What do you know about John Kerry the War Hero and why does it matter?
It matters because Kerry lied for most of his Reservist career and he is still lying about it today.
Kerry has the nerve to blast a National Guardsman when he actually was 'only' a reservist himself.
His 2 'tours' of Vietnam actually consited of 1 year on a ship in the gulf and he never got any closer than 50 miles to Vietnam. Is this considered a 'tour' of Vietnam?
His 2nd tour consisted of less than 4 months in country, in which he was shipped to different swift boats by his commanders just to get rid of him.
If you read this book, 'Unfit for Command, you will see how this 'Hero' got his purple hearts and medals.
I have had bigger wounds working in my rose garden. How did he get these medals? He lied and falsified statements and documents to get them so he could enhance his political career and get out of Vietnam early. This was Kerry's sole purpose in serving in the Navy Reserves., to enhance his political career. He was stupid enough to think nobody would find out.
When John Kerry left the Navy, he was on Inactive Reserve as all military are required to do. During that period he met with the Vietnameze Communists in North Vietnam and in France. Both of these are meetings Federal Offences and are considered treason. Explain to me how this man never served a day in jail for this? Not only is he a lier, he's a criminal to boot. I think when the Navy is done with their investigation, he should be arrested for war crimes. And to think some see him as a leader.
This thread should be renamed the Lies about John Kerry.
SWIFT BOAT SWILL
John Kerry told the truth: Over hundreds of official U.S. military investigative files from the National Archives offer new proof of Vietnam War atrocities committed by American soldiers. By Nicholas Turse
ohn Kerry is being pilloried for his shocking Senate testimony 34 years ago that many U.S. soldiers—not just a few "rogues"—were committing atrocities against the Vietnamese. U.S. military records that were classified for decades but are now available in the National Archives back Kerry up and put the lie to his critics. Contrary to what those critics, including the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, have implied, Kerry was speaking on behalf of many soldiers when he testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 22, 1971, and said this:
They told stories that at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam, in addition to the normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.
The archives have hundreds of files of official U.S. military investigations of such atrocities committed by American soldiers. I've pored over those records—which were classified for decades—for my Columbia University dissertation and, now, this Voice article. The exact number of investigated allegations of atrocities is unknown, as is the number of such barbaric incidents that occurred but weren't investigated. Some war crimes, like the Tiger Force atrocities exposed last year by The Toledo Blade, have only come to light decades later. Others never will. But there are plentiful records to back up Kerry's 1971 testimony point by point. Following (with the names removed or abbreviated) are examples, directly from the archives:
"They had personally raped"
On August 12, 1967, Specialist S., a military intelligence interrogator, "raped . . . a 13-year-old . . . female" in an interrogation hut in a P.O.W. compound. He was convicted of assault and indecent acts with a child. He served seven months and 16 days for his crimes.
"Cut off ears"
On August 9, 1968, a seven-man patrol led by First Lieutenant S. entered Dien Tien hamlet. "Shortly thereafter, Private First Class W. was heard to shout to an unidentified person to halt. W. fired his M-16 several times, and the victim was killed. W. then dragged the body to [the lieutenant's] location. . . . Staff Sergeant B. told W. to bring back an ear or finger if he wanted to prove himself a man. W. later went back to the body and removed both ears and a finger." W. was charged with assault and conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline; he was court-martialed and convicted, but he served no prison time. B. was found guilty of assault and was fined $50 a month for three months. S. was discharged from the army before action could be taken against him.
"Cut off heads"
On June 23, 1967, members of the 25th Infantry Division killed two enemy soldiers in combat in Binh Duong province. An army Criminal Investigation Division (CID) probe disclosed that "Staff Sergeant H. then decapitated the bodies with an axe." H. was court-martialed and found guilty of conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline. His grade was reduced, but he served no prison time.
"Taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power"
On January 10, 1968, six Green Berets in Long Hai, South Vietnam, "applied electrical torture via field telephones to the sensitive areas of the bodies of three men and one woman . . . " Four received reprimands and "Article 15s"—a nonjudicial punishment meted out by a commanding officer or officer in charge for minor offenses. A fifth refused to accept his Article 15, and no other action was taken against him. No action was taken against the sixth Green Beret.
