Bush or Kerry or ???



zapper

Banned
Mar 11, 2004
2,495
0
0
Originally posted by limerickman
Bush has had four years - and I think that these four years have not been very successful.
His track record is there for people to evaluate.
Kerry ?
We have only his Senate record to measure his performance.

Neither Kerry or Bush are statesmen - never mind politicians.

Just a few of Kerry's accolades:

Running For Congress In 1972, Kerry Promised To Cut Defense Spending. On what he’ll do if he’s elected to Congress, Kerry said he would ‘bring a different kind of message to the president.’ He said he would vote against military appropriations.
Running For Senate In 1984, Kerry Called For Cancellation Of At Least 27 Weapons Systems And Reductions In 18 Other Systems. “[Kerry] recommended cancellation of 27 weapons systems including the B1 bomber, the cruise missile, MX missile, Trident submarine, Patriot air defense missile, F15 fighter plane, Sparrow missile, stealth bomber and Pershing II missile. He recommended reductions in 18 other systems including the joint tactical air system, the Bradley fighting vehicle, the M1 Abrams tank and the F16 fighter plane.”

Upon Entering Senate, Kerry’s First Floor Speech Was In Opposition To Critical Missile Program And He Introduced Comprehensive Nuclear Freeze Bill. Kerry introduced: “A bill to provide for a comprehensive bilateral and verifiable freeze between the United States and the Soviet Union on the testing, production, and deployment of nuclear weapons systems.” The bill had no co-sponsors, and never made it to the Senate floor for a vote.
Weapons Kerry Sought To Phase Out Were Vital In Iraq. “[K]erry supported cancellation of a host of weapons systems that have become the basis of US military might – the high-tech munitions and delivery systems on display to the world as they leveled the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein in a matter of weeks.”

Kerry Voted Against At Least Eleven Military Pay Increases .

As Senator, Kerry Also Pushed To Cut Intelligence Funding By More Than $2.58 Billion. This is why OUR INTELLIGENCE isn't on par!

For example, at the end of the Cold War, Kerry advocated scaling back the CIA, but after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, he complained about a lack of intelligence capability.

In the 1980s, he opposed the death penalty for terrorists who killed Americans abroad, but he now supports the death penalty for terrorist acts.

In the 1990s, he joined with Republican colleagues to sponsor proposals to end tenure for public schoolteachers and allow direct grants to religion-based charities, measures that many Democratic groups opposed. In 1997, he voted to require elderly people with higher incomes to pay a larger share of Medicare premiums.

Kerry, of course, has struggled with his vote in 2002 to authorize the Iraq war. "We did not empower the president to do regime change," Kerry said of the resolution on Meet the Press last summer. Actually, the Kerry-supported resolution specifically cited regime change as a goal, and Kerry also voted to make regime change U.S. policy in 1998. That's two Kerry votes in favor of regime change, but who's counting? The Massachusetts senator has similar trouble with other prior votes, making him the first candidate in U.S. history to run a presidential campaign against himself.

Today's Kerry excoriates Attorney General John Ashcroft for violating American civil liberties with his evil tool, the Patriot Act. "We are a nation of laws and liberties, not of a knock in the night," Kerry huffs. "So it is time to end the era of John Ashcroft. That starts with replacing the Patriot Act with a new law that protects our people and our liberties at the same time." Maybe Kerry should have thought about that before voting for the Patriot Act in 2001 — since laws and liberties are pretty important and all.

Back before he had to worry about competing with one Howard Brush Dean, Kerry was positively delighted by the Patriot Act. "It reflects," he said on the Senate floor, "an enormous amount of hard work by the members of the Senate Banking Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee. I congratulate them and thank them for that work." While supportive of "sunset" provisions in the bill, Kerry pronounced himself "pleased at the compromise we have reached on the anti-terrorism legislation." These are not the words of a man about to help inaugurate an era of brown-shirt law enforcement.

John Kerry, A.D. (After Dean), attacks President Bush's No Child Left Behind Act as "one-size-fits-all testing mania." Worse, according to Kerry, "By signing the No Child Left Behind Act and then breaking his promise by not giving schools the resources to help meet new standards, George Bush has undermined public education and left millions of children behind." The funding charge is a canard — overall spending on education under Bush is up 65 percent — but it gives Kerry a way to join the Dean-led assault on the act, which he voted for — enthusiastically.

