lefty

02-08-2004, 12:05 AM

lbj, wrong again. Those young and Brave Americans volunteered to defend this country against all who would try its citizens of life and liberty. God Bless their brave souls.

Tom

02-08-2004, 12:19 AM

And they don't need a troll to speak for them, either.

JustRalph

02-08-2004, 01:52 AM

Originally posted by ljb
Lefty,
I would guess all the young Americans being killed and maimed in Iraq would be those who would like a little less "bring it on".

Most of those people in Iraq (soldiers and Iraq's) seem to support the President and his mission. I don't think you can speak for them LJB.

They seem to be pretty pumped up about what they are doing. I have spoken to a few that have come back on leave and they say that it's going much better than we hear from our own media. They also say that those from other Arab countries are taking notice. This I hear from Officers, who sit in on briefings involving the "insurgents" that are now afraid to come into Iraq in the same numbers as they were earlier this year. Since Saddam was captured attacks on our troops are down 45%. The media cries about one soldier a day being killed. Yet 2 people a day are killed in New York City. Interesting info if you ask me. New York City has a hundred percent higher rate of Americans being killed than all of Iraq......sounds kind of funny doesn't it?