John Kerry, Patriot?

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post   Closed: New threads not accepted on this page

Author Message   Michael Janay Citizen Username: Childprotect Post Number: 794 Registered: 1-2003 Posted on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 12:38 pm:        http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14982 The people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. -- St. Matthew 15:8 The American phrase “lip service” is derived from this Biblical quotation. It connotes insincerity, or “expressed with the lips, but not acted upon or believed.” Although the current democrat presidential campaign has been rife with lip service on countless subjects, among the most objectionable—often reverentially uttered, mantra-like, not just by democrats, but by reporters, TV talking heads, and, regrettably, even prominent Republicans—is that John Kerry is a “patriot.” Even the slightest doubt expressed about Kerry’s patriotism will evoke vigorous denial that runs the gamut from raised eyebrows to utter disdain to uncontrollable wrath. As we saw when Kerry appeared at a late-night Ohio rally following the close of the Republican Convention, he is stung even by a non-attack: “They have attacked my patriotism!” Kerry bellowed. Alas, they had not. It is one thing for President Bush and Vice President Cheney to remain above the fray on this issue. But former prisoner of war John McCain knows better, the savvy former mayor of New York, Rudy Giuliani, should know better, and democrat Senator Zell Miller, in a fiery oration denouncing Kerry’s senatorial voting record, at least implied that he knew better. Before independent-minded members of either party, let alone the sought-after bloc of “undecideds,” make up their minds about John Kerry’s alleged patriotism, let them first ponder this definition: A “patriot” is “a person who loves and loyally or zealously supports his own country.” (Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language). Then let them test that definition, as we have, against some damning facts: * A patriot does not flee when comrades are in danger, no matter what the perceived threat. A patriot does not fake or exaggerate minor wounds in order to garner medals. A patriot does not “somehow” obtain three different citations for a single medal, the latter two sanitizing the first. A patriot does not bail out from a one-year combat assignment after only four months, by taking advantage of a loophole in an obscure regulation, leaving his “brothers” to face the enemy. * A patriot does not appear before a committee of the United States Senate looking like a cartoon version of a Vietnam veteran, wearing ribbons on unkept fatigues. A patriot does not give ghost-written testimony to that senate committee, attacking his country. A patriot does not take an oath before that senate committee, and then proceed to lie through his teeth. A patriot does not use his televised testimony before that senate committee to accuse American troops—including those still in the field. A patriot does not hand our communist enemies such anti-American propaganda, which can be—and was—then used as a tool in the torture of American prisoners of war. A patriot does not falsely accuse himself of committing war crimes in order to make a political-theater statement against the Vietnam War. A patriot does not associate with potential murderers, conspiring to assassinate American political leaders. A patriot does not make common cause with traitors like Jane Fonda, Tom Hayden and Ramsey Clark, and other America-haters who give aid and comfort to our nation’s enemies. A patriot does not march around the Capitol of the United States of America carrying an upside down American flag. A patriot does not, during wartime, organize and participate in a sham investigation of American “war crimes” (Winter Soldier Investigation)— paid for by Jane Fonda and designed to spout communist propaganda and undermine and embarrass our military. A patriot does not organize and participate in antiwar protests, nor march under the communist Vietnamese flag, and defile military medals by throwing them away—especially while Americans are in combat. A patriot does not act as spokesman for an organization that is a front for the very enemy that the United States of America is fighting. A patriot does not associate with an organization (Vietnam Veterans Against the War) admittedly in bed with the Communist Party USA. A patriot does not write a book with a cover that desecrates the American flag, and contents that disparage his country. A patriot does not, while still a member of the United States Navy, fraternize in Paris with communist enemies whose troops, at that very moment, are killing Americans and torturing American prisoners of war. A patriot does not urge acceptance of the Vietnamese communists’ proposal to end the war—on their terms, not ours. * A patriot does not vote against virtually every piece of national security and related legislation—laws that would make our country stronger and safer. A patriot does not refuse to appropriate funds to support American forces, fighting for their country in Iraq. * A patriot does not attempt to suppress a book critical of his military service by putting pressure on its publisher and on booksellers. A patriot does not unleash his lawyers on TV station managers, threatening them with legal and administrative action should they air advertisements critical of his military service. A patriot does not allow colleagues and supporters to