"This is groundbreaking legislation," John Kerry, B.D. (Before Dean), gushed on the Senate floor, "that enhances the federal government's commitment to our nation's public education system ... and embraces many of the principles and programs that I believe are critical to improving the public education system." He didn't just support the bill, he took credit for it: "Last year I worked with 10 of my Democratic colleagues to introduce legislation that would help break the stalemate and move beyond the tired, partisan debates of the past. Our education proposal became the foundation of the bill before us today."

As for the North American Free Trade Agreement, the target of Dean and other liberal critics, Kerry promises to "fix it." The agreement supposedly doesn't do enough to keep Mexico from employing low-wage workers, thus encouraging jobs to leave the United States and depressing wages here. True to form, he used to love the trade deal. "NAFTA is not the problem," he explained in 1993. "Job loss is taking place without NAFTA."

Lim, as an American I respect a Leader who says what he is going to do and sticks by his guns and stays the course!...From a translatic point of view, you feel your government would respect this Kerry? In my opinion, he would appear to be a loose cannon. If I were the leader of another nation with this guy in office, I would be thinking...I wonder what he is going to do this time cause he isn't stable...

At least with Bush, like him or hate him, you know where he is coming from, you know what he stands for. Truth, justice and the American way! Yes, Bush has made some calls that I don't agree with but all in all he's my man and trust me when I say that my wife is a DEM...I'm not being disengenuous...SHE voted for Clinton twice and she is voting for BUSH for the SECOND time.
 

zapper

Banned
Mar 11, 2004
2,495
0
0
Originally posted by limerickman
Re : the war in Iraq, on 19th May 2004, British Television had a one hour program produced by the distinguished journalist Jane Corbin.
I think it is fair to say that Jane Corbin, author and reporter for Panorama is indeed a distinguished journalist. She also broke a story on how the weapons inspectors were getting the "run-around" from Saddam! What I know of her is impressive! So, one can not take her report lightly... However comma.....

I don't buy that this inhumane treatment was ordered from the the Commander-in-Chief nor was it ordered by Rummy. It is possible to imagine that a few high ranking folks knew about it within the confines of the prison but I saw Englands smirk when she stated she was ordered to do it..I don't buy it.

Round and round we go, the discussion always has to come back to this prison abuse scandal. We all agree that treatment like discribe is dispicable. But I see that on the panorama section of the website, you can find headllines of this "abuse scandal" but no more mention of poor mr. berg and the culprits who performed the savagry...one more example of one sided media coverage.

I'm really a rational person, but I dare anyone to point out examples of conservative lopsided coverage on "public television". I know you will find it on talk shows such as Rush, Hannity etc, maybe FOX may lean to the right but show me some positive conservative spin on a majority of networks such as CNN, BBC, CBS, NBC, ABC worst of all PBS which, my tax dollars pay for spins the Liberal msg which I do not agree with.
 

keydates

New Member
Mar 9, 2004
882
0
0
On a semi unrelated note...I'm not sure if the major media corporations are very liberal or conservative. PBS and BBC do seem at least left of center. However, according to a relatively old pipa.org study, it found that those who watched PBS were less likely to have misperceptions about the war in Iraq than those who watched Fox.

But the others (ie NBC CBS) I'm not sure. It could be that they are just obsessed with whatever violence is going on. They seemed quite interested in glorifying the weapons technology of the US during the invasion. Now they like to talk about the latest car bombing/roadside bombing/uprising in Iraq. If you look at what the media does and does not report, it seems like a significant amount is about some sort of violence going on in the world and little is about some sudden advance in peace somewhere. The basic message is: Violence gets ratings. High Ratings=good.
 

Babbar

New Member
Aug 10, 2003
163
0
0
76
Originally posted by keydates
On a semi unrelated note...I'm not sure if the major media corporations are very liberal or conservative. PBS and BBC do seem at least left of center. However, according to a relatively old pipa.org study, it found that those who watched PBS were less likely to have misperceptions about the war in Iraq than those who watched Fox.


This a very interesting statement. Of course, you know, it depends entirely on who is the one who decides what a "misconception" is and what a "misconception" is not.

PIPA, you know, is a joint program of the Center on Policy Attitudes (COPA) and the Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland (CISSM), School of Public Affairs, University of Maryland. I don't know much of the reputation of the COPA, but there is no way that you could classify CISSM, or almost anything associated with the ultra-liberal University of Maryland, as impartial.

The truth of the matter is the press, from day one, has been focusing on every little, picayune incident that would put the President, the soldiers, and the war against terror in the worst possible light. Were it not for organizatons like Fox News, good news in Iraq would never see the light of day.

On whether the owners of the broadcast media are conservative or liberal, that point is ridiculous on its face. First, Disney owns one of the major broadcast networks and there is no way you could call them anything but radically left.

