New Thread, Bush / Kerry Debate to help all the dial up users.

I think this pretty much sums up this election for some people...

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

go nader!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 32 percent to go

nice cartoon by the way monstermark

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That poll is a total crock.
Take a look at Gallup, Fox, CNN, Los Angeles, etc. They all show Bush up on Kerry. I am concerned about the electoral college but I feel confident people still have 2 months to figure out who this Kerry guy really is.

what about nader? Come on now he still has a chance

what about nader? Come on now he still has a chance


Chance for what?

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ollienorth/on20040827.shtml

Bring it on, John
Oliver North (archive (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ollienorth/archive.shtml))



August 27, 2004 | http://www.townhall.com/images/icon_print.gif Print (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ollienorth/printon20040827.shtml) | http://www.townhall.com/images/icon_email.gif Send (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ollienorth/on20040827.shtml#)

http://www.townhall.com/graphics1/columnists/north.gif "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?

Trying to obtain purple hearts

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040825-085753-2062r.htm

Swift Boat crewman: Kerry boat took fire
Says Thurlow 'too distracted' to notice gunfire

The Associated Press
Updated: 1:40 a.m. ET Aug. 27, 2004


PORTLAND, Ore. - A Swift Boat crewman decorated in the 1969 Vietnam incident where John Kerry won a Bronze Star says not only did they come under enemy fire but also that his own boat commander, who has challenged the official account, was too distracted to notice the gunfire.

Retired Chief Petty Officer Robert E. Lambert, of Eagle Point, Ore., got a Bronze Star for pulling his boat commander — Lt. Larry Thurlow — out of the Bay Hap River on March 13, 1969. Thurlow had jumped onto another Swift Boat to aid sailors wounded by a mine explosion but fell off when the out-of-control boat ran aground.

Thurlow, who has been prominent among a group of veterans challenging the Democratic presidential candidate’s record, has said there was no enemy fire during the incident. Lambert, however, supports the Navy account that says all five Swift Boats in the task force “came under small arms and automatic weapon fire from the river banks” when the mine detonated.


“I thought we were under fire, I believed we were under fire,” Lambert said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press.

“Thurlow was far too distracted with rescue efforts to even realize he was under fire. He was concentrating on trying to save lives.”

The anti-Kerry group, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, has been running television ads challenging the Navy account of the boats being under fire. Kerry has condemned the ads as a Republican smear campaign.

'What happened happened'
A career military man, Lambert is no fan of Kerry’s either. He doesn’t like Kerry’s post-Vietnam anti-war activity and doesn’t plan to vote for him.

“I don’t like the man himself,” Lambert said, “but I think what happened happened, and he was there.”

A March 1969 Navy report located by The Associated Press this week supports Lambert’s version. The report twice mentions the incident and both times calls it “an enemy initiated firefight” that included automatic weapons fire and underwater mines used against a group of five boats that included Kerry’s.

Kerry’s Bronze Star was awarded for his pulling Special Forces Lt. Jim Rassmann, who had been blown off the boat, out of the river. Rassmann, who is retired and lives in Florence, Ore., has said repeatedly that the boats were under fire, as have other witnesses. Lambert didn’t see that rescue because Kerry was farther down the river and “I was busy pulling my own boat officer (Thurlow) out of the water.”

Thurlow could not be reached for comment about Lambert’s recollections.

But speaking for the Swift Boat Veterans group, Van Odell, who was in the task force that day, remembers it differently from Lambert.

“When they’re firing, you can hear the rounds hit the boat or buzz by your head. There was none of that,” he said in a telephone interview from Katy, Texas, where he lives.

On Thursday, the group released a 30-second Internet ad disputing Kerry’s contention that his Swift Boat crossed into Cambodia. Kerry’s campaign has acknowledged that he may not have been in Cambodia on Christmas Eve of 1968, as he has previously stated, but that he does recall being on patrol along the Cambodia-Vietnam border on that date.

Lambert said the Swift Boats were on their way out of the river when a mine exploded under one, PCF-3.

'Always a firefight'
“When they blew the 3-boat, everyone opened up on the banks with everything they had,” he said. “That was the normal procedure. When they came after you, they came after you. Somebody on shore blew that mine.”

“There was always a firefight” after a mine detonation, he said.

“Kerry was out in front of us, on down the river. He had to come back up the river to get to us.”

Lambert retired in 1978 as a chief petty officer with 22 years of service and three tours in Vietnam. He does not remember ever meeting Kerry.

Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5835000/

Trying to obtain purple hearts

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040825-085753-2062r.htm


Interesting article.

Interesting article.This pretty much sums up the argument I think.

http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200408270856.asp

August 27, 2004, 8:56 a.m.
The Dangerous Secret
...is what Kerry believes now, not what he did then.

