SwiftVets.com

sparky · Former Member Joined: 06 May 2004 Posts: 546

"I wonder if you people felt this strongly about Clinton's draft dodging?"

Respectable and honorable activities:

Protesting a war you conclude is immoral (Clinton, Kerry)
Fighting in a war you believe to be moral (Kerry, McCain, Hagel)

Ignoble and despicable activities:
Avoiding a war you think others should fight (All prominent Republicans except the two above)

Here's a good list showing what hypocrites most GOP leaders are:

http://www.awolbush.com/whoserved.html

Greenhat · LCDR Joined: 09 May 2004 Posts: 405

Greenhat · LCDR Joined: 09 May 2004 Posts: 405

sparky · Former Member Joined: 06 May 2004 Posts: 546

I didn't realize that Benedict Arnold was a protester! Did the loyalists lobby, march and carry signs back then?

95 bxl · Seaman Joined: 07 May 2004 Posts: 179

sparky · Former Member Joined: 06 May 2004 Posts: 546

Right. I supported Clinton following his conscience. We'll just have to agree to disagree as to which was more honorable: fighting in an immoral war or protesting it.

But when it comes to hypocrisy and complete cowardice, ducking out of a war you support beats it all. Bush seened to consider the situation ethical for him to stay home and let others do the fighting. Different people, different situations, different ethics.

Greenhat · LCDR Joined: 09 May 2004 Posts: 405

Jeremy Eaton · Seaman Apprentice Joined: 08 May 2004 Posts: 90

boatsturley · Posted: Thu May 13, 2004 7:58 am Post subject:

This "Kerry says he resigned from the VVAW right after the Kansas City metting" is false. Kerry also claims he resigned in December of 1971...then he says he forgets. This guy keeps records and journals like you wouldn't believe. He doesn't forget anything unless it suits him to. Furthermore he was still affiliated and spokesman for the VVAW through April 22, 1972. That is a matter of record which the left press doesn't want to reveal. Every since this campaign started and we began debunking this Pretender his website has been altered, claims and records disappearing and bacik-pedalling on various admissions, statements and records of his testimony. He would have us believe that he wasn't an officer in the Navy Reserves at the time he was meeting with enemy delegations in France in 1970, but records released [before he got them altered] show that he was still a sworn officer in the Navy Reserves until his discharge in 1978. He wasn't a LT in 1970, he was a Junior Grade LT. He was promoted in the reserves several years later, before his discharge. Want a copy of the 1986 release? Just e-mail me and I'll send you a copy, which includes the duration of time he has conveniently removed from his website. Look up the 14th Amendment section 3 with this information and figure for yourself if this guy should even be a Senator. Read the part about "sworn officer of the United States..." carefully. I've argued harder cases in court and won, and I was only a citizen's advocate. If you go through his career and public statements he has often increminated himself. If you want some really disgusting prrof of his contributions to the communist cause in Vietnam and elsewhere just do some research of the communist DAILY WORLD during his anti-American activities. As for the Kansas City meeting and his not reporting it to authorities, he was a sworn officer of the United States Navy and duty bound to report it. That he did not is grounds for criminal charges for capricious acts against the United States of America. There are no cracks for him to crawl into or ways to hide his activities. He is only a war hero in his own mind. Go see who's names appear on the Swift Boat in the Museum in DC...only Kerry's and Sander's appear. On our Memorial Boat in San Diego our KIAs are listed. Some served our Country, a few served themselves. And I don't know any other Swiftie who has 35MM film of himself running through the jungle in full battle garb. [obviously staged for future political campaigns] He wears a bomber jacket. Hell, it was 100 degrees and blazing or pouring rain. Most Swifties I know wore as little as possible, donning flac-jackets & helmets under fire and little else. Not much protection the rest of the uniform. And only if the boat was disabled would it be beached amidst a firefight. HanoiJohn "The Pretender" Kerry is a self inflated blowhard with less character than any Swiftie I served with or know. And before this is over the world will know.
_________________
Michael Turley, BM2
PCF "Swift Boat" 15, Chu Lai, DaNang, '67-'68

carpro · Admin Joined: 10 May 2004 Posts: 1176 Location: Texas

ROTC DAD · Lt.Jg. Joined: 12 May 2004 Posts: 147

boatsturley,

You seem to believe that politicians by nature are inherently honest and do not compromise their positions now and again. What Planet do you live on?

Because Kerry may or may not have hedged on things he said after the Vietnam War and since does not make him any less of a hero during the War. He earned his medals. That is indisputable. If you choose to attack him for having opinions different than yours - fine. If you choose to attack him because you believe he is not the best representative for the US - fine. But arguing that he is somehow a traitor because he didn't report a meeting of Vietnam Vets he went to is ridiculous.

Kerry served honorably and with valor. What he did or didn't do 30 years ago after he returned shouldn't matter. If it does, then we have to ask where was Bush 30 years ago? Why can't he prove where he was for a year, not just his Guard duty but also in the campaign he was suppoedly helping to run. A little known story but one that now becomes an issue is that Bush was incapable of even showing up and doing the minor functions he was assigned in the campaign he was supposedly helping to run.

Do we want to choose our leaders based on what they did 30 years ago? If yes, then you have to ask the same questions of both.

ROTC DAD · Lt.Jg. Joined: 12 May 2004 Posts: 147

95 bxl,

You argue that Sparky is using situational ethics by backing Kerry over Bush because of his military record. I find that laughable as the question of military records is one that was brought up by this group to discredit Kerry's military service.

As always, the problem with your arguement is that you think no one will notice that you attack Kerry's military record and then disparage anyone who might use the same tactic against Bush. If you are going to attack Kerry on his military record, don't cry fowl when Bush's comes under the same scrutiny.

As for why Sparky is going to vote for Kerry over Bush, neither you nor I can read his mind and say it has or does not have anything to do with military records. So shut up and think before you mouth off.

Greenhat · LCDR Joined: 09 May 2004 Posts: 405

ROTC DAD · Lt.Jg. Joined: 12 May 2004 Posts: 147

Greenhat,

Look, I know you don't like Kerry. It doesn't matter if you do or don't,except when you get into the voting booth. Just quit trying to make an issue out of something which isn't.

Earned - Awarded. You're correct; he was awarded his medals, meaning that others thought that he deserved them. So your point is?

Duty, Honor, Country: I believe in the same things. As I assume do most Americans. In a Constitutional Republic such as ours, that includes the right of dissent.

But that really has nothing to do with what I said, just like your reply.

Honorable Officers meet with the enemy all the time. Sometimes on the field of battle; sometimes not. This assertion is ridiculous.

My point was about service. We know Kerry served; we assume Bush served.