Second, Jack Welch, the former CEO of GE, which owns NBC, was asked after he retired how someone as conservative as he could allow NBC's news division to be so blatantly biased as had been charged.

The question was an obvious attempt to trap Mr. Welch into saying NBC wasn't biased. What he said astounded the questioner to such a point that the answer was almost suppressed, and would have been had not other reporter's from fair and balanced outlets been present.

Mr. Welch said as CEO of GE, his job was to make the maximum profits possible. His entire board of director's had the same goal. The news division of NBC, he said, was a very, very small part of his corporation and it made so little or lost so little money that it was not worth his time to worry about it.

Once and for all, the myth of "conservative" CEO's dictating news policy was blown out of the water. But, of course, the liberals refuse to accept this ironclad proof.
 

keydates

New Member
Mar 9, 2004
882
0
0
Didn't Disney block Michael Moore's Farenheit 9/11 from release in the US? He's as liberal as Rush is conservative.

And what were they asking Welch? Why does he let NBC be so liberal? Or so conservative?
 

limerickman

Moderator
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
115
63
Originally posted by zapper
I think it is fair to say that Jane Corbin, author and reporter for Panorama is indeed a distinguished journalist. She also broke a story on how the weapons inspectors were getting the "run-around" from Saddam! What I know of her is impressive! So, one can not take her report lightly... However comma.....

I don't buy that this inhumane treatment was ordered from the the Commander-in-Chief nor was it ordered by Rummy. It is possible to imagine that a few high ranking folks knew about it within the confines of the prison but I saw Englands smirk when she stated she was ordered to do it..I don't buy it.

Round and round we go, the discussion always has to come back to this prison abuse scandal. We all agree that treatment like discribe is dispicable. But I see that on the panorama section of the website, you can find headllines of this "abuse scandal" but no more mention of poor mr. berg and the culprits who performed the savagry...one more example of one sided media coverage.

I'm really a rational person, but I dare anyone to point out examples of conservative lopsided coverage on "public television". I know you will find it on talk shows such as Rush, Hannity etc, maybe FOX may lean to the right but show me some positive conservative spin on a majority of networks such as CNN, BBC, CBS, NBC, ABC worst of all PBS which, my tax dollars pay for spins the Liberal msg which I do not agree with.

It is evident that the invasion of Iraq is becoming a monumentel
disaster.

You keep referring to the liberal media - the consensus against the american actions in Iraq is not confined to the "liberal" media
as you suggest.
The media coverage of the story at Abu Ghuraib has been followed and reported by all media across all political opinion here
in Europe - from the conservative "Sunday Telegraph" to "The Guardian - LeMonde etc".
You country's currency - in political terms - is being devalued day by day.

The whole set of lies - and it has been a tissue of lies from day one - is slowly being splintered.
WMD - Nuclear/Biological weapons - Al Qaeda - "imposing democracy" - each and every lie perpetrated to get this invasion
under way has been been found uncovered.

As I have said to you earlier - I have no problem with anyone expounding a Republican viewpoint but Bush's Republicanism is
not what I could ever espouse.

Take the systematic torture of prisoners - is not about getting information.
You say you support your country's military forces.
What should be done to England, Grainer and Co ?
Do you endorse their actions ?
Or do you think that they should be tried ?

Thw Washington Post today states that your top general may have actually witnessed the torture in those prisons.
To publish this accusation, the Washington Post must have some evidence to back up same.

As regards our goverments attitude to Kerry - I cannot say.
What I can say is that political pressure is now growing here in Ireland and Europe to withdraw the invitation to Bush to vist here.
It is being suggested that the summit should take place in USA.
I agree with this view.
 

zapper

Banned
Mar 11, 2004
2,495
0
0
Originally posted by limerickman
As regards our goverments attitude to Kerry - I cannot say.
What I can say is that political pressure is now growing here in Ireland and Europe to withdraw the invitation to Bush to vist here.It is being suggested that the summit should take place in USA.I agree with this view.

Lim, as I stated earlier, there is a growing movement comprised of Vietnam vets who served with Kerry who are becoming more vocal...This is but one small example..I"ve heard/seen many more... I take it he would be welcome??? Yeah, I would like to see Europe boycott our President...That would be a smart move!


