Author Topic: ???...What's the Truth... (Read 1379 times)

TM7 · « **on:** October 07, 2004, 05:20:53 AM »

on Kerry Not releasing his military records. I've heard and read that he did not finish his hitch, violations of UMCJ, and only received an Honoroble Discharge in March 2001....30 years late. Inquiring minds want to know.

.............TM7

Major · « **Reply #1 on:** October 07, 2004, 03:05:49 PM »

While I do not know the truth, I have heard the same thing too and I just have to think that since Kerry wonÂ’t release the records then the stories about his military service must be true. To my way of thinking there can be no other reason to keep them hidden.

Leverdude · « **Reply #2 on:** October 07, 2004, 05:10:05 PM »

I dont know about his military record but agree with Major. If there was nothing to hide I think he'd be holding it up for the world to see what a great soldier he was. I just cant make myself like the man.

dawei · « **Reply #3 on:** October 07, 2004, 05:54:24 PM »

Quote from: TM7

on Kerry Not releasing his military records. I've heard and read that he did not finish his hitch, violations of UMCJ, and only received an Honoroble Discharge in March 2001....30 years late. Inquiring minds want to know.

.............TM7

In all Branches of our military Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers ARE NOT Discharged. Only Enlisted personnel are discharged. Off's & WO's are "RELEASED FROM ACTIVE DUTY"; or in my case: "PLACED ON THE RETIRED LIST".

ALL military personnel upon discharge; release, or retirement receive a DD214 showing EVERYTHING about their service.

Bush and Kerry could make all of the hissing stop, cease, and desist if they would just release a copy of their DD214.

magooch · « **Reply #4 on:** October 08, 2004, 02:38:10 AM »

There is probably a note in Kerry's records that declares what a great day it was for the Navy when Kerry was separated, discharged, released, or whatever term applies.

ironglow · « **Reply #5 on:** October 09, 2004, 02:56:50 AM »

If I am not mistaken; the papers the President released included his DD214...

rockbilly · « **Reply #6 on:** October 09, 2004, 05:39:06 AM »

:?: First, I'm not wild about Kerry, but in his defense, he served. He spent "some" time in country with the rest of us folks that had no choice.

As for Bush, I'm of the opinion his military records have been "adjusted" in attempt to make him look better. After all, his father, former president, former director of CIA, and many years in congress, established relationships with folks that have access to George W.'s military records and power to alter them if requested.

Second, I'm not knocking the reserve or National Guard, I served with some very fine folks that ended up on active duty, and most of them were true Americans, true to the cause and did their part. But I do have a problem with "little George", I firmly believe he used the Texas Air National Guard as a means of avoiding Vietnam. I also think his father played a part in it.

As for Kerry and the things he done after returning from Vietnam, I, too was not please with his actions, but he served, and in my opinion has the right to voice his opinion upon return. I don't really think it had any impact on the war, or caused any more American lives to be lost. After seeing what was going on over there, I can understand his position. I have never felt so ill in my life as I did while watching the Americans fleeing Vietnam as the VC were moving into saigon. I ask myself then, and continue to ask, WHY? Why did I spend 30 months of my life fighting this war, why did many of my friends have to lose their lives there. Why did we get involved in the first place if we didn't intend to win? Looking back, if I had know things would turn out as they did I might have joined Joan F. and Kerry in their protest.

And the sad thing, Bush has us involved in another war we can't win. Mark my word, now that it's started, your children and grandchildren will be fighting these same folks.

Needless to say but, this is one Texas boy that just don't like Bush.

dawei · « **Reply #7 on:** October 09, 2004, 05:23:57 PM »

Quote from: rockbilly

:?: First, I'm not wild about Kerry, but in his defense, he served. He spent "some" time in country with the rest of us folks that had no choice.

As for Bush, I'm of the opinion his military records have been "adjusted" in attempt to make him look better. After all, his father, former president, former director of CIA, and many years in congress, established relationships with folks that have access to George W.'s military records and power to alter them if requested.

Second, I'm not knocking the reserve or National Guard, I served with some very fine folks that ended up on active duty, and most of them were true Americans, true to the cause and did their part. But I do have a problem with "little George", I firmly believe he used the Texas Air National Guard as a means of avoiding Vietnam. I also think his father played a part in it.

