Swift Boat Vets, Bush-Cheney BUSTED!

[SOB]

Swager makes a very good point.

[Maniac]

Minus too.

[slimm50]

Originally posted by Maverick
Just a question here.

Other than Kerry's denial of this groups statements, has there been any verifiable outside confirmation that either side is lying?

So far it seems that a group of folks who were there with Kerry are contradicting his earlier claims. It seems (IMO) both sides are just pointing fingers and making unverified claims. Has anyone been able to provide proof contrary to either's claim?

In either case no one denied Kerry his right to state what he wanted about his service in compliance with the 1st ammendment. Why would he be trying to deny others their right to contradict his claims.

It seems both sides need to get an outside independant investigation of the claims. I honestly don't see how that could happen given the circumstances of the election.

The whole issue is a non-issue, IMO. I certainly don't care about it. I'm much more interested in what either one of them's gonna do for our country, and frankly I don't think Kerry's got any idea what he'll do as President. Bush, otoh, is on a roll (no jokes here, please from the left) and I don't wanna change horses in mid-stream, so-to-speak.

[slimm50]

Originally posted by SOB
Swager makes a very good point.

No he doesn't. He's way off base in painting them both with the same brush, imo.

[Wotan]

February 28, 1969

Is not March 13, 1969.

[rpm]

For any human in America, and a question for rpm as he is a vet.

Everyone should by now know that swift boats were very very noisy, large and combersome boat, that always at least traveled in pairs. They are in fact more noisy and less stable than ww2 pt boats. Tell me using common sense do you really believe they were used in 68 or 69 or anytime to insert any force much less an a or b team of green berets behind enemy lines?

I think I understand your question. Yes, they were used quite often to insert small patrols, SEAL teams, ect. There were 2 types of small boats used. The common sense part of it was the river was the Interstate of Vietnam and these boats were well suited for the job. They were lead magnets and very hazardous duty.

There were 2 types of boats used PBR's and PCF's. PBR's were the small 32ft boats (like in Apocalypse Now) and PCF's were larger faster 50ft boats that could easily carry a landing party. Kerry skippered the later. These boats were smaller and not as loud as a WW2 PT while being more manueverable and durable. Many of the later models bore foam filled hulls and were nearly unsinkable with small arms and rockets. This is not to mean that they were not vulnerable to damage because they had very little armor for protection.

While it may be against the human survival instinct and common sense, they were often used for troop insertions. Early on they did not run in pairs, that was a tactic learned after many boats were lost.

[Maniac]

Nice work from the Bush regime in getting all the attention on Kerrys Vietnam service.

Now they have managed to turn attention away from the real election issue : The Bush lie about WMD´s.

[GRUNHERZ]

Surely you mean the Kerry lie aboput WMD. Kerry is on record about his thougths about Saddams WMD threat.  Of course those were Kerry's thoughts before Howard Dean came along.

[Wotan]

Nice work from the Bush regime in getting all the attention on Kerry's Vietnam service.

Kerry is running on his Vietnam record. Bush isn’t making Vietnam an issue Kerry is. If you have problems with that then ask Kerry why he doesn’t run on "issues" or his record in the Senate or his post Vietnam activities. Kerry is using his 5 months in Vietnam as a main issue in his campaign because that is all he has.

It only stands to reason that who ever he is running against him will challenge him on it. Especially considering that that the facts around Kerry’s time in Vietnam not all together clear.

I am not sure how much this swift boat stuff is playing but I suspect once the winter soldier stuff starts getting air time it will over shadow his 5 months in country.

His congressional testimony is riddled with out right lies and isn’t much more then Kerry grand standing.

But if it gets you through the night I guess its ok to blame Bush.

[SaburoS]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
The standard liberal judgement about Bush's record is that he is stupid and that he got only along on daddy's name. Libs sayy that all time and there no point discussing it firther - thats what you guys believe.
 

So then, set us straight. Ball is in your court. You can choose to actually answer the questions honestly or keep evading, your choice.

[SaburoS]

Originally posted by demaw1
Subaros, remember that Alfred French,the prosecutor, was relying on direct testament from three who were there.

