political commentary wrote:


The point is you want to elect a cheater.

Thats not a very smart thing to do is it?



You mean as opposed to a confessed war criminal, who in congressional
hearings admitted to burning villages, killing innocent women and
children, and shooting unarmed enemy soldiers in the back as they ran?
That kind of thing? Like Kerry?

tom
K0TAR

But that is totally untrue!
He was invited to Congress to pass on information that was spoken about
at a Vietnam veterans get together that occured a few weeks earlier.
He at no time admitted to first hand knoweledge on the veracity of the
cruelty claims made at that convention.
And I do not believe the GOP claims otherwise.
He was at that time a veteran himself as well as being against the war but
if I remember correctly many
showed their feelings by crossing the border, where as he protested using
the ideals that all fight for
.........free speech .
Bush chose the service aproach that many tried for and was successful, both
he and Kerry
were just part of those times and neither should be villified.
If one has first hand knoweledge then he has the right of free speech, when
one uses
free speech without true knoweledge and for his own means then he/she
betrays the ideals for
which one fights for.
Art

"Tom Ring" wrote in message
. ..
political commentary wrote:


The point is you want to elect a cheater.

Thats not a very smart thing to do is it?



You mean as opposed to a confessed war criminal, who in congressional
hearings admitted to burning villages, killing innocent women and
children, and shooting unarmed enemy soldiers in the back as they ran?
That kind of thing? Like Kerry?

tom
K0TAR

Tom Ring wrote in message
. ..
political commentary wrote:


The point is you want to elect a cheater.

Thats not a very smart thing to do is it?



You mean as opposed to a confessed war criminal, who in congressional
hearings admitted to burning villages, killing innocent women and
children, and shooting unarmed enemy soldiers in the back as they ran?
That kind of thing? Like Kerry?

Tom,

Kerry went to congress to parrot the issues
of other Viet Nam vets. The repugnant party
- the party of lies and deception - spins this
event to malign a true war hero.

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1097982/posts

In contrast... any leader who's army invades
a sovereign country that is not an immediate
threat to the invading country, is, according to
international law, a war criminal.

Yes, Saddam was a first-class jerk and two-
bit tyrant, but was not an immediate threat to
America - he lost 2 wars and was sanctioned
by the UN - his army was left impotent, his
major weapons were destroyed after the gulf
war, his WMD programs were in shambles,
and there were no proven ties to al Queda.

GWB is a war criminal - too bad you support
a real war criminal - and that's not spin.

Chuck

tom
K0TAR

Chuck wrote:
Tom Ring wrote in message
. ..

SNIP
In contrast... any leader who's army invades
a sovereign country that is not an immediate
threat to the invading country, is, according to
international law, a war criminal.

You mean like Roosevelt attacking GERMANY ?? Or
TRUMAN attacking North Korea ??





Chuck


tom
K0TAR

--
To reply, remove the NOSPAM

"Chuck" wrote in message
news:%zbhd.3210$GN4.3006@okepread02...
Yes, Saddam was a first-class jerk and two-
bit tyrant, but was not an immediate threat to
America - he lost 2 wars and was sanctioned
by the UN - his army was left impotent, his
major weapons were destroyed after the gulf
war, his WMD programs were in shambles,

But Sadaam PROMISED us the "mother of all battles". We had to assume he was
armed to the teeth. If you can't trust a guy like Sadaam to make a threat
meaningful, gee, who can you trust?

GWB is a war criminal - too bad you support
a real war criminal - and that's not spin.

Indeed Chuck, that's not spin. I'd call you an honest, straightforward
propagandist; what we used to simply refer to as a liar.

Ed
wb6wsn

NN7KexNOSPAMk7zfg k7zfg @sbcglobal.net "NN7KexNOSPAM wrote in message
...
Chuck wrote:
Tom Ring wrote in message
. ..

SNIP
In contrast... any leader who's army invades
a sovereign country that is not an immediate
threat to the invading country, is, according to
international law, a war criminal.

You mean like Roosevelt attacking GERMANY ??

Germany was a direct threat to the entire world,
let alone the USA.

Or TRUMAN attacking North Korea ??

The N. Korea conflict was a UN operation.

Want to try again?

Chuck

Ed Price wrote in message news:qZdhd.87705$kz3.49376@fed1read02...

"Chuck" wrote in message
news:%zbhd.3210$GN4.3006@okepread02...
Yes, Saddam was a first-class jerk and two-
bit tyrant, but was not an immediate threat to
America - he lost 2 wars and was sanctioned
by the UN - his army was left impotent, his
major weapons were destroyed after the gulf
war, his WMD programs were in shambles,

But Sadaam PROMISED us the "mother of all battles". We had to assume he was
armed to the teeth. If you can't trust a guy like Sadaam to make a threat
meaningful, gee, who can you trust?

Do you honestly believe a de-fanged two-bit
tyrant is going to admit to the world he's
impotent? But then, true believers will believe
in just about anything that fits their illusions...

GWB is a war criminal - too bad you support
a real war criminal - and that's not spin.

Indeed Chuck, that's not spin. I'd call you an honest, straightforward
propagandist; what we used to simply refer to as a liar.

You mean like the debunked Swiftboat vets
for Bush, or WMDs that didn't exist, or the
immediate nuclear threat that didn't exist, or
al Queda links that never were, or how about
compassionate conservatism, or vote for
me or the terrorists will get you...

Propagandist indeed...

Chuck


Ed
wb6wsn

Chuck wrote:
NN7KexNOSPAMk7zfg k7zfg @sbcglobal.net "NN7KexNOSPAM wrote in message
...

Chuck wrote:

Tom Ring wrote in message
et...

SNIP
In contrast... any leader who's army invades
a sovereign country that is not an immediate
threat to the invading country, is, according to
international law, a war criminal.

You mean like Roosevelt attacking GERMANY ??


Germany was a direct threat to the entire world,
let alone the USA.


Or TRUMAN attacking North Korea ??


The N. Korea conflict was a UN operation.

Want to try again?

Chuck


Neither ATTACKED us, nor THREATENED US! To state otherwise
means GREMANY ATTACKED PEARL HARBOR. And, JUST WHAT GIVES THE UN
a free pass?? That institution , run by 3rd world DESPOTS, has any
creditability in the scheme of things, is like saying that Heidrich
loved the Jews, and was legitimate in the "benevolent treatment" of them,
during the war! The facts are that : KERRY is a admitted WAR CRIMINAL,
and comitted ATTROCITIES-- to state otherwise is to say that those
POW's that were tortured - deserved THAT TREATMENT- on Kerrys own testimony.
And, as WE WERE ATTACKED ON 9/11, we were as justified in retaliating
as in ANY period of time in the history of the Republic-- or are you
willing to SERVE A SUMMONS to these idiots, and say that they are being sued ??
To even try to justify your position is to beg for further attacks. But, I
guess you think that the World Trade Center was Justifiably attacked, or worse-
WE DESERVED IT ! Jim NN7K

--
To reply, remove the NOSPAM

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 00:15:12 GMT, "NN7KexNOSPAMk7zfg"
wrote:
Neither ATTACKED us, nor THREATENED US!

Germany declared war on the United States 11 December 1941. When did
we attack them previous to that date?

Well, the answer to that is that the Destroyers Greer, Kearney and
Reuben James attacked German submarines. THIS is the Nazi explanation
for their declaration.

In fact, the USS Kearney, DD-432, was torpedoed by the U-568 on 17
October 1941. Six weeks before, the U-652 attacked the Greer.

Well, I suppose Roosevelt melted under pressure to leave Adolf alone,
but then we had the sinking of the Reuben James 30 October 1941 (63
years and a day ago).

For these affronts to their national dignity, the Nazis had no choice
but defend themselves against us - and, well, one thing led to another
as the saying goes.

To state otherwise
means GREMANY ATTACKED PEARL HARBOR. And, JUST WHAT GIVES THE UN
a free pass?? That institution , run by 3rd world DESPOTS,

Was created by the United States, in San Francisco.

The facts are that : KERRY is a admitted WAR CRIMINAL,
and comitted ATTROCITIES
and Bush is crack smoker and was AWOL from assignment.

Just what makes either suitable? Because they are not the other?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"Chuck" wrote
You mean like the debunked Swiftboat vets
for Bush, or WMDs that didn't exist, or the
immediate nuclear threat that didn't exist, or
al Queda links that never were, or how about
compassionate conservatism, or vote for
me or the terrorists will get you...

Propagandist indeed...

Chuck

I'll go with spoiled brat.