Why is it that Kerry's own biography contradicts his statements about being under fire?
On his official website, the timeline is as follows:
December 2, 1968: Kerry experiences first intense combat; receives first combat related injury.
December 6, 1968: Kerry moved to Coastal Division 11 at An Thoi on Phu Quoc Island
December 13, 1968: Kerry moved to Coastal Division 13, Cam Ranh Bay
Yet according to Brinkley, Kerry "had just turned 25, on Dec. 11, 1968," when he first saw combat.
"They pulled away from the pier at Cat Lo with spirits high, feeling satisfied with the way things were going for them. They had no lust for battle, but they also were were not afraid. Kerry wrote in his notebook, 'A cocky feeling of invincibility accompanied us up the Long Tau shipping channel because we hadn't been shot at yet, and Americans at war who haven't been shot at are allowed to be cocky.'"
Kerry returned home calling himself and those he served with war criminals and is now running as a war hero. Which is it? Did he commit atrocities or not? If not, why did he say he did? If he did, why isn't he in the dock instead of on the pulpit? There is no statute of limitation on war crimes. Why did Elmo Zumwalt say he had to get Kerry out of there because he was "killing so many civilians"?
Why is unfair to attack Kerry's service record when he himself rose to prominance by this very method? He slandered tens of thousands of Vietnam vets by saying he comitted and witnessed atrocities. Why did he not report any of them anywhere?
The other day when addressing firefighters he said if the President wants to attack his record, "Bring it on." Which is it? Should the President cease attacking him on his record or should he "bring it on."? http://apnews.myway.com//article/20040822/D84K9O180.html
Why is the party that denounces military people as warmongers now running on a "I was a former warmonger" platform? (related question: why is the anti-war/peace movement so violent?)
Why is Kerry basing his entire campaign on 4 months in Vietnam and not 20 years in the Senate?
Why must Republicans avoid questioning Kerry's actions in service when that is the sole basis for his candidacy?
Why did Kerry say he was in Cambodia when he was over 50 miles away? Why did he not retract that statement? He's now saying he simply got the dates wrong. If so, why not give extensive details about the missions, how many, when and who can corroborate them?
Why won't Kerry release the medical records for his Purple Heart commendations if there is nothing to hide?
Is it appropriate to attack Bush on his record? Even the LA Times admits Kerry flip-flops on this one:
"[Kerry spokesperson] Cutter said that if charges about Kerry's service continued, the candidate would 'talk comparatively' about his military record and that of Bush, who has been shadowed by questions about whether he fulfilled his service while in the Texas Air National Guard.
Kerry has reversed himself several times on whether he thinks it's appropriate to go after Bush's military service record."
Why must Bush be expected to denounce Swiftvets but Kerry is not expected to denounce Michael Moore or Moveon.org?
Why is it that Republican big donors are always labeled "mysterious" and characterized as evil yet George Soros who donates zillions is a brave man?
How can Kerry credibly claim he will make an overhaul of the intelligence community when he missed 76% of the committee meetings?
If elected will Kerry be the first president to give both the State of the Union and the rebuttal?
On his official website, the timeline is as follows:
December 2, 1968: Kerry experiences first intense combat; receives first combat related injury.
December 6, 1968: Kerry moved to Coastal Division 11 at An Thoi on Phu Quoc Island
December 13, 1968: Kerry moved to Coastal Division 13, Cam Ranh Bay
Yet according to Brinkley, Kerry "had just turned 25, on Dec. 11, 1968," when he first saw combat.
"They pulled away from the pier at Cat Lo with spirits high, feeling satisfied with the way things were going for them. They had no lust for battle, but they also were were not afraid. Kerry wrote in his notebook, 'A cocky feeling of invincibility accompanied us up the Long Tau shipping channel because we hadn't been shot at yet, and Americans at war who haven't been shot at are allowed to be cocky.'"
Kerry returned home calling himself and those he served with war criminals and is now running as a war hero. Which is it? Did he commit atrocities or not? If not, why did he say he did? If he did, why isn't he in the dock instead of on the pulpit? There is no statute of limitation on war crimes. Why did Elmo Zumwalt say he had to get Kerry out of there because he was "killing so many civilians"?
Why is unfair to attack Kerry's service record when he himself rose to prominance by this very method? He slandered tens of thousands of Vietnam vets by saying he comitted and witnessed atrocities. Why did he not report any of them anywhere?
The other day when addressing firefighters he said if the President wants to attack his record, "Bring it on." Which is it? Should the President cease attacking him on his record or should he "bring it on."? http://apnews.myway.com//article/20040822/D84K9O180.html
Why is the party that denounces military people as warmongers now running on a "I was a former warmonger" platform? (related question: why is the anti-war/peace movement so violent?)
Why is Kerry basing his entire campaign on 4 months in Vietnam and not 20 years in the Senate?
Why must Republicans avoid questioning Kerry's actions in service when that is the sole basis for his candidacy?
Why did Kerry say he was in Cambodia when he was over 50 miles away? Why did he not retract that statement? He's now saying he simply got the dates wrong. If so, why not give extensive details about the missions, how many, when and who can corroborate them?
Why won't Kerry release the medical records for his Purple Heart commendations if there is nothing to hide?
Is it appropriate to attack Bush on his record? Even the LA Times admits Kerry flip-flops on this one:
"[Kerry spokesperson] Cutter said that if charges about Kerry's service continued, the candidate would 'talk comparatively' about his military record and that of Bush, who has been shadowed by questions about whether he fulfilled his service while in the Texas Air National Guard.
Kerry has reversed himself several times on whether he thinks it's appropriate to go after Bush's military service record."
Why must Bush be expected to denounce Swiftvets but Kerry is not expected to denounce Michael Moore or Moveon.org?
Why is it that Republican big donors are always labeled "mysterious" and characterized as evil yet George Soros who donates zillions is a brave man?
How can Kerry credibly claim he will make an overhaul of the intelligence community when he missed 76% of the committee meetings?
If elected will Kerry be the first president to give both the State of the Union and the rebuttal?
Comments