PDA

View Full Version : Right-wing machine trying to impugn the military honor of John Kerry


jAZ
03-08-2004, 12:41 PM
If anyone is unfamiliar with Salon, their Op-Eds have a stong liberal/democrat slant. Many around here have followed the political tactics targeted by this article. Thought you might find this an interesting read.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2004/03/06/kerry/index.html

Another crude slur
With a campaign of distortion and lies, the right-wing smear machine is trying to impugn the military honor of John Kerry.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Joe Conason

March 6, 2004 | The contrast between the military careers of George W. Bush and John Kerry is drawing veterans to the Democratic Party -- and maddening conservative Republicans who have grown accustomed to monopolizing the symbolism of flag and country. To tarnish Kerry, the right has reached back more than 30 years to develop a narrative that transforms him from hero to traitor, by distorting his antiwar activism after he returned from Vietnam.

They hope to convince America that by testifying and organizing for peace, the young Navy lieutenant somehow "dishonored" his fellow sailors and soldiers.

This effort began quite crudely, with the anonymous distribution of a faked photo of Kerry with Jane Fonda. But now Kerry critics are focused on the so-called "Winter Soldier" investigation -- a public event staged in January 1971 by Kerry and other leaders of Vietnam Veterans Against the War to expose the brutality and devastation of the Indochina conflict.

The right-wing extremists at Free Republic have set up a new "Winter Soldier" Web site devoted to that event, highlighting Kerry's subsequent testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about alleged U.S. war crimes. According to the Freeper theory, he "launched his political career" by denigrating his comrades in arms, although nobody who reads his testimony will find much evidence to support that accusation. (He did run for Congress in 1972 -- and lost in part because of his VVAW connections.)

Coordinating with the Freeper attack are Texas chicken-hawk Rep. Tom DeLay, who recently upbraided Kerry for the Winter Soldier episode, and Gary Aldrich, the former White House FBI agent who fabricated salacious stories about Bill and Hillary Clinton, who now suspects that Kerry was "pro-Communistic" and is demanding to see his old FBI files.

Meanwhile, the National Review descended still further, featuring a weird article by Romania's former Communist spy chief, in which he insinuates that Kerry, and anyone else who talked about atrocities in Vietnam, was really an instrument of KGB propaganda. (It is remarkable to see a "conservative" magazine publish a smear written by a man who once facilitated the atrocities of the Ceausescu regime.) The essay by Ion Mihai Pacepa, who defected to the West in 1978, is titled "Kerry's Soviet Rhetoric," and claims that his testimony about the war in 1971 "sounds exactly like the disinformation line that the Soviets were sowing worldwide throughout the Vietnam era."

Had Kerry said or done something stupid at the impressionable age of 25 -- after surviving horrific jungle warfare that had cost the lives of several close friends -- his furious protests would be forgivable more than 30 years later. He, too, might have been "young and foolish when he was young and foolish," as a famous man put it. But in contrast to the VVAW's radicalized veterans and other elements of the antiwar movement, Kerry was sober and mature. Some of his own allies openly disdained him for his moderation. Although he, too, was disillusioned and angry, Kerry insisted on working "within the system." During that period he spent much of his energy trying to register young people to vote for antiwar congressional candidates.

It's also true that he led raucous demonstrations in Washington, and participated in the "Winter Soldier" hearings. When he appeared before the Senate three months later, he spoke at length about reported American atrocities, attributing most of the specific allegations to veterans who had testified during Winter Soldier. Graphic references to rape, dismemberment and murder took up less than a paragraph of his lengthy testimony, but they certainly brought no credit on the U.S. military. Yet his eloquent words won bipartisan praise from the senators who listened to him.

Kerry didn't join the antiwar movement to indict his fellow soldiers; he often spoke with passion about the injustices done to them, both during the war and when they returned home to inadequate medical care and an indifferent government. His purpose was to prevent more of them from being killed, as he said over and over again.

