PDA

View Full Version : oli rules


uberkool
09-08-2004, 01:19 PM
"Of course, the president keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that. Well, if he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my
answer: 'Bring it on.'" -- Sen. John Kerry

Dear John,

As usual, you have it wrong. You don't have a beef with President George Bush about your war record. He's been exceedingly generous about your military service. Your complaint is with the 2.5 million of us who served honorably in a war that ended 29
years ago and which you, not the president, made the centerpiece of this campaign.

I talk to a lot of vets, John, and this really isn't about your medals or how you got them. Like you, I have a Silver Star and a Bronze Star. I only have two Purple Hearts, though. I turned down the others so that I could stay with the Marines in my
rifle platoon. But I think you might agree with me, though I've never heard you say it, that the officers always got more medals than they earned and the youngsters we led never got as many medals as they deserved.

This really isn't about how early you came home from that war, either, John. There have always been guys in every war who want to go home. There are also lots of guys, like those in my rifle platoon in Vietnam, who did a full 13 months in the field. And
there are, thankfully, lots of young Americans today in Iraq and Afghanistan who volunteered to return to war because, as one of them told me in Ramadi a few weeks ago, "the job isn't finished."

Nor is this about whether you were in Cambodia on Christmas Eve, 1968. Heck John, people get lost going on vacation. If you got lost, just say so. Your campaign has admitted that you now know that you really weren't in Cambodia that night and that
Richard Nixon wasn't really president when you thought he was. Now would be a good time to explain to us how you could have all that bogus stuff "seared" into your memory -- especially since you want to have your finger on our nation's nuclear trigger.

But that's not really the problem, either. The trouble you're having, John, isn't about your medals or coming home early or getting lost -- or even Richard Nixon. The issue is what you did to us when you came home, John.

When you got home, you co-founded Vietnam Veterans Against the War and wrote "The New Soldier," which denounced those of us who served -- and were still serving -- on the battlefields of a thankless war. Worst of all, John, you then accused me -- and
all of us who served in Vietnam -- of committing terrible crimes and atrocities.

On April 22, 1971, under oath, you told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that you had knowledge that American troops "had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the
power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam." And you admitted on
television that "yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed."

And for good measure you stated, "(America is) more guilty than any other body, of violations of (the) Geneva Conventions ... the torture of prisoners, the killing of prisoners."

Your "antiwar" statements and activities were painful for those of us carrying the scars of Vietnam and trying to move on with our lives. And for those who were still there, it was even more hurtful. But those who suffered the most from what you said
and did were the hundreds of American prisoners of war being held by Hanoi. Here's what some of them endured because of you, John:

Capt. James Warner had already spent four years in Vietnamese custody when he was handed a copy of your testimony by his captors. Warner says that for his captors, your statements "were proof I deserved to be punished." He wasn't released until March
14, 1973.

Maj. Kenneth Cordier, an Air Force pilot who was in Vietnamese custody for 2,284 days, says his captors "repeated incessantly" your one-liner about being "the last man to die" for a lost cause. Cordier was released March 4, 1973.

Navy Lt. Paul Galanti says your accusations "were as demoralizing as solitary (confinement) ... and a prime reason the war dragged on." He remained in North Vietnamese hands until February 12, 1973.

John, did you think they would forget? When Tim Russert asked about your claim that you and others in Vietnam committed "atrocities," instead of standing by your sworn testimony, you confessed that your words "were a bit over the top." Does that mean
you lied under oath? Or does it mean you are a war criminal? You can't have this one both ways, John. Either way, you're not fit to be a prison guard at Abu Ghraib, much less commander in chief.

One last thing, John. In 1988, Jane Fonda said: "I would like to say something ... to men who were in Vietnam, who I hurt, or whose pain I caused to deepen because of things that I said or did. I was trying to help end the killing and the war, but there
were times when I was thoughtless and careless about it and I'm ... very sorry that I hurt them. And I want to apologize to them and their families."

Even Jane Fonda apologized. Will you, John?

Oliver North is a nationally syndicated columnist, host of the Fox News Channel's War Stories and founder and honorary chairman of Freedom Alliance.

