Kerry: USA an international pariah

[Hedgehog]

People can use the term traitor in many cases.

Wayne Rooney will always be considered a traitor with the Everton fans after switching to ManU.

Then there's the legal term treason. But I wouldn't make too much of it, although I think it's questionable whether Kerry is a traitor for critisising during the Vietnam.

Very few of the Swift Boat veterans served with Kerry, only one was on the actual boat I believe.

There are Swift Boat Officers who opposes Kerry. But how many of the men he served with, on his boat, thinks he is a POS?



-Hedge

[Dos Equis]

People can use the term traitor in many cases.

Wayne Rooney will always be considered a traitor with the Everton fans after switching to ManU.

Then there's the legal term treason. But I wouldn't make too much of it, although I think it's questionable whether Kerry is a traitor for critisising during the Vietnam.

Very few of the Swift Boat veterans served with Kerry, only one was on the actual boat I believe.

There are Swift Boat Officers who opposes Kerry. But how many of the men he served with, on his boat, thinks he is a POS?



-Hedge

I agree there are many ways to use the term.  I didn't really pay much attention to the Swift Boat people initially, in part because of the timing (coming during a political campaign).  Then I watched the Stolen Honor documentary.  Powerful stuff.  What you cannot do if you are a military officer is get in front of a microphone in D.C. and accuse your fellow soldiers of atrocities, while your fellow soldiers are being help captive in a foreign country.  In the Stolen Honor documentary, the former POWs and their wives talked about how the Vietnamese used transcripts of Kerry's comments to interrogate our POWs. 

That makes him a traitor in my book. 

[240 is Back]

the former POWs and their wives talked about how the Vietnamese used transcripts of Kerry's comments to interrogate our POWs. 

That makes him a traitor in my book. 

So there are different levels of traitors, BB?

[Dos Equis]

So there are different levels of traitors, BB?

Different levels?  I have no idea what that means.  I'm talking about Kerry and his conduct during the Vietnam War.  Some liberals (like you) don't have a problem with his conduct.  I spoke to a liberal on Saturday night who didn't have a problem with his conduct.  We are all entitled to our opinion.   

[BRUCE]

Mr I and Beach Bum -

The word "traitor" is applied by you two, to jsut about anyone who disses the war.  When you outright call Senator John Kerry a traitor, do you realize what action you are calling for?

Are you two crazy?  Even when I discuss 9/11, in which I believe Bush knew and didn't act, I've never made such a statement, because IMO it is by far the WORST thing you can say about a fellow American, and you damn sure better not use it unless you mean it.  If you call a person a traitor, you are saying that person should be executed for betraying his country.

Do you two realize how wrong that is to casually call someone that because you disagree with them politically?



Please explain your position.

So what you're saying is that it's worse for one person to call another a traitor, than it is to say the President knowingly conspired to kill thousands of his own innocent citizens?

Why you're the one reacting to this with such vigour is beyond me, but for the record, I don't think John Kerry is a traitor.

[OzmO]

What did Kerry do that is making some people call him a traitor?

Isn't being a traitor directly helping the enemy kill or gain tangible advantages?

[Dos Equis]

What did Kerry do that is making some people call him a traitor?

Isn't being a traitor directly helping the enemy kill or gain tangible advantages?

http://www.stolenhonor.com/

[240 is Back]

So what you're saying is that it's worse for one person to call another a traitor, than it is to say the President knowingly conspired to kill thousands of his own innocent citizens?

There is a great deal of evidence that Bush was given details of the impending attacks and did nothing.  I would like mr bush to testify, under oath, what he knew and when, and why he didn't act upon the specific intel from teh German ambassador which included 5 of the hijackers' names, the targets, and the attack date.

Bush has never denied knowing.  He has never gone under oath.  And he has refused to answer anything about it. 

I've never used the "T" word in this case.  One, because Bush hasn't been proven to have done anything yet.  And two, because I do not know the circumstances.  If Bush was confronted with a financial collapse and chose a terror attack to justify military spending and invasions to save our economy, he should tell us.

[BRUCE]

There is a great deal of evidence that Bush was given details of the impending attacks and did nothing.  I would like mr bush to testify, under oath, what he knew and when, and why he didn't act upon the specific intel from teh German ambassador which included 5 of the hijackers' names, the targets, and the attack date.

Bush has never denied knowing.  He has never gone under oath.  And he has refused to answer anything about it. 

I've never used the "T" word in this case.  One, because Bush hasn't been proven to have done anything yet.  And two, because I do not know the circumstances.  If Bush was confronted with a financial collapse and chose a terror attack to justify military spending and invasions to save our economy, he should tell us.

More diatribe.  You didn't answer my question.  Perhaps you should consider that Bush hasn’t refuted those claims because they’re preposterous, and to address them would give theorists like yourself reason to continue your conspiratorial wet dreams even further.

[240 is Back]

More diatribe.  You didn't answer my question.  Perhaps you should consider that Bush hasn’t refuted those claims because they’re preposterous, and to address them would give theorists like yourself reason to continue your conspiratorial wet dreams even further.

