Why is John Kerry a "coward"?

[Rowan11088]

Alright, I don't want this to be a politically motivated thread at all, the election's long over and John Kerry doesn't matter anymore. But I am honestly confused as to why Republicans and some moderates label him as a "coward". I don't think he was the greatest candidate, I'm more of a moderate myself anyway, but I thought it was unfair and really terrible that he seemed to be tagged with this title that I don't think he deserved. Anyone have thoughts on why this happened, without flaming please? If you have any real evidence that he was a coward, please bring that forward, I just have never seen any whatsoever, and considering he served in Vietnam (I must have heard that 1,000,000 times...) that seems illogical. I just would like to hope it's not all a political name-game.

[Kanaric]

Because it was the political propoganda at the time to call him that. The same way bush is stupid and controlled by Darth Sidious er i mean Dick Cheney.

Its just propoganda, nobody should take offence to it unless you actually want politicians to use facts to get elected for ONCE.

Look at what Kerry was doing that election as well, saying a bunch of BS that would have a 0% chance of happening like free health care. Also groups like move on.org bascially saying that bush slides halliburtons cock up his ass whenever they call him

[mongoose]

I have the bad feeling about future elections in the U.S...

party1: Is it true that you destroyed the economy while you were in power?

party2:um...no!! err...um....BURN HIM!!! HE'S A WEREWOLF!!!

Voter:Well, i liked party2, but i'm not a fan of the whle werewolf thing. let's vote for the other guy

[Atheist Peace]

Well it should be obvious to you. If you compare the records of Kerry and dubya Bush, it is absolutely clear that John Kerry is a coward.

John Kerry: served 2 or 3 tours in Vietnam, was awarded 3 purple hearts and a bronze star.

dubya: Got daddy to get him into the National Guard, went missing several times.


Read over those carefully, Kerry is the clear coward.

[Trey]

John Kerry: served 2 or 3 tours in Vietnam, was awarded 3 purple hearts and a bronze star.

dubya: Got daddy to get him into the National Guard, went missing several times.


Read over those carefully, Kerry is the clear coward.

actually they both are. Althought kerry had 3 purple hearts, he never spent more than a day in the hospital. (shows how serious his wounds were.) My grandpa had his finger crushed and was in the hospital, and when the CO was giving out purple hearts, he refused it because he did not believe he deserved one.

[First Crusader]

actually they both are. Althought kerry had 3 purple hearts, he never spent more than a day in the hospital. (shows how serious his wounds were.) My grandpa had his finger crushed and was in the hospital, and when the CO was giving out purple hearts, he refused it because he did not believe he deserved one.

I admire your grandfather. Shows he was (is?) a MUCH better man than Kerry.

[Fenris]

actually they both are. Althought kerry had 3 purple hearts, he never spent more than a day in the hospital. (shows how serious his wounds were.) My grandpa had his finger crushed and was in the hospital, and when the CO was giving out purple hearts, he refused it because he did not believe he deserved one.

Well at least Kerry went there you know. Of course, he may have no right to brag about his medals or be considered as a hero or something, and was not necessarily the bravest soldier.

What I don't like is the 2 weight, 2 measures policy that is going on in the Bush supporters/Kerry detractors mind.

[Erik]

Ok, I find this all fascinating, so I dug up some mud.

Note: this is from the "Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry" so I am going to assume it isn't in any way biased in favour of Kerry (but I must admit I know little about the subject so I might be wrong).

Home Free:
The Boston Globe June 6, 2003 -- Kerry had been wounded three times and received three Purple Hearts. Asked about the severity of the wounds, Kerry said that one of them cost him about two days of service, and that the other two did not interrupt his duty. "Walking wounded," as Kerry put it. A shrapnel wound in his left arm gave Kerry pain for years. Kerry declined a request from the Globe to sign a waiver authorizing the release of military documents that are covered under the Privacy Act and that might shed more light on the extent of the treatment Kerry needed as a result of the wounds.
"There were an awful lot of Purple Hearts -- from shrapnel, some of those might have been M-40 grenades," said [George] Elliott, Kerry's commanding officer. "The Purple Hearts were coming down in boxes. Kerry, he had three Purple Hearts. None of them took him off duty. Not to belittle it, that was more the rule than the exception."
The Boston Globe - June 6, 2003 -- . . . The National Archives provided the Globe with a Navy "instruction" document that formed the basis for Kerry's request. The instruction, titled 1300.39, says that a Naval officer who requires hospitalization on two separate occasions, or who receives three wounds "regardless of the nature of the wounds," can ask a superior officer to request a reassignment. The instruction makes clear the reassignment is not automatic. It says that the reassignment "will be determined after consideration of his physical classification for duty and on an individual basis."
Because Kerry's wounds were not considered serious, his reassignment appears to have been made on an individual basis.
Moreover, the instruction makes clear that Kerry could have asked that any reassignment be waived.
The bottom line is that Kerry could have remained but he chose to seek an early transfer . . .

So from this I've learned that:
-In Nam purple hearts were given to anybody who got light injuries, Kerry was not an exception.
-His request for transfer was fully legal.
-He served his duty, nothing more, nothing less.

If you call Kerry a coward for not doing more than his duty doesn't that make most Vietnam vets cowards?

