John Kerry is a truly patriotic American hero!

[mopeder]

To call Senator John Kerry a traitor for opposing the Vietnam war maligns millions of Americans who protested the Vietnam war in the 1960s-70s. Not only that, but it directly contradicts the FBI's own files on John Kerry's anti-war activities following his distinguished service in the U.S. Navy in Vietnam. The FBI files, which were recently released, describe Kerry as a "voice of moderation" in the anti-war movement. This was the FBI of J. Edgar Hoover, the same FBI that inflitrated anti-war groups and pushed them toward militancy, and their conclusion was that Kerry was a "moderate. Not a flag-burning Communist who went to North Vietnam to pledge his allegiance to the Communists. Instead, Kerry was a very patriotic American who went before Congress and testified that the war was a lost cause, and that Americans were dying everyday for a war that two presidents had seen as unwinnable. The war also happened to have been unjustified and unjust. The U.S.A. obliterated over a million Vietnamese in order that the "dominoes" of Cambodia and Laos would not fall to the International Communist Conspiracy. President Dwight "Ike" Eisenhower announced that free and direct elections would be held in Vietnam in 1956. Those elections never took place, but within a generation, almost two million Vietnamese, untold thousands of Laotians, and hundreds of thousands of Cambodians would be dead, alongside 58,000 American soldiers. So Kerry is a traitor for fighting bravely and admirably for his country, while Bush is an American hero for joining the National Guard to avoid being sent to Vietnam and shirking his duty while in that service. Only a warped logic could produce that perspective.

[thaanatos]

in summary;
Kerry is a hero for protesting the war....
Kerry didn't really protest the war....
the Vietnam war was bad....
therefore Kerry would be a better president than Bush...

thank you for clearing that up for us.....

[adaminthemiddle]

Kerry is a hero for protesting the war....
Kerry didn't really protest the war....

I believe he said Kerry was a "moderate" who didn't PROTEST protest the war, but simply called for it's end.

I know it's hard to believe Thaan, but there such things as "moderates." Not everyone's either a Pinko-Commie or an outright ultra-Christian gun-slinging Texas-loving GOP-voting fascist. Not every's kalaayan or you.

therefore Kerry would be a better president than Bush...

Yeah Thaan, I seem to remember him saying that... NOT!

thank you for clearing that up for us.....

Yes thanks! You seem to have come at a bad time (when Thaan's around--he doesn't understand English). Sorry about the luck. But welcome to P&CA, I'm looking forward to good posts from you in the future!

And personally, I think you've got to admit Kerry has to be rather brave to go against both the military and the Democratic party, when he was/is a member of both.

[kramsret]

There's only one way to look at it.

Kerry did his duty. He went to Vietnam. And he saw how ugly it was.

AFTER doing his duty, he came back and spoke his conscience.

We need MORE Americans like John Kerry, not less.

[thaanatos]

an outright ultra-Christian gun-slinging Texas-loving GOP-voting fascist
don't go short changing me, Adam...don't forget I think that "ultra-Christian gun-slinging Texas-loving GOP-voting fascist" is way too moderate....

[The Vanisher]

There's only one way to look at it.

Kerry did his duty. He went to Vietnam. And he saw how ugly it was.

AFTER doing his duty, he came back and spoke his conscience.

We need MORE Americans like John Kerry, not less.
So, was John Kerry following his conscious when he voted for the Iraq war or when he voted against supplying our troops there?

[kramsret]

Kerry voted FOR authorizing the president to go to war. It was a necessary step, to empower the president, as he sought UN support.

Kerry and the rest of Congress did NOT make the decision for Bush. And Kerry did NOT authorize the president to eff it up every step of the way.

[GunnyL]

Hero, huh?

When this "hero" was witnessing these so-called war crimes he testified to, why did he not do his duty as a Naval Officer and report them up his chain of command immediately as it is his sworn duty to do?

[kramsret]

Wow. That's a short straw you're grasping.

I suppose Kerry should have had his Dad get him a cush job in the National Guard, and then gone AWOL, and then he'd look more "heroic" to today's reich wing.

