"The New Soldier" by John Kerry et al

On 19 Feb 2004 05:44:44 -0800,
(Dave Austin) wrote:

Peter Skelton wrote in message . ..

I think you mean fence-hopper, a fence sitter is one who takes no
stands but I see your point. Unfortunately, Bush is easily tarred
with the same brush.

I'm not sure I agree with your statement about the President. He's
been remarkably consistent in his support for the military. Granted,
he was never a voting member of Congress, but even as a Texas
governor, he would always applaud and support the troops, just as he
does as president.

I'm with Kevin about Kerry - I'd rather have a National Guardsman with
no combat experience who supports the military as president than a
combat vet who doesn't.


Kerry started on one side of the fence and hopped to the other.

Bush simply hopped the fence the other way.

Peter Skelton

Peter Skelton wrote:

:Bush simply hopped the fence the other way.

Where is your evidence for this?

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 14:41:57 GMT, Fred J. McCall
wrote:

Peter Skelton wrote:

:Bush simply hopped the fence the other way.

Where is your evidence for this?

His national guard servicce was obviously less than enthusiastic
or are you trying to imply that he is anti military today.

Fred, you've got to ask the stupidest questions on usenet, and
that's saying a lot.

Peter Skelton

"Prof. Vincent Brannigan" wrote in message
...


Dave Austin wrote:


I'm with Kevin about Kerry - I'd rather have a National Guardsman with
no combat experience who supports the military as president than a
combat vet who doesn't.

What exactly is "supporting the military" Voting for better pay?

Which Kerry has voted against.

Standing respectfully when bodies are
brought back form foreign wars?

As opposed to making specious claims of war crimes against your fellow
military personnel.

What does this have to do with supporitng government policies of committing
the milalitry to war?

Which Kerry has not done.

If you think the war is a waste fo good men and women, how do you support
the
military?

One can support, or at least not falsely accuse of atrocities, the military
personnel without being in favor of the decision that committed them to the
conflict. Kerry did not understand that when he returned from Vietnam, and
then parroted the since-discredited "Winter Soldier" crap during both his
congressional testimony and his 1971 "Meet the Press" interview (where he
sat beside the other "combat veteran"...who turned out to have never been in
combat).

Brooks

Vince

Dave Austin wrote:


I'm with Kevin about Kerry - I'd rather have a National Guardsman with
no combat experience who supports the military as president than a
combat vet who doesn't.

What exactly is "supporting the military" Voting for better pay? Standing respectfully when bodies are
brought back form foreign wars? What does this have to do with supporitng government policies of committing
the milalitry to war? If you think the war is a waste fo good men and women, how do you support the
military?

Vince

"Prof. Vincent Brannigan" wrote

What exactly is "supporting the military?"

It's the opposite of calling them baby killers, and throwing someone
else's medals over the fence in a protest against the U.S. Government,
and conspiring with other Communists in destroying the Democratic
Party.

"Peter Skelton" wrote
"D. wrote:
"Prof. Vincent Brannigan" wrote

What exactly is "supporting the military?"

It's the opposite of calling them baby killers. . . .

Without comment on the truth and with all respect, if they are
doing wrong, you know it and you don't say so, *you* are
destroying the military.

Listen pecker-head, when you serve in a war and participate in a
fire-fight at close-quarters, come back to the group.

I have killed babies, I've killed old men and old women, and I've
killed men and women who were my own age at the time. It was an
intense battle on several occaisons, and the only thing I cared about
was my survival. I killed everything that moved, and I stopped killing
when the fire-fight ended. At that point I shifted gears, and I actually
saved the lives of several of those I shot. I rendered them first-aid,
and I gave them pain killers and anti-biotics.

To call me a baby killer is not accurate. I am a war veteran who
fought in battles which babies were killed. For anyone to emphasize
the baby killer part, is to take advantage of the gulible public, and
to further your own Communist cause.

You are guilty of very muddy thinking.

You're full of ****, and don't know anything about combat.

Peter Skelton wrote:

:On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 14:41:57 GMT, Fred J. McCall
wrote:
:
:Peter Skelton wrote:
:
::Bush simply hopped the fence the other way.
:
:Where is your evidence for this?
:
:His national guard servicce was obviously less than enthusiastic
r are you trying to imply that he is anti military today.

There is a big difference between serving with little enthusiasm for
going to war (although you have no evidence even for that) and a
transition from 'anti-war' to 'pro-war', which would be "hopped the
fence the other way".

:Fred, you've got to ask the stupidest questions on usenet, and
:that's saying a lot.

It only seems that way to you because they are questions attempting to
clarify the stupidest **** ever said on Usenet ... usually by you.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 01:39:16 GMT, Fred J. McCall
wrote:

Peter Skelton wrote:

:On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 14:41:57 GMT, Fred J. McCall
wrote:
:
:Peter Skelton wrote:
:
::Bush simply hopped the fence the other way.
:
:Where is your evidence for this?
:
:His national guard servicce was obviously less than enthusiastic
r are you trying to imply that he is anti military today.

There is a big difference between serving with little enthusiasm for
going to war (although you have no evidence even for that) and a
transition from 'anti-war' to 'pro-war', which would be "hopped the
fence the other way".

OFCS, he's said so himself, don't you believe him?

:Fred, you've got to ask the stupidest questions on usenet, and
:that's saying a lot.

It only seems that way to you because they are questions attempting to
clarify the stupidest **** ever said on Usenet ... usually by you.

Fred, that's a ****ing bald-faced lie and you damn well know it.
You had no desire to clarify whatever - you just like
confrontation. There's nothing wrong with that, but don't try to
deny it.

Peter Skelton

"Peter Skelton" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 16:51:27 -0600, "D. Strang"
wrote:

"Prof. Vincent Brannigan" wrote

What exactly is "supporting the military?"

It's the opposite of calling them baby killers. . . .

Without comment on the truth and with all respect, if they are
doing wrong, you know it and you don't say so, *you* are
destroying the military.

That would be true in cases where you know for a fact that the acts occured,
or had strong evidence that they did. That was not the case, however, with
Kerry, whose testimony and appearance on "Meet the press" instead consisted
of parroting unsubstantiated claims from "other" sources; the military did
actually investigate the "Winter Soldier" claims, but found that (a) the
vets who made the accusations in front of the media changed their tunes when
investigators started asking for verification, and (b) that a lot of those
veterans they contacted claimed to not even have been present at the affair
to give their "testimony" (leaving one wondering whether they changed their
minds, or who the heck was using their names--either being distinct
possibilities).

Knowing of a war crime and failing to report it is in fact a punishable
offense--but Kerry's second/third hand accusations never really panned out.
Condemning troops for using .50 cal MG's against personnel targets? Crap,
what would he consider the use of a 106mm RCR or 105mm howitzer firing a
beehive round?


Whether a statement is for or against
the military depends very strongly on how it matches the truth.

And in this case Kerry's accusations did not acheive that standard of being
based in fact.

Brooks

snip