MLK, Jr assassinated. . . Where's Waldo?
 

John Kerry, as Waldo, plays a game with us.

Per Kerry's speech commemorating Martin Luther King Day, Jan. 20, 2003: The thing is, Kerry did not serve in Vietnam until more than half a year later . . . November 1968. (See: JohnKerry.com, among others)

So . ..Where was Waldo? . . April 4th/5th, 1968.

I can't find him. The closest he could have been would be the Gulf on Tonkin. . . .That is hardly "serving in Vietnam" . . but at least he "remembers it well":rolleyes:

Seared, seared, I tell you.:D this guy is waaay funnier than Dan Quayle.

Just what Christmas was it again that K was in Cambodia? 1968? Hmm, I didn't know Nixon took office early. And what about them Khmer Rouge guys, like Back to the Future since they didn't take the field until about 1972.

Huh? "took the life of that unabashedly maladjusted citizen." Doesn't sound very nice if he's talking about King.
Troy

LOL, Troy . . .I wondered about that one too.

. . .but that is what Kerry said.

TO clear this up; from earlier in his speech:
"Seven letters - Citizen—a word Dr. King loved because invested in it were our rights and responsibilities -- a calling to be involved. I will never forget - in particular - what Martin Luther King spoke of when he confessed to being what he called a “maladjusted” citizen."

Ahh.... the old 'Vietnamese waters are not a part of Vietnam' logic :rolleyes:



http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1093549124.gif

Thanks ubiquity. . .I was waiting for that.:cool:

First:
"I remember well April 1968--I was serving in Vietnam--a place of violence"

Do you not see the inference Kerry is making?
With his "I remember well ..." he sets up this reflection of his time serving in the violence, of Vietnam.

I'm not making word-play here. Clearly Kerrys intent was to suggest to the audience, he was immersed in the violence, of Vietnam. (I'll even give him credit for his crafty Clintonian speak.)

Secondly:
Where was he? Seriously! ("Where's Waldo" jokes aside) All I can find is the ship, he was on, remained in open waters (other than ports way-off in NewZealand and such) . . .that the ship never saw any combat, in that time.

yawn

So, you're saying that being 100+ miles off the coast of Vietnam, is "serving in Vietnam"

sheesh, If Bush gaffed like that . . .:rolleyes:

I'd say that he was "in theater" but not immersed in combat action. By the standard of the libs and K, my brother in law was "in Vietnam" but all he did was refuel fighters on a carrier. I'm not saying he isn't a Vietnam vet, and I'll say that the flight deck is a very dangerous place, just let's be a bit more precise about when, where and doing what.

Very lame, Island. it was what happened in the Gulf of Tonkin that got us officially at war with North Vietnam.

I can agree that Texas was not Vietnam, but the coastal waters of Vietnam will do just fine.

Who placed Kerry 100 miles off of Vietnam's coast?
The 'Missile Frigate Vets Against Kerry' pulled out the ship's logbook?

Considering that Vietnam has 1 million square kilometers of territorial waters how are you showing that he was not in Vietnam? Maybe we should tell all the current Navy Personel serving/served off Iraq that 'you didn't really go to Iraq, so there!' ???

Re: MLK, Jr assassinated. . . Where's Waldo?
 

DOH!!!!

The Swift Boat Vets did it!

"Kerry, who served as commander of a Navy swift boat, has insisted he was wounded by enemy fire Dec. 2, 1968, when he and two other men took a smaller vessel, a Boston Whaler, on a patrol north of his base at Cam Ranh Bay.

But Douglas Brinkley's "Tour of Duty," for which Kerry supplied his journals and letters, indicates that as Kerry set out on a subsequent mission, he had not yet been under enemy fire.

While the date of the four-day excursion on PCF-44 [Patrol Craft Fast] is not specified, Brinkley notes it commenced when Kerry "had just turned 25, on Dec. 11, 1968," which was nine days after the incident in which he claimed he had been wounded by enemy fire.”

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/articl...TICLE_ID=40006

Now is your chance to prove WND is lying….come on libs….carpe diem!

For those of poor reading comprehension...Kerry was caught lying again...about, no less, his Purple Heart.

Mul, there's a treatment record; there was a doctor visit. the wound was to put it mildly, superficial.

But he got a purple heart for it.

Here's a bulletin: wounds requiring medical attention in the theater of combat are sufficient for purple heart awards. In fact, a purple heart award is automatically triggered by medical treatment.

Just as a person killed by 'friendly' fire is still dead, a person wounded from an unknown source is still wounded.

The same people who are saying there was no enemy fire are also misrepresenting the wound (see Hibbard).

I don't know about the enemy fire issue. The alleged journal entry is puzzling, but it's all hearsay to date.

Here's a guy with a bit of credibility speaking on the issue:

--------------excerpt-----------
The awards system has always been fraught with abuse, but for anyone who has ever served in combat, the difference between earning a Purple Heart and death is, indeed, very slim.

Former Navy doctor Louis Letson clearly recalls treating Kerry and removing a small piece of metal from his arm with forceps, bandaging that wound and returning him to duty. And when Kerry was hit, he was certainly engaged with the enemy and in harm's way.

In fact, if the fragment Letson removed had been slightly larger and struck the lieutenant between the eyes, Kerry's award would no longer be a current-events issue — since he'd be planted in Arlington National Cemetery instead of campaigning to be the next occupant of the Oval Office nearby.

Medals were prized

Reports say Kerry was an aloof, gung-ho, super-ambitious, young stud whose eye was already on the White House and whose role model was Navy war hero Jack Kennedy. Like a lot of soldiers and sailors who valiantly served in Vietnam, he was eager to come home, but probably just as eager to scoop up the golden gongs that came his way. It's also worth noting that medals for officers were especially prized as magic steppingstones that could help propel the recipients onward and upward.

Under the circumstances, it wouldn't have made sense for Kerry to ask his commander to rescind the automatic orders for a Purple Heart — our country's first decoration. (It was instituted in 1782 and awarded originally only for bravery in combat. Subsequently, it was changed to honor our wounded and dead.)

On an earlier tour in Vietnam, one of my gallant soldiers, a draftee named Don Wallace, picked up seven Purple Hearts in less than a year without ever being hospitalized. Most of "Ole Magnet Butt's" wounds were easily patched up by "Doc" Holley, our battalion surgeon. But any one of them could have shut off his lights forever.

Jerry Sullivan, another trooper in the same "Hardcore Battalion," was wounded just once. He spent five years in hospitals and still lives in agony.

Whose Purple Hearts were more deserved? Should Wallace have measured his hits and turned down Purple Hearts for his smaller wounds? I don't think so.

But I do think that Kerry's Purple Heart wouldn't be considered problematic if he weren't a presidential candidate. The grousers, to a man, seem to be simply passing on secondhand bilge that they ought to stow in their sea bags and lay off.

David H. Hackworth

:D good one.

I expect that if one of our Navy cooks, serving food to our pilots (who are engaging the enemy in Iraq) runs for president one day, spinning how he "fought IN violent Iraq" (as opposed to "being in the Iraq war") that he get the same treatment that Kerry is getting here.

No offence to Navy cooks out there. . . just don't go bragging, and giving the impression that you were immersed in the violence of directly engaging the enemy. That only provides a dis-service to the real risk-takers.

There is a significant difference .. . especially when that Presidentail Nominee is using his "war experience" as a central part of his resume.

Apparently we have folks who can conduct rigorous research and come up with exact events and time lines that occurred almost 40 years ago.

Then please tell us the exact date when GW and staff found hard evidence WMD's existed in Iraq? Shouldn't be too hard as it supposedly occurred relatively recently.

I'm not advocating their aren't any; just haven't been shown that there was any evidence (smoking gun-type) to support GWs case.

Sherwood

No one knows whether Mr. Kerry is using his combat (yes, combat)experiences as a marketing tactic, not even Island. In other words, if all these accusations intended to sully his reputation were to cease, I wonder if he'd leave it alone. we will never know. what we do know is that his hand is being forced. Accusations are being made and he cannot NOT respond. Perhaps there are other individuals or groups that should be encouraged to "...stow...their sea bags and lay off."

Also, had Kerry been a cook on a carrier at sea near VN, then I'd think words like "immersed in the violence of directly engaging the enemy" would be inappropriate. but here's a hot news flash: Lt. John Kerry was a swift boat skipper in VN, getting shot at and stuff.

And while I know you guys don't like folks raising questions about Dubya's ferocious wartime performance, I'm also wondering whether perhaps he might have sustained injuries in some of those drunken car wrecks he caused, while Liutenant Kerry was being shot at. Perhaps Dubya should have gotten purple hearts for those. Or perhaps he cut himself with a razor blade while.....oh nevermind. I digress. The focus should stay on the guy who actually fought a war, and who actually served throughout his military commitment. Carry on.....

"Accusations are being made and he cannot NOT respond. "

Hey look, something we can agree on. :)
The Kerry Kamp made this the issue, sold the stories . . .and now the other in the story are saying "not so fast."

What I find so increadible here is the lack of media attention on the central question. "who is BS'n us?" The "response" seems to be limited to peripheral manutia like "republican who gave the republican party some money ALSO gave the SBVfT some money" Oh the outrage:rolleyes: . .let's not look at moveon.org tho'

"Also, had Kerry been a cook on a carrier at sea near VN, then I'd think words like "immersed in the violence of directly engaging the enemy" would be inappropriate. but here's a hot news flash: Lt. John Kerry was a swift boat skipper in VN, getting shot at and stuff."

Well that "hot news flash" is just the point. . .. the point where his above speech would have made sense. But on April 4th 1968 he was that "cook" . .. .NOT the "swift boat skipper in VN, getting shot at and stuff."

His special dish was humble pie ;)

OK. Understood. I'd also agree that some of the who gave money to who stretches a bit thin. On the other hand, the connections between these nonprofits and the candidates themselves can be interesting, and relevant.

I just wish the voter could sort all this out before casting votes. Unfortunately, the damage is done well before that happens. If someone accused Dubya of sleeping with lambs, and if the issue were in the news for three months prior to November, then the truth would not matter.

