Swiftboat video #2

http://humaneventsonline.com.edgesuite.net/unfit_video2.html













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

It is sick that the Kerry camp/anti-Bush camp can't accept the error of their thinking.

Yes SICK! To think that they would rather have this sicko be president instead of the MAN, BUSH! As a veteran and a human being Kerry makes me want to vomit. Bush makes me proud, as every American SHOULD be.

Yes kerry is a bastard and he talks outa his ass he makes statements but when the trail comes to an end there is no solutions to his supposed profetic like statements to aid the country.

i think it is time for people to start telling us why we should vote for bush rather then reasons why we shouldn't vote for kerry

same to the kerry supporters. how about some reasons to vote for kerry. we already now what bush is all about.

Isn't that a contradiction? You just said we should give reasons to vote for Bush and then say you already know what Bush is about. :screwy:













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

Isn't that a contradiction? You just said we should give reasons to vote for Bush and then say you already know what Bush is about. :screwy:

He was obviously asking for reasons beyond what he knows.

Well?

Isn't that a contradiction? You just said we should give reasons to vote for Bush and then say you already know what Bush is about. :screwy:


sorry it was late and i was tired. but carrrnuttt is right. give me reasons beyond the regular old bs. the fact that all anyone ever runs is smear campains on the oppistion. shows a real lack of confidence in your candidate.

He was obviously asking for reasons beyond what he knows.

Well?


Well what? :uhoh:


Are you getting stressed out? You've been unitelligable lately.













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

sorry it was late and i was tired. but carrrnuttt is right. give me reasons beyond the regular old bs. the fact that all anyone ever runs is smear campains on the oppistion. shows a real lack of confidence in your candidate.

Showing dislike for one does not mean there isn't things to like about someone else. They are mutually exclusive. So if someone says something bad about the Canadiens, then there is nothing good to say about the Maple Leafs? :screwy:


I started this thread out with nothing more then a link to a commercial that does bash Kerry. A few get so bent out of shape demanding that no smear happen, but instead, I should be posting positive things about Bush. I'll have to keep that in mind the next time some of the same people put up something negative about Bush. I'm a bit new at this so from now on when we see those we should bitch about the person not saying something positive about Kerry.

I love the logic (hypocracy) around here - it keeps me entertained :iceslolan













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

All this garbage about whether or not Kerry "deserved" his first Purple Heart, whether or not he was actually "in combat" or not is really starting to piss me off.

Rove's propeganda machine keeps bringing up the question Was Kerry in combat on Dec. 2, 1968?

The question isn't whether or not Kerry was in Vietnam, he was.

The question isn't whether or not Kerry was in command of a swift boat, he was.

The question isn't whether or not Kerry was wounded that night after opening fire, he was.

The question seems to be the definition of "combat". It seems all too often that question is trying to be answered by people who haven't even seen combat.

So was Kerry in combat on Dec. 2, 1968? Whatever he was in, I guaren-goddamn-tee you it was a lot closer to combat than ANYTHING Bush has ever seen in his life. At least Kerry had the courage to serve in the same country that combat was actually taking place.

So the question that needs to be answered isn't where Kerry was on Dec. 2, 1968.

Where was George W. Bush on Dec. 2, 1968?

http://www.angryfinger.org/archives/where_was_george_w_bush_on_dec_2_1968.html

No the question is more relative what Kerry claims! He claims things that simply are not true.
Where was Bush? It doesn't matter where HE was. He isn't claiming to be anywhere he was not. He isn't the one who is the liar here. Kerry is.

So when a question is asked about Kerry - its really about Bush?

Wow - the ABB crowd is falling apart at the seams :lol:













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

Where was Bush? It doesn't matter where HE was.

Bush was a war hero.

His son was a spineless worm though.Don't vote for him again,unless cowardice is a virtue in your eyes.

So not serving in a war makes one a coward? How many cowards are here? Show of hands.

Where was Kerry on Christmas 1968? Millions of people know where he wasn't only kerry thinks he was where he stated to be.

For decades, John Kerry has told anyone who'd listen that at Christmas 1968 he was on an illegal mission inside Cambodia. On the floor of the Senate in 1986, while attacking President Reagan for turning Central America into another Vietnam quagmire (wrong as usual), Kerry said: "I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by the Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the President of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared – seared – in me."



On December 24 1968, Kerry was at Sa Dec – that's well inside Vietnam, 55 miles from the Cambodian border – and waxing wistful to his diary about a quiet Christmas far from home: "Visions of sugarplums really do dance through your head and you think of stockings and snow and roast chestnuts and fires with birch logs and all that is good and warm and real. It's Christmas Eve."

Bush was a war hero.

His son was a spineless worm though.Don't vote for him again,unless cowardice is a virtue in your eyes.

Where were you?

at home,in England, in my primary school classes.Had I been conscripted,I would have gone.Even at the age of 5 I had the understanding that if someone in authority tells you to do something,you do it to the best of your abilty.


