FredF said:
Quite the contrary. I am not trying to smear on in any other way try to reduce the significance of serving and certainly not in that war. What I am pointing out however, is what was said and done after the war.
[post="170420"][/post]
No, Fred, what you are doing is repeating the discredited smears of others. Discredited by no less than John McCain and George Bush himself at that.
Recollections of events that never happened.
Specify. But, before you do read this:
Records Counter a Critic of Kerry
You might want to use sources OTHER than the Swift Boat Veterans For Bush since it appears their recollections are quite, shall we say, selective? Might have something to do with their funding...
The betrayal of those that served next to him after he was released from his service.
As I said before, if you are referring to Kerry's testimony regarding his Vietnam service you are wasting your breath. He earned his right to say what he thought, whether any of us agreed with it or not.
What I was pointing out, is that there are quite a number of references to events that never took place.
Again, specify.
It's curious that most of those who are attacking Kerry's record want to keep their own records secret. It's only due to that Liberal invention called the Freedom of Information Act that we might find the real truth.
This is a man, who that many years ago started a campaign to become president.
As opposed to a man who only decided to become president less than ten years ago after failing at every other endeavor he tried?
I understand fully that as events grow farther in history memories become blurred...
Then you understand little. Details may fade but the events are, for many, as fresh as an open wound.
...but this is a man that has used that service to apease the political wind of the day in his quest to become president.
It would seem that your main requirement for president is the ability to never change his mind on a subject even after the passage of many decades and access to additional information. What were George Bush's opinions on Vietnam in 1971? Other than the obvious conclusion to be drawn from his non-involvement that for him it was someone else's problem, I guess we'll never know.
He 'remembers' events that never happened, he claims credit for things he did not do or at the very least did not happen in the way he reported them to have happened.
Again, specify.
Be advised, however, that the after action reports that have surfaced so far bear out Kerry's version of events far more than they do the versions of those who would dispute his claims.
He is basing his whole campaing on those 4 1/2 months some 30 years ago.
Far from it, Fred. John Kerry has been campaigning on the issues for months. Oddly it is the Republicans, and their proxies, who seem to bring up Kerry's Vietnam service the most, although mostly in an attempt to discredit that service. After the smear campaigns they conducted against John McCain and Max Cleland, I doubt anyone is really surprised by that.
You are quick to call the President a lier ...
Wrong again, Fred. I have said that the George Bush and others of his administration misled the American people in their drive to war with Iraq.
...yet you seem to believe just about everything that Kerry says or that the media reports about both of them...
Again, Fred, you have no idea what I believe or how I arrive at those beliefs. For all you know I'm voting for Wesley Clark, Ralph Nader or even John McCain. (If I voted for McCain it wouldn't be the first time, did you know that?)
...yet there is more evidence that the President is and has been telling the truth...
Since he alters his story each time, which time was the truth? Where is the evidence, not mutually-supporting unverified statements posing as evidence, Fred, but actual evidence?
and Kerry at the very least has been remembering incorrectly.
Again, specify.
Do you not see the hypocracy here?
I'm a cynic and an airline employee, Fred. I see hypocrisy everywhere.
A perfect example: The unemployment rate is currently 0.1 % lower than when Clinton was running for re-election.
Actually, using the U.S Dept of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics information for July 2004 at:
BLS July 2004
and July 1996 at:
BLS July 1996
let us examine that statistic:
The current unemployment rate is 5.5 percent and the July 1996 rate was 5.4 percent so it is actually 0.1 percent higher now, not lower. Also, to continue the comparison there were 7.3 million unemployed in 1996 as opposed to 8.2 million in 2004. Also, the number of nonfarm jobs created, an indicator of growth, was 193,000 in July 1996 and 32,000 in 2004.
Do you still feel it's all the media's fault? The DOL works for Bush and Elaine Chen, its Secretary, was appointed by him.
Since we're on the subject of Labor, how about Bush's changes to the overtime laws which will remove 6 million people from eligibility for overtime pay while expanding 'automatic qualification' for overtime pay to 10 million people? Sounds good huh? The only catches are that those who were made eligible were already eligible but just not eligible for 'automatic qualification' and most of the jobs newly qualified are part-time jobs which will never qualify for overtime due to hours worked, while most of those removed were full-time positions that could and did qualify for overtime pay. No wonder it had overwhelming support from the National Association of Manufacturers and also the Fast Food industry. George is rolling the Labor laws back to the 1890s and you're worried about what happened on the Bay Hap River?
...(he actually said 'withdrawring')...
A Bush supporter is actually going to make fun of someone else's language skills? That's rich!!
(Does it bother anyone else as much as it bothers me that Bush pronounces "nuclear" as "Noo-Kew-Lur"? I know Carter did it too but it wasn't nearly as scary.)
I think Sentrido dealt very well with your misrepresentation of Kerry's words and I can't think of anything to add to his statement but a resounding, if non-Rush, "Ditto!".
( yes I actually asked that question even though I know the answer)
Another mistaken assumption, Fred. It might surprise you to know, however, that I disagree with Kerry's criticism of Bush's plan to withdraw our troops from overseas. Unfortunately it's not for the reason you might hope, but I guess you can't have everything. It is because I think it should have been done ten years ago. Maintaining an army of occupation to provide for the defense of our economic competitors has allowed them to concentrate their GDP on improving their ability to compete while drawing off resources we could have used to improve our own.
Luckily for me the Democratic party doesn't require blind acceptance of all their candidate's policies and views dissent as valuable, unlike the Republicans.
