Defeatocrats acknowledge surge is working, but...

Taken from your link:

Claim: John Kerry's Vietnam War service medals (a Bronze Star, a Silver Star and three Purple Hearts) were earned under "fishy" circumstances.

Status: False.

I loosely used the term "we" to represent the center and left... I'm just bringing up the point that it's not only leftists that avoided 'nam, quite a few GOPers did as well, including the VP (multiple times)...

I don't team up with anyone... All of my opinions are thought out, through the use of logic, sound reason, and common sense... If someone happens to be on the same side of a debate as me, fine, but it doesn't help me any... I learn more from people on the other side of the fence... When I'm heavily engaged in a heated debate, it forces me to cite my sources, and learn more about the issue from both vantage points... Then the next time I'm in the same conversation, I'm that much more prepared...

I'm not a tool for anyone, that's why I'm hard-pressed to actually support a politician... Even the centrist or leftists are never completely in step with my line of thinking... It just seems that I'm on the left because I lean to that side on the current big issues...

I don't think you've ever blatantly called me anti-american (the same way Reid never said Defeat ), but you've hinted a few times...

I'm not defending the politician, I'm defending the sailor that earned the silver star... I don't like to see decorated service members attacked the way Kerry has been...

 

GTech, have you earned any medals in defense of your nation?

 

That bait was too easy! I was hoping you'd focus on that and force me to quote some of the information presented.

Ah, I was sure you meant "we" as in the anti-American crowd you enjoy support from here. But, we do agree on this...it wasn't only leftist who avoided Vietnam. Some of those leftists went over, put themselves in for purple hearts and other medals to get an early pass, then came home to sell out American and go back overseas to meet with the enemy. That's true patriotism!

Do you recall Clinton's actions? Probably gets a pass?

That's not what happened last time we had a lengthy discussion I've yet to see any sound reason (Colonel Chu comes to mind). I've seen a lot of agenda driven commentary though.

I wasn't referring to being a tool of politicians.

Reid did declare a defeat for the US suggesting we had lost. The sad part was, you took issue with the semantics and not the actual message. Says a lot, doesn't it?

It's been shown that kerry was dishonest about those medals and the circumstances surrounding them. A real Veteran would not so quickly dismiss and defend such, unless they had an agenda.

Personally, I don't like the fact that kerry met with the enemy at least twice, while being an officer in the Naval Reserves. That is treason. It's amazing how some boast of the Constitution, but neglect that the information it holds about giving aid and comfort.

Personally, I don't like the fact that kerry threw away his medals, then claimed it was his ribbons, then claimed he was tossing another's medals in order to cover up his treasonous behavior.

There is no defense of this man.

 

I thought you were big on exploiting semantics.

Like when the Executive branch had to hand deliver a "Mission Accomplished" banner, because there were no Kinko's floating franchises at the time and GWB as Commander-in-Chief hadn't made available to the navy access to a logistics chain or funding that could allow them to buy a $30 banner.

Perhaps that is why Ron Paul is the leading recipient of military donations. They know someone who goes AWOL, and someone who served with honor and understands the challenges of being in the military.

The closest GWB has been to combat was a weekend bender in the woods with Dick Cheney and a pair of hunting rifles.

 

That's what happens when you try to think

Did you take exception with the message, or the semantics? Did you take exception with treason or selling out America, or does it get a pass? Do you stand for the Constitution only when you believe it harms America, or when people commit treason, do you want the Constitution enforced?

Seems like selective reasoning to me.

 

Of the quote you just posted, I'm not sure which part you're taking exception to...

If it's because he racked up the "bling" too fast, it's probably because he was a naval officer... even during 'nam, i'm sure the navy saw less weapon related injuries (even if it was his own weapon, haha), so I'm sure they were a lot more liberal with the awards...

if it's because he had no limp, that's not a good case... a guy I knew overseas was near an explosion, and got pelted in the leg and ass with shrapnel... he got a purple heart... no limp, just really embarrassing bandages...

if it's because he did things "wrong", who didn't? when bullets start flying, your reaction depends on a mixture of quality training and instincts, among other things... So if he did things "wrong", it could be that he's a scardy-cat or was not properly trained... Either way, he was credited with saving US lives...

No pass... I'm not much of a Clinton supporter... I do approve of some of the things he did... Remember the amount he allocated for cancer research?

