The Patriot Files Forums  

Go Back   The Patriot Files Forums > General > Political Debate

Post New Thread  Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 03-13-2004, 05:43 PM
melody1181 melody1181 is offline
Guest
 

Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Texas Panhandle
Posts: 1,211
Distinctions
Contributor 
Default

Wow, there Clintons name pops up again! What I find odd is that his name keeps getting thrown up. His term is over! Get over him! whats done is done and yes he isn't a good person in my opinion either.

I do think Bush hasn't been the best president...in ANY terms but do I think Kerry will either? NO

I will be honest here, and part of this comes from experience here in the Panhandle of TX. This is a heavly conservative area. If you say anything that is not conservative you get jumped on and pretty much called stupid. Well thats one reason I'm not a huge fan of MOST republicans. SOME are to quick to say how stupid one is for beleiving differently. Not that the Dems don't do it either but MY experience is with the Cons.

I'm am neither. I refuse to stick to party lines just cause. Yes I am a fence sitter and proud of it!!!!
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #22  
Old 03-14-2004, 11:40 AM
reconeil's Avatar
reconeil reconeil is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Avenel, New Jersey
Posts: 5,967
Distinctions
Contributor 
Default Mel...

That's basically just how it works.

A Democrat amongst predominantly Republicans: "Gets jumped on" by Republicans.

A Republican amongst predominantly Democrats: "Gets jumped on" by Democrats. The only difference being that Democrats are infinitely more pack-like vicious and merciless while doing "Their" "Jumping-on" Republicans.

Just out of curiosity Mel? If truly: "A Fence Sitter",...why does it bother you so much when I low rate the most despicable and worst President (re. Clinton) America has ever had, with the possible exception of Johnson??? Somehow related?

Neil :cd:
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 03-14-2004, 02:02 PM
melody1181 melody1181 is offline
Guest
 

Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Texas Panhandle
Posts: 1,211
Distinctions
Contributor 
Default

Well Neil it bothers me because I think its living in the past. It would bother me if someone was berating Bush Sr or Reagon that way. And I can bet you there are people who think that about them as well.

The reason I hate politics is because it doesn't hve to be that way. LIke I said, I know libs are no better. I once got verbally jumped on by my uncle(the one thats living) because I made some off the wall comment about something I don't even remember. Made me feel like S*&% oh yeah...I was 12. So I guess I do have a little more against the Republican party than the Dems.

I think both parties are equally bad. No one is better than the other.

You see I respect your opinion as I do with everyone. I may disagree with people on occasion but its never personal with me. Every single one of us has the right to think what we think without fear of being made fun of and such.

Its just my pet peeve with the Clinton thing. Past is the past, need to look forward to the future.
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 03-14-2004, 03:10 PM
SuperScout's Avatar
SuperScout SuperScout is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Out in the country, near Dripping Springs TX
Posts: 5,734
Distinctions
VOM Contributor 
Default Others protesting the war

Jane Fonda
Jan Crumb
Bella Abzug
Ramsey Clark
The Socialist Workers' Party
The Communist Party USA
Vo Nguyen Giap
Al Hubbard, the VVAG wannabee
Angela Davis


... what wonderful company to be associated with....
__________________
One Big Ass Mistake, America

"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 03-15-2004, 07:32 AM
Ironside Ironside is offline
Member
 

Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 55
Default Re: John F. Kerry Ended his Military Career by lying ...

Quote:
Originally posted by SuperScout .... and dishonoring the reputation and integrity of Vietnam veterans. "He burst into public prominence with testimony in April 1971 when he testified [under oath, in case anybody's forgotten] that it was routine practice for GI's to have cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks and generally ravaged the countryside of Vietnam." [Did anybody bother to ask where the facts are about the heinous charges?] According to Kerry, he had been told that Americans had "personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals" and other atrocities, yet he failed to report these alleged atrocities to the authorities? Isn't this failure just another manifestation of a lack of leadership on his part, a lack of manhood, or did he know that what he was testifiying about was just a big lie? The truth is, that Kerry knew it was a lie then, he knows it is still a lie, and he doesn't have, and probably never had the balls to tell the truth.