Former Military Colleagues: Kerry 'Unfit to Be Commander in Chief'
Marc Morano, CNSNews.com

Monday, May 3, 2004

"Hundreds of former commanders and military colleagues of presumptive Democrat nominee John Kerry are set to declare in a signed letter that he is "unfit to be commander in chief." They will do so at a press conference Tuesday in Washington.
"What is going to happen on Tuesday is an event that is really historical in dimension," John O'Neill, a Vietnam veteran who served in the Navy as a PCF (Patrol Craft Fast) boat commander, told CNSNews.com. The event, expected to draw about 25 of the letter-signers, is being organized by a newly formed group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
"We have 19 of 23 officers who served with [Kerry]. We have every commanding officer he ever had in Vietnam. They all signed a letter that says he is unfit to be commander in chief," O'Neill said.
O'Neill, an attorney in Houston, Texas, is no stranger to Kerry. O'Neill served in the same naval unit as Kerry and commanded Kerry's swift boat after Kerry returned to the United States.
Kerry's command of the PCF boat lasted four months and ended shortly after he received his third Purple Heart. According to naval regulations at the time, any soldier who received three Purple Hearts could request a transfer out of the combat zone.
Kerry and O'Neill engaged in a nationally televised debate in 1971 on "The **** Cavett Show" over Kerry's allegations that many Vietnam soldiers had routinely engaged in atrocities such as raping and cutting off ears and heads of Vietnamese soldiers and citizens. Kerry was the then spokesman for the anti-war group Vietnam Veterans Against the War.
"We are going to be presenting a letter that deals with Kerry's unfitness to be commander and chief that has been signed by hundreds of swift boat sailors, including most of those who served with Kerry," O'Neill explained.
"The ranks of the people signing [the letter] range from admiral down to seaman, and they run across the entire spectrum of politics, specialties and political feelings about the Vietnam War," he added.
Among those scheduled to attend the event at the National Press Club and declare Kerry unfit for the role of commander in chief are retired Naval Rear Adm. Roy Hoffman, who was the commander of the Navy Coastal Surveillance Force, which included the swift boats on which Kerry served.
Also scheduled to be present at the event is Kerry's former commanding officer, Lt. Cmdr. Grant Hibbard. Hibbard recently questioned whether Kerry deserved the first of his three Purple Hearts that he received in Vietnam. Hibbard doubted the severity of the wound and whether it resulted from enemy fire.
"I've had thorns from a rose that were worse" than Kerry's wound for which he received a Purple Heart, Hibbard told the Boston Globe in April.
Organizers are confident that Tuesday's event and the letter with hundreds of signatures would educate people about Kerry.
"It is one of the largest outpourings of concern about him being commander in chief that anybody could have in a presidential campaign, and it is by the people who know him best," O'Neill said.
'Unfit Commander in Chief'
Swift Boat Veterans for Truth maintains that Kerry's fellow Vietnam veterans are almost uniform in their disdain for his military service and anti-war protests.
"Not only a majority of the people who served with him feel that way, but a vast and overwhelming majority," O'Neill said. He added that more than "90 percent of the people contacted by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth responded to the request to sign their name, with only 12 declining to sign."
"Comrades who actually served with him, almost all of them, are opposed to him, and believe he would be an unfit commander in chief and intend to bring the truth of his actual record to the attention of the American people," O'Neill said.
He hopes the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth can reveal to the American people what he sees as Kerry's flawed character.
"In the military, loyalty between commanders and the troops serving them is a two-way street. We have here a guy that with all of us in the field, actually fighting the North Vietnamese, came home and then falsely accused all of us of war crimes at a time when the people in uniform couldn't even respond," O'Neill said.
"And he did that knowing that was a lie," he added.
'Real John Kerry'
B.G. Burkett, author of the book "Stolen Valor" and a military researcher, believes that Tuesday's event will not be dismissed easily by Kerry's campaign as a "partisan" attack.
"There are probably just as many Democrats amongst sailors who sailed swift boats as there are Republicans. What Kerry fails to realize is this has nothing to do with politics; this has to with Vietnam veterans who served, who have a beef with John Kerry's service, both during and after the war," Burkett told CNSNews.com.
"The American people do not know John Kerry, and hopefully the swift boat crews and other Vietnam veterans will make sure that the American public knows the real John Kerry," he said.
Jim Loftus of Kerry's press office referred questions about Swift Boat Veterans for Truth's event on Tuesday to spokesman David Wade. Wade did not return CNSNews.com's requests for comment. "
Copyright CNSNews.com
 

zapper

Banned
Mar 11, 2004
2,495
0
0
Here is another gem taken from the local newspaper which is usually a "Liberal" rag...

