SwiftVets.com

[PC]

Kerry To Troops...Your Life Is Worthless Unless UN Blesses The Fight

http://beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/

If this doesn't become the source of a major ad, I will be very surprised.

I know some of you email Hannity. Please send him this link, this is just the kind of thing that good old pit bull will grab on to and not shake loose.

[Navy_Navy_Navy]

Thinking outside the box strikes again.

Thanks, beldar!
_________________
~ Echo Juliet ~
Altering course to starboard - On Fire, Keep Clear
Navy woman, Navy wife, Navy mother

[Rdtf]

is this nutcase an American or not? I can't figure out why anyone would follow that line of thinking. Maybe a study should be done, all the coolaid drinkers are missing a certain gene - or at the very least they didn't pay attention in American History class.

Here is the Washington Post article out this morning-

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46225-2004Oct19.html

[Fort Campbell]

I hope that all our troops tell Kerry loud and clear what they think of his UN love affair when they vote for Bush!

[82nd_Airborne_Dad]

do not think much of Kerry. His political track record preceeds him . . .

I hope all our troops get their votes counted. I am always concerned that there will be some FUBAR with absentee ballot counting. Our military is a strong contingency of America's voters. They all know what is best for America, and Kerry does not fall in the category.
_________________
"The American Paratrooper exists to give the enemy soldier the best chance to die for his country." ~~ General George Patton.

[CTW]

Please send these articles to all you can. He is so awful!
To save ourselves, the Iraq people and our brave, brave troops: Bush landslide, please dear Lord. CTW

Never Ever Kerry

[depotoo]

can you please post the washingtimes article as i'm not a subscriber.

thanks!
_________________
May God Bless us all and let truth reign.

[shooter]

Excellent analogy !!!

I think that the troops are onto this slimeball and will enthusiastically help in his defeat. Now, we need to ensure that all their votes WILL be counted!

After Kerry is defeated, we should make him S.G. of the UNecessary and move that building full of appeasing bastards to some insignificant place in europe where they'll feel right at home. UGH!!!!
_________________
ADC USN Ret.

For those that fought for it, Freedom has a flavor the protected will never know !!

Harley Davidson - If you have to ask, you don't understand !

Gun Control = Double tap - center mass

[Rdtf]

Help of Allies Among Three Key Themes

By Helen Dewar and Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, October 20, 2004; Page A01

In Senate debates and media interviews over the years, John F. Kerry has repeatedly returned to three axioms on the use of military force: Win as much allied support as possible before going to war, listen to advice from the professionals, and, most significant, heed the many lessons of the Vietnam War.

NATO and the United Nations appear to be touchstones for the Democratic nominee, not just the troublesome hurdles that they appear to be to President Bush. In speeches over the years, Kerry repeatedly has denounced unilateral action.


These links below are provided on the site - I can post the articles if anyone wants me to
_____The Kerry Record_____

• The 1991 Persian Gulf War (The Washington Post, Oct 20, 2004)
• Bosnia, 1994-1995 (The Washington Post, Oct 20, 2004)
• Kosovo Air Campaign, 1999 (The Washington Post, Oct 20, 2004)
• Iraq War, 2002-2003 (The Washington Post, Oct 20, 2004)
• Iraq Occupation, 2005 (The Washington Post, Oct 20, 2004)



Kerry's belief in working with allies runs so deep that he has maintained that the loss of American life can be better justified if it occurs in the course of a mission with international support. In 1994, discussing the possibility of U.S. troops being killed in Bosnia, he said, "If you mean dying in the course of the United Nations effort, yes, it is worth that. If you mean dying American troops unilaterally going in with some false presumption that we can affect the outcome, the answer is unequivocally no."

A more recent theme for the senator from Massachusetts has been the importance of listening carefully to military advice. It is a subject he touched on in the past but seems to have emphasized more in the current campaign as he discusses the stormy relationship the Bush administration has had with the Army, particularly with Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, who was that service's chief of staff until last year.

Kerry says his Pentagon would be more respectful of the views of his generals than Bush's has been. In August he told Stars and Stripes, the military newspaper, that he would "have it a prerequisite that the secretary of defense work effectively with the professional military, listens to their advice, and . . . is respectful in the way we do disagree with it." The Bush administration's handling of the top brass, he said, has had "a chilling effect" on military advice -- a charge seconded by some top officers at the Pentagon.

But the most significant factor in shaping Kerry's views on the use of force appears to be Vietnam -- and not just the lesson that the conflict was a mistake. Indeed, some of his conclusions about the war are surprising, such as his praise a decade ago for President Richard M. Nixon's 1972 "Christmas bombing," the most intense aerial campaign of the war.

Kerry's reading of that war's lessons also leads, unexpectedly, to a similarity with Bush: an inclination to persist once he has chosen a course of action. His bottom line on Vietnam is that the nation must stick to commitments once troops have been sent in. The lesson from that war, he told author Gil Dorland, is that "I won't put American soldiers in harm's way unless the United States is prepared to win."

As the future of Iraq has emerged as a critical political issue, the Bush campaign has attempted to paint Kerry as both indecisive and so negative about the U.S. presence there that he would never achieve success. The reality of Kerry's record is more complex. More often than not, he has backed the use of force, especially after diplomacy has been tried extensively.

He opposed U.S. support for right-wing "contra" forces in Nicaragua in the 1980s but supported military action in Panama in 1989. He voted against going to war against Iraq in 1991 but supported military action in Haiti and the Balkans and voted to authorize war against Iraq in 2002. In many of these cases, he argued for international operations, involving the United Nations or NATO, but, in the case of the 2002 debate over Iraq, he was willing to authorize war without guarantee of broad allied support.

Likewise, he has a mixed record on key weapons programs, supporting most defense bills but opposing some that funded systems such as the B-2 stealth bomber, which he called too costly.

"There's no question he's wandered around" on issues such as the use of force, but so have most senators, said a Republican colleague and friend who supports Bush but also admires Kerry. "I don't think he would hesitate to use force if U.S. interests were threatened," he added.

"He doesn't shy away from defending America's interests . . . but he believes it is important to get international support," said Sen. Carl M. Levin (Mich.), ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee.

Conservatives argue that Kerry's emphasis on multilateralism would result in weak coalitions unable to further U.S. interests.

"What it means, practically, is that you always go to the lowest common denominator," said Tom Donnelly, a defense expert at the American Enterprise Institute, "so whatever the least willing member of the coalition is willing to do, that defines the policy."

Staff researcher Lucy Shackelford contributed to this report.