Kerry Was Not Talking About The Troops

PaperPlates · November 2006

I do not believe John Kerry is fit to be Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces of the United States. This is not a political issue. It is a matter of his judgment, truthfulness, reliability, loyalty and trust -- all absolute tenets of command. His biography, "Tour of Duty," by Douglas Brinkley, is replete with gross exaggerations, distortions of fact, contradictions and slanderous lies. His contempt for the military and authority is evident by even a most casual review of this biography. He arrived in-country with a strong anti-Vietnam War bias and a self-serving determination to build a foundation for his political future. He was aggressive, but vain and prone to impulsive judgment, often with disregard for specific tactical assignments. He was a "loose cannon." In an abbreviated tour of four months and 12 days, and with his specious medals secure, Lt.(jg) Kerry bugged out and began his infamous betrayal of all United States forces in the Vietnam War. That included our soldiers, our marines, our sailors, our coast guardsmen, our airmen, and our POWs. His leadership within the so-called Vietnam Veterans Against the War and testimony before Congress in 1971 charging us with unspeakable atrocities remain an undocumented but nevertheless meticulous stain on the men and women who honorably stayed the course. Senator Kerry is not fit for command.

-- Rear Admiral Roy Hoffman, USN (retired)

69charger · November 2006

Byrnzie wrote:

Please provide examples.

I just did. Did you only read 1/2 of my post?

chopitdown · November 2006

Kenny Olav wrote:

According to Kerry spokeswoman Amy Brundage, his 'prepared text' was: "Do you know where you end up if you don't study, if you aren't smart, if you're intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask President Bush."

You see though, he didnt use the prepared text message. He didn't say those words. So is Kerry off the hook b/c of what he meant to say? We hold people accountable for what they say and do, not what they meant to say or do. I like watching the dems spin this now to try and cover this blunder.

mookie blaylock 10 · November 2006

Kenny Olav wrote:

are you fucking kidding me? ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?!!?!?!?

that's what i was thinking. how can anyone in their right mind defend what limbaugh said and did?

SuzannePjam · November 2006

chopitdown wrote:

You see though, he didnt use the prepared text message. He didn't say those words. So is Kerry off the hook b/c of what he meant to say? We hold people accountable for what they say and do, not what they meant to say or do. I like watching the dems spin this now to try and cover this blunder.

In the clip I watched on the news this morning, you can see Kerry stumble through the first part of his statement, look down at his notes, and then blurt out the ending. It did look like he screwed up what he was supposed to say.

But quite honestly, and as an aside from what Kerry said, you're all kidding yourselves if you don't think recruiters target the more uneducated people in our society. And I'm not saying "stupid" people either. There's not a lot of Harvard educated people who upon graduation decide to go into the military. Recruiters tend to go into the lower income areas where college, because of low grades, poor educations or no funds, is not an option.

callen · November 2006

sponger wrote:

If Kerry was really commenting about Bush's lack of education, then that doesn't even make sense. Bush holds an advanced degree from an Ivy League University. That doesn't make the guy ultra-smart, but it doesn't make him uneducated either.

...and Bush compares to none of them.. Have you ever listenend to him talk...its a struggle for him to complete a sentence....and that's every sentence. Hell he has trouble speaking from a teleprompter.

callen · November 2006

mookie blaylock 10 wrote:

that's what i was thinking. how can anyone in their right mind defend what limbaugh said and did?

anyone that listens ti limbaugh and actually thinks he has something important to say is lost.

callen · November 2006

sponger wrote:

I would've voted for McCain if he had made it to nominations. There is no question about that guy's service in 'Nam.

and there's also no question about Bush's service in Nam either...Kerry went...he tried to do the right thing....Bush was hanging with his buddies.

jlew24asu · November 2006

mookie blaylock 10 wrote:

that's what i was thinking. how can anyone in their right mind defend what limbaugh said and did?

how can anyone in their right mind defend what kerry said and did?

fun game isnt it?

jlew24asu · November 2006

Kenny Olav wrote:

According to Kerry spokeswoman Amy Brundage, his 'prepared text' was: "Do you know where you end up if you don't study, if you aren't smart, if you're intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask President Bush."

o well that makes it ok then. there has been only one person on this board, who is liberal, who admits what kerry said was wrong. yet people like will try to justify it.

I dont give a fuck what was in his prepared remarks. he said what he said.

Byrnzie · November 2006

69charger wrote:

He also has a well documented history of demeaning members of the United States Military, so maybe we should just follow established Kerry precedent and believe him when he called our troops stupid.

He's already called our troops terrorists, rapists, murderers, and baby killers.

Please provide examples.

69charger wrote:

I just did. Did you only read 1/2 of my post?

Your post provides no examples, just an unsupported statement. If you're referring to the words 'well documented' then why not provide this documentation?

know1 · November 2006

You can't excuse it. It was a stupid thing to say and it shows a lot about what he thinks of the military.

chopitdown · November 2006

SuzannePjam wrote:

But quite honestly, and as an aside from what Kerry said, you're all kidding yourselves if you don't think recruiters target the more uneducated people in our society. And I'm not saying "stupid" people either. There's not a lot of Harvard educated people who upon graduation decide to go into the military. Recruiters tend to go into the lower income areas where college, because of low grades, poor educations or no funds, is not an option.

i never once said they didn't target low income people. But let's be honest, you have to earn a college degree in this climate if you want to get ahead; in fact many places now view a bachelors as the new high school diploma, and if you're poor and not well educated (test scores wise and gpa wise) the options are limited. The army is a legitimate way to work your way up the educational ladder (and keep out of debt); which is why they target that population. It may not sound fair, but since when has life been fair?

