Please check the pages about texas hold em party poker texas hold em

You can also check out the sites about bankruptcy loan high risk loans motorcycle loan

478008a6aaefca874fefbf04ea5009c6 c8.

You can also check out some relevant pages about 3 card poker antique poker chips

Please check: texas holdem poker texas hold em poker free texas holdem.

Please check out some helpful info in the field of virtual strip poker where can i play texas holdem for free

Jon Koppenhoefer I do not follow this ‘logic’. I’m also aware that Sinclair and Sherwood do not clarify that Kerry was reporting to the Senate what he was told during the Winter Soldier hearings, rather than making accusations of his own. Sorry if this…

First, a meta-comment:
Copy and pasting and putting in responses is not meant to be rude, but rather is a standard electronic discussion technique to clarify. It makes it clear what I am responding to. If I wanted to be rude to you, believe me, you would know it. I’m sorry if you considered it rude – that was not my intent.

But I don’t want to be rude. I want to discuss this with you for three reasons: (1) I’d like to change your mind, or (2) I’d like to get an understanding of someone unconvinced by the evidence I present. and (3) Common courtesy – you put a lot into your comments, that deserves a response.

Of course this blog is partisan. So are most other sources of news, except bloggers admit their partisanship. I am a conservative (on most issues) but on this issue, I am afraid for my country if Kerry gets in because of his foreign policy track record and his opportunism and dishonesty. As I said before, if it weren’t for Kerry’s anti-war behavior, I wouldn’t be an activist (which I am). It’s not like I think all war protesters were bad people – I went to a couple of protests myself out of curiosity and with friends. I knew the head of the campus SDS. But Kerry went far beyond them – he met with the enemy and then carried their propaganda line. His organization established a liason with Hanoi. To me, that disqualifies him for any office. It wasn’t a youthful indiscretion, it was an act of anti-Americanism.

Most protesters didn’t knowlingly lie. Many were fooled into lying, but most were basically normal kids. Kerry was not a kid (he was 27) and he knew he was lying. The fact that last year he stood by his lies says that at age 60 he still holds to them. So you can’t write it off as just a mistake. And, since his message before the Senate was essentially the same as he preached all over the country, you can’t write it off, as you try to do, as something he came up with suddenly (see below).

Yes, Kerry painted himself as a butcher also. Then in 1996 in a campaign, when he was accused of war crimes by a political opponent, some of the same veterans who deeply resent Kerry’s lies in 1971 defended him against the war crimes charges. Those veterans are now being vilified by the Kerry campaign.

The majority of Kerry’s testimony isn’t helping veterans, it is using them. It is claiming all sorts of negative effects on the veterans that were not true in any larger percentage in Vietnam than in World War II. His characterization of Veterans led to unemployment of many Vietnam Vets – we were thought to be damaged ( he talks of millions in his “monster” statement ) or violence prone.

I have, of course, read Kerry’s entire testimony, and listened to it on the radio and watched it on TV, where he wore a phony uniform with ribbons incorrectly on it.

If you think that he wasn’t prepared, look at how well that speech is written. Everyone except Kerry and Wallinski think Adam Wallinski did most of the writing. Also, if it was so off the cuff, how did it manage to match the propaganda of the North Vietnamese?

There is a Kerry who consciously aided the enemy and one who underestimated the evils of communism. One guy. No conflict. Yes, he knew he was helping the enemy. It really doesn’t matter what you know about ideology when you help the enemy in the middle of a war. Especially when you meet with them, and when your organization maintains a liason with them.

Actually, we don’t know if he underestimated the evils of communism. After all, the 3,000 number was in the middle of a speech full of lies. Maybe it was a lie too – who knows? However, his meeting with the communist Sandinistas when he had been a Senator only 2 weeks is not encouraging.

You can call O’Neill a liar if it makes you feel better. It will be incorrect. I would argue that if you have a personal reason to vote against Bush, it doesn’t mean that Kerry has to be perfect.

On the other hand, Kerry is provably a liar. Just read what he said in that 1971 Senate speech.

There is no equality between me calling Kerry a liar, when he left us documentary evidence of it, and you calling John O’Neill a liar with no evidence whatsoever.

Kerry didn’t exaggerate a little on the atrocities, he completely changed the entire character of American soldiers fighting in the war – from occasional atrocities to a policy of atrocities. That was intentional and in line with NVA propaganda, so much so that just this summer the Vietnamese used Kerry’s words, attributed to him by name, in attacking the US.