It is beyond bizarre that you righties can take issue with Kerry's military record. Beyond beyond bizarre.

[GunnyL]

You're mixing apples-n-oranges, kramsret.

I do NOT advocate bringing up 30 years old military records as evidence of anything as far it pertains to the upcoming election.

You, however, made the statement. I merely asked a question concerning his actions then, that is pertinent to then, and is in no way grasping at straws.

It is the duty of ALL US military personnel to report all crimes committed by other service personnel up the chain of command immediately. Hell, ask Seattle ... he's your political flavor.

Simple question that didn't require your same old opinion of Bush, and was not meant politically at all.

You call him a "hero." Then defend his inaction until he was safely back in the USofA. Attacking Bush is NOT defending Kerry's actions.

[Jayne B]

Is there any evidence he didn't report?

[Ben_Mob]

When this "hero" was witnessing these so-called war crimes he testified to, why did he not do his duty as a Naval Officer and report them up his chain of command immediately as it is his sworn duty to do?
Why does it matter? Are you claiming the events he testified about didn't happen--or are you saying that Kerry's inability to follow bureaucratic military procedures in this situation reflects a character flaw which makes him unfit to be President?
:dunno :dunno :dunno

[GunnyL]

There is no evidence that he did.

[Ben_Mob]

???

[GunnyL]

Are you claiming the events he testified about didn't happen--or are you saying that Kerry's inability to follow bureaucratic military procedures in this situation reflects a character flaw which makes him unfit to be President?

Neither. Try reading what I posted without adding your political agenda to it. Some people just can't take a statement or question for what it is without adding their own crap to it.

The claim was made that he is a "hero." IF he was a hero, then IF he witnessed what he claimed he did, he would have reported it up the chain of command. There is nothing to support him reporting anything to anyone until his return to the states.

I do not know what he did or did not see while he was there. And the fact that I think he'd be a worse President than Bush has nothing to do with his war record.

[kramsret]

OK let's put it this way:

The terrible scar that was Vietnam caused many, many, many people to do the wrong thing. Situations like that have a way, I'm sure, of carrying people, and making them do things they never thought they would.

Of all the people who went to Vietnam and ended up doing or seeing or hearing about an "atrocity"--and I'll wager it was many, if not most--only Kerry (and surely, a handful of other, less famous vets) came back and then did what he could to serve his conscience.

He could have just forgotten the whole thing, like most people did. He could have said "Hey, I'll never go back, so who gives a fuk?", like I'm sure many did. Nope. He DID SOMETHING about it.

For that, he deserves great credit.

[Ben_Mob]

The claim was made that he is a "hero." IF he was a hero, then IF he witnessed what he claimed he did, he would have reported it up the chain of command. There is nothing to support him reporting anything to anyone until his return to the states.
So..........you're just pointing out Gunny, that a "Hero" to you is someone who always follows bureaucratic military procedures..... :lol :rollin :lol

Needless-to-say Gunny, that's pretty lame. :rofl :rofl :rofl

[The Vanisher]

Kerry voted FOR authorizing the president to go to war. It was a necessary step, to empower the president, as he sought UN support.

Kerry and the rest of Congress did NOT make the decision for Bush. And Kerry did NOT authorize the president to eff it up every step of the way.
That didn't answer the question at all. Was Kerry following his conscious when he voted for the war or when he voted against supplying our troops there?

The real answer of course is that he made those two votes as his political circumstances dictated. While public support for the war was high he voted for it, but when he was running for the democratic nomination and needed to appeal to the left-wing base of the country he voted against supporting the troops. Kerry made those votes on the basis of political considerations, his "conscious" had nothing to do with it.

[tolivr]

He could have just forgotten the whole thing, like most people did. He could have said "Hey, I'll never go back, so who gives a fuk?", like I'm sure many did. Nope. He DID SOMETHING about it.

For that, he deserves great credit

He sure did DO SOMETHING about it, He accused every serviceman who fought in Vietnam of having committing war atrocities. Yes, he does deserve credit for THAT.

