Why are there like a dozen threads arguing war records?

[Marco]

Looking through all the topics in this political forum...I'm noticing that there is a lot of arguing about Bush's war records and Kerry's war records and who served in what capacity and who got wounded or not and how short a period of time someone received these war wounds and whether they bled or not...ok, so I'm ranting and basically following the form of the posts I'm describing.....

What's the big deal behind all the war records and finding out if Kerry exited a boat with his left foot hitting the ground first or the right, or if George left the barracks and turned first to his right or his left.....

Maybe I'm too practical of a guy to get overly sucked into all the rhetoric behind the campaigns and the records of who did what 35 years ago...

Is anybody here concerned at all about the ability of the candidates in question to run the country for the next four years and take the country down a healthy road? Why all the gossip and debate about trivial events that happened 3 and 4 decades ago?

Are we electing a candidate that conforms to standards we may have as to the direction we want this country to go, and that candidate's ability to perform those tasks?

These guys are like 60 years old....reading some of these threads gives me the impression that this country is hiring for the next Rambo......Are we going to strap an M-60 and 4 grenades to the winning candidate and send him off to battle brown people somewhere?

A whole bunch of real issues are out there that actually have something to do with the future course of this country, and all you guys can dream up is new ways of trying to find someones timecard from 40 years ago. Wow.

 

[JayHarn3]

it's because bush's campaign has no policies to run on.

 

[UncleMoneybags]

jayharn3,

There are people that would say the same about Kerry.

 

[JayHarn3]

uncle,

true but why does bush continue to talk about 4 more years, yet he won't discuss no domestic policies and the past 4 years?

 

[Redneckman]

It's an issue because KERRY MADE IT HIS CAMPAIGN THEME. Hell, Dole was a true war hero, and he didn't make it his campaign theme in 1996.

 

[Mr NJ Sports]

marco stated "A whole bunch of real issues are out there that actually have something to do with the future course of this country, and all you guys can dream up is new ways of trying to find someones timecard from 40 years ago. Wow."

you are 100 percent right. but john Kerry thinks that this issue matters (until he is criticized on it, then he whines like theresa took away his allowance for the week)

In my opinion if you served in a war it is a brave thing to do and as Ali G would say "big ups yourself , total respek"

BUT to make this an issue today when other shit is going on that has jack squat to do with vietnam is just assinine. But i guess when your senate record sucks and you are a two faced liar that takes both sides of every issue you can only run on something that happened 35+ years ago.

 

[WildBill]

It isn't a lack of an agenda to run on, it is Bush's lack of accomplishments in 3.5 years in office. Unless you think Saddam was a terribly dangerous man hiding in his little shack and hole out back. Beyond saying he caught him and killed his sons, what exactly does Bush have to run on as a list of achievements? People are voting against Bush because he has accomplished so damn little in his time, people are willing to give someone else a chance and see what happens.

No that isn't the most convincing line to work with, but if the Republicans wanted to be respected for a future agenda in this election they would have been better off a guy who accomplished little other to draw the ire of half the population and most of the world.

 

[Mr NJ Sports]

all presidents draw the ire of just about half the population. especially in a 2 party system.

 

[Illini]

Wild Bill- We'll never know how dangerous Saddam was, nor how dangerous he could have become. If he had the capabilities of acquiring a bomb, there's no reason to think that lunatic would not have used it. Sure, it's convenient for you guys to say it was unnecessary, but that is just speculation on your part. The best intelligence in the world, and not just our intelligence, was saying he was dangerous. I don't think too many presidents have had as many challenges as Bush has had. We had the right man in office, no doubt. One who had the balls to stand up to terrorists. The way Kerry is talking now, "we need to fight the war on terror more sensitively" that garbage, would not have fared so well. And neither would have Gore. A little bit different from Clinton's presidency, just getting bj's and letting the country run itself. Then claiming that the prosperity was due to himself. And as far as drawing the ire of half the population, NJ Sports makes a good point. When has a president not done that?

 

[PatPatriot]

How about disarming Lybia?

Kerry is the one who talked about what a brave and powerful warrior he was during his winter in Nam for 45 minutes of a 55 minute speech.During the national convention.(He even brought a typewriter and movie camera to record the heroic acts he was going to make up)

The thing is he threw away his medals when it was politically cool 30 years ago then trots em out when its politically cool to be the opposite.
The guy is a fxckin fraud.

 

[Illini]

It continues to amuse me how Kerry and Edwards also voted for the war, and now claim it's "Bush's illegal war." And now Kerry's solution? "Well, we need to get France and Germany in on it, and we need to send our boys home!" Yeah, and I'm going to win the lottery not once, but twice in my lifetime. Dumbass.

 

[PatPatriot]

France and Germany have both said they aren't getting involved with the war no matter whos president.
Kerry is just a self grandizing dillusional or a shamless liar...either one won't get him up on Mt. Rushmore maybe Mt.Mikemoore.

 

[D2bets]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mr NJ Sports:
all presidents draw the ire of just about half the population. especially in a 2 party system. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting point. Who was the last Prez that didn't? Maybe Kennedy, and he was assassinated.

 

[Illini]

I heard Kerry wrote a book in 1972 that he's trying to hide from now. It's going for $1,000 a pop on ebay, and word is, if the contents of it ever get out, there will be no chance any soldier would ever want to serve under his command.

 

[xpanda]

The Bush admin may go down in history as one of the greatest propagandisers on record. You can't turn on CNN or any other US news show (including the Daily Show, I'm sad to say) without hearing some bunk about war records.

With four times as many Iraqis killed as Americans on 9/11, you'd think people would have more serious concerns than the merits of purple hearts from 30 years ago.

 

[Illini]

CNN. Now that's funny. Yep, Bush has those guys in his back pocket. Please.

 

[Redneckman]

Kerry made it the centerpiece of his campaign theme, x.

 

[SENDITIN]

Xpanda,

Not sure how much of the Dem convention you watched, but it was 98% about Kerry's Vietnam record. He's the one who has made it the focal point of his campaign. Now that his war record and anti-war record are being spotlighted, the libs are crying foul. Tough sh_t. Let's ask Kerry about the war atrocities he SAYS he committed. Did he rape anyone? Did he kill any children? Which villages did he torch? All legit questions for someone running for President. Can you imagine if Bush served in Vietnam and had made those statements? It would be front page news for 6 months.

 

[GAMEFACE]

This gets more and more comical everyday to see the left whine. 87% of all 527 money is going against Bush and it's not making a difference.

 

[xpanda]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Illini:
CNN. Now that's funny. Yep, Bush has those guys in his back pocket. Please. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I really don't think I implied a right-wing conspiracy at CNN. What I was saying is that this swift-vet crap has hijacked any discussions about any issues that really matter, and every news outlet is falling for it.