Kerry & his Vietnam Buddies
Find a Conversation
| Thu, 07-29-2004 - 9:52am |
Senator John Kerry has made his 4-month combat tour in Vietnam the centerpiece of his bid for the Presidency. His campaign jets a handful of veterans around the country, and trots them out at public appearances to sing his praises. John Kerry wants us to believe that these men represent all those he calls his "band of brothers."
But most combat veterans who served with John Kerry in Vietnam see him in a very different light.
Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has been formed to counter the false "war crimes" charges John Kerry repeatedly made against Vietnam veterans who served in our units and elsewhere, and to accurately portray Kerry's brief tour in Vietnam as a junior grade Lieutenant. We speak from personal experience -- our group includes men who served beside Kerry in combat as well as his commanders. Though we come from different backgrounds and hold varying political opinions, we agree on one thing: John Kerry misrepresented his record and ours in Vietnam and therefore exhibits serious flaws in character and lacks the potential to lead.
We regret the need to do this. Most Swift boat veterans would like nothing better than to support one of our own for America's highest office, regardless of whether he was running as a Democrat or a Republican. However, Kerry's phony war crimes charges, his exaggerated claims about his own service in Vietnam, and his deliberate misrepresentation of the nature and effectiveness of Swift boat operations compels us to step forward.
For more than thirty years, most Vietnam veterans kept silent as we were maligned as misfits, addicts, and baby killers. Now that a key creator of that poisonous image is seeking the Presidency we have resolved to end our silence.
The time has come to set the record straight.
(cont.)

Pages
I don't think I stated the contrary. My question is, were those concerns so great that it would justify possibly not funding our troops. Were those concerns so out of line? In the 4 you posted, I didn't see that. But maybe that's just me. This government wastes money at the drop of a hat, to become so fiscally responsible when it means the difference of funding troops presently in battle or not, I think this is one time when I'd have to reasses the need to make a statement like that with my vote. Maybe it was just such an eye-catching vote it was worth it for some.
I asked: "Was that an issue that really needed to take higher presidence over our soldiers needs?"
YOu responded:
"No, and that is precisely why it should have been considered separately from the money earmarked for the troops instead of being tagged on to such important legislation."
My question is, since this is not unique to the Bush administration, or the present legislatures, why is it that with this vote in particular this is such an issue? Why this bill? Why not all the others that didn't hold such urgency? Or is it a matter of 'politics'. Unfortunately, I think the latter, even if roles had been reversed and it was a Democrat in office asking for this and taking on additions.
"I would think that it is up to the person that proposed the budget to do their investigation to make sure what they are requesting is in line with regular pricing. "
I would think that anyone, absolutely any one of our representatives in Washington that is concerned about this should do this, and I don't know why it hasn't happened already. If the government is paying $6000 for cell phones and walkie talkies, there is a serious problem. I can remember, as a kid, hearing about obscene amount being spent on toilets and wrenches in the government. Is everyone going to wait for someone else to look into this, all the while, our hard worked for tax dollars continue to go into someones pocket, uneccessarily.
Then your
were those concerns so great that it would justify possibly not funding our troops. Were those concerns so out of line?...
There were several attempts through various amendments
I believe he did so because he knew that the 9/11 commission report was going to lay much of the blame at the feet of the intelligence community.
Besides, the commission also put a lot of blame on Congress, which Kerry was a member of during the time in question (along with 500 other people), who also have to take some of the blame.
The money Kerry voted no for, is money which kept troops alive, which protected troops, which prevented even more american deaths... much in the legislature is compromise, Kerry surely understands this or you will have to make the argument he's the biggest idiot to ever hold a seat in the Senate... which would disqualify him from consideration for any elected post anyway... Kerry voted against the military, and if his vote was sucessful in killing the bill, americans would have been left without defense, without munition, without supply... the bill Kerry voted against is the very bill which can NEVER be voted down, it is to supply deployed troops in combat... if it had extra stuff in it Kerry didn't like... that's a battle for another day... the day Kerry voted against our troops he put another feather in the cap of why he should never be commander in chief.
I cannot imagine the family not being affected by the example of the father, he held high public office and demonstrated by example how to manage many things.
THIS thread is about Kerry & his Vietnam Buddies... not Bush... start another thread.
Pages