With a real war going on right now in Iraq, why are we arguing about what happened 35 years ago in Vietnam? Here are two answers to that question:

1. Knowing President Bush has no positive achievements to run on, and desperate to prevent revelations under a Kerry presidency of the cooked intelligence and profiteering behind the disastrous Iraq war, the Republican attack machine has orchestrated a professional hit job on John Kerry's character and military record. The story of Kerry's wartime heroism puts the Vietnam-era cowardice of the president and vice president to shame. In doing so, the Kerry story exposes Bush's sham connection between "tough" foreign policy and patriotism. So to win the election, there was no choice for Bush but to destroy Kerry's reputation — by any means necessary.

2. Knowing that a post-9/11 America will never elect a president with his McGovernite views, John Kerry has deliberately obfuscated his beliefs on war and foreign policy (as he obfuscates nearly all his liberal views). To distract from his dovish Senate voting record and its origins in his radical antiwar activism, Kerry organized the Democratic convention around his Vietnam exploits. Kerry's fellow veterans had been stewing for years over the fact that he'd thrown away his medals and built a political career by accusing them of atrocities. The thought that Kerry might now become president by actually bragging about his medals, and his plucky band of brothers, was too much for them to take. With the help of the blogosphere, these vets are now forcing the truth about John Kerry's dovish views onto a liberal media that would rather change the subject.

The outcome of this election may have much to do with which of these two explanations Americans judge to be closer to the truth. I vote for number two. And it's the last bit — about Kerry's dovish foreign-policy views — that really counts. Up until now, both sides in this battle have treated the dispute over Kerry's war record as a question of personal character. And that it is. But the issue here goes far beyond character: The Swift-boat battle is a surrogate for the honest debate about war and foreign policy that John Kerry has so far avoided.

If Kerry had said the war in Iraq was a mistake — that he'd been misled by faulty intelligence into casting a misguided vote for force — this country would now be having a serious discussion about the issue that truly divides us. Nearly all the delegates to the Democratic Convention opposed the war in Iraq; it was almost comical to see them applauding Kerry's show of military bravado. Yet their enthusiasm was only partly feigned: What excited the delegates was the idea that they'd found a dove like themselves who could nonetheless turn aside accusations of lack of patriotism or weakness on defense.

The truth, however, will out. Kerry knew perfectly well that the country as a whole was not on board with his views — or his party's views — on war and foreign policy. So he used his Swift-boat story to send a symbolic message that would appeal in different ways to different constituencies. To the country as a whole, the Swift-boat show would say that Kerry was not just another Democratic foreign-policy wimp. But to the party base — which knew Kerry's history — the Swift-boat story said something else. When Kerry promised he'd apply the lessons he'd learned in Vietnam combat to the war on terror, the Democratic delegates understood exactly what lessons he was talking about.

After all, Kerry had been speaking for years about the lessons of Vietnam. That's what the Cambodia controversy is really about. Kerry's claim that Christmas in Cambodia was seared into his memory was made as part of a Senate speech in opposition to aid to the Nicaraguan contras. Just as President Nixon had denied that the war would expand to Cambodia, said Kerry, President Reagan was lying about the dangers of escalation in Nicaragua. Kerry knew, because he'd been in Cambodia at the very moment Nixon had denied our involvement.

So Kerry's Cambodia story tells us something important about his foreign policy views — regardless of whether he actually spent Christmas there. The Cambodia story has always been treated by Kerry as a defining moment in his life — a moment that connects the lessons of Vietnam to the foreign-policy views of a mature Senator. The Cambodia story was the ultimate symbol of everything from Kerry's opposition to military weapons systems, to his vote against aid to the contras, to his vote against the first Iraq war.

Let's say Kerry's Cambodia story is true. Some might argue that we should be very cautious about using the Vietnam experience as a template for other, different foreign-policy challenges. Others might say the real lesson of Kerry's story is that the United States should never allow its soldiers to be attacked with impunity from behind another country's border. That we should openly take a war wherever it has to go in order to protect our soldiers and win. That we sometimes have no choice but to launch covert attacks on enemies who hide behind a non-combatant state. Of course, with al Qaeda hiding in Pakistan — and a raft of other states that find it difficult to openly admit American troops — we face a similar problem today.

It matters a great deal to know that John Kerry's political life has been thoroughly shaped by his dovish response to attacks on American troops from an enemy hiding in a formally non-combatant country. And it's all the more striking to think that Kerry might have invented or exaggerated his story — even turning it into the central symbol of his political career — just to make his peacenik point. If the American people were to come to understand how deeply Kerry's Vietnam experience has shaped his mature politics, I don't believe they would want him to be commander-in-chief in a post-9/11 world.

But is it fair to take a candidate's views on Vietnam as a surrogate for his views on the war on terror? In this case, it is. Consider Paul Krugman's op-ed in Tuesday's New York Times. The view I presented at the beginning of this piece — option 1 — was Krugman's: After laying into the Bush administration, he goes on to praise Kerry for heroically telling the truth about the supposedly pervasive viciousness and criminality of his fellow soldiers. As far as Krugman is concerned, Abu Ghraib shows that the atrocities of Vietnam are repeating themselves in Iraq. In fact, Krugman's whole point is that Iraq is a replay of Vietnam — "a war sold on false pretenses that creates more enemies than it kills." And Krugman's views are not unusual.

