Bad news for Kerry

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-05-03 01:48pm

Great....

theski · Post by **theski** » 2004-05-03 01:58pm

Where the Hell is Ross Perot when you need a 3rd party..

Exmoor Cat · Post by **Exmoor Cat** » 2004-05-03 02:14pm

How about forming one?

Xenophobe3691 · Post by **Xenophobe3691** » 2004-05-03 02:20pm

Exmoor Cat wrote:How about forming one?

Yes! We'll get some Free-Soilers, some Know-Nothings, some old time Whigs, some radical Northern Democrats...

This'll be fun...

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-05-03 03:46pm

"We are going to be presenting a letter that deals with Kerry's unfitness to be commander and chief that has been signed by hundreds of swift boat sailors, including most of those who served with Kerry," O'Neill explained.

"The ranks of the people signing [the letter] range from admiral down to seaman, and they run across the entire spectrum of politics, specialties, and political feelings about the Vietnam War," he added

"We have 19 of 23 officers who served with [Kerry]. We have every commanding officer he ever had in Vietnam. They all signed a letter that says he is unfit to be commander-in-chief," O'Neill said.

EVERY C.O. he ever had? wow, he must have been a fucking turd.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-05-03 03:48pm

There's also this picture:

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-05-03 03:53pm

Joe wrote:There's also this picture:

calling queer eye! calling queer eye! we have a fashon fucking emergency!
did he get up yesterday and say, gee what could i wear today to make myself look as much like the banana from the fruit of the loom ad as humanly possible. hmmmm...

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2004-05-03 03:56pm

Keep in mind folks after he came back from Vietnam the first thing he did was some rather dramtic and rather passoinate fuck you America protesting(At least from various reports though no one has quote any acutal words I'm aware of)

Imagin your in these guys place, its 1971 your still being shot at and your old buddy Johnny, hey he's on the radio, whats this?
Here whatever was said back then might have left some long lasting anger pent up towards him

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2004-05-03 04:00pm

Ewww, CNS. If their reasons for this are only what we've already heard from the echo chambers, I'm going to laugh it off and move on.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2004-05-03 04:01pm

Hamel wrote:Ewww, CNS. If their reasons for this are only what we've already heard from the echo chambers, I'm going to laugh it off and move on.

FYI, I'm referring to the medals, the injuries and stuff Bean mentioned

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2004-05-03 04:08pm

FYI, I'm referring to the medals, the injuries and stuff Bean mentioned

They also mention at the very bottom this

Kerry and O'Neill engaged in a nationally televised debate in 1971 on The Dick Cavett Show over Kerry's allegations that many Vietnam soldiers had routinely engaged in atrocities such as raping and cutting off ears and heads of Vietnamese soldiers and citizens. Kerry was the then spokesman for the anti-war group Vietnam Veterans Against the War.

Yeoch, that would have pissed the fuck out of me as well

This one is better example

"In the military, loyalty between commanders and the troops serving them is a two-way street. We have here a guy (Kerry) that with all of us in the field [in Vietnam] -- actually fighting the North Vietnamese -- came home and then falsely accused all of us of war crimes at a time when the people in uniform couldn't even respond," O'Neill said.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2004-05-03 04:23pm

Kerry and O'Neill engaged in a nationally televised debate in 1971 on The Dick Cavett Show over Kerry's allegations that many Vietnam soldiers had routinely engaged in atrocities such as raping and cutting off ears and heads of Vietnamese soldiers and citizens. Kerry was the then spokesman for the anti-war group Vietnam Veterans Against the War.

That's also old news. I've never seen the debate, though.

"In the military, loyalty between commanders and the troops serving them is a two-way street. We have here a guy (Kerry) that with all of us in the field [in Vietnam] -- actually fighting the North Vietnamese -- came home and then falsely accused all of us of war crimes at a time when the people in uniform couldn't even respond," O'Neill said.

Again falling into the "old news" category. They could have explicitly detailed which of Kerry's claims were false, at any time.

KrauserKrauser · Post by **KrauserKrauser** » 2004-05-03 04:47pm

So, you're saying that since Kerry's past actions were in the past, they should have no impact on his present. If his fellow officers and enlisted men are willing to come out and call him on his record that he oh so frequently likes to refer to then he will just have to reap the whirlwind. Kerry continues to bring up his former service as a shining example of his ability to lead, these larger than one number of people would tell you otherwise. I for one tend to trust numbers greater than one on matters of character, especially when admirals and other such high ranking officers are involved.

Oh and Kerry was a douche for what he said. I'm surprised someone didn't get all post-traumatic stress and hunt him down.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2004-05-03 04:56pm

KrauserKrauser wrote:So, you're saying that since Kerry's past actions were in the past, they should have no impact on his present.

