Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 25, 2014, 06:38:43 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Election Archive
| |-+  2004 U.S. Presidential Election
| | |-+  2004 U.S. Presidential Election Campaign
| | | |-+  9 out of 10 of Kerry's swift mates say he's a hero
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Print
Author Topic: 9 out of 10 of Kerry's swift mates say he's a hero  (Read 5388 times)
○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31932


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: August 05, 2004, 10:04:49 pm »
Ignore

Kerry saved the life of a Green Beret who is now volunteering full time for the Kerry campaign.
http://www.newhouse.com/archive/barnett072904.html

I can't see how bringing up Vietnam hurts Kerry.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2004, 10:05:59 pm by jfern »Logged
Giant Saguaro
TheGiantSaguaro
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1905


Political Matrix
E: 2.58, S: 3.83

View Profile
« Reply #26 on: August 05, 2004, 10:16:05 pm »
Ignore

This is really @ssed up. Fantastic, he served his country. Wonderful, a new person comes out every now and then about it. But when is somebody going to ask the real hard question here about how his service is going to help him fight terrorism? Because he acts like 9/11 never happened. If I could put a call in to the GOP it would be to raise this question the next time Kerry brings up Vietnam to the American people and then mention that other than cutting Intelligence and military funding, KERRY HAS NO PLAN FOR FIGHTING TERRORISM. How about his votes in the Senate and what they mean? Jimmy Carter had military experience too, for goodness sakes! It's not a new thing, lots of people served in the military.
Logged

○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31932


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: August 05, 2004, 10:20:56 pm »
Ignore

This is really @ssed up. Fantastic, he served his country. Wonderful, a new person comes out every now and then about it. But when is somebody going to ask the real hard question here about how his service is going to help him fight terrorism? Because he acts like 9/11 never happened. If I could put a call in to the GOP it would be to raise this question the next time Kerry brings up Vietnam to the American people and then mention that other than cutting Intelligence and military funding, KERRY HAS NO PLAN FOR FIGHTING TERRORISM. How about his votes in the Senate and what they mean? Jimmy Carter had military experience too, for goodness sakes! It's not a new thing, lots of people served in the military.
Interesting change of topic.
Anyways, Kerry has plenty to say about national security and fighting terrorism.
Read Chapter 1 of his plan here:
http://www.johnkerry.com/plan/

Read his position on National Security here:
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/

Until you read this, quit making attacking him for what he's supposedly not doing.
Logged
Giant Saguaro
TheGiantSaguaro
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1905


Political Matrix
E: 2.58, S: 3.83

View Profile
« Reply #28 on: August 05, 2004, 10:23:25 pm »
Ignore

This is really @ssed up. Fantastic, he served his country. Wonderful, a new person comes out every now and then about it. But when is somebody going to ask the real hard question here about how his service is going to help him fight terrorism? Because he acts like 9/11 never happened. If I could put a call in to the GOP it would be to raise this question the next time Kerry brings up Vietnam to the American people and then mention that other than cutting Intelligence and military funding, KERRY HAS NO PLAN FOR FIGHTING TERRORISM. How about his votes in the Senate and what they mean? Jimmy Carter had military experience too, for goodness sakes! It's not a new thing, lots of people served in the military.
Interesting change of topic.
Anyways, Kerry has plenty to say about national security and fighting terrorism.
Read Chapter 1 of his plan here:
http://www.johnkerry.com/plan/

Read his position on National Security here:
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/

Until you read this, quit making attacking him for what he's supposedly not doing.


Voting record. That's more important than what he says, especially now that he's campaigning. He doesn't say the same thing two days in a row, please.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2004, 10:25:04 pm by TheGiantSaguaro »Logged

○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31932


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: August 05, 2004, 10:25:21 pm »
Ignore

This is really @ssed up. Fantastic, he served his country. Wonderful, a new person comes out every now and then about it. But when is somebody going to ask the real hard question here about how his service is going to help him fight terrorism? Because he acts like 9/11 never happened. If I could put a call in to the GOP it would be to raise this question the next time Kerry brings up Vietnam to the American people and then mention that other than cutting Intelligence and military funding, KERRY HAS NO PLAN FOR FIGHTING TERRORISM. How about his votes in the Senate and what they mean? Jimmy Carter had military experience too, for goodness sakes! It's not a new thing, lots of people served in the military.
Interesting change of topic.
Anyways, Kerry has plenty to say about national security and fighting terrorism.
Read Chapter 1 of his plan here:
http://www.johnkerry.com/plan/

Read his position on National Security here:
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/

Until you read this, quit making attacking him for what he's supposedly not doing.