Bush refused to take the stand during the 9/11 commission.  he refused to testify without Cheney there.  he refused to be recorded.  Any notes were censored.  he only gave them a short time period.  his words were never released.

This was before anyone was crying conspiracy.  This was the 911 Commission.  Why did everyone else have to testify under oath - but the two men who were at the wheel that day - Bush and Cheney - refused?

[Dos Equis]

More diatribe.  You didn't answer my question.  Perhaps you should consider that Bush hasn’t refuted those claims because they’re preposterous, and to address them would give theorists like yourself reason to continue your conspiratorial wet dreams even further.

Well stated man.  I completely agree.  You start addressing every ridiculous comment and you give them more life than they need.  

[240 is Back]

Why did everyone else have to testify under oath - but the two men who were at the wheel that day - Bush and Cheney - refused?

BTW - if your answer is "Because they're the president and VP", I gotta tell you that's a terrible answer.  Please tell me why everyone else was drilled under oath but they could just refuse.

[BRUCE]

BTW - if your answer is "Because they're the president and VP", I gotta tell you that's a terrible answer.  Please tell me why everyone else was drilled under oath but they could just refuse.

Why even bother responding when you can for me, and then label my (imagined) reply as 'terrible'?

[240 is Back]

Why even bother responding when you can for me, and then label my (imagined) reply as 'terrible'?

So you don't have an answer then?

I'm not flaming dude.  I'm pointing out that it's been reported multiple times - from our allies and enemeies alike - that Bush knew a lot before the attacks. 

bush was asked a few times, and never would answer the Q.

If I ran the country, and 36% of the people there (scripps poll) believed I was behind 9/11, you'd better f'king believe I would squash theose rumors by answering their question.  Even if I thought it was rediculous, I certainly couldn't have a dividing force in my nation like that. 

So um, why didn't Bush/Cheney testify under oath when everyone else had to?

[BRUCE]

So you don't have an answer then?

I'm not flaming dude.  I'm pointing out that it's been reported multiple times - from our allies and enemeies alike - that Bush knew a lot before the attacks. 

bush was asked a few times, and never would answer the Q.

If I ran the country, and 36% of the people there (scripps poll) believed I was behind 9/11, you'd better f'king believe I would squash theose rumors by answering their question.  Even if I thought it was rediculous, I certainly couldn't have a dividing force in my nation like that. 

So um, why didn't Bush/Cheney testify under oath when everyone else had to?

So what you're saying is that it's worse for one person to call another a traitor, than it is to say the President knowingly conspired to kill thousands of his own innocent citizens?

Why you're the one reacting to this with such vigour is beyond me, but for the record, I don't think John Kerry is a traitor.

How about you answer my original question, then I'll get round to your rants, okay?

[Camel Jockey]

I guess this is what happens when you use an attack on your soil by some obscure enemy as an excuse to start up illegal wars with any nation you please.

I also don't see how John Kerry is a traitor for pointing out atrocities commited by some of his fellow soliders. What does it matter if some soliders were being held as POWs? How does that relate to Kerry pointing out injustices that were commited in Vietnam by American certain servicemen? 

[240 is Back]

How about you answer my original question, then I'll get round to your rants, okay?

I never said so-and-so did this or that.

i said the evidence strongly points to that, and i would love it if he would answer the questions.  I've also made it abundantly clear it's my own personal opinion that Bush was an unwilling participant on 9/11.  He was following his orders. 

So um, why didn't Bush/Cheney testify under oath when everyone else had to?

[BRUCE]

I never said so-and-so did this or that.

i said the evidence strongly points to that, and i would love it if he would answer the questions.  I've also made it abundantly clear it's my own personal opinion that Bush was an unwilling participant on 9/11.  He was following his orders. 

So um, why didn't Bush/Cheney testify under oath when everyone else had to?

Still no answer, so which is worse?  You can't honestly claim you haven't alleged anything against the President.

[Oblique]

BB and Mr.IO have already shown why Kerry is a traitor. I won't rehash their fine posts.

What I will do is speak for me personally.

Kerry is a traitor because he has, does, and will continue to put himself and his interests above what is best for this nation.

Kerry is not an American in my book.

Dissent is fine. It is welcomed. I loathed Clinton and I know how I'd feel if someone had tried to silence my distaste of that man and pretty everything he stood (and still stands) for.

But Kerry doesn't dissent. He is merely an opportunist. He will lie, cheat, flip-flop and do just about anything and everything to get what he perceives as his supposed destiny. From his phony marriages to wealthy widows, right to his lies in front of Congress about things he never saw in Vietnam. The man is scum.

He doesn't care about the troops.
He doesn't care about what the families of these kids are going through.
He doesn't care about his constituency in Massachusetts.
He doesn't care about the middle-class.
He doesn't care about the environment.

And I promise you liberals out there that he doesn't care about you either. He doesn't care about anything except himself.