http://www.drudgereport.com/kerryid2.htm

There's more to this story if you feel like searching. But this is the part that points to more of his throwing fits.

I can't believe Democrats keep on running people like this. I was worried earlier that the Republicans were going to bash Kerry out of the race before he had it sealed.

Yeah, I lived in Boston for a long time. I got to see him on the news all the time. He always struck me as a real lightweight. Should be cannon fodder for Bush. But ya never know.

Terry

The Secret Service guy must be a Republican and part of the "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy" to embarass Kerry.

http://www.kerryquotes.com/video/iraqwmd.htm

That asinine display is way beneath you, Al. I would expect it from some of the others here, but you only embarrassed yourself.

Shelly

Agreed, Shelly.


Norm

>That asinine display is way beneath you, Al. I would expect
>it from some of the others here, but you only embarrassed
>yourself.

Is there anything to be said as to why one should vote for Kerry? I know you can come up with plenty of reasons not to vote for Bush, but how about some reasons to vote for Kerry? Is there anything being said about him that is not true?

Nightly Reader

>That asinine display is way beneath you, Al. I would expect
>it from some of the others here, but you only embarrassed
>yourself.

And what is so asinine and embarrassing about posting that link? Other than it's a pro Bush ad.

Nightly Reader

I think you pretty much answered that question. Anything that goes against Shelly's political leanings is asinine.

That asinine display is way beneath you, Al. I would expect
it from some of the others here, but you only embarrassed
yourself.

It's not beneath Al, but what's asinine about it? Kerry's a hypocrite; he voted for Bush's War on Terror; he has no intention of pulling troops out of Iraq; he recently attacked Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez as a "dubious democrat hostile to U.S. interests;" which is a lie; his comment on Spain's pledge to pull their troops out of Iraq was, "In my judgment, the new prime minister should not have decided he was going to pull out of Iraq...He should have said this: 'This (the Madrid bombings) increases our determination to get the job done.'"

It's a two-party monopoly system with both parties bought and sold to the highest bidder. The White House is corporate occupied territory.

"Kerry is...Bush-lite....(the difference being that)...people around Bush are very deeply committed to dismantling the achievements of popular struggle through the past century. The prospect of a government which serves popular interests is being dismantled...It's an administration that...is devoted, to a narrow sector of wealth and power, no matter what the cost to the general population. And that could be extremely dangerous in the not very long run."

All the words in that display are Kerry's. The only one who should be embarrassed is the Senator. His words, not mine.

And your ongoing defense of Kerry is beneath you, Shelly. He is a liar, a traitor and has illustrated time and time again that he is not interested in the welfare of anyone but himself.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/kerry/articles/2004/03/25/kerry_spoke_of_meeting_negotiators_on_vietnam/

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,8759772%255E2703,00.html

An Australian point of view.

I guess in US politics, as in any other, the past come back to haunt.

Guns don't kill people. Husbands who come home early kill people.

>He is a liar, a traitor and has illustrated time and time again
>that he is not interested in the welfare of anyone but
>himself.

A liar,... probably; most politicians are, including Dubya. A traitor? C'mon Al, he served honorably in Viet Nam and received several medals for that service.

Kind of wiped that out when he renounced them and threw someone else's over the fence.

>Kind of wiped that out when he renounced them and threw
>someone else's over the fence.

And that makes him a traitor??? It doesn't change the fact that he served, and he didn't ask for an early six month release in order to go to Harvard Business School. I'm sure that there are a lot of reservists serving in Iraq who would like to take a six month early release to go to business school.

>>Kind of wiped that out when he renounced them and threw
>>someone else's over the fence.
>
>And that makes him a traitor??? It doesn't change the fact
>that he served, and he didn't ask for an early six month
>release in order to go to Harvard Business School. I'm sure
>that there are a lot of reservists serving in Iraq who would
>like to take a six month early release to go to business
>school.
>
Kerry requested and received an early out to run for Congress.

Link added:
http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/061703.shtml

Nightly Reader

>Kerry requested and received an early out to run for
>Congress.

In the link below, it also states: John Kerry returned from Vietnam in April 1969, having won early transfer out of the conflict because of his three Purple Hearts. Some traitor.