Abuskedti · November 2006

know1 wrote:

You can't excuse it. It was a stupid thing to say and it shows a lot about what he thinks of the military.

Excuse it? Why? In fact that is said once every 4 seconds each day by ordinary Americans. (statistics provide though Abuestimate)

Let see... do some research - is the U.S. enlisted force disproportionately lower income? Is the gap between the wealthy and the not so wealthy growing?

Did Bush assume he could take those "Stuck" in the military to fight and die to save the world from Iraq's Weapons of Mass destruction. Then take advantage of those "Stuck" and just leave them there to continue to die anyway - in spite of the fact there were no Weapons of Mass distruction. Is the cost of education rising faster than inflation - much faster - as the gap between the rich and poor grows - making the poor synonomous with undereducated?

Does Bush bank on the Stuck and uneducated by forcing them to "Stay a Losing dealy productionless course" and figure they'd be ok with it if he makes of policy to not say it anymore.

Does he hide without comment on the direction of the Nation - only to emerge and pounce on this comment to say it is an insult to the troops?

Does he claim that any questioning of his actions aids the enemy - only to announce those that don't say anything don't have ideas..

as we approach 3,000 dead Americans and ten times as many seriously injured and unable to continue life as they planned..... As the people of Iraq have suffered losses unimaginable by any American as more than 2 of every 100 citizens have already been killed... far more seriously injured and unable to continue their lives as they had planned - and all without loved ones and family memebers and without any dignity.

The poor in America are stuck there because they made the error of trusting their country to treat them with the respect they deserve.

Please Mr. Bush don't insult them further by using this comment to pretend you care about the troops - why don't you just take a moment to spit on their graves.

know1 · November 2006

Abuskedti wrote:

Excuse it? Why? In fact that is said once every 4 seconds each day by ordinary Americans. (statistics provide though Abuestimate)

Let see... do some research - is the U.S. enlisted force disproportionately lower income? Is the gap between the wealthy and the not so wealthy growing?

Did Bush assume he could take those "Stuck" in the military to fight and die to save the world from Iraq's Weapons of Mass destruction. Then take advantage of those "Stuck" and just leave them there to continue to die anyway - in spite of the fact there were no Weapons of Mass distruction. Is the cost of education rising faster than inflation - much faster - as the gap between the rich and poor grows - making the poor synonomous with undereducated?

Does Bush bank on the Stuck and uneducated by forcing them to "Stay a Losing dealy productionless course" and figure they'd be ok with it if he makes of policy to not say it anymore.

Does he hide without comment on the direction of the Nation - only to emerge and pounce on this comment to say it is an insult to the troops?

Does he claim that any questioning of his actions aids the enemy - only to announce those that don't say anything don't have ideas..

as we approach 3,000 dead Americans and ten times as many seriously injured and unable to continue life as they planned..... As the people of Iraq have suffered losses unimaginable by any American as more than 2 of every 100 citizens have already been killed... far more seriously injured and unable to continue their lives as they had planned - and all without loved ones and family memebers and without any dignity.

The poor in America are stuck there because they made the error of trusting their country to treat them with the respect they deserve.

Please Mr. Bush don't insult them further by using this comment to pretend you care about the troops - why don't you just take a moment to spit on their graves.

As usual, your comments are drawing in a lot of things that weren't said or even implied.

This is a paraphrase of his comments:

"If you're stupid and lazy, you'll end up in the military". You can say what you want about that, but it really is close minded of him to think those are the only people who join the military.

He said nothing about being poor. Furthermore, these folks aren't stuck. They volunteered for this and continue to do so.

Abuskedti · November 2006

know1 wrote:

As usual, your comments are drawing in a lot of things that weren't said or even implied.

This is a paraphrase of his comments:

"If you're stupid and lazy, you'll end up in the military". You can say what you want about that, but it really is close minded of him to think those are the only people who join the military.

He said nothing about being poor. Furthermore, these folks aren't stuck. They volunteered for this and continue to do so.

Um they are not stuck.. they can leave - there is a word for that...

Desertion

It carries a maximum penalty of death.

know1 · November 2006

Abuskedti wrote:

Um they are not stuck.. they can leave - there is a word for that...

Desertion

It carries a maximum penalty of death.

Again, my main point was about you discussing the financial demographics of the military in defense of Kerry, when he did not address that at all. He just called them stupid and lazy.

Abuskedti · November 2006

know1 wrote:

Again, my main point was about you discussing the financial demographics of the military in defense of Kerry, when he did not address that at all. He just called them stupid and lazy.

No,my friend - he never called a single troop stupid or lazy...

Does this help you to make things like this up?

callen · November 2006

Abuskedti wrote:

No,my friend - he never called a single troop stupid or lazy...

Does this help you to make things like this up?

just put yourself in a Republican/Bush supporter position..you've been slapped with your party's incompetence for couple years now.....so when something small like this comes along..you have to ride it...ride it hard. When you see people use this Kerry thing to support anything..just understand where they're coming from...its got to be tough.

know1 · November 2006

Abuskedti wrote:

No,my friend - he never called a single troop stupid or lazy...

Does this help you to make things like this up?

He didn't use those words, but that is indeed what he said. In any case, it was much closer to that than "poor" which is what you attributed.

Kerry Was Not Talking About The Troops

Comments

Categories