SwiftVets.com

ink · Seaman Recruit Joined: 24 Aug 2004 Posts: 3

Before you reply, think about my questions. Your emotional instincts are no good in a forum dedicated to truth and logic.

I've been told numerous times by (so called) right wing media that dissention and questioning the president during a time of war in unpatriotic, aids the enemy, reduces morale and puts our troops in harms way. Since this is a war with no end in sight it is likely it will still be ongoing in January if/when Kerry takes office. My question to you is - If Kerry is elected, will you support him as president or will you aid the enemy?

I also have some other serious questions. One point of argument is that if Kerry has lied once about an important incident, then that invalidates every other claim he makes. Does the same hold true for Swift Vets? If one claim is found to be a lie does that mean that I should discard the entire lot?

Who's decision was it to leave the scene of the mine explosion? Was is Kerry's?

If Kerry fled the scene, then why did the three remaining boats leave a man in the water? Why did they not rescue him?

I've heard allegations attacking many politicians in the past but few extend the train of thought so forcefully to make the voters mind up for them. If Kerry lied, exaggerated and made false claims, is it not up to the voter to decide if that makes him unfit for command?

Ink

efuseakay · Ensign Joined: 16 Aug 2004 Posts: 64

Based on his Senate voting record alone... no, I will not support him.

You GottaBeKidding · Rear Admiral Joined: 08 Aug 2004 Posts: 692

Ink,

(deleted by Admin)

Kerry has lied about more than one "important" incident.

Which Swift claim is a lie?

Kerry's the only one who left the scene of the mine explosion and he was in charge of the boat. You tell ME whose decision it was?

The remaining boats didn't leave a man in the water. There were several men in the water. The others were injured because they were blown off the 3 boat. One of the three boats that did NOT flee the scene was heading toward Rassman to pick him up as Kerry heaved on the scene and grabbed him.

fortdixlover

Navy_Navy_Navy · Admin Joined: 07 May 2004 Posts: 5777

Nomorelies · Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2004 7:06 pm Post subject: Ink's a TROLL!!!

You GottaBeKidding · Rear Admiral Joined: 08 Aug 2004 Posts: 692

Admin:

Please pm....

ink · Seaman Recruit Joined: 24 Aug 2004 Posts: 3

Scott

You GottaBeKidding · Rear Admiral Joined: 08 Aug 2004 Posts: 692

Ink,

I would not support President Kerry but I would not be out protesting him. I'm not sure what other answer you want.

GenrXr · Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2004 7:21 pm Post subject:

Navy_Navy_Navy · Admin Joined: 07 May 2004 Posts: 5777

Bob Chamberlain · Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2004 7:32 pm Post subject: Support For "President" Kerry

God forbid that the worthless SOB can be elected. If he is, I will do everything in my power to insure that he is not reelected, up to but NOT including anything that might hurt our troops in the field or our chances of achieving something useful in Iraq and Afghanistan.

My major complaint about the current attacks on President Bush is that everything Kerry and the Dems say or do is being seen by our enemies. I fear two things from this: 1) our enemies may be encouraged to hang on, much like the North Vietnamese were and 2) that they might be motivated into some action specifically to make the President look bad and Kerry look good. If the President could be criticized in "private" - via some channel that our enemies could not receive - I would not object so much to the unfair criticism. But when this unfair criticism acts to embolden our enemies, in my opinion it becomes irresponsible - bordering on traiterous. I won't do that to any President - even Kerry - because I have too much concern for the welfare of our country and our military. But in every other way possible I would work to bring that lying, backstabbing SOB down.

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

DEL · Seaman Recruit Joined: 08 May 2004 Posts: 49

Did he or didn't he? You remember, he remembers. The current debate over John Kerry's performance in the Vietnam War has been reduced to he said he said. Without undisputable documentation confusing rhetoric is the predictable result. It serves none, diminishes all.

One salient fact remains undisputed,John Kerry, publicly and freely confessed to committing war atrocities against the people of South Vietnam. Atrocities were committed in the Vietnam War,as in all wars. Americans were tried and convicted of those crimes.
We as a nation, signature to the Geneva Convention, are charged with the responsibility to investigate all allegations of war crimes. Mr.Kerry's own words, along with eye witness accounts, require the Untied States to action. Yet over thirty years after his confession no action has taken place. No investigation,no discussion,no action.

We now are engaged in a struggle for the very existence of our country. Islamic terrorist,determined and capable,wage war upon our nation. These terrorist, intent in our destruction, charge we are a corrupt and immoral people. In the face of these charges we,the people of the Untied States of America, nominate as moral leader of our country and commander of this nation's military a confessed war criminal.

The "elephant in the living room" can no longer be ignored. We cannot afford to allow, without examination of his statement, the candidacy of Mr. Kerry. To ignore his confession,to take no action on his confession,is to load the guns of our enemies.

They,the terrorists,charge immorality. How do we defend against such charge now?