I don't know how much serious response to give to this long-winded tangent (and I'm as responsible for it as you are, r3x, but I felt a need to respond to the points you raised.

Quote:

Karl Hungus said:

Quote:

Wonder Boy said:
Over 250 veterans who served in a squad of swift-boats with John Kerry say Kerry's campaign promotion of his war-veteran status is false.
Only 13, at last count, stand by Kerry's version of events.
Let the record speak for itself.



Of the 3,500 who served on Swiftboats, 250 were on the Swiftboat Veterans list. Of those, most hadn't even served with Kerry. At best then its hearsay.



It seems to me that Wikipedia's listing for this particular entry is liberally biased, and is more of an attempt to discredit the allegations of the Swiftvets and exonerate Kerry, than it is a serious attempt to weigh both sides of the story.

I've fielded this one before. Wikipedia's listing, despite its best effort to trash the Swiftvets and exonerate Kerry, reluctantly displays valid and visibly true arguments of the Swiftvets who signed on to dispute Kerry's "war hero" self-promotion campaign.

The Wikipedia SWIFTVET listing despite its bias, and what you chose to excerpt here, does say that 11 of the 250 Vets who signed the statement against Kerry, had served in combat with Kerry.
Further, these boats served in squads and coordinated together, so even if they didn't serve aboard the same boat as Kerry, they patrolled together, planned and maneuvered together and communicated by radio. It's a cop-out to say they weren't on the same boat with Kerry.


  • Kerry received three Purple Heart medals for injury in battle, and yet was never even hospitalized.
    .
  • I already said his commanding officer declined to give him a Purple Heart, and Kerry went behind his C.O.'s back, to submit and receive the medal through another officer.
    .
  • The physician who examined Kerry (I linked it in the previous Bush/Kerry military records topic) said he evaluated that the wound was self-inflicted, and did not warrant a Purple Heart.



Quote:

Karl Hungus said:


Quote:

W B said:
The doctor who treated one of Kerry's wounds said it was self-inflicted by a grenade that Kerry tossed, and so reported. When Kerry's commanding officer wouldn't recommend him for a Purple Heart medal for the incident, Kerry went behind the officer's back, and asked another officer to submit him for a Purple Heart regarding the injury.



Isn't the purple heart for injuries? Are you saying John Kerry had an accident with a grenade or purposely injured himself with one (easier ways to hurt yourself)?




As I quoted in the earlier Bush/Kerry, military records topic, Kerry threw a grenade, and threw it too close to himself, and thus accidentally injured himself.
But either way (intentional or not) a self-inflicted wound disqualifies him for a Purple Heart.

Quote:

Karl Hungus said:

Also from the same wikipedia page:


Of those who served in Kerry's boat crew, only Stephen Gardner joined SBVT [in condemning Kerry's receiving medals, questioning his valor].
[Gardner] was not present on any of the occasions when Kerry won his medals, including his Purple Hearts. Gardner appeared in two of the group's television advertisements.



The commanding officers who submit any soldier for a medal generally don't see the awarded incidents firsthand. But they still make a judgement based on evidence whether they deserve an award or not.

Kerry's C.O refused Kerry a Purple Heart for an incident, and Kerry went to another officer to get a Purple Heart anyway.
That's a fact.

A physician, who examined Kerry's battle wound as well, determined it self-inflicted.
That Kerry submitted for the medal anyway, behind their backs, alone makes me question Kerry's worthiness.


Add to that how in 1971 at a protest rally, he pretended to throw away his medals in shame for his Vietnam service, to inspire a lack of patriotism in others, but secretly was, and now still is, in fact proud of his medals and service, and kept those medals.
Is Kerry proud or ashamed of his Vietnam service ?

Is he a proud anti-war demonstrator, or a proud "decorated hero" who was awarded Purple Hearts officers and doctors don't think he deserved, but submitted for anyway, only to pretend to throw away in 1971, and then express pride in later.

War hero, or anti-war demonstrator ?
Which way is the wind blowing ?



Quote:

Karl Hungus said:

Quote:

WB said:
Kerry's received another medal for stabbing a retreating wounded soldier in the back.