>Link added:
>http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/061703.shtml
>
>

>>Kerry requested and received an early out to run for
>>Congress.
>
>In the link below, it also states: John Kerry returned from
>Vietnam in April 1969, having won early transfer out of the
>conflict because of his three Purple Hearts. Some traitor.
>
By his own admission, Kerry lost two days service for one and no time lost for the other two Purple Hearts. It also appears that he used the three medals to get him home early.

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1070813/posts

Nightly Reader

Benedict Arnold was a true hero in the Revolutionary War. Doesn't change that he was also a traitor.

John Kerry served, and as far as I can tell, he served honorably. He was no hero, but that isn't the point.

It is his actions after his service that are those of a traitor.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12386

The part I found the most revealing was at the top. He writes to the President to throw another fit.

The debates should be interesting to say the least.

Kerry asked for and was denied a 1 year whatever to attend school in France. Also, he did not throw his medals across the fence, he only threw his ribbons. His service was just as honorable as President Bush's because they both joined the service of their country but you can't wear it on your sleeve for the rest of your life. You have to answer for what you've done since you became a hero. Sheesh, that reminds me of the Sunday Comics a few years ago where every Russian Soldier wore a huge HERO medal.

A traitor.

When he testified to Congress that warcrimes were the norm in Vietnam (read the record, or better yet, listen to the tape).

When he sat in a meeting that discussed the assassination of Senators and then didn't report it (and since he still held a commission as an officer in the US Navy, he was duty bound to report it). He later claimed he had resigned from the VVAW before the meeting, but FBI survelliance shows that is a lie.

And he spoke to representatives of North Vietnam while a civilian (in his book he says he negotiated with them). If his book is correct, that is a federal crime.

Yes, a traitor.

Oh, and that is without including his actions regarding disregarding the POWs that may have been left in Vietnam. Those are maybes, the above are clearly documented facts.

I'm bolding your quotes because those stupid arrow things are annoying as hell.

A traitor.

A traitor as defined by the Constitution, so there's no ambiguity as to what is being discussed.

Section 3 - Treason

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

When he testified to Congress that warcrimes were the norm in Vietnam (read the record, or better yet, listen to the tape).

The complete text is here.

http://www.pbs.org/greatspeeches/timeline/j_kerry_s.html

The footnotes, for some reason they didn't load up the second time I visited the page.

My Lai - On March 16, 1968, U.S. soldiers, led by Lt. William Calley, invaded the village of My Lai in South Vietnam in search of Viet Cong and their sympathizers. Some 347 unarmed civilians, including women and children, were killed. After about a year of covering-up the killings, the Army opened its own internal investigation, which led to congressional hearings. Five soldiers were court-martialed for participating in the attack. Four were found innocent, and Calley was sentenced to life imprisonment. In 1974, a federal court overturned the verdict, and Calley was released.

"Oriental Human Beings" - Kerry is making a reference to the official language used in the Army court-martial case against Lt. William Calley. In the charges and proceedings against Calley, Army lawyers and members of the Court repeatedly use the phrase "oriental human beings" when describing the number of bodies and the number of people slaughtered at My Lai.


When he sat in a meeting that discussed the assassination of Senators and then didn't report it (and since he still held a commission as an officer in the US Navy, he was duty bound to report it). He later claimed he had resigned from the VVAW before the meeting, but FBI survelliance shows that is a lie.

http://oregonmag.com/KerryVVAWPlot.htm

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6331 (this one is a tad biased, but the links it provides to the K.C. Star and Yahoo News Wire place it in a more acceptable context)

And the timeline below says that Kerry was discharged from the Navy in 1970, and discharged from the Reserves in 1978. One can only guess that there was no lapse in his service other than being placed directly into the reserves, I have no idea how things were arranged back then.

http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/timeline.htm


And he spoke to representatives of North Vietnam while a civilian (in his book he says he negotiated with them). If his book is correct, that is a federal crime.

table breaking link



As Marvin said right before being shot in the face, "Man, I don't even have an opinion."

