Kerry's hypocrisy

Edited

[ September 07, 2004, 09:45 AM: Message edited by: Gina L ]

 

Dear Mr.Ken...

Can I assume from this that you yourself have no nasty character flaws with which to be concerned? The point seeming to be that those of us yet to reach perfection on this planet have no right to be discerning in the hypocrisy of those around us?

Just wondering. Your post was quite amusing

 

Please explain the "hypocrisy" here.

 

Believe me, I have plenty.

It's just that my dear friend antagonist, church mouse guy, makes outrageous statements toward those that disagree with him politically, never defends his statements when challenged but instead goes off on tangents. But we all love church mouse guy in spite of his faults.

 

One more thing for you Baptist in Richmond:

"And therein lies the fundamental hypocrisy of the Kerry candidacy.

He came to prominence as a radical opponent of the war in Vietnam, yet now he runs for president on the strength of his service in that war. He portrayed the men who fought there as unspeakable savages, yet now he surrounds himself with Vietnam vets at every turn."

CLICK THIS LINK

[ September 07, 2004, 09:44 AM: Message edited by: Gina L ]

 

Kerry said that Bush should call off the attack ads from the Swift Vets, a 527 organization that Bush had nothing to do with, although two of his operatives did--both of whom had to leave the main Bush campaign. Kerry was complaining that his military service was being attacked. Never mind the fact that he personally attacked Bush's service back in February.

By the way, Bush said that Kerry served admirably in the Navy and deserved his medals despite some disinformation that you may have seen posted on this board.

As for Ken, he said that he was going to sleep through this debate when he thought that Kerry was winning, but when it turned out that Kerry had started this, Ken rushed to defend his man John. </font>[/QUOTE]Again, where is the "hypocrisy?"

Are you saying that Kerry has a 527 somewhere?

 

Where is the "hypocrisy?"

I have a simple yes/no question: Did John Kerry actually serve in Vietnam?

As one who served in Vietnam, doesn't he have the right to criticize the war? I may or may not agree with his actions (I don't), but he most certainly has a right to criticize a war, especially given the fact that he actually was over there.

 

Baptist, you are dead on right, he did serve there, he definatally has the right to criticize the war.

So now I ask you the same question about those critizing him, did they serve in Vienam? Don't they have "the right to criticize the war, especially given the fact that (they) actually (were) over there."

You can't have it both ways, or it is indeed hyprocricy, what is good for the goose should be good for the gander.

 

I am not sure where you normally reasonable guys are missing this...

Kerry questioned Bush's Guard service. Kerry remained silent for months while the media and 527's mercilessly attacked Bush's service. Fair enough. As far as we know, there are no withheld documents concerning Bush's attendance... the evidence is simply inconclusive. Bush never made a big deal out of it although I am sure that it was worrisome. The Bush story has been beaten to death and there simply doesn't seem to be anything left to find.

Now Kerry is going ballistic and throwing bombs at Bush because his record is being challenged after HE MADE A BIG DEAL OF IT. He won't release all of his records via a Form 180 and his response to the SwiftVets has primarily been to attack Bush rather than factual rebuttals.

Sidebar: I served 7 years in the US Army Reserve. Unless Bush was under some sort of special orders, there is no such animal as being "AWOL" from weekend drill.

If someone didn't show up, we tried to contact them. If they continued to be absent and we couldn't find them then they would be administratively moved to the IRR. Technically, they could be required to go on active duty or the Reserve Personnel office in St Louis could pursue them but I never heard of either happening.

If Bush's commission contract required a certain number of "active reserve" years, there still would have been no requirement for him to serve continuously with a unit. In fact, he probably could have fulfilled his contract by doing extra AT's rather than belonging to a unit at all.

 

And another thing, I relocated across the country after 7 years in my unit. They released me but it was up to me to find another unit. But there was no requirement for me to do so because I had already met my 5 year active commitment.

 

"Democratic candidate John F. Kerry, e.g., got $75 million in Federal funds in exchange for agreeing to stop his use of special interest money, but extremist-left 527 organizations such as MoveOn.org closely linked to Kerry’s campaign continue to fund tens of millions of dollars of anti-Republican TV hate ads in a shameful circumvention of campaign finance laws." http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14585 But then, that would be o.k. - cuz they are anti Bush, right? They are only bad when they are pro Bush, right? I just want to understand the rationality, and I don't yet.

That, is just one of the hypocrisy's imho. Some of them are pretty funny, like when he said he doesn't own an SUV...then months later had to confess that..well, yes, his FAMILY owns several, but not "him" specifically.

 

Sure, I don't have a problem with that. But don't forget that Bush has quite a few unanswered questions with respect to his service.

When did I say anything about wanting it both ways? The sentence starts off with "you" so I can only assume that it is directed at me. I simply ASKED where the hypocrisy exists.

 

Then it is okay for those to question the SBV's claims, along with their motives and resources.....

 

Darn right he has every right to criticize the war ! But not while it's raging, and not while people who served with him are there, who would have laid their lives down for him if they had to, as they would have for any buddy.

If he had any integrity at all, he should have waited until it's over, and then he could talk all he want. And by the way, he never presented proof of any massacre or atrocity, as in p-r-o-o-f !

Besides, as has been said for the nth time, he started it all !! He threw the first mud. As a matter of fact, if memory serves me right, he kicked off his candidacy by attacking the President's personality and not the issues. He put on the brakes and turned the wheels only when he saw he was heading nowhere but people's animosity towards him.

 

One more time: what is Kerry doing that constitutes "hypocrisy?"

Note the date/time you said this. I may or may not remind you of this statement in the weeks to come......

 

Disagree with you on this one.

This is not a requisite for integrity. How can you possibly say that since he did not "[wait] until it's over," he is not a man of integrity? If he believed that he fought in an immoral war, then he has the right to speak out against it. I may or may not agree with him, but he has that right, and our liberty guarantees that right.