Voting record. That's more important than what he says. He doesn't say the same thing two days in a row, please.

What's the specific charge? I know that the GOP has some talking points to try to make Kerry look bad that leave out critical facts.

As for the flip flopper meme, I don't see how you can argue that Kerry is a flip flopper and Bush isn't.
Logged
black and white band photos
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 72524
United Kingdom


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: August 05, 2004, 10:27:11 pm »
Ignore

show me a presidential candidate who never changed positions.
Logged




01/05/2004-01/10/2014
Giant Saguaro
TheGiantSaguaro
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1905


Political Matrix
E: 2.58, S: 3.83

View Profile
« Reply #31 on: August 05, 2004, 10:35:45 pm »
Ignore

This is really @ssed up. Fantastic, he served his country. Wonderful, a new person comes out every now and then about it. But when is somebody going to ask the real hard question here about how his service is going to help him fight terrorism? Because he acts like 9/11 never happened. If I could put a call in to the GOP it would be to raise this question the next time Kerry brings up Vietnam to the American people and then mention that other than cutting Intelligence and military funding, KERRY HAS NO PLAN FOR FIGHTING TERRORISM. How about his votes in the Senate and what they mean? Jimmy Carter had military experience too, for goodness sakes! It's not a new thing, lots of people served in the military.
Interesting change of topic.
Anyways, Kerry has plenty to say about national security and fighting terrorism.
Read Chapter 1 of his plan here:
http://www.johnkerry.com/plan/

Read his position on National Security here:
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/

Until you read this, quit making attacking him for what he's supposedly not doing.


Voting record. That's more important than what he says. He doesn't say the same thing two days in a row, please.

What's the specific charge? I know that the GOP has some talking points to try to make Kerry look bad that leave out critical facts.

As for the flip flopper meme, I don't see how you can argue that Kerry is a flip flopper and Bush isn't.

He's repeatedly voted to cut Intel funding, which is how this war on terror is going to be won. He's voted against defense systems. He was for the nuclear freeze, he backed the Carter and later Mondale plan of appeasing the Soviet Union. We don't need to rehash all this - it's not in dispute. He's trying to get people to overlook it by showing videos and pictures of himself as a naval officer.

But first and foremost, I want to hear him tell me why his military experience is applicable to the current situation since it's diametrically opposed to the kind of conflict Vietnam was. He didn't even think we should have been there. Clark volunteered for duty in Vietnam too; if military experience was really important to the Dems in this election they would have chosen him. Intelligent, distinguished... Clark started, before they drowned him out, with a plan for how to fight terror but he never really got to articulate it. Kerry was crowned basically right after Iowa. A shame, because we heard more from Clark in two weeks than we have from Kerry yet. I would have strongly considered voting for Clark.
Logged

○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31932


View Profile
« Reply #32 on: August 05, 2004, 10:55:50 pm »
Ignore

This is really @ssed up. Fantastic, he served his country. Wonderful, a new person comes out every now and then about it. But when is somebody going to ask the real hard question here about how his service is going to help him fight terrorism? Because he acts like 9/11 never happened. If I could put a call in to the GOP it would be to raise this question the next time Kerry brings up Vietnam to the American people and then mention that other than cutting Intelligence and military funding, KERRY HAS NO PLAN FOR FIGHTING TERRORISM. How about his votes in the Senate and what they mean? Jimmy Carter had military experience too, for goodness sakes! It's not a new thing, lots of people served in the military.
Interesting change of topic.
Anyways, Kerry has plenty to say about national security and fighting terrorism.
Read Chapter 1 of his plan here:
http://www.johnkerry.com/plan/

Read his position on National Security here:
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/

Until you read this, quit making attacking him for what he's supposedly not doing.


Voting record. That's more important than what he says. He doesn't say the same thing two days in a row, please.

What's the specific charge? I know that the GOP has some talking points to try to make Kerry look bad that leave out critical facts.

As for the flip flopper meme, I don't see how you can argue that Kerry is a flip flopper and Bush isn't.

He's repeatedly voted to cut Intel funding, which is how this war on terror is going to be won. He's voted against defense systems. He was for the nuclear freeze, he backed the Carter and later Mondale plan of appeasing the Soviet Union. We don't need to rehash all this - it's not in dispute. He's trying to get people to overlook it by showing videos and pictures of himself as a naval officer.