As for Kerry and the things he done after returning from Vietnam, I, too was not please with his actions, but he served, and in my opinion has the right to voice his opinion upon return. I don't really think it had any impact on the war, or caused any more American lives to be lost. After seeing what was going on over there, I can understand his position. I have never felt so ill in my life as I did while watching the Americans fleeing Vietnam as the VC were moving into saigon. I ask myself then, and continue to ask, WHY? Why did I spend 30 months of my life fighting this war, why did many of my friends have to lose their lives there. Why did we get involved in the first place if we didn't intend to win? Looking back, if I had know things would turn out as they did I might have joined Joan F. and Kerry in their protest.

And the sad thing, Bush has us involved in another war we can't win. Mark my word, now that it's started, your children and grandchildren will be fighting these same folks.

Needless to say but, this is one Texas boy that just don't like Bush.

I SINCERELY FEEL you have hit the nail on the head! I abhor just about all that Kerry stands for; however, WE (KETCHUP MAN, YOU, & I EARNED THE RIGHT TO SPEAK AND PROTEST WHAT HAPPENED IN RVN).

If Bush had said to the American people:

I believe that Saddam Hussien and his regime is a threat to the peace & stability of the region & the United States. FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:

He had, and quite possibly still has; programs for chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. VERIFIED

He is physchologically, and sociologically unstable. HE IS A NARSISSIST. VERIFIED

He has brutally murdered his own people. He finances Hamas & Hezbolah terrorists to kill Israeli CIVILIANS. VERIFIED

HE MAY HAVE A LINK TO AL QUIDA but we at this time can't verify this.

The United Nations is politcally, and militarily ineffectual against his regime. The sanctions are skirted by many countries of the world; including our allies. VERIFIABLE

etc...........................

If we had taken him & his regime out; AND THEN GOT OUT - there would still be civil war & insurgency. But most our nation's finest would now be home,by way of Kabul; with Osama Bin Missing's head on the barrel of a tank turret!

KERRY IS RIGHT ABOUT ONE THING: BUSH TOOK HIS EYE OFF THE BALL!

Bush believes things I FULLY SUPPORT & BELIEVE IN: Second Amendment Rights, Protecting the rights of the unborn, Faith Based Initiatives, etc.

I'm having a hard choice this year; voting for the lesser of two evils. I'm not trying to start an agument or a flame war; rather just expousing my observations & feelings.

To rockbilly & all my fellow VietNam vets: WELCOME HOME!

victorcharlie · « **Reply #8 on:** October 10, 2004, 03:05:37 AM »

I do not question Senator Kerry's service in Vietnam, but believe his actions upon his return should be scrutinized heavily. In my opinion, he certainly gave aid and comfort to the enemy. His words were used by the enemy to break down american POW's, and caused emotional trauma to my heros. That, my friends, is why he is so disgusting to me personally. Hanoi Jane, found god's love and asked forgiveness. I've yet to hear these words from Kerry.

magooch · « **Reply #9 on:** October 10, 2004, 05:15:26 AM »

I'm having a hard choice this year; voting for the lesser of two evils. I'm not trying to start an agument or a flame war; rather just expousing my observations & feelings.[/color]

To rockbilly & all my fellow VietNam vets: WELCOME HOME! [/quote]

Well David, while you're busy "expousing", just remember, it isn't our military leaders who say President Bush took his eye off the ball. General Franks, who ran both the Afghanistan and Iraq operations said he agrees with and in fact was the architect of both battles.

Personally, I'm beginning to think that Osama just might be doing a dirt nap. There has been no confirmed sighting of the turd or his entourage in quite a while.

FWiedner · « **Reply #10 on:** October 10, 2004, 07:50:35 AM »

With regard to the service that either of the two candidates in question might have performed, I see no good reason, nor do I feel myself qualified to question either the character or the quality of that service.

They both served in their fashion, and according to their records, both served honorably.

Both have detractors, critics, and enemies that seem determined to smear the other candidate and seal a victory for their own favored son.

Aside from that IRRELEVANT argument, there are other issues of record.

Look at Kerry's actions upon his return from Vietnam. He had every right as an American citizen to speak out against the policies of the administration, but he chose to speak out against his brothers-in-arms. Look at Kerry's record in the Senate. When did he even once vote for any issue that reflected any sincere belief in traditional values and faith in the American way of life? Who are his friends? Those who are plainly not ours.

Look at Bushs record. A spoliled silver-spoon rich boy shoved into the most powerful political chair in the world. He was wholly unqualified to be the Governor of Texas, and he was wholly unqualified to be the President of the United States. Yet there he is. And for the most part he has done an acceptable job. His strength lies in his political alliances and advisors.

I, personally, don't care for some of the legislation that has come down the pike since he took office, and I question his support of the Constitution of the United States.

Per the War on Terror, it needed to be fought. Simply inevitable. The spill-over into Iraq was equally inveitable. Mr. Bush said that the friends, allies, and supporters of terrorists would be held equally liable and responsible for the acts of terrorists. Saddam Hussein was paying bounties for American lives. That alone should be enough to see him in a cold grave. Removing that incentive for terrorists and enemy combatants was of paramount psychological importance to protect American lives in the field and otherwise.

Both Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry are creatures driven by political expedience. The path that leads to either their personal advancement or that serves the will of their their political masters is the path that they will choose. Thus, Mr. Bushs half-hearted support of the 2nd Amendment, and Mr. Kerry's theatrical concern for the proper prosecution of the war in Iraq. Neither really cares about anything if there is nothing in it for them.

I cannot support Kerry, under any circumstance. While I support Mr. Bushs conduct of the War on Terror, I do not believe that he is a friend of the Constitution.

A quandry, it is.

powderman · « **Reply #11 on:** October 10, 2004, 02:34:30 PM »

ROCKBILLY. President Bush's former commander has stated that GW volunteered for combat duty 2x. He said he was refused because the aircraft he had trained on was not modern enough for combat in VN.
I disagree about hanoi johns effect on the lives of our soldiers then, and now. There have been too many testimonies from former VN POWS about how his testimonies were used as evidence that they were wrong in supporting America. They said that every time kerry and fonda opened their traitorous mouths that the beatings and torture were increased, many of those brave men died from those beatings. He gave aid and comfort to a beaten enemy, he gave them the hope to fight on, and they did. Hanoi john has American blood on his hands. He is demoralizing our troops today. He was a traitor then, and now.
One verey important thing I must mention here. President Bush didn't start this war and I'm tired of hearing about Bush's war. This war was started by a group of sick, Godless, subhumans who spout hatred and death to all non muslims. They can run, but they will pay for what they did, and are doing. Fight them here, or over there, those are our choices, but fight them we must. I believe that if gore had been elected, or any other dumcrap, he would still be appologizing for building the twin towers too tall and putting them in the path of those Godless scums stolen planes. I refuse to believe that America could be so morally bankrupt to elect kerry, but I believed that about bj bill too.
I pray that Americans will wake up, get God back in their lives, and that the democratic party will receive the biggest beating in the polls in the history of America.
As for your brave service to America, I salute you Sir, and give my thanks. POWDERMAN. :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)

victorcharlie · « **Reply #12 on:** October 10, 2004, 03:10:18 PM »

Powderman......I wish I could have said it that well......my point exactly.

IntrepidWizard · « **Reply #13 on:** October 10, 2004, 03:15:48 PM »

we are truly at the Precipous,and the duplicity and hypocracy and lies of the Liberals is accepted,mostly by females and if they get in they will put us on a quicker slide than Willie who really started the phonys.

ironglow · « **Reply #14 on:** October 10, 2004, 03:26:38 PM »

We had a tremendous war hero at one time who was (really) grievously wounded.
He got it in the legs both times and was undisputedly leading the charge both times....not bad for a General officer!

While recovering from his second wounding, he had a change of heart..

Money, political ambition...whatever the reason...he turned against his own country and the troops he had led in the field.

Had he succeeded, he would have had many of his former fellow soldiers killed in the field...

Fortunately his traitorous activity was uncovered, and Benedict Arnold had to flee to avoid execution...

I consider Arnold and Kerry to be on par with one another....other than Arnold was genuinely wounded by ENEMY action...

Even though he was honestly wounded at both Quebec and Saratoga....that a little bit of traitorism cancels any good actions he ever did!

" A little leaven, leavens the whole lump" ( I Cor 5:6 )

magooch · « **Reply #15 on:** October 11, 2004, 03:18:09 AM »

FWiedner, by what or whose standards was George Bush not qualified to be Governor of Texas, or President of the United States?

