Veterans Rally Behind Kerry

Because of the flawed polling, I believe Kerry's gonna win by a big margin. And I believe he'll get the lions share of the vet vote (maybe even active duty troops).

Originally posted by Kidfinger

Originally posted by Carseller4

"Kerry's belief in working with allies runs so deep that he has maintained that the loss of American life can be better justified if it occurs in the course of a mission with international support. In 1994, discussing the possibility of U.S. troops being killed in Bosnia, he said, 'If you mean dying in the course of the United Nations effort, yes, it is worth that. If you mean dying American troops unilaterally going in with some false presumption that we can affect the outcome, the answer is unequivocally no.'"


This is only one of the reasons Kerry will only receive 25% of veterans votes.

First off, give us a link. Second off, I dont think there is a mention of Honor any where in this paragraph. Also, you cant give a paragraph and say this is what the whole story is about. Thats called taking it out of context. This also worked agianst your original claim. It sounds to me like Kerry is saying its not worth sending our troops to die in international matters. If we are asked to do so, then it should be with other ally country troops. It should be a JOINT effort. Bushies are good for taking things out of context.

OK Here it is...

www.washingtonpost.com...

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

Originally posted by Carseller4
Here it is, Kerry stating that it is honorable for soldiers to die for the UN but not for the US alone.



There is a story today in the Washington Post by Helen Dewar and Thomas Ricks, the headline: Help of Allies Among Three Key Themes. I want you to listen to this quote from Kerry. This quote is actually from April 17th of 1994 on CNN's Late Edition. This is back when Frank Sesno hosted the program. This is the third paragraph of the story in the Washington Post today.

"Kerry's belief in working with allies runs so deep that he has maintained that the loss of American life can be better justified if it occurs in the course of a mission with international support. In 1994, discussing the possibility of U.S. troops being killed in Bosnia, he said, 'If you mean dying in the course of the United Nations effort, yes, it is worth that. If you mean dying American troops unilaterally going in with some false presumption that we can affect the outcome, the answer is unequivocally no.'"

When you say someone said something, you should provide a quote from them and a link. This is NOT a quote of what John Kerry said. Do you understand that?

Also, you can twist Kerry's words all you want. Those of us who understand the breadth and context of his statements are unaffected by amateurish, sleezeball tactics. Thanks anyway, tho.

This is a Kerry quote. Link below. It just shows that Kerry hates the military, unless his beloved UN is in charge of it.

www.washingtonpost.com...

This assault on Kerry is insipid, and one intended to fuel the outight hatred against him from the very same people who seem to know how to solicit hatred quite well, those who love war; those who give the impression they love the kill; and those who are on the far right of centre.

If Kerry had not served he would have instead been labelled a coward who had no idea what it was like to fight in Vietnam and therefore should keep his mouth shut. But, he did serve, whether it was one day or three months, it matters not, he served, and that very type of labelling is what these military (wo)men who are so quick to scream about the anti-war crowd dishonouring the men and women in Iraq are doing to Kerry and his veteran supporters. Kerry's service gives him a more credible voice to speak of the atrocites in Vietnam. Why? Because My Lai, supports his position, and where there was one My Lai, there were likely more; two, if he was a traitor as some like to state, he would have been tried for treason; three, and most importantly, the Vietnam war was based on a lie, launched by a man who in my opinion should be called a traitor for orchestrating the lie.

I suppose in the future the soldier responsible for disclosing the Abu Ghraib atrocities will one day be called a traitor also, after all, had he not done so the American public and the world would be oblivious to the underhanded and totally despicable tactics contrived by some. What bothers these pro-war individuals so must be the fact that exactly what Kerry spoke up against is history revisited today in Iraq: A war started on a lie, and more inhumane treatment of the enemy.

No response?

www.washingtonpost.com...

Let me see here:
ECK mentions "flawed voting" within a thread entitled Veterans Rally Behind Kerry"?

Interesting....

ECK, got numbers or a percentile figure to say just exactly how many back Kerry? I find it strange that overwhelmingly, the military is supportive of Bush. I find it further strange that you provide a list that lacks any type significant numbers or relative percentile figures and get this, all from truthout.com?! Good grief....

All indications show that Bush will carry the majority of Veteran Votes:
55% versus 37% and thats coming from the "Rather" defuncto CBS pollings:
CBS Poll: Kerry And Bush ThisClose

Diffently NOT a close margin there, ECK.
So, I guess in short, your misplaced point to this was to what, exactly? To say that you are a vet and are voting for Kerry? That there are indeed other vets voting for Kerry? I'm a vet also...guess who will get my vote? My father is a three tour Vietnam Vet...guess who he is voting for? Here are multitudes of others. See, no truthout.com, no NewsMax, just straight simple straightforward facts and numbers....



seekerof

[edit on 24-10-2004 by Seekerof]

Kerry is an idiot. Most of the individuals I know in the military have stated they will exit service as soon as they can if he's elected. I'm one of them. I don't mind getting sent all over the world to do things, but I'll be damned if I do it for that moron.

Originally posted by Seekerof
Let me see here:
ECK, got numbers or a percentile figure to say just exactly how many back Kerry? I find it strange that overwhelmingly, the military is supportive of Bush.

Not strange at all. The military is usually supportive of Republican presidents.

I find it further strange that you provide a list that lacks any type significant numbers or relative percentile figures and get this, all from truthout.com?! Good grief....

First of all, the list shows that the fools who brought us Mess-O-potamia never served, with the exception of maybe 2 or 3 of them.

TruthOut is simply a compendium of news and analysis. I guess you consider the NY TImes, Washington Post, the L.A. Times et.al to be subversive, eh?

All indications show that Bush will carry the majority of Veteran Votes:
55% versus 37% and thats coming from the "Rather" defuncto CBS pollings:
CBS Poll: Kerry And Bush ThisClose

I've also been hearing of problems with their ballots not getting to them on time. Some are speculating that that is because of the huge anger brewing in the ranks. From what I've heard, many have turned against Bush, fearless LeeDar.

Diffently NOT a close margin there, ECK.

Doesn't even matter. New registrants across the country outnumber Bush voters 2-1, at least.

So, I guess in short, your misplaced point to this was to what, exactly? To say that you are a vet and are voting for Kerry?

What's wrong with that?

That there are indeed other vets voting for Kerry? I'm a vet also...guess who will get my vote? My father is a three tour Vietnam Vet...guess who he is voting for?

Does he do your thinking for you?