Kerry and Jane Fonda connection
http://newsmax.com/

Kerry is a decorated veteran of the vietnam war. I seriously doubt if he was secretly hoping for a communist victory. That is the implication right? Since Kerry actually did risk his life to defend our country, my guess is that his service record would overshadow any association with that treasonous traitor Jane Fonda. This is just right-wing partisan propaganda and should be taken with a grain of salt.

I've heard alot about Bush going AWOL during his stint in the Texas NG lately too.

_________________
"I think if you know what you believe, it makes it a lot easier to answer questions. I can't answer your question." - George W Bush

Read Kerry's statements in the interview yesterday
with Imus. Kerry makes clear his disagreement with
"the choices she made" at that point in history. As
a decorated Vietnam War veteran, Kerry joined with
thousands of others who actually served in combate in Vietnam to protest the continuation of that war.
This was, of course, the first time in American history that veterans of a foreign war had actively
protested the continuation of that war. Kerry said
today that he's ready for the "onslaught" that will
be thrown at him by the ultra-conservative right. Any suggested negative association -- i.e. sitting in the same room with Jane Fonda -- will certainly
be used to attack him. Maybe such attacks will
serve as cover for the Bush Administration to paste over the comments of Bush's chief economic
advisor who this week talked about how "good" it
was for American jobs to be sent overseas and for
Alan Greenspan who yesterday said that we ought to
keep Bush's tax cuts for the rich and make serious
cuts in Social Security benefits.

I didn’t say one-way or the other rather I agreed or disagreed with the links. I merely posted them to show you what happens when one side or the other starts with the garbage. And as far as I am concerned both side are equally capable of digging up garbage and spreading it around.

You can certainly say that newsmax is right wing media, but most of the stories are out there and being carried by mainstream media as well. I was very disappointed in seeing all this trash being tossed around on CNN, Fox and any number of other cable shows last night. I used the link not because I like newsmax, because I don’t. But they did have them consolidated in one place.

One undercover FBI agent was particular interesting in linking Kerry and his support to the anti-war movement and some of their violent protests. Which may or may not have been a stretch. I’m no sure he was implying Kerry had a hands on role in the violence but the suggestion was very obvious the he had to know, or was extremely ignorant and exhibited bad judgment.

As I mentioned in another area, Time magazine editor said it was a shame that both parties have decided to make an issue out of Bush’s Nat’l Guard service and Kerry’s war protesting. He referred to it as a minor issue.

I agree…. Neither Kerry’s nor Bush’s 30 years old records are anything more then mud slinging attempts to hide form the real issues by both parties equally to blame.

These stories and issues (on Kerry) have been around for years; democrats that opposed him in primary elections used many of them. To suggest that they are merely “right-wing partisan propaganda” may be less then totally accurate. If you seen Kerry on Letterman a month or so back, he talked about some of these issues and said he will deal with them the same way he did when his fellow democrats, as well as Republicans, brought them up in the past.

It is not all that unusual to see a democrat or a republican did up trash on a fellow party member to use in a primary and then see that trash used buy the opposing party during the general election. It’s one of the benefits of being the incumbent and not being opposed in the primary.

Oh year, did I mention he rode into the Letterman studio on a Harley-Davidson motorcycle? But only after trading in an Italian built cycle he rode for years until he decided to run for president.

The Real Kerry
By Howie Carr
New York Post | February 10, 2004

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12076

Greenspan did not say he supported that “tax cut for the rich”. He didn’t make any reference to the rich, or the poor for that matter, at all. However Greenspan has been consistent on supporting tax cuts, including any that Clinton may have made during his Clinton appointed years as Fed Chair.

Some would argue that he did not actually say we should cut Social Security and argue instead that he is saying we should slow or change the payout. Here’s what he said according to Bufflo News reporter, MARTIN CRUTSINGER: He recommended two items for study in terms of trimming benefits: linking the retirement age to the population's longer life spans and tying annual cost of living benefits in Social Security to a less-generous inflation index than the Consumer Price Index.

http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20040213/1031952.asp

Neither ideas are new or products of the Bush administration and infract were both in any number of studies done starting years back. Anyone looking at the issues would be remiss in not considering the options.

<small>[ February 14, 2004, 12:36 PM: Message edited by: JFlosum ]</small>

You are absolutely right, Flosum. Alan Greenspan did not directly say that we ought to keep the tax
cuts to the rich. He said that we ought to make
permanent Dubya's tax cuts. Of course, that is tantamount to the same end since those tax cuts favor the upper-income brackets much more so than the lower and middle-income brackets. Increasing the age at which people receive Social Security benefits and/or cutting back on the "C.O.L.A." increases to Social Security will, of course, impact most heavily those who are most dependent upon Social Security. So, again, it is tantamount to the same thing. The end result is that people in the lower and middle-income groups will have to absorb more than those in the upper-income groups.
That's why the statements by Kerry, Dean, Edwards,
Clark, Lieberman and other Democrats who have been
(and some still are) part of this primary season about "restoring the middle class" and "balancing
the tax load" have resonated so well. In Oklahoma, a state that Dubya carried by a large margin in 2000, more than 10,000 REPUBLICANS turned out on a wretched winter day to vote for a T-shirt salesman from California rather than President Bush. Bush won the primary vote, of course, but Republicans are still scratching their heads over those ten
thousand Republicans.
But try this. How about sending a letter to Karl
Rove imploring him to do precisely what Alan Greenspan is advocating. Have candidate Bush argue that what we really need to do is make his
tax cuts permanent and impose the "reforms" for
Social Security advocated by Alan Greenspan. Let's see if that dog will hunt.