But first and foremost, I want to hear him tell me why his military experience is applicable to the current situation since it's diametrically opposed to the kind of conflict Vietnam was. He didn't even think we should have been there. Clark volunteered for duty in Vietnam too; if military experience was really important to the Dems in this election they would have chosen him. Intelligent, distinguished... Clark started, before they drowned him out, with a plan for how to fight terror but he never really got to articulate it. Kerry was crowned basically right after Iowa. A shame, because we heard more from Clark in two weeks than we have from Kerry yet. I would have strongly considered voting for Clark.

The Republicans voted to cut the same Intel spending that you're talking about. He's voted for plenty of military increases. Carter boycotted the Moscow Olympics, and started the fight against the USSR in Afganistan. Appeaser, my ass.

The fact that he's a war hero who signed up for Vietnam and that Bush specifically checked the box "don't serve overseas" and was AWOL doesn't automatically mean that he'd be a better President, but I don't see how this can be used to attack Kerry instead of Bush.

Kerry wants to go after the terrorists who attacked us, not just some random Iraqis that we've pissed off.

As for Clark, maybe he'll be Sec. of State?
Logged
black and white band photos
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 72524
United Kingdom


View Profile
« Reply #33 on: August 05, 2004, 10:57:48 pm »
Ignore

the point about Kerry is that he didn't have to go. He was born wealthy and could've easily used his privilege to dodge the draft, but he wasn't even drafted, he VOLUNTEERED, and volunteered for combat duty anyway. That shows he wasn't just some selfish rich guy who would use his privilege to his advantage throughout life, I trust him to more sympathetic to non-rich than Bush.
Logged




01/05/2004-01/10/2014
Giant Saguaro
TheGiantSaguaro
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1905


Political Matrix
E: 2.58, S: 3.83

View Profile
« Reply #34 on: August 05, 2004, 11:19:47 pm »
Ignore

This is really @ssed up. Fantastic, he served his country. Wonderful, a new person comes out every now and then about it. But when is somebody going to ask the real hard question here about how his service is going to help him fight terrorism? Because he acts like 9/11 never happened. If I could put a call in to the GOP it would be to raise this question the next time Kerry brings up Vietnam to the American people and then mention that other than cutting Intelligence and military funding, KERRY HAS NO PLAN FOR FIGHTING TERRORISM. How about his votes in the Senate and what they mean? Jimmy Carter had military experience too, for goodness sakes! It's not a new thing, lots of people served in the military.
Interesting change of topic.
Anyways, Kerry has plenty to say about national security and fighting terrorism.
Read Chapter 1 of his plan here:
http://www.johnkerry.com/plan/

Read his position on National Security here:
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/

Until you read this, quit making attacking him for what he's supposedly not doing.


Voting record. That's more important than what he says. He doesn't say the same thing two days in a row, please.

What's the specific charge? I know that the GOP has some talking points to try to make Kerry look bad that leave out critical facts.

As for the flip flopper meme, I don't see how you can argue that Kerry is a flip flopper and Bush isn't.

He's repeatedly voted to cut Intel funding, which is how this war on terror is going to be won. He's voted against defense systems. He was for the nuclear freeze, he backed the Carter and later Mondale plan of appeasing the Soviet Union. We don't need to rehash all this - it's not in dispute. He's trying to get people to overlook it by showing videos and pictures of himself as a naval officer.

But first and foremost, I want to hear him tell me why his military experience is applicable to the current situation since it's diametrically opposed to the kind of conflict Vietnam was. He didn't even think we should have been there. Clark volunteered for duty in Vietnam too; if military experience was really important to the Dems in this election they would have chosen him. Intelligent, distinguished... Clark started, before they drowned him out, with a plan for how to fight terror but he never really got to articulate it. Kerry was crowned basically right after Iowa. A shame, because we heard more from Clark in two weeks than we have from Kerry yet. I would have strongly considered voting for Clark.

The Republicans voted to cut the same Intel spending that you're talking about. He's voted for plenty of military increases. Carter boycotted the Moscow Olympics, and started the fight against the USSR in Afganistan. Appeaser, my ass.

The fact that he's a war hero who signed up for Vietnam and that Bush specifically checked the box "don't serve overseas" and was AWOL doesn't automatically mean that he'd be a better President, but I don't see how this can be used to attack Kerry instead of Bush.

Kerry wants to go after the terrorists who attacked us, not just some random Iraqis that we've pissed off.

As for Clark, maybe he'll be Sec. of State?


Carter's response to the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan was to boycott the Olympics and he asked Congress to postpone consideration of the SALT II Treaty, which was the Strategic Arms Limitations Talks. Yeah, the Soviets responded by giving him the finger. Carter screwed up the Iranian histage situation over which half of his cabinet resigned; that was bad, real bad. And because we appeared weak and did little more than shake our finger at the USSR, it made them bolder. Carter himself said, "we need to lower our expectations..." over which Reagan killed him at the debates, but I'm getting off topic. Maybe not because Kerry's way of thinking goes back to Carter's; they are very similar in lots of ways.

