Paper against Bush
Mantis421 Wrote:Bush has been quoted on two things where he said the reason he was AWOL from the base he was stationed at was because the F-111 was near the end of it's operational use and he felt it wasent important to continue training with it and the other time he said since Vietnam was starting to wind down when he was in the service he didn't feel it was important for him to be there. Anybody without family conections would of gotten court marshaled for that. The second was just him setting his own priorites higher then the country. Kerry did only serve in Vietnam for 4 months but the reason he got to leave is a military rule of the time period that stated that any soldier no matter what rank after getting 3 purple hearts could chose any post they wanted. Kerry chose to come home and finish his time here. The reason I don't read to much into this eather way is look how old they both were and look at the confict in question. None of us can say we were 100% straightened out in life yet at that age or were 100% the samrtest people make mistakes, it just depends on how we make up for them later in life.

Actually Bush signed his 180 and ALL his military service documents have been released to the public. Bush did NOTHING wrong and the democrats have backed off now because they have been shown to be LIARS. Kerry however, has yet to sign his 180 because he knows he has something to hide. If he signed his 180 it would be the last nail in his coffin.

BTW you were right before that what happened 30 years ago when they were kids shouldn't matter very much. However, like rarnom said, Kerry has made it the cornerstone of his campaign. Because of this we fight back. When Kerry backs off, so will we. When he dressed up in his military uniform and said "Reporting for duty" HE brought their military service into the debate.
Reply
eather way we all view this or who we think we are going to vote for, in the little bit of time left before the election unless one gets in the trouble with the law we all know who we will vote for.

As far as the signed 180 anything can get forged these days
I am "Pedro" I am an afro warrior-----
Excel saga
Reply
Mantis421 Wrote:eather way we all view this or who we think we are going to vote for, in the little bit of time left before the election unless one gets in the trouble with the law we all know who we will vote for.

As far as the signed 180 anything can get forged these days


I'm not sure what you mean by that. Kerry needs to sign his 180 before his military records are released to the public. Until that's done Kerry can claim pretty much anything about his service as the truth and we can't say anything one way or the other because Kerry will not allow us to know the truth. Recent evidence has arisen that suggests Kerry was not originally honorably discharged from the service. However, we don't know for sure one way or the other unless Kerry signs his 180. Why would he sign it though? He obviously has something to hide.

I think pretty much everyone on these boards has their minds made up one way or the other. I post for those few that maybe don't know a whole lot about the candidates. (or those that listen to Kerry's outright lies about what Bush is doing and havn't heard the other true side) I'm not saying Bush doesn't ever lie either btw, but Kerry lies almost every time he says something about Bush and it's sickening. Not even Clinton was as glaring a liar as Kerry is. Clinton lied a lot, and much of it was obvious, but man i'd rather have him in there for another 8 over 4 for Kerry.
Reply
Mantis421 Wrote:The things before anything else that made me distrust and dislike Bush was. Some time back they had a Frontline special on PBS about Bush and how he got their. His military record first and foremost for me. My father was drafted went to Vietnam and I served 4 years in the servce. Bush has trouble even nailing down all the facts about being in the national guard, and come on being a son of a polotician and a member of the skull and cross bones didn't help keep Bush Jr out of Vietnam. The second thing is Bush jr was looking for reasons and making plans and promises to others that as president he would invade Iraq 6 months before he even was president. The last thing is when Bush was first elected congress caught him tring to form a inner circle orginization of Bush jr aids that could do things that would side step the house and senate completely, which was not legal to even do. Their is alot more things that were in the special to. Go to the PBS web site you can order the frontline episode on VHS or DVD it is rather interesting

Actually i don't think thats entirely right.. Because Bush did pick up a plan from Clinton's Administration about invading Iraq.
here is a little bit talking about stuff between Clinton and Iraq
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-20040623.htm

So this isn't a new thing.. Just Bush decided to actually uphold the UN's rules that Saddam had not been following .. Every UN resolution that was passed saddam basically ignored them.. He would let UN Inspecters in to please UN for a bit and then after that he would kick them out. He was pretty much IMHO toying with the UN.

Also i am from Oregon too and i have already sent my Ballot in.. I think everyone knows who i voted for.. I just can't stand all of Kerry's lie's. IMHO its not who you like its who you hate the least right now.. and i hate Bush the least atm so that was who i voted for.
Reply
Schultz Wrote:Also i am from Oregon too...
Hey cool! What part are you from? If you are in the state next year you should check out the convention:

http://www.kumoricon.org
Reply
rarnom Wrote:Hey cool! What part are you from? If you are in the state next year you should check out the convention:

http://www.kumoricon.org

I am from a little Podunk town called Heppner.. Its in Eastern oregon south of Hermiston and Pendleton..
Reply
'Just Bush decided to actually uphold the UN's rules'
Big Grin Youve got to be kidding me?
Is this what the bush administration is telling people now?
That cracks me up.
This is the same war that the UN secretary General recently called 'an illegal war'.
Youre telling me that Bush took a course of action which seriously undermined the credibility of the UN out of dedication to upholding UN authority. Rolleyes
"The highest result of education
is tolerance."
Helen Keller
Reply
Ossie Wrote:'Just Bush decided to actually uphold the UN's rules'
Big Grin Youve got to be kidding me?
Is this what the bush administration is telling people now?
That cracks me up.
This is the same war that the UN secretary General recently called 'an illegal war'.
Youre telling me that Bush took a course of action which seriously undermined the credibility of the UN out of dedication to upholding UN authority. Rolleyes