Doc,

Unless Kerry resigned his commission (which he did not) or had his commission revoked (which he did not), he still held a commission as a Naval Officer, just as I still hold a commission as an Army Officer.

Officer's commissions do not work in the same way as enlistments.

So wait, wouldn't that mean that Article 88, subsection 10 of the UCMJ still applies to you?

Only if I am recalled to active duty is it enforceable. From a duty/honor/oath point of view, yes.

"My Lai - On March 16, 1968, U.S. soldiers, led by Lt. William
Calley...."

FYI:

The My Lai Massacre, (the 1968 shooting of 504 innocent Vietnamese civilians by an American Army unit) wasn't even reported by the Quakers in Quang Ngai Province where it took place, because it was happening all over the place. And the American press didn’t report anything about it until a year and a half later.

And The My Lai Massacre is just a footnote to a military operation called, OPERATION WHEELER WALLAWA, which was a huge mass murder operation in which B-52 raids were targeted right on villages. That wasn’t Lieutenant Calley, that was a guy in Washington plotting our coordinates. They wiped out everything.

I'm well aware of the history of My Lai, the footnote is not mine, it's from the PBS article.

>The My Lai Massacre, (the 1968 shooting of 504 innocent
>Vietnamese civilians by an American Army unit) wasn't even
>reported by the Quakers in Quang Ngai Province where it took
>place, because it was happening all over the place.


Happening all over the place?

Document that, HAL. Prove it. And not with some of your BS sites.

Detailed studies indicate otherwise. American soldiers were not committing atrocities "all over the place". Warcrimes were committed by Americans, but they were rare and were prosecuted.

"And your ongoing defense of Kerry is beneath you, Shelly. He is a liar, a traitor and has illustrated time and time again that he is not interested in the welfare of anyone but himself."

And you are leaving partisanship in the dust and closing in on stupidity. I always respected your conservative attitude when it was based in intelligent thought, but now you are spouting lunatic fringe rhetoric worthy of the John Birch Society.

Shelly

Time to do a little research, Shelly. Lunatic? No, informed. Pay attention, your bias is showing.

>Time to do a little research, Shelly. Lunatic? No, informed.
>Pay attention, your bias is showing.


And your bias isn't?

Shelly

Absolutely. I am totally and completely opposed to a man who committed treason being considered for the office of President of the United States.

That's an opinion, Al, not a fact. It doesn't become a fact until he is tried and convicted. And I believe the US criminal code still contains the presumption of innocence, so since you would have the world believe you're such a strong upholder of the rule of law Kerry has every right to present himself as a candidate and you are in fact arguing against yourself.

And the fact that the thread is about Kerry is irrelevant. This is about you appointing yourself as his judge, jury and executioner.

>That's an opinion, Al, not a fact.
>It doesn't become a fact until he is tried and convicted. And
>I believe the US criminal code still contains the presumption
>of innocence, so since you would have the world believe you're
>such a strong upholder of the rule of law Kerry has every
>right to present himself as a candidate and you are in fact
>arguing against yourself.
>
>And the fact that the thread is about Kerry is irrelevant.
>This is about you appointing yourself as his judge, jury and
>executioner

I was appointed to the above when I became voting age many years ago. Whether Kerry is legally guilty is also irrelevant. My opinion of him makes him unworthy of office and my vote. And if I can convince anyone else not to vote for him, so much the better.

Nightly Reader

This may surprise you, because at least in part I agree with you - because you acknowledge that it is an opinion. And I agree you have every right to try to convince others that your opinion is right. And of course your opinion of him makes him unworthy of your vote. But it doesn't per se make him unworthy of office. If enough people hold the same opinion then he will have been found to be unworthy of office. The key word is and remains opinion. Al made what purports to be a statement of fact.

I repeat, my post is not about Kerry. It is about Al's presenting an opinion as a fact.

So if we know for a fact that OJ murdered his wife, yet he also got off on the charges, does that mean he is innocent?

Facts are facts with or without convictions. Convictions are supposed to be made on facts. Whether or not someone is a murderer doesn't not depend on them being found guilty in a court of law. The fact they murdered someone is what makes them a murderer.

