Thread: US Presidential Campaign 2008

^ You do realise that Norton was addressing that question to Jet, right?

What has Ray got to do with this? Or me for that matter?

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

^ You do realise that Norton was addressing that question to Jet, right?

What has Ray got to do with this? Or me for that matter?

This isn't a court of Law there counselor.

My post was generic in nature - covering all who defend Kerry - most specifically ray...

HB provided a post about Kerry's wartime record, which was distinguished.
Whats your point booner?

^^ Actually your post was ill-conceived and addressed at entirely the wrong persons. Oh well, better luck next time.

Originally Posted by Hootad Binky

Kerry still has shrapnel in his left thigh because the doctors tending to him decided to remove the damaged tissue and close the wound with sutures rather than make a wide opening to remove the shrapnel.[22] Kerry received his second Purple Heart for this injury, but like several others wounded earlier that day, he did not lose any time off from duty.[23][24]

Originally Posted by Hootad Binky

Eight days later, on February 28, 1969, came the events for which Kerry was awarded his Silver Star

Originally Posted by Hootad Binky

while the other boats approached and offered cover fire, Kerry jumped from the boat and chased the VC and killed him, capturing a loaded rocket launcher

Originally Posted by Hootad Binky

The engagement was documented in an after-action report, a press release written on March 1, 1969, and a historical summary dated March 17, 1969.[28]

Originally Posted by Hootad Binky

during which time Kerry received a slight shrapnel wound in the buttocks from blowing up a rice bunker

No purple heart for this.

Originally Posted by Hootad Binky

Kerry's arm was injured when he was thrown against a bulkhead during the explosion. PCF 94 returned to the scene and Kerry rescued Rassmann from the water. Kerry received the Bronze Star for his actions during this incident; he also received his third Purple Heart

I suppose theres no point getting even further off topic and defending Bush, Cheney & co's wartime record.

Clinton faces daunting delegate deficit

y DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent 49 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton must win 57 percent of the remaining primary and caucus delegates to erase Barack Obama's lead, a daunting task requiring landslide-sized victories by a struggling presidential candidate.

Clinton faces daunting delegate deficit - Yahoo! News

Originally Posted by raycarey

why didn't you enlist earl?

Had better things to do.

Originally Posted by rayray

and back to my question...is the reason you hate gore and kerry because they actually served, and you didn't?

No.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

His crew testified what a sham he was/is during the last presidential elections

testified? in which court? and btw, weren't you recently crying the blues about 'swiftboating' just a few days ago.

heh.

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

Had better things to do.

oh, well.
your country thanks you.

^And you as well.

But unlike your sarcastic response to Earl, I'm sincere. Thanks for staying the fcuk out.







No, really.

Originally Posted by raycarey

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

His crew testified what a sham he was/is during the last presidential elections

testified? in which court? and btw, weren't you recently crying the blues about 'swiftboating' just a few days ago.

heh.

Your reading/comprehension skills are really starting to suck there ray. Recall how I went to great lengths to illustrate both sides of the political spectrum now use the term 'swiftboating' indiscrimately.

Put the Bong down...

Here, Doubters. This all came out in the last prez election. These are the vets who served with Kerry. Can't get any better than that for first-hand info. Of course, Ray will say something about the source, but he continues to quote from that oft-error-ridden dis-info site Wikipedia and then quotes the leftist paper in the US, the NY Times. You sure you're not still not State-side, Rayboy?


"Swift Vets and POWs for Truth has been formed to counter the false "war crimes" charges John Kerry repeatedly made against Vietnam veterans who served in our units and elsewhere, and to accurately portray Kerry's brief tour in Vietnam as a junior grade Lieutenant. We speak from personal experience -- our group includes men who served beside Kerry in combat as well as his commanders. Though we come from different backgrounds and hold varying political opinions, we agree on one thing: John Kerry misrepresented his record and ours in Vietnam and therefore exhibits serious flaws in character and lacks the potential to lead.
We regret the need to do this. Most Swift boat veterans would like nothing better than to support one of our own for America's highest office, regardless of whether he was running as a Democrat or a Republican. However, Kerry's phony war crimes charges, his exaggerated claims about his own service in Vietnam, and his deliberate misrepresentation of the nature and effectiveness of Swift boat operations compel us to step forward."

Swift Vets and POWs for Truth - Service to Country

Urban Legends Reference Pages: John Kerry Swift Boats

Well thanks for a good reference Jet. The 'urban legends reference page' link is interesting reading- and relatively balanced, if you read it to the bottom and get both sides of the story. It certainly seems his shipmates and immediate superiors held him in high esteem.
Urban Legends Reference Pages: John Kerry Swift Boats

It also seems, when he returned stateside and became actively anti-war, he made a lot of enemies (and presumably friends elsewhere). Up to the reader to decide the truth, there are no doubt some political motivations on both sides of the story.