Ok i think i worded it wrong and didn't mean that.. But i still do think its funny that the UN passed many resolutions and Saddam would hardly obey them at all.. so what does the UN do it just tries to pass more resolutions that he didn't obey.

Also i think its Funny the lastest reports about France and other countries having an Oil Scandel with the UN's Oil to Food program.. No wonder they didn't want the UN to go into Iraq..

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132832,00.html

Also here is a link from where they get all the info the docs and such (ITs at the bottem of that page also
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132649,00.html
Reply
Well just a nugget to chew on the 377 tons of explosives missing in Iraq is a demolitions grade explosive, one pound destroyed the 747 over lockerbie Scottland in the 80s. The Guy Bush put in charge in Iraq didn't trust the USA that we would be able to find them when the explosives came up missing, plus he wanted to take credit himself for finding them himself. He told the the US state department a month ago and the US public almost didn't hear about it. The Iraqi interm president told the security council when the state department didn't act on leads recently and they went public with the report. Now Bush since the report is out claims that eather the Explosive never existed or were removed before the US took custody of Iraq.
makes you wonder what other secrets they are keeping from us
I am "Pedro" I am an afro warrior-----
Excel saga
Reply
Ossie Wrote:'Just Bush decided to actually uphold the UN's rules'
Big Grin Youve got to be kidding me?
Is this what the bush administration is telling people now?
That cracks me up.
This is the same war that the UN secretary General recently called 'an illegal war'.
Youre telling me that Bush took a course of action which seriously undermined the credibility of the UN out of dedication to upholding UN authority. Rolleyes

An illegal war? Now you've got to be kidding me! Yes, Bush took a course of action which seriously undermined the credibility of the UN out of dedication to upholding UN authority. The UN gave Saddam MANY chances to let weapons inspectors into his country and gave him MANY chances to show them that he has disarmed. Saddam IGNORED the UN. The UN in their resolutions promised war to remove Saddam if Saddam did not comply. The UN did nothing, so Bush did. The Bush did the job of the UN because they UN refused to do it. If you don't believe me look up the UN resolutions yourself. They state very clearly what they would do is Saddam did not comply.
Reply
Mantis421 Wrote:Well just a nugget to chew on the 377 tons of explosives missing in Iraq is a demolitions grade explosive, one pound destroyed the 747 over lockerbie Scottland in the 80s. The Guy Bush put in charge in Iraq didn't trust the USA that we would be able to find them when the explosives came up missing, plus he wanted to take credit himself for finding them himself. He told the the US state department a month ago and the US public almost didn't hear about it. The Iraqi interm president told the security council when the state department didn't act on leads recently and they went public with the report. Now Bush since the report is out claims that eather the Explosive never existed or were removed before the US took custody of Iraq.
makes you wonder what other secrets they are keeping from us

Actually first don't listen to Kerry's speaches on the matter since i have been watching actual news on the items.
1 it was missing in May of last year from April to May they say someone took it.. Its kinda hard to carry 10 truck loads of Munitions out while the road is being guarded by Solders.. And so far i haven't found any report of Bush actually making claims on it.. Weither acknoloding it or not. Also everything i have read and heard has been independant of Kerrry or Bush campain. Most of what i have read presume it was missing before we even invaded. But i will try to find some actual non-biased news information about it for the actual facts..
Reply
"By Edward L. Daley (aka DarcPrynce)

On Monday, October 25th, 2004, the New York Times printed a lengthy front page news story claiming that "380 tons of powerful conventional explosives" had disappeared from a storage facility in Iraq, supposedly while the stockpile had been under American military supervision and control. Throughout the day, newspapers and television networks the world over ran the story, and it wasn't long before Democrat presidential hopeful John F. Kerry was condemning George W. Bush for incompetence over the matter, as he continued on his final campaign swing through New Hampshire.

Huge Cache Of Explosives Vanished From Site In Iraq
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/25/intern...5bomb.html

Kerry called Bush's alleged failure to have the large cache of weapons secured, "one of the greatest blunders" of his administration, yet there was only one problem with his reprimand... the story wasn't true.