call the President of the United States a liar, and much worse—particularly in time of war. A patriot does not denigrate legitimate draft deferments once granted the Vice President of the United States, who later served in Congress, then as Chief-of-Staff to a President, and later as Secretary of Defense during wartime. A patriot does not silently accept his photograph being displayed in the Vietnam communists’ “War Crimes Museum,” along with others who helped the Vietnamese communists win the war. A patriot is not willing to surrender American sovereignty to the United Nations under the guise of “multilateralism.” A patriot does not refuse to make all of his military records public, especially in the face of a loud public clamor. A patriot does not allow his Silver Star medal to be falsely embellished with a Combat “V” that is unauthorized and possibly illegal. A patriot does not denigrate America’s National Guard and Reserve forces, who throughout this nation’s history have performed with distinction in our defense. A patriot does not promise a more “sensitive” War on Terrorism, no matter how “politically correct” that notion may be. A patriot does not wrap himself in the American flag for political advantage, after spending a mere three months in a combat zone. * When one adds up these facts, one has every right to conclude, as we have, that John Kerry has never been, and is not now, a patriot—and more: that to say otherwise, is merely to pay lip service.   Montagnard Citizen Username: Montagnard Post Number: 1030 Registered: 6-2003 Posted on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 12:47 pm:        "A patriot does not wrap himself in the American flag for political advantage, after spending a mere three months in a combat zone. Or zero months. Especially if he was AWOL from the National Guard. What a joke.   singlemalt Citizen Username: Singlemalt Post Number: 342 Registered: 12-2001 Posted on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 12:49 pm:        Has anyone been able to prove Bush was AWOL? NO! Saying it doesn't make it true.   Nohero Citizen Username: Nohero Post Number: 3818 Registered: 10-1999 Posted on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 12:50 pm:        The authors of the article excerpted above, Henry Mark Holzer and Erika Holzer, have long argued that it is unpatriotic to protest against your government. Many would find the Holzers' point of view to be un-American.   Montagnard Citizen Username: Montagnard Post Number: 1032 Registered: 6-2003 Posted on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 12:55 pm:        Kristoff's article in today's NY Times. Bush never showed up in Alabama, period.   bobk Citizen Username: Bobk Post Number: 6076 Registered: 5-2001 Posted on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 12:58 pm:        Interestingly if their had not been an active anti-war movement during Vietnam many of the POWs would have, at best, spent several more years in captivity and, at worst, not survived the additional time.   singlemalt Citizen Username: Singlemalt Post Number: 344 Registered: 12-2001 Posted on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 1:04 pm:        Based on what? An interview with 1 person written by a columnist on the op/ed page of the most liberal paper in the country? Since when do we take op/ed's and read them as news? Thanks for making my point for me.   Crazyguggenheim Citizen Username: Crazyguggenheim Post Number: 658 Registered: 2-2002 Posted on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 1:09 pm:        Call me crazy, but if you're a patriot, are you obligated to wear blinders and swallow everything your government (or your Fox News Network) says hook line and sinker?   scribbler Citizen Username: Scribbler Post Number: 40 Registered: 11-2001 Posted on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 1:42 pm:        Proof? As "Commander in Chief" there should be no question as to whether or not Bush was AWOL. How about proving he was there? No proof on that, is there? You mention what you deem to be "exaggerations" of Kerry's valor. Please consider the source. Not one of these detractors was on the boat with Kerry. Perhaps we should scrutinize all the great military heroes of the past to see if they bled enough, or were maimed enough to deserve their medals! It's clear that only because John Kerry opposes George Bush does anyone question his service now, more than thirty years after the war. Do you recall the Republican attack on John McCain in 2000? These people will stop at nothing. But rather than speak of "exaggerations", what say we speak about lies; or as our President calls them, "miscalculations". How about the one regarding the connection between Iraq, Saddam Hussein and Al Quaeda? Or perhaps the one about the absolute certainty of the existence of WMD's in Iraq? Those were a couple of whoppers that cost this country the lives of 1,000 young men and women and billions of dollars. And if you think this Administration really supports our troops, pay a visit to this website http://optruth.com and see what those soldiers serving in Iraq have to say {http://optruth.com}   Michael Janay Citizen Username: Childprotect Post Number: 797 Registered: 1-2003 Posted on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 1:51 pm:        One of the Swift Boat Vets was Kerry's gunner. 