The problem with Kerry is not that he made a few youthful mistakes. Its that he spent 2 years, while a reserve Naval officer, traveling around the country slandering it in many ways (I did not make up the points I mention above). Furthermore, within the last year he has upheld his testimony. He doesn’t regret it.

I have been involved with many who were not opportunists. When his officers considered him an opportunist, it meant that he put his interests ahead of the team. In a combat team, that is damning. As for those being nebulous fellow officers, check out here where they have their pictures, their positions, and their statements.

As far as the medals, he faked for sure 1 purple heart. I could repeat what the Swifties say, but I’m not going to bother. No point in getting side-tracked.

Please consider the following: my main objection to Kerry, and that of most Vietnam Veterans, was his high profile lying during his anti-war years. That lying was eggregious, massive, damaging to the country and damaging to all of us. If he was also a bad guy in-country, that’s an isue for the Swities, who say he was. The rest of us can only repeat what they say and base our estimates of credibility on our military experience.

As to John O’Neill, he doesn’t make a penny from that book. He doesn’t want the money. It’s a matter of honor for him, not profit, and he has arranged for the money to go to charity.

The 300 vets are SWIFT BOAT VETERANS – that’s not a small percentage of them. They include EVERY COMMANDING OFFICER OF KERRY’s and their chain of command. Don’t you think it’s significant that all of those people are unanimous in their opinion of Kerry? His entire command chain?

As for winning debates, I do enjoy that. It runs in the family (my daughter is great at it in formal debates). But in this case, I have tried to avoid that. I want you to fully understand my point of view, in the faint hope that it will change your mind. That’s all.

I don’t know whether I would say that Kerry was instrumental in getting us out of Vietnam. He was important in it. The information about the Khmer Rouge is true, though. And they killed 2 million people. It was the NVA that only killed tens of thousands and sent hundreds of thousands to concentration camps.

If Kerry painted you all as butchers then Kerry has painted himself as a butcher, hasn’t he?

If you read Kerry’s entire testimony, you will see that the majority of the testimony is focused on helping the veterans. He never said you were all damaged. And by listening to my father, I know that veterans have not been treated fairly in getting medical care etc.

Also, before he gave his testimony, he said he was not prepared and had had short notification. He would be speaking in generalites. He was in Washington with the protestors (the chairman did compliment him on how peaceful thy had been and how they had not flown off the handle like others I know were doing around the country at the time).

It’s very difficult for me to believe that this BLOG of yours is not partisan. When in your biography you state: “Oh, and I almost forgot! Politically I’m a Conservative [also known as a Classical Liberal](I haven’t figured on which type of conservative: paleocon, neocon, libertariancon, etc.) and a big fan of Ronald Reagan. And I haven’t forgiven those of you who voted for Clinton and her husband!!! ”

I don’t know what a “Classical Liberal” is but a know a libertariancon conservative is a little bit right of Rush Limbaugh. Any other material you referred me to is also partisan (an exception would be the C-Span transcript of Kerry’s testimony).

You assumed that I am a Democart, but guess what? I’m a registered Republican. Without going into too much detail about my life, my views have changed because of my personal experience, which goes to show you political views are relative.

Also I can’t call O’Neil a liar yet you can call a man who is running for U.S. President a liar? I can’t base my vote on your interpretation of Kerry’s testimony.

According to you there are two Kerrys: the one that consciously aided the enemy and the one who underestimated the evils of communism. So did he know what he was doing, or not? I don’t think you can fully know what Kerry’s intentions were. The enemy could use your words or anyone’s words to suit their own purposes. I’m sure that’s not the first time that’s happened. Maybe Kerry exagerrated a little on the atrocities because he listened to the wrong people. Maybe he took up the wrong cause. So we all make mistakes. Can we all look back and agree with everything we once said or did? Heck, I once thought trickle-down economics worked. If you say you can, then you surely are not being honest with yourself.

You say Kerry’s fellow officers called him an opportunist? From my own experience with the military (father, once married to one, and a brother carreer AF), I noticed that most of them are opportunists. Are you confusing getting involved with being an opportunist? The men that Kerry had with him at the DNC were men that served under him. Their opinions are much more credible than some nebulous fellow officers. Yes, Kerry played the war hero card and it did make me want to gag at times, but he is running for President and has to sell himself in order to achieve that. His speech at the DNC was his resume.

