PDA

View Full Version : Stolen honor documentary on Kerry



highjeeps
09-09-2004, 09:51 PM
There is an interesting new documentary about Kerry's post-war contributions, for anyone interested.

CAUTION: NOT KERRY FRIENDLY

http://www.stolenhonor.com

With each passing day, this guy looks worse and worse. I believe Bush will win by a land slide this Nov. (I'm good at understatements.)

flxy_tj
09-09-2004, 10:00 PM
There is an interesting new documentary about Kerry's post-war contributions, for anyone interested.

CAUTION: NOT KERRY FRIENDLY

http://www.stolenhonor.com

With each passing day, this guy looks worse and worse. I believe Bush will win by a land slide this Nov. (I'm good at understatements.)
At least I'm not the only one that feels the same way on this guy. Thanks Highjeeps.
Something to not forget kerry is for the enviromental groups..... So if you wanna keep wheeling think about that.

highjeeps
09-09-2004, 10:07 PM
At least I'm not the only one that feels the same way on this guy. Thanks Highjeeps.
Something to not forget kerry is for the enviromental groups..... So if you wanna keep wheeling think about that.

You bet. Good to know ya (virtually, that is :) )

flxy_tj
09-09-2004, 10:09 PM
Here is some more good reading from Ollie North.....
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ollienorth/on20040827.shtml
Also not kerry friendly.

flxy_tj
09-09-2004, 10:10 PM
You bet. Good to know ya (virtually, that is :) )
Same here..... :D We will have to hit the trail one day.... Anti Kerry run...... :D :D :D

highjeeps
09-10-2004, 05:53 AM
Same here..... :D We will have to hit the trail one day.... Anti Kerry run...... :D :D :D

Could be too many vehicles for one trail at one time :D and all those Bush/Cheney bumper stickers ... could scare the wildlife. :D

highjeeps
10-25-2004, 10:59 PM
You can watch the Stolen Honor video at this site without downloading it.

http://www.stolenhonor.com

BobnJeep
10-27-2004, 09:26 PM
I'm new to this sport, and I love it. But it is not a good enough reason to elect an Idiot to Office for the next 4 years. "W" will not work for you. He will allways only be motivated by and work for the financial gain of his already rich family and thier friends. As for the alternative, I don't care for the differences between JK's promises and his past voting record, but it looks like the lesser of two evils to me. Maybe he's not a terrorist, and he won't kill American troops while galavanting around the world just for finacial gain.

Gotta go.....someones knocking at the door :o :( :confused:

highjeeps
10-27-2004, 10:58 PM
I'm new to this sport, and I love it. But it is not a good enough reason to elect an Idiot to Office for the next 4 years. "W" will not work for you. He will allways only be motivated by and work for the financial gain of his already rich family and thier friends. As for the alternative, I don't care for the differences between JK's promises and his past voting record, but it looks like the lesser of two evils to me. Maybe he's not a terrorist, and he won't kill American troops while galavanting around the world just for finacial gain.

Gotta go.....someones knocking at the door :o :( :confused:

Have you been watching MSNBC, CNN, CBS? ... reading NYT? I don't blame you for being confused (your icon). Sounds to me like you are repeating the hyperboly and baseless accusations that these media outlets are producing. But don't worry. The rest of us (that is most of us) are voting Bush (in fact AZ's electoral votes are already expected to go to Bush) and we'll save the trails and gun rights for us and you. In the mean time, try to get focused on what's really important here. And check for facts, don't just repeat those tired old false accusations against Bush. Switch to watching Fox News Channel for starters. ;)

sschwar4
10-28-2004, 08:52 AM
I'm new to this sport, and I love it. But it is not a good enough reason to elect an Idiot to Office for the next 4 years. "W" will not work for you. He will allways only be motivated by and work for the financial gain of his already rich family and thier friends. As for the alternative, I don't care for the differences between JK's promises and his past voting record, but it looks like the lesser of two evils to me. Maybe he's not a terrorist, and he won't kill American troops while galavanting around the world just for finacial gain.

Gotta go.....someones knocking at the door :o :( :confused:

But JK just wants to hand the country to the UN!!!

CheroKing
10-29-2004, 05:21 PM
I'm new to this sport, and I love it. But it is not a good enough reason to elect an Idiot to Office for the next 4 years. "W" will not work for you. He will allways only be motivated by and work for the financial gain of his already rich family and thier friends. As for the alternative, I don't care for the differences between JK's promises and his past voting record, but it looks like the lesser of two evils to me. Maybe he's not a terrorist, and he won't kill American troops while galavanting around the world just for finacial gain.


If I'm not mistaken, JK's pockets run much deeper than W's, and whose hands are in those pockets? For one the greenies. JK can't fart without the greenies approval. It has been run into the ground already, but OUR sport is under attack when it comes to JK.
There is such an ignorance when it comes to the way some people think. "I don't care what his voting record is like, he is the lesser of two evils." :confused: He will have complete and total control of the US and what we do as a country. How can anyone "not care" what his voting record is like is beyond me.
As far as your comments on sending our troops to their death...I am so sick and tired of people condemming the Pres. for that decision. JK still to this day hasn't said what he would have done...Do you really want a person like that running our country? Unless you've been in the positon our Pres. was on 9/11, how can you say what he did was wrong...bet YOU wouldn't have known what to do either!
The men and women that signup for the service (whichever it may be) do it VOLUNTARILY. No one has forced these people into this decision. They know what they are getting into when they signup. I have spoken with numerous retirees that would, if the draft were brought back, they would go without resistance. How many of the troops that come home can't wait to go back???? This is what they do, this is what they live for...and sadly enough, some die. How many people that were not volunteers died on 9/11?

Anyway, just my thoughts on the whole situation!

JamesT
10-29-2004, 06:48 PM
Gotta go.....someones knocking at the door :o :( :confused:

That knocking on the door is probably the Sierra Club asking you to donate money to shut down some more trails, after that comment. ;)

phoen1c1an
10-29-2004, 06:50 PM
I can't wait until this election is over.

rolled1
10-29-2004, 06:54 PM
I can't wait until this election is over.
The sad thing is one of those 2 will be the pres.

flxy_tj
10-29-2004, 07:19 PM
That knocking on the door is probably the Sierra Club asking you to donate money to shut down some more trails, after that comment. ;)
Thats funny I don't care who you are !!!!! :D

CheroKing
10-29-2004, 07:30 PM
Thats funny I don't care who you are !!!!! :D

Git 'R Done! :)

BobnJeep
10-31-2004, 04:27 PM
If I'm not mistaken, JK's pockets run much deeper than W's, and whose hands are in those pockets? For one the greenies. JK can't fart without the greenies approval. It has been run into the ground already, but OUR sport is under attack when it comes to JK.
Again, I say Not a good enough reason to elect a president into office who will start a war in a country that didn't attack us on 9-11, just so his friends (Cheney) can get rich with Government contracts. It has been proven that Haliburten recieved contracts without even bidding for them.


As far as your comments on sending our troops to their death...I am so sick and tired of people condemming the Pres. for that decision.
Are you saying that The President didn't send them? We all know that his secretary of the State, Colon Powell, advised him not to go, but he did it anyway.


This is what they do, this is what they live for...and sadly enough, some die. How many people that were not volunteers died on 9/11?
Alquieda, from Afganistan attacked us on 9-11. Why did we go to Iraq? I'm sure you can make some sort of wild imaginative connection just like your party, so lets hear it.

JamesT
10-31-2004, 05:25 PM
It has been proven that Haliburten recieved contracts without even bidding for them.