14 of them Bunked every night with Kerry. Every one of Kerry's commanding officers, and 61 other vets that witnessed his actions first hand. Perhaps we should scrutinize all the great military heroes of the past to see if they bled enough, or were maimed enough to deserve their medals! Perhaps we should. Especially if that person is running to be Commander in Chief, and uses his medals as a qualification for that post. 2 splinters and a bruise, thats all it took for Kerry to abandon his men (though they wanted him to go). But it just doesn't matter right?   singlemalt Citizen Username: Singlemalt Post Number: 347 Registered: 12-2001 Posted on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 1:54 pm:        Like I said - saying he was AWOL does not make it true. Why should Bush have to prove anything to anyone? Nobody is forcing John Kerry to release his complete medical and military records. From what I hear, those would be more damning to Kerry than the accusations against Bush for not showing up in Alabama after the war ended. Also, let's not forget that enlisted servicemen and women are favoring Bush with over 60% of the vote. Veterans are also supporting Bush in large numbers. The web page you posted claims to be non-partisan but it's obvious to anyone it is backed by the Howard Dean side of the Democratic party.   Michael Janay Citizen Username: Childprotect Post Number: 799 Registered: 1-2003 Posted on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 1:54 pm:        Ask retired Brig. Gen. William Turnipseed whether the press has accurately reported what he said about George W. Bush, and you'll get an earful. "No, I don't think they have," he begins. Turnipseed, the former head of the 187th Tactical Reconnaissance Group of the Alabama Air National Guard, was widely quoted as saying he never saw Bush in Alabama in 1972, and if the future president had been there, he would remember. In fact, Turnipseed says, he doesn't recall whether Bush was there or not; the young flier, then a complete unknown in Alabama, was never part of the 900-man 187th, so Turnipseed wouldn't have had much reason to notice him. But most reporters haven't been interested in Turnipseed's best recollection. "They don't understand the Guard, they don't want to understand the Guard, and they hate Bush," he says. "So when I say, ‘There's a good possibility that Bush showed up,' why would they put that in their articles?" In recent weeks, Turnipseed has found himself in the middle of a battle in which Democrats have called the president a "deserter" who went "AWOL" for an entire year during his time in the Air National Guard. When Democrats made those accusations — amplified by extensive press coverage — the White House was slow to fight back, insisting that the issue, which came up in the 2000 campaign, was closed and did not merit a response. It was only after NBC's Tim Russert brought the story up during a one-hour interview with the president on February 8 that the White House changed course and released records of the president's Guard service. Those records have not quieted the most determined of the president's enemies — no one who watches the Democratic opposition really believed they would — but they do make a strong case that Bush fulfilled his duties and met the requirements for Air National Guard officers during his service from 1968 to 1973. A look at those records, along with interviews with people who knew Bush at the time, suggests that after all the shouting is over, and some of the basic facts become known, this latest line of attack on the president will come to nothing. FOUR YEARS OF FLYING The controversy over Bush's service centers on what his critics call "the period in question," that is, the time from May 1972 until May 1973. What is not mentioned as often is that that period was in fact Bush's fifth year in the Guard, one that followed four years of often intense service. Bush joined in May 1968. He went through six weeks of basic training — a full-time job — at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Tex. Then he underwent 53 weeks of flight training — again, full time — at Moody Air Force Base in Valdosta, Ga. Then he underwent 21 weeks of fighter interceptor training — full time — at Ellington Air Force Base in Houston. Counting other, shorter, postings in between, by the end of his training period Bush had served two years on active duty. Certified to fly the F-102 fighter plane, Bush then began a period of frequent — usually weekly — flying. The F-102 was designed to shoot down other fighter planes, and the missions Bush flew were training flights, mostly over the Gulf of Mexico and often at night, in which pilots took turns being the predator and the prey."If you're going to practice how to shoot down another airplane, then you have to have another airplane up there to work on," recalls retired Col. William Campenni, who flew with Bush in 1970 and 1971. "He'd be the target for the first half of the mission, and then we'd switch." During that period Bush's superiors gave him consistently high ratings as a pilot. "Lt. Bush is an exceptional fighter interceptor pilot and officer," wrote one in a 1972 evaluation. Another evaluation, in 1971, called Bush "an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot" who "continually flies intercept missions with the unit to increase his proficiency even further." And a third rating, in 1970, said Bush "clearly stands out as a top notch fighter interceptor pilot" and was also "a natural leader whom his contemporaries look to for leadership." All that flying involved quite a bit of work. "Being a pilot is more than just a monthly appearance," says Bob Harmon, a former Guard pilot who was a member of Bush's