It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Kerry - Just what should Vietnam mean?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 10 2004 @ 06:17 PM
link   
OK, this has been discussed many times but I seem to get the feeling that the vietnam vets do not like him no matter what the party affiliation.

Here are some of the things that I have found:







Now if this is true, does it really make you think of the dangers of having this man carry the football? ( I mean the Bushwackers can say what they want about the 'brains' of Bush, but this is serious.


Here is another one.....





This is scary stuff. Has he come clean? Look at this posted on the swiftboat site...:


NO! MR. PRESIDENT
"President Bush, we respectfully decline your call for us to stop our Swift Boat attack.

This is not about you!

Even if Hillary Rodham Clinton were John Kerrys opponent in this race, we would continue to reveal the truth. We are doing this to defend the honor of the 58,295 men whose names are on The Wall at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial and the millions of Vietnam Veterans who are living under a dark cloud placed upon us by John Kerry when he called us baby killers, rapists and murderers."

As for you, Senator John Forbes Kerry
You are the Great Pretender.

We know why you wont sign the Form 180 which would release all of your military records and not just the ones you selected.

All they ask is this:

"If you will sign the Form 180, apologize to Vietnam Veterans for lying in your Senate testimony and apologize for these two documents, we will shut down this website."


Why can t Mr. Kerry release the records? This guy scares me....



Another:







Was this Iraq war so wrong? Deaths are bad but what did we accomplish?


SENIOR CITIZEN LOSES JOB BECAUSE OF BUSH


I am a senior citizen. During the Clinton Administration I had an extremely good and well paying job.

I took numerous vacations and had several vacation homes.

Since President Bush took office, I have watched my entire life change for the worse.

I lost my job.

I lost my two sons in that terrible Iraqi War.

I lost my homes.

I lost my health insurance.

As a matter of fact I lost virtually everything and became homeless.

Adding insult to injury, when the authorities found me living like an animal, instead of helping me, they arrested me.

I will do anything that Senator Kerry wants to insure that a Democrat is back in the White House come next year.

Bush has to go.

Sincerely,

Saddam Hussein







This war is against INHUMANS, and if we back out, nor fiight it full force, what we could be seeing at some point in a Kerry Admin? I doubt that Kerry would just capitualte to Terror, but his history disturbs me. He "HURT" those he fought with.




SO in closing, I would like someone to at least attempt to justify to me why Kerry should be CIC with his history?


Remember we ahve a choice, neither is perfect but....






[Edited on 10-10-2004 by edsinger]



posted on Oct, 10 2004 @ 06:42 PM
link   
Edsinger your post are not longer for discussion but one side propaganda



posted on Oct, 10 2004 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Edsinger your post are not longer for discussion but one side propaganda



Oh really? Well as you can tell which side I fall but let me explain one thing. I am more ANTI-Kerry than I am Pro-Bush...It means something.If it is just
propaganda as you say, can you answer some of the questions that I posed?

Why do you feel that Kerry should have his military records sealed while the other side has been looking through Bush's for months? Is there something to hide? I think there is. American veterans, are overwhelmingly against Kerry and that should mean something. I want to know what is in his records if he wants to be the president. It is only fair.



posted on Oct, 10 2004 @ 07:17 PM
link   
Ed, I don't know what the point is. This game is dirty. Both sides are cause for extreme contempt, and to answer any of the questions would only serve to explain why ANY of it has one iota of meaning.

We all know that both candidates should not be in the white house. How about quiting the freeper invation here with the pointless driveby picture smears you seem to like so much.



posted on Oct, 10 2004 @ 10:39 PM
link   
I liked your post, edsinger. I really do think that this is something we seriously need to look at. I think this is something that we need to address. Of course, nobody's going to do that and pretty soon I'm guessing that the opposition will jump in with some bad stuff about Bush that they found on the internet. That is in fact what they like to do. No, never just address the question at hand, avoid it by bringing up other issues that even if proved wrong, they still divert attention away from this.
(Sorry. Went off into my own short rant)
Great post edsinger!!



posted on Oct, 11 2004 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Herman

Great post edsinger!!


Thanks! As I have asked and will do again, one simple question for the pro-Kerry crowd. Hell he might make a great CIC, who knows? BUT - Is it worth the chance when :


THE MAN WILL NOT RELEASE HIS MILITARY RECORDS! WHY?