You don't see the sound reason behind my arguments? Could it be that you're agenda doesn't permit you to see it?

But never used the term right? Republican's are quick to use the term in an effort to gain war support, because it's brandable and sticks them with a label that no one wants to have; even though Reid never used the term... I think the sad part is that the right-wing is losing so much support, they've resorted to using terms like this to gain back some followers...

I've read plenty of articles, and from what I've seen, he might not have earned the purple hearts as far as army standards are concerned, but then again, let's look at more naval officers in vietnam, i'm sure others were generously awarded medals as well...

As for the treason charge, I haven't read much about his "meeting with the enemy without authorization", but if a scholarly source ever publishes something on it, let me know

 

Speaking of Mission Accomplished,

 

If you thought that was bad, you should have heard Giuliani's comments, his fear mongering that only the Republicans (saying he would be best) can keep America safe and that the Democrats in office would lead to more casualties.

You gotta love that he has to threaten the people with casualties if they elect a democrat or another republican.

 

Nor according to many he served with. But for all the things I listed, I'm flattered that you don't take exception with those.

I don't recall that. I do recall the three times he let bin laden go. I recall that history shows one of those times was the very week of the Lewenski trial.

I tend to think it's that our agendas are different. You have yours, and it's painfully obvious, and I have mine. Yet on some issues we want the same thing.

Thank you for proving my point again. It's the semantics you take issue with. The actual message, you seem to approve of. Very telling.

Pop quiz time.

According to Websters online dictionary, on line seventeen for the definition of lost, it states:

Who can "honestly" fill in the blank? Don't be afraid of the semantics police!

This is a concession with the use of moral equivalence. Of course, it doesn't dismiss him going off to meet with the enemy while still an officer in the Naval Reserves. Hey, speaking of John Edwards, let's see what he had to say:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6420967/site/newsweek/

Good ol' liberal patriotism

Many have. I wouldn't waste my time though. After all, when military experts testify before the Senate about WMD found, you dismiss that as well. We just have different agendas

 

Hey, at least Kerry went to Vietnam. Bush went AWOL.

 

Gotta get some Kinkos on those ships, so they can produce their own banners while at sea, signifying they've completed their assigned mission. Of course, some would denigrate those sailor's service for a higher partisan calling.

No ship should ever be proud of their mission or accomplishments. Damn arrogant sailors

 

Thank you for willingly continuing to prove my previous points. Bush did not go AWOL, a charge that has more than been proven. In fact, Bush opened his military records up to the media for inspection. Kerry would not do so and refused to sign (SF 171 I beleive). Why? Because it would show his dishonorable discharge of 1972, instead of the re-issued one that Carter gave out to dishonorably discharged Veterans when he took office.

Partisanship at it's finest. Facts don't matter, only the message does. That's a Ron Paul supporter for ya

 

Gtech has a silver pencil for the battle of cafeteria when he single handedly forced 3 teenagers to take the recruitment pamphlets home.

 

I believe that point has more than been made tonight. It's amazing how quick history can repeat itself, in the same thread, so quickly.

 

And yet, where is the following?

• Any pages from Bush's flight log
• Records from the Flight Inquiry Board convened after Bush was suspended as a pilot
• Any evidence of Bush's reclassification into another AFSC after suspension as a pilot
• Any photos of George Bush in a military uniform after 1972
• Anything at all from any Alabama unit with Bush's name on it
• Any copies of form 44a from the Alabama National Guard certifying attendance
• Air Force Form 142 (Aviation Service Audit Worksheet)
• Anything proving service (not just receipt of pay) by Bush between May 1972 and May 1973?

I'll give you a hint. None of it is available.

Btw, you were right and I am wrong. AWOL is 30 days. Beyond that, they call it desertion.

 

Can you prove that? CBS couldn't (verify)...

If you can prove it, I hope you collected the reward money (over $50,000) for being able to prove his military service (verify)

 

you're quoting a Beth Lester Story....lmfao!!! Seriously, can't you find some better reporting? Not only is she anti-bush, but she is anti-gov. and a conspiracy theorist. Her other big (and I think this was her only 2 stories that got national press) was this one about voting machine fraud...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/11/politics/main583042.shtml

As you can see, not only does she try to stir up stuff that is not an issue, but she makes accusations that are so wild that only AGS would approve....

as far as the article you posted that was from her, I give you this quote, from the article:

So who's fault is it? Bush has opened his records, Kerry has not. Is it Bush's fault that the National Guard records from that period are a mess? Is it his fault that there was no uniform or standard filing form? Let me guess, you think Bush changed all this when he was in office so that he couldn't be caught, right?

