Yet ANOTHER Lie By John Kerry

I'm sure Colonel will flame me for this one, too, but so what, I'm not going to be bullied into not exposing the truth. Sorry, Colonel

"I gave back, I can't remember, six, seven, eight, nine medals," Kerry said in an interview on a Washington, D.C., news program on WRC-TV called Viewpoints on Nov. 6, 1971, according to a tape obtained by ABCNEWS.

Kerry was asked if he gave back the Bronze Star, Silver Star and three Purple Hearts he was awarded for combat duty as a Navy lieutenant in Vietnam. "Well, and above that, (I) gave back the others," he said.

Ok, so obviously, Kerry claimed he gave back his medals and ribbons. And before someone says they were ribbons, not medals, chew on this:

He also said he � and the military � didn't make a distinction between medals and ribbons. "We threw away the symbols of what our country gave us for what we had gone through," he said.

Kerry saw no distinction, so when he says ribbons, he may mean medals. My grandfather's silver star and purple heart "ribbons" were actually medals, they had a piece of metal hanging from the ribbon.

So now you're thinking "So what, he was doing what he believed." If that was the whole story, I would agree with you completely. However, it doesn't end there. Throughout his presidential campaign, Kerry has denied that he threw away any of his medals during an anti-war protest in April 1971.

"I'm proud of my medals. I always was proud of them," he told Jennings in December, adding that he had only thrown away his "ribbons" and the medals of two other veterans who could not attend the protest.

But wait...John Kerry said on Viewpoints in 1971 that he threw his bronze and silver stars, and the whole shabang. Interesting. Wonder if there's any more. Yep.

In 1984, when Kerry decided to run for senate, his story changed, though. According to the Boston Globe on April 15, 1984,

union officials had expressed uneasiness with Kerry's candidacy because he had thrown his medals away. Kerry acknowledged the medals he threw away were, in fact, another soldier's medals. He reportedly invited a union official home to personally inspect his Silver Star, Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts, awarded for his combat duty as a Navy lieutenant.

So which is it, Mr. Kerry? Did you feel so strongly against the Vietnam war movement that you threw your medals and ribbons over the wall, as you said in 1971? Or is it you felt kinda sorta, in a wishy washy sense, bad about the war in Vietnam, and honorably threw someone else's medals over the wall and took credit for it on TV?

Contrary to urban legend, a lie a day does not make the competition go away. I'll be watching, John

See, when you're a freeper in Bushworld, you can do this....

"In Bushworld, you get to strut around like a tough military guy and paint your rival as a chicken hawk, even though he's the one who won medals in combat and was praised by his superior officers for fulfilling all his obligations."

Um, where is Bush's medals? If Kerry threw his away or not, it was his to throw away b/c HE EARNED THEM! Where's Bush's? Oh, that's right. He ran away.

Originally posted by Colonel
Um, where is Bush's medals? If Kerry threw his away or not, it was his to throw away b/c HE EARNED THEM! Where's Bush's? Oh, that's right. He ran away.

Not the point, Colonel. Not the point at all. As I said in my post, I wouldn't have cared if he threw back his medals. But that's not all he did, he lied about it, then changed his story when? Right about the time he's been up for election, every time. Check out those dates. Other then 1971, they're all election years. He's a liar.

J. Kerry's Official Site changes words about his medal stance

The linked screenshots show significant editing of the DBunker post on Kerry�s medals that was featured on Good Morning America. The phrase, �he has been consistent about the facts and the symbolism of the medal-returning ceremony� was removed in between the two screenshots enclosed. The first was taken at 9:50 am, the second at 10:26 am, as indicated on the timestamp in the filename.

Link provides the two screen shots.



seekerof

[Edited on 27-4-2004 by Seekerof]

Can I see the list of hundred dead and wounded form these lies? Who the hell cares about medals and SUVs? YOu are so stuck on Kerry's white lies but ignore the fact that Bush's lies are tantamount to death for thousands.

