Thursday, November 02, 2006

John Kerry (America's Enemy)

Lest we forget...
John Kerry has a history of trashing the American soldier... And he is the hero of Democrats? Why?

I see no reason to believe that this most recent outrage is any different than the ones in the past.
Posted by at

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

I have always believed that a person should be rightly judged by what they do instead of what they say. In my research of Congressional voting records where military and veterans affairs are concerned, I found that elected Republicans only talk the talk, they don’t walk the walk.

Another thing that I try to do is gather pertinent facts from the most qualified and relevant sources. For example, as regards the war in Iraq, it would seem more important to see what Iraq and Afghanistan veterans thought of their elected representatives, than it would be to determine the opinions of older veterans.

Likewise, if I want an assessment of the state of veteran’s affairs, the experiences of disabled veterans should be more relevant, and therefore more important, than those in better circumstances.

With these parameters in mind, the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (www.iavaaction.org) and the Disabled American Veterans found the voting record shows that the Democrats in the Senate consistently vote for the interests of veterans by a large margin over Republicans. You can see the DAV scorecard at (www.capwiz.com/dav/scorecard.xc). Overall, Democrats voted for veterans 88% of the time, while the GOP members only supported veterans half the time.

As for these Swiftboat Vets in whom you put so much of your valuable trust, and who according to the video you post, have "nothing to gain for themselves except for the satisfaction that comes with telling the truth":

1) The SBVT statements were accompanied by sworn affidavits, although one affiant, Al French, later admitted he had no firsthand knowledge of what he had sworn to,
2) The first SBVT ad was contradicted by the statements of several other veterans who observed the incidents, by the Navy's official records, and, in some instances, by the contemporaneous statements of SBVT members themselves,
3) SBVT member Louis Letson, who claims he treated Kerry and downplays his wound, was NOT the doctor who signed Kerry's sick call sheet and was not a Kerry crewmate,
4) SBVT's claim that Kerry wrote up the whole incident report relating to his Silver Star is contradicted by past testimony from key SBVT members who were responsible for reviewing the incident reports,
5) SBVT's claim about Kerry and his Silver Star are false and contradict the known record. Secondly, a key accuser of Kerry who cast doubt about the legitimacy of Kerry's Silver Star, George Elliott, destroyed his credibility by contradicting himself repeatedly. Indeed, not just in 1969, but also in 1996, Elliot explicitly supported Kerry and spoke highly about his Silver Star. Roy Hoffman and Adrian Lonsdale, other key accusers, have behaved similarly,
6) While Steve Gardner did serve as a gunner under Kerry's command on PCF 44, he has admitted that he -- just like the rest of the SBVTs claiming that Kerry is lying about his medals -- was not present for the incidents leading to Kerry's receipt of any medals or any of Kerry's three Purple Hearts,
7) Despite repeatedly claiming he was always on Kerry's boat, when asked to comment on the March 13, 1969 incident Gardner said, "I'm not going to deal with that. Because I wasn't there."
8) 7 lies is enough for now.

Only one member of SBV actually served with John Kerry on Kerry's boat and that is Steve Gardner.

However, neither he NOR any other member of the SVBT served with John Kerry during the incidents that led to KERRY'S PURPLE HEARTS, BRONZE STAR AND SILVER STAR.

The remaining members either never served in Vietnam when Kerry was there (a notable example is key SBVT spokesman John O'Neill) or served in other boats or other positions that would provide them little or no first hand knowledge about Kerry's service. Of those who actually served under/with Kerry in his boat, 11 out of 12 fully support Kerry and his assertions.

Many purple heart awards were made to Swift Boat personnel in the Vietnam era, for wounds similar to those sustained by Kerry. So, SBVT's claim that Kerry did not deserve his award is equivalent to saying that the Purple Hearts won by many of those who served in Vietnam were undeserved. I invite you and SBVT to announce this in public.

11/02/2006 2:04 PM
Malott said...

There are things more important to me than anything you just wrote about.
1) Dems fought NSA wiretaps.
2) Dems fought patriot act.
3) Dems fought for rights of prisoners at Guantanimo while trashing our servicemen.
4) Dems question whether we are even at war.
5) Dems want to leave Iraq before the job is done.

Through birth rates and jihad, radical Islam is changing the world forever, and there is no way I want the same kind of liberals - that are currently surrendering France - to be elected here.

And John Kerry? Surely you'll admit that this is the same person who came back from Vietnam and trashed U.S. servicemen - and met with the enemy. In another time he would have been imprisoned, or perhaps shot. The swift-boat vets tower above this sad excuse for a human being.

11/02/2006 4:45 PM
All_I_Can_Stands said...

anonymous, I guess you put so much time and effort into writing that comment in an earlier malott post, you figured it was worth posting it again here. My guess is that you are coying and pasting this in other blogs too.

11/02/2006 9:53 PM
Anonymous said...

all i can stands, I guess you put so much thought into your zero substance response that you are satisfied to do nothing more than enable malott's lies.

malott, it's good to see you be honest for once and admit that you don't support the troops.

There are things more important to me than anything you just wrote about.
1) Dems fought NSA wiretaps.
2) Dems fought patriot act.
3) Dems fought for rights of prisoners at Guantanimo while trashing our servicemen.
4) Dems question whether we are even at war.
5) Dems want to leave Iraq before the job is done.