I'm all for innocent until proven guilty when it pertains to courts of law and their punishments. But you're trying to claim that facts do not become facts until a judge or jury decide they are facts. That is as wrong as saying the world actually was flat or the moon actually was cheese until we proved otherwise.

No. We know for a fact that OJ killed his wife. There's a difference.

And while I have no doubt that a vast majority of informed people are sure that OJ killed his wife, I also have no doubt that the same can not be said for Al's opinion of Kerry.

By the way, from what little I know I think he's a pretty ordinary candidate, and the Democrats may well have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory when they picked him.

We know that for a fact? Sorry, but that's not what the court found. The court found just the opposite in fact. OJ was not found guilty in the court of law. He has never admitted guilt so therefore he must be innocent.
By your own qualifications, "It doesn't become a fact until he is tried and convicted.", we know for a fact that OJ did not kill his wife.

He was found "responsible" financially in a state that violates the Constitution at every turn of the corner, but not guilty. How could he be responsible for a crime he was found not guilty of? That is the closest they came to proving his guilt in a court.

If you can say that OJ killed his wife, you must be able to say that Kerry is a traitor. Even more so about Kerry because he has never been tested in the courts, OJ has been tested and passed.

I agree they snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, but not because Kerry is ordinary. He's too much of a liar but not as waterproof as Clinton was about it. It's like when they tried to run Ted Kennedy. He wasn't waterproof but at least he didn't make it very far. For whatever reason, Slick Willie was waterproof and they knew that long before he ran for president.

First, US constitution establishes that an accused is PRESUMED innocent until found guilty. It doesn't necessarily mean that he IS innocent, just that he is presumed to be so in the judicial arena. Anyone here think that OJ is really innocent because a slick defense forestalled his conviction? A finding of Not Guilty does not mean a finding of a FACT of innocence.

Second, Al is right about Kerry's status as an officer during the 70s. An officer is an officer beyond his active duty until he either resigns his commission, or has it taken from him. Kerry did not resign his until the late 70s.

Next, is/was Kerry a traitor? It is a FACT that Al considers him so. It is not a LEGALLY established FACT that he was, but there were cetainly some questionable acts by him that lead to a valid consideration of the point. At what point does legal protest become atreasonous act? (Jane Fonda went waaaay over the line, in my opinion.) Did Kerry?

Fourth, was there anything odd about his Vietman service? It is possible to pull political strings to get one's credentials punched (Al Gore as prime example). The parallel between JFK I in PT boats and JFK II in river patrol boats is an amazing coincidince. Then, I haven't heard a good explanation of how JFK II came to spend only a few months there. Most minor wounded remain "in country", and quickly return to their tour of duty.

Ray

The thing you seem to be ignoring Paul is that it is his own words, his own admittance that states he committed those acts.

A court? Necessary for sentencing, but not for consequences when John Kerry not only admits that crimes, he brags about them.

I'm with you Al. I wasn't an officer but I am aware that he never resigned his commission and to my mind is definately not "An Officer and a Gentleman". He has betrayed the oath and promise he gave when accepting his commision. I defer to you and the large number of others when it comes to the act of Treason. I certainly have seen a very large number of people who have served during the time he did and are very eleoquent in their arguments against him. My service was the National Guard where I joined before Viet Nam and served before and during the war. I don't consider myself qualified to join in that part of the argument that he has made treasonous statements because I wasn't in Nam. Also I am a Member of the American Legion with a large number of Veterans from all wars and I can't repeat what they have to say about Kerry on this Forum.

I can't believe Democrats keep on running people like this

Neither can I, Myk. I find it amazing. It's as if the Democratic Party actually wants to lose.

Because they want Hillary in '08?

Terry

LOL I quess that's as goog an excuse as any.

I personnally find him a whole lot less than and Hillary is no better off. Don't know who they put against her yet but will love that contest most of all. Let ol'e motor mouth lying husband help her.

"Because they want Hillary in '08?"

LOL, yep, they seem to want to lose alright.

>I can't believe Democrats keep on running people like
>this
>
>Neither can I, Myk. I find it amazing. It's as if the
>Democratic Party actually wants to lose.