From the wikipedia page on the Swift Boat group (you can go there yourself and review the sources)

The ABC television show Nightline traveled to Vietnam and interviewed Vietnamese who were involved in the battle for which Kerry was awarded the Silver Star.
These witnesses disputed O'Neill's charge that there "was little or no fire" that day; they said that the fighting was fierce. [16] SBVT supporters question whether these witnesses are reliable because they spoke "in the presence of a Communist official" [17], but their account of enemy fire is substantially the same as that previously given by another former VC to an AP reporter [18], and by the American witnesses, including the only SBVT member who was actually present that day, Larry Clayton Lee [19][20]["Tour of Duty," pp. 290-292] ["John F. Kerry, The Complete Biography" (Boston Globe), pp. 100-103].



I don't consider the word of Vietnamese enemies who hate the United States to be substantiation.
There are too many possible hidden motives for their making such a statement.


Quote:

Karl Hungus said:

Quote:

WB said:
Kerry unquestionably turned on his country and his fellow Vietnam veterans when he came home, with extremely vocal and inflammatory rhetoric.



Unquestionably turned on them? That is your opinion.

The right to protest is as old as America itself. No different than the Boston Massacre events or the Boston Tea Party.

Kerry served his full tour and came back to protest a war he felt was wrong, a mistake. By the time he got back it was clear the war was a big mess.
Even Nixon ran on the platform in 1968 of trying to end the war (though he wanted some sort of token win). Kerry's line "how do you ask someone to be the last man to die for a mistake" is a very noble and compassionate thing to ask. He obviously cared about people dying in Vietnam and wanted them to be pulled out of danger quick and not have their lives played as politics.
I would say he was actually fighting for them, not turning on them.



And that is your opinion.

I would argue that despite the losses, the 58,000 who died in Vietnam were not in vain.

For 25 years, the willingness of the United States, through several presidencies, Democrat and Republican, to fight to the bitter end in Vietnam, saved lives, both American and foreign.
The willingness of the United States to oppose communist-backed aggression anywhere in the world at a high cost (specifically, in Vietnam) gave the Soviet Union and China pause in potentially expanding their influence into other conflicts.

The Vietnam war ended in 1975. The last remnants of Kissenger and the anti-communist commitment left in the Nov 1976 election. Carter the Pacifist was elected and inaugurated in Jan 1977.

What happened after?

Laos.
Cambodia.
Iranian revolution
Angola.
The Sandinista revolution in Nicaragua
Idi Amin in Uganda.
The Cuban Mariel boatlift.
Afghanistan

When the communists saw there was a president who would not oppose communist aggression, the aggression expanded with a vengeance.

The 58,000 in Vietnam didn't die just for Vietnam. They died to show American commitment, so other wars would not have to be fought. A president after that just had to voice sustained commitment to the same principles, without military action. The 58,000 had already demonstrated that commitment.

But Carter, with his pacifist rhetoric, dropped the ball.
And communists, seeing the wavering commitment, leaped at the opportunity to expand unopposed.


Quote:

Karl Hungus said:

Quote:

W B said:
And Kerry made such unsubstantaited wild allegations against American soldiers in Vietnam (alleged raping of women, shooting farm animals for sport, etc., that he said for years he saw firsthand and then later admitted he never saw, that it was, at best, just hearsay), to the point that even the VVAW (Vietnam Veterans Against the War) distanced themselves from Kerry and his war-views.
The head of the VVAW at that time described Kerry as an opportunist, who told people what they wanted to hear.


Well there were a lot of atrocities over there. Kerry saying he saw them when he didn't was clearly wrong (though I noticed you support the Swiftboat hearsay but not his, whereas I admonished all hearsay. You, my friend, are a flip flopper).



Kerry's hearsay is clearly untrue.

Whereas the Swiftvets' statements...
1) about Kerry's unworthiness to receive medals (the doctor who examined Kerry's wounds, the C.O. who refused to award a Purple Heart for self-inflicted wounds,
and
2)criticizing Kerry's opportunistically pursuing a Purple Heart through another officer behind their backs),
and
3) exposing Kerry's anti-American comments alleging he saw firsthand American soldiers raping women, etc. (Kerry himself later admitted he did not see these things firsthand as he alleged, i.e., he lied)
...are demonstrably true


Quote:

Karl Hungus said:

Quote:

W B said:
Let the record speak for itself.



Exactly.....bitch.



