this is a short twelve minute documentary that shows kerr's uncertaintly and illegitimacy (dont care about spelling)

http://www.demsextrememakeover.com/

quote:

---

If you're going to pin blame on an individual, why not someone who was in a position of power? It makes no sense to blame a soldier.

---

Yes, I do blame JFK and especially LBJ for Vietnam. And no one (except that rabid anti-war-types) blame John Kerry for being there. What we DO blame him for is possibly faking/self-inflicting injuries, perhaps to get out of the military or at least front-line service, and for making himself out to be a much bigger hero than he really was, including the use of possibly staged footage in his campaign.

Notice that I nor any of the right-leaning folks, AFAIK, don't rake Kerry over the coals for having taken part in war crimes, even though he admitted to exactly that. War sucks, and we right-wingers know full-well that's part of war, and Kerry doesn't deserve criticism for that. (Although I am troubled by the fact that he chose to reveal that fact as publicly as he possibly could, while the war was still going on...there's such a thing as the right time, right place, and the right way to do things, even in wartime...)

quote:

---

Some could also possibly be guilty of libel.

---

It will be the word of John Kerry and one member of the "Band of Brothers" versus several dozen men he served with or encountered.

quote:

---

And what do you mean he aided someone who spit on our soldiers? Who would that have been? It sounds like an over-generalization. I think you're talking out of your ***, if you'll pardon the expression.

---

It is well-known that anti-Vietnam-War protestors frequently spit on soldiers, sometimes just as they returned home from the war. John Kerry was allied with many of these folks.

quote:

---

I wish they would too. Frankly, I was hoping for a moderate democrat to win the party's nomination, but that didn't happen, so I'm settling.

---

Settling for a party, the Democrats, who seem to like to play "can you top this" with how much money they can p!$$ away is hardly settling.

quote:

---

I like how you conveniently forget to mention Iraq's oil revenues.

---

Yes, what about it? Unfortunately, we aren't taking the oil and selling to pay for the war, which we should be. Bush won't do that, because it'll fuel the loony-left's fire, unfortunately.

Some food for thought, if you can think

quote:

---

Oh, I see. So John Kerry can run almost solely on his Vietnam experience, but is suddenly immune from the criticism which surrounds it.

---

I never said his war experience is immune to criticism, and I don't believe that either. I was merely suggesting that perhaps he is not the one to be held responsible for the war. He only served like so many others. If you're going to pin blame on an individual, why not someone who was in a position of power? It makes no sense to blame a soldier.

quote:

---

Oh, and also, some would beg to differ that he served his country honorably (Swift Boat Veterans, and John O'Neill come to mind). Moreover, coming back to the states and aiding and abetting the very people who undermined the Vietnam war effort, who stooped so low as to spit on returning soldiers, is a dubious hero.

---

Some could also possibly be guilty of libel.

And what do you mean he aided someone who spit on our soldiers? Who would that have been? It sounds like an over-generalization. I think you're talking out of your ***, if you'll pardon the expression.

quote:

---

Why can't liberals apply that same logic to the rest of government?

---

I wish they would too. Frankly, I was hoping for a moderate democrat to win the party's nomination, but that didn't happen, so I'm settling.

quote:

---

Oh, now you're buying into the Kerry spin. The $87 billion was not overspending; in fact, it seems to me to be damned cheap. Think about how much it costs to build a highway in the U.S. Around where I live, it's about $12.5 million a mile just to refurbish a highway and $50 million a mile to built new. Think about how much it costs to build bridges, dams, power plants, electrical and water infrastructure, etc. - all of which is being done in Iraq - and you'll see that it's quite easy to spend $87 billion and still not get much. Factor in that much of this work is being carried out with Western contractors and (I assume) cheap Iraqi labor, and compare that to U.S. contractors using cheap Mexican labor here at home.

---

I like how you conveniently forget to mention Iraq's oil revenues.

in some respects the War on Terror is bigger than any of the World War. Terorists are everywhere in every country. of course its gonna be expensive. kerry either wants to cut 20% from all government depts for funding social security or put the nation into an 11 trilion dollar debt. neither of which is very good is it?

quote:

---

Nushoes, you make it sound like John Kerry was responsible for the Vietnam War. He only served his country and then fought to end the war in a civil manner.

---

Oh, I see. So John Kerry can run almost solely on his Vietnam experience, but is suddenly immune from the criticism which surrounds it.

Sorry hon. You can't have it both ways, and neither can he.

For the record, I was also referring to the fact that John Kerry is a United States Senator, and, therefore, knows full-well how expensive a war is to fight, both from the perspective of a soldier and the perspective of a Senator voting to fund these matters.

Oh, and also, some would beg to differ that he served his country honorably (Swift Boat Veterans, and John O'Neill come to mind). Moreover, coming back to the states and aiding and abetting the very people who undermined the Vietnam war effort, who stooped so low as to spit on returning soldiers, is a dubious hero.

quote:

---

And you know damn well that the Pentagon and its wars are overfunded. They need to receive less money so they'll start using what they have more wisely. As it is, there's far too much waste in the war department.

---

Why can't liberals apply that same logic to the rest of government?

quote:

---

Kerry's vote against overspending was not a flip-flop.

---

Oh, now you're buying into the Kerry spin. The $87 billion was not overspending; in fact, it seems to me to be damned cheap. Think about how much it costs to build a highway in the U.S. Around where I live, it's about $12.5 million a mile just to refurbish a highway and $50 million a mile to built new. Think about how much it costs to build bridges, dams, power plants, electrical and water infrastructure, etc. - all of which is being done in Iraq - and you'll see that it's quite easy to spend $87 billion and still not get much. Factor in that much of this work is being carried out with Western contractors and (I assume) cheap Iraqi labor, and compare that to U.S. contractors using cheap Mexican labor here at home.

Bottom line is, $87 billion to finance the war itself AND reconstruction isn't nearly as much as it sounds, and Kerry knows that full-well.

quote:

---

the war on terror isnt cheap.

---

No ****, Sherlock. That doesn't change the fact that it could be done for less if the Pentagon would only cut its waste.

quote:

---

it takes a heck of alot of money to fund a war and especially a war of this magnitude.

---

And just what "magnitude" would that be?

the war on terror isnt cheap. and if it is going to be effective it will be expensive. it takes a heck of alot of money to fund a war and especially a war of this magnitude.

Nushoes, you make it sound like John Kerry was responsible for the Vietnam War. He only served his country and then fought to end the war in a civil manner.

And you know damn well that the Pentagon and its wars are overfunded. They need to receive less money so they'll start using what they have more wisely. As it is, there's far too much waste in the war department.

Kerry's vote against overspending was not a flip-flop.

I don't Kerry, but I dislike Bush more so I'm going Kerry. To bad we can't have Dean.

Voting for the war and against the funding to fight it is most definitely a flip-flop. War isn't cheap, and Kerry should know better than anybody how expensive it is, seeing as he served in the war that put this country into so much debt.

I clicked on the link to the transcript of the first site's documentary, and it took me to the kerryoniraq page, so I just assumed you were mistaken and posted the same documentary twice. Hm....

did you hapen to look at the first one? that shows some contradictory remarks kerry makes.

quote:

---

Neither do you liberals.

---

I'm no longer a liberal, but a moderate.

Now I can talk smack about whomever I want.

quote:

---

And I agree with him. You "conservatives" sure don't spend like it anymore.

---

Neither do you liberals.

Okay, I've read through 4/5 of the kerryoniraq transcript, and haven't figured out exactly what their case is for Kerry flip-flopping. Which positions are there that seem to you to be in conflict?

The only point I see being made and reiterated is that Kerry voted for the war in Iraq and then voted against the $87 billion to finance it. That's not a flip-flop. That's a man who simply thinks $87 billion is too much money. And I agree with him. You "conservatives" sure don't spend like it anymore.

Nevermind, I found both of them.

I'm running 56K. Is there a transcript somewhere?