Our Presidental Canidate

[dean51267]

George Bates, an officer in Coastal Division 11, participated in numerous operations with Kerry. In UNFIT FOR COMMAND, Bates recalls a particular patrol with Kerry on the Song Bo De River. He is still "haunted" by the incident:
With Kerry in the lead, the boats approached a small hamlet with three or four grass huts. Pigs and chickens were milling around peacefully. As the boats drew closer, the villagers fled. There were no political symbols or flags in evidence in the tiny village. It was obvious to Bates that existing policies, decency, and good sense required the boats to simply move on.
Instead, Kerry beached his boat directly in the small settlement. Upon his command, the numerous small animals were slaughtered by heavy-caliber machine guns. Acting more like a pirate than a naval officer, Kerry disembarked and ran around with a Zippo lighter, burning up the entire hamlet.
Bates has never forgotten Kerry's actions.

[twistedpair]

As much as I can't stand Kerry, that one sounds like urban legend.

[JakeAisA]

As much as I can't stand Kerry, that one sounds like urban legend.
The problem with this whole Vets for or against Kerry is how do we know who's saying the truth? And, how do we know that both sides aren't telling the truth as they say it. As Charles Krauthaumer said last night night on Brit Hume, this could be a case of both sides seeing different things as a result of the "fog of war". I can see that.
I will say this though: George Bush Sr. was shot down in WWII and none of his war accounts were never questioned by any of his fellow soldiers. The same is true of Bob Dole, but this can't be said of John Kerry.

[Ducatista]

[QUOTE=JakeAisA]The problem with this whole Vets for or against Kerry is how do we know who's saying the truth? And, how do we know that both sides aren't telling the truth as they say it. As Charles Krauthaumer said last night night on Brit Hume, this could be a case of both sides seeing different things as a result of the "fog of war". I can see that.
I agree, but what's interesting is that 19 out of the 20 swiftboat captains that were in Kerry's group say he is full of it. They are out & out calling him a liar. Why, after 35 years do they bring this up? They say it's because he is running his platform on the "fit for command" premise. He started his speach with "reporting for duty". They are saying he is not fit to be the commander in chief, based on their personal experience with him. They might still be pissed because of all his anti-war soilder bashing he did after he got out of Nam. Interesting stuff anyways.....
This election campain could get real ugly real fast, by both sides. I hope they stay on the issues at hand & their ability to do the job, and lead our nation forward.

[JakeAisA]

[QUOTE=JakeAisA]The problem with this whole Vets for or against Kerry is how do we know who's saying the truth? And, how do we know that both sides aren't telling the truth as they say it. As Charles Krauthaumer said last night night on Brit Hume, this could be a case of both sides seeing different things as a result of the "fog of war". I can see that.
I agree, but what's interesting is that 19 out of the 20 swiftboat captains that were in Kerry's group say he is full of it. They are out & out calling him a liar. Why, after 35 years do they bring this up? They say it's because he is running his platform on the "fit for command" premise. He started his speach with "reporting for duty". They are saying he is not fit to be the commander in chief, based on their personal experience with him. They might still be pissed because of all his anti-war soilder bashing he did after he got out of Nam. Interesting stuff anyways.....
This election campain could get real ugly real fast, by both sides. I hope they stay on the issues at hand & their ability to do the job, and lead our nation forward.
I agree. I think you'll see Bush totally distance himself from this book and this attack. There's no benefit to Bush if he comments on this book at all. All it does is bring up old history. Bush's strength is what he's done as President anyway.
Bush needs to make Kerry address the following in the debates and in his campaign adds:
1. John Kerry, if you were President over the last four years, would Saddam Hussein still be in Power today.
2. If you were President over that last four years, how would you have attacked al Quada any differently?
3. John Kerry, you say we're not respected in the world today. If you had been President over the past four years, how, without protest from the pacisifist "world community", would you have acheived the following:
--Destroyed the Taliban
--Convinced the country who put the Taliban in place, Pakistan, to help us destroy the Taliban and go after al Quada like they're doing now.
--Removed Saddam Hussein
--Created the first Demcoracy in the Middle East that isn't Jewish.
--Scared Iran into acknowledging they have a Nuclear program and then letting in UN Inspectors to investigate thier programs.
--Scared North Korea into doing the same and demanding "Uni-Lateral" negotiations with us so they can resolve thier issues us.
--Convinced Kodafi in Lybia that his best chance at remaining in Power is to totally give up his WMD programs and allowingUN Inspectors to witness it so it may be verifed before the world.
The list can go on, but these are the major accomplishments that Kerry and Liberals proclaim are actually failures.
These are not failures;they're extraodinary accomplishments. Only Liberals and the "UN Elite" attempt to call the destruction of evil and the creation free democracies a failure.
It tells you who they are. Look at what makes Liberals, Communists, Fascists and Democrats mad--freedom, the destruction of evil, the punishment of rights violators, etc.
Bush's record is historic--the Left's demogoging of what is good is just more of the same.

[gnarley]

Bush's strength is what he's done as President anyway.
What has he done other than foreign policy and spending like there is no tomorrow so your kids will be paying for it when they grow up? Please enlighten me and be nice about it, I would like to hear.

[hondo sanger]

:cool: my v-drive friends this time in our country. we need a strong leader
bush is the one. we don"t need the U.N. running our country.
as always AL

[JakeAisA]

What has he done other than foreign policy and spending like there is no tomorrow so your kids will be paying for it when they grow up? Please enlighten me and be nice about it, I would like to hear.
I agree, but not for your reasons I'm sure. Bet let's discuss the "Bush Spending" you're talking about.
1. 47% increase in Federal Education spending. This is outrageous. The only better way to burn money to actually burn it or give it away via Welfare. Education won't get any better. The problem has never been about funding.
2. Homeland Security. Do you not think we should have spent money on Homeland Security?
3. Defense Spending. Do you think we shouldn't have spend money on upgrading our weapons and defense systems? Everyone complains that we're "stretched thin" already. We're at War whether we like it or not, whether we have a President who acknowledges it or not. We need guns, bullets, missiles, planes, tanks and ships to fight terrorists and countries. We're not France--we can't cry for help when the shit hits the fan.
4. Intelligence Spending--Our intelligence community was designed to combat soverien nations like the Soviet Union. The whole intelligence community needed to be revamped and overhauled from top to bottom. This isn't cheap. Should we have not spent money on this?
5. The two wars we fought. Do you think we should have left Afghanistan alone because it might have cost us some $? Do you think the choice to remove Saddam Hussein and put the only truly thankful government in the Middle East in place should have been decided on $?
Note--this argument about $ over Iraq is a smoke screen. Liberals don't care how much something costs and they don't care that we spent money on removing Saddam Hussein. They appease dictators, fascists and murderers and they use $ as an argument becuase they don't want say out loud that think leaving people like Saddam Hussien in power is better then removing him.
You just can't say "Bush has spent like a drunken sailor" without talking about what he spent money on. Your argument sounds great until you scratch just below the surface. Why don't you tell me what items Bush has spent money on that you disagree with?
Also, I'm willing to bet that other then the items I've mentioned above, the only items you can mention that Bush has increased spending on is Liberal, Democrat puke transfer payment programs that you agree with.
Am I wrong?

[Dr. Eagle]

As much as I can't stand Kerry, that one sounds like urban legend.
I wouldn't be surprised if it were true, as he confirms some of the general ideas in the book... burning villages, etc. by his own admission in his demogogue before congress in 1971. But it will always be one groups word against the other.
Like I said in another thread... just look at his record on defense spending and programs... that's all you need to know. It clearly shows that this guy should be running for Prime Minister of France not President of the US...

[JakeAisA]

Hey gnarley, are you going to reply?

[gnarley]

Hey gnarley, are you going to reply?
Yeah I was going to :) I don’t always sit in front of my computer all day. I only seem to hear about his foreign spending, that doesn't mean I support it or believe what I hear. I just don't remember much spending at home so I hoped that you knew some and were kind enough to point it out to me. I don't care who does the spending, Dem or Republican; I just despise the way most politicians spend like there is no tomorrow and then want the little guys to pay it off again.
I seem to read and hear how Bush spends, not stating facts, just what I have heard that has helped shape my opinion. I am not as opposed to the war, but I am to what it costs! And now that were are in it we can’t leave meaning we will be spending a lot more regardless of who is elected.

[JakeAisA]

Yeah I was going to :) I don’t always sit in front of my computer all day. I only seem to hear about his foreign spending, that doesn't mean I support it or believe what I hear. I just don't remember much spending at home so I hoped that you knew some and were kind enough to point it out to me. I don't care who does the spending, Dem or Republican; I just despise the way most politicians spend like there is no tomorrow and then want the little guys to pay it off again.
I seem to read and hear how Bush spends, not stating facts, just what I have heard that has helped shape my opinion. I am not as opposed to the war, but I am to what it costs! And now that were are in it we can’t leave meaning we will be spending a lot more regardless of who is elected.
I was just trying to keep the thread on page one, no insult intended.
One thing though. Does it matter how much it costs to make sure buildings aren't knocked down like the World Trade Center? Does it matter how much costs to make sure someone doesn't park a nuclear weapon in front of the White House?
The same argument was made against Reagan for fighting the end of the Cold War the way he did. It's undeniable that Reagan's strategic military spending dealt the final blow to the Soviet Union. That war was really expensive, but think about what happened...America is the lone super power and, in my opinion, that was the best money spent since the money spent on Fat Man and Little Boy.
Nobody ever claimed World War II or the Manhattan Project was "too" expensive. Fighting Islamo-Fascism and Soviet Communism is just as important as fighting Nazis and the Japanese was in the 40's.

[Dr. Eagle]

[QUOTE=gnarley]Yeah I was going to :) I don't care who does the spending, Dem or Republican; I just despise the way most politicians spend like there is no tomorrow and then want the little guys to pay it off again.
I seem to read and hear how Bush spends, not stating facts, just what I have heard that has helped shape my opinion. QUOTE]
Not cutting up the quote to make you look tighty righty, Gnarly... just cut down to the points I want to address with you.
That being said, I agree with you 100%. It seems that the only difference between the Republicans and Democrats is what they want to spend it on... not if it should be spent or not.

[eliminatedsprinter]

I hear vets talk all day long. I hear very few of vets from any era say anthing in support of Kerry. It's about like these boards.
Of the 100+ vietnam vets I know, I know 0 who would vote for him and opinions of him range from he belongs in jail to he should be shot. But the vietnam vets opinions that I have heard are not based on what he did during the war. They are based on how he lied about them to congress after his tour. For this, the vietnam vets I have met seem to despise him to a man. What is amazing to me is that they seem to have all felt this way for a long time. They seem to have all heard about his testimony before congress when it happened and remember it as if it were yesterday....I don't talk about this much around vets, because Kerry's name brings up too much hostility amoung the vietnam guys. I think that is why I talk about politics on these boards, because I have to bite my tounge so much at work. Even though I agree with them, I don't say much, because the last thing the vietnam vets I know need is to feel more hostility twards Kerry. Most of them feel enough of that to last 2 lifetimes already. I would love to see someone take a large scale pole of vietnam vets opinions on Kerry and publish it before the election. From what I have seen, the results would prove very interesting.