One things for sure- he wasn't awarded two bravery medals by some political process. They were awarded by the US military.

I found this quote interesting:

"... [Kerry] put our boats in jeopardy, put our crews in jeopardy... if a man like that can't handle that 6-man crew boat, how can you expect him to be Commander-in-Chief?

- Steven Gardner"

Now without knowing the politics of this Gardner chap and taking it on face value as his true and honest opinion - which I think you can - it still needs to be put in context.

That context being that this so-called "swift boat" thing played a large part in the '04 election. So notwithstanding all the foregoing, how is it when compared to Bush's record - AWOL from his Air National Guard duty whilst his colleagues were being called into active service - you could trust him to be Commander-in-Chief but not John Kerry?

Kerry was crucified on the back of this. It really is funny how public perception plays out at times.

^ Part of his platform was not based on phony acts of heroism. That's why Kerry's crew tattled on him.

^A valid point. But it was based on leading the nation in the WOT.

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

^ Part of his platform was not based on phony acts of heroism. That's why Kerry's crew tattled on him.

Only one of Kerrys crew members spoke against him though Jet. Many more spoke in high favour of him, at least whilst he was in VN.

The negatives you read, well only one was from his crew. The rest were from other boats, or different branches. See the urban legends link you quoted above.

I think all the controversy comes from the simple fact he returned from VN staunchly anti-war. Several of us would say that history proved him right, maybe even perceptive.

^ Alot of military folks return from war disgruntled. However, they don't turn on their own countries.

OK, back to the current campaign. This just in from Barack's e-mail force:

"News broke yesterday that a few wealthy Clinton supporters are gearing up for a massive spending campaign to boost her chances in the big upcoming contests in Texas and Ohio on March 4th.
The so-called "American Leadership Project" will take unlimited contributions from individuals and is organized the same way as the infamous Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
ABC News reports that this group is seeking 100 Clinton supporters to each give $100,000 to fund its $10 million effort to promote Senator Clinton and "contrast" her positions with Barack Obama's.
That's the opposite of how politics should work, and the opposite of how Barack Obama has run this campaign.
The same day this group's activity was revealed, we announced that nearly 1 million individual people have donated to this campaign.
Stand up against politics-as-usual. Be one of the million supporters who are calling out for change.
If you give as part of our matching program, your gift will be doubled by a previous donor. You can even choose to exchange a note with them about why you are part of this movement.
Make your matching donation now:
https://donate.barackobama.com/match
Groups like this are forbidden from working primarily for the purpose of electing or defeating a candidate.
Yet here we have a committee that springs up on the eve of an election, promotes a specific candidate, and has no history or apparent purpose of lobbying specific issues outside the benefit to the candidate of these communications.
This raises a number of legal and ethical issues, but more than anything it reveals an attitude towards politics as a game that is played to win at all costs.
Americans are ready for change. We are tired of Swift Boat-style groups and smear campaigns."

Oops, guess Obama doesn't like Kerry's vocal opponents either. Hehe

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

Alot of military folks return from war disgruntled. However, they don't turn on their own countries.

Why is being anti-war automatically equated to "turning" on ones own country? It's entirely conceivable to be against war yet allied to your country.

^Peewee perhaps you should stick to less confusing issues.
Like: why wasn't Helen Clark prosecuted for forgery?

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

Here, Doubters. This all came out in the last prez election. These are the vets who served with Kerry. Can't get any better than that for first-hand info.

And what if that "first-hand info" was bought and paid for by a Republican donor?

Republican-funded Group Attacks Kerry's War Record

August 6, 2004
Updated: August 22, 2004

Ad features vets who claim Kerry "lied" to get Vietnam medals. But other witnesses disagree -- and so do Navy records.
Summary

A group funded by the biggest Republican campaign donor in Texas began running an attack ad Aug. 5 in which former Swift Boat veterans claim Kerry lied to get one of his two decorations for bravery and two of his three purple hearts.

But the veterans who accuse Kerry are contradicted by Kerry's former crewmen, and by Navy records.

One of the accusers says he was on another boat "a few yards" away during the incident which won Kerry the Bronze Star, but the former Army lieutenant whom Kerry plucked from the water that day backs Kerry's account. In an Aug. 10 opinion piece in the conservative Wall Street Journal, Rassmann (a Republican himself) wrote that the ad was "launched by people without decency" who are "lying" and "should hang their heads in shame."

And on Aug. 19, Navy records came to light also contradicting the accusers. One of the veterans who says Kerry wasn't under fire was himself awarded a Bronze Star for aiding others "in the face of enemy fire" during the same incident.

A LOT more at:

FactCheck.org: Republican-funded Group Attacks Kerry's War Record

Please explain JG how your information is better than actual Navy records

For McCain, go to this website and then select John McCain in the Senator dropdown box in the "Browse Bills by Sponsors"

THOMAS (Library of Congress)

He sponsored bills mostly related to the military and campaign finance reform.