Kerry’s tactic could bring convention to new low
By DAVE ADDIS, The Virginian-Pilot

May 23, 2004

Before Friday, it seemed impossible to make the political parties’ presidential nominating conventions any less relevant, or any more boring, than they already are. But John F. Kerry, the presumptive Democratic nominee, might manage to do exactly that.
Kerry’s campaign is floating the idea that he’ll gladly accept his party’s presidential nomination, but he might not “formally” accept it at the Democrats’ convention in Boston at the end of July.
He might wait an extra five weeks to “formally” accept, so as to protect his right to keep spending as much money as possible, for as long as possible, on campaign advertising.
From a purely strategic standpoint, this makes sense. Kerry and President Bush both have pledged to use federal funds – limited to $75 million each – for the post-primary weeks of the campaign. That clock starts ticking at the moment either candidate accepts his party’s nomination, or Sept. 1, whichever comes first.
But since the Republicans hold their convention in New York five weeks after the Democrats hold theirs, that means Kerry’s $75 million would have to last five weeks longer than Bush’s – a significant and unfair disadvantage.
Hence the idea to delay a “formal” acceptance of the nomination.
If this happens, we’ll see a first in American political history – a nominating convention that ends with no official nominee. It will be like a Miss America pageant that ends with the crown still in the box.
Lawyers who specialize in this stuff were scratching their heads Friday, trying to figure out if the Kerry gambit is legal.
We should all watch the outcome carefully.
If the gambit works, I might consider spending boatloads of cash in December on Christmas baubles, as usual, but argue to the Internal Revenue Service that I didn’t “formally” accept my December paychecks until January – thus shoving a portion of my tax liability back a full year.
Or, I might buy a new car in November but not “formally” accept it until January, thus escaping a couple of months of personal property taxes.
Or, I might write a column for Wednesday but not “formally” submit it until Friday, thus giving me an extra couple of days to play golf.
It has been decades since a political convention actually counted for anything.
Both parties, sensitive to avoiding bad news while they’re in the spotlight, have so carefully scripted their speeches and “spontaneous demonstrations” that the whole show is about as exciting as one of those 3 a.m. infomercials for a magic weight-loss contraption.
It was hard to imagine, until Friday, how the conventions could get any worse. Now it seems it could happen.
All this scripted boredom has led the major networks, for several election cycles, to systematically cut back their convention coverage – which, in the end, reduces the public’s interest in the process.
One can imagine how exciting it will be to waste a couple of precious prime-time hours on a finale where the candidate weasels out of “formally accepting” the nomination in order to keep the cash coming in.
Perhaps instead of balloons and confetti, they can shower the dais with $20 bills.
Again, to be fair, there’s something to be said for both candidates squaring off for a finite period of time with the same financial resources. It keeps the playing field relatively level.
 

limerickman

Moderator
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
115
63
Originally posted by zapper
Lim, as I stated earlier, there is a growing movement comprised of Vietnam vets who served with Kerry who are becoming more vocal...This is but one small example..I"ve heard/seen many more... I take it he would be welcome??? Yeah, I would like to see Europe boycott our President...That would be a smart move!


The fact is that Bush's visit here on 25th June is part of the annual
EU/USA summit.
Our goverment hold the rotating presidency of the EU at present.

Political opinion in this country, opposes the visit of a US war
president.

Former Military Colleagues: Kerry 'Unfit to Be Commander in Chief'
Marc Morano, CNSNews.com

