"NOYB" wrote
... Kerry applied to the draft board for a deferment to study in
Paris. When he was turned down, he enlisted in the Navy, with the idea
that
he'd be on a ship at sea somewhere and never have go to Vietnam.


Have any proof of that?


It's rather difficult to "prove" what somebody else was thinking... even
more difficult when it was 30+ years ago... almost as difficult as
proving that George Bush Jr. showed up for his ANG duty.

NOYB wrote:
Yes.

The Harvard Crimson newspaper followed a youthful Mr Kerry in Boston as he
campaigned for Congress for the first time in 1970. In the course of a
lengthy article, "John Kerry: A Navy Dove Runs for Congress", published on
February 18, the paper reported: "When he approached his draft board for
permission to study for a year in Paris, the draft board refused and Kerry
decided to enlist in the Navy."

How does this prove that he joined the Navy "with the idea he'd be on a
ship at sea somewhere and never have go to Vietnam." Odd how you
consider this article as "proof" when it doesn't even mention the concept.


The article was written on February 18th, 1970...so don't try to tell me
that it's just a partisan political attack.

Agreed. It's not any kind of attack. And thus, it utterly fails to prove
your point.

That Kerry applied for a deferment to study in Paris is not in dispute.
After all, Vice President Cheney applied for (and got) several similar
deferments.

Do you have some kind of mental problem linking cause and effect? It
must be relatively common among some types of people, for example those
who believe that they'd be better off becoming suicide bombers.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
"NOYB" wrote
... Kerry applied to the draft board for a deferment to study in
Paris. When he was turned down, he enlisted in the Navy, with the idea
that
he'd be on a ship at sea somewhere and never have go to Vietnam.


Have any proof of that?


It's rather difficult to "prove" what somebody else was thinking... even
more difficult when it was 30+ years ago... almost as difficult as
proving that George Bush Jr. showed up for his ANG duty.

NOYB wrote:
Yes.

The Harvard Crimson newspaper followed a youthful Mr Kerry in Boston as
he
campaigned for Congress for the first time in 1970. In the course of a
lengthy article, "John Kerry: A Navy Dove Runs for Congress", published
on
February 18, the paper reported: "When he approached his draft board for
permission to study for a year in Paris, the draft board refused and
Kerry
decided to enlist in the Navy."

How does this prove that he joined the Navy "with the idea he'd be on a
ship at sea somewhere and never have go to Vietnam." Odd how you
consider this article as "proof" when it doesn't even mention the concept.


Because that's what


The article was written on February 18th, 1970...so don't try to tell me
that it's just a partisan political attack.

Agreed. It's not any kind of attack. And thus, it utterly fails to prove
your point.

That Kerry applied for a deferment to study in Paris is not in dispute.
After all, Vice President Cheney applied for (and got) several similar
deferments.


....for which Cheney has taken a lot of heat. Just because guys like
Cheney and Bill Clinton were lucky enough (or well-connected enough) to get
deferments, doesn't make them any less brave than a guy who tried and failed
to get a deferment. Hvaing failed to get a deferment, and failed to get
stationed on a ship out of the combat zone, Kerry then fabricated the
circumstances of a couple of his purple hearts, so that he could flee the
country in a mere 4 months. But that's not the outrageous and unforgivable
part. Many people did whatever it took to save their lives back then.
What's truly outrageous, however, is that Kerry came back to the states and
provided propaganda for the enemy...the same propaganda that the Vietcong
tortured our guys to obtain. For that reason, he's unfit to be called
"Commander in Chief".

How does this prove that he joined the Navy "with the idea he'd be on a
ship at sea somewhere and never have go to Vietnam." Odd how you
consider this article as "proof" when it doesn't even mention the concept.



NOYB wrote:
Because that's what

???


That Kerry applied for a deferment to study in Paris is not in dispute.
After all, Vice President Cheney applied for (and got) several similar
deferments.



...for which Cheney has taken a lot of heat.

From who? It is occasionally mentioned in passing by some of the more
liberal press. The mainstream media doesn't mention it any more than
they mention that many of the Halliburton no-bid contracts were
overturned by the Pentagon... some for non-performance.

... Just because guys like
Cheney and Bill Clinton were lucky enough (or well-connected enough)

There you go, being a socialist agitator again... do you expect any your
supposed fellow Religious Republican Right-wingers would compare Cheney
to Clinton? You're supposed to be helping Cheney (and Bush) here!


What's truly outrageous, however, is that Kerry came back to the states and
provided propaganda for the enemy...

???

The fact that the Religious Republican Right-wingers fabricated a photo
of him standing next to Hanoi Jane makes Kerry culpable for "providing
propaganda for the enemy"?


... the same propaganda that the Vietcong
tortured our guys to obtain.

???

... For that reason, he's unfit to be called
"Commander in Chief".

In the opinion of many (including this veteran), Kerry is more fit to be
CinC than a rich well-connected frat boy who went AWOL from his cushy
Viet Nam dodging ANG post.

Don't you ever get tickled by the irony of demanding that Kerry "release
his military records" when Bush blandly announces that his are "lost"?
Or is this just more agitprop?

DSK

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 13:22:38 -0400, DSK wrote:

What's truly outrageous, however, is that Kerry came back to the states and
provided propaganda for the enemy...

???

The fact that the Religious Republican Right-wingers fabricated a photo
of him standing next to Hanoi Jane makes Kerry culpable for "providing
propaganda for the enemy"?


... the same propaganda that the Vietcong
tortured our guys to obtain.

???

... For that reason, he's unfit to be called
"Commander in Chief".

In the opinion of many (including this veteran), Kerry is more fit to be
CinC than a rich well-connected frat boy who went AWOL from his cushy
Viet Nam dodging ANG post.

You have to realize that, in those days, anyone who questioned our involvement
in that war--in ANY way--was seen by many as traitorous. Remember the bumper
sticker slogans, "America--love it or leave it"?

In those days, speaking the truth about the war was seen by many hawks as being
"propaganda" or "support of the enemy." It's not too different today, is it?
Those who question the current positions of the administration (whatever today's
positions might be) are criticized as "soft on terrorism" or "supporting bin
Laden."

Part of the outcry with regard to Kerry's positions against the war--and his
testimony to Congress--is that he was an articulate spokesman for that position.
And even though his time served in country was short, he did have quite a lot
more credibility than many of his contemporaries who spoke out against the war
without having served in the military in any way.

Parrot

Don't you ever get tickled by the irony of demanding that Kerry "release
his military records" when Bush blandly announces that his are "lost"?
Or is this just more agitprop?

"Parrot" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 13:22:38 -0400, DSK wrote:

What's truly outrageous, however, is that Kerry came back to the states
and
provided propaganda for the enemy...

???

The fact that the Religious Republican Right-wingers fabricated a photo
of him standing next to Hanoi Jane makes Kerry culpable for "providing
propaganda for the enemy"?


... the same propaganda that the Vietcong
tortured our guys to obtain.

???

... For that reason, he's unfit to be called
"Commander in Chief".

In the opinion of many (including this veteran), Kerry is more fit to be
CinC than a rich well-connected frat boy who went AWOL from his cushy
Viet Nam dodging ANG post.

You have to realize that, in those days, anyone who questioned our
involvement
in that war--in ANY way--was seen by many as traitorous. Remember the
bumper
sticker slogans, "America--love it or leave it"?

In those days, speaking the truth about the war was seen by many hawks as
being
"propaganda" or "support of the enemy." It's not too different today, is
it?
Those who question the current positions of the administration (whatever
today's
positions might be) are criticized as "soft on terrorism" or "supporting
bin
Laden."

Part of the outcry with regard to Kerry's positions against the war--and
his
testimony to Congress--is that he was an articulate spokesman for that
position.
And even though his time served in country was short, he did have quite a
lot
more credibility than many of his contemporaries who spoke out against the
war
without having served in the military in any way.

Once our troops are committed to a conflict, then it's the responsibility of
our nation to support those troops by all means possible, and see to it that
they win that war no matter how ill-conceived the war may or may not have
been in the first place. To do otherwise may not be traitorous, but it
certainly is an act of sedition. This is why countries invest so much
resources in propaganda...because it works, and it wins wars.


The anti-Vietnam War demonstrations provided a ray of hope for the enemy,
with the idea that if they could just inflict enough casualties, turn
American public opinion, and hold on a little longer until the next
President was elected, then they'd win the war.

Our country's actions during the Vietnam War sent a dangerous message to our
enemies. Reagan and Clinton unfortunately reinforced that message by their
respective troop withdrawals in Beirut and Somalia. The voters in Spain
also reinforced that message in their most recent election.

With our Presidential election in November, I think we can send an extremely
strong message to would-be enemies that the US will never, ever back down in
the face of adversity. Unfortunately, we can also send the exact opposite
message by electing Kerry.