group in 1971 and 1972. "You cannot maintain your currency by doing just one drill a month. He was flying once or twice a week during that time, from May of 1971 until May of 1972." While the work was certainly not as dangerous as fighting in the jungles of Vietnam, it wasn't exactly safe, either. Harmon remembers a half-dozen Texas Air National Guard fliers who died in accidents over the years, in cluding one during the time Bush was flying. "This was not an endeavor without risk," Harmon notes. THE MOVE TO ALABAMA The records show that Bush kept up his rigorous schedule of flying through the spring of 1972: He was credited for duty on ten days in March of that year, and seven days in April. Then, as Bush began his fifth year of service in the Guard, he appears to have stepped back dramatically. The records indicate that he received no credit in May, June, July, August, and September 1972. In October, he was credited with two days, and in November he was credited with four. There were no days in December, and then six in January 1973. Then there were no days in February and March. The change was the result of Bush's decision to go to Alabama to work on the Senate campaign of Republican Winton Blount. With an obligation to the Guard, Bush asked to perform equivalent service in Alabama. That was not an unusual request, given that members of the Guard, like everyone else, often moved around the country. "It was a common thing," recalls Brigadier General Turnipseed. "If we had had a guy in Houston, he could have made equivalent training with Bush's unit. It was so common that the guy who wrote the letter telling Bush to come didn't even tell me about it." The president's critics have charged that he did not show up for service — was "AWOL" — in Alabama. Bush says he did serve, and his case is supported by records showing that he was paid and given retirement credit for days of service while he was known to be in Alabama. The records also show that Bush received a dental examination on January 6, 1973, at Dannelly Air National Guard base, home of the 187th (January 6 was one of the days that pay records show Bush receiving credit for service). And while a number of Guard members at the base say they do not remember seeing Bush among the roughly 900 men who served there during that time, another member, a retired lieutenant named John Calhoun, says he remembers seeing Bush at the base several times. What seems most likely is that Bush was indeed at Dannelly, but there was not very much for a non-flying pilot to do. Flying fighter jets involves constant practice and training; Bush had to know when he left Texas that he would no longer be able to engage in either one very often, which meant that he would essentially leave flying, at least for some substantial period of time. In addition, the 187th could not accommodate another pilot, at least regularly. "He was not going to fly," says Turnipseed. "We didn't have enough airplanes or sorties to handle our own pilots, so we wouldn't have done it for some guy passing through." On the other hand, showing up for drills was still meeting one's responsibility to the Guard. And, as 1973 went along, the evidence suggests that Bush stepped up his work to make up for the time he had missed earlier. In April of that year, he received credit for two days; in May, he received credit for 14 days; in June, five days; and in July, 19 days. That was the last service Bush performed in the Guard. Later that year, he asked for and received permission to leave the Guard early so he could attend Harvard Business School. He was given an honorable discharge after serving five years, four months, and five days of his original six-year commitment. The records indicate that, despite his move to Alabama, Bush met his obligation to the Guard in the 1972-73 year. At that time, Guardsmen were awarded points based on the days they reported for duty each year. They were given 15 points just for being in the Guard, and were then required to accumulate a total of 50 points to satisfy the annual requirement. In his first four years of service, Bush piled up lots of points; he earned 253 points in his first year, 340 in his second, 137 in his third, and 112 in his fourth. For the year from May 1972 to May 1973, records show Bush earned 56 points, a much smaller total, but more than the minimum requirement (his service was measured on a May-to-May basis because he first joined the Guard in that month in 1968). Bush then racked up another 56 points in June and July of 1973, which met the minimum requirement for the 1973-74 year, which was Bush's last year of service. Together, the record "clearly shows that First Lieutenant George W. Bush has satisfactory years for both '72-'73 and '73-'74, which proves that he completed his military obligation in a satisfactory manner," says retired Lt. Col. Albert Lloyd, a Guard personnel officer who reviewed the records at the request of the White House. All in all, the documents show that Bush served intensively for four years and then let up in his fifth and sixth years, although he still did enough to meet Guard requirements. The records also suggest that Bush's superiors were not only happy with his performance from 1968 to 1972, but also happy with his decision to go to Alabama. Indeed, Bush's evaluating officer wrote in May 1972 that "Lt. Bush is very active in civic affairs in the community and manifests a deep interest in the operation of our government. He has recently accepted the position as campaign manager for a candidate for United