Sick of the National Guard debacle.


PDA






Diggler
February 11, 2004, 08:29 AM
I am so tired of the lib's bashing the President regarding his service in the National Guard. All these people trying to find a hint of preferential treatment? Let's look back a few short years to a less noble presidency. Bill Clinton wrote a letter to Col. Eugene Holmes during his ROTC training explaining how a 'fine person' could 'come to find themselves still loving their country but loathing the military.' Clinton's letter to Bataan Death March Survivor (http://www.war-stories.com/clinton-poss-larry-1-1969.htm) This is after Col. Holmes allowed him to join the ROTC rather than join the draft, because he thought Clinton would be a good officer.

Then you have Al Gore, who DID go to Vietnam, but his daddy (who filibustered the Civil Rights Act, but let's not go into that) arranged for him to have a bodyguard to keep him out of trouble while he was there. Well, at least he served.

John "F-word" Kerry. Went to 'Nam, served honorably. Thanks for your service, I admire that. BUT... comes back and spills more American soldier blood by resisting the war in the states than he ever could have spilled from the Vietcong when he was over there. He did this by resisting the war, helping communist anti-war rally organizers by swaying public opinion against the war which ultimately resulted in us losing. Again, John, thanks for your service, but I tend to look at what you've done lately... and you did more harm to the nation after your service than you did good by serving.

Then you have G.W. Went to the service, served out his committment in the National Guard, and then moved on. He is getting slammed by everyone who wants to know if he missed a month here or there. But he has an honorable discharge? Doesn't matter, we have to make him look worse than the three upstanding citizens I alluded to earlier.

In my opinion, at least G.W. signed up. At least he served. I don't care if it was the Salvation Army! Just the fact that he served this country puts him above probably 90% of Americans, including myself, who hasn't served in any branch of the military. AT LEAST HE SERVED.

The hypocracy astounds me. SHAMELESS. This reminds me of one of the Simpsons episodes...
"Mayor Quimby supports revolving-door prisons. Mayor Quimby even released Sideshow Bob, a man twice convicted of attempted murder. Can you trust a man like Mayor Quimby? (Vote Sideshow Bob for Mayor.)"

If you enjoyed reading about "Sick of the National Guard debacle." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Mark Tyson
February 11, 2004, 08:39 AM
Look. We all know what the National Guard was back then. It was a way for people to get out of serving in Vietnam. That's basically all it was. Yes there were a couple Guard units that actually served in Vietnam(and a Coast guard unit too for that matter) but they were the exception.

And you know what? I don't care. I care about his policies and performance today.

John Kerry's war record is unimpeachable. The fact that he opposed the war, and aligned himself with some real jerks upon returning, is irrelevant. He thought that the best way to save American lives was to end the war. The best way to end the war was to use his status as a veteran to support the anti-war movement. Frankly I agree with him on that. Colonel David Hackworth also spoke out against the war. Are you going to question his patriotism as well?

His politics make him way too liberal however and for that reason, combined with his hatred of the right to bear arms, I would never vote for him unless he' were running against Hitler.

You know what most Vietnam veterans are going to say when you bring this up? As the T-shirt goes: "If you weren't there, S.T.F.U." Lots of Vietnam Vets know his post-war activities and support him anyway. Questioning Kerry's patriotism is futile and counterproductive. Focus on his policies.

DorGunR
February 11, 2004, 08:56 AM
Giap praises Kerry, and his help...
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/...10/222651.shtml

Tuesday, Feb. 10, 2004 10:25 PM EST
Gen. Giap: Kerry's Group Helped Hanoi Defeat U.S.

The North Vietnamese general in charge of the military campaign that finally drove the U.S. out of South Vietnam in 1975 credited a group led by Democratic presidential front-runner John Kerry with helping him achieve victory.

In his 1985 memoir about the war, General Vo Nguyen Giap wrote that if it weren't for organizations like Kerry's Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Hanoi would have surrendered to the U.S. - according to Fox News Channel war historian Oliver North.

That's why, he predicted on Tuesday, the Vietnam war issue "is going to blow up in Kerry's face."

"People are going to remember Gen. Giap saying if it weren't for these guys, [Kerry's group], we would have lost," North told radio host Sean Hannity.

"The Vietnam Veterans Against the War encouraged people to desert, encouraged people to mutiny - some used what they wrote to justify fragging officers," noted the former Marine Lieutenant Colonel, who earned two purple hearts in Vietnam.

"John Kerry has blood of American soldiers on his hands," North said.

buzz_knox
February 11, 2004, 09:02 AM
The fact that he opposed the war, and aligned himself with some real jerks upon returning, is irrelevant.

He testified before Congress that he personally observed American troops raping and murdering their way across Vietnam. He later admitted that he never saw any of that. He lied. That is very relevant.

Obiwan
February 11, 2004, 09:11 AM
I can see the Dems raising the issue in the last election...although after all of them accepted Clinton avoiding ANY service it would be a tad hypocritical.

But the man has proved that he WILL show up and make the difficult decisions...

So the rest of this is just a load of BS...and Kerry is showing his true colors by piling on.

Since we now have a president that doesn't diddle interns between decisions...the left is desperate to manufacture a scandal.

Diggler
February 11, 2004, 09:18 AM
The best way to end the war was to use his status as a veteran to support the anti-war movement. Frankly I agree with him on that.

Personally, I think the best way to end the war would have been to allow the troops to use our military superiority and WIN the Vietnam war. The protesters (including Kerry) and the ensuing backlash didn't allow that to happen.

I truly believe that if the war was fought (from the top down) as a war to WIN, and the public showed some support for that, we wouldn't have lost.

org
February 11, 2004, 11:49 AM
MarkTyson, there were more than a couple guard units in VN. A number of Air Guard units served, Iowa and Colorado that I can name, and others I can't recall. These were fighter units and they served their year in combat. By the way, they were there about the time GWB signed up.

There were also guard and reserve ground troops there, but in limited numbers. Guard soldiers from some special forces units were there.

You're correct that the majority of NG and reservists didn't go to Viet Nam, but it was no sure thing that they wouldn't.

I agree with you....it doesn't matter. It's a contrived issue because they (the dems) can't come up with anything real. Right now the spin is that Kerry could win the election. Right now he might. Unfortunately for him, the election isn't right now, and Kerry has had non stop press for a couple of months, while the Bush people are just starting to respond. It's pretty easy to post big poll numbers when you're on TV 24/7 and your supporters are making big charges.

I just wish we had better to choose from.

org
February 11, 2004, 12:01 PM
Diggler, I couldn't agree more. All you have to do is read a few books written by those who were there. "Thud Ridge", "Going Downtown", are two of the best outlining the ridiculous restrictions and the situations caused by those restrictions. When targets are chosen by the President and his advisors over breakfast, there's a problem.

Sean Smith
February 11, 2004, 12:15 PM
Hitler was a combat veteran. Decorated, too. That didn't make his politics right.

I'm sure Bush got into the ANG as a result of daddy's connections, and I'm sure it was a handy way to avoid going to 'Nam. However, the claims that Bush was AWOL are looking more and more bogus. More service records are being found to account for his time in service, former accusers are recanting or waffling, and so forth. If the public can overlook Clinton's abject cowardice, it is unlikely to care about Bush's service record.

Al Norris
February 11, 2004, 01:17 PM
"Post 3 to Guardshack. I have movement in my wire."