And did Kerry fake all three purple hearts, the bronze star, and the silver star? Man… he’s good, isn’t he?

I am beginning to think that you just enjoy winning a debate over a few minor issues. You can call anyone a liar you want. That’s easy. You can take their words and twist them and put them in your own context. As for having over 300 vets supporting your cause. This has to be a small percentage of the total number of VN vets.

Sorry to be so blunt , but I think copying and pasting my words and adding in your cookie cutter repsonses is rude. Do you have all this stuff and the links already written up and ready to go? But I guess you can do whatever you want. It’s your BLOG right?

Obviously, you wouldn’t have this BLOG unless you wanted to change the minds of the voters. Well, you didn’t convince me.

By the way, I will give you this. You look like you have more knowledge on VietNam than me and of history in general. Although, your views on history are a little revisionist (like Kerry’s testimony was intrumental in getting the US out of VN and giving the Kamir Ruge (msp?) free reign to commit kill thousands of people) I never did take the time to verify any of your remarks. I’m just speaking from common sense.

Thank you for your time.

Connie

Earlier this year, I had no idea who Kerry was, other than liberal Mass. Senator. Then Hugh Hewitt, and then CSPAN, broadcast his 1971 speech and the debate between Kerry and O’Neill. I found the transcript (it is on CSPAN’s site) and analysed it, and the more I read, the angrier I got. And that is how I became an anti-Kerry activist.

For a long time, I thought Kerry’s activities in ‘Nam were not a problem. I was willing to put out work, create websites and work against Kerry just for his anti-war activities, which went way over the line (I knew plenty of protestors – the only one who was like Kerry was Jane Fonda).

As far as O’Neill, just keep in mind that the only way the Kerry campaign can avoid damage from the charges from the Swift Boat Vets is to paint them with a partisan brush – to say or imply that they are all lying as part of a Republican plot. They are forced to say it. So please consider that they are the liars – those who have a very strong motive to lie. O’Neil has no motive to lie. In fact, this is costing him money in terms of time away from his Law Practice. He is doing this because he considers Kerry dangerous, and has told me that. But he isn’t the head of the SBVT – that’s Admiral Hoffman, who was Kerry’s commander’s commander. The Kerry campaign has a different slander for him.

So consider that Swift Boat Veterans for Truth would all have to be liars – all 300 of them. Does that seem plausible to you? They all stand behind O’Neil’s book. By the way, the co-author is a historian – PhD from Harvard – who specializes in the anti-war movement – so he would have to be lying too.

But again, the most crucial evidence of Kerry’s perfidy was that Senate speech. It is full of lies, all of which hurt the American cause, and hurt all of us who served in Vietnam. In it, he admits having met with the enemy (so we aren’t making that up) and even acts at one point as their spokesman. It is a place where you can examine the unvarnished truth – cold, hard reality – and not have to trust anyone.

Let’s stick to the subject. Nobody is saying that Kerry single handedly lost the war, and Reagan is not at issue. But Kerry’s strong efforts in that direction cannot be ignored.

You say we are measuring John Kerry by what he did 30 years ago. John Kerry is asking us to measure him by that. Didn’t his whole convention revolve around his Vietnam service? So if it’s reasonable of Kerry to bring it up, it’s reasonable of the rest of us to judge him by it.

When I was in the Navy (same time as Kerry), our crew carried nuclear weapons. Nobody in the crew was as old as Kerry was when he made those charges – I was 19. Kerry’s statements can not be ignored as naive mouthings of just a kid – he had a top secret clearance and had commanded a heavily armed vessel. He was 27 years old. You can’t just pass them off. That he only had a few days to prepare is meaningless. It’s what he said that counts, and how he sid it. Have you read it? Have you hear it? Are you older than 27 so much that you think we shouldn’t hold 27 year olds responsible for their speech, be should elect them because of their 4 months as a soldier?

Brinkley’s book is hagiographic. It’s the official biography, and ignores many of the problems. Every first campaign for president has a hagiographic biography. There is not book in the world that can wipe away Kerry’s conduct after the war.

Why don’t you go read Stolen Valor (Burkette), which just has a little bit about Kerry, because he wasn’t the main subject.

Now, you tell me not to buy O’Neil’s book. Since I know John O’Neill and people around him, I think I know a bit more about how trustworthy he is than you do. Yes, he is a Houston lawyer. Does that make him a liar? He founded that group back in the ’70s because he was upset that Kerry was telling so many lies, and he wanted to get the truth out. Hence the Dick Cavette debate. So Nixon noticed him… does that make him a republican partisan?