And there you go again on the AWOL business. That's ridiculous, he wasn't AWOL. But maybe that's libel now by Kerry's rules - with how he's trying to silence his critics.

Go after the terrorists, Kerry wants to do, huh? Specifically, THE terrorists. We're doing it now. Iraq is PART of that war, you guys haven't figured that out yet. When we went to war in WW II, who did we go to war with? JUST Japan? Hardly. We went to war with the Axis Powers - all of them, because they were all on the same damn side. Yes, they declared war on us first. But UBL declared war on us in 1996 (and we laughed at him), saying it's every Muslims duty to kill Americans. And plus, I have a whole 2-page list of quotes from Democratic senators and even people within the Clinton admin who specifically address Hussein's WMD's, programs, and desires. Nonsense Iraq isn't part of the war on terror. If you wait till you're attacked to attack somebody specifically, you're going to be toast. Take the fight to them, which is what we're doing now and what we need to keep doing.

Clark Sec. of state? Doesn't matter, I'm not voting for Kerry.
Logged

○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31932


View Profile
« Reply #35 on: August 05, 2004, 11:28:07 pm »
Ignore

This is really @ssed up. Fantastic, he served his country. Wonderful, a new person comes out every now and then about it. But when is somebody going to ask the real hard question here about how his service is going to help him fight terrorism? Because he acts like 9/11 never happened. If I could put a call in to the GOP it would be to raise this question the next time Kerry brings up Vietnam to the American people and then mention that other than cutting Intelligence and military funding, KERRY HAS NO PLAN FOR FIGHTING TERRORISM. How about his votes in the Senate and what they mean? Jimmy Carter had military experience too, for goodness sakes! It's not a new thing, lots of people served in the military.
Interesting change of topic.
Anyways, Kerry has plenty to say about national security and fighting terrorism.
Read Chapter 1 of his plan here:
http://www.johnkerry.com/plan/

Read his position on National Security here:
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/

Until you read this, quit making attacking him for what he's supposedly not doing.


Voting record. That's more important than what he says. He doesn't say the same thing two days in a row, please.

What's the specific charge? I know that the GOP has some talking points to try to make Kerry look bad that leave out critical facts.

As for the flip flopper meme, I don't see how you can argue that Kerry is a flip flopper and Bush isn't.

He's repeatedly voted to cut Intel funding, which is how this war on terror is going to be won. He's voted against defense systems. He was for the nuclear freeze, he backed the Carter and later Mondale plan of appeasing the Soviet Union. We don't need to rehash all this - it's not in dispute. He's trying to get people to overlook it by showing videos and pictures of himself as a naval officer.

But first and foremost, I want to hear him tell me why his military experience is applicable to the current situation since it's diametrically opposed to the kind of conflict Vietnam was. He didn't even think we should have been there. Clark volunteered for duty in Vietnam too; if military experience was really important to the Dems in this election they would have chosen him. Intelligent, distinguished... Clark started, before they drowned him out, with a plan for how to fight terror but he never really got to articulate it. Kerry was crowned basically right after Iowa. A shame, because we heard more from Clark in two weeks than we have from Kerry yet. I would have strongly considered voting for Clark.

The Republicans voted to cut the same Intel spending that you're talking about. He's voted for plenty of military increases. Carter boycotted the Moscow Olympics, and started the fight against the USSR in Afganistan. Appeaser, my ass.

The fact that he's a war hero who signed up for Vietnam and that Bush specifically checked the box "don't serve overseas" and was AWOL doesn't automatically mean that he'd be a better President, but I don't see how this can be used to attack Kerry instead of Bush.

Kerry wants to go after the terrorists who attacked us, not just some random Iraqis that we've pissed off.

As for Clark, maybe he'll be Sec. of State?


Carter's response to the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan was to boycott the Olympics and he asked Congress to postpone consideration of the SALT II Treaty, which was the Strategic Arms Limitations Talks. Yeah, the Soviets responded by giving him the finger. Carter screwed up the Iranian histage situation over which half of his cabinet resigned; that was bad, real bad. And because we appeared weak and did little more than shake our finger at the USSR, it made them bolder. Carter himself said, "we need to lower our expectations..." over which Reagan killed him at the debates, but I'm getting off topic. Maybe not because Kerry's way of thinking goes back to Carter's; they are very similar in lots of ways.

