Posted on 08/06/2004 10:53:26 AM PDT by Ohioan from Florida
It's the Arizona Republic, not the Arizona Republican.
Gee, and the AFP reported yesterday that Bush did repudiate the add. Maybe the Arizona Republican (sic) newspaper should find a different word to use.
Just yesterday, John Kerry related a disgusting misrepresentation of George W Bush's honorable service to his country on September 11, 2001.
By "the Arizona Republican", they are referring to McCain.
BTW, the paper used to be called the Arizona Republican.
And he knows the ads are false because:
A. Kerry denies the charges
B. Kerry has release records that show otherwise
C. We should not believe a bunch of verterns who served with Kerry
D. Reporters have investigated and found the stories to be false.
E. None of the Above.
"It's the Arizona Republic, not the Arizona Republican."
Are you sure this wasn't simply a reference to McCain himself (R. AZ) and not to the newspaper?
McCain did in himself by attacking Christian Conservatives during his campaign. That is the wrong group to piss off if you want to win the GOP nomination. It was a grass-roots effort the beat McCain, not anything Bush did.
"The Kerry campaign should state clearly that Michael Moore's movie is a disgusting misrepresentation of President's Bush's honorable service to his country,"
How it SHOULD read - IMHO
thanks, I stand corrected.
You "obtain" a PH at the army surplus store, your earn one by being wounded incombat. The writer is a dolt.
It will NEVER be good enough for RATs.
Again, they ignore the real message and go for a side issue of getting Bush to condemn it...as Democrat scum always do.
That's a pretty even account of the story.
Bush should just say "I wasn't there. These men and Kerry were. This is between him and all of them."
I enjoyed this part of the article:
"We had that war won until John Kerry and Hanoi Jane Fonda stuck their nose in it," Gardner said. "Hes a traitor."
Gardner said his criticism is not political.
"If youd put a good Democrat up there instead of Kerry, Id probably vote for him, because I dont agree with everything George Bush has done."
I was a bit surprised at how evenly it was covered, since just about everything around here is slanted to the left. And it was even on the third page!
All who served in WW II, Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait and Iraq did not shovel sh't somewhere.
There is plenty reason to whack Kerry for what he did when he returned. However he was in uniform, he was at the front, he risked his life and he was lucky the near misses didn't get him in the head or blow his limbs off. Criticism for front line service is pretty thin political gruel.
AZ used to be a nice Repbulican state. IT has been invaded by Califorina Socialists and illegals and is slowly becoming another socialist utopia like CA.
To me, the problem comes in that Kerry has been using the picture of these men in his campaign. He knowingly continued to use their picture to show how many were behind him, even though most in that picture disagreed with him. Their names have been tarnished, and I think they have every right to say that John Kerry is NOT telling the truth about the swift boat vets' approval of him. That's the message that I get from it.
It's fine that Kerry went and served in Vietnam. I admire and respect all the veterans who fight in any war. They paid for my freedom. What I object to, as I'm sure they do, is that Kerry is trying to say that these men he served with are behind him, and this is their way of saying that they aren't.
I want to know if someone seeking by vote to be the Commander-in-Chief has repeatedly lied about his front line service. I thank these Swift Boat Vets for bringing this out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.