I can tell you that he is not a republican partisan. But he is anti-Kerry. But when you smear him, you smear every single one of Kerry’s CO’s and their bosses up through Zumwalt, and you smear almost 300 former Swift Boat sailors, combat veterans, who have joined together to contradict Kerry’s charges. Do you really think the Republicans could arrange for all of this? Think about it – every commanding officer and all of their bosses through CINCPAC – that’s a lot of independent individuals – to get unanimity about something this political from them is absolutely historical. What you are doing is calling these people liars. That’s a serious charge. We are calling Kerry a liar, but we have perfect proof just in his 1971 testimony. He lied, repeatedly. You have not even tried to refute that.

When you attack O’Neill as a partisan, remember you are attacking the man who served the tour of duty on PCF-94 that Kerry got out of. You are talking about a man who put his life on the line for a full year. And you are doing so with no evidence at all.

You are engaging in the same practice as the Kerry campaign – if someone says something bad about Kerry, they must be Republican stooges. If you have really fallen for that line, in the face of all the evidence, it’s too bad. Many people have. But you have an opportunity here to get the truth, or am I a liar too?

I have given you ample information about Kerry’s misdeeds. You don’t have to believe John O’Neil – just read the Senate speech. You have failed to excuse it. You have failed to refute any of the lies. You are simply brushing it aside, to attack a man who spent 3 times as long in Vietnam as Kerry, skippering the boat that Kerry abandoned.

Yes, there are some people on Kerry’s side. Not one of them is a Swift Boat officer. Not a single one. On the other hand, there are a couple of dozen Swift Boat officers against him. Do the math.

You even have the talking points about 1996. In 1996 a few Swift-vets and Admiral Zumwalt defended Kerry against war crime accusations by his Republican opponent. That’s all they did. They did so because to the best of their knowledge, there had never been war crimes committed by that unit, even though John Kerry admitted to some to the press.

You are now tapping into the FITREPS (Officer Efficiency Reports). More democrat spin. Have a military officer read those FITREPS and he’ll tell you that in spite of the grand language, those were very poor FITREPS – the kind that would stop a career. As my father, a former Navy officer said “I can see why they released them – they look good to civilians who don’t know how to read them.” Notice that I have once again given you the opportunity to verify information yourself. You can take his set of FITREPS and run them by a military officer. You should do so.

Tell me, are you genuinely interested in the truth, or are you just coming over here to raise hell? I have given you lots of information that you have simply failed to address. Instead you have made unfounded accusations against a number of people who miraculously became evil Kerry haters after some Republican pixie dust fell on them.

Stop being naive. These people are for real. Kerry’s testimony is recorded on CSPAN and is not going away, even though you try to ignore it or somehow brush it off.

If you don’t address that testimony, then you are not being honest. If you believe the Kerry spin about how all these men, from different walks of life, political parties, and parts of the country have been turned into liars for the republicans, you arebeing naive.

They are not liars. It is very dishonorable to imply that those people, or Hibbard, or O’Neill are.

Who told you that Zumwalt wanted to recomment Kerry for the Navy Cross? Zumwalt was concerned that Kerry was shooting without verifying targets in free fire zones, and jokingly said he should pu t a strait-jacket on him. Kerry’s fellow officers despised him.

I don’t know if Kerry re-enacted things or not. I have had press soures say that he did, and the NYT is hardly my standard for accuracy, since they are so incredibly biased. But let’s assume he didn’t – so what? You are talking about all sorts of stuff while ignorng the important issues.

And why should I look at Brinkley when you continue to ignore the absolutely solid evidence of Kerry’s perfidy when he was anti-war?

I never expected to be attacking Kerry for what he did in ‘Nam, it was his 1971 speech that angered me, that still angers me, that slanders the country, that slanders me, that is still being used by the totalitarian government of Vietnam.