States Senate. He is a good representative of the military and Air National Guard in the business world." Beyond their apparent hope that Bush would be a good ambassador for the Guard, Bush's superiors might have been happy with his decision to go into politics for another reason: They simply had more people than they needed. "In 1972, there was an enormous glut of pilots," says Campenni. "The Vietnam War was winding down, and the Air Force was putting pilots in desk jobs. In '72 or '73, if you were a pilot, active or Guard, and you had an obligation and wanted to get out, no problem. In fact, you were helping them solve their problem." THE UNENDING ATTACK Despite the evidence, Democrats have continued to accuse the president of shirking his duty during his Guard career. "He went to Alabama for one year," Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe said on ABC on February 1. "He didn't show up. Call it whatever you want, AWOL, it doesn't matter." After Bush made his Guard records public, McAuliffe released a statement saying the documents "create more questions than answers." Other Democrats, as well as an energetic team of liberal columnists and bloggers, echoed McAuliffe's comments. Perhaps the most impressive accomplishment of Bush's detractors is that they managed to sell the idea — mostly unchallenged in the press — that Bush's Air National Guard service consisted of one year during which he didn't show up for duty. Far fewer people asked the question: Just how did Bush become a fighter pilot in the first place? Didn't that involve, say, years of work? Bush's four years of service prior to May 1972 were simply airbrushed out of the picture because many reporters did not believe they were part of the story. It also seems likely that some of Bush's adversaries used the Guard issue as a way to get at other questions about the president. The Guard record was said to have a bearing on Bush's credibility, on the war in Iraq, on his fitness to lead. In addition, some journalists were nearly obsessed with forcing the president to release medical records from his time in the Guard because they hoped those records might reveal some evidence of drug use. The White House did not release the full set of medical records but did allow reporters to view them; the documents were entirely unexcep tional and contained nothing about drug use. While all that was going on, both the White House and the Bush reelection campaign seemed consistently to underestimate the ferocity and resolve of the president's adversaries. For weeks, as the controversy grew, the president did nothing to defend himself. Those who wanted to speak up in his defense, like William Campenni and Bob Harmon, were not contacted by the White House; instead, they decided to go public on their own. Even when John Calhoun, the man who remembers Bush in Alabama, sent the White House an e-mail saying he had useful information, he received a stock response, without any indication the White House was interested in what he had to say. Now the evidence is public; anyone who is interested in learning about Bush's service can do so. In the end, the president had the facts on his side. But he also had the good fortune to have the allegiance of men who feel so intensely about the Guard and their service that they wanted to speak out even if the White House didn't seem to care. Men like Campenni and Harmon were deeply offended when Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry equated Guard service during the Vietnam War with fleeing the country or going to jail. That was simply too much. "I'm not a Bushie," says Harmon. "The thing that got a few of us crawling out from under a rock, at no instigation from the White House, was that Guard service was being portrayed as being like a draft dodger."   scribbler Citizen Username: Scribbler Post Number: 41 Registered: 11-2001 Posted on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 2:09 pm:        I notice that you have failed to refute any of my comments regarding your candidate. It is much easier to focus on the attack of Kerry in the hope that Americans are foolish enough to overlook the economy, the war in Iraq, staggering unemployment rate, etc. etc. I don't see Kerry bringing up President Bush's less than sterling reputation in the past (Cocaine, 2 DUI's, AWOL) not that there is any conceivable comparison between the two men. Kerry speaks to the issues. Bush uses his smokescreen.   singlemalt Citizen Username: Singlemalt Post Number: 349 Registered: 12-2001 Posted on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 2:13 pm:        OK - let's assume everything you say about Bush is true. HE IS STILL A BETTER CHOICE FOR PRESIDENT THAN KERRY!   scribbler Citizen Username: Scribbler Post Number: 42 Registered: 11-2001 Posted on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 2:16 pm:        Oops, I type very slowly. I now see that you have consulted your research (?) and have vigorously refuted my comments. Where on that website do you see anything about Howard Dean?! Who are these soldiers then, actors in disguise? I think not.   singlemalt Citizen Username: Singlemalt Post Number: 350 Registered: 12-2001 Posted on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 2:17 pm:        Of course there are active military folks who disagree with the war and the President. We have 150,000 soldiers in Iraq of which less than 40% are probably supporting your candidate.   