He didn't try to absolve himself when denouncing the indiscriminate violence of the war. On "Meet the Press," he confessed that he had participated in "the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free-fire zones." But he felt strongly that U.S. military commanders and civilian policymakers were far more culpable for those atrocities than the men who obeyed their orders. Appalled by the civilian casualties in the "free-fire zones" marked out by their commanders, Kerry and other junior officers had gone to Saigon in January 1969 to complain to their superior -- and were of course ignored.

The free-fire zones, the use of napalm, the carpet-bombing and the assassination programs were all aspects of a guerrilla conflict that could not be prosecuted without killing thousands of civilians. Only by falsifying history -- and assuming that nobody will remember the truth -- can Kerry's right-wing critics claim that he somehow misled the country about what was happening in Vietnam. The smear depends on historical amnesia.

Last year the suppressed recollections of that disturbing past emerged again, when investigative journalist Gregory Vistica revealed wartime secrets long concealed by Bob Kerrey. Although the most incriminating details remain disputed, the former senator and Congressional Medal of Honor winner has admitted that he and Navy SEALS under his command massacred civilians during a nighttime raid on a hamlet called Thanh Phong in 1969. The ensuing debate over his conduct revived searing memories of My Lai, the village where hundreds of civilians were raped and murdered in March 1968 by U.S. soldiers.

In 1971, John Kerry told the Senate that if William Calley and the other soldiers who committed those atrocities were guilty, then so were the commanders who had made such crimes inevitable and then covered them up. "I think if you are going to try Lieutenant Calley then you must at the same time, if this country is going to demand respect for the law, you must at the same time try all those other people who have responsibility, and any aversion that we may have to the verdict as veterans is not to say that Calley should be freed, not to say that he is innocent, but to say that you can't just take him alone." Kerry's critics argue that My Lai was an isolated incident, but at least one celebrated general doesn't agree.

Secretary of State Colin Powell held a command position in the Army's Americal Division, which had included Calley's unit, and he was asked to investigate the earliest allegations about My Lai. He failed to uncover the massacre and was later accused of facilitating the coverup. Whether that accusation is fair or not, Powell knows what happened in Vietnam.

"My Lai was an appalling example of much that had gone wrong in Vietnam," he wrote in his bestselling autobiography, "My American Journey." "The involvement of so many unprepared officers and noncoms led to breakdowns in morale, discipline and professional judgment -- and to horrors like My Lai -- as the troops became numb to what appeared to be endless and mindless slaughter." For some reason, despite his loyalty to the president, Powell doesn't seem eager to attack John Kerry.

BIG_DADDY
03-08-2004, 12:48 PM
the right-wing smear machine ROFL

Simplex3
03-08-2004, 12:49 PM
They hope to convince America that by testifying and organizing for peace, the young Navy lieutenant somehow "dishonored" his fellow sailors and soldiers.It isn't the wanting peace, it's saying he saw all of these horrible war crimes being committed by American soldiers when in fact he hadn't, trying to make it sound as if it were more prevalant than it was. If you fraudulently accused me of killing children and raping women I'd be pissed off, too.

munkey
03-08-2004, 12:50 PM
I've been wondering when Bush would fight fire with fire. Kerry's been running his mouth to get this type of reaction so I'm not surprised.

Let the mud slinging begin...

jAZ
03-08-2004, 12:53 PM
I've been wondering when Bush would fight fire with fire. Kerry's been running his mouth to get this type of reaction so I'm not surprised.

Let the mud slinging begin...
You haven't been reading the political threads around here have you? The right-wing mud slinging began weeks ago.

Simplex3
03-08-2004, 12:56 PM
You haven't been reading the political threads around here have you? The right-wing mud slinging began weeks ago....and Bush WAS AWOL, even if Kerry has no proof. And Bush IS an alcoholic, even if there is no proof. And he IS on cocain, even if there is no proof.