"Cut off limbs"
A CID investigation disclosed that during late February or early March 1968 near Thanh Duc, South Vietnam, First Lieutenant L. ordered soldier K. to shoot an unidentified Vietnamese civilian. "K. shot the Vietnamese civilian, leaving him with wounds in the chest and stomach. Soldier B., acting on orders from L., returned to the scene and killed the Vietnamese civilian, and an unidentified medic severed the Vietnamese civilian's left arm." No punishment was meted out because none of the "identified perpetrators" was found to be on active duty at the time of the June 1971 investigation.
"Blown up bodies"
On February 14, 1969, Platoon Sergeant B. and Specialist R., on a reconnaissance patrol in Binh Dinh province, "came upon three Vietnamese males . . . whom they detained and then shot at close range using M-16 automatic fire. B. then arranged the bodies on the ground so that their heads were close together. A fragmentation grenade was dropped next to the heads of the bodies." B. was court-martialed, convicted of manslaughter, and sentenced to a reduction in grade and a fine of $97 per month for six months—after which time he re-enlisted. R. was court-martialed and found not guilty.
"Randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan"
While a U.S. "helicopter hunter-killer team . . . was on a recon mission in Cambodia," its members fired rockets at buildings and "engaged various targets [in a small village] with machine-gun fire. Gunship preparatory fire preceded the landing of a South Vietnamese army platoon, which had been diverted from another mission. A U.S. captain accompanied the platoon on the ground in violation of standing orders. The South Vietnamese troops, reconnoitering by fire, did not search bunkers for enemy forces, nor were enemy weapons found. . . . Civilian casualties were estimated at eight dead, including two children, 15 wounded, and three or four structures destroyed. There is no evidence that the wounded were provided medical treatment by either U.S. or South Vietnamese forces. . . . Members of the South Vietnamese platoon returned to the aircraft with large quantities of civilian property. . . . The incident was neither properly investigated nor reported initially." Letters of reprimand were issued to a lieutenant colonel and a major. The captain received a letter of reprimand.
John Kerry made it clear when he testified more than three decades ago that what he told the Senate was the cumulative testimony of well over 100 "honorably discharged and many very highly decorated" Vietnam vets who gathered in Detroit in early 1971. Calling their gathering the Winter Soldier Investigation, they were trying to raise awareness of the type of war they said America was waging in Southeast Asia. They were trying to demonstrate that the shocking My Lai massacre on March 16, 1968, of 567 civilians in a Vietnamese village—a barbarism unknown to the American public until late 1969—was not an isolated incident in which rogue troops went berserk, but simply one of many U.S.-perpetrated atrocities.
All these years later, neither the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT) nor the media feeding their allegations about Kerry's supposedly "false 'war crimes' charges" even broaches the subject of Vietnamese suffering, let alone talk about Kerry's exposition of large-scale atrocities, such as free-fire zones and bombardment of villages—gross violations of international law cannot simply be denied or explained away.
Having worked for nearly five years doing research on post-traumatic stress disorder among Vietnam vets, I understand the intense trauma experienced by many of them. However, having also spent years working with U.S. government records of investigations into atrocities committed against the Vietnamese by U.S. soldiers, it is patently clear which country suffered more as a result of the war, and it isn't the U.S., which tragically lost just over 58,000 soldiers. It's Vietnam. Perhaps as many as 2 million Vietnamese civilians died during the war, and who can even guess at the number wounded—physically and psychologically.
On its website, the SBVT tries to debunk the Winter Soldier Investigation by using the same rhetoric that apologists for the Vietnam War have long employed: They paint the vets who attended the Detroit meeting as a parade of fake veterans offering false testimony. "None of the Winter Soldier 'witnesses' Kerry cited in his Senate testimony less than three months later were willing to sign affidavits, and their gruesome stories lacked the names, dates, and places that would allow their claims to be tested," the SBVT claims. "Few were willing to cooperate with military investigators."
While numerous authors have repeatedly advanced such assertions, U.S. military documents tell a radically different story. According to the formerly classified army records, 46 soldiers who testified at the WSI made allegations that, in the eyes of U.S. Army investigators, "merited further inquiry." As of March 1972, the army's CID noted that of the 46 allegations, "only 43 complainants have been identified" by investigators. "Only" 43 of 46? That means at least 93 percent of the veterans surveyed were real, not fake. Moreover, according to official records, CID investigators attempted to contact 41 people who testified at the Detroit session, which occurred between January 31 and February 2, 1971. Five couldn't be located, according to records. Of the remaining 36, 31 submitted to interviews—hardly the "few" asserted by SBVT. Moreover, as Gerald Nicosia has noted in his mammoth tome Home to War, "A complete transcript of the Winter Soldier testimony was sent to the Pentagon, and the military never refuted a word of it."