[tolivr]

KERRY'S WAR RECORD

Thought you might find this of interest regarding Kerry's service in Vietnam and his actions immediately thereafter.

Setting Straight Kerry’s War Record

By Thomas Lipscomb
The New York Sun | March 1, 2004

...Last week, the former assistant secretary of defense and Fletcher School of Diplomacy professor, W. Scott Thompson, recalled a conversation with the late Admiral Elmo R. Zumwalt Jr. that clearly had a slightly different take on Mr. Kerry’s recollection of their discussions:

“[T]he fabled and distinguished chief of naval operations,Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, told me — 30 years ago when he was still CNO —that during his own command of U.S. naval forces in Vietnam, just prior to his anointment as CNO, young Kerry had created great problems for him and the other top brass, by killing so many non-combatant civilians and going after other non-military targets.‘We had virtually to straitjacket him to keep him under control,’ the admiral said. ‘Bud’ Zumwalt got it right when he assessed Kerry as having large ambitions — but promised that his career in Vietnam would haunt him if he were ever on the national stage.” And this statement was made despite the fact Zumwalt had personally pinned a Silver Star on Mr. Kerry....

Outside of his own “accidents of war,” there is no evidence that Mr. Kerry had then or has now the least idea what may or may not have been the realities of ground combat. However, he had no problem reeling off for the Senate a series of unproven, secondhand allegations that would have been perfectly at home at the Nuremberg trials indicting his fellow veterans.
Mr. Kerry stated there were “war crimes committed in Southeast Asia...not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-today basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.” Then Mr. Kerry got specific:

“They had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam...we are more guilty than any other body of violations of those Geneva Conventions; in the use of free-fire zones, harassment interdiction fire, search-and-destroy missions, the bombings, the torture of prisoners, all accepted policy by many units in South Vietnam.”

...Mr. Kerry has already confessed his complicity in killing civilians as “accidents of war.” However, he has offered a classic Nuremberg defense that this was not only a commonplace occurrence throughout the Vietnam War, but he was carrying out a policy “with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.”

His commander of naval operations in Vietnam, who specifically designed the mission that Mr. Kerry and the other Swiftboat commanders executed, Admiral Zumwalt, clearly disagreed.



Of course, all the rapes, mutilations, murders, etc. he testified to were found to be fabricated and none could be verified. Many of these "firsthand accounts" were later discovered to have been offered by men who had not been to Vietnam or had never been in a combat unit at all while there. None were reported to superior officers.

Well, all I can say is it's a good thing Kerry was not judged as harshly as those judging the reservists who mistreated Iraqi prisoners. Otherwise, he'd be a convicted felon as some of those reservists are sure to soon be.

[Fredfredson]

Of course, all the rapes, mutilations, murders, etc. he testified to were found to be fabricated and none could be verified.

Except for the ones that were whitewashed apparently...

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?Category=SRTIGERFORCE

F
:pooter

[tolivr]

Except for the ones that were whitewashed apparently

Of course, there are atrocities in ALL wars. So the question I have is this: the ones that Kerry testified about so eloquently, and so falsely, did they include the incident involving the special operations unit listed on your site Fred?

[kramsret]

That didn't answer the question at all. Was Kerry following his conscious when he voted for the war or when he voted against supplying our troops there?

Well, it's kind of a stupid question, an inappropriate "either/or".

The answer is: Both, likely.

[GunnyL]

So..........you're just pointing out Gunny, that a "Hero" to you is someone who always follows bureaucratic military procedures.....

Needless-to-say Gunny, that's pretty lame.

Ben ...

You can't even put words that make sense in your own mouth. Please try not to put your little spin on mine as well.

I did not state nor imply your first statement. I just don't see every serviceman who does their job and comes home as a "hero." One thing a hero's actions would be in my mind is above reproach. Doing what everyone else did -- getting out alive -- does not make one a hero. Making unsubstantiated accusations against his fellow servicemen would also not fit.

Not lame at all, Ben. Folks like you sure are wanting to know how come the mistreatment of prisoners in Iraq was not made public sooner. Maybe the ones not involved but with knowledge were just waiting to come home before they made an allegation?