"Roger 3. Wait one.... Post 3, the SOG will be there momentarily. Do not engage."

"Roger, 3 out."

After a few minutes, the Sergeant of the Guard comes out and surveys the perimeter. Sees nothing and reprimands the guard for wasting his time.

About a half to 45 minutes later, the guard sees what appears to be a man sniping wire. "Post 3 to Guardshack. I have bodies in the wire."

"Roger 3, wait for the SOG."

This time, when the SOG gets there, the guard points to where the movement is and describes the activities he saw. The Sergeant once again surveys the perimeter. He then turns and looks at the guard, "Corporal, just because you're going home in a couple of days doesn't mean you get to make this duty harder than it already is. Now unless and until something shoots at you, I don't want to hear anything else out of you. You get me?"

"Aye, aye, Sergeant."

About an hour or so later, having watched what appeared to be a sapper insert make his way to within 50 feet of guardpost 3 and slightly to the right, towards post 4. If the sapper was doing what he thought, that is cutting the detwires from the claymores, he had just left a wide trail through the wire. A trail through which many more of his kind could waltz through with only the guardposts to stop them. The ROE specified that you could not fire unless fired upon. The sapper hadn't fired. He was now in a virtual blindspot, between the perimeter lights and was more dificult to see than before. The corporal, tired of the BS from the SOG, picked up a small rock, made the mistake of standing up and threw it at the sapper, who moments later, stood up and threw something back.

The flash was blinding. The concusion of the blast knocked the marine onto his back. Quickly, the Corporal flung himself against the sandbags and returned fire. Somehow managing to send up a red ilum and a white ilum. As he changed mags, he got on the LL to the quardshack and reported being under attack. Posts 2 and 4 had opened fire on the target. More ilums brightened the night sky. The enemy was running like crazy and escaped past the wire, through the deadzone and into the heavy brush that surrounded the Northern Artillery Contonement.

The shooting stopped. A few minutes later the SOG and the OOD came to the guardpost. The LT asked what had happened and the corporal responded by telling him about first seeing movement and everything after that, leaving out only the part about throwing the rock. The SOG went to talk to posts 2 and 1, while the LT went and talked to posts 4 and 5.

After about a half hour, the SOG and OOD came back to the guardpost and began counting grenades, flares and ammo. The rest of the night was uneventful.

The next morning, the corporal was summoned to the Command hooch. There, he was told that he had seen nothing but a dog. While there was blood all over the place, it was dogs blood. The Corporal, standing at attwention asked if it was a dog that had thrown the grenade? The corporal also asked if it was a dog that had cut the claymore wires. And who had cut the razorwire to make a fairly straight path in between posts 3 and 4? The C.O., Major Stravinsky told the Marine to S.T.F.U. (It was obvious that because there was no body, the incursion never happened.)

Three days later, on Sept. 17, 1971, I was in DaNang and took a flight to Okinawa. Seven more days and I was home. Thirty days later, I reported for duty at 29 Stumps. There I heard that 2 weeks after I had left, a human wave attack had hit NAC with the majority of the incursion funneling that area between posts 3 and 4.

NAC consisted of a battery of 105's, 155's, 175's and 8 in Howitzers with one company of infantry to help guard the area. Thirty-Five Marines died that night with 65 more wounded. From my unit, 12 had died and we took 19 casualties. All because of the ROE and the politically correct way we had to "fight" that war.

I hold people like Kerry personally resposible for the deaths of my buddies. It was people like him that encouraged the VC and NVA to continue when they were beaten. It was people like him that imposed the ludicrous ROE on us: Don't shoot unless they shoot first, and you had better have a body to prove they even shot at you. Craters from grenades don't count as evidence of attack, without a body.

I would no more vote for him than I would Hanoi Jane. They are from the same mold.

fix
February 11, 2004, 01:25 PM
You know what most Vietnam veterans are going to say when you bring this up? As the T-shirt goes: "If you weren't there, S.T.F.U." Lots of Vietnam Vets know his post-war activities and support him anyway.

Well, so much for that theory. I've yet to personally hear from any VN vet who supports him. At my local VFW, the opposite is true. Unanimous condemnation.

Thumper
February 11, 2004, 01:28 PM
He testified before Congress that he personally observed American troops raping and murdering their way across Vietnam. He later admitted that he never saw any of that. He lied. That is very relevant.

At least these dem pres candidates are consistent when testifying before Congress. :D

wingnutx
February 11, 2004, 02:05 PM
Read this:

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040210-082910-8424r.htm

George Bush and I were lieutenants and pilots in the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron (FIS), Texas Air National Guard (ANG) from 1970 to 1971.

DonP
February 11, 2004, 02:17 PM
As a matter of fact he says that he won't make an issue out of Bush's National Guard service at least four or five times a day lately.

I have no problem with guys that went, guys that went AR or NG. (In fact one of the NG units that had guys in Basic with me at Ft. Campbell was activated and shipped over while we were in basic, ha!)

I do have a problem with guys that weaseled out entirely, fled to Canada, then wanted the same citizen rights we all had after the fact. (Thank you Jimmy Carter for your amnesty and for in effect spitting in the face of every Vietnam vet.)

I second the STFU idea. That applies to Terry McAullife and newscasters too, unless he has a service record that I have somehow overlooked.

Don P
1st Cav, Airmobile

noklue3
February 11, 2004, 03:02 PM
Well, so much for that theory. I've yet to personally hear from any VN vet who supports him. At my local VFW, the opposite is true. Unanimous condemnation.

And I hear the same at my American Legion Post.
As far as I am concerned Kerry gave "Aid and comfort to the enemy" while our men and women were still dying in VN.
May he and Jane roast for that.

Art

bountyhunter
February 11, 2004, 03:10 PM
Look. We all know what the National Guard was back then. It was a way for people to get out of serving in Vietnam. That's basically all it was. ..............John Kerry's war record is unimpeachable. The fact that he opposed the war, and aligned himself with some real jerks upon returning, is irrelevant.

You are one of the few people who gets it. You nailed it. This is not about Clinton, Gore, Nixon, Ghenghis Khan ar Frances the talking Mule. There are exactly TWO candidates running for president and their records are the ones in question. Period.

Why is Bush's military record an issue? Reason #1: In the 2000 race, McCain asked Bush to make it public and he refused. period. You try to hide something, that makes it an issue.

Reason #2: Bush lovers are attacking Kerry as a commie and calling him "Hanoi John" (a reference to jane Fonda who actually went to North Viet nam) because he came home and opposed the war.

You want to see HYPOCRISY? It's when the people calling a draft dodger who hid in the Guard during the war a "PATRIOT" start dumping s--t all over a guy who did his tour of duty in country and actually fought in the war.

As to whether Bush actually did serve in the Guard as required? I doubt it, because of the records I've seen. But, it's not really relevant to the point issue: you have a draft dodger calling a war veteran a commie coward for opposing an unjust war. And, that is because Bush and his followers believe anybody who opposes an unjust war is a traitor... including his Iraq fiasco. IMO, those are the real patriots.

idd
February 11, 2004, 03:11 PM
In his 1985 memoir about the war, General Vo Nguyen Giap wrote that if it weren't for organizations like Kerry's Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Hanoi would have surrendered to the U.S. - according to Fox News Channel war historian Oliver North.

The same Oliver North who was convicted of three felony counts of lying under oath? Wow, now *there's* a reliable source!

<roll eyes>

I have gotten around to reading Giap's book yet. Has anyone here read it?