©2004 Creators Syndicate, Inc.





v

Pro Trash
09-08-2004, 02:16 PM
Problem is if Kerry was such an issue with the Vietnam war how is it no one said anything about this until now. It seems to me that they are making him out to be the next Jane Fonda. My question is if any of this is remotely true how is it that no one stepped up and wrote something of it sooner. I am not saying Kerry is the best candidate but I refuse to believe he sindle handedly caused the pain and suffering of the majority of the POWS in Vietnam. How come no one is pissing on John Lennons grave ? He held the same if not more radical views on Vietnam. Bob Dillon wrote war protests songs, did the North Vietnamese play that over the loud speakers and beat prisoners because of it?

I have also read several books that were written where guys wore necklaces made of "gook" ears. I have heard stories where they took Vietcong POWS up in a helicopter tossed one out then started asking questions. Everyone swearsthis is true and thinks it makes for great stories until Kerry testified about it. If we read it in abook it is all well and good, but god help the poor soul who is trying to end the needless deaths of thousands of young Americans. My family lost 4 of it's members in Vietnam so we learned how expensive this war was. Where was Bush and what was he doing then?

Paladin
09-08-2004, 03:16 PM
... How come no one is pissing on John Lennons grave ? He held the same if not more radical views on Vietnam. Bob Dillon wrote war protests songs, did the North Vietnamese play that over the loud speakers and beat prisoners because of it?...

Did John Lennon ever ask for someone to vote for him? I hope that answers why people are scrutinizing Kerry now. He has finally asked for a vote that matters after 19 years beiung the most liberal senator from Massachussetts.

No one is saying that Vietnam was a great war, but how can you say on one hand that Vietnam was such a terrible place and we shouldn't have been there and slam on Bush for not wanting to go? Even Kerry only went after his deferment was denied. Yeah I know, at least he went.

Pro Trash
09-08-2004, 04:37 PM
Did John Lennon ever ask for someone to vote for him? I hope that answers why people are scrutinizing Kerry now. He has finally asked for a vote that matters after 19 years beiung the most liberal senator from Massachussetts.

No one is saying that Vietnam was a great war, but how can you say on one hand that Vietnam was such a terrible place and we shouldn't have been there and slam on Bush for not wanting to go? Even Kerry only went after his deferment was denied. Yeah I know, at least he went.

You said it, at least he went.

Pro Trash
09-08-2004, 04:43 PM
WTH have you been? There have been threads on Kerry and this BS for months. Literally. The only difference between those and this is that a guy now says he was shown a transcript. Not much else. :confused: As for Dillons and Lennons stuff being used against them? Not likely. After listening to that stuff the "gooks", as you say, were likely too stoned to move, much less beat our guys...






Kerry implied it was the majority of our troops engaging in this type of behaviour. You just gave examples of what....10? Lets say for the hell of it, 100. How many troops were committed to that region? En toto? Hell more were being tortured as a result of Kerrys BS than were doing what you just laid out. Not even close to being a comparison.

And how the hell did George get drug into this? Trying to take the focus off your boy again, aren't you? ;)

Tssk, Tssk. You, sir, are so predictable.

If you drag Kerry into it Bush has to be in there too. Did he go to Vietnam, no. I feelhe was a coward. He now has no issue with sending our troops into harms way with piss poor planning on his part. Say what you will but Iraq was not a huge supporter of terrorism nor were they linked to Osama and 9/11. If you pull the humanity card I ask why haven't we done anything in North Korea? Also have you read\his book if so let me borrow it otherwise you are just feeding off hear say. To do that is to assume and you know what that means.

shrp88lx's
09-08-2004, 09:20 PM
If you drag Kerry into it Bush has to be in there too. Did he go to Vietnam, no. I feelhe was a coward.

Ahhhh and Kerry is what since he got out of there asap????

Say what you will but Iraq was not a huge supporter of terrorism nor were they linked to Osama and 9/11. not according to the 9/11 commission report. they were linked to many terrorist groups and people as well as Osama, there was no DIRECT tie to 9/11 but terrorsit sponsor yes.

The Punisher
09-09-2004, 08:23 AM
You said it, at least he went.
just b/c he went dosent mean he did more good than harm ;)

The Punisher
09-09-2004, 08:27 AM
If you drag Kerry into it Bush has to be in there too. Did he go to Vietnam, no. I feelhe was a coward. He now h you was no issue with sending our troops into harms way with piss poor planning on his part. Say whatill but Iraq was not a huge supporter of terrorism nor were they linked to Osama and 9/11. If you pull the humanity card I ask why haven't we done anything in North Korea? Also have you read\his book if so let me borrow it otherwise you are just feeding off hear say. To do that is to assume and you know what that means. Hey ProTrash, be truthfull here, did you vote for Clinton? Clinton dodged that war, what do you say of him?