The assertion that the vets proved uncooperative and refused to provide useful, identifiable information has also been a typical device used to refute the WSI. In this case, the Winter Soldiers themselves played directly into the hands of their detractors by trying to have it both ways: They wanted to expose atrocities as a product of command policy while denying individual soldiers' responsibility in committing the crimes.
At the WSI, veteran after veteran told of brutal military tactics, like burning villages and establishing free-fire zones. They offered blunt, graphic, and often horrific accounts of murder, rape, torture, mutilation, and indiscriminate violence. But when it came to perpetrators, the soldiers did not name names. From the outset, they made it clear that they would not allow their testimony to be used to, as they put it, scapegoat individual G.I.'s and low-ranking officers when, they said, it was the war's managers—America's political and military leadership—who were ultimately to blame for the atrocities. Because of this stance, some veterans told investigators after the WSI that they would not offer any further testimony or would only speak before Congress or a congressional committee. This stance became a convenient way for the military to stop work on cases and ignore the charges the anti-war vets had made.
But in fact—and despite later claims to the contrary by their pro-war critics—most of the Winter Soldier participants had publicly given accounts with their own names, unit identifications, dates of service, and sometimes rather detailed descriptions of locations—namely, all the information needed to proceed with investigations. In practically all the specific Winter Soldier cases, such probes were never done.
In an underreported revelation,recently released documents from the Nixon White House, unambiguously make clear that an order for genocide came directly from the Oval Office. Unhappy with the air force, Nixon tells Kissinger, "I want them to hit everything' in Cambodia." The faithful servant immediately conveyed the message to the Pentagon. "A massive bombing campaign in Cambodia. Anything that flies or anything that moves." Rarely in history has a direct order for mass murder been discovered and published.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just as with the Abu Graibe prison scandal, things done in the dark eventually come to light. Would the disclosure of the prison scandal be considered unpatriotic protest?
What have anti-zionists and arab terrorists got in common?
Where do you think these stories came from in the first place. John Fonda Kerry.
I assume you haven't read the book either. No suprise here.
You would believe on man because he is a Democrat but not 200 soldiers, some of whom are also decorated with the highest honor inour military. Why? Stupidity I guess.
"Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those who say this are witless." ~Ayatollah Khomeini
Let me repeat this. Your post should be called the Lies about John Kerry. The smear boat vets are nothing by right wing republican vets who've been discredited.
What have anti-zionists and arab terrorists got in common?
Show me where and I may believe you. Until then, you are just another left wing nut. I suppose old 'Square Jaw' told you this himself huh?
BTW- They are not all republicans. I know you would like to make it that easy but, it's not going to work.
Kerry is a whackjob who would do and did do anything to further his own career. When you figure this out for yourself, your denial will go away.
"Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those who say this are witless." ~Ayatollah Khomeini
Swift Boat Vets for Truth an Anti-Kerry Group is Anything but Truthful
By the IFK Editorial Staff
Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." That's a good reminder in this time of partisan politics.
Swift Boat Vets for Truth, a group with big money backing from GOP contributors, is running TV ads and touting a new book, 'Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry' which tries to discredit Kerry's Vietnam service. What they don't tell you is that none of the veterans in the group actually served with Kerry on his swift boat. They also fail to mention that one of the authors of the book, John E. O'Neill, was charged with attacking Kerry going all the way back to the Nixon years when Kerry was standing up against the Vietnam War. Another key claim by a doctor who supposedly treated Kerry's wound, is also disputed, as records show Kerry was treated by a different doctor.
IFK has compiled a comprehensive list of sites that clearly dispute the claims and give hard evidence of the misleading nature of these reports.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What Jim Rassmann has to say
Jim Rassmann was the Army Special Forces lieutenant whom Kerry plucked from the water. Rassmann has said all along that he was under sniper fire from both banks of the river when Kerry, wounded, helped him aboard. Rassmann is featured in an earlier Kerry ad, in fact, saying "he (Kerry) risked his life to save mine."
On Aug. 10, Rassmann wrote a vivid account of the rescue in the Wall Street Journal that contradicts the Kerry accusers. Rassmann said that after the first explosion that disabled PCF-3:
Rassmann: Machine-gun fire erupted from both banks of the river and a second explosion followed moments later. The second blast blew me off John's swift boat, PCF-94, throwing me into the river. Fearing that the other boats would run me over, I swam to the bottom of the river and stayed there as long as I could hold my breath.