–

Do not buy John E. O’Neill’s tract book ‘Unfit for Command : Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry’, which is partisan propaganda, nothing more. O’Neill joined the Navy’s Coastal Division 11 two months after senator left Vietnam. He has no idea what Kerry did in combat. He is a Republican hatchet-man. (He now is part of the Houston old-boy oil/energy corrupt complex, that includes lawyers for Enron, Bush’s general counsel Alberto Gonzales who drafted the pro-torture memos of January 2002, Margaret Wilson before Gonzales, etc.) He repeats gossip and partisan attacks. Nixon recruited him back in 1971 to attack John Kerry, who Nixon feared for his anti-war leadership. Nixon’s counsel, Chuck Colson, said: “We found a vet named John O’Neill and formed a group called Vietnam Veterans for a Just Peace. We had O’Neill meet the President, and we did everything we could do to boost his group.” O’Neill hasn’t stopped attacking Kerry yet. But he did not know Kerry in Vietnam.

Listen to the men who did. A *dozen* of the men who served under Ensign Kerry have testified on his behalf. They were there, they saw Kerry in action, they saw him in repose, they obeyed his command, they endured enemy fire, they killed countless enemy. These men include Jim Wasser, Bill Zaladonas, David Austin, Mike Medeiros, Del Sanduskie, Fred Short, Gene Thorsen, Pat Runyan, and last but not least, Green Beret Lt. Jim Rassman. (Phonetic spelling for all; I missed three names, so add them in.)

Another crew-member seems to have changed his story now that Kerry is running for President. Back in 1996, Tom Belodeau stood beside Sen. Kerry, along with other crew-members. Referring to a VietCong that Kerry shot and killed, Belodeau said: “This man was more than capable of destroying that boat and everybody on it. Sen. Kerry did not give him that opportunity. The soldier that Sen. John Kerry shot was standing on both feet with a loaded rocket launcher, about to fire it on the boat from which (Mr. Kerry) had just left, which still had four men aboard.”

Also changing his story after-the-fact, to match his political hatred, is George Elliott. In a 1969 officer fitness report, Elliott wrote: “In a combat environment often requiring independent, decisive action, Lieutenant Junior Grade Kerry was unsurpassed. LTJG Kerry emerges as the acknowledged leader in his peer group. His bearing and appearance are above reproach.”

Yet another disgruntled Republican to change his story is Grant Hibbard [ph]. His report said that on initiative, Kerry is “one of the top few”. Cooperation? “one of the top few”. Personal behavior? “one of the top few”.

They changed their views because they’re still sore that Kerry spoke up and helped end the Vietnam war, a war that killed 3 *million* Vietnamese (north and south), 60,000 Americans (and countless thousands wounded).

Admiral E.R. Zumwalt said he wanted to recommend Sen. Kerry for an even higher medal, the Navy Cross, but approval would have taken too long. Instead, he personally approved a Silver Star and sped along the award to improve morale at a time his sailors were taking heavy casualties. (Zumwalt’s son is a Republican and is not supporting Kerry, but he does not impugn Kerry’s military service to our country.)

The allegations that Kerry “re-enacted” movie scenes is just false, as NYT Executive Editor Bill Keller found after watching them all: “The first thing to be said is that the senator’s movies are not self-aggrandizing. Mr. Kerry is hardly in the film, and never strikes so much as a heroic pose. These are the souvenirs of a 25-year-old guy sent to an exoticplace on an otherworldly mission, who bought an 8-millimeter camera in the PX and shot a few hours of travelogue, most of it pretty boring if you didn’t live through it.”

If you want a REAL, objective, scholarly account of Kerry’s time in Vietnam, see Douglas Brinkley’s _Tour of Duty: John Kerry and the Vietnam War_ ‘Tour of Duty : John Kerry and the Vietnam War’. Or ‘A Call to Service: My Vision for a Better America’.”

I would also like to thank John for all the research he has done on John Kerry and for your history lessons on the vietnam war, much appreciated!

In response to Connie’s question of John Kerry’s motives. In my opinion, it really doesn’t matter what his motives were back then. What matters is his character and judgement, both then and now.

Not only did John Kerry lie about the widespread atrocities in Vietnamam, but he has help perpetuated the lies of today, that President Bush mislead us into war, doesn’t say much about his character.

John Kerry had every right to protest the war, but to lie about atrocities, in order to get the U.S to surrender is something completely different. His intentions maybe nobel, but to orchestrate lies, present them as fact, to get the results he wanted, doesn’t say much for his character. “The end justifies the means”. I don’t think so.

After The 9/11 commission report exonorated President Bush from allegations that he mislead the U.S. into war, I was appauled that John Kerry is still perpetuating this lie by saying, during his nomination speech, “I will be a commander and chief who will never mislead us into war.” He should have apologized to President Bush, especially, since he voted for the war based on the same information that President Bush, British intelligence, Russian Intelligence, French intelligence had.