It's certainly possible to believe that Vietnam and Iraq are very different wars. But the fact of the matter is that a huge chunk of the Democratic base opposes the war in Iraq because it sees Iraq as a repeat of Vietnam. And until he started hiding his views behind a smokescreen of incoherent pronouncements and military symbolism, John Kerry also saw American foreign policy — as did his dovish Democratic brethren — through the lens of anti-Vietnam radicalism. Having recently done everything in his power to disguise this fact, Kerry's symbolic machinations have backfired, bringing into the open the very truth they were meant to suppress.

The mainstream media do not want to talk about the connection between John Kerry's Vietnam experience and his views on war and foreign policy. They would prefer to keep the focus on Kerry's war-hero record, and off Kerry's testimony about the supposed viciousness and criminality of his fellow soldiers — and of American foreign policy in general. Yet this is what has enraged the Swift-boat veterans; this is what much of their book takes up; and this is what their second advertisement has singled out. The mainstream media know that if the American people were to truly understand how Kerry's Vietnam experience shaped his views, and what he said and did to protest that war, they would not want him as commander-in-chief. That — and not the details of Kerry's wounds or travels — is the real secret that threatens to be exposed by the Swift-boat controversy.

Of course, the specific accusations that John Kerry has lied about his service in Vietnam have to be addressed. The Cambodia story, for one, seems mistaken. No doubt Kerry was near Cambodia on Christmas Eve; he might even have been shot at by South Vietnamese when in the vicinity of Cambodia. But his story does depend on actually having been in Cambodia, and he seems not to have been there. What's telling is the lack of support from even his friendly crewmates, and Kerry's own prevarications. The Washington Post (no friend of Kerry's critics) has called Kerry's conflicting statements on the Cambodia mission troubling. Given all this, I don't see how the accusations of Kerry's critics can be dismissed as a smear. Most of the evidence on one important issue is already in their favor.

I do find it hard to begrudge Senator Kerry his wounds and his medals. He may have thrown them away (or have done so symbolically, using someone else's medals). Yet Kerry was in Vietnam and in harm's way. Did he deserve every medal he got there? I care about that a great deal less than I care about how Kerry's Vietnam experience shaped his later life and views. But having been demeaned and dishonored by Kerry, some of his fellow veterans obviously feel differently. That is more than understandable.

The editorial page of the Washington Post has called for Kerry to release his military records and wartime journals. This would seem to be the right thing to do, and may help to clear things up. It is Senator Kerry's right to withhold those records; if he had not already chosen to show his biographer, Douglas Brinkley, his journals, I would say that Kerry's privacy should be respected, despite the accusations. But having chosen to use his private journals for a campaign biography, it's tough now to keep them from the public, given the fact that Kerry's account has come into question. And of course, it was Kerry who chose to highlight his wartime past in the first place.

The Swift-boat controversy is not an ancient molehill turned into a mountain. It's how we're stumbling toward a debate that the Democrats don't want to have — but that everyone knows exists anyway. The real issue here is Kerry's views on war and foreign policy. Kerry is a McGovernite — a long-time member in good standing of his party's dovish wing. Kerry has hidden that fact, but now the truth is slipping out. When Kerry tried to transform his original radicalism into a hawkish parable, those who knew him better rebelled. The ensuing mess has forced the story of who John Kerry is, and always has been, into the public's focus. Whatever secrets his journals and military files may hold, the secret of John Kerry's actual views on war and foreign policy is the more dangerous one — for him, and for us.

Written By: Stanley Kurtz

Kerry was on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart the other day and he seemed to be doing a little pre-emptive damage control for the upcoming elections. Stewart set him up with an insult of Bush that was veiled as a question. Stewart was imitating Bush in a debate and said something like "Kerry loves Castro, but I love America", or something like that. Then he asked Kerry: "How do you think you will ever be able to have an honest discussion?" Now I know that Stewart is a liberal Democrat, and I don't mean that in an insulting manner. But to be so blatant about it; to basically be saying "vote for Kerry, the good guy, and not Bush, the liar" on a show that SHOULD be non-biased. ANYWAY, after Stewart asked the question, Kerry proceeded to say that Bush has won every debate he has ever been in and that keeping it honest would be a challenge.

If this is how Kerry handles a shotgun, God forbid we let him have his finger on the nuclear button.

Let's see. Pointing the gun straight ahead. Finger on trigger. Not looking where he is pointing. All somebody needs to do is clap their hands and somebody is getting a purple heart.

And if he didn't get you the first time, he could always finish you off with an RPG. LOL.