Michael Janay Citizen Username: Childprotect Post Number: 801 Registered: 1-2003 Posted on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 2:19 pm:        Ita laughabble that you say " I don't see Kerry bringing up President Bush's less than sterling reputation in the past (Cocaine, 2 DUI's, AWOL)" Do you even look at what Kerry says? Thats all he and his lackies do every day. As for your "Allegations", open your eyes. Show me one, just one actual lie. Iraq's prime minister says Saddam was allied with Al Quaeda. There have been many many documented contacts between Saddam and AQ. Every intelligence agency and source including France, Russia, the UN, and even John Kerry (who sat on the intel commitee, but rarely ever showed up) believed there were WMD in Iraq.   scribbler Citizen Username: Scribbler Post Number: 43 Registered: 11-2001 Posted on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 2:24 pm:        Well that point is moot since I'm sure the Bush operatives will see to it that the active military's absentee ballots will be lost in the mail, as in 2000. Hey, I'm not changing your vote and you're not changing mine. Bush has a 4 year record to consider. I guess you want more of the same.Time will tell.   singlemalt Citizen Username: Singlemalt Post Number: 351 Registered: 12-2001 Posted on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 2:26 pm:        Why would Bush want to lose votes for him?   scribbler Citizen Username: Scribbler Post Number: 44 Registered: 11-2001 Posted on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 2:33 pm:        Well I'm sure we can believe everything said by the Iraqi Prime Minister! All of the "documented contacts" have been shot down in the 9/11 Commisions Report. Indeed I do look at what Kerry says and if you'd like to do the same you can get more information here http://www.johnkerry.com.   Michael Janay Citizen Username: Childprotect Post Number: 802 Registered: 1-2003 Posted on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 2:47 pm:        MNone of the documented contacts were shot down in the 9/11 commission report. The report only said that all of the contacts were inconclusive. Inconclusive means inconclusive both ways. And its also important to realize that the commission was investigating any possible collaboration between Iraq and AQ with regards to 9/11. I agree that there was no collabrative relationship proven between the 2 WRT 9/11. But None of the contacts were shot down.   singlemalt Citizen Username: Singlemalt Post Number: 352 Registered: 12-2001 Posted on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 2:51 pm:        Scribbler, how about answering my question? Why would Bush want to lose votes that would be in his favor? Also, perhaps you could learn something by visting Bush's website: http://www.georgewbush.com   scribbler Citizen Username: Scribbler Post Number: 45 Registered: 11-2001 Posted on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 2:57 pm:        Sorry, Singlemalt, I thought that question was either rhetorical or humor. Check your numbers on military support. As for Bush website, been there-done that. I actually try to listen to both sides of an argument before I make up my mind.   singlemalt Citizen Username: Singlemalt Post Number: 353 Registered: 12-2001 Posted on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 3:14 pm:        It is so obvious but here is a link that shows the support the military has and will provide GWB. http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040709-121020-3190r.htm   marie Citizen Username: Marie Post Number: 1136 Registered: 6-2001 Posted on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 4:08 pm:        My military friends including a 20 year old marine who was at the initial raid on Baghdad, to a 50 year old reservist currently serving in Iraq , to an ex naval commander are all supporting Bush and tell me their military brothers and sisters are doing the same. They view Kerry as an opportunist who used his service in Vietnam as a launching pad for a political career. They have absolutely no respect or patience for the man and conversely view George Bush as an AUTHENTIC leader and commander in chief. There's no doubt in my mind, GWB will carry the military vote.   Crazyguggenheim Citizen Username: Crazyguggenheim Post Number: 659 Registered: 2-2002 Posted on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 4:21 pm:        Call me crazy, but does that make Ike in-authentic?   marie Citizen Username: Marie Post Number: 1138 Registered: 6-2001 Posted on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 5:00 pm:        I don' know what that makes Ike - just telling you what I'm hearing first hand from the guys whose ••• es are on the line...   Madden 11 Citizen Username: Madden_11 Post Number: 192 Registered: 12-2003 Posted on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 5:06 pm:        I don' know what that makes Ike - just telling you what I'm hearing first hand from the guys whose ••• es are on the line... Don't listen to those opportunists...they're probably only over there to use their service in Iraq as a launching pad for their political careers.   Montagnard Citizen Username: Montagnard Post Number: 1035 Registered: 6-2003 Posted on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 5:15 pm:        If they see Bush as "authentic" they have a big disappointment waiting for them.   cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 2335 Registered: 8-2003 Posted on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 8:29 pm:        There's a report out that Kerry sleepwalks. That's how Kerry got into Cambodia.