Monday, May 3, 2004

"Hundreds of former commanders and military colleagues of presumptive Democrat nominee John Kerry are set to declare in a signed letter that he is "unfit to be commander in chief." They will do so at a press conference Tuesday in Washington.
"What is going to happen on Tuesday is an event that is really historical in dimension," John O'Neill, a Vietnam veteran who served in the Navy as a PCF (Patrol Craft Fast) boat commander, told CNSNews.com. The event, expected to draw about 25 of the letter-signers, is being organized by a newly formed group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
"We have 19 of 23 officers who served with [Kerry]. We have every commanding officer he ever had in Vietnam. They all signed a letter that says he is unfit to be commander in chief," O'Neill said.
O'Neill, an attorney in Houston, Texas, is no stranger to Kerry. O'Neill served in the same naval unit as Kerry and commanded Kerry's swift boat after Kerry returned to the United States.
Kerry's command of the PCF boat lasted four months and ended shortly after he received his third Purple Heart. According to naval regulations at the time, any soldier who received three Purple Hearts could request a transfer out of the combat zone.
Kerry and O'Neill engaged in a nationally televised debate in 1971 on "The **** Cavett Show" over Kerry's allegations that many Vietnam soldiers had routinely engaged in atrocities such as raping and cutting off ears and heads of Vietnamese soldiers and citizens. Kerry was the then spokesman for the anti-war group Vietnam Veterans Against the War.
"We are going to be presenting a letter that deals with Kerry's unfitness to be commander and chief that has been signed by hundreds of swift boat sailors, including most of those who served with Kerry," O'Neill explained.
"The ranks of the people signing [the letter] range from admiral down to seaman, and they run across the entire spectrum of politics, specialties and political feelings about the Vietnam War," he added.
Among those scheduled to attend the event at the National Press Club and declare Kerry unfit for the role of commander in chief are retired Naval Rear Adm. Roy Hoffman, who was the commander of the Navy Coastal Surveillance Force, which included the swift boats on which Kerry served.
Also scheduled to be present at the event is Kerry's former commanding officer, Lt. Cmdr. Grant Hibbard. Hibbard recently questioned whether Kerry deserved the first of his three Purple Hearts that he received in Vietnam. Hibbard doubted the severity of the wound and whether it resulted from enemy fire.
"I've had thorns from a rose that were worse" than Kerry's wound for which he received a Purple Heart, Hibbard told the Boston Globe in April.
Organizers are confident that Tuesday's event and the letter with hundreds of signatures would educate people about Kerry.
"It is one of the largest outpourings of concern about him being commander in chief that anybody could have in a presidential campaign, and it is by the people who know him best," O'Neill said.
'Unfit Commander in Chief'
Swift Boat Veterans for Truth maintains that Kerry's fellow Vietnam veterans are almost uniform in their disdain for his military service and anti-war protests.
"Not only a majority of the people who served with him feel that way, but a vast and overwhelming majority," O'Neill said. He added that more than "90 percent of the people contacted by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth responded to the request to sign their name, with only 12 declining to sign."
"Comrades who actually served with him, almost all of them, are opposed to him, and believe he would be an unfit commander in chief and intend to bring the truth of his actual record to the attention of the American people," O'Neill said.
He hopes the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth can reveal to the American people what he sees as Kerry's flawed character.
"In the military, loyalty between commanders and the troops serving them is a two-way street. We have here a guy that with all of us in the field, actually fighting the North Vietnamese, came home and then falsely accused all of us of war crimes at a time when the people in uniform couldn't even respond," O'Neill said.
"And he did that knowing that was a lie," he added.
'Real John Kerry'
B.G. Burkett, author of the book "Stolen Valor" and a military researcher, believes that Tuesday's event will not be dismissed easily by Kerry's campaign as a "partisan" attack.
"There are probably just as many Democrats amongst sailors who sailed swift boats as there are Republicans. What Kerry fails to realize is this has nothing to do with politics; this has to with Vietnam veterans who served, who have a beef with John Kerry's service, both during and after the war," Burkett told CNSNews.com.
"The American people do not know John Kerry, and hopefully the swift boat crews and other Vietnam veterans will make sure that the American public knows the real John Kerry," he said.
Jim Loftus of Kerry's press office referred questions about Swift Boat Veterans for Truth's event on Tuesday to spokesman David Wade. Wade did not return CNSNews.com's requests for comment. "
Copyright CNSNews.com

I cannot attest to the veracity of what Kerry claims or doesn't claim about Vietnam.
I have no knowledge of those specific events 34 years ago.

I do know that the USA lost the war in Vietnam.

What John Kerry may or may not have said 34 years ago - to me,
if I was voting in November 2004, would not impact my decision.

What does concern me is the lies that a president told to his people and the rest of the world and has cost approximately 800
military lives - over 8000 injured soldiers (according to chief physician at Walter Reed Veteran Hospital) and which has caused
widespread misery in a country which has had it's disproportionate amount of misery in the past 35 years.
 

Chaim

New Member
Jan 24, 2004
43
0
0
Kerry wants to bring in the Arab World to the negotiations table. They don’t want to come. Why?
The Arab nations, despite that the fact the US is protecting them (Saudi Arabia, Egypt), do not want to see a Democratic Iraq. It will create problems in there nations.
They prefer to see the US fail and enjoy the blending of US Military.

What is the basis for Kerry’s idea?
 

zapper

Banned
Mar 11, 2004
2,495
0
0
Originally posted by limerickman
I cannot attest to the veracity of what Kerry claims or doesn't claim about Vietnam.
I have no knowledge of those specific events 34 years ago.

I do know that the USA lost the war in Vietnam.


Lim, this is just a question not a personal attack...You seem to know all there is to know about our current president for you worry about his "Lies" as you claim effect the rest of the free world. However, you seem to know absolutley NOTHING about a man who may be his succesor???? How can you be sure that he isn't a bigger liar? I have provided many examples of his lies....that you won't find on the front page.....