Then John Kerry votes to send our men and woman into war, but votes against funding their effort. Even if he changed his mind (which he seems to do a lot)about going into Irag, he should have funded the troops.

I think one of the biggest reasons I would not feel comfortable having John Kerry as our commander and chief is his poor judgement. He has been on the wrong side of history his whole career.

Take a look at a statement regarding President Nixon’s statement regarding communism and John Kerrys

Nixon
“But the issue, gentlemen, the issue is communism, and the question is whether or not we will leave that country to the Communists or whether or not we will try to give it hope to be a free people.”

Kerry:
But the point is they are not a free people now under us. They are not a free people, and we cannot fight communism all over the World, and I think we should have learned that lesson by now.”

It’s a good thing Ronald Reagan never learned that lesson.

John Kerry didn’t do anything to help President Reagan win the cold war, he voted against every major weapon system during the 80’s. In the 90’s he wanted to gut the CIA. And while on the intellengce committee for eight years, why didn’t he propose legislation to fix the promblem. Of the 40 meetings the intelligence committee held he missed 28 of them.

Wouldn’t you agree, John Kerry lacks the vision and good judgement to lead us into the future and the war on terror?

That is totlly not true. It went the other direction. I started with what Kerry did, which was to repeatedly make very nasty and damaging lies about America and Vietnam veterans. The only motives I know of are those presumed by his own protest group (VVAW) and the FBI. I also know what his fellow officers throught (because I have talked to some of the swifties) and it was not pleasant. They thought he was an opportunist, also. If anyone other than Kerry was running this year, I would not be an activist, just a blogger. But because of Kerry, and my reading (for the first time in 33 years) of his Senate speech, I am an activist at Vietnam Vets for the Truth. It’s also the last chance for Vietnam Vets to set things straight – to remove the stain Kerry left on all of us.

Sorry, but I still have my Kerry for President sign in the front window.

I’m not surprised. It is very hard to change peoples’ opinions (and that is not meant as an insult). I have my KerryLied.com bumber sticker.

All I have to go on is the word of one man speaking to millions and millions on national television. The communists apparently used what Kerry said and did for their own agenda. How do you know that is what Kerry intended?

It is very important to keep in mind what he did. His intentions count, but his deeds count too. You do have other information to go on: his 1971 Senate speech (above). You can visit Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth. You can look at wintersoldier.com. You can look at our reports linked above about how the communists think about Kerry. You can attempt to deduce his motives by his meeting, before his speaking, with the enemy in Paris.

In other words, there is a lot of information about what Kerry did both in Vietnam and in his anti-war activities. You can also order the book Unfit for Command:Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry. This is number 2 on Amazon now and it isn’t yet available. I know one of the authors and this book covers both Kerrys – the one in Vietnam and the one in the VVAW. If nothing else, it might be a good present for your dad.

It seems whenever someone tries to work something out by using peaceful means they’re immediately labeled a “communist” and “leftist.” Yes, there have been Hitlers in the world that can only be stopped with force. But Hitler and others rose to power with labeling people and interpreting others’ actions and words to justify their accusations.

Just remember that the leftists in the US were in favor of Hitler after the Molotov-Ribentrop pact in 1939.

Sorry, but I have never labelled Kerry a communist. I don’t believe he was a communist at all. I think that he didn’t fully appreciate the evil of communism (which I experienced first hand), but many had that problem. I believe he was and is an opportunist. I know he is a man without honor, because of what he did – I don’t need to know his motivations to recognize that faking a Purple Heart, telling vicious lies about one’s fellow soldiers, and slandering with lies one’s country is dishonorable.

Doesn’t it bother you that his 1971 Senate speech was full of lies? Seriously – do you want a man who lies wildly, all lies against his country and fellow soldiers, on national TV and then in speeches around the country?

Doesn’t truth count?

By the way, Kerry wasn’t trying to work things out using peaceful means. The effect of his actons and others was far from peaceful – with millions dead who could have been saved. Surrendering nations to communists was not peaceful. There was no way that the South could have avoided the slaughter except with US aid, which we denied. Same with Cambodia.