Both sides have been hurling turd bombs for decades. There's no start/stop anymore, it is a persistant state of being.

Of course, we'd all better be careful what we say, they might arrest us for it now. Wouldn't want to bad-mouth a politician.

Donger
03-08-2004, 12:56 PM
I
The right-wing extremists at Free Republic.

ROFL

Radar Chief
03-08-2004, 12:57 PM
the right-wing smear machine ROFL

Well, I ‘spose that if anyone’s gonna recognize a “smear machine” it’d be the Salon.

FringeNC
03-08-2004, 01:00 PM
This is from a centrist Democrat:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-3_2_04_MK.html

March 2 , 2004
Democrats Lead By Miles in 2004 'Smear' Campaign
By Mort Kondracke

It's conventional wisdom now that this may be one of the nastiest presidential campaigns ever. But those keeping score should observe that, right now, the muddy epithets thrown at President Bush outweigh those thrown at Democrats by tons.

That's not the way things are being reported, though. The media seem to be uncritically accepting the Democratic charge that any criticism of Sen. John Kerry's (Mass.) public record is "sliming" or "smearing."

But for months now, Democrats have accused Bush of being a "liar" who "misled" or "deceived" the nation into the Iraq war; a "usurper" who "stole" the 2000 election in Florida; "a right-wing extremist" on tax, social and foreign policy; and a "menace to the nation's basic liberties," owing to his employment of Attorney General John Ashcroft.

Former Vice President Al Gore said Bush had "betrayed" the country in Iraq. No major Democrat said afterward that Gore had gone too far.

Democrats claim that Republicans either have questioned or will question their patriotism in this campaign, but actually the only accusations of lacking patriotism have come from Democrats.

Sen. Bob Graham (Fla.), when he was a candidate, said that Bush's Iraq policy was "anti-patriotic at the core." Last September, Kerry said that Bush "lives out a creed of greed for he and his friends" and that it was "unpatriotic" for Bush's "friends" (i.e., corporate executives) to move jobs offshore. It was a regular staple of retired Gen. Wesley Clark's campaign to say that Bush's policies were "not patriotic."

Howard Dean, when he was a candidate, charged that Ashcroft "is no patriot. He's a direct descendant of Joseph McCarthy."

After all of the Democratic attacks, I think Bush and his campaign should start devoting their energy and advertising dollars mostly to explaining his policies and re-educating Americans about basic economics and what it takes to create jobs.

When an incumbent president is up for re-election, the contest traditionally is a referendum on his performance and prospects. And, right now, many polls put Bush's public approval rating at the lowest point in his presidency.

On the other hand, the Bush campaign has every right to raise doubts about Kerry's record and programs, including on defense issues. And the media ought to cry foul when the Kerry campaign tries to put such discussion off limits.

Kerry spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter, for instance, said about criticism of Kerry's defense record: "These attacks and smears against us are just one more example of the fundamental need to change the direction of the nation from Bush's extreme agenda."

Kerry said in mid-February that "given the record of this administration and their stunning lack of vision, the Republican attack machine may well have no choice but to resort to smear and fear."

In a public letter to Bush last Saturday, Kerry implied that Bush was questioning his Vietnam service and said "it has been hard to believe that you would choose to reopen these wounds for your personal political gain."

In fact, the Bush campaign and the GOP have acknowledged time and again that Kerry was a war hero and is due honor for his service, but that his record on defense and foreign policy is open to criticism.

Indeed, it is. Kerry is on record as opposing the MX missile, the B-1 bomber, the Tomahawk missile, the Apache helicopter, the Patriot missile, the Harrier jet and the F-15 fighter aircraft and has called for deep cuts in the intelligence budget.

After Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie recited that list in a press conference last week, Kerry's campaign manager, Mary Beth Cahill, sent out an e-mail charging that "today, RNC chair Ed Gillespie made another desperate attack on the patriotism of John Kerry." It was no such thing.