When I surfaced, all the swift boats had left, and I was alone taking fire from both banks. To avoid the incoming fire I repeatedly swam under water as long as I could hold my breath, attempting to make it to the north bank of the river. I thought I would die right there. The odds were against me avoiding the incoming fire and, even if I made it out of the river, I thought I thought I'd be captured and executed. Kerry must have seen me in the water and directed his driver, Del Sandusky, to turn the boat around. Kerry's boat ran up to me in the water, bow on, and I was able to climb up a cargo net to the lip of the deck. But, because I was nearly upside down, I couldn't make it over the edge of the deck. This left me hanging out in the open, a perfect target. John, already wounded by the explosion that threw me off his boat, came out onto the bow, exposing himself to the fire directed at us from the jungle, and pulled me aboard.
Rassmann said he recommended Kerry for the Silver Star for that action, and learned only later that the Bronze Star had been awarded instead. "To this day I still believe he deserved the Silver Star for his courage," he wrote. Rassmann described himself as a retired lieutenant with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. "I am a Republican, and for more than 30 years I have largely voted for Republicans," Rassmann said. But he said Kerry "will be a great commander in chief."
"This smear campaign has been launched by people without decency," Rassmann said. "Their new charges are false; their stories are fabricated, made up by people who did not serve with Kerry in Vietnam."
CNN's Blitzer failed to probe partisan ties of Kerry critic
The May 4 Wall Street Journal editorial page featured an op-ed by John O'Neill about Senator John Kerry under the headline "Unfit to Serve." O'Neill is identified by the paper as having "served in Coastal Division 11 in 1969-1970, winning two Bronze Stars and additional decorations for his service in Vietnam." As Joe Conason wrote in Salon.com on May 4, O'Neill has long-standing ties to the GOP establishment, and O'Neill's own p.r. adviser has described O'Neill as sounding like "a crazed extremist."
O'Neill is one of several Vietnam veterans who have criticized Kerry and called into question the decorations he received for his service combat. O'Neill is associated with the newly formed group "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth," which held a press conference on May 4 that was promoted by the Media Research Center's Cybercast News Service and highlighted by The Drudge Report on May 3. According to Cybercast News, "Hundreds of former commanders and military colleagues of presumptive Democratic nominee John Kerry are set to declare in a signed letter that he is 'unfit to be commander-in-chief.'"
The Heritage Foundation's website Townhall.com became a vehicle for bringing O'Neill back to the current media spotlight. On April 2, Townhall.com published a syndicated column by Mona Charen -- and on April 8, David Horowitz's FrontPage Magazine published a timeline by Winter Solider.com -- both making brief mention of a 1971 debate between Kerry and O'Neill on The Dick Cavett Show in which O'Neill accused Kerry of lying about the activities and conduct of American military forces in Vietnam.
On April 20, O'Neill made his cable debut on CNN's Wolf Blitzer Reports. During the interview, O'Neill said that John Kerry told "damaging lies" about war crimes in Vietnam. He said, "We know the truth and we know that [John Kerry] is unfit to be the commander in chief." O'Neill continued, "I think you'll find people are very, very angry at John Kerry. They remember his career in Vietnam as a short, controversial one. And they believe only Hollywood could turn this guy into a war hero. I saw some war heroes, Wolf. John Kerry is not a war hero. He couldn't tie the shoes of some of the people in Coastal Division 11."
Though Blitzer acknowledged that questions were likely to be raised about whether O'Neill was speaking out against Kerry for political reasons, Blitzer conceded that he had not looked into O'Neill's partisan affiliations. "Maybe you're a Republican -- I have no idea -- or the Bush people are encouraging you," Blitzer said.
Houston lawyer John O'Neill is a Republican -- as the Houston Chronicle noted the day after O'Neill's interview with Blitzer. According to the paper, O'Neill voted in the 1998 Republican state primary. But O'Neill's ties to the Republican Party extend far beyond party affiliation. During the CNN interview, Blitzer reported that former President Richard Nixon had urged O'Neill to publicly counter Kerry on The Dick Cavett Show, but there is more to the story. O'Neill was a creation of the Nixon administration, as Joe Klein detailed in the January 5 issue of The New Yorker. Former Nixon special counsel Chuck Colson told Klein that Kerry was an "articulate" and "credible leader" of those veterans calling for an end to the Vietnam War and therefore "an immediate target of the Nixon Administration." As such, the Nixon administration found it necessary to "create a counterfoil" to Kerry. Colson recounted, "We found a vet named John O'Neill and formed a group called Vietnam Veterans for a Just Peace. We had O'Neill meet the President, and we did everything we could do to boost his group." Articles from the April 21 Houston Chronicle and the June 17, 2003, Boston Globe confirm close ties between O'Neill and the Nixon administration.
