English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Will the coward who deserted his men while they were under fire finally consent to a full medical records review

-OR-

Is he too afraid they will clearly show the 3 superficial wounds (the magic number to be sent home) were obviously self inflicted like all of the physicians who treated him have stated?

And don't give me the crap "at least he went " because the TRUTH is he fought like a dog for over a year to avoid going. Once forced to go, the only reason he chose his assignment was because according to him,"he didn't think he would see action". Yeah that's the defintion of a liberal hero alright.

2006-06-27 21:36:09 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

One more point for "truth seeker" (LMAO everytime I see that, sorry) Check out HR4655 and then look into the no bid contract Clinton gave Haliburton while in Kosavo you mindless little troll. Then get back to me with your apologies for making an *ss out of yourself.

Hate to hit you with more logic but if Bush wanted the oil from iraq, why not take it after Gulf War I moron?

2006-06-27 21:59:42 · update #1

nefariousx- Yeah right, we went to war to build an airbase in the country of one of our allies at the time. stay off the pipe sport.

2006-06-27 22:38:03 · update #2

Just Will(not stop making a fool of himself) Yeah bush was flying one of the planes himself. Didn't you see him bail out just before impact.

BTW - When when the aliens abducted you and took you for a few laps around the solar system, are you sure they didn't implant anything in that head of yours?

2006-06-27 22:42:50 · update #3

13 answers

If Bush steals another election...

Will the criminal who went AWOL from the Air National Guard for over 6 mos. actually give up his military records this time, instead of doing everything he can to hide them from the public?

-OR-

Is he too afraid that his neo-con blinded crony fools, that take him for a god, will actually find out that he is a deserter from a non war time military, for Christ sake?

And don't give me that crap about "look at all he has done to help the country, or fight terrorists" because we all know that he is a pathological liar! The only reason we are now in a so-called "war on terror" is because his band of criminal thugs had a Halliburton big oil agenda! Yeah that's the definition of a real patriotic American leader that stands for American Freedom alright.

Anymore more vial rhetoric spew you want to throw up at us, neo-con fundamentalist freak?
Kerry wouldn't even be an issue if it weren't for outright election fraud in 2000!

I don't want to hear your crap about HRthis or HRthat... everything DubYa touches is either a fraud, a lie, or an infringement on our civil liberties. Give me a friggin' break, LOL! Just ask the NY Times, LOL!

Oh... hate to hit ya with more logic, but the war in Iraq had been planned for a decade. 9/11 was an excuse to finish the oil pipeline through Afghanastan and Eurasia. You know... Halliburton's oil pipeline? Looser!

2006-06-27 21:47:38 · answer #1 · answered by Truth Seeker 3 · 0 0

Heh, Kerry running for President again would be more embarrassing the second time around.

He couldn't beat an opponent that had already built up a record of incompetence with his Iraq fiasco. If Kerry faced a qualified candidate, he'd be slaughtered.

Edit: Kerry didn't fight to avoid going - he volunteered. You're also being misleading in your description of his service - unless, of course, the only proper attitude for someone in the military is to long for a live grenade to leap upon. But then, if that were your standard, how would you still be alive. I think military members are willing to do what it takes to win a war and take care of their buddies, but I'd be suprised if many find surviving the war a sign of failure (outside of Capt Dan in Forrest Gump, perhaps).

Edit: rosi l is half right about what the problem with Kerry's record is.

I notice the officer that received the same medal as Kerry for the same battle wasn't exactly volunteering to give up his medal. Kerry earned the medals he received from Viet Nam.

The problem the Swift Boat Vets had was Kerry's actions after he left the service - what he said to Congress in particular. Actually, if they had been straight forward about what they disliked about Kerry, I would have agreed they had a point. Unfortunately, that wouldn't carry near as much impact as unjustly smearing Kerry's service record did, so they chose the low road.

Hard to say who the Swift Boat Vets had the most impact on - those who were so disgusted at the attacks that they found it easier to overlook Kerry's anti-military comments after he left the service or those that were stupid enough to believe the ads. Considering the hit in the polls Kerry took when the ads came out, stupidity must have won out.

P.S. I'm feeling a little neglected here. Where's my abuse?

2006-06-27 22:07:29 · answer #2 · answered by Bob G 6 · 0 0

Unless you have been in the military, you are the coward. It's awful easy for chickenhawks like Cheney who did quite a bit to avoid the draft himself or Bush who really did what he could to make sure he never went to Nam and even was AWOL for the last part of his tour, to mock real heroes. One does not just get a Bronze Star for being a coward. It takes recognition by a commanding officer and a citation to get medals. Questioning purple hearts and mocking medals of one person is an affront to all veterans who earned medals. I was sickened by the way the GOP mocked the Purple Heart and the vets who earned them, at their convention. Shame on you!The way I've been treated since I've returned from Vietnam by @ssholes like you leads me to question if it was worth it at all. I'm sure Iraq vets will be asking the same questions.

