Support for the theory John Kerry...

[Yonivore]

...was a useful idiot to the Communists.

Today in the Opinion Journal (http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010438), former KGB intelligence officer Ion Mihai Pacepa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_Mihai_Pacepa) explained the propaganda tactics of the communists during the Cold War.

Here is a bit of what Pacepa had to say about the Soviet's propaganda campaign in the West:


During the Vietnam War we spread vitriolic stories around the world, pretending that America's presidents sent Genghis Khan-style barbarian soldiers to Vietnam who raped at random, taped electrical wires to human genitals, cut off limbs, blew up bodies and razed entire villages. Those weren't facts. They were our tales, but some seven million Americans ended up being convinced their own president, not communism, was the enemy. As Yuri Andropov, who conceived this dezinformatsiya war against the U.S., used to tell me, people are more willing to believe smut than holiness.
Does that remind you of anyone?

Here are the words of future democratic Senator John F. Kerry (http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com/ker_sfrc_71.htm) in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 22, 1971:


They told the stories at times 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...
John F. Kerry- Useful Idiot.

Actually... Back in 2004, Ion Mihai Pacepa was asking this very question- "Where did Kerry get his material?" -Since, what Kerry said in his 1971 Senate testimony was almost exactly like the disinformation line (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/pacepa200402260828.asp) that the Soviets were sowing worldwide.

Maggie's Farm (http://maggiesfarm.anotherdotcom.com/archives/5953-Paranoid.html) thinks there's more to the story. So do I.

[SRJ]

Howard Bloom (no conservative, he) once expressed anger at mainstream journalism in a long essay.

I paraphrase, but he mentioned that mainstream journalism during Vietnam went to great pains to bring Western atrocities to light but ignored those committed by the Communists. Bloom came to find out that the Communist atrocities were more frequent and more severe.

[boutons_]

American atrocities in VN were well documented and reported by 1000s of troops.

My Lai was hardly isolated.

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?Category=SRTIGERFORCE

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_Crimes_Working_Group_Files

Pentagon just says "was a long time ago. Forget it"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3206180.stm

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-vietnam6aug06,0,6350517.story?coll=la-home-headlines


Remember the atrocity of "fragging"?

[George Gervin's Afro]

So I wonder if I can find documentation that the Iraq war has been a boon for terrorists recruiting then I guess we could blame Bush for making the situation worse. Some people here would use the word of terrorists and Russians to justify their point yet disregad other things that have been said. Is that selective cherry picking ?

[gtownspur]

So I wonder if I can find documentation that the Iraq war has been a boon for terrorists recruiting then I guess we could blame Bush for making the situation worse. Some people here would use the word of terrorists and Russians to justify their point yet disregad other things that have been said. Is that selective cherry picking ?


Dodge the subject forum.

[Wild Cobra]

American atrocities in VN were well documented and reported by 1000s of troops.

My Lai was hardly isolated.

----

Remember the atrocity of "fragging"?
Too many people remained silent who should have reported it to authorities then, not in the aftermath. It should also be noted that many of the stories have been proven to be fabricated. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying atrocities didn't happen. Just not in the numbers reported. Those who knew of such evil actions and remained silent are guilty also.

These atrocities did not happen by the quality of soldiers we have today. Sure, we have a few bad apples, but not as many as we would if we had a draft. These atrocities were committed by the likes of John Kerry and his friends, who didn't want to be there, and were so fearful they killed combatant and non-combatant alike. Some found comical ways to their twisted sense of humor to amuse themselves. This is a sound reason not to start a draft again like some of the democrats want to do.

Why do I say John Kerry? Because he claimed to know first hand of such atrocities, and one time admitted he participated in them!

[Wild Cobra]

Here is a rather common feeling from the US troops in Iraq:

You Tube link:

Army Ranger Calls the Neal Boortz Show (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMcXCoM0PYk)

[George Gervin's Afro]

Dodge the subject forum.


so being intellectually dishonest is a good thing? disingenous? My point is that the same group terrorists Yoni uses as reference points to bash the left aslo make similar comments that could be used against the right. I know this may be difficult to understand since your such a hypocrite but to disregard when a terrorist says the Iraq war has been good for them and to then turn around and say, " but,but,but, osama said the same things the dems said.." so the dems are bad... is hypocritical. . whatever dude. Some people here are either blatant hypocrites or just plain ignorant when they selectivey pick a terrorists words to justify their position...


I guess I will have to find where a terrorist says Iraq had been a boon for them and you guys on the right will have to swallow that as fact and just keep quiet. because since a terrorist says it then it must be true.. :rolleyes

[Findog]

Howard Bloom (no conservative, he) once expressed anger at mainstream journalism in a long essay.

I paraphrase, but he mentioned that mainstream journalism during Vietnam went to great pains to bring Western atrocities to light but ignored those committed by the Communists. Bloom came to find out that the Communist atrocities were more frequent and more severe.

Who gives a fuck? Western atrocities are paid for with our tax dollars, communists, not so much. Can you grasp the distinction there?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Al-Iraqi, speaking with a scarf hiding his face, says the U.S.-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have created "two fronts" for recruiting terrorists to the cause of Usama bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Omar

I guess since we are going to use terrorists words as gospel then the dems have been right in saying that Iraq has been a boon to recruiting terrorists. Great Bush you made things worse and you have been a great help to the terrorist by being their biggest recruiter.

[xrayzebra]

I guess since we are going to use terrorists words as gospel then the dems have been right in saying that Iraq has been a boon to recruiting terrorists. Great Bush you made things worse and you have been a great help to the terrorist by being their biggest recruiter.

Why GGA. everyone knows it is the
United States that is at fault. We are
the big evil of the world. All others
are they way they are because of us.
Just ask boutons, he knows.

[Yonivore]

I guess I will have to find where a terrorist says Iraq had been a boon for them...
Please do.

And, then, see if he still holds that view after the war.

[Oh, Gee!!]

so a guy who spied first for the commies, then against them is a person to be trusted? guy sounds like a flip-flopper to me

[George Gervin's Afro]

Please do.

And, then, see if he still holds that view after the war.