Also, by what means do you say Iraq was not a huge supporter of terrorism?

Paladin
09-09-2004, 08:29 AM
You said it, at least he went.

OK, now that Vietnam has been covered, please explain why you think Kerry's 19 years of accomplishments, or lack thereof, make him a suitable candidate for President. Please confine your answers to the 19 years he has held public office and I won't go into his treasonous years after he got back from Vietnam.

It is possible that Kerry's record might overshadow some weak minded person who has shown no ability to lead in troubled times, but against Bush, his record pales in comparison. Bush has shown more character, courage, honesty, and integrity than Kerry has in 19 years of his public service.

But I would love to hear why he is a better choice.

Denny
09-09-2004, 08:30 AM
Also, by what means do you say Iraq was not a huge supporter of terrorism?

Ya, I'd like to know too... It sure ain't Santa Claus sending me mortars!!!

Paladin
09-09-2004, 08:31 AM
If you drag Kerry into it Bush has to be in there too. Did he go to Vietnam, no. I feelhe was a coward. He now has no issue with sending our troops into harms way with piss poor planning on his part. Say what you will but Iraq was not a huge supporter of terrorism nor were they linked to Osama and 9/11. If you pull the humanity card I ask why haven't we done anything in North Korea? Also have you read\his book if so let me borrow it otherwise you are just feeding off hear say. To do that is to assume and you know what that means.

//baited question//Are you seriously advocating we go into North Korea for humanitarian reasons?//baited question//

Pro Trash
09-09-2004, 09:00 AM
OK, now that Vietnam has been covered, please explain why you think Kerry's 19 years of accomplishments, or lack thereof, make him a suitable candidate for President. Please confine your answers to the 19 years he has held public office and I won't go into his treasonous years after he got back from Vietnam.

It is possible that Kerry's record might overshadow some weak minded person who has shown no ability to lead in troubled times, but against Bush, his record pales in comparison. Bush has shown more character, courage, honesty, and integrity than Kerry has in 19 years of his public service.

But I would love to hear why he is a better choice.

I won't mix words in saying that I feel Kerry is better than or worse than Bush. I am democratic in my views. Bush is trying to stomp out abortion rights, Kerry is not. Bush will not concede to the fact he has made a mess of Iraq and Kerry has a plan to get us out of this grid lock. Bush has basically lost as much support as we can afford from old allies, Kerry will bring them back. Bush has over 1000 deaths on his hands do to poor planning Kerry wants to end this as soon as possible. Bush is not an evil man but he has lied to the American public and if someone wants to hang on his every word and swear every idea he has is just. Well I say that person is un patriotic and loves Bush and the Republican party more than their country. What are we doing in Iraq besides creating our on little state of Israel in a sense.

The Punisher
09-09-2004, 09:05 AM
Kerry has a plan to get us out of this grid lock. . And exactly what is his plan :confused:
Or is it still a secret? LMAO!

Pro Trash
09-09-2004, 09:06 AM
And exactly what is his plan :confused:
Or is it still a secret? LMAO!

He has laid it out go read it for yourself on his website.

The Punisher
09-09-2004, 09:06 AM
Kerry will bring them back. .
And what exactly will he do to get France and Germany back? (like I really give a crap)
or is this still a secret too?

Paladin
09-09-2004, 09:07 AM
I won't mix words in saying that I feel Kerry is better than or worse than Bush. I am democratic in my views. Bush is trying to stomp out abortion rights, Kerry is not. Bush will not concede to the fact he has made a mess of Iraq and Kerry has a plan to get us out of this grid lock. Bush has basically lost as much support as we can afford from old allies, Kerry will bring them back. Bush has over 1000 deaths on his hands do to poor planning Kerry wants to end this as soon as possible. Bush is not an evil man but he has lied to the American public and if someone wants to hang on his every word and swear every idea he has is just. Well I say that person is un patriotic and loves Bush and the Republican party more than their country. What are we doing in Iraq besides creating our on little state of Israel in a sense.

We are on such polar opposite sides of thought processes I am speechless. I just hope enough Americans are not blinded by their allegiance to being Democrat that they will vote for protecting our country and vote Bush.