Beyond his role in the Nixon administration's strategy to undermine Kerry in the 1970s, O'Neill is also connected to Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist (a Nixon appointee) and to former President George H.W. Bush, according to Houston Chronicle articles from March 31 and April 21. In the late 1970s, O'Neill clerked for Rehnquist; in 1990, according to an October 7, 1991, report by Texas Lawyer, the former President Bush considered O'Neill for a federal judgeship vacancy.
USA1 said this in post #1 : When John Kerry left the Navy, he was on Inactive Reserve as all military are required to do. During that period he met with the Vietnameze Communists in North Vietnam and in France. Both of these are meetings Federal Offences and are considered treason. Explain to me how this man never served a day in jail for this? Not only is he a lier, he's a criminal to boot. I think when the Navy is done with their investigation, he should be arrested for war crimes. And to think some see him as a leader.
Are you being paid by the smear boat vets to perpetuate these lies?
The new Swift Boat Vets ad is wrong -- but you wouldn't know it from watching FOX
On September 22, the discredited anti-Kerry group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth released for television a spurious new attack ad. FOX News Channel's Hannity & Colmes (on September 21) and FOX & Friends First (on September 22) both aired the ad, but neither show reported on the ad's inaccuracies. The new ad claims that Senator John Kerry "secretly met with enemy leaders in Paris," and it repeats the group's previous false charge that Kerry "accused American troops of committing war crimes on a daily basis."
While the ad claims that Kerry "secretly met with enemy leaders," the Paris meeting to which the ad refers was not a secret, as The Washington Post noted on September 22 and as text in the ad indicates (words at bottom of screen: "John Kerry's Senate Testimony: United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, April 22, 1971"). The ad is referring to the meeting that Kerry described in his 1971 public testimony before the Senate: "I have been to Paris. I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government."
Kerry's visit to Paris was not to formally participate in negotiations with Communist leaders. According to the Post, the Kerry-Edwards '04 campaign said earlier this year that Kerry met with Nguyen Thi Binh, who was then foreign minister of the Provisional Revolutionary Government and a top negotiator at the talks. The Post went on to say that, "Kerry acknowledged ... that even going to the peace talks as a private citizen was at the 'borderline' of what was permissible under U.S. law, which forbids citizens from negotiating treaties with foreign governments. But the campaign said he never engaged in negotiations or attended any formal sessions of the talks." And as the Los Angeles Times reported on March 22, Kerry never supported formal meetings between North Vietnamese officials and American anti-war protesters: "Kerry recalled his opposition to VVAW [Vietnam Veterans Against the War] leaders meeting with North Vietnamese officials. 'I thought that would be disastrous to the credibility of the organization,' he said, 'to the people we were trying to convince about the war.'"
While FOX News Channel gave the ad free airtime without mentioning that its claims were false, CNN had not aired the ad in its entirety as of this writing. On the September 22 edition of CNN's American Morning, scenes from the ad were shown without audio while co-host Kelly Wallace reported that the "ad claims Kerry met with 'enemy leaders' during a 1970 trip to Paris." Wallace reported that the Kerry-Edwards '04 campaign responded to the new ad by pointing to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth's lack of credibility and by stating that Kerry "went to Paris on a mission to get American prisoners of war released and to end the war." As of noon on September 22, MSNBC had neither aired nor reported on the ad.
I love how you can simply sweep aside the decorated soldiers dead and living to support one of the biggest liers in the history of American politics.
I hope this all get's out because Nixon will look like a boy scout compared to this whackjob.
Don't take my word for this or Israelis for ever.
Find out for yourself, read the book. It only took me 7 hours so I think you can spare your hero that much time.
If John Kerry isn't a lier, I expect all 200 Swifties to get sued by John Edwards at some point. But we know that's not going to happen don't we.
John Kerry needs to open his records, if he isn't lying, he has nothing to lose. And he will go down as one of the biggest heros of Vietnam. With 3 Purple Hearts and 2 other medals in 3 and 1/2 months, he's a shoe in.