Kerry Slams Bush For "Great Blunder"
http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArti...ction=news

Only hours after the story broke, CNN reported that the claim of U.S. responsibility for the stolen munitions was utterly bogus, citing an NBC News report of April 10, 2003 by its embedded journalists with the Army's 101st Airborne Division. The report stated that when troops arrived at the Al Qaqaa facility, they found none of the explosives mentioned in the Times article.

Explosives Could Not Be Found When U.S. Troops Arrived
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/...explosives

Yet in spite of that fact, the "newspaper of record" not only failed to retract the story the following morning, its writers actually followed up on it with another misleading article as if the CNN information did not exist, as did reporters at the Times' sister publication, the Boston Globe, and several other left-leaning papers.

Iraq Explosives Become Issue In Campaign
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/26/politi...oref=login
Explosives Were Looted After Iraq Invasion
http://www.boston.com/news/world/article..._invasion/

Even though many news agencies have now reported on the initial error, Senator Kerry continues to spread the fallacious claim. During an October 26th speech in Wisconsin, Kerry said "Yesterday we learned that nearly 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives vanished from one of Iraq's most sensitive military installations after the invasion." He went on to assert that the president "has failed in his fundamental obligation as commander-in-chief to make America as safe and secure as we ought to be."

Kerry Clings To 'Missing Explosives' Story On Tuesday
http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewPolitics.asp...1026d.html

Furthermore, the Drudge Report has learned that Kerry's campaign headquarters have already prepared a new ad (http://www.johnkerry.com/video/102604_obligation.html) which also focuses of this discredited assertion. The following words have been taken from the script for his ad.

John Kerry: The obligation of a Commander in Chief is to keep our country safe. In Iraq, George Bush has overextended our troops and now failed to secure 380 tons of deadly explosives. The kind used for attacks in Iraq, and for terrorist bombings. His Iraq misjudgments put our soldiers at risk, and make our country less secure.

Kerry/Edwards Campaign Preparing Ad On Missing Explosives
http://www.drudgereport.com/dnce.htm

Drudge also reported that CBS, the network which disgraced itself by offering forged documents as proof of its claim that Bush received favoritism from his Air National Guard commander in the late 1960s on its '60 Minutes' program, had manufactured an "October surprise" for President Bush, having planned to release the faulty explosives story on that same, tainted show just three days before the election.

60 Mins Planned Bush Missing Explosives Story For Election Eve
http://www.drudgereport.com/nbcw6.htm

This astounding, and seemingly coordinated effort on the part of the New York Times, CBS News and the Kerry campaign to damage the reputation of George W. Bush, as well as the men and women of the United States armed forces, only a week prior to the presidential election marks a new low in liberal political chicanery.

Not only did these entities, and every other organization (except CNN) that reported the story, fail to investigate the information presented to them before releasing it for public consumption, many of them, including the Times and John Kerry himself, are apparently in no hurry to admit their egregious error to the American people.

I suspect that once they do, (assuming that they decide to) their admissions will be, shall we say, lacking in the same sort of enthusiasm that their initial reports of a potential Bush scandal possessed. I am also not expecting to hear a heart-felt apology from Mr. Kerry to President Bush anytime soon, although one is certainly warranted in this case.

By any means, this current state of affairs should leave no doubt in anyone's mind that some of the most influential members of the "mainstream" media are steadfastly aligned with John Kerry and his DNC cronies this year, just as they have been in years past with other left-wing presidential candidates.

What should also be glaringly obvious to anyone paying attention is that these people will stoop to any depths necessary to assure a Democrat victory on election day. That they continue to believe in the premise that the end justifies the means, no matter how malicious and deceitful those means may prove to be, is all any undecided voter needs to understand as we go to the polls on November the 2nd.

Edward L. Daley is the owner of the Daley Times-Post
http://www.times-post.com"

"What the dems and Kerry are trying to do is run out the clock. They'll take any negative information (such as this story)...knowing its false, and knowing they will eventually have to admit it is false (they pray after the election), and then keep running with it straight up until election eve.

They'll give it plenty of air time, hoping the illiterate and uneducated Democrat-leaning voters will not question the story....and accept it as gospel truth. Then they'll vote for Jo.Ke. Kerry figures, once he's elected, he can always then claim..oops "bad intelligence", just like BoSox scores he couldn't get right."
Reply
Well i don't think i need to post anything about that.. Cidien has it all..
Reply
Well before anyone really acuses me of listening to Kerry like Schultz has I get all my news from eather the BBC or the Mc Neil news hour on PBS. I don't get any of my news from ABC, NBC, CBS or CNN because the USA new agencies are eather to Liberal or to Conservative with how they present the news.
I am "Pedro" I am an afro warrior-----
Excel saga
Reply
Please don't get your news from the BBC. They were recently charged with intentionally printing untrue stories....

Some of their articles are ok but a lot of it is as biased or more than american news agencies.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)