Questioning the legitimacy of the war was not the SBVT agenda, it was to expose Kerry for his unpatriotic slander of men of honor while still in harms way, which today have been exposed as lies that he portrayed US troops as despicable as Gehghis Khan.
And using his military heroism, which is in question in the minds of many whom served in the campaign, and seen Kerry's actions for what many seen as his agenda, to advance his political career.
And if you think that the SBVT was responsible for the results of the 2004 election, I think I would find fault with that logic also.
I think that the American people, still had the sense not to elect a socialist liberal, now there was no need at all to expose Kerry of that.
And as far as McCain, the left has already started their campaign against his military record, " Huffington Post " good source of the love of country found there, and before you go there with comment, the right also have there slime chambers also. " All is fare in love and politics.
If you think that the 2004 election was riddled with slime, get prepared, because the 2008 election will make Kerry record look stelar, compared to what is in store for Obama and McCain.
One thing for sure, I still think that the American people are still not ready for a socialist liberal, and both parties, in the event that there is not going to be a third party, will use Saul Alinsky's guidebook, but only the left will complain about it, for they think that the book is their sole procession.
Also, for sure, this election, liberals will win for sure, in a sense, Obama or Clinton will have to compete to outdo McCain to determine whom is the most liberal.
For myself, my only concern, for the next president, is the appointment of federal judges, the congress has been stalling very successfully there, and my fear is that either Obama or McCain, will be a disaster, after all the right has appointed more liberal judges than the left.
The rest of the concerns that the electorate hears from the candidates of are of no consequence, the elected president still needs to work with the congress and the judiciary to seek results.
What was the difference in the actions of John Kerry and Jane Fonda? Or will history show Jane Fonda as a hero also.?
Speaking for myself, I will not.
I guess one big difference might be that Kerry actually served in the military and was involved in combat - on the good side.
Again, I can understand taking issue with Kerry's testimony but saying it amounts to treason is ridiculous. In case you didn't notice, some really bad things happen in war-time, and unfortunately some of those things are perpetrated by troops who are supposed to be on the good side.
Or do you believe that everyone who denounced Abu Ghraib and other incidents of atrocities in Iraq are traitors as well?[/quote]
Will you relent, if I retract treason, with scum-bag, a term his lovely wife uses.
you have to lie to commit slander. had the swift boat people been correct about kerry, bush would've won by the biggest landslide in history. it pretty much killed their cause when none of the people that actually served with kerry agreed with them. had they been correct the republican party would've jumped on board with them instead of denouncing them.
Doesn't slander constitute "lawsuit", direct me to information where this is happing to the Swift Boaters.
that's good. you accuse someone of slander. then when you have it defined to you, you accuse them of saying someone else has committed slander.
anyway, you have to desire to sue someone to start a lawsuit.
you have to lie to commit slander. had the swift boat people been correct about kerry, bush would've won by the biggest landslide in history. it pretty much killed their cause when none of the people that actually served with kerry agreed with them. had they been correct the republican party would've jumped on board with them instead of denouncing them.
Doesn't slander constitute "lawsuit", direct me to information where this is happing to the Swift Boaters.
that's good. you accuse someone of slander. then when you have it defined to you, you accuse them of saying someone else has committed slander.
anyway, you have to desire to sue someone to start a lawsuit.
I know Kerry doesn't need the money, however his reputation could be refreshed, although he couldn't accomplish that through litigation against the Swift Boaters.
I wouldn't think of slandering Kerry, he capable of that all by himself.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