Lastly, notice how he holds the gun as he poised to shoot. No wonder he says he used 50 caliber guns to shoot people. He needed all the help he could get.

That's funny Bryan! I just realized that Kerry looks like the cowardly lion in that top photo.

Piece by Piece, Brick by Brick, the wall is coming down.


Swift boat interview Robert Novak August 27, 2004

NEW YORK -- Retired Rear Adm. William L. Schachte Jr. said Thursday in his first on-the-record interview about the Swift boat veterans dispute that "I was absolutely in the skimmer" in the early morning on Dec. 2, 1968, when Lt. (j.g.) John Kerry was involved in an incident which led to his first Purple Heart.

"Kerry nicked himself with a M-79 (grenade launcher)," Schachte said in a telephone interview from his home in Charleston, S.C. He said, "Kerry requested a Purple Heart."

Schachte, who also was then a lieutenant junior grade, said he was in command of the small Boston whaler or skimmer, with Kerry aboard in his first combat mission in the Vietnam War. The third crew member was an enlisted man whose name Schachte did not remember.

Two enlisted men who appeared at the podium with Sen. Kerry at the Democratic National Convention in Boston have asserted that they were alone in the small boat with Kerry, with no other officer present. Schachte said it "was not possible" for Kerry to have gone out alone so soon after joining the Swift boat command in late November of 1968.

Kerry supporters say that no critics of the Democratic presidential candidate ever were aboard a boat with him in combat. Washington lawyer Lanny Davis has contended that Schachte was not aboard the Boston whaler, and the statement in "Unfit for Command" that he was aboard undermines that critical book's credibility.

Schachte until now has refused to speak out publicly on this question and agreed to give only two interviews. One was a television interview with Lisa Myers of NBC News. The second was a print interview with me.

Schachte described the use of the skimmer operating very close to shore as a technique that he personally designed to flush enemy forces on the banks of Mekong River so that the larger Swift boats could move in. At about 3 a.m. on Dec. 2, Schachte said, the skimmer -- code-named "Batman" -- fired a hand-held flare. He said that after Kerry's M-16 rifle jammed, the new officer picked up the M-79 and "I heard a 'thunk.' There was no fire from the enemy," he said.

Patrick Runyon and William Zaladonis are the two enlisted men who said they were aboard the skimmer and did not know Schachte. However, two other former officers interviewed Thursday confirmed that Schachte was the originator of the technique and always was aboard the Boston whaler for these missions.

Grant Hibbard, who as a lieutenant commander was Schachte's superior officer, confirmed that Schachte always went on these skimmer missions and "I don't think he (Kerry) was alone" on his first assignment. Hibbard said he had told Kerry to "forget it" when he asked for a Purple Heart.

Ted Peck, another Swift boat commander, said, "I remember Bill (Schachte) telling me it didn't happen" -- that is, Kerry getting an enemy-inflicted wound. He said it would be "impossible" for Kerry to have been in the skimmer without Schachte.

"I was astonished by Kerry's version" (in his book, "Tour of Duty") of what happened Dec. 2, Schachte said Thursday. When asked to support the Kerry critics in the Swift boat controversy, Schachte said, "I didn't want to get involved." But he said he gradually began to change his mind when he saw his own involvement and credibility challenged, starting with Lanny Davis on CNN's "Crossfire" Aug. 12.

The next time he saw Kerry after the first Purple Heart incident, Schachte said, was "about 20 years" later on the U.S. Senate subway in the basement of the Russell Senate Office Building. "I called, 'Hey, John.' He replied, 'Batman.' I was absolutely amazed by his memory." He said they "talked about having lunch" but never did.

Schachte said he has never been contacted by or talked to anybody in the Bush-Cheney campaign or any Republican organization. He said he is a political independent who has voted for candidates of both parties.

Bryan "Monster Mark".......you rock, dude!

If you aren't a journalist and/or writing OP-EDs aren't in your current job description, it should be. :yourock:

Bryan "Monster Mark".......you rock, dude!

If you aren't a journalist and/or writing OP-EDs aren't in your current job description, it should be. :yourock:
Thanks. But for me it is all about the fact the I view Kerry as very dangerous and the absolute wrong person to be at the helm of our country at this time. If the Dems had nominated someone else, we could be having a whole different discussion on the merits.

Helm, you must be a fellow star trek fan. I prefer next generation. keep the information coming. If all the lies are true, i hope they come out before the election. It seems as though that is exactly what is happening. But, as always im still not buying. I think along with a lot of these guys here im waiting for the debate.

Then i can decide between kerry or nader, LOL, just kidding. All three are still possible.

Well - since we have to focus on stuff that happened or didnt happen 20+ year ago - how about this: 1976 (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/bushdmv1.html)

That is so weak I won't even comment.

Plot thickens after checking records

August 27, 2004

BY THOMAS LIPSCOMB

Advertisement







In the midst of the controversy between the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and Kerry campaign representatives about Kerry's service in Vietnam, new questions have arisen.

