So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "up his leg," and...

Dave LaCourse wrote:

Kerry *LIED*, *under oath* before Congress. He lied continuously
during that period.

No, he didn't.

To hell with the Swiftboat thingy. I am talking
about behavior that gave comfort to our enemy.

At that time "the enemy" was the US government. Any true patriot
could see that clearly and John Kerry was, and is, a true patriot.

Regardless how you
felt about that war, to pull a Jane Fonda only put more of our men in
danger. Why can't you see that, Ken?

Jane Fonda didn't put anyone in danger other than Jane Fonda.

What this country needs is true patriots, not blind, toadie jingoes.
John Kerry and Jane Fonda are true patriots. And I'm not even going
to ask why you can't see that.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 19:04:18 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:

..such as ignoring the role Saudi money plays in terrorist
activity? Such as removing one of the few checks on Iranian influence(a
strong Iraq)? Such as allowing videotaped sexual abuse of detained
'suspects' to destroy our credibility in the Middle East, thanks to an
ill-planned strategy? Hell, the past 8 years have been nothing but aid and
comfort to those who would kill us, when you look at it realistically.

Then why, pray tell, has no one been impeached? Why?

On 17 Feb 2008 18:47:15 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

Why do you continue
to excuse it?

I don't excuse it, Scott, I just think it is not that big a deal.

You excuse my feelings about the shame of Clinton in the WH. No
difference.

Dave LaCourse wrote:
On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 19:04:18 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:


..such as ignoring the role Saudi money plays in terrorist
activity? Such as removing one of the few checks on Iranian influence(a
strong Iraq)? Such as allowing videotaped sexual abuse of detained
'suspects' to destroy our credibility in the Middle East, thanks to an
ill-planned strategy? Hell, the past 8 years have been nothing but aid and
comfort to those who would kill us, when you look at it realistically.


Then why, pray tell, has no one been impeached? Why?



Aside from the fact that there's been a Republican majority in both
houses of Congress for most of Bush's term, there's another problem. If
Bush were successfully impeached then we'd be stuck with Cheney, who's
even worse.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Dave LaCourse wrote:
On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 19:04:18 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:

..such as ignoring the role Saudi money plays in terrorist
activity? Such as removing one of the few checks on Iranian influence(a
strong Iraq)? Such as allowing videotaped sexual abuse of detained
'suspects' to destroy our credibility in the Middle East, thanks to an
ill-planned strategy? Hell, the past 8 years have been nothing but aid and
comfort to those who would kill us, when you look at it realistically.

Then why, pray tell, has no one been impeached? Why?

Because by the time all the lies and the perfidy became so
obvious as to be impeachable the clock had run out. It would
serve no good purpose to impeach Bush and replace him with
Cheney so both would need to be impeached and there's simply
not enough time to do that before their terms expire. For the
good of the country it is more important that the Democrats
win in 2008 than it is to bring Bush/Cheney to justice. "For
the good of the country" Louie, is a phrase the Democrats know
far, far better than the Republican scum who have sold us out
to the oil interests over the last 7 years.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 14:24:11 -0500, jeff miller
wrote:

uh...ever heard of the "common law"?

Of course, but the Florida Supreme's were not ruling on "common law",
but were changing an existing law to suit their political party -- all
of them were appointed by Democrats, and all *except* the Chief
Justice realized they could not do that. Fortunately the Fed Supremes
ruled against them, otherwise they would still be counting votes in
Floriduh.

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
t...
Dave LaCourse wrote:

Kerry *LIED*, *under oath* before Congress. He lied continuously
during that period.

No, he didn't.

snip

Ken Fortenberry

He in fact did. He testified before Congress that he had first hand
knowledge of atrocities committed by US troops. While while some or all of
those atrocities may have occured. He did not, and in most caseses, could
not, have had first hand knowledge of them.

Bob Weinberger
- who was in Viet Nam in the Navy at the same time as Kerry and who in
retrospect is inclined to think that a comment he overheard Admiral
Zumwalt make after recieving an action report (don't know if it was
Swift Boats) "Get that loose cannon out of my command." could possibly have
been directed towards Kerry.

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 20:16:49 GMT, "Bob Weinberger"
wrote:

He in fact did. He testified before Congress that he had first hand
knowledge of atrocities committed by US troops. While while some or all of
those atrocities may have occured. He did not, and in most caseses, could
not, have had first hand knowledge of them.

Hopefully Ken will believe you. I remember his testimony and they
were lies. I'm not a lawyer (thank you very much), but I do believe
that is perjury. He *did* meet secretly with the North Viet Namese in
Paris while he was in uniform. He did NOT receive an honorable
discharge. To hell with what the Swifties said. The above
disqualifies him as far as I am concerned.

Dave

Dave LaCourse wrote:
"Bob Weinberger" wrote:
He in fact did. He testified before Congress that he had first hand
knowledge of atrocities committed by US troops. While while some or all of
those atrocities may have occured. He did not, and in most caseses, could
not, have had first hand knowledge of them.

Hopefully Ken will believe you.

To borrow your argument, if Kerry did indeed lie under oath
before Congress why wasn't he ever prosecuted for perjury ?

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 20:59:42 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

To borrow your argument, if Kerry did indeed lie under oath
before Congress why wasn't he ever prosecuted for perjury ?

*EXACTLY*

Probably for the same reason Clinton wasn't prosecuted for perjury,
although he was disbarred.

Kerry did not receive an honorable discharge from the Navy. His
discharge read "committee of officers" and was dated during the Carter
administration (all on Kerry's website when running for potus). Does
not that make you just a little curious about his character.