Please answer the question I asked. Don't post an unrelated screed on MoveOn.org...or Petreas, or Hillary.
2007-10-16 04:49:09 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
oh...let me add McCain, as well.
2007-10-16 04:53:23 · update #1
iancclin: Just for the record, you are saying that John Mccain, John Murtha, Max Cleland and John Kerry , are scum?
2007-10-16 04:58:00 · update #2
pfo: Which Republican Vet's military records, have you scrutinized lately?
2007-10-16 05:00:17 · update #3
they can deny it, but it would just be another lie.
2007-10-16 04:55:09 · answer #1 · answered by chickenhawkbushbots 2 · 2⤊ 4⤋
"Please answer the question I asked." This the Republicans cannot and will not do. They will never give you a straight answer because they can't. When confronted with a question such as yours, they start foaming at the mouth, blabbering incoherent phrases about Bill Clinton, John Kerry, and liberals. They will bring up something that has nothing to do with the topic and then somehow try to make it seem relevant. It's all an attempt to take the focus off the incompetence of the Bush Administration. In their La-la land, Republicans are never wrong, and are always justified in whatever they do.
2007-10-16 12:18:04 · answer #2 · answered by Baysoc23 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'm not familiar enough with Murtha and Cleland, but I am with Kerry.
Kerry's actions caused Congress to hold hearings on them. That's not exactly what I'd call small time. On one hand, you have people that served with him who claim he falsified a lot of stuff. On the other, people who served with him claim otherwise. I did some research: those who speak ill of Kerry have close ties to Bush or his friends. Similarly, those that prop up Kerry have close ties to him. If I were a judge, hearing this in court, I'd throw out both arguments as hearsay. Which leaves one remaining piece of evidence: Kerry's military record, which he refuses to make public. What is he hiding? I'm willing to believe his story, but if he's hiding evidence that could exonerate him I must conclude that the stories that he falsified his records are true. You can believe otherwise, but I think I provide a solid argument for my conclusion.
2007-10-16 11:56:57 · answer #3 · answered by Pfo 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Anyone who interjects themselves into the public spotlight is subject to ridicule, especially when such interjection includes false claims (Murtha) and no apology (Murtha).
Why is it the "Swift Boat Vets" are permitted to be railed against by liberals? Didn't they too serve their country?
Your question is framed in a way to make it appear that these vets were just siting and minding their own business when they were viciously attacked by the vast right wing conspiracy.
2007-10-16 12:00:19 · answer #4 · answered by Gus K 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
In every case you mention, the idea was to attack a political opponent's perceived strength: Kerry fought and volunteered while Bush basically dodged the draft, and Kerry returned to tell folks what was going on in Vietnam even though it wasn't a popular thing to do for somebody aspiring to enter public office.
McCain held out under torture, volunteered, etc.
You see the point here, and it's all about Bush's weak service record.
2007-10-16 12:06:36 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Hanoi John Kerry along with Mullah Murtha are phony war heroes...between the two of them they have 6 purple hearts...and never spent one minute in a hospital...they are an embarassment to real wounded vets everywhere.
2007-10-16 15:54:00 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Ya gotta understand most of the people criticizing them have never served a day in theit life-and the few that did like Bush got help from their daddy to aovid combat-since Vietnam middle class and lower middle class kids have been dying in disproportionate numbers-these are facts-Bush can't even raise taxes to pay for the War -he is paying for it on a credit card-which the middle class will have to pay back on a later date-Marines are at War-America is at the Mall.
2007-10-16 12:04:07 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
What does that mean to attack war vets? John Kerry has been attacked for distorting the facts - in fact, he was forced to recant some of his claims after being exposed in the 2004 election. Max Cleland has been exposed for trying to claim to have received his wounds in battle, not because of his carelessness. Murtha, he only came right out and called Marines cold blooded murderers - even one of them was one of his constituents (and they've are been cleared of their charges), I've never heard any attacks on his meritorious service. If that's what you mean, then yes.
2007-10-16 11:58:13 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
Yes, people in politics are all subject to attacks against their credibility, integrity, honor, intellect, etc.
No matter what someone has done in the past, they cannot be impervious to contradiction or challenge. If something could cause you to be immune to others pointing out reason and questioning your judgment, no matter how ridiculous your statement, that would be the stupidest idea ever.
2007-10-16 11:58:10 · answer #9 · answered by iooioiioo 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Well, these so-called war vets were willing to take that chance when they became politicians. That's what politicians do. Besides, wasn't that a couple of months ago? Get over it already, I'm sure they have.
2007-10-16 11:59:39 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
To elaborate on the point made by floatingbloatedcorpse - service deserves respect, but doesn't put you beyond respect.
This is also true for Erik Prince. Former Navy Seal and......Owner of Blackwater.
2007-10-16 11:58:06 · answer #11 · answered by dryheatdave 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