The Kerry campaign has repeatedly stated that the official naval records prove the truth of Kerry's assertions about his service.

But the official records on Kerry's Web site only add to the confusion. The DD214 form, an official Defense Department document summarizing Kerry's military career posted on johnkerry.com, includes a "Silver Star with combat V."

But according to a U.S. Navy spokesman, "Kerry's record is incorrect. The Navy has never issued a 'combat V' to anyone for a Silver Star."

Naval regulations do not allow for the use of a "combat V" for the Silver Star, the third-highest decoration the Navy awards. None of the other services has ever granted a Silver Star "combat V," either.

Fake claims not uncommon

B.G. Burkett, a Vietnam veteran himself, received the highest award the Army gives to a civilian, the Distinguished Civilian Service Award, for his book Stolen Valor. Burkett pored through thousands of military service records, uncovering phony claims of awards and fake claims of military service. "I've run across several claims for Silver Stars with combat V's, but they were all in fake records," he said.

Burkett recently filed a complaint that led last month to the sentencing of Navy Capt. Roger D. Edwards to 115 days in the brig for falsification of his records.

Kerry's Web site also lists two different citations for the Silver Star. One was issued by the commander in chief of the Pacific Command (CINCPAC), Adm. John Hyland. The other, issued by Secretary of the Navy John Lehman during the Reagan administration, contained some revisions and additional language. "By his brave actions, bold initiative, and unwavering devotion to duty, Lieutenant (j.g.) Kerry reflected great credit upon himself... ."

One award, three citations

But a third citation exists that appears to be the earliest. And it is not on the Kerry campaign Web site. It was issued by Vice Adm. Elmo Zumwalt, commander of U.S. naval forces in Vietnam. This citation lacks the language in the Hyland citation or that added by the Lehman version, but includes another 170 words in a detailed description of Kerry's attack on a Viet Cong ambush, his killing of an enemy soldier carrying a loaded rocket launcher, as well as military equipment captured and a body count of dead enemy.

Maj. Anthony Milavic, a retired Marine Vietnam veteran, calls the issuance of three citations for the same medal "bizarre." Milavic hosts Milinet, an Internet forum popular with the military community that is intended "to provide a forum in military/political affairs."

Normally in the case of a lost citation, Milavec points out, the awardee simply asked for a copy to be sent to him from his service personnel records office where it remains on file. "I have never heard of multi-citations from three different people for the same medal award," he said. Nor has Burkett: "It is even stranger to have three different descriptions of the awardee's conduct in the citations for the same award."

So far, there are also two varying citations for Kerry's Bronze Star, one by Zumwalt and the other by Lehman as secretary of the Navy, both posted on johnkerry.com.

Kerry's Web site also carries a DD215 form revising his DD214, issued March 12, 2001, which adds four bronze campaign stars to his Vietnam service medal. The campaign stars are issued for participation in any of the 17 Department of Defense named campaigns that extended from 1962 to the cease-fire in 1973.

However, according to the Navy spokesman, Kerry should only have two campaign stars: one for "Counteroffensive, Phase VI," and one for "Tet69, Counteroffensive."

94 pages of records unreleased?
Reporting by the Washington Post's Michael Dobbs points out that although the Kerry campaign insists that it has released Kerry's full military records, the Post was only able to get six pages of records under its Freedom of Information Act request out of the "at least a hundred pages" a Naval Personnel Office spokesman called the "full file."

What could that more than 100 pages contain? Questions have been raised about President Bush's drill attendance in the reserves, but Bush received his honorable discharge on schedule. Kerry, who should have been discharged from the Navy about the same time -- July 1, 1972 -- wasn't given the discharge he has on his campaign Web site until July 13, 1978. What delayed the discharge for six years? This raises serious questions about Kerry's performance while in the reserves that are far more potentially damaging than those raised against Bush.

Experts point out that even the official military records get screwed up. Milavic is trying to get mistakes in his own DD214 file corrected. In his opinion, "these entries are not prima facie evidence of lying or unethical behavior on the part of Kerry or anyone else with screwed-up DD214s."

Burkett, who has spent years working with the FBI, Department of Justice and all of the military services uncovering fraudulent files in the official records, is less charitable: "The multiple citations and variations in the official record are reason for suspicion in itself, even disregarding the current swift boat veterans' controversy."

Thomas Lipscomb is chairman of the Center for the Digital Future in New York.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-lips27.html

UhOh. Kerrys got some splainin to do. Oh Lucy!



Formal Complaint Filed Over Senator’s Vietnam Awards, Post-Service Activities
(Washington, D.C.) – Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today filed a request with the U.S. Navy and the Defense Department for an investigation into the awards granted to Sen. John Kerry during his service with the U.S. Navy in Vietnam. Judicial Watch also requested that military authorities investigate Kerry’s anti-war activities, including his meeting with North Vietnamese and Viet Cong delegations in Paris, while a member of the Naval Reserve.