Anyways, back to swift boats........

http://www.telluridegateway.com/articles/2004/08/20/news/opinion/opinion01.txt

Letters to the editor








A veteran for truth

Dear Editor,

This letter is in response to the new attacks on John Kerry's war record by a group calling itself the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth." As for most veterans of any war and as people who know me will testify, it is not easy for me to talk about my experiences in Vietnam. However, because of these new ads and, I understand, a new book recently published by an old Charles Colson "Enemies List" hit man, I feel compelled to speak out. Unfortunately, the veterans featured in these attacks are being used by extreme right wing Bush supporters to spread their lies and malign John Kerry.

I feel that most of these veterans who are joining this attack are against Kerry for what he did after he was home from the war than for what he did in the war. If they are against him for his stance against the Vietnam War, that certainly is their right, but to spread lies and malicious innuendos about his time on the rivers of Vietnam is not morally right and does a disservice not only to Kerry, but to all those who served and were wounded or died in that war. The people who are using these veterans for their own means obviously do not care about that. They did the same thing to Senator John McCain and Congressman Max Cleland in 2000 with no remorse or care for the consequences.

To me what is worse is that by their silence, the current administration has not, with any real meaning, disavowed itself or distanced itself in anyway from any of these scurrilous attacks, past or present. I feel that this truly shows the Bush administration for what they really are and ultimately, who is truly responsible for these attacks.

Since I happened to be along on one of the "excursions" where the boats that we were on were attacked and after which Lt. Kerry was cited for valor, I thought it appropriate to give my recollection of that event. This happened on March 13, 1969. I was assigned as Psychological Operation Officer for the Swift Boat group out of An Thoi, Vietnam, from January 1969 to October 1969. As such, I was on No. 43 boat, skippered by Don Droz who was later that year killed by enemy fire. We were second in line while exiting the river and going through the opening in a fish trap when a mine blew up under the No. 3 boat directly in front of us and we started taking small arms fire from the beach. Almost immediately, another mine went off somewhere behind us. All boats, except the one hit, immediately wheeled toward the beach that most of the fire came from (a tactic devised by Lt. Kerry, I later learned) and commenced showering the beaches with so much lead, that it could probably be now mined there. The noise was of course, deafening.

Three things that are forever pictured in my mind since that day over 30 years ago are: (1) The No. 3, 50-foot long, Swift boat getting huge, huge air; John Kerry thought it was about two feet. (He was farther away from it than I). I think it was at least four feet and probably closer to six feet; (2) All the boats turning left and letting loose at the same time like a deadly, choreographed dance and; (3) A few minutes later, John Kerry bending over his boat picking up one of the rangers that we were ferrying from out of the water. All the time we were taking small arms fire from the beach; although because of our fusillade into the jungle, I don't think it was very accurate, thank God. Anyone who doesn't think that we were being fired upon must have been on a different river.

The picture I have in my mind of Kerry bending over from his boat picking some hapless guy out of the river while all hell was breaking loose around us, is a picture based on fact and it cannot be disputed or changed. It's a piece of history drawn in my mind that cannot be redrawn. Sorry, "Swift Boats Veterans for the Truth"- that is the truth.

To say that John Kerry or any of us were on that river to intentionally collect Purple Hearts really does every soldier and sailor, past and present, a disservice. We were going up those rivers (with an ongoing casualty rate of 86 percent at the time) on the orders of the same people who approved of Kerry's medals and who are now joining in the attacks against Kerry. Unbelievable.

I would hope that the American public sees these evil extreme right wing attacks for what they really are and also pray that the veterans being used by these unpatriotic right wing extremist political operatives will divorce themselves immediately from them and speak to the real issues as to why they oppose John Kerry. I just don't understand how anyone can align themselves with those who intentionally and gleefully painted a decorated triple amputee (Max Cleland) from Vietnam as unpatriotic. I think that this is the most disastrous, un-American thing that can be done to our servicemen and women, especially now with another unending war going on. Your ends cannot possibly justify these means. Come on!

Jim Russell

Vietnam veteran,

USN (1966-71)

Naki that is only one for and there are many against.

I am not saying Kerry wasn't in Vietnam but what he said he did is a lie.

People are lining up their vetrens who were there with different stories and believing whomever they want. Considering Kerry's track record in the Senate (what little there is over the last 20 years), its hard to believe much of anything he says.













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

Just an observation.......there were probably only 4-6 guys on the boat commanded by Lt Kerry. From the accounts that I have read,there was a fair amount going on that day.I find it pretty hard to believe that every crew member on every boat seems to know exactly what ONE man was doing,despite the appearance that they were under attack from small arms and mines,and returning as much fire as they could muster.

I'll go along with veteran Jim Russell's argument.What is being presented as the truth 35 years later is a cumulative recollection of the days' events and subsequent recollections of Senator Kerry's actionsEverything is coloured by personal opinion. If you respect the guy ,he was a hero,if you detest the guy,it never happened.

The reality is, it was 35 years ago.Think back to a defining moment in your life that far back [if indeed your life goes that far back] and try to remember the detail.It's unlikely that you can,andthe mind can play tricks. Hell,I can't even remember the names of the 40 or so people present on my wedding day,and that was only half as many years ago.... Trying to recall who did what ,said what,and to whom would be unrealistic.One thing is for certain,the guy who is most likely to remember for certain is Mr.Kerry.The man who saw active duty.The man who was definitely there.Unlike the other candidate.