DorGunR
February 11, 2004, 03:11 PM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You know what most Vietnam veterans are going to say when you bring this up? As the T-shirt goes: "If you weren't there, S.T.F.U." Lots of Vietnam Vets know his post-war activities and support him anyway.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't personally know of ONE vietnam vet that supports Hanoi Kerry.

US Army 1950-1972
SFC
25th Inf. Div. Cu Chi Vietnam, 1966/67 1969/70

DorGunR
February 11, 2004, 03:16 PM
Old Crimson Interview Reveals A More Radical John Kerry

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Published on Wednesday, February 11, 2004
Old Crimson Interview Reveals A More Radical John Kerry
The Crimson reported Kerry called for U.N. control of troops in 1970

By ZACHARY M. SEWARD
Crimson Staff Writer


Ten months after returning home from Vietnam, a young John Kerry strolled into the offices of The Harvard Crimson on Feb. 13, 1970 as an obscure underdog in the Democratic Congressional primary.
The decorated veteran, honorably discharged after a tour of duty in the Mekong Delta, spoke in fierce terms during his daylong interview with The Crimson’s Samuel Z. Goldhaber ’72.

But almost 34 years later, Kerry’s remarks on American military and intelligence operations vastly diverge from opinions expressed by the present-day Sen. John F. Kerry, D.-Mass., the leading candidate in the Democratic primary for president.

“I’m an internationalist,” Kerry told The Crimson in 1970. “I’d like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations.”

Kerry said he wanted “to almost eliminate CIA activity. The CIA is fighting its own war in Laos and nobody seems to care.”

The Kerry campaign, celebrating primary victories in Virginia and Tennessee last night, declined to comment on the senator’s remarks.

As a candidate for president, Kerry has said he supports the autonomy of the U.S. military and has never called for a scale-back of CIA operations.

Former Secretary of Labor Robert B. Reich defended Kerry’s 1970 statements as appropriate for their time.

“In the context of the Vietnam War, those comments are completely understandable,” said Reich, who has endorsed Kerry.

But a spokesperson for President Bush’s reelection campaign said Kerry’s 1970 remarks signaled the senator’s weakness on defense.

“President Bush will never cede the best interests of the national security of the American people to anybody but the president of the United States, along with the Congress,” said the spokesperson, Kevin A. Madden.

The increasingly likely matchup between Kerry and Bush has already prompted comparisons of the senator’s record in Vietnam and the president’s domestic service in the National Guard. And the two Yale graduates, both members of the secret society Skull and Bones, appeared set to square off in future months under the specter of the ongoing war in Iraq.

Goldhaber, whose first-person profile of Kerry ran in The Crimson Feb. 18, 1970, said yesterday he recalled the candidate as an emerging outsider whose campaign focused squarely on his opposition to the Vietnam War.

“We lived, dreamed and breathed Vietnam,” Goldhaber said.

Still, Adam Clymer ’58, political director of the National Annenberg Election Survey at the University of Pennsylvania, said Kerry’s comments would likely find their way into Bush campaign materials.

“If I were them, I’d use this,” said Clymer, a former Crimson president. “I’d use it in direct mail.”

Kerry’s conservative opponents have already begun painting the Massachusetts senator and former deputy governor as an elite, New England liberal, and his 21-year voting record in the Senate may provide considerable ammunition.

Madden said the Bush campaign would highlight Kerry’s Senate votes should he win the Democratic nomination.

And Reich forecasted G.O.P. research would extend far beyond Capitol Hill.

“If Kerry is the nominee, Republicans will try and search back into everything he ever said on every issue,” Reich predicted.

Kerry’s 1970 remarks to Goldhaber portray a fiery, novice politician inspired by his opposition to the Vietnam War.

“He struck me as very ambitious,” Goldhaber said yesterday. “He struck me as the sort of person—even back then, newly returned from Vietnam—who was thinking about running for president.”

—Staff writer Zachary M. Seward can be reached at seward@fas.harvard.edu.

http://www.thecrimson.com/today/article357339.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thumper
February 11, 2004, 03:17 PM
bountyhunter said:
It's when the people calling a draft dodger who hid in the Guard during the war

Hid, huh? Interesting take, however misinformed.

The following from a pilot [COL. William Campenni (retired)]
who served with Bush:


"There was one big exception to this abusive use of the Guard to avoid the draft, and that was for those who wanted to fly, as pilots or crew members. Because of the training required, signing up for this duty meant up to 2½ years of active duty for training alone, plus a high probability of mobilization. A fighter-pilot candidate selected by the Guard (such as Lt. Bush and me) would be spending the next two years on active duty going through basic training (six weeks), flight training (one year), survival training (two weeks) and combat crew training for his aircraft (six to nine months), followed by local checkout (up to three more months) before he was even deemed combat-ready. Because the draft was just two years, you sure weren't getting out of duty being an Air Guard pilot. If the unit to which you were going back was an F-100, you were mobilized for Vietnam. Avoiding service? Yeah, tell that to those guys.

The Bush critics do not comprehend the dangers of fighter aviation at any time or place, in Vietnam or at home, when they say other such pilots were risking their lives or even dying while Lt. Bush was in Texas. Our Texas ANG unit lost several planes right there in Houston during Lt. Bush's tenure, with fatalities. Just strapping on one of those obsolescing F-102s was risking one's life."

Just so you know...the SOP for loss of control of a Thud at 10,000 feet (!!!) was to eject. 10,000, not a typo.

fix
February 11, 2004, 03:29 PM
I second the STFU idea.

Move to accept. All in favor?

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
February 11, 2004, 03:32 PM
And, that is because Bush and his followers believe anybody who opposes an unjust war is a traitor... including his Iraq fiasco. IMO, those are the real patriots.

I don't consider Sen. Kerry a traitor based on his anti-war activities. I base it on his having accepted campaign contributions (bribes) from the People's Republic of China's military Intelligence Officers stationed here in D.C. at the same time the most advanced U.S. nuclear warhead designs were being stolen from the Los Alamos labs by the same Chinese.

We can argue over the reasons why, but there's no real doubt that Kerry is in fact a traitor.

wingman
February 11, 2004, 03:32 PM
Sad to say I don't see a good candidate on either side and not really sure
if we will ever see one again due to the media, super rich, and special interest
groups. If a true leader stepped forward he would not last long in todays
world.:banghead:

Jeff White
February 11, 2004, 03:40 PM
It may have been a way to serve that had a low probablilty of deploying, but it wasn't hiding out. The military was prepared to deploy guard and reserve troops if necessary. Many ANG and AF reservists flew missions in SEA. The ARNG and USAR deployed few troops, but that was based on a political decsion made by the president to keep the war from diverting attention from the Great Society programs they were pushing at the same time.

The ARNG maintained a Selected Reserve Force or SRF that trained twice a month to be ready for near instant deployment.

As for Presidnet Bush's drill attendance, flight crews often drilled throughout the month due to mission requirements and not on the standard one weekend a month schedule. It's quite possible that other people in the unit would not have seen him there at drill. We were still involved in the cold war at this tiem and these ANG intercepter units maintained CAPs and fighters on strip alert 24-7 in those days. In fact if we still had them on the job there is a good possibilty all of the hijacked airliners on 11 Sep 2001 would have been intercepted before they reached their targets. If there had been an attack while Bush was on duty, I have no doubt he would have engaged the enemy with his obsolete F102.