Secondly, it is better to have fought and lost than to have never fought at all......BTW I believe a democratic president got us into that mess....
 

zapper

Banned
Mar 11, 2004
2,495
0
0
Originally posted by Chaim
What is the basis for Kerry’s idea?

Depends on who he is talking to and what day of the month...Whatever his idea, I'm sure he will vote for it before he votes against it!
 

limerickman

Moderator
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
115
63
Originally posted by zapper
Lim, this is just a question not a personal attack...You seem to know all there is to know about our current president for you worry about his "Lies" as you claim effect the rest of the free world. However, you seem to know absolutley NOTHING about a man who may be his succesor???? How can you be sure that he isn't a bigger liar? I have provided many examples of his lies....that you won't find on the front page.....

Secondly, it is better to have fought and lost than to have never fought at all......BTW I believe a democratic president got us into that mess....

Before answering this - you tend to forget that I live in Europe.
We are not exposed to your presidential ads on TV - nor have we
had much exposure to Kerry.
We know he's a democrat - we know that he campaigned against the Vietnam war and we know that he married a rich Heinz heiress.

News about the candidates and what they stand for - in most
US presidential races - starts to become "newsworthy" here in Europe from July onwards.

My claim about the importance of the US election affecting the free world is very pertinent.

I don't know if Kerry lied or did not lie - the fact that you are regurgitating stuff from 34 years ago is surprising.
In any election I know of - what someone did or did not do 34 years ago is irrelevant.
34 years is a life time ago.

I cannot tell you if he is a bigger liar than Bush or not.
What I do know is that he has indicated that he will chose politicians who are professional and competent in his cabinet unlike Bush and his cronies.
Richard Holbrooke for example is a very competent politician IMO.

Finally, I have to quibble with any one going to war.
HAVE I MADE THIS CLEAR TO YOU ?
I HAVE NO QUIBBLE WITH BUSH GOING IN TO AFGHANISTAN - ARE
YOU CLEAR ABOUT THIS ?
What BinLaden did was terrible.
But to try to knit Binladen to Iraq - which is what Bush did, was a
lie.
Iraq and this american war - was a lie.
 

zapper

Banned
Mar 11, 2004
2,495
0
0
Originally posted by limerickman
Before answering this - you tend to forget that I live in Europe.
We are not exposed to your presidential ads on TV - nor have we
had much exposure to Kerry.
We know he's a democrat - we know that he campaigned against the Vietnam war and we know that he married a rich Heinz heiress.

News about the candidates and what they stand for - in most
US presidential races - starts to become "newsworthy" here in Europe from July onwards.

Finally, I have to quibble with any one going to war.
HAVE I MADE THIS CLEAR TO YOU ?
I HAVE NO QUIBBLE WITH BUSH GOING IN TO AFGHANISTAN - ARE
YOU CLEAR ABOUT THIS ?
What BinLaden did was terrible.
But to try to knit Binladen to Iraq - which is what Bush did, was a
lie.
Iraq and this american war - was a lie.

What is clear is you somehow can dig up and assimilate "miles" of information on Bush but now you say because information isn't delivered to your doorstep you know nothing? In this day and age of 24/7 coverage and electronic media??? Let me make this clear to you..I've provided evidence that he has lied up to this day not just 34 years ago! Second, HE (KERRY) Keeps bringing up his past, yes it is an issue if he is going to bring it up!

Lastly, we haven't been discussing Afghanistan, so you are losing it pal!

The issue is I have to quibble with you on continually bringing up the sos and calling Bush a liar, spouting how much better Kerry would be as President and you don't know jack about him which surprised me with all of your media connections ...ARE WE CLEAR?
 

limerickman

Moderator
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
115
63
Originally posted by zapper
What is clear is you somehow can dig up and assimilate "miles" of information on Bush but now you say because information isn't delivered to your doorstep you know nothing? In this day and age of 24/7 coverage and electronic media??? Let me make this clear to you..I've provided evidence that he has lied up to this day not just 34 years ago! Second, HE (KERRY) Keeps bringing up his past, yes it is an issue if he is going to bring it up!

Lastly, we haven't been discussing Afghanistan, so you are losing it pal!

The issue is I have to quibble with you on continually bringing up the sos and calling Bush a liar, spouting how much better Kerry would be as President and you don't know jack about him which surprised me with all of your media connections ...ARE WE CLEAR?

I'll write this slowly - so that you can read this slowly.

Bush is your president - all we hear about is the mess and the lies
he told you and the rest of the world.
Kerry is a candidate in your election - he hasn't perpetrated any lies like Bush has.