It's only fare.
These aren't my claims buddy, It's fact and all of it is documented. The Navy knows it, his old commrads know it and so does Kerry.
I saw John Kerry on the news claiming he is a War Hero. Let's prove it.
I say he's a traitor but, hey that's just me. I'm just another Democrat voting for Bush.
"Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those who say this are witless." ~Ayatollah Khomeini
First the name isn't Israelis for ever. It is IsraelIs4Ever or for you Israel Is For Ever.
I have already spent time providing you with information about the lies your smear vote vets have leveled. You perpetuate the same lies which makes you no better than the smear vote vets.
To claim that I swept aside dead decorated soldiers is a further lie. Not only are you perpetuating lies about Kerry but now you're perpetuating a lie about me.
You say these aren't your claims but FACT and the Navy knows it. I say your full of malarkey. The Navy just announced they investigated the charges about Kerry's medals and found no problems with the issuance of those medals. They just crushed your smear vote vets claims.
Hey I think you and smear vote vets are full of it but hey that's just me. I'm just a former Republican who's voting for Kerry.
What have anti-zionists and arab terrorists got in common?
IsraelIs4Ever said this in post #11 : I have already spent time providing you with information about the lies your smear vote vets have leveled. You perpetuate the same lies which makes you no better than the smear vote vets.
First of all, this "information" you provide is nothing more than commentary. Many of the "facts" you provide are blatantly false and easily disproved. You claim NONE of the swift boat vets ever served on Kerrys boat?
quote:
"My name is Steve Gardner. I served in 1966 and 1967 on my first tour of duty in Vietnam on Swift boats, and I did my second tour in '68 and '69, involved with John Kerry in the last 2 1/2 months of my tour. The John Kerry that I know is not the John Kerry that everybody else is portraying. I served alongside him and behind him, five feet away from him in a gun tub, and watched as he made indecisive moves with our boat, put our boats in jeopardy, put our crews in jeopardy... if a man like that can't handle that 6-man crew boat, how can you expect him to be our Commander-in-Chief?"
5 feet seems pretty close to not ever served with him.
You also mention the famous "medals". If they are so legitimate, why is Kerry so fiercely protective of his military and medical documents? Obviously, whatever is in there must be pretty unflattering, or why else not sign the release form and show America how much he suffered under those self inflicted.....uh.....I mean......devastating injuries he incurred while running down a retreating teenage combatant and shooting him in the back. Maybe the shame of commiting the countless war crimes he freely admits to generated some adverse paperwork.
I have a question, would all of you submit to body cavity searches to look for drugs at the airport (or walking down the street) even if they really have no reason to search you? Just because people want to keep their privacy rights, doesn't mean they have something to hide.
Moreover, just because a group of people come and attack me with stories that can't be proven, I feel no reason to get pulled into them trying to tarnish me.
If you have nothing to hide, then body cavity searches should be mandatory for everybody... (I don't know who would submit to such an idea)
I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody.
- Bill Cosby
The guy who takes a chance, who walks the line between the known and unknown, who is unafraid of failure, will succeed.
- Gordon Parks
Let Kerry sign the 180 and all this will be a moot point.
Kerry is now doing the same thing to Iraq that he did to Viewnam in the '70s.
If he wants to continue on that path, I think he should go meet with Zaquawi and OBL and discuss another U.S. surrender as he did with the communists in Hanoi and Paris.
This man is a traiter in my eyes and those of many other vets, not just the Swifties.
You may want to go ppick up a copy of John Kerry's book, "The New Soldier", that is if you can find one. He had them pulled from the shelves. Ii am sure you may find a copy at the local library as I did.
All I can say is do the research. Read the books. His and the Swifties. Then tell if you think he is still a great American Hero. Like many of the Vietnam Vets he interviewed for his testamony to the Senate, much of what he says is a fabrication and a lie. Many of those so call Vietnam Vets, never served at all and many never left the states. His main man even lied about his service and wounds and never set foot in country. This is also documented fact.
You, my friend have been bamboosled.
"Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those who say this are witless." ~Ayatollah Khomeini
Exactly in the beginning kerry supports the war because he knows it is right but after the public opinion changes kerry changes his opinion about it and supports the "public" (which is actually not the publics descision in this case it is just the people who make more noise). If we have a president who makes decisions and then doesnt support them when the times get tough, are country is in trouble. That is exactly what kerry will do.
09-23-2004 05:03 PM