Basing its requests on a recently published book, Unfit for Command, by former Navy officer John E. O’Neill and Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D, and on news media interviews of other officers and sailors who served with Kerry, Judicial Watch notes that unresolved allegations against Kerry include: false official reports and statements; dishonorable conduct; aiding the enemy; dereliction of duty; misuse and abuse of U.S. government equipment and property; war crimes; and multiple violations of U.S. Navy regulations and directives, the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the U.S. Code.

Kerry was awarded three Purple Hearts, a Silver Star and a Bronze Star for “wounds” received and actions in Vietnam, but eyewitnesses refute his version of a number of the events that were the basis for receiving the commendations. Judicial Watch is asking the Department of Defense and the U.S. Navy, including its Department Board of Decorations and Medals, to look into the circumstances surrounding Kerry’s awards.

Judicial Watch also is requesting an investigation of Kerry’s anti-war activities. After he was released from active duty but while he was a commissioned officer in the inactive Naval Reserve, Kerry joined the anti-war group Vietnam Veterans Against the War and traveled to Paris to meet with delegations from North Vietnam and the Communist Viet Cong. He held a press conference in Washington, D.C., following the meeting and advocated the “peace proposal,” which included war damage reparations, put forth by the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong.

“The allegations concerning Kerry’s conduct during the Vietnam War are credible, serious and shocking,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The sooner an investigation begins, the better.”

Hey Joey, Got a question for ya.

It seems like the arguments brought forth to support Kerry on these issues is that the Navy documents support his position. Duh, he wrote them has been my response.

So here's the question. Take some time to ponder.

On Kerry's 1st Purple Heart, he claims to have been the officer in charge (OIC) of a late night expedition (very dangerous) when he just got into Nam. Aside from the fact that he would have NEVER been allowed to go out on his own, (let's forget that fact), he claims he was fired upon and was wounded returning fire, blah, blah, blah.

WHERE IS THE AFTER-ACTION REPORT THAT IS REQUIRED OF ALL HOSTILE ENEMY ACTIVTIES? KERRY WAS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE ONE. WHERE IS IT? Or is it more like Rear-Admiral Schaertle has stated that he was the OIC and there was no enemy fire, therefore he didn't file a report.

Well, which is it and where is it?

I dont know -- I was at home enjoying my Gerbers when this happened :)

My only point is, its all conjecture against kerry. Now, he may very well be FOS - but the FACTS havent proven that so far.

We have the word of some vets about stuff that happened a long time ago, whereas they havent said anything up til now, and in some cases there is conflicting paperwork from then with some of these guys' signatures on it.

Thats the whole case as I see it. The fact that NONE of them has said anything up to this point bothers me. Partly because if they are so honorable, why would they all stand by all these years and let the allegedly bogus medals stand? Your answer is gonna be what Kerry said in 1971..... Ok, what if he sid nothing in '71? WOuld these guys be ok with kerry then and not have come forward? What does that say for these guys' integrity?

They didn't say anything because John Kerry was never about to be Commander in Chief of the most powerful army in the world.

I would rather the Kerry supporters use the argument that the Swift Boat people are just jealous. That would make more sense.

The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are trying to prevent a guy from assuming a position of power that they believe he is totally incompetent to occupy. I have to agree with them.

Everything in Kerry's past points to a disaster waiting to happen if he is elected. Terrorists will know they have a free rein to hit first as we ask questions second. The Communists will know Kerry doesn't have the backbone to confront them and take them on and they, along with many Islamic groups will make moves to strengthen their positions.

Look, Kerry tried with 4-5 deferments, to get out of serving. When he knew that he was about to be drafted, he 'volunteered' for the Navy on a nice safe boat out in the ocean. When he saw that Swift Boats were cool and safe, he signed up for that. He whined like a baby when the swift boats roles changed. Then he looked for the easiest way out by 'claiming' 3 purple hearts. He wrote himself glowing reports, shat on his fellow officers in after-action reports, filed false claims to be granted medals, photographed himself for posterity's sake (even setting up scenes like a movie producer), and then took the first boat out of Nam.

What did he do when he got back? Provided aid and comfort to the enemy. Again shat on his fellow officers and soldiers. Why? To further his own personal agenda. He is a traitor to his country and should be in jail. He should be stripped of his medals and should be forced to resign from the Senate, in which he occupies a position that is illegal to be held (read the Constitution) by an individual with his criminal record.

I have read Kerry's 1st book, and the swift boat book. I am trying to get a copy of his "Tour of Duty' fiction book.

I strongly dislike this guy. I hate everything he stands for. Although I am a Bush supporter, I would take anybody, even Ross Perot, Al Gore, hell , even Michael Dukakis over this John Fonda Kerry fellow.

I am sorry if I offend some of you with my views but I am even more offended that many in this country blindly support a guy simply because of his party affiliation. People are simply too damn stupid to think on their own. I am sick of it.