You accuse Kerry of lying - that's your preogative.
Clear ?
 

keydates

New Member
Mar 9, 2004
882
0
0
Neither Egypt and especially not Saudi Arabia can be considered democratic. And isn't there more evidence that Saudi Arabia supports terrorists than Iraq? It probably kind of looks two-faced that the US is waging a war on terror but yet supports a country that supports terrorists.
 

zapper

Banned
Mar 11, 2004
2,495
0
0
Originally posted by limerickman
I'll write this slowly - so that you can read this slowly.

Bush is your president - all we hear about is the mess and the lies
he told you and the rest of the world.
Kerry is a candidate in your election - he hasn't perpetrated any lies like Bush has.

You accuse Kerry of lying - that's your preogative.
Clear ?

Funny, I see no evidence you typed this any slower than the snails pace that you type other posts..If you typed it so slow, why the typo? Another Lie…is it that hard to tell the truth man?
 

limerickman

Moderator
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
115
63
Originally posted by zapper
Funny, I see no evidence you typed this any slower than the snails pace that you type other posts..If you typed it so slow, why the typo? Another Lie…is it that hard to tell the truth man?

Withdraw your false and malicious accusation
 

limerickman

Moderator
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
115
63
Originally posted by keydates
Neither Egypt and especially not Saudi Arabia can be considered democratic. And isn't there more evidence that Saudi Arabia supports terrorists than Iraq? It probably kind of looks two-faced that the US is waging a war on terror but yet supports a country that supports terrorists.

Keydates, I agree with you.

Saudi Arabia and Egypts human rights records are appalling.
I would also throw in Turkey as well.
Look at the way that the Turks treat the Kurds – it is terrible.
To western standards, what passes for human rights in these countries is terrible.
In mitigation, this sort of bahaviour in those countries has been the way for centuries.
Husseins appalling treatment of people, was tolerated – as is the behaviour of other
dictators in that region.
Terrible behaviour, yes.
But are we right to try to impose our values on that region ?

Historically, countries in the Middle East never had what we call parliamentary
democracies like we have in Western Europe for example.
These societies always operated on the basis of what we would probably define as
dictatorships ie the strongest man becomes leader of a tribe/society/nation.
To seek to try to impose western values in these regions is precarious at best.
None of the societies in the Middle East have ever sought to have western-style parliamentary democracy.

This is why the campaign to “impose democracy” is, in my view, contradictory.
To try to impose democracy where democracy was never called for by the people, is a contradiction.
Most people who understand and cherish democracy know that genuine democracy is brought about through a groundswell of popular opinion.
Democracy is not brought about because an expedient politician, living thousands of miles away, decides to meddle in the affairs of that country.
That’s not democracy.
 

Chaim

New Member
Jan 24, 2004
43
0
0
Originally posted by limerickman
Keydates, I agree with you.

Saudi Arabia and Egypts human rights records are appalling.
I would also throw in Turkey as well.
Look at the way that the Turks treat the Kurds – it is terrible.
To western standards, what passes for human rights in these countries is terrible.
In mitigation, this sort of bahaviour in those countries has been the way for centuries.
Husseins appalling treatment of people, was tolerated – as is the behaviour of other
dictators in that region.
Terrible behaviour, yes.
But are we right to try to impose our values on that region ?

Historically, countries in the Middle East never had what we call parliamentary
democracies like we have in Western Europe for example.
These societies always operated on the basis of what we would probably define as
dictatorships ie the strongest man becomes leader of a tribe/society/nation.
To seek to try to impose western values in these regions is precarious at best.
None of the societies in the Middle East have ever sought to have western-style parliamentary democracy.

This is why the campaign to “impose democracy” is, in my view, contradictory.
To try to impose democracy where democracy was never called for by the people, is a contradiction.
Most people who understand and cherish democracy know that genuine democracy is brought about through a groundswell of popular opinion.
Democracy is not brought about because an expedient politician, living thousands of miles away, decides to meddle in the affairs of that country.
That’s not democracy.

I agree with your analysis regarding the HISTORY of the Middle East. I disagree about the FUTURE of the people that live in this region.

The people of the region are just like you and I; every society, given the choice, would choose democracy.

The problem is with the leaders, the dictators, of these nations. They try to keep their people ignorance, suppress them, use religion to encourage violence, and use violence to control the mass.

They can all benefit from a Democracy.

Regarding your comment about a nation that tries to enforce democracy from a few thousand miles away: if they try to kill us, we should go after them, no matter what the distance is. It’s a small world after all.