Defending Kerry more substantively, Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Wash.)and former Sen. Max Cleland (D-Ga.) claimed that Republicans were unfairly accusing Kerry of opposing such weapons systems because he voted against one Defense appropriations bill in 1991, at the end of the Cold War.

But as one of his own campaign press releases shows, Kerry favored all those cuts in 1984, long before the Cold War was over. He also supported a nuclear freeze that would have left the Soviet Union with a missile advantage in Europe.

And, in September 1995, Kerry introduced a deficit-reduction bill calling for the phasing-out of two Army divisions over a five-year period, cancellation of the Army's tank-upgrade program and five years of $300 million reductions in the intelligence budget.

Kerry has claimed that the Bush campaign's upcoming advertising campaign is code-named "Operation Carpet Bombing" and has charged this is somehow a slur on his Vietnam service.

In the first place, Bush ad guru Mark McKinnon denies ever hearing that term. In the second, the Bush campaign estimates that of the $6.7 million Kerry has spent on advertising during the primaries, 73 percent has been devoted to attacking Bush. Certainly, Kerry hasn't attacked other Democrats and they haven't attacked him, either.

Back in September, when I wrote a column lamenting that this could be the "nastiest" campaign ever, I anticipated that Republicans would help make it so by repeating their 2002 tactics against Cleland, who basically was accused in an ad of aiding Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden by voting against Bush's Homeland Security Department.

This hasn't happened - at least, not yet. Education Secretary Rod Paige referred to the National Education Association as a "terrorist organization" - clearly it was hyperbole, not a real accusation - and was carpet-bombed into an abject apology.

Besides that, no Republican of any stature has yet thrown what could even remotely be described as a low blow. If that changes, I'll scream. But so far, if anyone's "sliming," it's Democrats. And the media should call them on it.

Donger
03-08-2004, 01:00 PM
On "Meet the Press," he confessed that he had participated in "the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free-fire zones." But he felt strongly that U.S. military commanders and civilian policymakers were far more culpable for those atrocities than the men who obeyed their orders.

Oh, okay. He was "just following orders." Sounds familiar somehow...

Baby Lee
03-08-2004, 01:00 PM
So in sum, it's all acurate, but it's mean to bring it up because accurately representing his views and activities might make him look bad.

Iowanian
03-08-2004, 01:00 PM
I can't believe that Democrats that argued so hard that Clinton's flee from Military service wasn't important, now feel so differently.

Radar Chief
03-08-2004, 01:01 PM
...and Bush WAS AWOL, even if Kerry has no proof. And Bush IS an alcoholic, even if there is no proof. And he IS on cocain, even if there is no proof.

Both sides have been hurling turd bombs for decades. There's no start/stop anymore, it is a persistant state of being.

Of course, we'd all better be careful what we say, they might arrest us for it now. Wouldn't want to bad-mouth a politician.

Yup.

Donger
03-08-2004, 01:02 PM
You haven't been reading the political threads around here have you? The right-wing mud slinging began weeks ago.

With all due respect jAZ, the mud slinging began in earnest when the primaries started.

headsnap
03-08-2004, 01:03 PM
help me out so I can get this straight...


The left can come out and say that Kerry is a 'war hero', and that bush is a 'deserter', and that's ok. The right comes out to counter, and all of a sudden it's a smear campaign.




are those the rules? :shrug:

Donger
03-08-2004, 01:05 PM
Great Article Fringe.

I really hope that the Dems keep up responding to every GOP point with the "stop questioning his patriotism" charge. It just makes them look more and more petulant.

munkey
03-08-2004, 01:05 PM
With all due respect jAZ, the mud slinging began in earnest when the primaries started.

Thats what I was thinking....I could be wrong I guess :shrug:

Donger
03-08-2004, 01:06 PM
help me out so I can get this straight...