And there you go again on the AWOL business. That's ridiculous, he wasn't AWOL. But maybe that's libel now by Kerry's rules - with how he's trying to silence his critics.

Go after the terrorists, Kerry wants to do, huh? Specifically, THE terrorists. We're doing it now. Iraq is PART of that war, you guys haven't figured that out yet. When we went to war in WW II, who did we go to war with? JUST Japan? Hardly. We went to war with the Axis Powers - all of them, because they were all on the same damn side. Yes, they declared war on us first. But UBL declared war on us in 1996 (and we laughed at him), saying it's every Muslims duty to kill Americans. And plus, I have a whole 2-page list of quotes from Democratic senators and even people within the Clinton admin who specifically address Hussein's WMD's, programs, and desires. Nonsense Iraq isn't part of the war on terror. If you wait till you're attacked to attack somebody specifically, you're going to be toast. Take the fight to them, which is what we're doing now and what we need to keep doing.

Clark Sec. of state? Doesn't matter, I'm not voting for Kerry.

How are you going to argue that Reagan wasn't an appeaser? Under his command, 241 marines by a terrorist attack in Beiruit, and he promptly appeased the terrorists by leaving. He traded arms for hostages in the Iran contra scandal.

Not one person has said they've seen Bush in the time period in question, and Bush's military records include a report saying that he hadn't been seen in a while, and his payroll forms clearly show that he hadn't followed the rules in making up missed service (they had to be made up in 15 days).

Speaking of the Axis powers, Bush's grandfather got busted trading with them 10 months after the US entered the war.

Clinton was attacked by Republicans for going after OBL in 1998. Gary Hart and Richard Clarke warned the Bush admin repeated about terrorist attacks. Why do you just seem to blindly say that Republicans are better than Democrats at fighting terror?
Logged
Giant Saguaro
TheGiantSaguaro
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1905


Political Matrix
E: 2.58, S: 3.83

View Profile
« Reply #36 on: August 05, 2004, 11:56:02 pm »
Ignore



Carter's response to the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan was to boycott the Olympics and he asked Congress to postpone consideration of the SALT II Treaty, which was the Strategic Arms Limitations Talks. Yeah, the Soviets responded by giving him the finger. Carter screwed up the Iranian histage situation over which half of his cabinet resigned; that was bad, real bad. And because we appeared weak and did little more than shake our finger at the USSR, it made them bolder. Carter himself said, "we need to lower our expectations..." over which Reagan killed him at the debates, but I'm getting off topic. Maybe not because Kerry's way of thinking goes back to Carter's; they are very similar in lots of ways.

And there you go again on the AWOL business. That's ridiculous, he wasn't AWOL. But maybe that's libel now by Kerry's rules - with how he's trying to silence his critics.

Go after the terrorists, Kerry wants to do, huh? Specifically, THE terrorists. We're doing it now. Iraq is PART of that war, you guys haven't figured that out yet. When we went to war in WW II, who did we go to war with? JUST Japan? Hardly. We went to war with the Axis Powers - all of them, because they were all on the same damn side. Yes, they declared war on us first. But UBL declared war on us in 1996 (and we laughed at him), saying it's every Muslims duty to kill Americans. And plus, I have a whole 2-page list of quotes from Democratic senators and even people within the Clinton admin who specifically address Hussein's WMD's, programs, and desires. Nonsense Iraq isn't part of the war on terror. If you wait till you're attacked to attack somebody specifically, you're going to be toast. Take the fight to them, which is what we're doing now and what we need to keep doing.

Clark Sec. of state? Doesn't matter, I'm not voting for Kerry.
Quote

How are you going to argue that Reagan wasn't an appeaser? Under his command, 241 marines by a terrorist attack in Beiruit, and he promptly appeased the terrorists by leaving. He traded arms for hostages in the Iran contra scandal.

Not one person has said they've seen Bush in the time period in question, and Bush's military records include a report saying that he hadn't been seen in a while, and his payroll forms clearly show that he hadn't followed the rules in making up missed service (they had to be made up in 15 days).

Speaking of the Axis powers, Bush's grandfather got busted trading with them 10 months after the US entered the war.

Clinton was attacked by Republicans for going after OBL in 1998. Gary Hart and Richard Clarke warned the Bush admin repeated about terrorist attacks. Why do you just seem to blindly say that Republicans are better than Democrats at fighting terror?
Quote

Clinton made no concerted effort at all to communicate to us there was a terrorist threat. He made no case for war. If they knew so much, why not? Bush had only been in a few months and the damn terrorists plotted 9/11 since 1994. Who was in from 1994-2001? What about the 1993 bombing of the Towers? No response to that other than arresting a couple guys, who I think they sent to jail. How about the USS Cole? Bin Laden's declaration of war? All the bombings overseas? No response, no case for war, the American people kept entirely in the dark by the Clinton administration about this threat. He was probably afraid of how the New York Times would react to him making a case for war, I don't know.