Such a bullshit strawman.

I for one tend to trust numbers greater than one on matters of character, especially when admirals and other such high ranking officers are involved.

Many people think Bush has good character. They're delusional fucks, though.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-05-03 04:59pm

Logically speaking, even if these allegations were 100% true it would hardly be as bad as Bush's cokehead and DUI party-boi youth; could anyone who knew Bush during those days say that they thought he'd made a good CinC? And the fact that these people had (and have) a vested interest in denying that any wrongdoings were committed by US forces during the Vietnam war does call their integrity into question. A whistleblower will always be set upon by others in his former organization.

But Kerry has handled this the wrong way, and has compounded the problem by trying to fudge around and doubletalk what he felt at the time rather than standing firm and being forthright about it the way a sincere loudmouth like Dean would have.

Guardsman Bass · Post by **Guardsman Bass** » 2004-05-03 05:44pm

But Kerry has handled this the wrong way, and has compounded the problem by trying to fudge around and doubletalk what he felt at the time rather than standing firm and being forthright about it the way a sincere loudmouth like Dean would have.

It probably would have been better if he hadn't raised the issue of his Vietnam service in the first place, but that's politics.

Anyway, does anybody think that there might be a backlash towards this great of a public character attack?

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2004-05-03 06:16pm

Not if it is from military men who knew him well. Getting 18 guys who never met him to sign would be different.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-05-03 06:34pm

CaptainChewbacca wrote:Not if it is from military men who knew him well. Getting 18 guys who never met him to sign would be different.

So if one of Bush's roommates from college testified that the guy was a boozing cokehead and totally unworthy of the position of President, you would consider that damning?

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-05-03 07:11pm

Actions speak more loudly than words. Bush has shown very clearly that he is unfit to be the commander-in-chief by trying his hand at it and failing dismally.

Throughout that entire article, there's absolutely no mention of any specific, relevant reason as to exactly why Kerry is unfit for the role. It's basically paragraphs of "Look how many people signed it!" and "Look who signed it!"

Oh wait, apparently statements made when he was in his 20s during an emotionally-charged time when the nation was divided harshly are enough to damn his entire capacity to serve as commander-in-chief. What's more, they automatically make him less qualified to serve than a dyslexic who was a coke-head during that same period. My, it sounds to me like these people have an axe to grind.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-05-03 07:43pm

Darth Wong wrote:So if one of Bush's roommates from college testified that the guy was a boozing cokehead and totally unworthy of the position of President, you would consider that damning?

I would take that into consideration. If every teacher that Bush had, and 90% of the students in class with him, said that he sucked ass as a student and didn't know a damn thing about logic, economics, politics, or history then I would view that as being fairly damning.

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2004-05-03 07:48pm

Ossus said it for me.

Meest · Post by **Meest** » 2004-05-03 07:50pm

Why is it that anytime negative comments are made about Democrats its career threatening. Yet when any negative points which are just as proven about Republicans are shrugged off?

How is Kerry being branded unfit to command from info they gathered 30 years ago (when its possible they think he abandonned them all), any worse than Bush not even serving or having any command experience at all?

Not even considering any political influences on either of them, would you want an arguably "unfit" military experienced commander, or a civilian that ditched serving all together?

The fact someone who Kerry debatted on a TV show is leading this group of people signing doesn't bode well for its intentions, as well as him being an attorney from Texas.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-05-03 07:52pm

Kerry's caught the attention of the Vietnam Vets groups who go around
tracking down and exposing fake Vets, fake CMOH winners, Fake SEALs, etc.

John Kerry had best pray to God that all the paperwork on his medals
were all correct, because those guys will rip him to shreds over them
if it turns out he did kinky stuff to get awarded them.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-05-03 07:53pm

Durandal wrote:Actions speak more loudly than words. Bush has shown very clearly that he is unfit to be the commander-in-chief by trying his hand at it and failing dismally.

Throughout that entire article, there's absolutely no mention of any specific, relevant reason as to exactly why Kerry is unfit for the role. It's basically paragraphs of "Look how many people signed it!" and "Look who signed it!"

Oh wait, apparently statements made when he was in his 20s during an emotionally-charged time when the nation was divided harshly are enough to damn his entire capacity to serve as commander-in-chief. What's more, they automatically make him less qualified to serve than a dyslexic who was a coke-head during that same period. My, it sounds to me like these people have an axe to grind.

I'm sure that some of the people signing this letter have axes to grind for one reason or another, but if 90% of Kerry's comrades have axes to grind against him then he's either the least lucky man in the history of the military or there was something going on, or some combination thereof. Realistically, in a country in which more than 40% of the population is against an incumbent president, the chances that over NINETY percent of a given population would be against a challenger without any reason to be so are almost astronomical, given the large sample size.