1) Dems have never fought NSA wiretaps. Dems have fought for compliance with the law to protect the guarantees of the Constitution
2) Dems voted overwhelmingly FOR the Patriot Act. Dems just want to make sure that we protect the Constitution because right now Bush and his Republican enablers are doing more harm to the US than "the terrorists" ever could.
3) Dems go on endlessly about our brave men and women in uniform, and as the voting record clearly shows, they actually support our troops instead of just merely mouthing the empty phrase. As for prisoners, people are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, and until proven guilty they get basic Geneva Convention rights, which the US Supreme Court (now stacked with Bush people) upheld. Do you know anything about what you talk about? Seems like you're totally clueless about all this.
4) What a stupid statement. Dems are painfully aware of the 2800 dead American troops and the war we are in, because unlike most of the Republicans in DC, a whole lot of them actually served in the military.
5) until the job is done? what job? killing iraqis? wasting US taxpayer money? getting our troops killed? installing democracy? ha!

The SBVT are a pack of liars, so you're in good company to consider them towering examples of humanity.

11/03/2006 11:19 AM
Malott said...

Anonymous, you said:

"Bush and his Republican enablers are doing more harm to the US than "the terrorists" ever could."

and

"until the job is done? what job? killing iraqis? wasting US taxpayer money? getting our troops killed? installing democracy? ha!"

Sorry, anonymous, but you sound pretty nutty when you say that Bush is more dangerous than the terrorists.
And the job will be done when Radical Islam is no longer a threat. Look, we may not even survive radical Islam - in any case we won't see the end of this war in our lifetime.

Where do you want to fight this war? Not liking the war, or getting rid of Bush is not going to bring about peace, and it won't make the terrorists go away.

11/03/2006 1:12 PM
Anonymous said...

Sorry, anonymous, but you sound pretty nutty when you say that Bush is more dangerous than the terrorists.
And the job will be done when Radical Islam is no longer a threat.

Bush is more dangerous than the terrorists because unlike the terrorists, Bush can and has attacked and shredded the Constitution and our American way of life. Terrorists can't do that. Bush says the terrorists want to destroy America. The only way America can be destroyed is if we let its ideals be destroyed, and that is precisely what George W. Bush and his administration are doing.

Radical Islam will always be a threat and the Iraq war has only served to increase that threat. If you think that's wrong then go argue it with Centcom and US intelligence who are the ones making that claim.

There will always be Muslims. There will always be fundamentalist crazies who do bad things. But ravaging Iraq ceaselessly is not going to make those crazies stop. It inflames them. The Iraq War has become a major recruitment tool for radical Islamic fundamentalists. Don't agree? Go argue that with US intelligence too.

11/03/2006 3:08 PM
Malott said...

Anonymous,
Well at least we agree that Radical Islam will always be a threat.

We definitely disagree about how to engage that threat and in particular about how George Bush is handling it.

Do you agree with me that Europe is lost? I believe we will see Sharia Law there in the next 50 years along with Muslim majorities in population. As European culture deteriorates, I believe there will be an exodus of Europeans accelerating the process.

Do you agree? Do you think we might be called upon to liberate Europe once again? Do you think that the situation might give rise to a fascist leader like another Hitler?

How are the Dems better able to address this worldwide threat?

What is your recipe for success in Iraq?

I agree we have a mess, but what is your solution?

11/03/2006 4:45 PM
Anonymous said...

I don't agree with you that Europe is lost.

Do you fear all Muslims?

9/11 has been exploited by the Bush administration like Hitler exploited the burning of the Reichstag, so yes I do believe the situation might give rise to a fascist leader like another Hitler.

Dems are better able to address this worldwide threat because they realize a worldwide threat requires global cooperation and not unilateralism. Dems realize that implementing the 9/11 Commission recommendations are key to real American security. Dems are the ones who pushed and had to fight Bush for the Dept of Homeland Security.

The Dems plan is fully laid out for Iraq and beyond in the 528 page document known as Senate Amendment 4936. You can read it here:
http://democrats.senate.gov/pdfs/RealSecurityAct_2006.pdf

11/03/2006 6:33 PM
paw said...

At the point that America is lost, Malott, is that a violent thing or are they going to adhere to the constitutional ammendment process to get rid of that troublesome first ammendment? I can't see either scenario coming to be at the hand of this enemy.

11/03/2006 8:30 PM
Malott said...

Paw,

It's impossible to say how Europe will progress towards Muslim domination, but there is already talk of laws for Europeans and different laws for Muslims.

It may be 100 years away for us, but at that time we may face Muslim domination of Europe, Africa, India and much of Asia - and there will be a great deal of pressure on the U.S. government from without and from within. I can see federal courts stepping in and demanding Sharia zones and calling it freedom of religion. The courts are already morphing into a kind of legislative presence in our government.

Mark Steyn suggests that America has the advantage of watching Europe... as a kind of preview of what we will one day face.

If you look at birth rates among Muslims as opposed to westerners, at the very least you must agree that the 22nd century world will in no way resemble that of the 20th century.

anonymous,

I fear Radical Islam. I see moderate Islamic nations accomodating it rather than standing up to its influence.

11/04/2006 7:25 AM
paw said...

"Mark Steyn suggests....."

ROFLMAO!

Ah yes, the brilliantly subtle intellectual stylings of Steyn, employing so well the near lost art of parable and allegory to convey complex meaning, providing the context by which his reader/listener can develop a deep and broad appreciation for the very serious matters at hand.

That explains it. Thanks.

11/04/2006 5:14 PM
All_I_Can_Stands said...

anonymous,

My comment was not without substance. It had one item of substance that you ignored. I pointed out that you had copied and pasted your comment under two malott posts. My guess is you lost track which blogs you did this on and accidentally added it twice here.

11/04/2006 9:35 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)