Red Dawn, Why did you have to include "Kerry needs no defense and if Bush fulfilled his duties" ? Bush has an honorable discharge!!!!!!!
This BS is exactly what I am talking about. Why is it that you must try to distort tyhe facts with this unfounded accusation questioning the valdity of Bush's 30 year old honorable discharge from the National Guard of as possibly being false and then in the same breath insist that Kerry does not need to be held accountable or even questioned for his documented and factual actions of 30 years ago?
If Kerry fulfilled his duties as a Swift boat commander, then he should come up with the names of all the people he witnessed committing war atrocities. Why didn't he report these individuals? Should he be charged for not turning them in? Should he be charged with a crime? a war crime? If not, why shouldn't he? and why should he not be questioned about his actions then? Why is his Kerry's action in Vietnam not relevant and the unfounded accusation concerning the validity of Bush's Honorable discharge is relevant?.
Me thinks that if Bush needs a defense then Kerry better get one too. for they both made some questionable decisions 30+ years ago.
There is no shame in Kerry insisting on and quoting military requlation in order to force the military to give him at least two Purple Hearts for two seperate minor wounds that did not take him out of action whatsoever, and a third wound with Purple Heart awarded that had him disabled for a grand total of about two days. This one I can buy, but not within what i thought a Purple Heart was for in my opinion.
I am sure that every soildier that served in Vietnam must have routinely moninated themselves for Purple Hearts and forced the issue like Kerry did in order to be honored with Purple Hearts after receiving minor flesh wounds, just to get out of a fvcked up war.
I am sure there are many legitimate Purple Heart recipients who would have gladly traded places with Kerry for his three life altering, Ooops I mean Day altering Purple Heart wounds.
Like I said, either side can be argued. But I much rather that we, the media and the american people argue about the recent past of these two presidential candidates, instead of the late 60's and early 70's acxtions of both for there is no one over the age of 30 who hasn't done something in their past that they don't regret now.