The only reason Kerry is still standing is because of the overwhelming liberal media viewpoint in the MSM. I am taking comfort that when all the truths finally come out, the Main Stream Media will have finally been exposed for the phony panderers they all are.

Peace and love to all. I am not angry, just disappointed that people are still drinking the Kerry Koolaid.

I am sorry if I offend some of you with my views but I am even more offended that many in this country blindly support a guy simply because of his party affiliation. People are simply too damn stupid to think on their own. I am sick of it.

Peace and love to all. I am not angry, just disappointed that people are still drinking the Kerry Koolaid.


No offense taken Bryan --- thats the point of this foprum, express your views BUT be friends at the end of the day. Hence, my sig.......

And ---- As you know, im not drinking Kerry Kool Aid --- This is an overall tight election, split basically 50/50.........







:soapbox:

What's a political forum for if not to express our personal views? There's always going to be two sides, and sometimes more. As long as we're civil and ready for the repercussions of what we post, it's pretty fun. Heck, sometimes it's fun even when we aren't civil :bash: . But at the end of the day, hopefully we all perceive each other as friends through this wonderful electronic medium. Even my wife is a democrat, LOL. There's a lot more debate coming with the Republican National Convention next week and the presidential debates (probably in October). I'm not much of a "digger" like some are. I prefer to analyze what's posted. And I've been doing a lot of analyzing here lately.

The USS JFK.

Ooops. Just got a copy of his resume. Looks good.

JOHN KERRY RESUME 08.12.04

My name is John Kerry and I would like to report for duty. Here is my resume for your review.

(We've never had an ethics problem with two Democratic lawyers in the Whitehouse before - why worry now?)

NAME: John F. Kerry

RESIDENCE: 7 mansions, including Washington, DC, all worth multimillions.

EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE:

Law Enforcement. I voted to cut every law enforcement, CIA and defense bill in my career as a US Senator. (Source: Congressional Record) I ordered Boston to remove a fire hydrant which I considered unsightly, in front of my mansion, thereby endangering my neighbors in the event of fire. (Source: Boston Globe)

MILITARY:

I used three minor injuries to get an early discharge from the military and served four months in Vietnam (as documented by the attending doctor). I then returned to the US, joined Jane Fonda in protesting the war, and insulted returning Vietnam vets, claiming that I and they committed atrocities and were baby killers. I threw my medals, ribbons, or something away in protest. Of course I did not report these atrocities when they happened nor did I try to stop them. (Source: My book; Vietnam Veterans Against the War: The New Soldier shows how I truly feel about the military. I deplore the military!)

COLLEGE:

I graduated from Yale University with a low C average. (Source: Registrar @ Yale University and many national news media) Unlike my counterpart George Bush, I did not get admitted to Harvard nor graduate with an M.B.A

PAST WORK EXPERIENCE:

I was Lietenant Governor under Michael Dukakis and I ran George McGovern's campaign. I ran for U.S. Congress and have been there ever since. I have no real world experience except that of a gigolo, by marrying rich women and running HJ Heinz vicariously through my wife Teresa. (Source: Every major news media)

ACCOMPLISHMENTS:

Name one!

But, as a US Senator I set the record for the most liberal voting record, exceeding even Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton. I have consistently failed to support our military and CIA by voting against budgets, thus gutting our country's ability ! to defend itself. Although I voted for the Iraq War, now I am against it and refuse to admit that I voted for it. I voted for every liberal piece of legislation.(Source: Congressional Record) I have no plan (well, I have a plan but it's a secret) to help this country but I intend to raise taxes significantly if I am elected. (Source: Every major news media, based on what he has promised.)

My wealth so far exceeds that of my counterpart, George Bush, that he will never catch up. I make no or little charitable contributions and have never agreed to pay any voluntary excess taxes in MA, despite family wealth in excess of $700 million. (Source: Campaign Disclosure Act)

I (we) own 28 manufacturing plants (Heinz) outside of the U.S. in places like Asia, Mexico and Europe.(Source: US News and World Report, Time) We can make more profit from the cheaper cost of labor in those Countries, although I like to blame George Bush for sending all of the jobs out of the US.

I claim to be in favor of alternative energy sources, while! Ted Kennedy and I oppose windmills off Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard as it might spoil our view of the ocean as we cruise on our yachts. (Source: Boston Globe)

RECORDS AND REFERENCES:

Name one thing that I have done in my 20+ years in Congress that is noteworthy PERSONAL I ride a Serotta Bike.* My Gulfstream V Jet, I call The Flying Squirrel.* I call my $850,000 42-foot Hinckley twin diesel yacht! The "Scarmouche." * I am fascinated by rap and hip-hop and feel it reflects our real culture. (Source: Time)

I own several "Large" SUVs including one parked at my Nantucket summer mansion, though I am against large polluting inefficient vehicles and blame George Bush for the energy problems. I also own an Audi but I told the auto workers union I only buy US made vehicles. (Source: Time )

PLEASE CONSIDER MY EXPERIENCE WHEN VOTING IN 2004

Kerry's call sign while in Nam... Boston Strangler. At least he got the initials right. BShttp://www.lincolnvscadillac.com//images/icons/icon11.gif And if you don't know who this serial killer is, here is an excerpt. I am so glad Kerry picked positive role models to emulate.