I know I can't remember much from when I was two, but I understand the point of hazy memory going back over three decades.

There are several decorated vetrens on each side of the arguement who were there with him the days he was in battle. Clearly someone is not telling the truth. Even if we set aside the natural tendancy to believe a politician lies or that the person on the other side of the political spectrum lies - there are valid questions as to what really happend all those days ago that Kerry is staking so much of his campaign on.

Things that add to that speculation are his unwillingness to release his military records. Now I know that won't placate everyone. The recent example of people were clammoring for Bush's and nothing of any substance could be found to turn into a campaign add (except for the ABB crowd who doesn't need convincing). He can release his and answer the questions for the people who really wonder what happend during his tour.

The next thing that I just shake my head at is the notion that Bush is panned because he was in the National Guard while Kerry was in Vietnam. Many of the these people were telling me that military service wasn't a requirement when Clinton was running for office (he spent his time out of the country) against a decorated WWII vet in Bob Dole. I can't say that it makes a difference, but it would be nice for a little consistency.

Thomas Sowell had a good article on the topic (which I was using in part for my post above)
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20040823.shtml

It is a painful reflection on the political atmosphere today that, in an era when nuclear devastation may strike American soil within our lifetime, courtesy of terrorists supplied with nuclear weapons by North Korea or Iran, we are arguing about what did or didn't happen in Vietnam more than 30 years ago.

I don't know where John Kerry was on Christmas 1968. In fact, I'm not sure where I was that Christmas. Moreover, it shouldn't matter in a Presidential election in 2004.

Unfortunately, Senator Kerry himself has made it matter by incessantly parading his four months in combat long ago. There are men who served in combat for years, who have sustained devastating wounds in battle, and who have won the Congressional Medal of Honor, who don't talk about it as much as John Kerry does.

Now other decorated combat veterans who served in the same unit as Kerry have come forward to give a completely different account of the same events that Senator Kerry has described. Who are we to believe?

There are discrepancies admitted on both sides, as might be expected about events so long ago. By and large, however, the stories being told are too sharply different for mere lapses of memory to be responsible. Somebody is obviously lying.

Those of us who were not there might just let the matter rest, except for what is happening today, in the media. Instead of answering the charges themselves, those in the Kerry camp -- and this includes people in the media -- are distracting attention away from the charges with tangential attacks on the other Vietnam veterans.

Liberal columnist Albert Hunt, for example, has said that the efforts of the veterans are backed by a "fat cat" who is making their book -- "Unfit for Command (http://www.thbookservice.com/BookPage.asp?prod_cd=c6527)" by John O'Neill -- and their television ads possible.

This charge is wholly circular. When people like billionaire George Soros back liberal causes they are never called "fat cats." So anything on the other side that requires money will be backed by "fat cats," as the liberal media will call them, even if these cats are a lot leaner than George Soros.

On "The News Hour with Jim Lehrer" columnist Tom Oliphant kept referring to the veterans' charges as a "tabloid" story that would not reach the high journalistic standards required to have it taken seriously.

Oliphant kept snidely repeating the "tabloid" line so often that eventually Jim Lehrer reminded him that the story was being covered on his program, which he obviously does not regard as tabloid. The Vietnam veterans have been on other programs that no one would call tabloid and whose journalistic standards are at least as high as Oliphant's.

These and other attempts at distracting from the Vietnam veterans' charges have to raise suspicions. Senator Kerry's demand that President Bush repudiate these charges against him ignores the fact that Bush was not there. Nor has Kerry repudiated gross insults against Bush, including those by Michael Moore, Whoopi Goldberg, and others.

Some have argued that an official government citation ought to be conclusive proof that Kerry is telling the truth. But what was that citation based on, other than Kerry's own report? Others who were on the same scene say that there was no enemy fire and that none of the other officers filed any report of enemy fire.

The same people who now say that an official government report should be conclusive proof did not regard George W. Bush's honorable discharge from the National Guard as conclusive at all as to whether he had fulfilled his service obligation.

The distraction tactic extends far beyond this controversy over two versions of what happened in Vietnam decades ago. Indeed, Senator Kerry's constant invoking of Vietnam is itself a distraction from his own record in the Senate during the many years since then.

In an age of international terrorism, Senator Kerry's years of voting repeatedly to cut the military budget and the budget of the intelligence agencies are very relevant, despite all attempts to distract attention from that record by talking about Vietnam or by loudly repeating words like "strong," "strength" and "tough."













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

this ofcourse is the problem with politics and even history. it is always tainted by someones opinion. the only thing you can do is get as many sides of the story link the like facts. i don't care about kerry's war record. just like i don't care about bush's. the fact that they could lie about it means nothing. fireing a gun and killing people doesn't really prove you can run a country in the best interest of the people.

we have seen bush do a lot things i personally don't argee with. others may. it is there choice. i don't know anything about kerry other than what i read here and the few sites and news paper articles.

i can't throw my support on either side.