[adaminthemiddle]

When this "hero" was witnessing these so-called war crimes he testified to, why did he not do his duty as a Naval Officer and report them up his chain of command immediately as it is his sworn duty to do?

What was he supposed to do, report the entire military?

[GunnyL]

AITM ....

Nice spin, but the "entire military" was no more guilty of war crimes than they are now. That's leftist mythology that keeps growing more and more out of proportion with reality as time goes on.

To answer your question: He is supposed to report what he sees. If it is a unit, members of a unit, or individuals from his unit. If it's the "entire f-ing military," then he is supposed to report that too.

If he feared his chain of command would ignore him or sweep it under the rug, he could've written his Congressman. Not an unheard of practice by military personnel.

[kramsret]

Ok I'll sign up to the lunacy.

All who went to fight in Vietnam are vile and traitorous.

The Good Americans stayed home and went AWOL.

Do I have that right?

I do. OK. Thanks.

Vietnam Vet Kerry Told Senate He Saw Military Action in Cambodia
Posted May 16, 2004
By J. Michael Waller

Did decorated Vietnam War veteran John F. Kerry see military action in Cambodia? He says nothing about it on the campaign trail, but he stated it as fact on the floor of the U.S. Senate on March 27, 1986. In that speech, Kerry accused President Ronald Reagan of leading the United States into another Vietnam in Central America, accusing the administration of Nixon-like duplicity and saying that he should recognize it because of his Vietnam experience.

Kerry told his colleagues he was on Navy duty in Cambodia at a time when President Richard M. Nixon lied to the public and said that there were no U.S. forces in that country. He even took enemy fire. In his words, "I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the president of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared - seared - in me."

www.insightmag.com

One small problem with Kerrys assertions.

HE NEVER SERVED IN THE CAMBODIAN INVASION.

I bet this is what got Burkett interested.

[The Vanisher]

That didn't answer the question at all. Was Kerry following his conscious when he voted for the war or when he voted against supplying our troops there?

Well, it's kind of a stupid question, an inappropriate "either/or".

The answer is: Both, likely.
What did he do then? Change his mind half-way through the war?

[kramsret]

I don't know if it was "halfway". It was sure after his tour of duty was over.

[tolivr]

In that speech, Kerry accused President Ronald Reagan of leading the United States into another Vietnam in Central America

What really irritates me about you, louis, and all your Kerry-bashing friends, is how you always claim Kerry "flip-flops" on issues. Well, you've just proven exactly the opposite--on some issues, he is completely consistent.

One of those issues would be the support of cummunist thugs--first Ho Chi Minh, and 15 years later, Daniel Ortega.

BUT, he'd better hurry up and get those old Vietnam Veteran comrades from his swift boat on message and send them a map of Cambodia. They might wish to learn the topography of a country they never saw but now need to say they did.

[Larkin]

The problem with all of the flip-flopping claims is that the bills do not happen in a vacuum. There were other provisions attatched to those bills, merely that Kerry voted against one bill funding the troops does not mean he is ideologically against funding the troops merely that he disagreed with that way of going about it.

A long Senate record is a hard thing to run away from, Larkin. That's why Kennedy was the last Senator elected directly to the presidency.

Why do you suppose Kerry claimed to have engaged in combat ops in Cambodia?

[The Vanisher]

I don't know if it was "halfway". It was sure after his tour of duty was over.
I sure hope so, since Kerry voted against supplying our troops in 2004 and his tour of duty ended in 1970.

If not for political considerations, why did he vote against supplying our troops in Iraq?

[adaminthemiddle]

Nice spin, but the "entire military" was no more guilty of war crimes than they are now. That's leftist mythology that keeps growing more and more out of proportion with reality as time goes on.

To answer your question: He is supposed to report what he sees. If it is a unit, members of a unit, or individuals from his unit. If it's the "entire f-ing military," then he is supposed to report that too.

If he feared his chain of command would ignore him or sweep it under the rug, he could've written his Congressman. Not an unheard of practice by military personnel.

I guess so, but that wasn't my point.

It wasn't really the MILITARY he was against. It was the war.

He considered it a horrid war, not worth its price. And he saw his fellow soldiers, and himself, as "war criminals" mandated by the government to commit unjust acts of war. The people were not truly corrupt. They were being corrupted by the war.

Don't take the words "war crimes" too literally. They were just two words in his campaign to end the Vietnam War.

[Fredfredson]

Vietnam Veterans Against the War Statement by John Kerry, 1971 to the

Senate Committee of Foreign Relations April 23, 1971

I would like to talk on behalf of all those veterans and say that several months ago in Detroit we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged, and many very highly decorated, veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia. These were not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command. It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit - the emotions in the room and the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.

They told stories that at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

We call this investigation the Winter Soldier Investigation. The term Winter Soldier is a play on words of Thomas Paine's in 1776 when he spoke of the Sunshine Patriots and summertime soldiers who deserted at Valley Forge because the going was rough.

We who have come here to Washington have come here because we feel we have to be winter soldiers now. We could come back to this country, we could be quiet, we could hold our silence, we could not tell what went on in Vietnam, but we feel because of what threatens this country, not the reds, but the crimes which we are committing that threaten it, that we have to speak out....

In our opinion and from our experience, there is nothing in South Vietnam which could happen that realistically threatens the United States of America. And to attempt to justify the loss of one American life in Vietnam, Cambodia or Laos by linking such loss to the preservation of freedom, which those misfits supposedly abuse, is to us the height of criminal hypocrisy, and it is that kind of hypocrisy which we feel has torn this country apart.

We found that not only was it a civil war, an effort by a people who had for years been seeking their liberation from any colonial influence whatsoever, but also we found that the Vietnamese whom we had enthusiastically molded after our own image were hard put to take up the fight against the threat we were supposedly saving them from.

We found most people didn't even know the difference between communism and democracy. They only wanted to work in rice paddies without helicopters strafing them and bombs with napalm burning their villages and tearing their country apart. They wanted everything to do with the war, particularly with this foreign presence of the United States of America, to leave them alone in peace, and they practiced the art of survival by siding with whichever military force was present at a particular time, be it Viet Cong, North Vietnamese or American.

We found also that all too often American men were dying in those rice paddies for want of support from their allies. We saw first hand how monies from American taxes were used for a corrupt dictatorial regime. We saw that many people in this country had a one-sided idea of who was kept free by the flag, and blacks provided the highest percentage of casualties. We saw Vietnam ravaged equally by American bombs and search and destroy missions, as well as by Viet Cong terrorism - and yet we listened while this country tried to blame all of the havoc on the Viet Cong.

We rationalized destroying villages in order to save them. We saw America lose her sense of morality as she accepted very coolly a My Lai and refused to give up the image of American soldiers who hand out chocolate bars and chewing gum.

We learned the meaning of free fire zones, shooting anything that moves, and we watched while America placed a cheapness on the lives of orientals.

We watched the United States falsification of body counts, in fact the glorification of body counts. We listened while month after month we were told the back of the enemy was about to break. We fought using weapons against "oriental human beings." We fought using weapons against those people which I do not believe this country would dream of using were we fighting in the European theater. We watched while men charged up hills because a general said that hill has to be taken, and after losing one platoon or two platoons they marched away to leave the hill for reoccupation by the North Vietnamese. We watched pride allow the most unimportant battles to be blown into extravaganzas, because we couldn't lose, and we couldn't retreat, and because it didn't matter how many American bodies were lost to prove that point, and so there were Hamburger Hills and Khe Sanhs and Hill 81s and Fire Base 6s, and so many others.

Now we are told that the men who fought there must watch quietly while American lives are lost so that we can exercise the incredible arrogance of Vietnamizing the Vietnamese.

Each day to facilitate the process by which the United States washes her hands of Vietnam someone has to give up his life so that the United States doesn't have to admit something that the entire world already knows, so that we can't say that we have made a mistake. Someone has to die so that President Nixon won't be, and these are his words, "the first President to lose a war."