It's also not uncommon for people, even low ranking enlisted to take a leave of absence and either make up the drills before or after the drill was scheduled. Federal law states that these drills are to be made up in a 90 day window around the actual drill date, but that rule is still routinely ignored. And not just for politically connected pilots either.

The democrats are taking dangerous road by casting stones at Bush's guard record. They are also casting stones at the millions of other citizen soldiers who have served honorably and who are on the front lines today....In every theater in the GWOT.

Jeff

fix
February 11, 2004, 03:44 PM
They are also casting stones at the millions of other citizen soldiers who have served honorably and who are on the front lines today....In every theater in the GWOT.

Damn right! Over 25% of the casualties in Iraq have been reservists/NG. So much for hiding out. I'm guessing they (who lived) and their families will probably not look to favorably on Kerry come November.

Yowza
February 11, 2004, 03:50 PM
you have a draft dodger calling a war veteran a commie coward for opposing an unjust war.

I don't remember hearing Clinton call Kerry any such thing! Oh, I'm sorry...I guess you were talking about Bush. All the inaccuracies in your post just confused me. Nevermind.

Rick

Baron Holbach4
February 11, 2004, 04:10 PM
It is ironic how this board is essentially about the Second Amendment. The liberal democrats can scream "AWOL" at George Bush until they are blue in the face. Show me the evidence that Bush was "AWOL." Instead I see posts denigrating his service in the National Guard but no evidence of "AWOL" that would withstand the scrutiny of a court martial. Now, for those concerned about where Kerry stands on the Second Amendment, check out the following link:

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/scorecard/scorecard.php?inds=42

Mark Tyson
February 11, 2004, 06:03 PM
Damn right! Over 25% of the casualties in Iraq have been reservists/NG. So much for hiding out.

Back then, with the active army filled with draftees, the level of guard/reserve deployment that we see today did not exist. The national guard, by and large, was a safe way to avoid combat, or at least reduce your chances of going to Vietnam.

bountyhunter
February 11, 2004, 06:20 PM
Back then, with the active army filled with draftees, the level of guard/reserve deployment that we see today did not exist. The national guard, by and large, was a safe way to avoid combat, or at least reduce your chances of going to Vietnam.

Not that any republican would care, but during Viet nam the highest level of guard deployment was about 5% of total force (not sure about breakdown of combat/support). That 5% level was only for one year. The other years were a lot less. So, you are correct that getting in the Guard was a REAL good way to stay alive back then.

Preacherman
February 11, 2004, 06:25 PM
See this thread (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?threadid=64600) for a rather well-informed answer to Mr. Bush's critics.

bountyhunter
February 11, 2004, 06:26 PM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's when the people calling a draft dodger who hid in the Guard during the war
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hid, huh? Interesting take, however misinformed.


:

OK, I'll play the semantics game. Kerry had a 100% chance of front line service (he was there) and Bush had about a 5% (actually much less) chance of serving based on deployment records of the Guard from the time. In fact, in 1969 the guard number activated was much less than 5%.

So, you don't agree that is "hiding". OK. But one thing for sure, it sure as hell was a good way to drastically reduce your chances of seeing front line combat.

Jeff White
February 11, 2004, 06:30 PM
So you guys are saying that everyone who was in the guard or reserves in that era was dodging the draft? Pretty broad brush you're painting with. You know as well as I do that the failure to deploy the RC in any significant numbers was a political decision.

The fact remains that they were serving and available for deployment. Bush has done plenty of things that make him vulnerable. He's not vulnerable on this issue unless you are willing to put every other Vietnam era reservist in the same basket. Are you? Are you actually willing to stand up and say that?

Jeff

Thumper
February 11, 2004, 06:32 PM
Kerry had a 100% chance of front line service (he was there) and Bush had about a 5% (actually much less) chance of serving based on deployment records of the Guard from the time. In fact, in 1969 the guard number activated was much less than 5%.

Well, Hells Bells! I had a much lower chance of seeing combat as a 98K during Desert Storm than an 11B.

Does that make me a deserter? A "draft dodger?"

I'll ask again for fix since I believe it's relevent: When and where did you serve that you feel so comfortable calling a Honorably Discharged Veteran a draft dodger?

greyhound
February 11, 2004, 06:44 PM
Kerry said he won't make an issue out of it

Yep, he said that - knowing good and well that the the DNC and other Democratic party apparatus will continue the attack, while Kerry hypocritically tut-tuts over the whole thing.

Its all a pre-emptive strike against Kerry's protesting....

Bruce H
February 11, 2004, 07:23 PM
bountyhunter is that why your mate is in the guard? I'll bet you are a real peach to live with.

Mark Tyson
February 11, 2004, 07:26 PM
I have a sneaking suspicion that if the war records of Bush and Kerry were reversed, Bush supporters would be screaming at the top of their lungs about their war hero president who's "been there and done that" and denouncing Kerry as a cowardly elitist who weaseled his way into a job where he could look cool in a pilot's uniform yet still avoid serving in a war zone.

So let's forget what these two guys did during Vietnam and concentrate on their policies today - Bush for what he's done in office, Kerry for his voting record in congress. There's plenty to talk about without bringing up stuff that happened thirty years ago.

tiberius
February 11, 2004, 07:31 PM
OK, I'll say it. John Kerry had a better war record than GWB. BFD!

This does NOT make GWB's record dishonorable.

There are many reasons why I will not be supporting Mr. Bush this November (too anti-libertarian for me) but he has handled foreign policy admirably and he is twice the leader Mr. Kerry could ever be.

fix
February 11, 2004, 07:38 PM
Mark I haven't seen anyone here make any attempt to do anything other than defend the President's service, which has been under attack since 2000. While I personally feel that what Kerry has done since VN is reprehensible at best, there is absolutely no question in my mind that the man did his time and went above and beyond on more than one occasion. That does not give anyone a license to take free shots at the President's record, particularly when there is nothing to substantiate their claims...and especially when they have no record of their own.

RobW
February 11, 2004, 08:38 PM
This is a very good thread to show you how rot this country has become. 2nd Amendment defenders are going to defend a fiercly enemy of the 2nd. (Yes, Kerry).

I wonder, how many people despising Bush, were actually in the fighting forces in 'Nam.

We will get the president we deserve. Don't cry if it' Kerry!

TheBluesMan
February 11, 2004, 09:52 PM
I wonder why nobody has brought up G.W. Bush's more recent service: That of Commander-in-Chief of the military for the past three years...

HunterGatherer
February 11, 2004, 10:35 PM
Move to accept. All in favor? AYE!

Diggler
February 17, 2004, 11:22 AM
From Newsweek:
The standard rap against Bush is that he was ducking combat by joining the Guard. Actually, the Texas Air Guard had a program called Palace Alert that allowed pilots to volunteer for flight time in Vietnam. Three of Bush's fellow pilots—Udell, Woodfin and Fred Bradley—recalled to NEWSWEEK that Bush inquired with the base commander about signing up for Palace Alert. He was told no; he had too few flying hours at the time and his plane, the F-102, was by then deemed obsolete for air combat.

Jonesy9
February 17, 2004, 12:17 PM
There are still a lot of questions I'd like answered. Bush has flip flopped on his promise to realease all his military records from last week. What are they hiding?

The Bush admin is only releasing selected portions of his record. Why is that?


Why does a fighter pilot give up his wings so easily? 2 Pilots I've known did everything in their power short of cheating to make damn sure they passed their medical and would never conisder forfeiting their flying priveldges by skipping out on a medical exam.