Written by Tenna Perry
"During a nineteen-month reign of terror, the serial killer known as the Boston Strangler murdered 13 women ranging in ages between nineteen and eighty.

It began on Thursday, June 14, 1962 with the murder of 55-year-old Anna Slesers in an apartment at 77 Gainsborough Street in Boston, Massachusetts. Annas son Juris Slesers arrived at the apartment about 7 pm and became concerned after repeated attempts of knocking on the door elicited no response from his mother. Juris entered the apartment by knocking down the door at which time he discovered his mothers body in her bathroom wearing a housecoat that had been left open, leaving her naked from the shoulders down. The murderer had strangled Mrs. Slesers with the belt of her own housecoat, then tied it around her neck in the shape of a bow. "

Hey Bryan,

At 2:17 August 29th I was just getting home LOL.

Ah, I am so glad that 50% of our population wants a war criminal to run our great country. Thanks guys.

(Audiotape, April 18, 1971):

MR. CROSBY NOYES (Washington Evening Star): Mr. Kerry, you said at one time or another that you think our policies in Vietnam are tantamount to genocide and that the responsibility lies at all chains of command over there. Do you consider that you personally as a Naval officer committed atrocities in Vietnam or crimes punishable by law in this country?

SEN. KERRY: There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre 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 is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminal s.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who's to blame for nation's Vietnam wounds? Kerry

August 29, 2004

BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

"In his testimony to Congress in 1971, Kerry asserted a scale of routine war crimes unparalleled in American history -- his ''band of brothers'' (as he now calls them) ''personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads . . . razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan.'' Almost all these claims were unsupported. Indeed, the only specific example of a U.S. war criminal that Kerry gave was himself." (see above quote).

When I read that last line, it was Fruity Pebbles on the keyboard time.

Kerry honored at communist museum. Hello!!! Now why would that be?



ELECTION 2004
Kerry honored at communist museum
Photograph hangs in section devoted to war protesters

Posted: June 1, 2004
12:14 p.m. Eastern






© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

A Ho Chi Minh City museum that honors Vietnam war protesters features a photograph of Sen. John Kerry being greeted by the general secretary of the Communist Party, Comrade Do Muoi.

A snapshot of the display in the Vietnamese Communist War Remnants Museum – formerly known as the "War Crimes Museum" – was acquired over the weekend by Jeffrey M. Epstein of Vietnam Vets for the Truth (http://kerrylied.com/), a group opposing Kerry's campaign for the presidency.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images2/kerrymuseum1.jpg
Vietnam veteran Bill Lupetti took this photograph of a display at a Ho Chi Minh City museum honoring war protesters.A spokesman with Kerry's national campaign did not return a call from WND seeking comment.

Dude, if Kerry makes the presidency i think we will see monstermark with a bandana and a belt of bullets going for the white house to handle some business. LOL j/k

I will tell you one thing that kinda bothers me, when bush is asked about kerrys ads, he supports kerry. Thats great, but then he goes on to lay it on kinda thick. It seems a bit unimportant but that kinda bothers me. He recognizes kerry's service as long as someone else is condemning it.

Beyond that i think all this swift boat talk makes a nice diversion to avoid issues. It seems that we are election a face and not a leader. I have never heard bush talk about health care and jobs, but he sputtered it out in ohio: were back on track. 3.8 percent improvement in the economy, sounds like a broad average, how about some labor bureau statistics, etc.

I guess i can tell that all of his messages that he is giving to me are pretty much written by someone else. If i want an actor that will read what he is given i think i will vote for the local newscaster. How bout that sellout bill bonds.

"I will tell you one thing that kinda bothers me, when bush is asked about kerrys ads, he supports kerry. Thats great, but then he goes on to lay it on kinda thick. It seems a bit unimportant but that kinda bothers me. He recognizes kerry's service as long as someone else is condemning it."

Bush is going to be criticized no matter how he responds. He'll be either not supportive enough of Kerry's service record which will be interpretted by Bush-haters as an approval of the anti-Kerry ads. Or he's too supportive, which will be interpretted through reverse-psychology by Bush-haters as an approval of the anti-Kerry ads. Pick your poison.

"I guess i can tell that all of his messages that he is giving to me are pretty much written by someone else. If i want an actor that will read what he is given i think i will vote for the local newscaster."

He's using statistics that are compiled by someone else. And so does everyone else. All candidates have speech writers, too. All candidates have strategists that tell them what to stress and what to avoid and where to go, etc., etc. Kerry is just better at fooling some about it I guess.