The Punisher
09-09-2004, 09:09 AM
Bush has over 1000 deaths on his hands. more than a 1000, dont forget to add in and count all the terrorist that were killed on his clock also. Whoops, that would justify the war right? Cant do that b/c your a democrat and you have to oppose the conservatives :rolleyes:

The Punisher
09-09-2004, 09:13 AM
Bush is not an evil man but he has lied to the American public .
Yet I have ever seen any proof yet of how Bush lied. I guess you still eating out of Michael Moore's trough?

The Punisher
09-09-2004, 09:17 AM
John Kerry states this on his site
"Modernize The World's Most Powerful Military To Meet New Threats
John Kerry and John Edwards have a plan to transform the world's most powerful military to better address the modern threats of terrorism and proliferation, while ensuring that we have enough properly trained and equipped troops to meet our enduring strategic and regional missions."
Is he going to do this before he supports the 87billion dollars or after he votes against it :confused:

Then John Kerry remarks this on his site
The war on terror cannot be won by military might alone.
exactly what other defense and offence against armed terrorist do we have :confused:

Pro Trash
09-09-2004, 09:24 AM
And what exactly will he do to get France and Germany back? (like I really give a crap)
or is this still a secret too?

Heck the fact that he is not Bush alone should do it. Bush is the worst foreign relations President we've had in as long as I can remember. The six gun wearing good ole boy routine may have worked when he was governor but when he represents this country he needs to be articulate and intelligent seeming. He does not seem to possess either of these qualities in quantity.

The Punisher
09-09-2004, 09:28 AM
Heck the fact that he is not Bush alone should do it. Bush is the worst foreign relations President we've had in as long as I can remember. The six gun wearing good ole boy routine may have worked when he was governor but when he represents this country he needs to be articulate and intelligent seeming. He does not seem to possess either of these qualities in quantity.
Do you know George Bush?

The Punisher
09-09-2004, 09:35 AM
articulate and intelligent seeming. He does not seem to possess either of these qualities in quantity.
is this articulate and intelligent seeming :confused:

John Kerry
"I am a bold internationalist... a progressive.... I would almost eliminate CIA activity... I'd like to see our troops dispersed around the world only at the directive of the United Nations.."

Pro Trash
09-09-2004, 09:37 AM
John Kerry states this on his site
"Modernize The World's Most Powerful Military To Meet New Threats
John Kerry and John Edwards have a plan to transform the world's most powerful military to better address the modern threats of terrorism and proliferation, while ensuring that we have enough properly trained and equipped troops to meet our enduring strategic and regional missions."
Is he going to do this before he supports the 87billion dollars or after he votes against it :confused:

Then John Kerry remarks this on his site
The war on terror cannot be won by military might alone.
exactly what other defense and offence against armed terrorist do we have :confused:

To answer your last question in a way we may all benefit. It is called intelligence, commonly referred to in military terms as G-2. The military cannot move blindly against terrorists for fear of failure. If you are familiar with the Civil War it was the blindness of Lee's Army when Jeb Stuart failed to screen his movements with cavalry and provide adequate and timely G-2 that led to the un-intentional meeting West of Gettysburg on July 1 1863. If you require a more suitable explanation I will graciously assist you with your quest for knowledge.

Pro Trash
09-09-2004, 09:38 AM
is this articulate and intelligent seeming :confused:

John Kerry
"I am a bold internationalist... a progressive.... I would almost eliminate CIA activity... I'd like to see our troops dispersed around the world only at the directive of the United Nations.."

When was said statement made and where might I find it?

The Punisher
09-09-2004, 09:41 AM
When was said statement made and where might I find it?
Harvard Crimson (1970)
Just do a search on web...

The Punisher
09-09-2004, 09:46 AM
To answer your last question in a way we may all benefit. It is called intelligence, commonly referred to in military terms as G-2. The military cannot move blindly against terrorists for fear of failure. If you are familiar with the Civil War it was the blindness of Lee's Army when Jeb Stuart failed to screen his movements with cavalry and provide adequate and timely G-2 that led to the un-intentional meeting West of Gettysburg on July 1 1863. If you require a more suitable explanation I will graciously assist you with your quest for knowledge.
So what leg does Kerry have to stand on when after the first WTC bombing, he missed the majority of the intellegence meetings and then in 1994 proposed a bill to slash the budget of our intelligence agencies by $1.5 billion - and freeze spending for two major intelligence programs - the National Foreign Intelligence Program and Tactical Intelligence Program. (S.1826)