Ahh okay, I misunderstood you then.

edited to add:

Did your prosecutor question the others that were involved in that mission before he formed his opinion? How about interviewing the main suspect (Kerry) as well? I doubt it. Seems he has a political agenda that's only surfacing now because a Democratic candidate has a real chance of winning the White House. I guess the ends justify the means, eh? Okay to lie as long as it gets your man elected.
Bahhhh, politics!

[SaburoS]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Surely you mean the Kerry lie aboput WMD. Kerry is on record about his thougths about Saddams WMD threat.  Of course those were Kerry's thoughts before Howard Dean came along.

This misinformation about the Iraq WMD's is not a political one but an intelligence gathering/reporting one. Every politician from the President on down, used intelligence reports that were questionable at best.
Now for the million dollar question, how do we fix that? How do we as a free nation with the biggest possible responsibility in the world today, verify our intelligence reports?
We have a bigger responsibility to the American people to make damn sure we're acting on solid evidence rather than "forming" it to fit an agenda.
What a terrible price to pay in the wounded and killed of our fellow Americans, Allies, and innocent victims of wars without merit or proper, accurate cause.
War should be an absolute last resort when all else has failed. Only time War should be on the top of responses is for defense where other options would not be practical.

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by SaburoS
So then, set us straight. Ball is in your court. You can choose to actually answer the questions honestly or keep evading, your choice.

You guys think that Bush is stupid, what else is there to debate? He did gone done a bad job with his life cuz he aint too smert! He had only one term as governor, four years to practice politics in office. That means four years to either do a good job or bad job, or only four years to practice politics on the job, that isnt a lot of time to get much of a record or to doo much, plus, you know he's really dumb. So overall he had minimal chances to show his stuff before the presidency.  So yea, lets say that Bush didnt have much of a record as a 1 term Texas governor.

But what about John Kerry's 20 year senate record!

John Kerry, who is really really smart he had 20 years in the US Senate to show his stuff. TWO DECADES! And what noteworthy deeds has he accomplished with that career? NOTHING!  In 20 yaers he did nothing in the senate. Well he did manage to vote aginst every major weapon sytem and voted to cut CIA spending in the 1990s but heck, why hold that aginst him.

So I'm asking you what's  Kerry'sw excuse for his pathetic two decade record in the Senate?

Is he stupid?
Inept?
Slow?
Lazy?
Doesnt care?
Too busy making up his mind on complex issues?
Vast right wing conspiracy?

So in conclusion, the new Kerry Kampaign Theme Slogan! (As you see it's very complex because kerry is the kandidate who appreciates complexity!)

Hey fellow liberals! Do you want to vote for Bush, who you think  stupid and had an undistinguished 4 year carrer in office because of his stupidity? Or do you want Kerry, who had a pathetic 20 year undistinguished carrer in office (for yet unknown reasons)?

Kerry 2004!

Why did Kerry have such a poor record?

[Maniac]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ


But what about John Kerry's 20 year senate record!

But now John Kerry, who is really really smart he had 20 years in the US Senate to show hsi stuff. TWO DECADES! And what notworthy deeds has he accomplished with that career? NOTHING!  In 20 yaers he did nothing in the senate. Well he did manage to vote aginst every major weapon sytem and voted to cut CIA spending in the 1990s but heck, why hold that aginst him.

So I'm asking you what's  Kerry'sw excuse for his pathetic two decade record in the Senate?

Is he stupid?
Inept?
Slow?
Lazy?
Doesnt care?
Too busy making up his mind on complex issues?
Vast right wing conspiracy?

 

No hes your avarage day "senates" man. I dont think hes better or worse than any other in the Senate.

[SaburoS]

Originally posted by Swager
What difference does it make?  They are both scumbags.

It is not a matter of who is the best man for the job, but who is the less worse man for the job.

274 Million people in this country and all we can muster up to be the leader of our country are these two screwsticks!


Incredible!

We, the American public are to blame for the way the politicians campaign. We are generally ignorant and/or lazy to really study the issues and statements. Those who attack their opponent best will win. That's our "evolution."
Many Democrats are going to elect Kerry based on extremely vague promises very short on the details ("Hope is on the way!" Sheesh!). Just as we elected Bush the last elections. Just the way we've been doing it since day one (or so it seems).
Just you wait when the Bush will address the RNC, he'll offer up his own soundbites being just as vague.