 

I guess you have it all figured out! Go collect your reward money! Let me know what you get the check

 

After doing a little research and discovering that the infamous book GTech references again and again....

DOES NOT EXIST

the paragraph cited from the made up book...is a crude character assasanation effort using fake history and trying to tie the fake history to charachter assasanation on Kerry.

and seeing that even a simple bit of research discovered to what extent the partisan Right Wing will go to discredit anyone who is running against one of their boys.... Lying...rewriting history/character assasanation.

I thought I'd look at this War Remnants Museum issue. GTech keeps referencing articles that brand Kerry as someone decorated as a hero of the Vietnamese Communists for assisting them in defeating the US

So I did a Google search for ...War Remnants Museum in Vietnam.

Couple of things I learned:

There is a museum in Ho Chi Minh City (formerly Saigon) which currently carries this name.

The museum depicts the war in Vietnam from the Communist Vietnamese perspective. As such it essentially paints the US as cruel and inhumane.

The museum is small but quite popular with millions of visits, including millions of visits from foreign tourists.

Of course, the Google search found a reference from one of the Swift Boat Kerry haters. As GTech has referenced this web site paints Kerry as saluted by the North Vietnamese. It references a picture of Kerry in a suit, while a member of Congress visiting with Vietnamese officials while on a mission trying to uncover more informaton on American MIA's.

But here is where a quick look shows that the GTech reference again resorts to partisan twisting of history to defame someone's charachter.

I reviewed this site from the search for the museum....http://www.virtualtourist.com/trave...o_Chi_Minh_City-War_Remnants_Museum-BR-1.html

The site includes 68 tourist reviews of this museum.

Not a single review mentions Kerry. Not one. People from all over the world visited this museum over the many years that they offered reviews and not a single independant person had a single comment reflecting John Kerry's picture in the museum.

They reference every other aspect of the museum including weapons, pictures of atrocities, etc. etc. etc.

Some of the reviews were clearly from Americans who strongly disliked seeing this museum that showed the bad side of America. Many of the reviewers were startled to see exhibits they would never see in the West, the US, or Europe.

One reviewer (of 68) referenced that there were pictures in the museum of war protesters from around the world.

So when 68 independant reviewers never mention Kerry, and when only 1 of 68 reviewers even references that the museum includes pictures of protestors from around the world...and that one doesn't mention Kerry....I can only assume that the references GTech makes to the inclusion of Kerry's picture is another example of truth twisting.

He sources a document that comes from one of the participants in the Right Wing Swift Boat attackers. This document from a clear partisan Right Wing individual describes something that 68 independant people neither saw or felt was worth mentioning.

Again another example of creating an emotional stink out of something that doesn't seem to exist

I guess the clear thing that I've learned from these little efforts at research is that whoever is nominated by the Democrats for the run at the 2008 presidential election better be prepared for the worst kind of character attacks that twist history, distort the mundane and obvious, and reflect the lies of a highly partisan group of people that seem far more dangerous to me than I had imagined before looking at these little issues.

 

A continued disappointment with Earl and the others. Earl wants us to believe the book doesn't exists, then goes on to suggest that the quote from the book that doesn't exist is a "character assassination" by the General that kerry helped achieve a victory. This is borderline delusional, most certainly dishonest, and quite apparent...a lesson in absolute denial.

Meanwhile, ignoring the fact that he's complete incorrect and has actually quoted the quote in the book that doesn't exist for everyone to see.

Meanwhile the other partisan hacks are asking others to prove Bush wasn't AWOL. Not unlike the same hacks that said Coulter was lying about Canada having military in Vietnam, even though that was overwhelmingly proved.

You guys continue to prove my points for me. Facts don't matter. Only the message matters. Dishonesty and "leftism" run hand in hand and there appears to be no level low enough to sell one's country out. Even defending those who violate our Constitution and give aid and comfort to our enemies. In fact, it appears that these are fine desirable traits worthy of admiration...if selling your country out is a noble cause