Was Bush ever disciplined? Was he sent to a disciplianry unit? Did he accumulate points at a unit that only existed on paper?

Why did he miss so many drills during the year in question? Was he serving community service for another drunk driving incident?

Why do they keep pointing to his "honorable discharge" as proof that he served? My dad was NG Yankee Division mortar man before the war started and stayed in till the late sixties. He knew of several people who got HD's just to get rid of them. It seems to be common knowledge that an HD at that time did not always mean you served honorably. If that could happen to rank and file, it's not a stretch that a Senators grandson and Congressmans son got preferential teratment.

Many here belive that Bush got preferntial treatment to skip the wait list, especially with his barely passing scores yet Bush claimed that was not true while running for Governor. Did Bush lie about that?


This issue will remain open and the American people have a right to know. Just as Clinton's draft dodging was a character issue so is Bush's service record. There was never a sufficient airing of these issues in 2000. Bush got a free pass and was almost able to hide his arrest record. We still don't know if he was ever arrested elsewhere.

After Clinton, the bar was so low that Bush was able to acend the throne despite his failed business record, alcoholism, questionable military service, arrest record and complete absence of any accomplishments not aided by his name or fathers connections. and he was able to do it on a platform of honesty and integrity LOL!


This issue should remain open, the American people deserve no less. IMHO.

ojibweindian
February 17, 2004, 01:58 PM
There are still a lot of questions I'd like answered. Bush has flip flopped on his promise to realease all his military records from last week. What are they hiding?

Here's some questions I'd like to see Kerry answer:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A41071-2004Feb13?language=printer


The 1st 28 Questions For Kerry

By George F. Will
Sunday, February 15, 2004; Page B07


In the more than 250 days until Nov. 2, John Kerry can answer questions that linger despite, or because of, all he has said so far. Such as:



Other than denoting your disapproval, what does the adjective mean in the phrase "special interest"? Is the National Education Association a special interest? The AFL-CIO?

You abhor "special tax giveaways for the privileged and special interests." When supporting billions in ethanol subsidies, mostly for agribusinesses, did you think about corn-growing, caucus-holding Iowa?

Is the National Rifle Association a "special interest"? Is "special" a synonym for "conservative"?

When you denounce "lobbyists" do you include those for Planned Parenthood and the Sierra Club? Is "liberal lobbyist" an oxymoron?

All the Americans affected by laws you pass -- that is, all Americans -- refuse to pipe down and mind their own business so that you can mind their business for them. Often they hire lobbyists to exercise their First Amendment right to "petition the government for a redress of grievances." Can you despise lobbyists without disparaging that right?

You say the rich do not pay enough taxes. In 1979 the top 1 percent of earners paid 19.75 percent of income taxes. Today they pay 36.3 percent. How much is enough?

You say the federal government is not spending enough on education. President Bush has increased education spending 48 percent. How much is enough?

In January 1991, after Iraq extinguished Kuwait's sovereignty, you opposed responding with force rather than economic sanctions. Have such sanctions ever undone such aggression?

On Jan. 11, 1991, you said that going to war was abandoning "the theory of deterrence." Was it not a tad late to deter Iraqi aggression?

The next day you said, "I do not believe our nation is prepared for war." How did unpreparedness subsequently manifest itself?

On Jan. 22, 1991, responding to a constituent opposed to the Persian Gulf War, you wrote "I share your concerns" and would have given sanctions more time. Nine days later, responding to a voter who favored the war, you wrote, "I have strongly and unequivocally supported President Bush's response to the crisis." Did you have a third position?

You say the Bush administration questions "the patriotism" of its critics. You say that as president you will "appoint a U.S. trade representative who is an American patriot." You mean the current representative, Robert Zoellick, is not a patriot?

You strongly praise former Treasury secretary Bob Rubin, who strongly supports NAFTA and free trade. Have you changed your mind about him or about free trade (as you have changed your mind about the No Child Left Behind Act, the 2002 war resolution, the Patriot Act, etc.)?

You oppose immediate termination of U.S. involvement in Iraq, and you opposed the $87 billion to pay for involvement. Come again?

In 1994, the year after the first attack on the World Trade Center, you voted to cut $1 billion from counterterrorism activities. In 1995 you proposed a $1.5 billion cut in intelligence funding. Are you now glad that both proposals were defeated?

You favor civil unions but not same-sex marriage. What is the difference? What consequences of gay marriage worry you? Your state's highest court says marriage is "an evolving paradigm." Do you agree? You say you agree with what Dick Cheney said in 2000: States should have a right to "come to different conclusions" about same-sex marriage. Why, then, were you one of only 14 senators who opposed the Defense of Marriage Act, which protects that right? Massachusetts opponents of the same-sex ruling are moving for a referendum to amend the state constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. How will you vote?

You favor full disclosure of political spending. Organized labor is fighting new regulations requiring full disclosure to union members of the political uses of their mandatory union dues. As president, would you rescind these regulations?

Praising McCain-Feingold restrictions on political contributions, you said: "This bill reduces the power of the checkbook, and I will therefore support it." In December you saved your sagging campaign by writing it a $6.4 million check. Why is your checkbook's unfettered freedom wholesome?

You deny that restricting campaign contributions restricts speech. How much of the $6.4 million did you spend on speech -- in the form of broadcast messages?

Billionaire George Soros says he will spend whatever is necessary to defeat President Bush. As one who believes -- well, who says -- there is "too much money" in politics, are you appalled?

There are 28 more questions where these 28 came from.

ojibweindian
February 17, 2004, 02:31 PM
Another thing I find somewhat entertaining to think on; the socialists (Dems) launched the Vietnam War, bitch about how wrong it was, blame the war on a Republican, then praise kandidate Kerry for service during Vietnam.

Unbelievable.

Jonesy9
February 17, 2004, 02:51 PM
that's some pretty apathetic logic there Oji. (Apathy, the REAL threat to liberty.)


It would be more entertaining to remember that the vast majority of the GOP leadership dodged service. Congress has move Vets in the Dems that the GOP. I find the attempts to claim the warrior mantle by the GOP entertaining. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Unbeliveable :)

ojibweindian
February 17, 2004, 03:06 PM
It would be more entertaining to remember that the vast majority of the GOP leadership dodged service.

Hyperbole (another term for B*ll Sh*t).

If you got names, name them.

Jonesy9
February 17, 2004, 03:23 PM
not at all. it's actually easier to name those that did serve.Powell Rumsfeld and McCain and North come to mind.


the rest, Bush, Cheney, Hastert, Lott, Delay, Perle, Wolfowitz, Card, Abrams, bolton, Thompson, Pitt, Ashcroft, Olson, Barr, Gingrich, Guilaini, nichols , Meyers, REAGAN, Quayle, Rove, Falwell, Robertson, Reed, Gafney, Nugent, etc etc did not serve.


The GOP is a vertiable bastion of draft dodging hypocrites and cowards. If you were in Nam, maybe some of your friends were killed in their place, you never know.

Check out the NH Gazettes Chickenhawk database. They got the good on the Dems too although it is a bit one sided.