Originally posted by Colonel
Can I see the list of hundred dead and wounded form these lies? Who the hell cares about medals and SUVs? YOu are so stuck on Kerry's white lies but ignore the fact that Bush's lies are tantamount to death for thousands.

Give Kerry time, he's not in office yet. When Bush was running for President, his lies didn't have time to kill thousands also, but now look what happened!

Like I said, just give Kerry the golden opportunity, he'll be a copy of Bush, with a mask. He lies now, which means he will lie in office to, when it will really MATTER.

Bush invaded Iraq based on a lie, because he's a liar. Kerry doesn't have the power to invade yet, but give him time, let'em get the office of power first. Oh and Bush also went back on his word, when he said he would never use our Army to liberate and build nations. Bush's inconsistencies and lies caused the deaths of thousands. When Kerry gets in office, because we are now aware that he is also a liar, he will then have the power to kill with his lies! How fun!

[Edited on 27-4-2004 by lilblam]

I rather have a president in charge that realises that we (the U.S.) needs to help free the tyranny of the world that all other countries can't/refused to do. Sometimes the ends justify the means. Besides, the soldiers aren't "Innocent", they signed up to fight, they knew the risks, and you should respect the fact that it was their choice to fight for/with the country.

Kerry IMHO is too shifty, he sits at the fence and talks both ways. Bush atleast tells you up front what he wants to do, and how he will do it. He doesnt lie to you or flip-flops on opinions of issues depending on whos asking him about them.

Originally posted by Colonel
Can I see the list of hundred dead and wounded form these lies? Who the hell cares about medals and SUVs? YOu are so stuck on Kerry's white lies but ignore the fact that Bush's lies are tantamount to death for thousands.

"Mr. Pot, did you realize you're black?" asked the kettle.

I'm not ignoring Bush's lies. We have you to show us where he failed. However, you're not policing your own party. As a result, I decided to do so myself. You find the repugnant lies, and I'll find the democrap lies. You'd better get used to this, too, Colonel, because I'm not going anywhere

Originally posted by WolfofWar
I rather have a president in charge that realises that we (the U.S.) needs to help free the tyranny of the world that all other countries can't/refused to do. Sometimes the ends justify the means. Besides, the soldiers aren't "Innocent", they signed up to fight, they knew the risks, and you should respect the fact that it was their choice to fight for/with the country.

Kerry IMHO is too shifty, he sits at the fence and talks both ways. Bush atleast tells you up front what he wants to do, and how he will do it. He doesnt lie to you or flip-flops on opinions of issues depending on whos asking him about them.

That's false! He does, did, and will!

www.bushlies.com...
www.republicons.org...
www.politicalstrategy.org...

Come on now, Bush keeps changing his mind all the time! Even on the reasons for Iraq war!

First it is WMD's, then it was because Saddam is BAD, then it was because Saddam had links to Al-qaeda, ALL of these reasons have gone without any evidence, but the sleeping American public doesn't care for evidence. They want blood!

he only changed it because *Gasp* the reasons did change! They were there going for WMD because the CIA was informed by an "insider" whom later was found out to be lieing and just wanted the US to free Iraq, that infact Saddam had a large ammount of nuclear, chemical, and biological weaponry. And Saddam was infact paying Al-Quaida thus being related to it. Also, well, Saddam is BAD: He gases his own people and runs a country in tyranny.

The only reason Bush's story had changed because of false information due to so many budget cuts from the Democratic President Clintons cut backs! It's Clintons fault!

Originally posted by WolfofWar
he only changed it because *Gasp* the reasons did change! They were there going for WMD because the CIA was informed by an "insider" whom later was found out to be lieing and just wanted the US to free Iraq, that infact Saddam had a large ammount of nuclear, chemical, and biological weaponry. And Saddam was infact paying Al-Quaida thus being related to it. Also, well, Saddam is BAD: He gases his own people and runs a country in tyranny.