You better check the no-bid contracts Haliburten got with Ex-Pres. Clinton.
And since you know all about the no-bid contracts, then who else is equipped to carry out the tasks they got assigned under this contract? In other words, what other companies do you know for a fact would have bid if given a chance?

JamesT
10-31-2004, 05:28 PM
Why did we go to Iraq?

16 UN resolutions over 13 years, the last one specificing the use of force.

JamesT
10-31-2004, 05:32 PM
Are you saying that The President didn't send them?

No, but the president wouldn't have had the ability to send them if and only if, the House and the Senate didn't agree to give him the ability.

BTW - Colin Powell and Schwarztkauf (sp?) both said 10 years ago, we should have marched into Bagdad and taken Sadam out then, but no, we stopped because the UN said to.
We are damned if we do and damned if we don't by Colin Powell.

CheroKing
10-31-2004, 07:32 PM
Alquieda, from Afganistan attacked us on 9-11. Why did we go to Iraq? I'm sure you can make some sort of wild imaginative connection just like your party, so lets hear it.

Try these facts on how "your party" wants things done. Seems like "your party" had the same feelings as "my party"...amazing how JK seems to think the same as the Pres.


"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them! .
That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from here, but what happens there matters a great
deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear,
chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the great test security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten
time since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb
18,1998

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the US
Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate,
air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin
(D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry (D - MA), and others Oct. 9,1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he
has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy
Pelosi
(D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
destruction and palaces for his cronies." >- Madeline Albright, Clinton
Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons
programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam
continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a
licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Letter to President Bush, Signed by
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated
of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the
means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to
deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in
power." -Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA),
Sept.
27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence
reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert
Byrd
(D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and ! biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has
refused to do" - Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members.. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec.. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ..... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction
.. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real" - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

BobnJeep
11-01-2004, 07:20 PM
I never for a minute thought that Saddam should be able to be left in power. He is all of those things that has been said about him and more. My argument is just that when we do it alone, we are the only ones to pay for it in American lives and reputation. I don't think we should play the part of the worlds police force.
As far as using the UN, we make up the majority of the UN Forces anyway. We are probably (because I don't have actual figures) one of the leading contributers. If we would have just used UN Resolutions we would have had others backing us. Now we are the aggressors and therefore "The Bad Guys". We knew this was the price to pay, but were not willing to share the wealth that will come out of it in oil and rebuild contracts. War is no longer about Freedom, it's about making money. This was the perfect opportunity for the admin to make billions for its family and closests friends.

There must not be much money to be had in Afghanistan, or we would have spent more time and effort there.

Antman
11-01-2004, 08:04 PM
I never for a minute thought that Saddam should be able to be left in power. He is all of those things that has been said about him and more. My argument is just that when we do it alone, we are the only ones to pay for it in American lives and reputation. I don't think we should play the part of the worlds police force.
As far as using the UN, we make up the majority of the UN Forces anyway. We are probably (because I don't have actual figures) one of the leading contributers. If we would have just used UN Resolutions we would have had others backing us. Now we are the aggressors and therefore "The Bad Guys". We knew this was the price to pay, but were not willing to share the wealth that will come out of it in oil and rebuild contracts. War is no longer about Freedom, it's about making money. This was the perfect opportunity for the admin to make billions for its family and closests friends.

There must not be much money to be had in Afghanistan, or we would have spent more time and effort there.



Once again 16 UN resolutions over 13 years, the last one specificing the use of force, along with the support of the U.S. Congress!

Bob, You can smoke your pipe all day and it won't get through to you. We didn't go to Iraq ALONE! Just because the French and Germans didn't go and the UN didn't go doesn't mean we went alone. Just more Liberal B.S. so just shut-up and go vote. If Kerry wins then you get what you and your liberal friends deserve from the traitorous, flip-flopping creep!

OlneyJeeps
11-01-2004, 10:43 PM
I never for a minute thought that Saddam should be able to be left in power. He is all of those things that has been said about him and more. My argument is just that when we do it alone,

alone? you mean Japan and over 2 dozen other contries aren't really there being killed?