As you said, Dubya might only half-heartedly support the Second Amendment, but that I believe is also as you have stated, that he, as most politicians is politically expediant. I think the underlying element in this matter is that in general, the majority of the American people don't really support the Second Amendment. And it really isn't that folks actively oppose it, it is more a case of ambivilance. I blame our schools and media for that.

dawei · « **Reply #16 on:** October 11, 2004, 05:44:14 AM »

Quote from: magooch

Well David, while you're busy "expousing", just remember, it isn't our military leaders who say President Bush took his eye off the ball. General Franks, who ran both the Afghanistan and Iraq operations said he agrees with and in fact was the architect of both battles.

Personally, I'm beginning to think that Osama just might be doing a dirt nap. There has been no confirmed sighting of the turd or his entourage in quite a while.

You may be right about Osama; I hope that you are!

As for our military leaders; NO ONE THAT IS ON ACTIVE DUTY CAN OR WILL SAY ANYTHING. Eric Shinsheki tried and was ordered to retire; SecArmy White was fired. Colin Powell is "STILL ON DUTY" so to speak; thus he is keeping his mouth shut. Why are so many retired Admirals and ;Generals supporting Kerry? FRANKS IS THE ONLY ONE SUPPORTING BUSH (They are personal friends and grew up together). SCHWARTZKOPF IS KEEPING HIS MOUTH SHUT.

I served under Schwartzkopf, Powell, and Crowe. I SERVED ON GEN SHALIKASHVILI'S STAFF. I have great admiration and respect for those four Flag Officers. Clearly they see things others of us do not.

Please understand I'm not for Kerry; I AM HAVING A REAL HARD TIME SUPPORTING BUSH THIS TIME AROUND. I'm still thinking & praying hard. What a Fu$%*&#G mess we are in!

FWiedner · « **Reply #17 on:** October 11, 2004, 06:44:32 AM »

Quote from: magooch

FWiedner, by what or whose standards was George Bush not qualified to be Governor of Texas, or President of the United States?...

Well, let me turn the question back to you.

What had he ever done?

What public service had he ever performed prior to becoming Governor of Texas? What public office did he hold? What public trust did hold? What had he ever been elected to do?

He was the senior executive of several failed businesses and he owned a partial interest in a professional baseball team.

He was made Governor as a political thank-you pay-off to his Dad, the former President.

And what was there about being Governor of Texas that qualified him to be President of the United States? The Governor of Texas is not the states primary executive. In Texas, executive authority lies with the Lt. Governor. The only authority the Governor has is the veto of bills from the legislature. Other than that, he's a figure-head and a lobbyist.

He's had two paying jobs in his adult life. Governor of Texas and President of the United States of America.

So what experience did he have upon entering office that qualified him to be President?

The ability to say "OK, Dick"?

MSP Ret · « **Reply #18 on:** October 11, 2004, 08:27:21 AM »

Why turm the question back to him? Why not answer it? Is it because you have no good answer? Also it is John Kerry that has the endorsement and backing of the Communist Party of the USA, what does that say about Kerry and his views and beliefs....<><.... :grin:

FWiedner · « **Reply #19 on:** October 11, 2004, 10:04:23 AM »

Quote from: MSP Ret

Why turm the question back to him? Why not answer it? Is it because you have no good answer? Also it is John Kerry that has the endorsement and backing of the Communist Party of the USA, what does that say about Kerry and his views and beliefs....<><.... :grin:

By what standard?

Let's see....

Common sense?

Bush had no qualification to be President. He wasn't an experienced politician. He wasn't a dedicated public servant. He wasn't a successsful business man. He had never represented some segment of the American People, or fought for anyone's rights. He knows nothing about the law.

The only reason he became Governor of Texas is because he's GHWBs son. And the ONLY reason he's President today is because of a Republican (I did not say conservative) Supreme Court, AND because he's GHWBs son.

Bush is President today because of blind party line loyalty, and not because of his qualification to be so.

Republicans could have put a chimpanzee up in 2000 and he would be President today.

IntrepidWizard · « **Reply #20 on:** October 11, 2004, 10:21:56 AM »

Gee ,Fwed that would fit many past great presidents---Reagan,Carter,Lincoln,Eisenhower etc,etc,learn to pay attention.