The left can come out and say that Kerry is a 'war hero', and that bush is a 'deserter', and that's ok. The right comes out to counter, and all of a sudden it's a smear campaign.




are those the rules? :shrug:

On Salon, yes. It might also be the rule on other left-leaning media outlets.

Donger
03-08-2004, 01:08 PM
Thats what I was thinking....I could be wrong I guess :shrug:

Well, mud slinging never begins or ends in politics. But, anyone that claims that the RNC has been slinging more than the DNC over the last few months is just plain wrong.

patteeu
03-08-2004, 01:11 PM
The contrast between the military careers of George W. Bush and John Kerry is drawing veterans to the Democratic Party.

I'll be shocked if Kerry wins a majority of the veteran vote.

munkey
03-08-2004, 01:11 PM
Well, mud slinging never begins or ends in politics. But, anyone that claims that the RNC has been slinging more than the DNC over the last few months is just plain wrong.

Maybe its my hearing then....It has seemed to me that all I've heard in the past months or so is what Kerry and other political advisaries have said about Bush. Not until recently (last week or so) have I heard Bush defend himself against these claims or gave as good as he got. JMO...

Donger
03-08-2004, 01:18 PM
You know, I just reread this article.

Exactly what "lies" and "distortions" is the author referring to?

Radar Chief
03-08-2004, 01:18 PM
Maybe its my hearing then....It has seemed to me that all I've heard in the past months or so is what Kerry and other political advisaries have said about Bush. Not until recently (last week or so) have I heard Bush defend himself against these claims or gave as good as he got. JMO...

That sounds about right. Bushie has been fairly silent, I assume because he didn’t want to spend time and money exposing Kerry early in the primaries only to have that affect the results and wind up facing Edwards instead.
But, like you that’s JMO.

Simplex3
03-08-2004, 01:20 PM
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=12386

Setting Straight Kerry’s War Record
By Thomas Lipscomb
The New York Sun | March 1, 2004

Senator Kerry recently wrote a letter to President Bush complaining, “You and your campaign have initiated a widespread attack on my service in Vietnam, my decision to speak out to end that war,” and warning, “I will not sit back and allow my patriotism to be challenged.”

In the absence of any evidence from Mr. Kerry of an attack from the Bush campaign, Mr. Kerry seems to have originated his own doctrine of “pre-emption.” How valid are his concerns?

No one denies Mr. Kerry’s four bemedaled months in “Swiftboats” or his seven-months’ service as an electrical officer on board the USS Gridley, during its cruises back and forth to California, or even his months as an admiral’s aide in Brooklyn, before he was able get out of the Navy six months early to run for office.

Taking a look at Mr. Kerry’s much-promoted Vietnam service, his military record was, indeed, remarkable in many ways. Last week, the former assistant secretary of defense and Fletcher School of Diplomacy professor, W. Scott Thompson, recalled a conversation with the late Admiral Elmo R. Zumwalt Jr. that clearly had a slightly different take on Mr. Kerry’s recollection of their discussions:

“[T]he fabled and distinguished chief of naval operations,Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, told me — 30 years ago when he was still CNO —that during his own command of U.S. naval forces in Vietnam, just prior to his anointment as CNO, young Kerry had created great problems for him and the other top brass,by killing so many non-combatant civilians and going after other non-military targets.‘We had virtually to straitjacket him to keep him under control,’ the admiral said. ‘Bud’ Zumwalt got it right when he assessed Kerry as having large ambitions — but promised that his career in Vietnam would haunt him if he were ever on the national stage.” And this statement was made despite the fact Zumwalt had personally pinned a Silver Star on Mr. Kerry.

Mr. Kerry was assigned to Swiftboat 44 on December 1, 1968. Within 24 hours, he had his first Purple Heart. Mr. Kerry accumulated three Purple Hearts in four months with not even a day of duty lost from wounds, according to his training officer. It’s a pity one cannot read his Purple Heart medical treatment reports which have been withheld from the public. The only person preventing their release is Mr. Kerry.

By his own admission during those four months, Mr. Kerry continually kept ramming his Swiftboat onto an enemy-held shore on assorted occasions alone and with a few men, killing civilians and even a wounded enemy soldier. One can begin to appreciate Zumwalt’s problem with Mr. Kerry as commander of an unarmored craft dependent upon speed of maneuver to keep it and its crew from being shot to pieces.

Mr. Kerry now refers to those civilian deaths as “accidents of war.”And within four days of his third Purple Heart, Mr. Kerry applied to take advantage of a technicality which allowed him to request immediate transfer to a stateside post.

Once back in the States, Mr. Kerry joined “the struggle for our veterans,” as he called it last week in Atlanta, by joining a scruffy organization called the Vietnam Veterans Against the War. The VVAW’s executive director, Al Hubbard, supposedly a former Air Force captain wounded in Vietnam, quickly appointed Mr. Kerry to the executive committee.

Mr. Kerry participated with the VVAW at agitprop rallies such as Valley Forge and the “Winter Soldier” guerrilla theater atrocity trials in Detroit, finally testifying in April 1971 before the Senate as an authority on the war crimes his fellow American servicemen had committed in Vietnam.

Outside of his own “accidents of war,” there is no evidence that Mr. Kerry had then or has now the least idea what may or may not have been the realities of ground combat. However, he had no problem reeling off for the Senate a series of unproven, secondhand allegations that would have been perfectly at home at the Nuremberg trials indicting his fellow veterans.

Mr. Kerry stated there were “war crimes committed in Southeast Asia...not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-today basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.” Then Mr. Kerry got specific:

“They had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam...we are more guilty than any other body of violations of those Geneva Conventions; in the use of free-fire zones, harassment interdiction fire, search-and-destroy missions, the bombings, the torture of prisoners, all accepted policy by many units in South Vietnam.”

In other words, My Lai was just another day in the life of the Vietnam War.

This wasn’t a one-time occasion. The VVAW had been peddling this line from the day Mr. Kerry joined them and had been publishing charges like this for the previous two years. Mr. Kerry repeated them on “Meet the Press” with Al Hubbard, who was found to be a total fraud and who never served in Vietnam, much less was wounded. However, Mr. Kerry has never renounced the charges he made.

Recently, his fellow VVAW supporter, Jane Fonda, has tried to minimize a potentially damaging picture of him a few rows behind her at the three-day VVAW Valley Forge rally in September 1970. And many members of the press fell for the line that it was accidental or coincidental, including Fox’s Chris Wallace and ABC’s Tim Russert.

However, there were only eight or nine speakers that day, including Donald Sutherland, Mark Lane, Bella Abzug, and Ms. Fonda. And far from being a casual audience member, Mr. Kerry, an executive committee member, not Ms. Fonda, was the lead speaker.

Ms. Fonda had been funding VVAW events since before Mr. Kerry joined its executive committee. At Valley Forge, Ms. Fonda said: “My Lai was not an isolated incident but rather a way of life for many of our military.”

Their appearance together in that picture may be a lot of things, but it was not a coincidence.

Mr. Kerry has already confessed his complicity in killing civilians as “accidents of war.” However, he has offered a classic Nuremberg defense that this was not only a commonplace occurrence throughout the Vietnam War, but he was carrying out a policy “with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.”

His commander of naval operations in Vietnam, who specifically designed the mission that Mr. Kerry and the other Swiftboat commanders executed, Admiral Zumwalt, clearly disagreed. An examination of the truth behind this disagreement is not an attack on Mr. Kerry. It is a matter of vital historical interest. Quite the war hero. Three Purple Hearts, but not one day's service lost to the injuries? What were they, hang-nails? I especially like the part about killing civilians and injured enemy combatants with his boat.

Mr. Kotter
03-08-2004, 01:22 PM
I'll be shocked if Kerry wins a majority of the veteran vote.

He won't come close; this is wishful thinking. :rolleyes:

Baby Lee
03-08-2004, 01:24 PM
You know, I just reread this article.
Thus thwarting Conason's true aims.
Stick to the headline, Ole Joe wouldn't spin you wrong, buddy.

Donger
03-08-2004, 01:27 PM
Thus thwarting Conason's true aims.
Stick to the headline, Ole Joe wouldn't spin you wrong, buddy.

Seriously, I just don't get how the author equates a few quotes from a right wing website, one Congresscritter, a right wing magazine and a former Communist to the "Right wing machine."

Yet, we had the Chairman of the DNC saying that Bush was "AWOL" and that he "never served in the military."

Pot, meet kettle.

RINGLEADER
03-08-2004, 01:42 PM
Conason is a tool - he's an ultra-lefty.

Kerry is DESPERATE to make everyone believe that questioning his integrity is an attack on his patriotism. It is, of course, no such thing. The guy who called for Bush to "bring it on" for the past four months becomes a sniveling whiner when he has to answer for his own beliefs. The right-wing, you see, doens't have to impugn anything. To wit:

John Kerry SAID he committed atrocities in Vietnam that were in violation of the Geneva Convention.

John Kerry VOTED to let Saddam Hussein stay in Kuwait and keep his WMDs back in 1991.

John Kerry VOTED against the stealth bomber, cruise missile, patriot missile, Abrahms tank, and more than a dozen other weapons system that contribute to our military superiority today.

John Kerry DIRECTED staff to shred documents that revealed the possibility of POWs in Vietnam.

John Kerry VOTED against funding for body armor for our troops in Iraq (and now has the balls to blame Bush for not getting it to them sooner).

John Kerry VOTED against funding our troops fighting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

John Kerry VOTED to suspend the hunt for Osama Bin Laden LAST YEAR!

John Kerry SAYS every day that he wants to raise taxes on millions of small businesses within the first 100 days of his administration.

John Kerry AIRED the first political commercial to mention 9-11 as a campaign issue.

I'd ask Joe Conosan and any other Kerry supporter why they believe the Republicans need to impugn anything about this guy - unless telling people what he believes and what he voted for is somehow off-limits.

Donger
03-08-2004, 01:45 PM
unless telling people what he believes and what he voted for is somehow off-limits.

Don't you DARE question Kerry's patriotism!

headsnap
03-08-2004, 01:49 PM
The guy who called for Bush to "bring it on" for the past four months becomes a sniveling whiner when he has to answer for his own beliefs.
oh the irony of it. ROFL

Kerry says "bring it on." The right "brings it on." Kerry cries "no fair." ROFL

Radar Chief
03-08-2004, 02:30 PM
John Kerry DIRECTED staff to shred documents that revealed the possibility of POWs in Vietnam.


What's this all about?

Logical
03-08-2004, 02:44 PM
ROFL

I said this would happen a month ago and that Kerry would be brutalized. Big suprise and he deserves it. You reap what you sow and hanging with Hanoi Jane and Communist while degrading the Medals of Honor given our war heroes definitely is netting him what he deserves. It has only just begun and it will get much, much worse.:D

John_Wayne
03-08-2004, 03:32 PM
John Kerry was a war hero then he turned into a traitor. It's that simple.

jAZ
03-08-2004, 03:54 PM
John Kerry was a war hero then he turned into a traitor. It's that simple.
Don't you DARE question Kerry's patriotism!

jAZ
03-08-2004, 03:55 PM
What's this all about?
I believe he shredded copies (not the originals) of these documents.

Donger
03-08-2004, 04:08 PM
Are you trying to make a point with this or something?

Calcountry
09-24-2004, 04:17 PM
That sounds about right. Bushie has been fairly silent, I assume because he didn’t want to spend time and money exposing Kerry early in the primaries only to have that affect the results and wind up facing Edwards instead.
But, like you that’s JMO.
Ding ding, we have a winner. Isn't hind sight great? ROFL