We are asking Americans to think about that because how do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam? How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?....We are here in Washington to say that the problem of this war is not just a question of war and diplomacy. It is part and parcel of everything that we are trying as human beings to communicate to people in this country - the question of racism which is rampant in the military, and so many other questions such as the use of weapons; the hypocrisy in our taking umbrage at the Geneva Conventions and using that as justification for a continuation of this war when we are more guilty than any other body of violations of those Geneva Conventions; in the use of free fire zones, harassment interdiction fire, search and destroy missions, the bombings, the torture of prisoners, all accepted policy by many units in South Vietnam. That is what we are trying to say. It is part and parcel of everything.

An American Indian friend of mine who lives in the Indian Nation of Alcatraz put it to me very succinctly. He told me how as a boy on an Indian reservation he had watched television and he used to cheer the cowboys when they came in and shot the Indians, and then suddenly one day he stopped in Vietnam and he said, "my God, I am doing to these people the very same thing that was done to my people," and he stopped. And that is what we are trying to say, that we think this thing has to end.

We are here to ask, and we are here to ask vehemently, where are the leaders of our country? Where is the leadership? We're here to ask where are McNamara, Rostow, Bundy, Gilpatrick, and so many others? Where are they now that we, the men they sent off to war, have returned? These are the commanders who have deserted their troops. And there is no more serious crime in the laws of war. The Army says they never leave their wounded. The marines say they never even leave their dead. These men have left all the casualties and retreated behind a pious shield of public rectitude. They've left the real stuff of their reputations bleaching behind them in the sun in this country....

We wish that a merciful God could wipe away our own memories of that service as easily as this administration has wiped away their memories of us. But all that they have done and all that they can do by this denial is to make more clear than ever our own determination to undertake one last mission - to search out and destroy the last vestige of this barbaric war, to pacify our own hearts, to conquer the hate and fear that have driven this country these last ten years and more. And more. And so when thirty years from now our brothers go down the street without a leg, without an arm, or a face, and small boys ask why, we will be able to say "Vietnam" and not mean a desert, not a filthy obscene memory, but mean instead where America finally turned and where soldiers like us helped it in the turning.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fred, the list you wanted (partial) of pardons Bubba sold is right here.

http://www.politicsandcurrentaffairs.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?t=1534&start=15

You're welcome!

[Larkin]

A long Senate record is a hard thing to run away from, Larkin. That's why Kennedy was the last Senator elected directly to the presidency.

A long Senate record is an easy thing to manipulate. I am aware of the troubles it poses for Kerry, but I would think that the ridiculous charges of flip-flopping could be given a pass in an intelligent debate.

Why do you suppose Kerry claimed to have engaged in combat ops in Cambodia?

No idea. He likely mis-spoke or some such crap.

[mopeder]

"A political candidate who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts is not a person you want as your commander in chief." ~ George W. Bush (10/27/04)

With George W. Bush, we have a man who failed in two businesses of his own. On taking office, he inherited a huge surplus and turned it into the largest deficit in history.

He is the first president since Herbert Hoover to lose jobs in the national economy.

Iraq is a disaster. He talks tough on terrorism but leaves our chemical plants unguarded and unprotected from terrorists and our shipping containers unscanned by any bomb-searching devices.

Instead of spending the money available to protect us, he uses it to give his contributors (billionaires) a large tax cut.

And he's tough on terrorism? When he walks with a swagger and talks tough, how many terrorists does he scare?

He doesn't even like to read in order to study the issues involved. How can he possibly know what's going on?

He is further threatening one of our oldest and most successful institutions, Social Security, with a "privatization" scheme that will no doubt be as disasterous as his other initiatives.

The only reason he has given for his re-election is in his attempted smear of his opponent, claiming John Kerry is unfit while offering more of the same disasters.

Bush has been proven over and over again to be totally incompetent and unfit for the job. His re-election would be a catastrophe unparalleled in our history.

[Fredfredson]

Way to ressurect an OLD thread there Mopeder.

The cobwebs make it a bit tough to read. :lol

F
:pooter

[thaanatos]

its appropriate....old arguments belong on old threads....