Think about this a minute, Bush IS CIC, couldnt he get access to them? Couldnt he find out what is in them? Why then is he saying nothing but 'nice' things about Kerry's Nam record in public? Is it something that we the public CAN NOT find out? I ahve heard to decent explanation as to why not, yet the want ALL bush records released down to what time he took a dump in the Spring of 1972?


If you are honest, and you ask yourself Why? It should scare you.



posted on Oct, 11 2004 @ 12:40 AM
link   
Bush's lies has seen to the needless deaths of 50,000+ people. 1,071 of which are our own. Billions of dollars sunk into this debacle as well. All for something that has now been proven conclusively to have nothing to do with the War on Terrorism. Yes Kerry will not see to us getting out of the mess, but certainly there needs to be accountability for actions in our government. I know of no other way to hold Bush accountable for his actions other than to vote him out of office. Nobody else is doing anything about him. He has wrecked this country and caused far more harm than John Kerry could even dream of doing at this point.

[edit on 11-10-2004 by heelstone]



posted on Oct, 11 2004 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by heelstone
Bush's lies has seen to the needless deaths of 50,000+ people. 1,071 of which are our own. Billions of dollars sunk into this debacle as well. All for something that has now been proven conclusively to have nothing to do with the War on Terrorism.
[edit on 11-10-2004 by heelstone]


First, if Bush lied then be fair and say that Clinton, Kerry, MI6, CIA,KGB, Jordanian Intel, Egyptian Intel, Congress, the UN, Germany LIED ALSO. Can you do that?


I dont know how many times I have to say this. Iraq supported Terrorism. PERIOD. That is not debatable. If this war has nothing to do with terrorism, then why in the hell are all these fundementalists comming to Iraq for Jihad?

DENY IGNORNACE!



posted on Oct, 11 2004 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
First, if Bush lied then be fair and say that Clinton, Kerry, MI6, CIA,KGB, Jordanian Intel, Egyptian Intel, Congress, the UN, Germany LIED ALSO. Can you do that?

May 2001 Condoleezza Rice, Bush's National Security Advisor, made statements about Saddam not being a threat. She obviously reports to Bush on what actions need to be taken to help in maintaining security of the nation, correct? This means that anything Bush has said afterwards about Saddam being a threat was a lie. Either that or he was too stupid to pay attention to his National Security Advisor and doesn't need to lead our nation anymore.

As for the Clinton administration I have yet to read any contradictory statements from them concerning the threat of Iraq. Just the Bush administration. They may have been lying as well and I certainly do not support Clinton. I never even voted for the man. In any case, it wasn't Clinton who decided to invade and occupy Iraq, it was George W. Bush. And Bush needs to pay for that mistake.

International intelligence we have learned post Iraq invasion that they relied upon hearsay for a good portion of their work and thus either did not know or were lying along with the U.S. government to make a case for war.


I dont know how many times I have to say this. Iraq supported Terrorism. PERIOD. That is not debatable. If this war has nothing to do with terrorism, then why in the hell are all these fundementalists comming to Iraq for Jihad?

DENY IGNORNACE!

I'd love for somebody to prove that these were foreigners attacking the coalition in Iraq. Its more likely to be Iraqis themselves attacking and even becoming converted religious extremist terrorists as the military occupation of their country continues.



posted on Oct, 11 2004 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger

I dont know how many times I have to say this. Iraq supported Terrorism. PERIOD. That is not debatable. If this war has nothing to do with terrorism, then why in the hell are all these fundementalists comming to Iraq for Jihad?

DENY IGNORNACE!


I agree with heelstone, edsinger I don't deny that you have the right to voice your concerns about political candidates, but you cannot go now with what the government has found about Iraq, and the government has admitted, not MWDs. Thinking and actually having them is two different things, are many other countries that are a threat to US and I dont see our government invading them.

Edsiger bush lie about Iraq to get into Iraq at the cost of our troops our tax payer money and the lives of thousands of civilians in that country, if you can not accept the true then you are really in denial.

Now if you cannot accept that from your own government it means that you are on a personal mission.

Now if you have more access to intelligence that the president and you have your own reliable sources on what your claim them by all means maybe you will be able to get and an audience with the president and tell him yourself that you have proof of what your claim.



posted on Oct, 11 2004 @ 08:42 AM
link   
To Kerry Vietnam means this: he was tested by fire on the field of battle. EXPERIENCE not only leading but actually doing the hard work himself. That is something G.W. knows absolutely nothing about. He doesn't lead, he's LED by the nostrils by uncle Dick and uncle Rummy.

You believe the Swifties?
SAD, indeed. Why are they so angry with Kerry? It's simple. They will lie to their deaths about the atrocities they KNOW happened. The most angry of them most likely took part in them or stood by and did nothing while it happened. It's no more complicated than that.



posted on Oct, 11 2004 @ 08:44 AM
link   
y'all still miss the point. Saddam reportedly gave and suported terror! I ahve never seen 25k check from him, but it is pretty well agreed that he did. Same for Abu Nidal in Baghdad. HE supported terror.

As for WMD, ok ok Bush lied and nobody else did.....


Those of you that are saying these things, have you actually READ the 911 report? If you havent you will find it enlightening to say the least. Saddam was still a threat, with/without WMD. After 911, we changed the way we DEAL with threats.



posted on Oct, 11 2004 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

You believe the Swifties?
SAD, indeed. Why are they so angry with Kerry? It's simple. They will lie to their deaths about the atrocities they KNOW happened. The most angry of them most likely took part in them or stood by and did nothing while it happened. It's no more complicated than that.



Oh man, that is really sad. If that is the case then, why will John Kerry not release his military records? That is all the swifties are asking for, unless you count the apology, and that would only be needed if the records were released. How can you NOT see that?



posted on Oct, 11 2004 @ 08:52 AM
link   
Threat shmet. Come on, you've gotta be smarter than that. Saddam was NO threat. We had him thoroughly contained, sanctioned and disarmed by '98. How many reports do you need to grasp that? He couldn't do anything but send compensatory checks to PALESTINIAN family members of suicide bombers. Complete SEPERATE ISSUE.

Edsinger, why do you buy into this fear mongering? To say Saddam was involved with terr'sts and dangerous to our national security is simply laughable. He was a neutered goat by the dawn of the new millenium.



posted on Oct, 11 2004 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

You believe the Swifties?
SAD, indeed. Why are they so angry with Kerry? It's simple. They will lie to their deaths about the atrocities they KNOW happened. The most angry of them most likely took part in them or stood by and did nothing while it happened. It's no more complicated than that.



Oh man, that is really sad. If that is the case then, why will John Kerry not release his military records? That is all the swifties are asking for, unless you count the apology, and that would only be needed if the records were released. How can you NOT see that?


Kerry's records have been released. An apology?
For telling the truth. That's rich, indeed.



posted on Oct, 11 2004 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger

Originally posted by Herman

Great post edsinger!!


Thanks!


A Fecal nugget is a fecal nugget, meaning: no matter how much you polish a turd, it's still a turd. This isn't a great post anywhere else BUT Free Republic! Why even bother with this crap?



posted on Oct, 11 2004 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bout Time
Why even bother with this crap?


Because it's true. These are issues we need to address, and as usual you people just want to ignore them. Ask yourself. Take this outside just winning the argument and ask yourself: Why won't John Kerry release his military records? Arguably, his purple hearts were self-inflicted, his other medals were a joke, and he admittadly threw away, in his own words, "I dunno....6,7,8,9?". There is so much speculation that this man won't address. Don't you think he needs to before he gets your vote? You could be voting for a HORRIBLE person, and you'd never know it!!!! Bush released his military records, and still nobody can draw anything conclusive about his being "awol" other than those documents that Dan Rather had were FORGED.



[Edited on 11-10-2004 by Herman]



posted on Oct, 11 2004 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Herman
Because it's true.


Says who, and how can you trust them?


These are issues we need to address, and as usual you people just want to ignore them.


Why?


You could be voting for a HORRIBLE person, and you'd never know it!!!!


Ah HA, you have hit the nail on the head. Most American voters ARE voting for a horrible person (politically at least)



posted on Oct, 11 2004 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
Says who, and how can you trust them?


Well, you have a point there. It's really hard to trust anything now adays, but the swift vets have come foward saying these things, John Kerry has admitted to some of them, some of them are facts, and he won't realease his military records. If these weren't true, why would he hide them?



Why?


The same reason any issues need to be discussed. So that we'll know the truth about who we're voting for.


Ah HA, you have hit the nail on the head. Most American voters ARE voting for a horrible person (politically at least)


And since Kerry is slightly ahead in the polls, I understand what you're saying
hahaha




top topics



 
0

log in

join