Al-Iraqi, speaking with a scarf hiding his face, says the U.S.-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have created "two fronts" for recruiting terrorists to the cause of Usama bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Omar

[Yonivore]

so a guy who spied first for the commies, then against them is a person to be trusted? guy sounds like a flip-flopper to me
Yet another similarity to John Kerry.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Yet another similarity to John Kerry.

so why would you, great skeptic of our times, trust what either one says?

[Yonivore]

...
'bout sums up George's argument.

Anyway, either this guy is truthful or the atrocities described by Kerry happened. And, if they happened, let's all remember he confessed to have been involved in some of them.

Let's also not forget that, like Beauchamp in this generation, many of the "Winter Soldiers" turned out to be fucking liars too.

We can also remember the North Vietnamese who enshrined Kerry as one of their leading propagandists and who hold him in high esteem for lending a hand in breaking the American people just before the American military broke them.

Nice legacy that Kerry has, eh?

[Yonivore]

so why would you, great skeptic of our times, trust what either one says?
I don't but, a preponderance of the evidence tends to show Kerry is as this guy says. And, it's not based on his word alone but on much of the historical record from the Vietnam War.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I get it--you don't like Kerry.

[Yonivore]

I get it--you don't like Kerry.
That's true. But, you don't get it.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I don't but, a preponderance of the evidence tends to show Kerry is as this guy says. And, it's not based on his word alone but on much of the historical record from the Vietnam War.

a preponderance of the evidence of course being one former spy's [and former mortal enemy's] opinion. cool.

[clambake]

'bout sums up George's argument.

Anyway, either this guy is truthful or the atrocities described by Kerry happened. And, if they happened, let's all remember he confessed to have been involved in some of them.

Let's also not forget that, like Beauchamp in this generation, many of the "Winter Soldiers" turned out to be fucking liars too.

We can also remember the North Vietnamese who enshrined Kerry as one of their leading propagandists and who hold him in high esteem for lending a hand in breaking the American people just before the American military broke them.

Nice legacy that Kerry has, eh?
:lmao don't look over there, focus on Kerry.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I get it--you don't like Kerry.


conservatives good- everyone else bad. that sums up yoni's existence on this board.

[Yonivore]

a preponderance of the evidence of course being one former spy's [and former mortal enemy's] opinion. cool.
Actually, no. The evidence against Kerry goes back to his lying testimony before the Senate in 1971 all the way through his lying about his lies, during the 2004 presidential campaign.

All this guy confirms is the obvious...Kerry's a liar.

[Yonivore]

conservatives good- everyone else bad. that sums up yoni's existence on this board.
You're such a fucking simpleton. I pity your family...if, in fact, you have one.

[Oh, Gee!!]

conservatives good- everyone else bad. that sums up yoni's existence on this board.

when looking to execute a war or tear down a dem's reputation, yoni's burden of proof is preponderance of the evidence. when attacking the reasons for war or the guilt of scooter libby, yoni's burden of proof elevates quite mysteriously to beyond all doubt. go figure

[George Gervin's Afro]

Actually, no. The evidence against Kerry goes back to his lying testimony before the Senate in 1971 all the way through his lying about his lies, during the 2004 presidential campaign.

All this guy confirms is the obvious...Kerry's a liar.


lying? that he admitted to committing an atrocity and that other US servicemen committed attrocities? what did he lie about during his campaign?

[Oh, Gee!!]

You're such a fucking simpleton. I pity your family...if, in fact, you have one.

you're a jerk, yoni. why do you have to make personal attacks?

[Yonivore]

when looking to execute a war or tear down a dem's reputation, yoni's burden of proof is preponderance of the evidence. when attacking the reasons for war or the guilt of scooter libby, yoni's burden of proof elevates quite mysteriously to beyond all doubt. go figure
Okay, did Kerry testify before the Senate about things this guy claims the Communists were planting in the media? Yes or no?

Did Kerry go from claiming to have been involved with the atrocities to which he testified to only having knowledge of them through the Winter Soldier fiasco? Yes or no?

Were the Winter Soldiers found out to be a bunch of fucking liars? Yes or no?

Did the North Vietnamese lionize Kerry and give him special recognition in their musuem dedicated to the war, based on his lies (and others like them) eroding American morale to the point of surrender just before they, themselves, were ready to surrender? Yes or no?

Did John Kerry throw someone else medals over the White House fence and lie about it? Yes or no?

Did John Kerry lie about going into Cambodia during his 4 month stint in Vietnam? Yes or no?

Did John Kerry lie about the circumstances surrounding one or all of his three Purple Hearts? Yes or no?

Did John Kerry show a complete disdain for the American military by claiming only idiots who could get a good education end up "stuck" in Iraq -- when, in fact, there are more college graduates and professionals serving in the military today than at any other time in the history of this country? Yes or no?

There's your preponderance in there...depending on whether or not you answer those questions yes or no.

[George Gervin's Afro]

when looking to execute a war or tear down a dem's reputation, yoni's burden of proof is preponderance of the evidence. when attacking the reasons for war or the guilt of scooter libby, yoni's burden of proof elevates quite mysteriously to beyond all doubt. go figure


I guess that sum's up nicely how I feel about Yoni... he will take terrorists at their word when it makes dems look bad and conservatives look good.. yet when the opposite happens he then dismisses the same terrorists as having zero credibilty. Anyone who believes the administration mislead the country into going to war can easily point out contradictions of 'evidence' but cannot take the same liberty and assume they did based preponderance of the evidence.

[Yonivore]

you're a jerk, yoni. why do you have to make personal attacks?
Just making an observation based on his post.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Okay, did Kerry testify before the Senate about things this guy claims the Communists were planting in the media? Yes or no?

Did Kerry go from claiming to have been involved with the atrocities to which he testified to only having knowledge of them through the Winter Soldier fiasco? Yes or no?

Were the Winter Soldiers found out to be a bunch of fucking liars? Yes or no?

Did the North Vietnamese lionize Kerry and give him special recognition in their musuem dedicated to the war, based on his lies (and others like them) eroding American morale to the point of surrender just before they, themselves, were ready to surrender? Yes or no?

Did John Kerry throw someone else medals over the White House fence and lie about it? Yes or no?

Did John Kerry lie about going into Cambodia during his 4 month stint in Vietnam? Yes or no?

Did John Kerry lie about the circumstances surrounding one or all of his three Purple Hearts? Yes or no?