[Kanaric]

imo war records shouldn't come into call from people in the Vietnam era. I know a few people who are great people who got out of going, plus Clinton and Cheney did it and their respective parties dont seem to care.

Like I said, its propoganda.

If Kerry is a coward, so is Dick, Bush, clinton, a couple of my dads friends, and countless people who didn't serve as well.

[Atheist Peace]

imo war records shouldn't come into call from people in the Vietnam era. I know a few people who are great people who got out of going, plus Clinton and Cheney did it and their respective parties dont seem to care.

Like I said, its propoganda.

If Kerry is a coward, so is Dick and Bush.

I don't have anything against people who get out of going to war, but when that person goes on to spew the rhetoric dubya does today, it's hypocritical and pathetic.

[Kanaric]

We need a new party, i dont care if its communist, fascist, whig or what. These groups are too seated in the country so have been allowed to become highly corrupt as a result.


edit: Whats ironic is that their not that different as well. Politically they are about the same, its just that extremists in both parties that make them look different. These extremists exist becaus they have no place else to go, and they certainly wont go in the same party.

[Atheist Peace]

No, what we need to do is outlaw political parties altogether, and make the media stop labelling people as liberals and conservatives. Then people would have to make up their minds and the people who can't won't vote. And the uninformed should never be allowed to vote, it ruins the process of democracy.

[ajimenez3]

No, what we need to do is outlaw political parties altogether, and make the media stop labelling people as liberals and conservatives. Then people would have to make up their minds and the people who can't won't vote. And the uninformed should never be allowed to vote, it ruins the process of democracy.

Who decides if someone is informed or not? Might as well just install a Oligarchy if only a small group of elitist will decide who is qualified to vote.


Semper Fi
Arturo

[Atheist Peace]

jiminez:

No no no I don't mean it like that. I'm just fed up with all of these get out the vote campaigns and all that. They claim to be helping the process, but then the people who listen to them usually don't have a clue what they're voting for. This happens on both sides, of course.

[ajimenez3]

jiminez:

No no no I don't mean it like that. I'm just fed up with all of these get out the vote campaigns and all that. They claim to be helping the process, but then the people who listen to them usually don't have a clue what they're voting for. This happens on both sides, of course.

I did not think that is what you ment.

You are just expressing a frustration that alot of people have with the political campaigns of today. Unfortunately both the extreme edges of both parties are in control of the money and campaigning of the parties.

Semper Fi
Arturo

[Erik]

It's a typical Rove tactic:
You take your opponents strongest point (Kerry=war hero) and turn it around with a strong media campaign saying the exact opposite (remember those "Nam vets" against Kerry)

He did it in Texas too when Bush was running for Governor.
The previous Governor (forgot her name) did a great job reducing crime, so he started a campaign saying crime has increased dramatically in stead of decreased.

The smart part is that it works on two levels: making the opponent look bad, as well as a liar when he/she tries to tell the truth.

Kerry has simply been "Roved".

[Kanaric]

I can see the next election being the biggest mudsling in history allready. Both parties look like their trying to find a chick who looks good in mud as well, rofl.

[Kanaric]

I agree with everything Atheist says except choosing who is smart enough to vote. It should just be that their are no parties, no talking points, no fake town hall meetings, it should be symbolic of a true democracy where people argue what they WILL ACTUALLY DO and what they believe is good for the country.

Right now with everyone using Hitler's propoganda tactics we are getting nothing out of our type of government. I would almost prefer a dictatorship to this. I'm tired of people throwing mud, lying, and sending out Michael Moore and Anne Coutier out to sic groups political parties.

Right now the #1 thing I hate is propoganda in the form of the fake town hall meeting and people talking to rehearshed groups of soldiers, or actors, etc. who are trained to respond exactly how the party wants. Both groups do it....

[ajimenez3]

I agree with everything Atheist says except choosing who is smart enough to vote. It should just be that their are no parties, no talking points, no fake town hall meetings, it should be symbolic of a true democracy where people argue what they WILL ACTUALLY DO and what they believe is good for the country.

Right now with everyone using Hitler's propoganda tactics we are getting nothing out of our type of government. I would almost prefer a dictatorship to this. I'm tired of people throwing mud, lying, and sending out Michael Moore and Anne Coutier out to sic groups political parties.

I would have to agree. It is so bad that you can hardly seperate the mud that is slung from the truth. But I prefer to have to sort it out and decide for myself.

There will always be the "my daddy voted "insert party" and that is what I am going to vote" people around. Also the ones who do not care enough to vote.
There has always been enough concered and intelligent people who vote that will make the process work.

Semper Fi
Arturo

[Justinian]

I think it's idiotic of my fellow Republicans to call Kerry a coward when Bush has such a shady Vietnam past.

Atheist, Kanaric, that system would be great - if it worked. What are you going to have, millions of candidates running against eachother? Or are you going to have them be voted on, two for a county, two for a state, two for the country? What? It would just fall a part. As much as I hate American politics, anarchy doesn't help either.

What we need is an absolute genius behind a third party. A third party victory - something which has never happened before in the US - would remove some of the third party stigma, slam the Republicans and Democrats into the ground, and hopefully make way for a looser system with more parties so it's not a 'you choose this, or this' system.

And for god's sake, candidates, stop the mudslinging, it's rather old.