Your spiteful remarks just further underscore your pre-formed opinionated rage, and lack of objectivity.


Quote:

Karl Hungus said:

Quote:

W B said:
Osama Bin Ladin flatout said this in one of his released statements to the Al Jazeera arab media.



And Solomon wanted them to cut the cow in half? Jeez, do you take him at his word? Has he earned your trust?
Also bin Laden said in an Arabic newspaper that he had nothing to do with 9/11, yet there is a video of him from the U.S. government where he took credit. He also praised Bush for uniting the Arab world to his cause before the election.
The guy likes to fuck with us. Don't take him at his word. I just hope you didn't really believe he could sell you the Brooklyn bridge.




I recall liberals post-9/11 holding this up to protest Al Qaida's innocence, and how morally wrong it would be for us to bomb Afghanistan.

You can look up the RKMB topics from September 2001 here on RKMB, if you want some examples. Perhaps you'll be making that closing payment on Brooklyn bridge, and not me.

It makes so much sense that these statements to Al Jazeera are a smokescreen, because Al Qaida is more afraid of a Democrat president who will treat Al Qaida as a criminal pursuit instead of all-out war.


And it makes so much sense that Al Qaida is terrified that Democrats will make good their threats, for years now, to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq, and cut off funding from President Bush so he cannot continue the Iraq occupation. And to abandon a weak democracy to overthrow by Iraq insurgents and islamic fundamentalist death-squads, so Iraq can become the new hub of Islamic terrorism, the new equivalent of a Taliban-ruled Afghanistan.


Yeah, Bin Ladin must be terrified. Your argument makes perfect sense



Quote:

Karl Hungus said:

Quote:

W B said:
And Iraqi resistance and other dictators around the world voiced similar elation when Democrats won control of the House and Senate this past November.


Again, I'm dubious. Have you ever considered that Bush has done so much fucking up in Iraq that any challenge to him is welcomed.



I'd be more inclined to believe that, if the Iraqis and others were lobbying for peace, and not forming more death squads, pursuing nuclear weapons, threatening their neighbors and preparing for war.

They don't like Bush.

But they're more cautious of Bush than they would be of Clinton, Gore, Kerry, or some other liberal pacifist who would make half-hearted threats of military action and never really act.
That empty rhetoric, without committed action, is what led to 9-11, after a long series of escalating Al Qaida incidents since 1993.

Quote:

Karl Hungus said:

Quote:

W B said:
The convicted murderer who was released from life imprisonment on furlough in Massachussetts by then-governor Michael Dukakis, who was then enabled by Dukakis' liberal attitude and actions, to murder again.

Please demonstrate to me where mention of this fact in the 1988 pesidential campaign was innaccurate or a smear. It is absolute fact.


and Bush executed a retard. Bush Sr. played it up to seem like Dukakis practically helped in the killing.



No, Bush Sr in 1988 presented the Willie Horton incident for exactly what it was: a misguided liberal sympathy for dangerous criminals, that plays dangerous games with people's lives, hurting people with social programs that don't work. And demonstrating that what Dukakis did locally in Massachusetts, would be implemented nationally if he were elected.
A guy who lets murderers out of jail to murder more people is not someone I'd want in command of our military, or concocting similarly misguided social policies on a national level.

Quote:

Karl Hungus said:
Creep bugging the Democrats.



Quote:

?????



Quote:

Karl Hungus said:
Watergate. Commitee to Reelect the President. You do know what office they were breaking into in the Watergate?




I just said it above, if you bothered to read it: the rooms used for the Democratic National Committee, at the Watergate Hotel, in Washington D.C.
They were there to bug the rooms, so they could listen in on their political strategy, and presumably outmaneuver them. Which was dumb, because Nixon won by a huge landslide without this illegal activity, and it was clear he would early on.

Again, bugging and listening in is not "smear" and "false allegation". Although, as I said, it is clearly illegal, and Republicans joined in investigating, indicting, and pursuing impeachment of those involved.

In contrast to Democrats in 1998, who ignored crimes of Clinton, clung to their Democrat control of the Presidency despite Clinton's clear guilt, and in general smeared the innocent to protect the guilty, in their abdication of ethics, in their ruthless preservation of Democrat power.

  • from Do Racists have lower IQ's...

    Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.

    EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.