Did John Kerry show a complete disdain for the American military by claiming only idiots who could get a good education end up "stuck" in Iraq -- when, in fact, there are more college graduates and professionals serving in the military today than at any other time in the history of this country? Yes or no?

There's your preponderance in there...depending on whether or not you answer those questions yes or no.


Maybe he forgot like scoooter libby did? He probably was confused. :rolleyes

[Yonivore]

Maybe he forgot like scoooter libby did? He probably was confused. :rolleyes
Maybe.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I guess that sum's up nicely how I feel about Yoni... he will take terrorists at their word when it makes dems look bad and conservatives look good.. yet when the opposite happens he then dismisses the same terrorists as having zero credibilty. Anyone who believes the administration mislead the country into going to war can easily point out contradictions of 'evidence' but cannot take the same liberty and assume they did based preponderance of the evidence.

and he thinks that he can post whatever thoughts that pop into his head and we should all believe it's the gospel truth, but when anyone else posts a contradicting opinion he wants a link or third-party verification.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Did John Kerry show a complete disdain for the American military by claiming only idiots who could get a good education end up "stuck" in Iraq -- when, in fact, there are more college graduates and professionals serving in the military today than at any other time in the history of this country? Yes or no?


Yes Yoni is taking ANOTHER comment out of context. If yoni were an honest person he would admit that Kerry did clarify his statement later saying he mean't to say was " get US stuck in Iraq". A jab at the president. This yet another example of him and other tlak radio types taking statements out of context and using them for political advantage. I have little respect for people who do this.

[Yonivore]

and he thinks that he can post whatever thoughts that pop into his head and we should all believe it's the gospel truth,...
I don't ask you believe anything. But, you're right, I can post whatever thoughts pop into my head. Until Kori bans me, that is. So, deal.


but when anyone else posts a contradicting opinion he wants a link or third-party verification.
Most of my posts contain linked sources. Just like the one that originated this thread.

How old are you?

I'll be glad when school starts again.

[Yonivore]

Yes Yoni is taking ANOTHER comment out of context. If yoni were an honest person he would admit that Kerry did clarify his statement later saying he mean't to say was " get US stuck in Iraq". A jab at the president. This yet another example of him and other tlak radio types taking statements out of context and using them for political advantage. I have little respect for people who do this.
Yeah, it took him a while to frame that clarification. No one in the military bought the explanation either.

George Gervin's Afro = useful idiot for John Kerry.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Most of my posts contain linked sources. Just like the one that originated this thread.

actually, by your own admission, most of your posts are stolen (i.e. not sourced) from bloggers


How old are you? I'll be glad when school starts again.

what a surprise, yoni reverts to name-calling.

[Yonivore]

"You know education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."
"You know education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get [us] stuck in Iraq."

I see the difference. Kerry was poking fun at a man who had both a Harvard and Yale education; who had been a successful businessman; who had never lost a political campaign; and who was president of the United States about being uneducated.

Let's try to recall how many days it took for him to come up with the missing "us." A week. Now, who's slow?

Nice try.

[Yonivore]

actually, by your own admission, most of your posts are stolen (i.e. not sourced) from bloggers
But, they contain linked sources.


what a surprise, yoni reverts to name-calling.
Children seem to respond to that.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Yeah, it took him a while to frame that clarification. No one in the military bought the explanation either.

George Gervin's Afro = useful idiot for John Kerry.


In all honesty Yoni you know he clarified the statement but it was fast enough for you. Secondly, I voted for Kerry while holding my nose. I am big enough to admit that but your not when you continually take quotes out of context. This is why I don't have much respect for people like you. Why? Becasue your smart enough to realize what you are doing in not honest. so in the honesty dept you and kerry can enjoy eachother..

[Yonivore]

In all honesty Yoni you know he clarified the statement but it was fast enough for you. Secondly, I voted for Kerry while holding my nose. I am big enough to admit that but your not when you continually take quotes out of context. This is why I don't have much respect for people like you. Why? Becasue your smart enough to realize what you are doing in not honest. so in the honesty dept you and kerry can enjoy eachother..
So, do us all a favor and quit responding to me.

I don't have any respect for a person that holds their nose while voting. It's kind of like the sissy that doesn't know how to exhale through their nose when diving or jumping into the pool.

[Oh, Gee!!]

But, they contain linked sources.

stolen means not sourced.



Children seem to respond to that.

actually children are the ones that name-call, adults are the ones that correct them. figure out which one you are.

[George Gervin's Afro]

"You know education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get [us] stuck in Iraq."

I see the difference. Kerry was poking fun at a man who had both a Harvard and Yale education; who had been a successful businessman; who had never lost a political campaign; and who was president of the United States about being uneducated.

Let's try to recall how many days it took for him to come up with the missing "us." A week. Now, who's slow?

Nice try.


never lost a campaign? he was republican in Texas.. how hard is that?
successful business man? everyhting he was invloved failed.


THE PRESIDENT: By the way, this guy -- PhD. See, I was a C student. (Laughter.) He's a PhD, so he's probably got a little more credibility. I do think it's interesting and should be heartening for all C students out there, notice who's the President and who's the advisor. (Laughter and applause.) All right, Andrew, get going. (Applause.) Andrew's got a good sense of humor.

Yes this man is yoni's hero.. :lol


I see the difference.

Yet you still take it out of context.

[George Gervin's Afro]

So, do us all a favor and quit responding to me.

I don't have any respect for a person that holds their nose while voting. It's kind of like the sissy that doesn't know how to exhale through their nose when diving or jumping into the pool.


Sissy? like 5 deferrment dick? Bush the alabama shore protecter?

I respond to you because I like to point out how you aren't honest. why do you respond to me?

[Yonivore]

never lost a campaign? he was republican in Texas.. how hard is that?
successful business man? everyhting he was invloved failed.
Well, he beat Ann Richards -- a sitting (and popular) Democratic Governor. He gained the respect, admiration, and friendship of Bob Bullock, a sitting (and popular) Democratic Lieutenant Governor.

Texas Rangers were worth more when he left than when he arrived.


Yes this man is yoni's hero.. :lol
Yep, human, self-effacing, and compassionate. Certainly more of a every man than John "Gigolo poodle" Kerry.


Yet you still take it out of context.
It only took him a week to figure out his own joke?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Well, he beat Ann Richards -- a sitting (and popular) Democratic Governor. He gained the respect, admiration, and friendship of Bob Bullock, a sitting (and popular) Democratic Lieutenant Governor.

Texas Rangers were worth more when he left than when he arrived.


Yep, human, self-effacing, and compassionate. Certainly more of a every man than John "Gigolo poodle" Kerry.


It only took him a week to figure out his own joke?


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,226490,00.html

Uh Yoni he clarified it the next day. dude you were caught in another lie again.. let it go.




"I'm sick and tired of these despicable Republican attacks that always seem to come from those who never can be found to serve in war, but love to attack those who did," Kerry said. "I'm not going to be lectured by a stuffed suit White House mouthpiece standing behind a podium, or doughy Rush Limbaugh, who no doubt today will take a break from belittling Michael J. Fox's Parkinson's disease to start lying about me just as they have lied about Iraq. It disgusts me."

[Yonivore]

"I'm sick and tired of these despicable Republican attacks that always seem to come from those who never can be found to serve in war, but love to attack those who did," Kerry said. "I'm not going to be lectured by a stuffed suit White House mouthpiece standing behind a podium, or doughy Rush Limbaugh, who no doubt today will take a break from belittling Michael J. Fox's Parkinson's disease to start lying about me just as they have lied about Iraq. It disgusts me."
How, exactly, is that clarifying? Seems to me he was deflecting by attacking those who pointed out his jab at the military.

[George Gervin's Afro]

How, exactly, is that clarifying? Seems to me he was deflecting by attacking those who pointed out his jab at the military.


In the link he clarifies his statement. The quote was for all of the chickhawks on this board.

[Yonivore]

In the link he clarifies his statement. The quote was for all of the chickhawks on this board.
So, quote his clarification then.

And, I noticed you left this portion of that quote out; Oh, what the hell, let's just look at his entire statement which, by the way, was in response to the White House's criticism of his jab at the military and let's all analyze where he clarified his "joke."


If anyone thinks a veteran would criticize the more than 140,000 heroes serving in Iraq and not the president who got us stuck there, they're crazy.
Well, then paint him crazy because this is the same guy who came home from Vietnam and accused our troops of being war criminals, using Ghengis Khan tactics, and cutting off ears.


This is the classic G.O.P. playbook. I’m sick and tired of these despicable Republican attacks that always seem to come from those who never can be found to serve in war, but love to attack those who did.
I’m not going to be lectured by a stuffed suit White House mouthpiece standing behind a podium, or doughy Rush Limbaugh, who no doubt today will take a break from belittling Michael J. Fox’s Parkinson’s disease to start lying about me just as they have lied about Iraq. It disgusts me that these Republican hacks, who have never worn the uniform of our country lie and distort so blatantly and carelessly about those who have.

The people who owe our troops an apology are George W. Bush and Dick Cheney who misled America into war and have given us a Katrina foreign policy that has betrayed our ideals, killed and maimed our soldiers, and widened the terrorist threat instead of defeating it. These Republicans are afraid to debate veterans who live and breathe the concerns of our troops, not the empty slogans of an Administration that sent our brave troops to war without body armor.

Bottom line, these Republicans want to debate straw men because they’re afraid to debate real men. And this time it won’t work because we’re going to stay in their face with the truth and deny them even a sliver of light for their distortions. No Democrat will be bullied by an administration that has a cut and run policy in Afghanistan and a stand still and lose strategy in Iraq.
Nice clarification.

[Yonivore]

Oh yeah, on Face the Nation the Sunday before he said this:


"there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs."
The man just gets crazier!

[Oh, Gee!!]

The man just gets crazier!

especially because no soldier has been accused let alone convicted of such things

[Yonivore]

It seems clear, to me, the roots of Kerry's blunder -- like so much else where Kerry is concerned -- go back to Vietnam. It was an article of faith among liberals (and many others) at that time that the Army consisted largely of the poor -- kids who couldn't get into college and thereby obtain a deferment. It was also an article of faith that non-white Americans died in disproportionate numbers in Vietnam.

That turned out not to be true, and I confess that I was astonished to learn, only within recent years, that there was no such ethnic disproportion in the Vietnam dead.

The stereotype of the poor, dumb soldier is firmly entrenched among liberals of the Vietnam era. We often see it repeated by younger liberals today, even though the stereotype has no application whatever to our current volunteer army, which is demonstrably equal, at least, to the civilian population in talent and accomplishment.

Why are liberals so determined to hang on to these discredited stereotypes of the past? I suspect it is because the young men and women who serve in the armed forces are a constant reproach to liberals' facile, politically-motivated pronouncements on foreign policy. Iraq is a disaster (never mind that I voted for it)! But the young men and women who are stationed there don't think so. They re-enlist in remarkable numbers; a large majority believe in their mission; and they are working hard, risking their lives, and making considerable progress on many fronts. So it's helpful for liberals to think: what do they know? They're only soldiers--they must be dumb!

I've been googling back to the time when he made the quote and, lo and behold, and his campaign actually floated a different version of the quote two days after the insult:


A source close to Kerry tells NBC News that he was trying to make a "tough and honest joke" about Bush and that in the process he omitted two words which changed the intended meaning. Per the source, Kerry meant to say that he can't "overstress the importance of a great education" and that "if you don't study, if you aren't smart, if you're intellectually lazy... You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq." Kerry mistakenly dropped the "getting us" from his initial remarks.
Of course, it's not really just two words and that only added fuel to the fire; if you take out the two this source suggests Kerry meant to say, you end up with this: "you end up stuck in a war in Iraq."

But that's not what Kerry said; he said "you get stuck in Iraq." Let's reinsert the two "missing" words into what Kerry actually said and see how it comes out:


You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don't, you getting us get stuck in Iraq.
All right. If that's what he actually meant to say, then I think we have an even bigger problem with Kerry, and with the party that nominated him for the presidency. I mean, "misunderestimate" and "strategery" are one thing, but "you getting us get stuck in Iraq?"

[Wild Cobra]

Wow. This thread exploded.

I don't see how any of you can believe Kerry when he said he botched the joke. It doesn't fit any other way except to claim if you don't get an education, you end up in a job you don't like, specifying Iraq. Lets remember, we had democrats trying to get the draft going too.

John Kerry is a special case when it comes to senators. He is a special case when it comes to war criminals. Not only is he Teresa Heinz's lap dog, doing big business deeds, but the circumstantial evidence tells us he received a dishonorable discharge. No wonder we still has about 100 pages (records?) of unreleased documents from his military record.

His Honorable Discharge is dated 2/16/1978.

He had his metal papers reauthorized by congress in 1985 after he entered the senate. The records are only rescinded if you get a dishonorable discharge.

Kerry’s Honorable discharge was issued under Title 10, U.S. Code, Sections 1162 and 1163 which is the board created after president Carter signed an Executive Order 4483 allowing the change of Viet Nan war criminals discharge statuses.

Senator Kerry refuses to sign the Standard Form 180 which would release the documents in his military records still kept secret.

OK, I will admit, it's not an iron clad case. However, read the followingexcepts from the below links. The circumstantial evidence is enough:

Among Kerry's released records is a 1977 cover letter from Jimmy Carter's Navy Secretary, W. Graham Claytor. What is revealing about this document is that it notes Kerry's original discharge was subject to review by a "board of officers" -- yet no such review should be necessary for an Honorable Discharge.

The review was conducted in accordance with "Title 10, U.S. Code Section 1162 and 1163," which pertains to grounds for involuntary separation from military service. As many Vietnam veterans who served their nation with dignity and honor will recall, Jimmy Carter's first official act as president was the signing of Executive Order 4483 --less than an hour after his inauguration on 21 January 1977. EO 4483 provided general amnesty for draft evaders, war protesters and other offenders of that era. Its corresponding, and equally dubious, DoD directive took effect in March of 1977, expanding that amnesty to include separation from military service by other than honorable discharges. The DoD specified an appeal procedure whereby discharges could be reviewed on an individual basis to determine whether the status of a particular discharge could be revised.

Having lost his first bid for Congress, Kerry no doubt decided that his political future would be brighter as a war hero rather than a war protestor. While there are several categories of discharges beneath honorable, including general, medical, bad conduct and other than honorable, it is very likely that Kerry's discharge was dishonorable.

Supporting this assertion is the fact that Kerry had all his medals mysteriously reinstated in 1985. He claims that he lost his medal certificates (perhaps these are what he famously threw over that Capitol fence in protest), but when a military officer is subject to a Dishonorable Discharge, in addition to the loss of pay benefits and allowances, all medals and honors are revoked. In any case, it would be a cinch for John Kerry to refute our claim by simply signing that Standard Form 180. But he won't. Nor will hard-hitting journalists like Katie Couric and Dr. Phil press him on this issue.


There is overwhelming evidence that the Navy gave John Kerry either a dishonorable discharge or an undesirable discharge – which is the equivalent of a dishonorable discharge without the felony conviction – and that, as a result of such discharge, he was stripped of all of his famous but questionable Navy awards and medals. And the kicker? The evidence is on his website!

Kerry's oh-so-clever handlers evidently depended on the ignorance of the public and the press about military records when they posted his 1978 "Honorable Discharge from the Reserves" on his site as part of a carefully selected partial release of his Navy records (the Navy says it is still withholding about 100 records). However, one diligent researcher, Thomas Lipscomb, saw through the scam and exposed it in a New York Sun story on Oct. 13. Predictably, the major media has shunned the story.

What Mr. Lipscomb noticed (and I overlooked when I first read the document) was the date of the posted discharge, Feb. 16, 1978. This was six years after Kerry's six-year (1966-1972) commitment to the Navy ended. The anti-war detractor of our military did not re-up for another six-year term in 1972, so why the delay of his discharge? The only logical conclusion is that the 1978 honorable discharge was a second discharge given to replace an earlier undesirable discharge under less-than-honorable conditions, as unfit for military service.

Links:

Kerry's Dishonorable Discharge (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MarkMAlexander/2004/10/23/kerrys_dishonorable_discharge)

Kerry's non-honorable discharge (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?article_id=41200)

Petition for an Investigation (http://patriotpetitions.us/kerry/letter.asp)

[Wild Cobra]

I mean, "misunderestimate" and "strategery" are one thing, but "you getting us get stuck in Iraq?"
Let's not forget that president Bush has a sense of humor. He didn't use the word 'strategery' until after it was coined on Saturday Night Live making fun of him.

Wiki: Stategery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategery):


The word "Strategery" gained popularity when it was used in a Saturday Night Live sketch aired October 7, 2000, satirizing the performances of Al Gore and George W. Bush, two candidates for President of the United States, during the first presidential debate for election year 2000. Comedian Will Ferrell played Bush and used the word "strategery" (a mock-Bushism playing on the words "strategy" and "strategic"), when asked by a mock debate moderator to summarize his approach to foreign policy, thus satirizing Bush's reputation for mispronouncing words. The episode was later released as part of a video tape titled Presidential Bash 2000.

After the 2000 Presidential Election, people inside the Bush White House reportedly began using the term as a joke, and it later grew to become a term of art among them meaning oversight of any activity by Bush's political strategists. Bush's strategists also came to be known within the White House as "The Department of Strategery" or the "Strategery Group".

[SRJ]

Who gives a fuck? Western atrocities are paid for with our tax dollars, communists, not so much. Can you grasp the distinction there?

So atrocities shouldn't be reported if we don't fund them. Thanks. So who gives a shit about the Holocaust or 9/11?

[Wild Cobra]

Who gives a fuck? Western atrocities are paid for with our tax dollars, communists, not so much. Can you grasp the distinction there?So atrocities shouldn't be reported if we don't fund them. Thanks. So who gives a shit about the Holocaust or 9/11?
Who are you quoting? Are you hallucinating?

What are you on, pass some over please...

[clambake]

If bush was anything other than boy blunder, what kerry says wouldn't matter.

[SRJ]

From page 2, user Findog, post #9.

[Wild Cobra]

From page 2, user Findog, post #9.
OK, I'm sorry. My bad. I only looked at the current page, didn't realize we had two pages now.

[SRJ]

No problem. I figured you just missed it.

[Wild Cobra]

OK, now that I goofed, missing this that I have a viewpoint on, I will make it now:


Who gives a fuck? Western atrocities are paid for with our tax dollars, communists, not so much. Can you grasp the distinction there?
Western atrocities are committed by US soldiers who do not abide by the laws and are criminal. They are also put on trial when found. It is neither an accepted or endorsed practice of the US military. Senator Kerry was clearly guilty when he did not bring this up while he served. It was his duty and responsibility to report the atrocities he knew of, especially since he was an officer.

Excerpts from a link:

Swift Boat Swill (http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0438,turse,56936,1.html):


"Cut off ears"

On August 9, 1968, a seven-man patrol led by First Lieutenant S. entered Dien Tien hamlet. "Shortly thereafter, Private First Class W. was heard to shout to an unidentified person to halt. W. fired his M-16 several times, and the victim was killed. W. then dragged the body to [the lieutenant's] location. . . . Staff Sergeant B. told W. to bring back an ear or finger if he wanted to prove himself a man. W. later went back to the body and removed both ears and a finger." W. was charged with assault and conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline; he was court-martialed and convicted, but he served no prison time. B. was found guilty of assault and was fined $50 a month for three months. S. was discharged from the army before action could be taken against him.

"Cut off heads"

On June 23, 1967, members of the 25th Infantry Division killed two enemy soldiers in combat in Binh Duong province. An army Criminal Investigation Division (CID) probe disclosed that "Staff Sergeant H. then decapitated the bodies with an axe." H. was court-martialed and found guilty of conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline. His grade was reduced, but he served no prison time.

"Taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power"

On January 10, 1968, six Green Berets in Long Hai, South Vietnam, "applied electrical torture via field telephones to the sensitive areas of the bodies of three men and one woman . . . " Four received reprimands and "Article 15s"—a nonjudicial punishment meted out by a commanding officer or officer in charge for minor offenses. A fifth refused to accept his Article 15, and no other action was taken against him. No action was taken against the sixth Green Beret.

"Cut off limbs"

A CID investigation disclosed that during late February or early March 1968 near Thanh Duc, South Vietnam, First Lieutenant L. ordered soldier K. to shoot an unidentified Vietnamese civilian. "K. shot the Vietnamese civilian, leaving him with wounds in the chest and stomach. Soldier B., acting on orders from L., returned to the scene and killed the Vietnamese civilian, and an unidentified medic severed the Vietnamese civilian's left arm." No punishment was meted out because none of the "identified perpetrators" was found to be on active duty at the time of the June 1971 investigation.

"Blown up bodies"

On February 14, 1969, Platoon Sergeant B. and Specialist R., on a reconnaissance patrol in Binh Dinh province, "came upon three Vietnamese males . . . whom they detained and then shot at close range using M-16 automatic fire. B. then arranged the bodies on the ground so that their heads were close together. A fragmentation grenade was dropped next to the heads of the bodies." B. was court-martialed, convicted of manslaughter, and sentenced to a reduction in grade and a fine of $97 per month for six months—after which time he re-enlisted. R. was court-martialed and found not guilty.

"Randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan"

While a U.S. "helicopter hunter-killer team . . . was on a recon mission in Cambodia," its members fired rockets at buildings and "engaged various targets [in a small village] with machine-gun fire. Gunship preparatory fire preceded the landing of a South Vietnamese army platoon, which had been diverted from another mission. A U.S. captain accompanied the platoon on the ground in violation of standing orders. The South Vietnamese troops, reconnoitering by fire, did not search bunkers for enemy forces, nor were enemy weapons found. . . . Civilian casualties were estimated at eight dead, including two children, 15 wounded, and three or four structures destroyed. There is no evidence that the wounded were provided medical treatment by either U.S. or South Vietnamese forces. . . . Members of the South Vietnamese platoon returned to the aircraft with large quantities of civilian property. . . . The incident was neither properly investigated nor reported initially." Letters of reprimand were issued to a lieutenant colonel and a major. The captain received a letter of reprimand.
While numerous authors have repeatedly advanced such assertions, U.S. military documents tell a radically different story. According to the formerly classified army records, 46 soldiers who testified at the WSI made allegations that, in the eyes of U.S. Army investigators, "merited further inquiry." As of March 1972, the army's CID noted that of the 46 allegations, "only 43 complainants have been identified" by investigators. "Only" 43 of 46? That means at least 93 percent of the veterans surveyed were real, not fake. Moreover, according to official records, CID investigators attempted to contact 41 people who testified at the Detroit session, which occurred between January 31 and February 2, 1971. Five couldn't be located, according to records. Of the remaining 36, 31 submitted to interviews—hardly the "few" asserted by SBVT. Moreover, as Gerald Nicosia has noted in his mammoth tome Home to War, "A complete transcript of the Winter Soldier testimony was sent to the Pentagon, and the military never refuted a word of it."
Now before someone says "See it was real" note that the numbers are in the 40's. If anything, the numbers are lower than similar crime rates committed across this nation on a regular basis. It is the same crimes repeated by many, and the crimes are few. We can assume there were even more crimes than investigated, but it would still be pretty insignificant compared to the population of the military over there.

[clambake]

Wow. Without Kerry, the right might have to focus on the biggest mistake in modern history. Kerry's your hero. You should show him a little more respect, considering.

[Wild Cobra]

Wow. Without Kerry, the right might have to focus on the biggest mistake in modern history. Kerry's your hero. You should show him a little more respect, considering.
How little you know. The facts were already out anyway.

John Kerry was friends with those high up. At the time, he claimed to have no firsthand knowledge of the war atrocities, but read from a written script of the known atrocities. In 1962 he dated Janet Jennings Auchincloss Rutherfurd, half-sister to Jacqueline Kennedy. He was already connected to the most powerful democrat families, and not just because of her. He also worked on Ted Kennedy's campaign. He was only first to testify before the senate to help in his political aspirations because he had connections. The same information was revealed by others in the hearing.

It was after this hearing that ... there is evidence, but I don't know where, but I've seen it ... he admitted to being involved with war atrocities. That would mean he lied to congress if true! It is this point that those of us who believe he received a dishonorable discharge where the story begins. Under such conditions, the Navy could have reinstated him just for a court martial. This would explain everything in the previous links as to why he had a 1978 discharge document under president Clinton's executive order, and why he had to have his medals reissued.

[Findog]

So atrocities shouldn't be reported if we don't fund them. Thanks. So who gives a shit about the Holocaust or 9/11?

In the context of Vietnam, when we went halfway around the world to invade South Vietnam to prop up a phony government and wage war on the people living there, people that were not a threat to us and didn't want war with us, yes, we should care more about atrocities committed by our soldiers than the 'Cong or the North Vietnamese Army.

I'm all for aid to the victims of such Communist atrocities, but it doesn't take a lot of moral courage or foresight to do so. What goes on in my name and with my tax dollars is where the bulk of my outrage lies.

If a Soviet dissident had criticized American misdeeds around the globe, who the fuck cares? If he had the balls to criticize the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan or sucking Eastern Europe bone dry, that takes guts and courage. Can you grasp that? Same standard applies over here - it's no great moral achievement to criticize the actions of terrorists or totalitarian governments, we don't really have a lot of influence over what the North Korean or Chinese government does with its dissidents. But it DOES take quite a bit of courage to stand up to the things done in our name and with our money.

[Findog]

OK, now that I goofed, missing this that I have a viewpoint on, I will make it now:


Western atrocities are committed by US soldiers who do not abide by the laws and are criminal. They are also put on trial when found. It is neither an accepted or endorsed practice of the US military. Senator Kerry was clearly guilty when he did not bring this up while he served. It was his duty and responsibility to report the atrocities he knew of, especially since he was an officer.

Excerpts from a link:

Swift Boat Swill (http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0438,turse,56936,1.html):


Now before someone says "See it was real" note that the numbers are in the 40's. If anything, the numbers are lower than similar crime rates committed across this nation on a regular basis. It is the same crimes repeated by many, and the crimes are few. We can assume there were even more crimes than investigated, but it would still be pretty insignificant compared to the population of the military over there.

blahdy blah fucking blah, I don't give a flying fuck what some yacht-riding elitist fuck like John Kerry thinks. See my post above.

[gtownspur]

blahdy blah fucking blah, I don't give a flying fuck what some yacht-riding elitist fuck like John Kerry thinks. See my post above.

So you'd vote for him considering the statements.?

[Findog]

So you'd vote for him considering the statements.?

Considering the alternative that is the retardation of the current administration, I held my nose and voted for the fuck.

[SRJ]

In the context of Vietnam, when we went halfway around the world to invade South Vietnam to prop up a phony government and wage war on the people living there, people that were not a threat to us and didn't want war with us, yes, we should care more about atrocities committed by our soldiers than the 'Cong or the North Vietnamese Army.

You turned the topic at hand into something else. This entire thread was about the Communist blueprint for winning the propaganda war, and as it turned out the mainstream media turned a blind eye to the atrocities committed by the Communists.

The highest ideal of journalism is fairness. Now, if the United States is portrayed as some sort of murderous horde while the Viet Cong is being portrayed as some sort of benevolent defense force, then what is the public's view of the war? Is it not misleading or inaccurate to ignore what the VC do?

Or is it your considered opinion that the peoples of the third world are expected to be barbarians? It's okay for them to burn and rape and kill because they are inferior to you and me and therefore it's not a story?


I'm all for aid to the victims of such Communist atrocities, but it doesn't take a lot of moral courage or foresight to do so.

Evidently, the mainstream media lacked even the minimal moral courage and foresight to report them during Vietnam.


What goes on in my name and with my tax dollars is where the bulk of my outrage lies.

My outrage isn't solely reserved for victims of the most barbaric Americans. All who cause human suffering deserve our outrage. But if American war crimes are reported and those committed by the Viet Cong are not, then guess which faction garners the greater sympathy from the general public?


If a Soviet dissident had criticized American misdeeds around the globe, who the fuck cares? If he had the balls to criticize the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan or sucking Eastern Europe bone dry, that takes guts and courage. Can you grasp that? Same standard applies over here - it's no great moral achievement to criticize the actions of terrorists or totalitarian governments, we don't really have a lot of influence over what the North Korean or Chinese government does with its dissidents. But it DOES take quite a bit of courage to stand up to the things done in our name and with our money.

So criticism is only valid if the critic's opinion exposes him to danger? That's hilarious. It's easy to imagine you peering over your shoulder all the time, worried that your ST political posts are drawing the ire of Dick Cheney's bodyguards.

Stop asking me if I can grasp things. My comprehension skills are fine. But I suppose you're just applying the typical liberal equation: Liberal=Moderate, Conservative=Stupid Racist Sexist Homophobe

[George Gervin's Afro]

Stop asking me if I can grasp things. My comprehension skills are fine. But I suppose you're just applying the typical liberal equation: Liberal=Moderate, Conservative=Stupid Racist Sexist Homophobe

so what's the problem? you're right on! :lol

[Findog]

it turned out the mainstream media turned a blind eye to the atrocities committed by the Communists.

The hell it did. The establishment press such as the NYT, the Washington Post, Time Magazine under Henry Luce, they were all on board with the war effort. There were individual reporters like Neil Sheehan or David Halberstam that reported things the US govt didn't like, but for the most part the mainstream media was supportive of the war effort in Vietnam.


The highest ideal of journalism is fairness. Now, if the United States is portrayed as some sort of murderous horde while the Viet Cong is being portrayed as some sort of benevolent defense force, then what is the public's view of the war? Is it not misleading or inaccurate to ignore what the VC do?

Except that that didn't happen. These media outlets that are owned by corporate America, which in turn donates huge sums of money to politicians, they don't exactly read like The Nation. Go pick up a copy of Counterpunch or log onto DailyKos sometime and then watch CNN or Katie Couric and see if you can tell the difference. Public opinion turned against the war because there was a huge disconnect between how the government was portraying the nature of the conflict and what soldiers that came home were telling their families, in addition to the draft increasingly affecting middle-class whites in addition to minorities.


Or is it your considered opinion that the peoples of the third world are expected to be barbarians? It's okay for them to burn and rape and kill because they are inferior to you and me and therefore it's not a story?

The story is that Ho Chi Minh led an independence movement and liberated his country from the French. We then stepped in and attempted to prop up a phony government in South Vietnam. I'm not saying he was a Saint, or they didn't use brutal tactics from time to time, but you don't come into somebody's house, start rearranging furniture and giving the residents chores to do and then start lecturing about morals or brutality. What about all the napalm we dropped? The livestock and vegetation that we destroyed? The 2 million dead civilians we left behind, that died at our hands? I could give a fuck that the Vietcong killed collaborators. We were the bad guys in Vietnam, end of story. It wasn't about stopping Communist aggression because quite frankly, the Vietnamese hate the Chinese and fought a war with them after we left. They were happy to take money and arms from the Russians and the Chinese, but they didn't take orders. This was always about Vietnamese nationalism versus American neo-colonialism.


Evidently, the mainstream media lacked even the minimal moral courage and foresight to report them during Vietnam.

That's true, because they cheerled for American war aims for quite some time until the war ended.




My outrage isn't solely reserved for victims of the most barbaric Americans. All who cause human suffering deserve our outrage. But if American war crimes are reported and those committed by the Viet Cong are not, then guess which faction garners the greater sympathy from the general public?

I hate brutality in all its forms, but I'm not responsible for what the Vietcong did. I'm all for aiding the victims of Vietcong crimes, but that's as far it goes. And it's laughable to suggest that Vietcong crimes were not reported in the mainstream media during the war. Take some time to peruse back editions of Henry Luce's Time Magazine or any other major newspaper from the era. The domestic opposition to the war was a grassroots effort and eventually the civil disobedience that came out of it became a story. It's the media's job to cover that story as well.




So criticism is only valid if the critic's opinion exposes him to danger? That's hilarious. It's easy to imagine you peering over your shoulder all the time, worried that your ST political posts are drawing the ire of Dick Cheney's bodyguards.

Never said criticism is only valid if it exposes one to danger. I only said that most of our energy and time should be directed towards morally reprehensible actions carried out with our money and in our name. There's not much I can do about North Korean gulags or Chinese suppression of free and independent media. I do feel a moral duty to resist and not support American foreign policy crimes as much as possible.


Stop asking me if I can grasp things. My comprehension skills are fine. But I suppose you're just applying the typical liberal equation: Liberal=Moderate, Conservative=Stupid Racist Sexist Homophobe

I'm not a liberal and frankly I don't really care what your voting patterns are either. One need not be a Democrat or a liberal to oppose Bush or his war.

[George Gervin's Afro]

So the moral of this thread is Don't talk bad about the Iraq war because you will aid the devil. Don't question Bush or his motives because if the enemy picks up on it then the logical conclusion is that you don't want the US to win. Don't even think of dissenting because if you do the enemey may use it to their advantage. So i other words just shut up and love Bush and his uncessary war.

I am going to run out and buy 10 yellow ribbons to put on my car!

[Oh, Gee!!]

sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will give aid and comfort to my enemies

[George Gervin's Afro]

Can someone explain to me how it's ok to dissent.. but it's not ok to criticize? Because if you follow the reasoning here on this board if you dissent or criticize you give aid and comfort to our enemies. The press must report the good with the bad as some here will proclaim. Yet I don't see how reporting the opening of a hospital, or children playing in the streets will turn public opinion in favor of this war. I know the usualk suspects will posts blogs that document all of the 'good' things that are going but none of that will take away from the fact that a solid majority of American don't see this war as a part of the overall war on terror. I do not know of anyone who doesn't hope this surge works and it is apparent that the perception is that it is in fact working. However, I do believe that most people hope the surge works so we can get out of there as soon as possible. That still doesn't mean that all of a sudden they support the war.

[clambake]

our words are more powerful than our military

why don't we just talk them into democracy

[Wild Cobra]

The major problem I see with criticism of the war that our elected officials are saying things like "we cannot win" and "we lost." Being critical is one thing. These yours not only embolden the enemy, but demoralize the soldiers. The democrats are obviously party first. I wonder how far down the line the troops are. This is why I call such elected official traitors.

The media will hype a story for money. It increases sales, and this is understandable. They still favor the left as a whole, and a have no love for their actions, but the first amendment must mean something.

Citizens who repeat the propaganda are flat out ignorant. I am ashamed to live in a nation where so many people just don't understand the freedoms we have, and how easily they will help make us lose them.

Remember, our freedom was paid for with blood.

[boutons_]

WC is beyond parody.

[Findog]

The major problem I see with criticism of the war that our elected officials are saying things like "we cannot win" and "we lost."... I am ashamed to live in a nation where so many people just don't understand the freedoms we have, and how easily they will help make us lose them.

Remember, our freedom was paid for with blood.

Irony alert!

[George Gervin's Afro]

The major problem I see with criticism of the war that our elected officials are saying things like "we cannot win" and "we lost." Being critical is one thing. These yours not only embolden the enemy, but demoralize the soldiers. The democrats are obviously party first. I wonder how far down the line the troops are. This is why I call such elected official traitors.

The media will hype a story for money. It increases sales, and this is understandable. They still favor the left as a whole, and a have no love for their actions, but the first amendment must mean something.

Citizens who repeat the propaganda are flat out ignorant. I am ashamed to live in a nation where so many people just don't understand the freedoms we have, and how easily they will help make us lose them.

Remember, our freedom was paid for with blood.

How did know you were going to justify dissenting is bad? You also managed to use the words 'traitors','ignorant kool aid drinkers' ( I think your side has that market cornered with talk radio). All the while you are using our 'freedoms' when Iraq has nothing to do with our freedom here in the US. You finally state that dissentention will logically cause us to lose... nice.

[Yonivore]

How did know you were going to justify dissenting is bad? You also managed to use the words 'traitors','ignorant kool aid drinkers' ( I think your side has that market cornered with talk radio). All the while you are using our 'freedoms' when Iraq has nothing to do with our freedom here in the US. You finally state that dissentention will logically cause us to lose... nice.
Lying in your dissent is traitorous.

There is no more "faithful opposition" in America. The left has taken to out and out lies in pursuit of our defeat in Iraq.

[Findog]

Lying in your dissent is traitorous.

There is no more "faithful opposition" in America. The left has taken to out and out lies in pursuit of our defeat in Iraq.

George Bush lost the war in Iraq the day he decided to invade.

[George Gervin's Afro]

George Bush lost the war in Iraq the day he decided to invade.


Don't blame Bush he only started the unecessary war. That guy is untouchable..but don't dare tell the truth or you will be branded a traitor..