Nobody had "seen him in a while." Come on. If we're going to base an AWOL charge on people's memories from that long ago, I hope they have good memories and not the selective kind or the forgetful kind.

Oh boy, and on the Reagan. You WOULD argue that Reagan was an appeaser based on that? Oh man, you must not have been around in the 1980s. He totally revamped our military, upped the defense budget enormously, started weapons development, re-equipped the Army (a whole slew of new stuff went into service during this period, stuff that's being used now), he brought to a halt Qadhafi's crap (who just recently basically lied down and gave up for fear of what would happen to him with Bush in), and Reagan defeated the USSR by outspending them on defense. And that's just getting started. There are books and programs out there on the stuff Reagan did and how he worked with the Intel community (which Mondale wanted to cut so he could create the biggest welfare state in the world) on so many things to crack the USSR - namely, finding ways to get blueprints for falty equipment in the hands of the Soviets.
Logged

Smash255
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14381


View Profile
« Reply #37 on: August 06, 2004, 12:17:35 am »
Ignore

This is really @ssed up. Fantastic, he served his country. Wonderful, a new person comes out every now and then about it. But when is somebody going to ask the real hard question here about how his service is going to help him fight terrorism? Because he acts like 9/11 never happened. If I could put a call in to the GOP it would be to raise this question the next time Kerry brings up Vietnam to the American people and then mention that other than cutting Intelligence and military funding, KERRY HAS NO PLAN FOR FIGHTING TERRORISM. How about his votes in the Senate and what they mean? Jimmy Carter had military experience too, for goodness sakes! It's not a new thing, lots of people served in the military.
Interesting change of topic.
Anyways, Kerry has plenty to say about national security and fighting terrorism.
Read Chapter 1 of his plan here:
http://www.johnkerry.com/plan/

Read his position on National Security here:
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/

Until you read this, quit making attacking him for what he's supposedly not doing.


Voting record. That's more important than what he says. He doesn't say the same thing two days in a row, please.

What's the specific charge? I know that the GOP has some talking points to try to make Kerry look bad that leave out critical facts.

As for the flip flopper meme, I don't see how you can argue that Kerry is a flip flopper and Bush isn't.

He's repeatedly voted to cut Intel funding, which is how this war on terror is going to be won. He's voted against defense systems. He was for the nuclear freeze, he backed the Carter and later Mondale plan of appeasing the Soviet Union. We don't need to rehash all this - it's not in dispute. He's trying to get people to overlook it by showing videos and pictures of himself as a naval officer.

But first and foremost, I want to hear him tell me why his military experience is applicable to the current situation since it's diametrically opposed to the kind of conflict Vietnam was. He didn't even think we should have been there. Clark volunteered for duty in Vietnam too; if military experience was really important to the Dems in this election they would have chosen him. Intelligent, distinguished... Clark started, before they drowned him out, with a plan for how to fight terror but he never really got to articulate it. Kerry was crowned basically right after Iowa. A shame, because we heard more from Clark in two weeks than we have from Kerry yet. I would have strongly considered voting for Clark.

The Republicans voted to cut the same Intel spending that you're talking about. He's voted for plenty of military increases. Carter boycotted the Moscow Olympics, and started the fight against the USSR in Afganistan. Appeaser, my ass.

The fact that he's a war hero who signed up for Vietnam and that Bush specifically checked the box "don't serve overseas" and was AWOL doesn't automatically mean that he'd be a better President, but I don't see how this can be used to attack Kerry instead of Bush.

Kerry wants to go after the terrorists who attacked us, not just some random Iraqis that we've pissed off.

As for Clark, maybe he'll be Sec. of State?


Carter's response to the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan was to boycott the Olympics and he asked Congress to postpone consideration of the SALT II Treaty, which was the Strategic Arms Limitations Talks. Yeah, the Soviets responded by giving him the finger. Carter screwed up the Iranian histage situation over which half of his cabinet resigned; that was bad, real bad. And because we appeared weak and did little more than shake our finger at the USSR, it made them bolder. Carter himself said, "we need to lower our expectations..." over which Reagan killed him at the debates, but I'm getting off topic. Maybe not because Kerry's way of thinking goes back to Carter's; they are very similar in lots of ways.