But enough threadjacking. I gave Bush a free pass in 2000 but the more I read, the more questions get raised. If you are a Bush supporter, do not research his time in the NG, it will drive you nuts.




http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Index-DailyReads-Antiwar-ChickenhawkDatabase.htm

fix
February 17, 2004, 03:34 PM
Might as well link to a DU post. :rolleyes:

Jonesy9
February 17, 2004, 03:42 PM
actually, I think JohnGalt at Freerepublic turned me on to the Chickenhawk thing if I remeber correctly, but I think he's one of the anti-neo-con, more traditional conservative types.

fix
February 17, 2004, 03:50 PM
Ok. So if Newt Gingrich sent you a link to DU, would that make it more objective?

Jonesy9
February 17, 2004, 03:57 PM
how is that relevant? I merely countered your attempt to link me to DU, which has a negative conotation here truthfully.

if the chickenhawks were listed on townhall.com or worldnetdaily, would that somehow make the list more true?

Jeff White
February 17, 2004, 04:04 PM
Jonesy9,

What part of Bush's record hasn't been released? Do you even know what an Air Force record consists of? I don't, I spent all my time in the Army. Tell me what is missing from what the administration released. Of course we can surely expect that there would be no holes in a military record, that's why we tell everyone to keep their own file and make copies of everything. When a service member moves from unit to unit, chances are things get pulled from a file because the new unit doesn't think it's important.

Last week the director of the records center in St Louis gave an interview on KMOX radio. He explained how records of famous people, politicians, entertainers etc. are segregated and kept in a vault. where no employee of the center would have routine access to them. He stated that the president's record was placed in the vault when he ran for governor of Texas and that it remained there until the administration requested it last week. Then it was removed from the vault and sent to the Air Reserve Personnel Center in Colorado. This disproves the story of the record being sanitized in Texas.

Now let's talk a minute about this:

Was Bush ever disciplined? Was he sent to a disciplianry unit? Did he accumulate points at a unit that only existed on paper?

I don't want to sound sarcastic, but do you know anything about the military that protects your freedom to post on THR? We're not the old Soviet Army. We don't maintain penal battalions where soldiers are sent for re-education. The only way he could have been sent somewhere like the disciplinary barracks at Ft Leavenworth KS was if he'd have been convicted of a serious offense at court martial. Service members are senteced to a bad discharge along with their trip to Leavenworth. He would also have a federal felony conviction on his record if that was the case.

Why did he miss so many drills during the year in question? Was he serving community service for another drunk driving incident?

He was working on a political campaign. this is common knowledge. It's also quite common for reservists who had civilian job conflicts to arrange to make the drills up to cover the abesence. It happened then and it's happening today. It's the way things have always worked in the RC. Better to make accomidations for civilian career goals then to lose the servicemember entirely. As for serving community service for a drunk driving incident, no one heard of that concept back in the 70s. In fact in most of the US in the early 70s drunk driving wasn't a much more serious offense then a speeding ticket. It wasn't until the mid 80s when organizations like Mothers Against Drunk Driving brought the issue into the public eye did the nation reform the DUI laws.

Why do they keep pointing to his "honorable discharge" as proof that he served? My dad was NG Yankee Division mortar man before the war started and stayed in till the late sixties. He knew of several people who got HD's just to get rid of them. It seems to be common knowledge that an HD at that time did not always mean you served honorably. If that could happen to rank and file, it's not a stretch that a Senators grandson and Congressmans son got preferential teratment.

Yep, people who's service was less then stellar get honorable discharges. But they also get bad RE (re-enlistment) codes. Get out your copy of the president's DD214 and NGB Form 22 and look at the block marked Re-enlistment. It should be near the bottom of both forms. You'll see a code, a number next to the letters RE. Now since anyone who would defend the president on an online forum must be a member of the vast right wing conspiracy (although if you search my posts, you'll find plenty I disagree with Bush on) get out your phone book. Go to the white pages under US Government and look up the closest recruiting office. Now pick one of them and call the number. Ask the friendly NCO who answers the phone if anyone with whatever RE code the president has is eligible to re-enlist. Don't say it's the president's RE code, just act like you are inquiring for yourself or a friend. If he says, they couldn't or it would require a waiver, then you'll know your feeling is right. Somehow I doubt that you'll find he had a bad RE code.

After Clinton, the bar was so low that Bush was able to acend the throne despite his failed business record, alcoholism, questionable military service, arrest record and complete absence of any accomplishments not aided by his name or fathers connections. and he was able to do it on a platform of honesty and integrity LOL!


This issue should remain open, the American people deserve no less. IMHO.

Perhaps Senator Kerry would care to address the VFW, the American Legion and the Vietnam Verterns of America as to how he could dishonor those he served, sweated and bled with when he came back from Vietnam and joined the antiwar movement. Perhaps he can explain how he could bring himself to call the men who he should have had bonds stronger then those who have never served can comprehend baby killers. Perhaps while he's in Wisconsin, he'd like to drop by Laotian and Cambodian community in LaCrosse and explain to them why Pol Pot was really a good guy, just misunderstood...It was the American left and the antiwar movement he embraced that is directly responsible for 2 million massacred on the killing fields of Cambodia and the displacement and murder of the Hmong population in Laos.

Kerry has plenty of baggage attached to his involvment with the antiwar movement after he returned from Vietnam. You democrats would be well advised to try to win the campaign on real issues.

Jeff

fix
February 17, 2004, 04:09 PM
It's not so much a question of whether the list is truthful, but rather a question of whether it is complete. I'm sure if we put the Democrats under the microscope the list would be more extensive. Then there is the obvious bias, evidenced by much of the verbage. I could go on, but I'm not gonna change your mind...and you're not gonna change mine.

FPrice
February 17, 2004, 04:10 PM
"the rest, Bush, Cheney, Hastert, Lott, Delay, Perle, Wolfowitz, Card, Abrams, bolton, Thompson, Pitt, Ashcroft, Olson, Barr, Gingrich, Guilaini, nichols , Meyers, REAGAN, Quayle, Rove, Falwell, Robertson, Reed, Gafney, Nugent, etc etc did not serve."

I noticed that you had President Reagan's name capitalized as if it were meant to signify something. So I looked up his biography. It reports:

"1937 Reagan becomes a 2nd Lieutenant in the Army Officers Reserve Corps of the Cavalry."

Hmm, four years BEFORE WWII.

"December: U.S. at war. Reagan drafted into the army. Nearsighted vision keeps him away from the front. He is assigned to the Motion Picture Army Unit in Culver City to make training and propaganda films."

Drafted but not medically qualified for combat duty, so he did what he could do for the war effort.

So I guess Reagan DID serve. Maybe not up to your "qualifications", but he did serve.

Jonesy9
February 17, 2004, 04:19 PM
good points Mr. White, very educational. thanks for your reply

HunterGatherer
February 17, 2004, 04:49 PM
Sick of the National Guard debacle. Me too. The arguments aren't even fun.

Watching people who got their knowledge of military service from Oliver Stone movies argue with those of us with real military sevice is like watching a bull elephant stomp a puppy. It's just pathetic.

Malone LaVeigh
February 17, 2004, 05:17 PM
So you guys are saying that everyone who was in the guard or reserves in that era was dodging the draft? Not everyone, but, read my sig line.
I wonder why nobody has brought up G.W. Bush's more recent service: That of Commander-in-Chief of the military for the past three years... Absolutely, 1000%, agree with that statement. Lied us into an unnecessary war ill-prepared for the aftermath or long-term consequences. That's the main reason I wouldn't vote for Bush if he was running against Charles Manson.

Not that I'm likely to vote for Kerry, but these threads about his anti-war years make me consider it...

