Quote from: LONGTOM on Today at 01:15:22 AMJK lied about his time of service in VN.
I don't know what he lied about. He was there, he saw action, he was decorated. What's the lie you've got in mind?
When he stated that he was behind enemy lines in Cambodia at a certain time (sorry I don't have the exact date) it was proven that at that time he wasn't even in country. THAT WAS A LIE ON HIS PART!
In fact, it was proven that he wasn't even in country at the time he said he was.
shouldn't be too hard to look at his service jacket. Is it your position that he was not in Vietnam, did not command swift boat, did not see action, did not receive Silver Star?
Can't you read?
In fact, it was proven that he wasn't even
in country at the time he said he was.
I never said he wasn't in Nam.
He just wasn't there on the dates he said he was.
YT, You think we were on the wrong side of the war
I do. DO YOU THINK our interests were served by going into that war? With the hundreds of thousands killed as a result of our engagement in that war?
Yes I do.
Your opinion, my opinion.
well let me tell you that a lot of young men thought the same thing but went and did their duty without meeting with the enemy in Paris and giving them their endorsement.
said another way - those men you have in mind, failed to turn their convictions into actions.
You surely aren't saying that those young men were cowards because they served their country when called upon to do so regardless of what they thought.
I would call that the ultimate act of bravery on their part!
Some of you pick some pretty strange hero's!
(shrug) I never claimed Kerry as as hero to me. I didn't even vote for him when he ran. All I did, was call BS on some poster's characterization of the man as a traitor (and that poster hasn't been in combat, I'll guess, but he can lie-mouth someone who has... go figger... )
Granted, I may have went a little far with your choice of person to defend.
Now I will answer the other two comments in your reply to Casull.
we were on the wrong side in that war.
First of all, that simply doesn't make sense . . . unless you are saying that we should have sided with the communist North Vietnamese.
sure it does, unless the reader is ignorant of that war and what led up to it, starting back in the 40s... maybe the kind whose knowledge of the Vietnam war comes from a Billy Joel tune & a Sly Stallone film? We should have supported Ho when he asked for it, in the late 40s early 50s. That would have been the right thing to do. We didnt... instead, in 1964, we launched a war on false pretense (as much confusion as deliberate).
You seem to keep wanting to live in the past.
You keep bringing up what started things to begin with.
That really has no bearing on this post.
The OP is about what JK will do for
THE LIAR IN THE WHITEHOUSE and why some of us think he is a traitor.
It has nothing to do with what started the war in Nam!
Secondly, that does not change the nature of his actions.
I perfectly understand the the exact nature of this 'actions' which were, when you get right down to it... that he's a Democrat and political liberal,
so folks who usually uncritically fawn over combat vets, make an exception and instead trash the guy.
I don't see any reference to him being a Dem or a Lib.
We/I am trashing him because he is a LIAR just like his chief.
He lied about his time in service and according to some of his own shipmates who were there he lied about his exploits under fire when he was wounded.
Now that all the questions have been answered with facts I feel we are more then correct when we call him a traitor.
You may feel differently, and that is your right, but in my opinion, you are wrong!!!
LONGTOM