I’m a little surprised you dropped into an old-fashioned leftist cant with your charge, by the way. If I were to call someone a communist, it would be because they were a communist. I know communists and they don’t bother me because today they are no threat. I didn’t call Kerry a communists, and I am not stupid enough to equate a protester with a communist. I went to a couple of anti-war protests after my service, because it was the happening thing. I know what kind of people were there – which was a melange from innocent people simply in favor of peace (not realizing that peace mean slavery in SE Asia), to members of the Communist Party and Maoists and SDS – all radical.

I have been studying Kerry for monnths now. I am not making assumptions. I am reporting truth (although when I report what the VVAW thought, that is a truthful report of their belief).

You ask what Kerry had to gain. First, he wasn’t aiding the Communist Party – he was aiding the North Vietnamese regime (which was communist). His compatriots in the VVAW, and the FBI watchers concluded that he did this for personal gain. Since he had wanted to be President since he was in high school, presumably he did this to gain national prominence, which he did. Note that he joined VVAW just after a failed bid for congressional office. He was so helpful to the enemy that to this day, his picture hangs in a museum room in Vietnam dedicated to those foreigners who helped the North win the war. His lies about atrocities continue to be used against the United States.

So here is my suggestion: look at the points I singled out from his speech (I also provide a link that you can use to verify that I am not making any of this up). See how many are lies – for ones you don’t think are lies, bring it up here.

Then go to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and read what his fellow officers have to say about him. Read Joe Crecca’s request (as a POW) for people to not vote for Kerry.

Then please explain why Kerry should not be considered a liar, despised by those who knew and fought with him, and so damaging to our country that the Vietnamese are openly grateful to him (by the way, our guy who took the museum pictures ended up with the Secret Police following him around).

Also, consider the result of the US betrayal of Vietnam. Several million were killed by the Khmer Rouger in Cambodia. Hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese were sent to concentration camps (not the 3000 Kerry predicted), and tens to hundreds of thousands died there (I’ve read two biographies of Viet Cong who ended up there – the North didn’t want any Southerners in position of power, and there were a tiny number of VC left). Other tens of thousands were simply executed ( just like 3000 civilians were taken out of their homes in Hue and simply shot and buried out in the countryside during the 1968 Tet Offensive ). Kerry contributed to this.

But ultimately, the issue is not as much why he did it but what he did. He made many, many claims that were false. The most notorious was his claim that atrocities were widespread (routine) and approved by all levels of the chain of command.

If your father knew of these events, he was required by law to report them. Did he?

Whether or not it was widespread is most certainly an issue. A widespread pattern indicates that the government is knowing and tolerating. It indicates an army of monsters (which is what Kerry called us). A few isolated cases are to be expected (it happens in all wars) and punished. So when you try to equate a few with a lot in moral impact, you are essentially saying that all of us are guilty when only a few did it. Kerry implied that we all did so, and that it left us psychologically damaged. That was a slander on people who had fought for their country, a terrible slander, all by this guy who only spent 4 months in country.

Let me say it again: There is a dramatic difference between widespread atrocities known to all levels of command, and occasional atrocities in an army which disapproved of them. I know a lot of Vietnam Vets and none of them have ever witnessed an atrocity.

You are selectively reading Kerry’s text. Look at the issues I pointed out. There are many, many lies. Are you going to address each one, or just the ones for which you have arguments?

You see, I don’t like being slandered as a child killer, because its a lie. I don’t like being characterized as part of a monster made up of people damaged by what we did in the war, because it’s a lie. I don’t like my country accused of racism, either in its treatment of South Vietnamese or its treatment in Vietnam of blacks (his statistics are very wrong). I don’t like a guy who aided the enemy in throwing away a victory earned by the 58,000 people whose names are on the wall, and others (including friends of mine) whose names never made it to the wall. I don’t like a man who says America lost its morality over Mei Lai, even though that massacre was stopped by a single brave American helicopter pilot, who stood up to Lt. Calley’s heavily armed troops and threatened to shoot them if they continued, and the massacre made headlines and was taken very seriously.

I don’t want as president a man who, after being in a combat zone for 4 months and in charge of a gunboat, doesn’t even know what a free fire zone really is. I don’t want a man whose first Purple Heart was received fraudulently for a self inflicted wound while not in enemy contact.

BTW… Thanks you for your civil tone. It is not what I am used to and I appreciate it. If others here get grumpy with you, please accept my policy. There are plenty of very angry Vietnam Vets this year.

Is your father reading this?

Would you be willing to forward the address http://kerrylied.com/ ?

Thank you for your quick response. I am enjoying this debate and hope that we both are learning something from it.
Connie