And there you go again on the AWOL business. That's ridiculous, he wasn't AWOL. But maybe that's libel now by Kerry's rules - with how he's trying to silence his critics.

Go after the terrorists, Kerry wants to do, huh? Specifically, THE terrorists. We're doing it now. Iraq is PART of that war, you guys haven't figured that out yet. When we went to war in WW II, who did we go to war with? JUST Japan? Hardly. We went to war with the Axis Powers - all of them, because they were all on the same damn side. Yes, they declared war on us first. But UBL declared war on us in 1996 (and we laughed at him), saying it's every Muslims duty to kill Americans. And plus, I have a whole 2-page list of quotes from Democratic senators and even people within the Clinton admin who specifically address Hussein's WMD's, programs, and desires. Nonsense Iraq isn't part of the war on terror. If you wait till you're attacked to attack somebody specifically, you're going to be toast. Take the fight to them, which is what we're doing now and what we need to keep doing.

Clark Sec. of state? Doesn't matter, I'm not voting for Kerry.


Few things

Kerry did not vote to cut all of the Intel Spending or anything like that.  yes, at times he voted for some cuts, but you know what??  SImilar cuts were PASSED BY REPUBLICANS.  Granted he did vote against SOME weapons systems, however MOST of the weapons systems he voted for, most of the weapons systems used in Afghanistan and Iraq he voted FOR, much of the systems he voted against were during the Bush 1 adminstration when cuts were being made after the Cold War.  And you know who else supported those very same cuts??  The Sec of Defense of the Time.  CHENEY.  So your blaming Kerry for supporting cuts your Vice_President also supported, thats a good one.

 As with Iraq.  Well lets look at Iraq, and some of the other middle east nations and the terrorist threat.  Whats the main thing the terrorists threat revolves around?  What did 9/11 revolve around?  FUNDAMENTALIST ISLAM.  Now in order to solve the terrorist problem we need to adress the fundamentalist problem.  How exactly do w do that in a country where fundamentalist Islam wasn't a problem??  Before you use the republican attack line of how can you defend Saddam or any of that garbage, I'm not.  Saddam is a piece of crap and I'm happy with him being out of power.  However, we have MANY other important issues that have been put on the side because of Saddam and Iraq, such as Fundamenalist Islam.  Saudia Arabia, Iran, Syria, Yemen, etc.  Thats where we really need to be worried about.   I agree now that we are in Iraq, we need to finish the job, but we also need more International support.  90% of the troops in Iraq should not be American troops, we need to get the alliances back in order to reduce the burden on our troops.  Another thing wih the war on terror, the more open communication with other nations, in sharing Intelligence, etc the better it is at fighting terrorism, the better we can prepare, the better chances we have of putting a stop to potentioal volitale situations.  You don't do that if half the world hates you.  

We have an excellent excellent military, the best miltary in the world which I have the utmost respect for. but their is only so much even the best can do when they have little or no help
Logged

The Duke
JohnD.Ford
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9399


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

View Profile
« Reply #38 on: August 06, 2004, 12:21:20 am »
Ignore

Smash, you think Syria is a part of the fundamentalist Islam problem?

Funny, they have a secular Ba'athist government just like Iraq did, yet you claim Iraq had nothign to do with terrorism.

Partisan hack.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2004, 12:24:12 am by John Ford »Logged

Shut you hole... Conservatism is dead. I hope I get to see your head paraded on a pike with it.
??????????
StatesRights
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31302
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

View Profile
« Reply #39 on: August 06, 2004, 12:59:53 am »
Ignore

Coming home and throwing your fellow soldiers under the bus by calling them "war criminals" is disgusting. Attacks on his VVAW record should continue and deepen. It points to a pattern of softness on defense.
Logged
Smash255
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14381


View Profile
« Reply #40 on: August 06, 2004, 01:22:57 am »
Ignore

Smash, you think Syria is a part of the fundamentalist Islam problem?

Funny, they have a secular Ba'athist government just like Iraq did, yet you claim Iraq had nothign to do with terrorism.

Partisan hack.


Syria's govt is Bathast, but their is a lot of fundamentalist support within the country, something that did not exist in Iraq (well now it does).  I'm in no way saying Saddam was a good guy or anything like that he was a horrific dictator, but as far as threats to the United States, Iraq was lower on the list than the others I mentioned
Logged

black and white band photos
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 72524
United Kingdom


View Profile
« Reply #41 on: August 06, 2004, 01:27:53 am »
Ignore

Coming home and throwing your fellow soldiers under the bus by calling them "war criminals" is disgusting. Attacks on his VVAW record should continue and deepen. It points to a pattern of softness on defense.

so what was My Lai if it wasn't a war crime?
Logged




01/05/2004-01/10/2014
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9399


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

View Profile
« Reply #42 on: August 06, 2004, 01:28:49 am »
Ignore

Smash, you think Syria is a part of the fundamentalist Islam problem?

Funny, they have a secular Ba'athist government just like Iraq did, yet you claim Iraq had nothign to do with terrorism.

Partisan hack.


Syria's govt is Bathast, but their is a lot of fundamentalist support within the country, something that did not exist in Iraq (well now it does).  I'm in no way saying Saddam was a good guy or anything like that he was a horrific dictator, but as far as threats to the United States, Iraq was lower on the list than the others I mentioned

Ansar al-Islam, the PUK, and undercurrents of radicalism within the Shi'ite community are not results of the occupation, but long standing factors within Iraq.
Logged

Shut you hole... Conservatism is dead. I hope I get to see your head paraded on a pike with it.
Smash255
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14381


View Profile
« Reply #43 on: August 06, 2004, 01:33:29 am »
Ignore

Smash, you think Syria is a part of the fundamentalist Islam problem?


Funny, they have a secular Ba'athist government just like Iraq did, yet you claim Iraq had nothign to do with terrorism.

Partisan hack.


Syria's govt is Bathast, but their is a lot of fundamentalist support within the country, something that did not exist in Iraq (well now it does).  I'm in no way saying Saddam was a good guy or anything like that he was a horrific dictator, but as far as threats to the United States, Iraq was lower on the list than the others I mentioned

Ansar al-Islam, the PUK, and undercurrents of radicalism within the Shi'ite community are not results of the occupation, but long standing factors within Iraq.

Granted, but they wern't anything we had to be worried about pre invasion.  The factions in Syria is something we need to be concerned about, and obviously the same holds true for the others I mentioned
Logged

The Duke
JohnD.Ford
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9399


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

View Profile
« Reply #44 on: August 06, 2004, 01:35:06 am »
Ignore

Smash,

I agree we should be concerned about all of those countries, BUT WHAT SEPERATES THEM FROM IRAQ?
Logged

Shut you hole... Conservatism is dead. I hope I get to see your head paraded on a pike with it.
Smash255
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14381


View Profile
« Reply #45 on: August 06, 2004, 01:40:32 am »
Ignore

Smash,

I agree we should be concerned about all of those countries, BUT WHAT SEPERATES THEM FROM IRAQ?

They are bigger threats. More people we needed to be worried with in the other areas, more connections to Al Qaeda
Logged

The Duke
JohnD.Ford
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9399


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

View Profile
« Reply #46 on: August 06, 2004, 01:42:21 am »
Ignore

Smash,

I agree we should be concerned about all of those countries, BUT WHAT SEPERATES THEM FROM IRAQ?

They are bigger threats. More people we needed to be worried with in the other areas, more connections to Al Qaeda

What were the Syrian connections to Al Qaeda at the time we hit Iraq?
Logged

Shut you hole... Conservatism is dead. I hope I get to see your head paraded on a pike with it.
Smash255
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14381


View Profile
« Reply #47 on: August 06, 2004, 02:40:17 am »
Ignore

Smash,

I agree we should be concerned about all of those countries, BUT WHAT SEPERATES THEM FROM IRAQ?

They are bigger threats. More people we needed to be worried with in the other areas, more connections to Al Qaeda

What were the Syrian connections to Al Qaeda at the time we hit Iraq?

Unfortunley because of the White House's editing, and black outs of the JIC report and the refusal of the White House to release any of that info we never really know.  Regardless as far as the war on terror goes and possible threats to the United States, we have had many more important issues other than Iraq
Logged

MarkDel
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2152


View Profile
« Reply #48 on: August 06, 2004, 02:44:00 am »
Ignore

Smash, so then you would have supported an attack on Syria or Iran for example?
Logged
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9399


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

View Profile
« Reply #49 on: August 06, 2004, 02:46:54 am »
Ignore

Smash, as i understand your case it boils down to this.

1. Bush attacked Iraq because of connections to Al Qaeda that only existed as speculation.

2. Bush's claims that Iraqi WMD existed and were a threat was also speculation.

3. Wars should not be launched based on speculation.

4. You then speculate the the JIC report contained information that connects Suria to Al Qaeda and say this justifies attacking Syria.


Uhhhh, okay.
Logged

Shut you hole... Conservatism is dead. I hope I get to see your head paraded on a pike with it.
Pages: 1 [2] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines