Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

Bring it on, John Kerry

p0ink

New member
Bring it on, John
Oliver North
August 27, 2004

"Of course, the president keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that. Well, if he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: 'Bring it on.'" -- Sen. John Kerry


Dear John,

As usual, you have it wrong. You don't have a beef with President George Bush about your war record. He's been exceedingly generous about your military service. Your complaint is with the 2.5 million of us who served honorably in a war that ended 29 years ago and which you, not the president, made the centerpiece of this campaign.

I talk to a lot of vets, John, and this really isn't about your medals or how you got them. Like you, I have a Silver Star and a Bronze Star. I only have two Purple Hearts, though. I turned down the others so that I could stay with the Marines in my rifle platoon. But I think you might agree with me, though I've never heard you say it, that the officers always got more medals than they earned and the youngsters we led never got as many medals as they deserved.

This really isn't about how early you came home from that war, either, John. There have always been guys in every war who want to go home. There are also lots of guys, like those in my rifle platoon in Vietnam, who did a full 13 months in the field. And there are, thankfully, lots of young Americans today in Iraq and Afghanistan who volunteered to return to war because, as one of them told me in Ramadi a few weeks ago, "the job isn't finished."

Nor is this about whether you were in Cambodia on Christmas Eve, 1968. Heck John, people get lost going on vacation. If you got lost, just say so. Your campaign has admitted that you now know that you really weren't in Cambodia that night and that Richard Nixon wasn't really president when you thought he was. Now would be a good time to explain to us how you could have all that bogus stuff "seared" into your memory -- especially since you want to have your finger on our nation's nuclear trigger.

But that's not really the problem, either. The trouble you're having, John, isn't about your medals or coming home early or getting lost -- or even Richard Nixon. The issue is what you did to us when you came home, John.

When you got home, you co-founded Vietnam Veterans Against the War and wrote "The New Soldier," which denounced those of us who served -- and were still serving -- on the battlefields of a thankless war. Worst of all, John, you then accused me -- and all of us who served in Vietnam -- of committing terrible crimes and atrocities.

On April 22, 1971, under oath, you told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that you had knowledge that American troops "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 country side of South Vietnam." And you admitted on television that "yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed."

And for good measure you stated, "(America is) more guilty than any other body, of violations of (the) Geneva Conventions ... the torture of prisoners, the killing of prisoners."

Your "antiwar" statements and activities were painful for those of us carrying the scars of Vietnam and trying to move on with our lives. And for those who were still there, it was even more hurtful. But those who suffered the most from what you said and did were the hundreds of American prisoners of war being held by Hanoi.

Here's what some of them endured because of you, John:

Capt. James Warner had already spent four years in Vietnamese custody when he was handed a copy of your testimony by his captors. Warner says that for his captors, your statements "were proof I deserved to be punished." He wasn't released until March 14, 1973.

Maj. Kenneth Cordier, an Air Force pilot who was in Vietnamese custody for 2,284 days, says his captors "repeated incessantly" your one-liner about being "the last man to die" for a lost cause. Cordier was released March 4, 1973.

Navy Lt. Paul Galanti says your accusations "were as demoralizing as solitary (confinement) ... and a prime reason the war dragged on." He remained in North Vietnamese hands until February 12, 1973.

John, did you think they would forget?

When Tim Russert asked about your claim that you and others in Vietnam committed "atrocities," instead of standing by your sworn testimony, you confessed that your words "were a bit over the top." Does that mean you lied under oath? Or does it mean you are a war criminal? You can't have this one both ways, John. Either way, you're not fit to be a prison guard at Abu Ghraib, much less commander in chief.

One last thing, John. In 1988, Jane Fonda said: "I would like to say something ... to men who were in Vietnam, who I hurt, or whose pain I caused to deepen because of things that I said or did. I was trying to help end the killing and the war, but there were times when I was thoughtless and careless about it and I'm ... very sorry that I hurt them. And I want to apologize to them and their families."

Even Jane Fonda apologized. Will you, John?
 
good post
 
Is this an election or a plot for a wrestling match on WWE?

Between them telling each other to "BRING IT ON" all the time, I get confused. :confused:
 
I'm sure Tad "No one knows you" Health will ignore this thread.

Nice post.
 
Please Code, you guys are the ones who dont want to admit truth when you see it and hear it. You try and ignore it and hope it goes away.

I find it obvious that John Kerry upset many people when he came home and told the truth of his own observances and relayed the information that he recieved from many other vietnam vets.

Im sure many would never like to have heard any of it repeated ever again. Even though it was truthfull in story, it still only made the hurt worse on a personal level for the many of the individuals who were in vietnam.

But even this story shows the writer trying/wanting to ignore things
...trying to move on with our lives.
and not wanting to hear the stories revealed.

What is so wrong in Kerry trying to get the men and women out of vietnam as fast as possible? Nothing. He had sepnt time there and gotten released, and came back spent his time trying to get his fellows out fo there. Not to save one or two men, but to save all of them.

The quotes by the men you posted are refuted and most likely lies...
Phil Butler, who spent eight years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, took issue with suggestions by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that Kerry's antiwar protests caused the POWs to be treated badly. "I lived with two of the POWs who are now in that group -- Mr. [Ken] Courdier and Mr. [Paul] Gallanti -- and I am telling you, they are full of it. We never heard a blooming thing about John Kerry while we were there,"

I find it a much bigger issue the fact that the President lied three times last week about his invlovement in it and some people dont want hear that either. Sad really.

Yeah John, do apologise. If you know your words did get men tortured, then it would be the right thing. But never apologise for being proactive in trying do what you think is morally right in tryig to stop a war and never apologise for speaking the truth.






Poor poor fascists. Feeling the heat.
 
OMFG already these people need to give it the fuck up.

"BOO HOO YOU SPOKE OUT AGAINST SOLDIERS WHEN YOU CAME HOME U SAID TEHY WERE RAPISTS AND STUFFZ0RZ!!!1"

Well no shit! I'd speak out agasint them also. Some were just plain scum, it's a known fact, and it's deplorable enough to have to go to war, never mind go over there and turn into a madman raping pre teens and whatnot. Fuck those cocksuckers, I don't care if they were U.S soldiers or not, anyone who does that stuff is a piece of shit. It was an excuse to turn into madmen and like it.
 
here is the book where john kerry trashed those he supposedly fought with, the united states military, and the country as a whole. you know, the book he is trying to supress and buy up all the remaining copies of.

yeah, that book. but being the nice guy that i am, i provided a link below where you can download and read the book for yourself.

John Kerry's The New Soldier
 
p0ink said:
here is the book where john kerry trashed those he supposedly fought with, the united states military, and the country as a whole. you know, the book he is trying to supress and buy up all the remaining copies of.

yeah, that book. but being the nice guy that i am, i provided a link below where you can download and read the book for yourself.

John Kerry's The New Soldier
if they secerved to be trashed for being trash then what's the deal? Obviously he's going to try and rescind his comments and cover then up caus eaverage joe american can't imagine a US vet doing wrong, so obviously Kerry is a liar.
 
Burning_Inside said:
if they secerved to be trashed for being trash then what's the deal? Obviously he's going to try and rescind his comments and cover then up caus eaverage joe american can't imagine a US vet doing wrong, so obviously Kerry is a liar.

ok, so is john kerry the vietnam hero he says he is, or is he the war criminal he said he was? and if he was responsible for war crimes, like he said he was, under oath and before the senate, why is he being pushed as a 'war hero' by the DNC and not being prosecuted for war crimes?

please explain.
 
p0ink said:
ok, so is john kerry the vietnam hero he says he is, or is he the war criminal he said he was? and if he was responsible for war crimes, like he said he was, under oath and before the senate, why is he being pushed as a 'war hero' by the DNC and not being prosecuted for war crimes?

please explain.
He said :I took part in shootings in free-fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50-caliber machine guns which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search-and-destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare. All of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down.


From what I can read he never took part in anything other than what he was almost assuredly ordered to do. I don;t see him saying anything about raping kids or torturing anyone. Far as I can see he was using what he could to defend himself.
 
Burning_Inside said:
He said :I took part in shootings in free-fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50-caliber machine guns which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search-and-destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare. All of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down.

From what I can read he never took part in anything other than what he was almost assuredly ordered to do. I don;t see him saying anything about raping kids or torturing anyone. Far as I can see he was using what he could to defend himself.

assuming he was 'ordered' to do that, which he wasn't, he had the obligation as an officer not to follow through with an ILLEGAL ORDER.

'i was just following orders' didn't work for the nazi's who were prosecuted, so why should it work for john kerry?
 
No, he did what every other person was doing, until he got back to the US and could try and fix the system. Had he pushed the envelope to far in 'Nam, the system would have fixed him.
 
TADHealth said:
No, he did what every other person was doing, until he got back to the US and could try and fix the system. Had he pushed the envelope to far in 'Nam, the system would have fixed him.

once again, the 'we were just following orders' didnt stop the prosecution of nazi's, so why should john kerry get a pass?

maybe you should adjust your tin foil hat.
 
I've had enough from the both of them. The first one that has a commercial saying what they will do and not what they have done or what someone else has done is getting my vote. As you can guess neither now.
 
p0ink said:
once again, the 'we were just following orders' didnt stop the prosecution of nazi's, so why should john kerry get a pass?

maybe you should adjust your tin foil hat.

I dont think he should get a free pass. But as far as him not following through on orders, we must know at what time did he figure out when something was wrong?

He was of the few to step to the forefront about it, and looked how he has been attacked about those actions. The majority of the Vietnam war and our actions regarding it have been very "questionable", to say the least.
 
who prosecuted the nazis and what do they have to do with anything?

"i was following orders" didint help ''""~```~"~++ of Serdius-R during the war trials of the Rygelian cluster either.

has to do with this how?
 
AAP said:
Oliver North has no shred of credibility or clout.

My ass. Lt. Col North was a highly decorated military office with years of dedicated service to his country. You have to realize that he was the "fall guy" for things that occurred. Was he involved? Yes. Was he alone, or acting on orders? Think about it.
 
Burning_Inside said:
OMFG already these people need to give it the fuck up.

"BOO HOO YOU SPOKE OUT AGAINST SOLDIERS WHEN YOU CAME HOME U SAID TEHY WERE RAPISTS AND STUFFZ0RZ!!!1"

Well no shit! I'd speak out agasint them also. Some were just plain scum, it's a known fact, and it's deplorable enough to have to go to war, never mind go over there and turn into a madman raping pre teens and whatnot. Fuck those cocksuckers, I don't care if they were U.S soldiers or not, anyone who does that stuff is a piece of shit. It was an excuse to turn into madmen and like it.

As a civilian you can speak out against whatever the hell you want, it's your right. As a contracted member of the Armed Forces of the United States of America, you live by different laws. Civilians never truly understand the seperate subculture of the military. For example, if you cheat on your wife it means you may get a divorce. If a member of the military does, he is breaking several articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and is therefore subject to judicial punishment within the military system. What Kerry did was reprehensible on many fronts. You must remember that Kerry was still a member of the military (reserve component,) even though he was home from the war. First of all it was in the very least Conduct Unbecoming of an Officer. His conduct could have been enough to merit an Other that Honorable Discharge from the military, which would have sunk his political career immediately. On several other fronts, his command could have pulled him back into active service for his actions and demoted or even jailed him. Breaking the chain of command is another action he is responsible of committing. In the military it is your duty to report misdoings, or your issues, up your chain of command to get them changed. You do not circumvent this process for your own glory or justification. These are just two ways in which Kerry's actions were wrong.

I know, you still don't see the merit in this arguement. Why? Because you have never had the honor, courage or committment to put your life on the line for your country. To bind yourself to a stricter social code, not for your own benefit, but for the benefit of those unable and unwilling to protect themselves.
 
Last edited:
Coverguy said:
What Kerry did was irreprehensible on many fronts.

I couldn't agree more.


Meaning of IRREPREHENSIBLE
Webster's Dictionary

Definition: \Ir*rep`re*hen"si*ble\, a. [L.
irreprehensibilis: cf. F. irr['e]pr['e]hensible. See
{Reprehensible}.]
Not reprehensible; blameless; innocent. --
{Ir*rep`re*hen"si*ble*ness}, n. -- {Ir*rep`re*hen"si*bly},
adv.
 
ChefWide said:
I couldn't agree more.


Meaning of IRREPREHENSIBLE
Webster's Dictionary

Definition: \Ir*rep`re*hen"si*ble\, a. [L.
irreprehensibilis: cf. F. irr['e]pr['e]hensible. See
{Reprehensible}.]
Not reprehensible; blameless; innocent. --
{Ir*rep`re*hen"si*ble*ness}, n. -- {Ir*rep`re*hen"si*bly},
adv.

Thanks for pointing out my typo. 8 a.m., not a lot of sleep, rant; i'm sure you understand. i'll go edit!
 
coverguy and chef, are you saying what kerry did was so bad cause it went against his "duty"? If so, don't you think that's kind of sad that you place duty to country no matter what in higher regards than your right to make an opinion and speak out against bullshit people should *not be doing, wether they are soldiers or not?

Sorry, but if my FAMILY did some of the shit those soldiers did he spoke of, I'd speak out against them and get them nailed. There are certain things in life that are seriously plain right and plain wrong, and I don't see how someone can be looked down upon for calling people out on those actions no matter what kind of duty he's bound to.
 
“[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

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12386
 
Something tells me Bush holds all the aces
(Filed: 29/08/2004)


At the beginning of the year, Thomas Lifson, who was at Harvard Business School with George W Bush, made an interesting observation about the President. He notes that young George "was a very avid and skillful poker player" when he was a Business Administration student and that "one of the secrets of a successful poker player is to encourage your opponent to bet a lot of chips on a losing hand. This is a pattern of behavior one sees repeatedly in George W Bush's political career".



Indeed one does. In the months following Mr Lifson's observation, the President sat back, as John Kerry's consultants, the Iowa caucus voters, the Democratic Party at large, and the media convinced themselves that the one card that trumps Bush's leadership in the war on terror was Kerry's four months in Vietnam, and bet everything on it. They have just lost that hand.

Kerry is in seclusion, unable to expose himself to any but the most sycophantic interviewers, and getting whumped by hundreds upon hundreds of fellow Swift boat veterans, plus former POWs, plus retired admirals, over every aspect of his brief stay in the Mekong Delta.

The Senator put his money on the wrong war. After a couple of entertaining weeks of the aggrieved Swiftees driving down his poll numbers in battleground states, it seems a shame to interrupt the implosion of the Kerry campaign for the Republican convention. But I'm sure the seared Senator is grateful for the intermission, and for the rest of us the next week affords a rare opportunity in this election campaign to catch up with the issues of the current millennium before the inept Kerry resumes bogging us down in his personal Vietnam quagmire again.

My sense is that the Swiftvets have changed the dynamics of the race. With the candidate's retro braggadocio on ice for the foreseeable future, the Kerry campaign late on Friday revived that old favourite, the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, releasing a flow chart full of multi-coloured arrows showing that Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison is a "close friend" of Merrie Spaeth, a public relations consultant to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Yawn.

The fact is, even if Kerry was a Republican, these Swift boat guys would be hounding him. In a culture where "ABB" is now media shorthand for "Anyone But Bush", you would think the press would recognise these fellows for what they are: the ABK constituency.

Meanwhile, "Bush hatred" - another losing hand the Democrats put too many chips on - has peaked, and any saggy nudists or trust-fund anarchists who succeed in pulling off some camera-worthy stunt in Manhattan this week will only be boosting the President.

"BUSH LIED!!!!!!" is likewise a bust, given generally non-damaging official reports on 9/11, Abu Ghraib, etc, and that it's Kerry who's having to modify his claims on an almost daily basis, whether over his secret Christmas mission to Cambodia (false) and the question of whether his first Purple Heart was improperly awarded for a self-inflicted wound (true). As for Iraq, ever since the transfer of sovereignty that's all but off the radar.

So unlike the touchy Kerry - threatening lawsuits, calling for bans and smearing his fellow vets as "Republican liars" - just by staying cool the President has let his many detractors exhaust the political capital of their obsessions.

Bush isn't a great orator but he can rise to the occasion, and I expect he will this week, with an optimistic forward-looking speech that stands in contrast to Senator Kerry's weird up-the-Mekong-without-a-paddle routine. Bush's speech will also have jokes.

He tells jokes pretty well, though he could do with easing up on the old self-satisfied smirk after the punchline. But smirk-accompanied jokes are still better than Kerry, who had no jokes at all except a leaden clunker about the destiny-freighted detail of having been born in a hospital's "west wing" - wouldja believe it? and how many wings does a hospital have anyway? and doesn't this communicate Kerry's sense of entitlement rather than his sense of humour - formal confirmation that he believes he was literally born to be president?

As to the serious bits, I would be surprised if Bush mentions Iran or North Korea specifically, though it's likely both will require his attention early next year. But he will talk up successes in the war and remind us that, if we don't win it, the best prescription-drugs plan in the world isn't going to make much difference.

The Bush-haters are right about him: he is a radical President, just not in the cartoon manner they believe. So it will be interesting to hear what he has to say about tax reform and Social Security - two areas where he's got big ambitions. The rest of the week will be a soft-focus infomercial just like the Democratic Convention, but the Republican speakers - Rudy Giuliani, Arnold Schwarzenegger, John McCain and dissident Democrat Senator Zell Miller - make a much stronger line-up than the old lions on display in Boston - Jimmy Carter, Ted Kennedy, Bill and Hill, effective speakers all but strictly for the true believers. Rudy, Arnie and co have far more cross-party appeal.

The media will point out that this is a crock, it's a fraud, it's a travesty of a farrago: the Republicans are putting their social moderates out front, and burying all the hatchet-faced Right-wing meanies. And the critics have a point to this extent: reaching out to swing voters is a sham in that there don't seem to be any but the most statistically insignificant number of swing voters to reach out to.

In this election, it's more important to make sure none of your party's base vote stays home. The problem for Kerry is that Bush's base includes alienated Democrats. Al Gore lost in 2000 because he had no appeal to white rural males. That's what cost him his own state of Tennessee, among others.

Does anyone seriously think Kerry appeals to white rural males? A poll in The Los Angeles Times shows that 3 per cent of Republicans are voting for Kerry, but 15 per cent of Democrats - mainly "conservative Democrats" - are planning to vote for Bush. A crucial sliver of Democrats seem to recoil from Kerry the way effete elite Europeans recoil from Bush. Unfortunately the former, unlike the latter, can vote.

So the most likely outcome this November is an increased Republican majority in the House, a couple of extra Senate seats, and a second term for Bush. I might be wrong. Anything is possible. But the reluctance of the British press to admit the possibility that Bush isn't a loser suggests that they too have over-invested in John Kerry's very weak hand.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/...2901.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2004/08/29/ixop.html
 
Burning_Inside said:
coverguy and chef, are you saying what kerry did was so bad cause it went against his "duty"? If so, don't you think that's kind of sad that you place duty to country no matter what in higher regards than your right to make an opinion and speak out against bullshit people should *not be doing, wether they are soldiers or not?

Sorry, but if my FAMILY did some of the shit those soldiers did he spoke of, I'd speak out against them and get them nailed. There are certain things in life that are seriously plain right and plain wrong, and I don't see how someone can be looked down upon for calling people out on those actions no matter what kind of duty he's bound to.


In the Marines we had a saying, "God, Country, Corps." Your loyalty flows in that direction. Maybe as i said before you don't understand duty, having never served. But all military members are taught from day 1 that your duty is your duty. If he had such strong opinions, he should have waged his war internally, and looked externally ONLY as a last resort. Kerry, however, didn't do this. Why? Because he wanted the spotlight. He had early aspirations of gov't service and knew that this would get his name and ideas out there in the public eye. Every military member understands their duty, and they agree to it when they sign up. If you have a problem with it, don't sign up. Same goes for John Kerry; unfortunately, he only cared about what suited him.
 
Coverguy said:
In the Marines we had a saying, "God, Country, Corps." Your loyalty flows in that direction. Maybe as i said before you don't understand duty, having never served. But all military members are taught from day 1 that your duty is your duty. If he had such strong opinions, he should have waged his war internally, and looked externally ONLY as a last resort. Kerry, however, didn't do this. Why? Because he wanted the spotlight. He had early aspirations of gov't service and knew that this would get his name and ideas out there in the public eye. Every military member understands their duty, and they agree to it when they sign up. If you have a problem with it, don't sign up. Same goes for John Kerry; unfortunately, he only cared about what suited him.

Which war did you serve in?
 
How you people can bash Kerry, who at least served, saw combat, was wounded, and decorated in Nam',(and admittingly made some stupid comments) and not mention Bush at all, who took the easy way out, is beyond me.
 
hooch said:
How you people can bash Kerry, who at least served, saw combat, was wounded, and decorated in Nam',(and admittingly made some stupid comments) and not mention Bush at all, who took the easy way out, is beyond me.
heh,saw combat
he video tpaed his "combat"
dressed up in army fatiques to make it appear as if he was more involved in fornt line fightin'
BTW,Kerry also asked for a deferment,but only when that was declined did he volunteer,and then it was for the navy,to avoid the army,and he opted for the swift boats,because thier duty at the time was out of harm's way
Stupid comment's?
read up
stupid was using his nam service as a centerpoint for his campaign
traitorious fuck
I imagine you're unawares of what he did upon his return from "combat"?
care to listen?
 
Pulitzer winner behind
Kerry POW film
Decorated Marine's TV documentary portrays 'betrayal' of vets

Posted: August 28, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

A Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist and highly decorated Vietnam veteran is behind a new television documentary that features devastating testimony by former POWs of the demoralizing impact of John Kerry's war-crimes accusations more than 30 years ago.
As WorldNetDaily first reported, the film will be released in September on the heels of a television ad by Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth, which charges Kerry with betrayal for accusing them of war atrocities during his testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971.

But producer Carlton Sherwood says his Red, White and Blue Productions was planning the documentary even before the first ad by the swiftboat vets.

Sherwood also has won a Peabody Award, and The Carlton Sherwood Media Award is named in his honor.
The documentary, titled "Stolen Honor," now has its own website, which includes sample interviews.
Currently in the final stages of production, it will be available for broadcast and on DVD and VHS video, according to Red, White and Blue Productions.

The film, according to the website, "investigates how John Kerry's actions during the Vietnam era impacted the treatment of American soldiers and POWs. Using John Kerry's own words, the documentary juxtaposes John Kerry's actions with the words of veterans who were still in Vietnam when John Kerry was leading the anti-war movement."
In a March 12 story by Fox News, Sherwood was noted as being among the veterans who consider Kerry's 1971 testimony slanderous and concocted to push a political agenda.
"He knew as an officer that those were lies. It never happened," said Sherwood. "He was principally responsible for cementing the image of Vietnam veterans as drugged-out psychopaths who were totally unrestrained and who were a murderous hoard."
Among the POWs whose voices are heard in the film are two who spent seven years in prison, Ralph Gaither, a two-time Navy Silver Star winner, and Gen. Robinson Risner.

The film's narration includes:
"In other wars, captured Americans subjected to the hell of an enemy prison were considered heroes. In other wars, they were not abandoned. In Vietnam , they were betrayed."
"Little did the American prisoners of war imagine that half a world away events were conspiring to make their precarious situation even more desperate. That an American Naval lieutenant after a four-month tour of duty in Vietnam was meeting secretly in an undisclosed location in Paris with a top enemy diplomat. That this same lieutenant would later join forces with Jane Fonda to form an antiwar group of so-called Vietnam veterans, some of whom would be later discovered as frauds who never set foot on a battlefield. All this culminating in John Kerry's Senate testimony that would be blared over loud speakers to convince our prisoners that back home they were being accused and abandoned. Enemy propagandists had found a new and willing accomplice."
 
4everhung said:
heh,saw combat
he video tpaed his "combat"
dressed up in army fatiques to make it appear as if he was more involved in fornt line fightin'
BTW,Kerry also asked for a deferment,but only when that was declined did he volunteer,and then it was for the navy,to avoid the army,and he opted for the swift boats,because thier duty at the time was out of harm's way
Stupid comment's?
read up
stupid was using his nam service as a centerpoint for his campaign
traitorious fuck
I imagine you're unawares of what he did upon his return from "combat"?
care to listen?

The first 3/4 of this post was written by a retard. I guess he surgically implanted the shrapnel in his leg too. I know he spoke out against the war after he returned. Why don't you stick to attacking his post Nam actions rather than writing idiotic stuff like he faked his combat and just played dress up. Stop listening to the "Swift Boat Vets" who rather you believe that official Navy records are for shit but the "Drudge Report" and FOX news are right on....
 
he hasn't signed the 180 releasing all his records
94 pages missing
why?
retard?
pulitzer prize winner retard too?
he most certainly did fake his combat
I've been posting anecdotes from true combat veterans
besides the swifties admirals and whatnot are now speaking out
you'll find out
he's toast
 
hooch said:
How you people can bash Kerry, who at least served, saw combat, was wounded, and decorated in Nam',(and admittingly made some stupid comments) and not mention Bush at all, who took the easy way out, is beyond me.

bush never disgraced the uniform, the military, or the country, unlike john kerry. that's why.
 
p0ink said:
bush never disgraced the uniform, the military, or the country, unlike john kerry. that's why.

President McAsshole disgraces our country on an almost daily basis, he disgraces the military by sending them into harms way not to protect our country but to further a political agenda and he disgraces 'the uniform' by engaging us in an unwinable war with no disengagement plan: we will continue to shovel the bodies of our boys into the hole he dug without question. Sickening.
 
ChefWide said:
President McAsshole disgraces our country on an almost daily basis, he disgraces the military by sending them into harms way not to protect our country but to further a political agenda and he disgraces 'the uniform' by engaging us in an unwinable war with no disengagement plan: we will continue to shovel the bodies of our boys into the hole he dug without question. Sickening.
poll the active vets,they're the one's doing the fighting and dying
 
4everhung said:
poll the active vets,they're the one's doing the fighting and dying

Poll them? What about?
 
ChefWide said:
President McAsshole disgraces our country on an almost daily basis, he disgraces the military by sending them into harms way not to protect our country but to further a political agenda and he disgraces 'the uniform' by engaging us in an unwinable war with no disengagement plan: we will continue to shovel the bodies of our boys into the hole he dug without question. Sickening.

Chef, that's a load of crap.

Removing the Iraqi regime was the only tenable way of changing the paradigm of the middle east. Without such a move we would have been stuck in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia for decades. With it we are in a position to remove the US presence from those countries after perhaps 5-10 years of stabilizing a new Iraqi regime.

The immediate dividends are the Libyan surrender of their fasr advanced nuclear program, as well as an end to Saddam's documented (read Kay report) continuing efforts at acquiring and devloping womd.

We can argue timing of events, but I have a harder time crediting statements that they were altogether unnecessary. The fact remains that a Saddam in possession of nuclear weapons would have been a worldwide disater. We would not have been able to "contain" him once in possession of such a destructive force. Whether he would have had them in a year, or seven years, it is clear that he was aggressively pursuing their acquisition. And as events in Libya demonstrate, their acquisition was far more readily attainable than anyone had imagined prior to the conflict.

Equally inane is the exit strategy argument, which is nothing more than a disingenous attempt at linking this conflict with Vietnam and subsequently creating the impression that it is a losing venture. The two are nothing alike in any of the particulars. It wqas understood well before this action began that we would be in Iraq in some capacity for a great deal of time following the initial war.

It's disgusting that the left is attempting to turn the sacrifice of those soldiers into campaign fodder with incoherent reasoning and poisonous charges
 
nailed it,we had to maintain a military presence in SA to police Saddam, This irked the extremist Arbas to no end and it was escalating. Everyone wants to know why we didn't go after SA because thats where the lion's share of the hijackers were from,well ther's your connection. This is extremely simplified,but we had to "lance this boil" at some point as the situation was only going to get worse.
 
Coverguy said:
In the Marines we had a saying, "God, Country, Corps." Your loyalty flows in that direction. Maybe as i said before you don't understand duty, having never served. But all military members are taught from day 1 that your duty is your duty. If he had such strong opinions, he should have waged his war internally, and looked externally ONLY as a last resort. Kerry, however, didn't do this. Why? Because he wanted the spotlight. He had early aspirations of gov't service and knew that this would get his name and ideas out there in the public eye. Every military member understands their duty, and they agree to it when they sign up. If you have a problem with it, don't sign up. Same goes for John Kerry; unfortunately, he only cared about what suited him.
No I don't understand the mentality of the whole duty thing cause I've never been in that position, but I can somewhat try and imagine. All I'm saying is I perosnally think it's silly to place ideals of a man made group above ideals of humanity.

I'm not really convinced tho' that when someone signs up for military that they expect to be able to go around and commit war crimes without anyone having issues with it. Killing is one thing, but other things that were done, that's another.

As for him using his background as a spotlight of sorts to get recognition, I can't blame him, wether or not it really means anything in the grand scheme of things.
 
p0ink said:
bush never disgraced the uniform, the military, or the country, unlike john kerry. that's why.

Besides speaking out against the Vietnam War AND
Tossing aside Swift Boat Veterans (who didn't serve ALONGSIDE him)accounts of Kerry's actions in combat....

Kerry did all of the above how??? (Please...no FOX News cut-n-paste)
 
I'm sick and tired of that draft-dodger Bush making me defend my Vietnam service. Why don't we talk about how he is losing this country millions of jobs and flushing our national security down the toilet to the fucking Saudis?

Fuck you Poink and 4everhung.
 
hooch said:
Besides speaking out against the Vietnam War AND
Tossing aside Swift Boat Veterans (who didn't serve ALONGSIDE him)accounts of Kerry's actions in combat....

Kerry did all of the above how??? (Please...no FOX News cut-n-paste)
go outside and then come back in and tell me how far you can see
Kerry wasn't in some "jungle" boat with him and his crew operating out in the jungle all by themselves like some special commando team
though he probably has claimed as much
 
the Kerry Kommando "helo" boat
lifted itself up out of the Mekong and dumped his super secret CIA operative in cambodia on christmas day 1968
while no one was watching
everyone else was too busy opening Xmas care packages of Rebel Yell and smoking reefer in between raping viet teenagers,some of them girls
while the "helo" boat hovered around nam Lt Kerry was able to observe
GI's shooting water buffalo for sport,burning villages and generally causing a ruckus
he saw them,but they didn't see him
the "helo" boat had super cool camoflauge
the clandestine operations of Kerry's "helo" boat often took him far in country
and he would be on missions on the ground while the "helo" boat hid in foliage
missions such as this required Lt Kerry to change into regular Army fatiques as opposed to his ordinary navy gear
he did this so as to better blend in, in-country
this explains the films of him in army fatiques(the CIA wanted him to document his exploits as they may the lessons learned to train future qualified officers)
most of this has been hush-hush up until now
I'm still investigating
 
4everhung, you and Poink just don't get it. Now take out your White-trash, redneck Daddy's shotgun, point it at your thick skull, and pull the trigger.

Tell Lucifer I said hello.
 
JerseyArt said:
Chef, that's a load of crap.

Removing the Iraqi regime was the only tenable way of changing the paradigm of the middle east. Without such a move we would have been stuck in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia for decades. With it we are in a position to remove the US presence from those countries after perhaps 5-10 years of stabilizing a new Iraqi regime.
I agree with you totally on this point except for the staggeringly naive notion that we have any intention whatsoever of removing the U.S. presence in the region. That is tinfoil hat territory. We have no interest in a stable Mideast running it's affairs by the will of their own people. That notion is beyond ignorant. We are there for regime change: from any form of government in any way hostile to our goals directly to a puppet regime ready to do our will at a moments notice. 'Remove U.S. presence...': hilarious. I had to double check who posted that to make sure it was you, you are so much smarter than that.

The immediate dividends are the Libyan surrender of their fasr advanced nuclear program, as well as an end to Saddam's documented (read Kay report) continuing efforts at acquiring and devloping womd.

We can argue timing of events, but I have a harder time crediting statements that they were altogether unnecessary.
Who said anything about them being unnecessary? I have maintained accross dozens of posts that my quarrel is with the lies, and that the last president got impeached for lieing: so should this one.

Anyone who perceives that Libya's 'surrender' was for any other reason than it's own economic well being is being silly, but it IS a wonderful by product, I agree with you. The fact remains that it had nothing whatsoever to do with our justification for war so how is it that you use it to defend that justification?

The fact remains that a Saddam in possession of nuclear weapons would have been a worldwide disater. We would not have been able to "contain" him once in possession of such a destructive force. Whether he would have had them in a year, or seven years, it is clear that he was aggressively pursuing their acquisition. And as events in Libya demonstrate, their acquisition was far more readily attainable than anyone had imagined prior to the conflict.

Read your inspectors reports again, please. The fact is that he was much further away than anyone suspected from acquireing the tools or the infrastructure needed to create any such weapons, much less any way of delivering them. Yes, Sadaam having those weapons would pose a major threat... er... so why aren't we actively going after the rogue countries that DO have them and have left no question about their rediness to use them? BECAUSE: that has nothing to do with why we went to iraq!

Equally inane is the exit strategy argument, which is nothing more than a disingenous attempt at linking this conflict with Vietnam and subsequently creating the impression that it is a losing venture. The two are nothing alike in any of the particulars. It wqas understood well before this action began that we would be in Iraq in some capacity for a great deal of time following the initial war.

Sorry, you might want rethink that in, according to your timeline, 10 years when 20 thousand of our troops are dead and we discover that the region STILL has no desire or intent to cow to our demands and that we have actually inflamed the entire region rather than stabilize it... don't forget that 'your' plan requires the end of every non-democraticly elected goverment in the region, if we are to follow the crap that flows from the whitehouse. In the words of Pres. Bush: we are going to give them the 'gift of democracy'. I suppose that would mean everyone?

That means no more Bathist regime in Syria and the overthrow of the governments in Saudi, Kuwait, Jordan and Iran, not to mention our biggest arab ally in the region, Egypt, who has a veritable one party 'democracy' and is the second largest recipient of aid dollars second only to the largest holder of WMD in the entire region: Israel.

Or is regime change and the 'gift of democracy' just for those countries whose governments disagree with us? That must be it, if you agree with us, or if you happen to keep the oil flowing without bitching too much, then you get to subjugate and torture your starving people 'til the camels come home and the U.S. looks the other way. Nice. That sure will stabilize the region and just burst the coffers of good will...


So.... democracy for everyone in the mid'east. Do you think 20 thousand american lives will do it? 50 thousand? I think not.

It's disgusting that the right is attempting to turn the sacrifice of those people killed on 9/11 into campaign fodder with incoherent reasoning and poisonous charges

I am saying that it is in Americas best interest to stablize that region: it's absolutely necessary. My problem is that we are not stablilizing a damn thing, and certainly not trying to give the people of that region 'democracy'. Anyone who thinks that that is in America's best interest, or even a minute part of Bush's agenda, is a fool.


On a slightly different note: where have you been, man! Glad to 'see' you back.
 
Last edited:
ChefWide said:
I am saying that it is in Americas best interest to stablize that region: it's absolutely necessary. My problem is that we are not stablilizing a damn thing, and certainly not trying to give the people of that region 'democracy'. Anyone who thinks that that is in America's best interest, or even a minute part of Bush's agenda, is a fool.


.

booyah
 
bluepeter said:

That's reserved for the Corp, Hockeyplayingmaplecandyboy.


;)
 
Chef

In La bro, sweating my ass off:)

Couple of points

(1) I never suggested we would leave the region. I do suggest that it is in our interests to leave SA in particular, which would have been inconceivable with Saddam in power. It allows us to follow a wiser policy without appearing to be caving into the terrorists, who demnaded our withdrawal from that fundamentalist nation.

(2) Democracy in the middle east is in our interests. That doesnt mean it is not also in the interests of the local population. Why does the left constantly feel the need to automatically put the two at odds. Our interest is specifically in having a content and stable local population. How does that motive detract from our efforts, or claims to wish to aid them?

(3) Re: Libya. It has been pathetic witnessing the left try to spin this into anything but a tremendous Bush victory. Kadaffi himself has stated that he signed the agreement specifically because he was worried that what happened to Saddam might happen to him. He also admitted as much to the Italian PM. What eveidence do you possess that his statements, embarassing to him, were dfisingenous?

(4)Our justifications for war were never publically outlined in total. In that I agree. We weren't about to state that we wisheds to pressure Iran into a civil revolution by putting a democracy on its border. We never publcially acknowledged our desire to leave SA, which required deposing Saddam. We never stated that a democratic Iraq would allow us to put pressure on the Saudis by giving us the comfort of having the second largest reserves in the region friendly to the US. We never admitted that we wished to pressure a chane in Syria either. But we know, and they know, that is exactly what we intended to do, which is why they fought the moves so tenaciously. If this specific brand of terrosim is ever going to be nipped in the bud, it requires a democratci middle east which offers true representation to its citizens. Bush has been the first to make any concrete step in achieving that goal

(5) I've read the Kay report several times, and it outlines specifically that Saddam had an ongoing effort of research and acquisition, along with widespread coverups and destruction of evidence. Its a shame that the anti Bush interests in the media and on the left glanced over those documented prohibited and systematic activities and diluted it to "no womd's found." Hiding a few trailers in a country as large as California hardly strikes me as either inconceivable or particualrly difficult.

(6) Your policy represnts nothing more than capitulation. Don't upset the dangerous animals who are already killing your family or you might just make them angrier. It is a difficult course, but what was your other option? Containment, which everyone, including the French, already acknowledged was broken and couldnt work? Or a continuation of Clintons brilliant policy of ignore everything until the day it blows up in your face?

If Kadaffi founf a way to acquire nuclear weapons, then it is inevitable that Saddam would as well. He was historically farther along, and wqe only found out about those because his son in law defected. We had been there for years after the first gulf war before that came to light.

What the soldiers are doing is necessary. Do you read what is written in the Iranian press for example. The state run papers openly suggest that nuclear war is not only possible, but desirous. That Israel is a small country which could be easily annihilated, but that they would never be able to kill a billion muslims in response. At best only 20-30 million arabs would die in such a war, but every jew would be dead.

Keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of these maniacs is our greatest national security interest. There is nothing our soldiers could be doing of greater import.

And dont obfuscate with allusions to North Korea. You know damn well we cant do crap there without triggering a slaughter greater than the problem. Thankfully Bush didnt wait for Saddam to become similarly uncontrollable before acting, although that appears to have been the preferred course of the left
 
JerseyArt said:
Chef

In La bro, sweating my ass off:)

Its grey and raining here, about 60 degrees... it must be fall... or summer.. or winter... maybe its.. well, never mind.

You think for one second that if the democratic process in Iraq produces, by the will of their people in an internationally verified fair voting process, a government that is Anti U.S. policy, Islamic by definition and/or decides to turn off the flow of oil to the west that the U.S. will stand for that?

:lmao:

We will be back in there with cruise missiles blazing so damn fast you won't have time to re-wrap your 'gift of democracy'.

I think every country in region deserves a democraticly elected government and that it is in the peoples best interests. You missunderstand me. The fact is that we are not in a hurry to depose the Saudi Family just as we would have let the Shah rule for another hundred years if he could have lived that long. All that matters is that the regimes tow the line according to OUR best interests, not according to the best interests of their people.

Answer me one question : What would be the Bush Regime's responce to a Saudi, Kuwaiti or Iraqi 'democracy' in the mideast that turned out to hate us? No WMD's, no internal strife, just no more oil for U.S.

What would happen?
 
Chef,

The response of the entire world to a shutdown of oil exports from the middle east would be to forcibly open the pipelines. Thats just reality.

Weighed against the local populations "rights" to their national resource would be the monumental consequences to billions throughout the world, and a depression that would make what happened in the 1930's look like a cake walk. It is a bigboys world, and you dont getr the right to pout and take your ball home whenever you become irritated. Do you think hundreds of millions of children should be allowed to freeze and starve because the Iraqi's decided to throw a hissy fit?

Whats odd is not that reality, but that you choose to criticiize both the eventuality and the steps being taken to prevent them from ever having to occure. Critics are a dime a dozen. What is your alternate solution?
 
JerseyArt said:
Chef,

The response of the entire world to a shutdown of oil exports from the middle east would be to forcibly open the pipelines. Thats just reality.

Weighed against the local populations "rights" to their national resource would be the monumental consequences to billions throughout the world, and a depression that would make what happened in the 1930's look like a cake walk. It is a bigboys world, and you dont getr the right to pout and take your ball home whenever you become irritated. Do you think hundreds of millions of children should be allowed to freeze and starve because the Iraqi's decided to throw a hissy fit?

Whats odd is not that reality, but that you choose to criticiize both the eventuality and the steps being taken to prevent them from ever having to occure. Critics are a dime a dozen. What is your alternate solution?


You ended the need for argument by asserting what I have maintained all along: it's a big boys world. Fuck the rights of those people. If we need it, we take it, and there ain't shit to do about it. I am not arguing right or wrong here, that's the fact. You said it, I said it, we agree on it. The actual will of those people or their rights matter not. Oil is too important for that. 'Gift of Democracy', very funny indeed.

Like I said very clearly, it's not about right or wrong, it is what it is: just don't try and tell me its for some gause thin altruistic bullshit smokescreen about 'those poor people and their mean governments'.

Tell it like it is. Finally.
 
ChefWide said:
You ended the need for argument by asserting what I have maintained all along: it's a big boys world. Fuck the rights of those people. If we need it, we take it, and there ain't shit to do about it. I am not arguing right or wrong here, that's the fact. You said it, I said it, we agree on it. The actual will of those people or their rights matter not. Oil is too important for that. 'Gift of Democracy', very funny indeed.

Like I said very clearly, it's not about right or wrong, it is what it is: just don't try and tell me its for some gause thin altruistic bullshit smokescreen about 'those poor people and their mean governments'.

Tell it like it is. Finally.

ChefWide...........karma..........spread around............
 
Chef,

You mention worst case scenario. I agree, thats the reality

I also mentioned early on that although we have national interests, those interests are not necessarily exclusive with the interests of the local populations. Its in our interest to foster democracxy there, that doesnt mean that those democracies would not be in the best interests of the locals.

A wealthy man may give millions to charity for the exposure and good will of the communiyt. His motives arent pure, but that doesnt make those who received the charity more hungry or less well off than before he made that decision.

The idea that unless our motives are entirely altruistic, our actions, are undesirable, is childish. Of course we try to act in our self interest, which is often sympathetic with the local populations.
 
Is that how you will teach your kids?:

You play the game by the rules.. as long as you are winning. If you dont get your way and you are strong enough, kick the shit out of the other guy. In the long run all that matters is that you get your way.

The fact is, Jersey, that the worldwide catastrophe of no water/oil is coming.

I am just a bit edgey for my kids futures when the country I live in gets bulldozed and anexed by the U.S. because they need something we have here.

Just a matter of time, I suppose, eh?
 
ChefWide said:
Is that how you will teach your kids?:

You play the game by the rules.. as long as you are winning. If you dont get your way and you are strong enough, kick the shit out of the other guy. In the long run all that matters is that you get your way.

The fact is, Jersey, that the coming worldwide catastrophe of no water/oil is coming.

I am just a bit edgey for my kids futures when the country I live in gets bulldozed and anexed by the U.S. because they need something we have here.

Just a matter of time, I suppose, eh?

Try living in Canada. We can feel the eyes of the US government on our plentiful natural resources every day :)
 
bluepeter said:
Try living in Canada. We can feel the eyes of the US government on our plentiful natural resources every day :)

As in 'live with CANADIANS'?

Are you MAD!?!?



ok, maybe with Shelly, but thats it.
 
Chef,

It's reality

Could I do it, no. Could I give an order to retaliate after a nuclear attack against the US, no again. Could I order troops to war knowing that innocent women and children would be killed, no again. That's why I have no business being in public office.

If a town was surrounded by a horde of armed killers and there were only two options, either surrender an infant for torture and slaughter (in which case everyone else would live and be unharmed) or they would attack and everyone would die, which would you choose? I would likely choose the latter, which in my mind would seem more noble a course, but no kinder to those involved. A leader would choose the former.

Its easy to argue principles when you arent responsible for the lives of all those who will be destroyed by your decision. Good for you, you would respect the property rights of the poor Iraqis. Unfortunately such nobility will be of little comfort to the billions who would suffer as a result of your sense of right and wrong
 
JerseyArt said:
Chef,

It's reality

Could I do it, no. Could I give an order to retaliate after a nuclear attack against the US, no again. Could I order troops to war knowing that innocent women and children would be killed, no again. That's why I have no business being in public office.

If a town was surrounded by a horde of armed killers and there were only two options, either surrender an infant for torture and slaughter (in which case everyone else would live and be unharmed) or they would attack and everyone would die, which would you choose? I would likely choose the latter, which in my mind would seem more noble a course, but no kinder to those involved. A leader would choose the former.

Its easy to argue principles when you arent responsible for the lives of all those who will be destroyed by your decision. Good for you, you would respect the property rights of the poor Iraqis. Unfortunately such nobility will be of little comfort to the billions who would suffer as a result of your sense of right and wrong

You assume that when I step up the throne that I won't already have 4.5 trillion dollars over the next five years earmarked for the infrastructure needed to get alternative energies including Nuke power up and running? Wrong again, dear.

I would have our industry powered and functional beyond fossil fuel stupidty within my first three terms in office. Priority one is to get self sufficient at whatever cost needed. FUCK THE MIDEAST and FUCK OIL. How dare ANYONE hold us hostage to their fucking whims!? Not on my watch.

Our national priority number one is get the technology rolling to be able to transport and grow food without oil. Within that need is ability to reduce the dependency on fossil fuels for the creation and maintainence of national infrastructure to a bare minimum. Then I would forcably divest the murderous Saudi bastards from my countries economy and tell them to drink their fucking oil.

THAT is how we win.

And I would roast in my own eternal self hatred and torment for it, but I would give up both my own son and you for the better good of the town. In a heartbeat. Your scenario would conclude that the armed villians would continue to exact tribute once they saw the willingness to give in, I would maintain that if we survive, we will one day overcome, if we are dead, there is no chance of that.

THAT defines me: 'For the greater good' not what defines the American Conservative movement: 'For the greater PROFIT of the few.'

And under my rule, the billions wouldn't suffer, because the iraqis wouldn't be an issue. Let them implode, we have our own energy sources.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom