View Full Version : Dole Questions Kerry's Vietnam Wounds
Former Republican Sen. Bob Dole suggested Sunday that John Kerry (news - web sites) apologize for past testimony before Congress about alleged atrocities during the Vietnam War and joined critics of the Democratic presidential candidate who say he received an early exit from combat for "superficial wounds." Dole also called on Kerry to release all the records of his service in Vietnam.
Separately, President Bush (news - web sites)'s re-election campaign continued to deny links to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, an anti-Kerry group running ads in three states, after the resignation of a campaign volunteer who appeared in the group's new ad.
and yet another twist :D
Heh. swiftvets have nothing significant to do with republicans/Bush, but if they make kerry's #s go down I'm sure some rep's will jump on the "boat" so to speak.
The leader of swiftvets has been debating Kerry since 1971. He also said if Bush flat out called for his group to cease and desist, they would not. As they say in their ads, Kerry made their life hell both during and after the war, disgracing them or worse. They aren't going to stop no matter what. They don't particularly like Bush, they just don't think Kerry deserves to be president after what he did when he returned from Vietnam. They have a beef with Kerry, they could care less about Bush.
Saz, LOL I have had this story on my browser for thelast 20 minutes but haven't posted it yet because I am busy catching up on all the posts. LOL we think a like.
Dole told CNN's "Late Edition" that he warned Kerry months ago about going "too far" and that the Democrat may have himself to blame for the current situation, in which polls show him losing support among veterans.
"One day he's saying that we were shooting civilians, cutting off their ears, cutting off their heads, throwing away his medals or his ribbons," Dole said. "The next day he's standing there, 'I want to be president because I'm a Vietnam veteran.' Maybe he should apologize to all the other 2.5 million veterans who served. He wasn't the only one in Vietnam," said Dole, whose World War II wounds left him without the use of his right arm.
PsychoSy
08-22-04, 11:03 PM
In 1996, the majority of Americans questioned Dole's honesty and sanity when they re-elected Slick Willy. ;)
Big whoop here! :D
LOL no they didn't. Clinton didn't even get 50% You questioned His sanity and honesty. Most people thought Dole was a honest guy but boring as hell. I know I didn't make it past the first sentence of his speeches. ...snore....
Saint Lucifer
08-23-04, 07:57 AM
LOL no they didn't. Clinton didn't even get 50% You questioned His sanity and honesty. Most people thought Dole was a honest guy but boring as hell. I know I didn't make it past the first sentence of his speeches. ...snore....Clinton got 379 electoral votes as opposed to Dole's 159... furthermore, yes, Clinton didn't even get 50% of the popular vote. Instead, he got 49.24% whereas Dole got 40.71%.
That's a decent margin of victory.
I agree with Dole even though I dont think they should not be ripping Kerry like they do, but he did make his war days a part of this race. As a soldier who knows and have seen wounded men Kerry should not be so quick to always mention is purple hearts which he even flung away especially when being that most who got a purple heart didnt come back pretty and prestine like he did. They both should drop this Vietnam nonsence especially Kerry and focus on whats now.
sytaylor
08-23-04, 09:44 AM
They have a beef with Kerry, they could care less about Bush.
Couldn't care less!
If they could care less, then it means its higher on their priority list than something they couldn't care any less about. I won't stop breathing til I fix this one!! :bash:
Sorry, major pet peeve.
Clinton got 379 electoral votes as opposed to Dole's 159... furthermore, yes, Clinton didn't even get 50% of the popular vote. Instead, he got 49.24% whereas Dole got 40.71%.
That's a decent margin of victory.
Clinton could not get 50%. Who cares what the margin of victory was. The fact he couldn't get half the country behind him is a problem with any president. Look at the situation we are in now. Nice try to spin it. BTW you had to look those numbers up to see if I was correct. LOL! and don't tell me you had those numbers in your head or I'll shove a hot poker in your eye. :D
Saint Lucifer
08-23-04, 11:51 AM
Clinton could not get 50%. Who cares what the margin of victory was. The fact he couldn't get half the country behind him is a problem with any president. Look at the situation we are in now. Nice try to spin it. ...UDawg... President George W. Bush got about 48% in the 2000 election.
Look around, UDawg. You see your point? I just tore its spine out and I'm now using it as a back scratcher. What a mess I've made.
BTW you had to look those numbers up to see if I was correct. LOL! and don't tell me you had those numbers in your head or I'll shove a hot poker in your eye. :DOf course I had to look those up. But can I still get the hot poker in the eye?
...UDawg... President George W. Bush got about 48% in the 2000 election.
Look around, UDawg. You see your point? I just tore its spine out and I'm now using it as a back scratcher. What a mess I've made.
Did you even read my post? Here let me show you where you went wrong.
Clinton could not get 50%. Who cares what the margin of victory was. The fact he couldn't get half the country behind him is a problem with any president. Look at the situation we are in now.
The bold part is a DIRECT reference to the 2000 election, where Bush didn't get 50%. It goes right along with my point. Care to retract YOUR comment now? :D
Saint Lucifer
08-23-04, 12:49 PM
No, I do not wish to retract my comment. Your entire point was that Clinton failed because he didn't have 50% of the popular vote. My point was that neither did President Bush. The difference between the two is that Clinton had a larger margin of victory which implies that he's also going to have more support regardless of the fact that he didn't have 50%. In either case, he got incredibly close.
Bush on the other hand, was unfortunate enough to win an extremely close election (the numbers I've looked up put it at about 48% to 48% against Vice-President Gore) and therefore is less likely to have as much support. Although with that said, at the beginning of the war with Iraq, he had a lot of support from the American public...
Rakeesh
08-23-04, 01:19 PM
This whole incident about questioning Kerrys war record is going to be his undoing. Not because of them, but because of himself. He has now moved his focus away from his message and instead towards trying to prove his history.
FWIW a lot of people who served with him said that they felt like the only reason he was in Vietnam was to build a political career. (a lot of people said that when they met him, he would say "I'm John Kerry, and I'm going to be president one day") That would figure since he tried to push his credability based on his war record, and now that people are speaking out against his claims, he has to focus heavily on them. It seems as though his Vietnam setup has backfired on him.
No, I do not wish to retract my comment. Your entire point was that Clinton failed because he didn't have 50% of the popular vote. My point was that neither did President Bush. The difference between the two is that Clinton had a larger margin of victory which implies that he's also going to have more support regardless of the fact that he didn't have 50%. In either case, he got incredibly close.
Bush on the other hand, was unfortunate enough to win an extremely close election (the numbers I've looked up put it at about 48% to 48% against Vice-President Gore) and therefore is less likely to have as much support. Although with that said, at the beginning of the war with Iraq, he had a lot of support from the American public...
No it wasn't. I wasn't talking about failure. I was talking about a majority backing of the population. Besides it doesn't matter the margin of victory if it is a low in the turn out. It means you have to work to gain support that you didn't get in the election.
The support Bush gained was from 9/11. Other than that he still has a good portion of the country that dispises him.
netviper13
08-23-04, 01:56 PM
This whole incident about questioning Kerrys war record is going to be his undoing. Not because of them, but because of himself. He has now moved his focus away from his message and instead towards trying to prove his history.
As of right now I'm afraid you're right. Kerry has almost completely stopped talking about the present, to focus on irrelevant details from 30 years ago; he needs to get back on focus, and very soon.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.