IntrepidWizard · « **Reply #21 on:** October 11, 2004, 10:50:35 AM »

Foe Fwed--- http://www.worldnetdaily.com/

FWiedner · « **Reply #22 on:** October 11, 2004, 11:58:04 AM »

Quote from: IntrepidWizard

Gee ,Fwed that would fit many past great presidents---Reagan,Carter,Lincoln,Eisenhower etc,etc,learn to pay attention.

Wake up to the truth, Mr. Wizard.

Reagan was President of the Screen Actors Guild, a labor union, and Governor of California, widely considered the most difficult governing job in the nation next to the Presidency itself, easily qualified to be president.

Carter was a naval officer and Governor of Georgia, and an incompetent disaster as President.

Linclon was a lawyer, an overt enemy of states rights and the Constitution. He wasn't bad, but wasn't great, as President.

Eisenhower was Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe from D-Day to VE day. A masterful statesman and politician. He was the best of the lot you mention.

Bush ain't doin' bad for being totally unqualified (he's got an excellent support staff that he inherited from his Daddy) but I believe that history will ultimately place Bush in the same bucket as Truman and Johnson, as contemporary Presidents who did the job with some enthusiasm, but who ultimately did more harm than good.

powderman · « **Reply #23 on:** October 11, 2004, 01:45:47 PM »

FWEIDNER. Would you feel better if we could just convince GW to have an affair or 2? Ahh, never mind. POWDERMAN. :? :? :? :? :? :?

IntrepidWizard · « **Reply #24 on:** October 11, 2004, 01:58:46 PM »

Fweddy talks like John Edwards the Snake oil salesman,Fwed is also abstruse.

FWiedner · « **Reply #25 on:** October 11, 2004, 03:42:48 PM »

Quote from: powderman

FWEIDNER. Would you feel better if we could just convince GW to have an affair or 2? Ahh, never mind. POWDERMAN. :? :? :? :? :? :?

That would put him in the Harding, Nixon, Clinton bucket...

Presidents who felt justified to conduct themselves without morals or conscience because of their exalted political office...

Come to think of it, maybe Bush belongs in the bucket with Hoover.

Presidents who were in office and suffered political ruin due to dire national emergencies for which there was no immediate or popular resolution.

Only time will tell.

powderman · « **Reply #26 on:** October 11, 2004, 03:59:27 PM »

FWEIDNER. Has there ever been a qualified president that you approved of? How was George Washington qualified? POWDERMAN. :? :? :? :? :? :?

FWiedner · « **Reply #27 on:** October 11, 2004, 04:24:03 PM »

Quote from: powderman

FWEIDNER. Has there ever been a qualified president that you approved of? How was George Washington qualified? POWDERMAN. :? :? :? :? :? :?

Oh, come on PM.

I already said that I thought that Reagan and Eisenhower were highly qualified. AND good Presidents.

I think that GHWB was professionally qualified as well, he was even a pretty good President, but just a bit too much of the elitist. A lack of personality cost him his job. It's a TV age.

I'm not going to question the choices of our ancestors, and prefer to opine on those who have reigned for the most part during my lifetime. I can actually see the results of their work.

How was George Washington qualified? I suppose that he managed to gain the respect of his peers by way of his personal and military exploits, both before and after the War for Independence, and by the sheer virtue of his character. Have you ever read anything written by George Washington? He was a true giant among men, but he was a man of his time.

His memory does not deserve the indignity of being questioned by men in this day and age. Different time, and a different world.

magooch · « **Reply #28 on:** October 12, 2004, 03:47:16 AM »

If God himself were to run for the Presidency of the United States, there would be those who would accuse him of being unqualified, stupid, corrupt, inept, etc. It seems we are always going to have a somewhat less than perfect President.

The fact is, you never know how any given candidate will do, until they are actually put to the test. I believe George Bush has stood up amazingly well to the problems that have been thrown his way. Would I have done everything the same way he did--no.

The biggest cloud hanging over Dubya's head is the Iraq war. If he had failed to take action, you can bet that the opposition would be all over him for not standing up to Saddam. I long to have a President that would not be afraid to let the Air Force or Navy take care of problems like Iraq. My feeling is this: I would rather wipe out 100 million camel jockies than risk one American foot soldier.