In the US does the Party have any say in the Presidential Candidate, when the people have voted and, from what I've read, Kerry beat all contenders? Can the Democrats now say that they don't think he can beat Bush and choose another person?

Guns don't kill people. Husbands who come home early kill people.

Kerry can withdraw and the delegates can select another nominee.

During the convention the delegates can nominate anybody they choose.

That is my understanding anyhoooooo.

Delegates committed to a candidate as a result of primaries or caucuses, are only bound for the first convention ballot. However, since Kerry has far more delegates committed to him than necessary, he will be nominated on the first ballot, unless he withdraws, or is unable to serve due to being incapacitated.

Shelly

Tho it is not uncommon in the Senate, John Kerry is one of the biggest hypocrites.
There are reasons to vote against Bush, but why vote for Kerry?

>Tho it is not uncommon in the Senate, John Kerry is one of
>the biggest hypocrites.
>There are reasons to vote against Bush, but why vote for
>Kerry?


That pretty much said it all as far as I'm concerned. I can't think of one good reason. He drives me up the wall when I hear him speak and now that Dean has endorsed him it just adds fuel to the fire.

Just receive by mail from relative in states
James K. Glassman finds the furor over outsourcing dangerous, and notes that Senator Kerry, who has been front and center in expressing his outrage, has yet to mention one giant corporation that has no less than 57 overseas factories. That would be H.J. Heinz and Company, the Kerry family business. Glassman notes that "Heinz is making ketchup, pizza crust, baby cereal and other edibles in such countries as Poland, Venezuela, Botswana, China, Thailand and India." If Kerry were a Republican, the whole thing would be a national scandal by now.



"unless Kerry comes out forthrightly and serves notice on the terrorists that they have nothing to gain by his election, they will assume that they do, and the result could be a pre-election tragedy here that could dwarf what happened in Mad

In the interest of fairness ( pained as it is) most sources say that Kerry's wife's holdings in Heinz Co are miniscule and she has absolutely no voice in management. Guess she took the cash and split.

>In the interest of fairness ( pained as it is) most sources
>say that Kerry's wife's holdings in Heinz Co are miniscule and
>she has absolutely no voice in management. Guess she took the
>cash and split.

I give Heinz Co. more leeway because some of the raw ingredients are perishable. I don't fault Coca-Cola for offshore plants either. I haven't checked to see if any U.S. jobs have been lost due to the Heinz foreign plants.

Nightly Reader

John Kerry (along with the majority of Democrats in the Senate) supported the war on Afghanistan, the Patriot Act, the war on Iraq, and the "No Child Left Behind" education act. Kerry supported the Anti-Terrorist act and Clinton's gutting of the federal welfare system. As Marjorie Williams pointed out in the Washington Post recently, "Kerry voted for so many of Bush's major initiatives that in order to disown them now he can only argue that they were wrongly or dishonestly 'implemented.'

"This amounts to a confession that his opponent made a chump of him for the past three years. In fact, one might argue that Kerry is a poster boy for all the ways in which congressional Democrats have allowed themselves to be rolled by the Bush administration."

Kerry's criticisms of Bush are purely tactical, as was abundantly clear in a recent interview in Time magazine:

"Look, I'm prepared to take any action necessary to protect the country, and I'm prepared to act unilaterally if we have to," Kerry insists, noting that he backed the use of force in Grenada, Panama, Kosovo and Afghanistan. "But there is a way to do it that strengthens the hand of the United States. George Bush has weakened the hand of the United States." Kerry wants to send an additional 40,000 troops to Iraq, advocates a "muscular internationalism" and even refuses to rule out "preventive" wars.

J Fn K voted for the $86bn right before he voted against the $86bn.

He voted for an ammendment (which failed) to the aid bill that would have paid for the military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq by repealing the Bush-inspired tax cuts, and when said ammendment failed and he refused to vote for the bill.


Your posts are consistently becoming the equivalent of "France sucks, hurr" and "LOL, BUSH IZ DUMB, RIte guyz?"

Please don't check the Plain Text box when you post.

Shelly

>Please don't check the Plain Text box when you post.

Why do people do that?

It's easier to be understood if you speak in plain English.