LOL! :D

Indeed it can be relevant! If Bush or Kerry were caught supporting or directing any of these 527 groups that would be relevant. . .big-time. (breaking laws is never good for the guy looking to head the executive branch.)

Bush has been outspoken about these groups. . .arguabley because teh group supporting him is getting out-spent 15-1. . by moveon.org types (not to mention Michael Moore).

I'll add tho', silencing the 527s is one place where I think Bush's desire is dangerous. It would effectively silence anyone not running for president.

So I heard a few insinuations that Bush was behind SBVfT . . .doesn't seem to pass the pale.

Now, what about Kerry and Moveon.org? :cool: MUHAHAhahahahahahaha . . ...

Island

It is true that the President disavows any direct control over outside goups but in all honesty, I do not see how any rational person could state with certainty that there was no cooperation between the 527s and the candidate's staffs. It streches credibility far beyond the breaking point.

And, also incredible, I agree with you. The 527s should not be eliminated but should be responsible for proving whatever allegation they make. There should be room for different points of view, but those should be provable or at least defensible.

In this vein... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30290-2004Aug24.html

What are you saying? . .. the President disavows, but the Senator has direct control. (?)

Or are you just trying to suggest that our President is -in- on some seriously illegal activity . . .but hiding behind "disavowing it"?

I think it is ABUNDANTLY clear, that John Oneil is pushing that cart all on his own.

You can't so easily say that about moveon, Kerry, and the DNC.

"We endorse nobody at all for president," O'Neill said. "We're unified on absolutely nothing, except one thing: John Kerry is not a fit commander-in-chief based on our experience with him."

Kerry/Gore/Dean are directly affiliated with Moveon.org....Bush has absolutely no relationship with the Swift Boats, other than they both oppose Kerry, and the Swift Boat Vets are gaining nothing except false charges and fascistic attacks for expressing their right to free speech.

Let's see Moveon distance themselves from Kerry (aint gonna happen)
Let's see Kerry disavow Moveon (aint gonna happen).

This upside down duplicity can only work if the media willingly carries water for the Democrats agenda.

"VERY LAME" INDEED
 

Ohhhh Techie....U fked up......The Gulf of Tonkin was a fabricated incident by the Johnson adminiistration to get the American people behind a war in Vietnam. Read that as a DEMOCRAT Administrations ploy ..... so if Bushy was being deceptive about Irwreck he was only taking lessons from the masters themselves in deception....the Liberal Democrats...

It was also the LBJ administration that issued targeting data from the White House rather than letting the generals run the war. It was LBJ that dramatically increased our involvement in SV. It was also the LBJ administration that attempted to micro manage a "limited war" with measured blows to coerce the NV to do things. News flash to liberals- war is a "digital" situation 1-win 0-lose.

"...so if Bushy was being deceptive about Irwreck he was only taking lessons from the masters themselves in deception....the Liberal Democrats..."

Republicans taking lessons from Democrats? Okay.

But if you remember, Johnson was also heavily criticized by all, Democrats included, for his war decisions and supported by many, Republicans included. In a democracy, people have to remember to stay loyal to the country, NOT to a person, a political party or to the current administration, something many folks in this forum/country seem to forget or ignore. It's like supporting your favorite team in a game of "who can survive a nuclear war?"

Sherwood

You took the very words outa my mouth Sherwood...

Right, Supe, all 4 months and 12 days of "combat" duty. I wasn't serving then, but it seems to me that "1 year" was the typical tour of duty. But then again, he did have all THREE of those Purple Hearts...

He also served until his discharge on February 16,1978. This means Kerry was accusing Americans up and down the chain of command with war crimes while he was still in the service. It also means that he was in the service when he went to Paris in 1970 to meet with North Vietnamese officials, an act which has been described as illegal. Presumably that's because it would violate the Logan Act, which forbids private citizens from involving themselves in foreign policy or negotiating with foreign powers on behalf of the U.S or perhaps more specifically Title 18 Section 953.

The discharge date of February 16, 1978 can be seen on his summary of Naval service, and July 13, 1978 can be seen on Kerry's acceptance of discharge from the Naval Reserve. Both files are availale on John Kerry's official campaign Web site.

Indeed, let us ALL keep the focus on Mr. Kerry! :)

Randy

In defense of navy cooks:

Even on today's modern warships, all shipboard personnel have vital roles protecting/sustaining their ship during, "General Quarters" (GQ), or battle stations.
On some ships they man topside small arms stations; on virtually all others they man fire-fighting teams, battle damage repair teams, etc. Think about the USS Cole, the USS Princeton and the USS Tripoli: The amphibious assault ship Tripoli, based in Long Beach, Calif., was serving as the mother ship for mine hunters when it tripped a 300-pound mine. Four sailors were injured. Three hours later and 10 miles away, the Aegis guided missile cruiser Princeton, also based in Long Beach, was hit by two mines. Three men were injured.
In the mining case, both ships were out of action for the remainder of the conflict but were no doubt saved by the actions of ordinary sailors in extraordinary circumstances.
There are other examples, but I don't want to be too big a prig about this!