The size and capabilities of the Coalition forces involved in operations in Iraq has been a subject of much debate, confusion, and at times exageration. As of August 5, 2004, there were 29 non-U.S. military forces contributing to the ongoing stability operations throughout Iraq. These countries were Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Thailand, United Kingdom, and Ukraine. The MNF-I website incorrectly included Honduras in the list; that country's troops returned in late May. It also incorrectly list the Dominican Republic; its troops left in early-May. The MNF-I website also includes New Zealand, although the New Zealand government has claimed that it had not joined the US-led force but that the deployment had been at the request of the United Nations.

The Kingdom of Tonga did, however, deploy 45 Royal Marines in early July to Iraq. Thailand withdrew its contingent from Iraq in late August and flew it home in early September. New Zealand redeployed its contingent of 61 troops in late-September 2004. Singapore's contribution of a KC-135 tanker aircraft returned home on September 11 after a three-month mission. As a result, there are 28 countries participating in the coalition.



we are the only ones to pay for it in American lives and reputation. I don't think we should play the part of the worlds police force.

do you really want dozens upon dozens of quotes of others who said essentially (if not verbatum) the same thing..... about 72 years ago when referring to why the US should not get involved in WWII (what was the cost for waiting so long and what whould have been the cost if we had waited (as JFK's dad pressed us to) a little longer? (Meine meinung nach wir alle Deutch sprechen und seig heil zur eine grosse dumkopf wurden)

As far as using the UN, we make up the majority of the UN Forces anyway. We are probably (because I don't have actual figures) one of the leading contributers. If we would have just used UN Resolutions we would have had others backing us.

like good old "you'll have to sink our navy yourself because we don't want to upset the invading Germans by helping your foolish war effort" France?
Should we be pu$$ies like some other countries that pull out when the going gets tough (who did Spain side with during WWII (hmmmm: did Kerry get flip flop political reputation from his wife's genes?)?"

Now we are the aggressors and therefore "The Bad Guys". We knew this was the price to pay, but were not willing to share the wealth that will come out of it in oil and rebuild contracts. War is no longer about Freedom, it's about making money. This was the perfect opportunity for the admin to make billions for its family and closests friends.

It's all about money. think of the (today's value) hundreds of trillions in tax dollars, output and human potential we wasted during WWII

There must not be much money to be had in Afghanistan, or we would have spent more time and effort there.

Charlie Brown: ARRRRGH!

BobnJeep
11-02-2004, 05:28 AM
Japan and over 2 dozen countries are there now that there is money to be made, we did the dirty work.
As for Russia and France, you can't blame them for wanting the money Saddam owed them. When he got ousted the only way they wouyld get thier money is to work for it. I don't know why he owed them money, but if it was for weapons, then they need to go to hell too.

CheroKing
11-02-2004, 08:16 AM
I never for a minute thought that Saddam should be able to be left in power. He is all of those things that has been said about him and more. My argument is just that when we do it alone, we are the only ones to pay for it in American lives and reputation. I don't think we should play the part of the worlds police force.

No matter what you think about "America being the world's police force", it will ALWAYS be that way. EVERY country looks to the US for policing. Think about that! THE US is big brother to EVERYONE. The US polices eveyone because it is the most POWERFUL nation on the planet. If someone is kicking your a**, do you go to a weaker friend and ask for help...if your an idiot you do. That is what happens all the time...someone gets their a** backed up against a wall and WE THE US go and stomp a mudhole in the aggressors a**. That is the way it has been and the way it will ALWAYS be. As far as the UN. If I remember correctly, the situation in Iraq was taken before the UN...the UN are a bunch of pusses who were getting kick backs from Saddam. Why do you think France didn't want to go in, the Frech UN rep was getting oil vouchers from Saddam...hell who would want to spoil that deal? Certainly not the French!!