P.S. I disagree with you about the questions that have
arisen in recent days -- mostly following directly the interview of Dubya by Tim Russert -- concerning Dubya's "military service" during the Vietnam War era. The issues are character, honesty, integrity, and influence peddling. There are serious and persisting questions about Dubya's
honesty in telling the American people that we faced an imminent threat -- including a potential
nuclear threat -- from Iraq, and from his claim that there was a tie between Saddam Hussein and the 9/ll terrorists. And, he likes to claim he is
a "war president" and we all remember his posing for a well-rehearsed "photo-op" landing on an aircraft carrier and wearing a flight suit and holding a flight helmet. Even a cursory reading of his now-released military record reveals (1)
special privilege, (2) a cavalier at best approach to his responsibilities, (3) a casual disregard for the taxpayer money required to train him as a
fighter pilot, and (4) questionable -- but most
certainly politically-influenced -- decisions not
to hold Lieutenant Bush to task for clear breaches
of his obligations in the Texas Air National Guard. President Bush is asking young people in Guard units today to fight and die, if necessary, in Iraq and Afganhistan, and he is asking (more like requiring) them to extend their duties past their normal enlistments. He ended his duties with the Texas Air National Guard eight months early while this nation was losing over 58,0000
in a war in Vietnam that many opposed but that he
and his family strongly and publicly supported.
That's most certainly relevant information in deciding whether or not he should continue as President of the United States. Ask around. How
many people knew anything at all about Bush's military record before they voted in 2000? Not nearly enough. And how many votes might have been
different in a very close election if voters had
been more informed about Dubya's military record?
As I have argued in previous posts, most people didn't have a chance to learn this information before the 2000 election because the major media
largely ignored it -- it was a story which had no
"media traction."

<small>[ February 14, 2004, 01:34 PM: Message edited by: Bob Doolittle ]</small>

Greetings,
I think Kerry EARNED the right to speak out against the war. Only a soldier knows well the horror that is war. There is not a soldier alive that willingly seeks armed conflict. For him to speak out against the Vietnam war is his undeniable right, as it is for us all. However, I think he certainly has the added advantage to know exactly for which he advocates for he paid his admission price in blood. I may not agree with his politics or his party, but I certainly respect his position on that one issue. As a veteran myself, albeit a poor one at that, I think that we waste citizenship on a great many people (One of them being Jane Fonda who is guilty of aiding and abeting the enemy during wartime - i.e. Treason, her apology to all veterans not withstanding, she is a waste of skin). Senetor Kerry served with honor in a time that was without much in government.

I am not advocating anyone for President over antother. Everyone must vote thier concience as to who will do the best job as President, as will I. Suffice it to say that I, even as a card carrying republican, can certainly respect Sen. Kerry for his position and his fortitude to stand on his principles in an era where it was decidedly unpopular to do so.

So what about GW II's military record you say? He served as well, he may not have had the hardest service in the world, nor the most dangerous, but he did his duty. 'Nuff said.

_________________
*** The opinions expressed herein are uniquely MY OWN and should not be construed as an endorsement of any sort by my employers or of any professional associations to which I hold membership. I can dig myself into holes just fine without their help, thank you very much***

MedicDVG !!

Very well said!!

It appears that Kerry may be getting a little preferential treatment form the media.

Kerry admits to atrocities

The Baltimore Sun also revisited other anti-war comments by Kerry that have yet to receive significant exposure, including remarks Kerry uttered on NBC's "Meet the Press" a few weeks after the Wall Street protest.

"I committed the same kinds of atrocities as thousands of others," he told the network, "in that I shot in free-fire zones, fired .50-caliber machine bullets, used harass-and-interdiction fire, joined in search-and-destroy missions and burned villages."

Though NBC has the Kerry interview on tape, it has so far declined to broadcast his revealing comments.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/2/15/142343.shtml

<small>[ February 16, 2004, 03:27 PM: Message edited by: JFlosum ]</small>

This is indeed a sad time in our country's history. I'm sure future generations will look back in shame at this period of time. At a time when we are choosing who will lead our great country, the candidates themselves are too busy namecalling and throwing insults back and forth. It all seems to be like a bunch of elementary playground garbage. What we really need is a campaign system where candidates focus on what they are GOOD at and what they intend to do for us, not what the other guy is BAD or wasting time and money calling the other guy a doo-doo liar pants or the political equivalent. That is the one part I like about John Edwards, at his rally he focused on what he was going to do to make America better, not on Howard Deans "Yahoooo" incident or Bush's going AWOL during Vietnam.

_________________
"Be excellent to each other." - Bill S Preston, Esquire & Ted "Theodore" Logan

JayOMF,

That is one of the few intelligent comments I have heard about this campaign.

_________________
God and the Soldier we all adore,
In times of trouble and then no more
when war is over and all things righted
God is forgotten, the old soldier Slighted.

Thank you OldScout. Ive been trying to do alot of reading about the campaign and it all sounds like it comes straight from the cover of the National Inquierer (SP?) Its very disappointing.

_________________
"Be excellent to each other." - Bill S Preston, Esquire & Ted "Theodore" Logan