2006-06-30 12:38:17 · answer #3 · answered by wyldfyr 7 · 0 0

Actually he wrote a letter of intent volunteering to enter into vietnam. He made his military record public domain by opening it up on his web site unlike Bush who's had to be acessed through the freedom of information act. Have you ever considered spending less time attacking what you don't like and more time presenting credible evidence for what you do support ? Your questions are stupid, bias and unfounded maybe you could actually consider posting a source for your theory's. All liberals are cowards source ? You are aware that there are what you call "liberals" over in Iraq right now ? Why don't you come up with evidence Mr. Bush didn't lie about his military record ? Come up with evidence he didn't flunk out of flight school and that there was a slanderous attempt by the opposing party to smear his military record ? The really twisted part about all of this is you don't have any facts you just blather on and on because a little fact checking is to much work for you. One more thought Rush can supress his medical records and have his Dr. get perscriptions in his name to prevent them be traced back to Rush and your hasseling Kerry over wanting to keep medical records closed ? Mr. Bush can refuse to open his military record to the public and your hasseling Kerry who opened his ? I think your definition of conservative hero may be a little ambigious. Last time I checked John Kerry didn't have a new drivers license issued to expunge his previous DUI's from the record.

Maybe you should take a cue from John McCain.(Conservative Hero)

McCain, who was a prisoner of war in Vietnam, called on President Bush to condemn the ad, which was financed in part by a major Republican Party donor in Texas.John McCain (R-Ariz.) rushed to John F. Kerry's defense Thursday, condemning a new ad claiming the Democratic presidential nominee lied about his military record and betrayed his Vietnam comrades by protesting the war.



P.S Kerry has opened his records medical and military. I see he isn't afforded the same "right to privacy" Mr. Bush and Rush are according to your definintion of the American way. The one redeemable purpose your questions serve is allowing people to see how unfounded your claims are and how far you'll go to prove something. It makes me wonder what party truely is playing defense.

2006-06-27 23:51:06 · answer #4 · answered by jason83go 2 · 0 0

Having a rough day?

Kerry's an alright guy.

but I'll addresses the question about Gulf War 1, we did'nt want oil, we wanted a military base, and we got one in Sudia Aribia. The Bin Sultan Airbase.

The building of this base turned Osama BL from CIA Assest to US enemy.

We presented doctored Iraqi troop build up along the Suadi border during the first Gulf War. Muslim Holy land.

remeber...
Sadam asked US permission to invade Kwauit. Remember he was our ally even though we were secretly also arming IRAN to fund the contras in el salvador.
We just turned on him...sucker.

we wanted a base then, not oil. we closed down the Bin Sultan air base after 9/11. and now are building 13 new bases in Iraq.

What you fail to grasp is the presence of US on Muslim Holy land your are being dishonest not to me but to yourself.

2006-06-27 22:31:29 · answer #5 · answered by nefariousx 6 · 0 0

When Bush and Co create another domestic terror act and get themselves elected to "Commander-in-Chief for Life", do you think we can get a full disclosure of his cocaine bust that he did community service for or any number of drunk driving incidents? How 'bout a little investigation for fraud while he was governor of Texas, or shady deals with the bin Ladens while he was a corporate loser.

Sorry, I guess Kerry didn't have a daddy that could get him to a plum spot to defend against the Communists in Texas, where Chimpy McFlightsuit proved you could mix 2 parts vodka with a line of cocaine and use it as emergency super-fuel in case you ran out of gas in mid-air. Ironic that Bush was happy to defend Texas against the Vietnamese but couldn't against the Mexicans. Repukes have proven over and over that irony is lost on them unfortunately.

Don't worry, I'm no fan of Kerry either. Being a fellow secret society fratboy with the Chimp-in-Chief to me spells that his puppet strings are probably yanked by the same folks. The only real difference being that Kerry can use complete sentences when he talks off-script.

2006-06-27 22:33:04 · answer #6 · answered by lostinromania 5 · 0 0

All that aside, his wife has "outsourced" too many American jobs in the past. Even Dems have to admit that Clintons NAFTA was a collosal blunder ( I'm being kind, here), so in the present economical climate, they won't run Kerry.

They try someone who will look like a real American while holding open the door for illegal Mexicans.

2006-06-27 21:50:41 · answer #7 · answered by tex 5 · 0 0

John Kerry will not get the nod from the DNC, if he runs he will loose. There is no doubt that Kerry went to Vietnam, that's not the problem it's what he took credit for when he was there, and the damage he did to our troops when he came home. We wasn't the hero he and the liberals made him out to be.

2006-06-28 00:53:35 · answer #8 · answered by rosi l 5 · 0 0

Let's hope that he doesn't run again and if he does that the country has the good sense to keep him out. If he had won last time we'd probably be speaking Arabic now.

2006-06-27 21:41:45 · answer #9 · answered by ravenjohn@sbcglobal.net 1 · 0 0

I hope Kerry runs again, we need somebody to laugh at. I didn't like him last time around, and I don't like him now. Good question.

2006-06-27 21:46:38 · answer #10 · answered by Greg 5 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers