SwiftVets.com

[95 bxl]

And Kerry being a self-admitted war criminal shows him for what he is... but oddly enough, you folks support him anyway.

[sparky]

But since nobody has shown any instance where Kerry called himself a 'war criminal' we're not buying it.

It just seemed too silly for me to believe...that war criminals go around calling themselves 'war criminals' and further research showed -- SURPRISE! -- that's just not what he said.

His explanation of his experiences was far more nuanced. And to be honest, I don't think any of the conservatives here think that Kerry actually was a war criminal or even committed atrocities.

Believe it or not, I think that the conservatives here just want to make Kerry look bad so he won't win the election.

IMAGINE THAT!

[War Dog]

[Craig]

[95 bxl]

Agreed... it's a fallacy to believe Kerry isn't a war criminal.

[ROTC DAD]

I have a question for all of you - If you consider Kerry a war criminal for something he may or may not have done 30 years ago, what do you consider the present Administration?

Rumsfeld has come out and stated that he is responsible for the actions at Abu Ghraib ( perhaps not personally, but as the one in charge of the DOD), yet it appears you can be responsible without being accountable. If he's responsible, then he's a war criminal as we know the actions taken at the prison are against the rules of the Geneva Conventions. So Rumsfeld is a war criminal as is the Administration which harbors him.

We also know that at least two high-ranking members of the Administration are traitors, having disclosed the name of an non-official cover operative of the CIA to the press for no other reason than to discredit her husband. This act was against the security interests of the US. And again, the Administration chooses to harbor these officials, making them complicit in acting against the interests of the US.

So the question is - if you believe Kerry to be unfit because of comments made some 30 years ago, how can you believe the Bush Administration is fit to run the country when they are war criminals and traitors now?

[Montana]

Don´t know what others have said about John Kerry.

I do know he admitted to committing atrocities in Vietnam.

Kerry is unfit for CIC for so many reasons I don´t know
where to begin. Recommend viewing the Swift press conference
to start with.

Then let´s factor in his dealings with the POW/MIA issues,
which, in my opinion, was a whitewash, with evidence
of live POW´s destroyed.

Then there´s SGT Bruce W. Staehli, USMC (I wear his bracelet)...whose name is
on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall, along with many
Swifties. I feel Kerrry, along with his VVAW brothers and others,
extended the war. Kerry has blood on his hands.

Then there´s the VVAW group (Kerry co-founded....you´re known
for who you hang out with).... and their fliers they distributed
about deserting, fragging officers in Vietnam).

Then there´s the VVAW meeting, discussing assassination. Kerry
may or may not have been there, but he knew about it and
did not report it.

Then there´s Kerry and his previous wife visiting with representatives
of the enemy (Viet Cong) in Paris. Later agreeing with the enemy´s
peace demands over his own country´s plan. Don´t know
if he was still in the navy reserve (as a Ready Reservist), but if
he was, he violated navy regulations, regardless of his ¨hero¨ status.

Then there´s Kerry´s book, ¨The New Soldier.¨ Go look
at the cover.

This is the short list.

How much more do you need?

MONTANA

[Greenhat]

[ROTC DAD]

Hi Montana,

That doesn't answer my question. You give me reasons for why you're not voting for Kerry. That's fine - don't vote for him.

But why are you voting for Bush? If treason is a crime - and I think almost everyone on this site would say it is - then the Administration has committed a crime against the US. Therefore, if criminality of that sort is your criteria for not voting for Kerry, then it should also be the same for Bush.

Also, if torture is a crime - and again, I think most of us would agree it is -then an Administration which harbors an admitted torturer is criminal. Therefore, again, how can you condemn Kerry for statements made while not condemning the Administration for actions taken which are more criminal than any statements made?

The Bush Administration has committed treason and war crimes; how can you - or anyone for that matter - condon those actions?

[Greenhat]

[sparky]

War Dog grumbles...

[sparky]

Greenhate writes: So, I take it you consider Abraham Lincoln a warcriminal?

You have to be a fan of Southern Partisan magazine for that. Remember, liberals LIKE Lincoln and *real* conservatives hate him. In southern Partisan, they actually celebrate Lincoln's assassination.

It's strange that so many conservative leaders support it:

John Ashcroft said

[Greenhat]

[95 bxl]

[ROTC DAD]

Rumsfeld said in front of Congress that he was responsible, yet the very same day Bush said what a great job he was doing.

If he's responsible and the Bush Administration then harbors him for his crimes, aren't they then aiding and abetting?

As for treason, two high-ranking members of the Administration gave up the name of a non-officail cover operative simply to discredit her husband, against the security interests of the US. Now, they are being protected by the Administration. Again, they are aiding and abetting.

Your statements about Kerry have nothing to do with facts; they have everything to do with his statements. The truth of the matter is, he earned his right to say whatever he wanted to about the Vietnam War. Whether what he said is something you agree or disagree with is up to you. But you can't call him a war criminal without seriously looking at what the Administration is doing today.