DTLoken
February 17, 2004, 05:37 PM
It's quite disgusting to see people speaking in this manner.


Dissent is a fundamental part of democracy.



Last I looked the 1st Amendment is just as important as the 2nd Amendment as well as the rest of the Bill of Rights.

Personally I think Kerry is a jackass, and i'd never vote for him (Or Bush). But calling him a traitor for his stance against the war is quite simply riddiculous. He fought in Vietnam and did his time.

bountyhunter
February 17, 2004, 06:40 PM
""December: U.S. at war. Reagan drafted into the army. Nearsighted vision keeps him away from the front. He is assigned to the Motion Picture Army Unit in Culver City to make training and propaganda films."

Drafted but not medically qualified for combat duty, so he did what he could do for the war effort.

So I guess Reagan DID serve. Maybe not up to your "qualifications", but he did serve.



You are right about that. Mis reading the letters on the eye chart and spending the war making movies isn't up to anybody's standard of service. Do you seriously think his eyes were not checked when he enlisted into the cavalry Reserve?

You think nobody in the Army wore glasses? My father was nearsighted his whole life, wore glasses his whole life, and served in an infantry rifle company the whole war carrying a BAR. he was a certified expert with rifles and pistols.

Nearsighted gets you out? Give me a break.

fix
February 17, 2004, 06:45 PM
.

Al Norris
February 17, 2004, 09:02 PM
DTLoken wrote:
Personally I think Kerry is a jackass, and i'd never vote for him (Or Bush). But calling him a traitor for his stance against the war is quite simply riddiculous.
Is it? It was quite simply ridiculous to go before a Congressional Committee and call your fellow soldiers baby killers, while so many of those soldiers were dying back in the jungle.

But then, you apparently hold Kerry's 1st amendment rights as superior to my own.

The facts are that the North was losing, if not lost... Except for the aid and comfort and encouragement and above all hope, people like Kerry and Fonda gave them. The anti-war movement cost more lives than it ever saved.
:fire:

Orion
February 17, 2004, 10:14 PM
OK, perhaps some of you people have never heard of the Cold War, Bear, Badger or Backfire bombers, CAP over the southern coast.

During this period of time we didn't have the technology we do today, Most of you don't remember or realise that we had SAC flight crews in the air "In the Pattern" almost all the time. The Soviets did too.

Bush flew Interceptors, not fighter bombers but Interceptors!!! There were no F-102's or Interceptors in use in Southeast Asia during President Bush term of service.

My understanding is that President Bush had over 600hrs in the F-102.

So, his record states that he was in training in T-38, T-31, planes etc. for over 2 years, plus his basic times, plus his survival training, plus the time he was in Alabama and not flight rated (apparantly common practice to not have visiting personnel fly, office duty was the norm)

We'll be safe and call that 3 years the President didn't fly F-102's for whatever reason. 600 hours divided by 36 months that about 16 hours a month flight time. or 2 8 hours shifts in the air a month. Let me see now, Guard Duty requirments are, can anyone remember... Oh yeah, 1 weekend a month!!! Now let's be more specific, President Bush spent over 16 hours IN THE AIR a month, that doesn't count flight briefings, preflight, after action reports, on and on and on.

Now for the dumbasses that don't understand the difference between a B-52 flying "in the Pattern" and an INTERCEPTOR FLYING CAP... a B-52 is a big ???, slow, sluggish dog that has little or no ability to defend itself let alone take out another aircraft. An Interceptor such as the F-102 Delta Dagger was capable of flying over 800 knots with 6 missiles to intercept a big ??? slow bomber like the Bear, capable of carrying several different payloads but most notably the H-20 missile

gundam007
February 17, 2004, 11:29 PM
its impossible to get Kerry on what policies he is going to use as president. Know why? He doesn't have any! All he does is state the issue, which almost nobody can disagree with....
listen.



When I am elected into office, I will stimulate the economy and bring jobs back into America. There will be no defecit.. We need to be better prepared in the war on terror.


Wow... I think I already might get 100 or so write in votes :evil:

HunterGatherer
February 18, 2004, 05:44 AM
Let's see... since my last post we have:

Stomp

Stomp

Stomp

LMAO

Precisely

Amen

Exactly


Poor little puppies. The little fellas never had a chance. ;) :p

ojibweindian
February 18, 2004, 08:52 AM
Shooter 2.5 made an excellent post concerning Kerry. I thought I would post it here, then provide the link.

JOHN KERRY VOTING RECORD:: THE LIST

ABORTION

Voted to federally fund abortions.

Voted against parental consent for minors.

Voted against ban on Partial Birth Abortion (3 times)

Voted against ban on sending money to UN population fund if the money was sent to pay for China forced abortion and sterilization policy.

NARAL lifetime rating of 100%

National Right to Life Committee lifetime rating of 0%

DEATH PENALTY

Opposes federal death penalty.

Voted against death penalty for terrorists. (recently flip-flopped in 2002)

Voted against death penalty for drug-related murders.

TAXES & BUDGET

Voted against Bush tax cut and wants to repeal portions of Bush tax cut.

Voted for 1993 Clinton tax hike. (largest in history)

Voted against major tax relief packages at least 10 times.

Voted at least 5 times against balance budget amendments.

Kerry voted at least five times to raid The Social Security Trust Fund.

MILITARY & NATIONAL SECURITY

Voted for 7 major reductions in military funding Voted against Gulf War I (1991).

Voted for Gulf War II (but then criticized and voted against military appropriation for troops).

Voted against MX missile.

Voted against Trident Submarine.

Voted against SDI (Strategic Defense Initiative – Star Wars).

Voted against B-1 and B-2 Stealth Bomber and Fighter.

Favored UN control of US Troops (in the 1970s).

Supported Slashing $2.6 Billion from Intelligence Funding While Serving as a Member of Senate Intel Committee.

Attended a seminar (the so-called "Winter Soldier Investigation) bankrolled by Jane Fonda in Detroit in February 1971 during which 125 self-proclaimed Vietnam veterans testified at a Howard Johnson's about atrocities allegedly committed by our own forces.

Many of the so-called Veterans were frauds and virtually every alleged atrocity was investigated and proven to be false.

FAITH & VALUES

Voted against ban on human cloning.

Voted Against Defense of Marriage Act (to give states option to decide whether to recognize homosexual marriages in other states).

Sent letter to Massachusetts Legislature opposing Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as solely between a man and a woman.

Favors civil unions for homosexuals.

Voted to extend hate crimes protections to homosexuals.

Voted against a constitutional amendment on flag desecration.

EDUCATION

Voted against voluntary school prayer.

Voted against voucher pilot program.

Voted against approving a school-choice pilot program

JUDGES, COURTS & LAW

Voted against confirmation of Clarence Thomas for Supreme Court Justice.

Voted against confirmation of Robert Bork for Supreme Court Justice.

Voted against confirmation William Rehnquist as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

Voted against confirmation John Ashcroft as US Attorney General.

Voted against punitive damages in products liability cases. As Michael Dukakis Lt. Governor From 1983-1985, Kerry Supported Granting Prison Furloughs To Hundreds Of Massachusetts Inmates.

FOREIGN POLICY

Against linking Most Favored Nation status to China human rights record.

Voted for Kyoto Protocol on Environment that exempted major Third Word polluters.

Supported Iraq regime change as late as January, 2003.

Now has flipped-flopped For Unilateral nuclear Freeze.

Voted against deployment of INF missiles in Europe.

POLITICAL ASSOCIATIONS

Leading member of VVAW (Vietnam Veterans Against the War)

Attended and conducted anti-war and anti-American protests in the 1970s. Organized the Protests.

Votes with Ted Kennedy an average of 94% of the time.

Received $300,000 contribution from Johnny Chung as directed by Chinese intelligence officer.

Supported Communist Sandinistas and visited with leader Communist Daniel Ortega days before Ortega flew to Moscow and received $200 million in Soviet aid.

Has a lifetime rating of 26% from Citizens Against Government Waste.

Has a lifetime rating of 0% from the National Rifle Association.

Lifetime liberal vote rating of 93% from Americans For Democratic Action (5 points higher than Ted Kennedy).

Voted with the liberal activist group, The League Of Conservation Voters, an average of 95% of the time.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=65238&perpage=25&pagenumber=3

Diggler
February 18, 2004, 09:05 AM
Wow, if there is a 'negative' of John F'n Kerry, he'd be the perfect president. He is the EXACT opposite of what I believe in.

Now is NOT the time to 'send a message' via third party vote, or staying at home, to the Republican party. The only message you'll send is "Take my guns!"

Malone LaVeigh
February 18, 2004, 11:17 PM
Hmm

I seem to agree with Kerry about 80%. Maybe he's not so bad after all.

Khornet
February 19, 2004, 08:01 AM
if you agree with him about 80%, you are by definition self-contradicting. You would have to, for example, vote for the war and then oppose it. Or vote for the Patriot act and then condemn it. Or condemn special interests while living off them. Or damn the wealthy while living off them.

As some wag said, Kerry has been having simultaneous flashbacks of fighting in Vietnam and calling his fellow soldiers murderers, causing him to spit on himself.

Jonesy9
February 19, 2004, 10:14 AM
those things that Kerry allegedly said are pretty bad and get thrown around a lot. I'm always suspect of political emails, especially smear jobs.

I looked up the alledged quotes and was not surprised to find that they were taken out of context.


Kerry began his 1971 testimony by describing statements made on the record by a large number of vets about their own personal actions.

"...several months ago in Detroit we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged, and many very highly decorated, veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia. These were not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command...

They told stories that at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads..."

The GOP and their surrogates have twisted the record intentionally to where normally rational people believe Kerry was calling people baby killers and think he was claiming that he had witnessed the atrocities himself. Suckers! But they play the part well. LMAO!

Looks like we got duped. I understand that most people don't care and will continue to spout them, there are morally and ethically bankrupt folks on both sides, even some of them vets. It sad that Kerry's fellow vets will continue to slander him and lie about his quotes for politcal gain. I would never urinate on a mans record like that and I'm not a vet.

As for voting for the Patriot Act and then condeming it, too bad more pols don't have the spine to do that. The PA was rammed through Congress on a wave of nationalism, almost 100% of both sides of the aisle negelected their responsibilites and got suckered into voting on yet another bill they didn't read. The real travesty is that there haven't been more right wingers standing up against it noe that they have had ample time to read it. There have been some, but not enough.


Kerry record on special interest money has also been distorted, I got slapped down pretty hard on that one on another BB. Bush has taken 4 times the amount of money Kerry has since 1990 in the last 3 years alone. And Kerry is the only one who doesn't take PAC money.


Man I hate defending Kerry. He loses the debate when it comes to issues, why we need to debase it with outright lies and destroy your own credibility is retarded.

Sean Smith
February 19, 2004, 10:45 AM
I seem to agree with Kerry about 80%. Maybe he's not so bad after all.

Kerry doesn't agree with HIMSELF 80% of the time.

:rolleyes:

He's also anti-gun (see his "perfect" voting record for details), and it's pretty funny to see pro-Kerry folks on a forum whose purpose is to advance the cause of the right to keep and bear arms. Maybe we can find some pro-KKK views on the killwhitey.com forums...;)

Jonesy9
February 19, 2004, 02:38 PM
I know what you mean but most people are not single issue voters. I'm not , although RKBA weighs heavily, it's not the be all end all measurement.

bountyhunter
February 19, 2004, 03:13 PM
The GOP and their surrogates have twisted the record intentionally to where normally rational people believe Kerry was calling people baby killers and think he was claiming that he had witnessed the atrocities himself. Suckers! But they play the part well. LMAO!

An astute observation. This administration is the most heinous I've seen since Nixon's at the use of propoganda. And, I wouldn't laugh too much: it works. Kerry's anti war record will cost him the next election. The Bush machine is going to beat him to death with that stick.

BTW: the "normally rational" public is easily led and has a retention capacity of about three syllables. Watch as politics sinks to a low not seen in decades.:barf:

bountyhunter
February 19, 2004, 03:19 PM
you are by definition self-contradicting. You would have to, for example, vote for the war and then oppose it.

This is the Big Lie #2 of the Bush administration that I want to drive a stake through the heart of:

That anybody who voted for the resolution was NOT against the war, and saying they were must mean they flip-flopped.

Bottom line, it was clear the war was going to happen. Most of the senators caved in and voted for the resolutuion as a show of support for our armed forces and also our country, not the Looney Toon who was driving full speed to a war we didn't need.

It can be argued they should have made a stand, but they were being beaten with the "If you aren't with us you are a terror lover stick."

Point is, it is not hypocritical to state that many people who opposed the war voted to authorize the resources our soldiers would need to fight it.

fix
February 19, 2004, 03:35 PM
They voted seperately to authorize resources. The vote everyone is talking about is the vote to go kill bad guys.

ojibweindian
February 19, 2004, 04:04 PM
FlipFlop
FlipFlop
FlipFlop
FlipFlop
FlipFlop
FlipFlop
FlipFlop
FlipFlop
FlipFlop
FlipFlop
FlipFlop
FlipFlop
FlipFlop
FlipFlop
FlipFlop
FlipFlop

Lots of fish outta the water here.

HunterGatherer
February 19, 2004, 11:55 PM
Man I hate defending Kerry.He probably hates it too. With defenders like you, he needs no enemies.

Perhaps you neglected to read the quote you posted in order to "defend", as you put it, Mr. Kerry.

To wit: "...several months ago in Detroit we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged, and many very highly decorated, veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia. [b]These were not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command... " (emphasis added)

It was Mr. Kerry's position that these incidents occured on a "daily" basis. It was his position that officers at all levels of command where aware of these incidents. Mr. Kerry was fully aware of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and what it demands of his fellow officers and enlisted men. He would have been fully aware that he was implying that thousands of U.S. servicemen would have been guilty of numerous crimes defined by the Uniform Code of Military Justice, as well as international laws.

Honest analysis of his testimony can only lead to one inevitable conclusion. His testimony indicts the entirety of U.S. forces in the Southeast Asian theatre with among other things: rampant dereliction of duty, heinous crimes of moral turpitude, as well as unbridled mass murder bordering on genocide.

Unlike you, I did not get my military experience through vicarious comic book adventures. I know the people that have served this country in uniform in ways that those who never serve will never know. I also know BS when I hear it, and I call BS on Mr. Kerry and his unsubstantiated allegations.and I'm not a vet. Somebody has to win the "Well duh!" award. Might as well be you. :rolleyes:

Art Eatman
February 20, 2004, 12:16 AM
First repetitive, and then a bit too personal...

Lights out.

Art

If you enjoyed reading about "Sick of the National Guard debacle." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!