The only reason Bush's story had changed because of false information due to so many budget cuts from the Democratic President Clintons cut backs! It's Clintons fault!

If Bush says: I will not use our army to build nations!

Do you hear the word "unless" anywhere in there? Well, then since he went back on his word, it's a lie.

If Bush listens to the first 2-yr old who tells him which country to bomb, without double-checking the legitimacy/validity of the source, this would make him unfit for office

Although, there are many tyrranical leaders in the world, so unless Bush is planning to take over the world and liberate the entire planet, he is deceiving everyone.

If he decimates nations and murders thousands on a hunch, he's unfit for office. If he says one thing but does another, he is a LIAR! It's that simple. He said many things, then did completely the OPPOSITE! Situation or no situation, he never said "UNLESS" in any of those things! Like: "Unless I change my mind". If he said this, he wouldn't be elected. OH wait he never was anyway, he's in office illegally to begin with. Man, one lie after another...

Bush: I plan to be the best president possible.. (unless: I change my mind, and decide to take over the world, if the situation changes etc). Like I said, unless doesn't work, and doesn't exist. If he goes back on his word, he lied.

[Edited on 27-4-2004 by lilblam]

I rather have a president in charge that realises that we (the U.S.) needs to help free the tyranny of the world that all other countries can't/refused to do.

I agree. When are we going into Indonesia? Thousands of innocents have been dying for decades! Just Google that place, it makes Saddam's Iraq look like Disney World! I dislike both Bush and Kerry, but I'm voting for Kerry as a vote of no-confidence for Bush. I think he did the right thing in Afghanistan, but the wrong thing in Iraq. And the Iraq debacle was so avoidable, he just didn't want to listen.

Besides, the soldiers aren't "Innocent", they signed up to fight, they knew the risks, and you should respect the fact that it was their choice to fight for/with the country.

As an Iraqi veteran, I hate it when people say that soldiers signed-up for it! It's their job! If your 1SG told you to shoot yourself in the head, or jump off a cliff, would you do it? Soldiers signed-up with the express knowledge that their leaders wouldn't ask them to do anything illegal or immoral. Just my 2 cents.

[Edited on 27-4-2004 by curme]

Immoral? Morality is subjective, and individually-defined. Your sergeant doesn't know what you consider moral or not! However, illegal, that's another story.

Immoral? Morality is subjective, and individually-defined. Your sergeant doesn't know what you consider moral or not! However, illegal, that's another story.

I just said that because that's a big catch-phrase in the Army. "I will not do anything illegal or immoral". I know it's very subjective, it's just a way for the Army to cover it's self. For example, if you commit a crime, you can't say 'But my SGT told me to do it!' because you are not to follow any order that is 'immoral or illegal'. Just Army schematics. Who defines illegal or immoral (like sodomy, for example), the Army, in this instance.

As far as I'm concerned this is just another example of the lack of a point that the anti-bush crusaders have.

It is absolutely amazing that any time you question anything about Kerry the reply us "but bush did this and bush did that." Why don't you do us a favor and either address the question or don't post anything at all on the topic. Period.

The question was raised. The question is not dealing with John Kerry's medals. No one is questioning that he was given medals, and no one is questioning that he has the right to throw them out, melt them down or eat the damn things. What is being questioned is why he has given 5 different answers to the question "did you throw them or not". That's all. Shut the hell up about Bush and read the question.

I could just imagine one day an anti-bush activist in court arguing a speeding ticket.

"Case number 192732, doing 75 in a 55, how do you plead sir?"
"I will not answer the question"
"Guilty or not guilty sir?"
"It doesn't matter because other people in this country speed, and whether or not I speed shouldn't matter because other drivers do worse so I will not even enter a plea"

Consider the book thrown.

The question of Kerry's medals has come up on another thread. Therefore I am bumping this one so that we can read it and discuss it. Kerry is being put forward for Secretary of State. This thread is once again relevant ...