New and photos of his anti-war activities were later used to torment some of remaining POW's in that wonderful workers' paradise of North Vietnam, as if our POW's conditions and treatment wasn't bad enough. And remember, Kerry is a philosophical soulmate of our favorite target, Jane Hanoi Fonda.

After fighting in Vietnam, he returned to lead the protests against that war and urge the U.S. withdrawal that turned Indochina over to Communist rule for a generation. He was in favor of the nuclear freeze movement in the 1980s that would have frozen the Cold War in place with a Soviet advantage.

Kerry is an opportunisitic and grandstanding hypocrite, who would stand on the shoulders of dead troops to make himself look taller. Personally, I wouldn't urinate on him if he was on fire.
It looks like, somebody has been spending too much at the BIASED Vietnam Veterans Against Kerry, web site.

Senator John McCain came to the defense of a fellow Vietnam War Veteran and War Hero, Senator John Kerry, by attacking the credibility of a North Carolina veteran, Ted Sampley, who has dedicated himself to defeating Mr. Kerry in his campaign for President.

Sampley is the founder of the Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry.

McCain, an Arizona Republican, called the man, Sampley, "one of the most despicable people I have ever had the misfortune to encounter."
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 03-15-2004, 08:22 AM
Seascamp Seascamp is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 3,754
Distinctions
VOM Contributor 
Default Iron....

Seems to me that you Kerryite folks need some new script material. What you have put up has been put up here time and again, almost word for word. So what?s new that we can discuss and kick around, eh?
Oh, the ?someone? you refer to is a highly decorated Vietnam combat Officer and is fully capable of doing original reasearch and doesn?t need to crutch along with any organization if he chooses to go on his own research results. Just thought you?d like to know that before you proceed in making diminutive suggestions and assumptions. His citations are on the VN forum if ya care to go back and have a look see.

Scamp
__________________
I'd rather be a hammer than a nail, yes I would, I really would.
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 03-15-2004, 08:25 AM
David's Avatar
David David is offline
Administrator
 

Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 46,798
Distinctions
Special Projects VOM Staff Contributor 
Default The Kerry/McCain Campaign Against Ted Sampley

Here is the reply from Ted Sampley.


When Republican Senator John McCain, on February 13, 2004, distributed a press release personally attacking me and Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry (V.V.A.J.K), it was no surprise. The New York Times printed McCain's attack the following day.

McCain's smear is predicated on lies, innuendo and misinformation printed in Prisoners of Hope, a book written and published in 1994. McCain and his fellow senator John Kerry, a liberal Democrat, teamed up and secretly helped ghost write the book as part of their post Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs campaign to discredit and shutdown the leading POW/MIA activists.

In the February 13, release, McCain instructed reporters to be "cautious" of Ted Sampley or any organization to which he belongs and to thoroughly investigate "Sampley's background and history of spreading outrageous slander and other disreputable behavior before inadvertently lending him or his allegations any credibility."

"I am well familiar with Mr. Sampley, and I know him to be one of the most despicable people I have ever had the misfortune to encounter," McCain (of Charles F. Keating fame) warned the media. " I consider him a fraud who preys on the hopes of family members of missing servicemen for his own profit. He is dishonorable, an enemy of the truth, and despite his claims, he does not speak for or represent the views of all but a few veterans. The many veterans I know would think it a disgrace to be considered a comrade or supporter of Ted Sampley."

Back in 1972, while stationed at Fort Bragg, I volunteered my off duty time to a small POW/MIA group (Americans Who Care) which helped Joe McCain when he traveled through North Carolina seeking to raise public awareness about his brother POW John McCain. Joe, like so many other citizens was concerned about Hanoi's atrocious abuse of U.S. prisoners of war and wanted to ensure that POW McCain would be released when the war was over.

Yet, McCain categorizes me as "one of the most despicable people" he "ever had the misfortune to encounter?" What does that say about his relationship with the Vietnamese prison guards whom he claims brutally tortured him daily?

Even though McCain's slanderous attack on me has been repeated in the worldwide media, no reporter, journalist, or columnist explained exactly what McCain meant and I am not sure they knew. Apparently all they needed to know was that a "bonafide POW war hero" said it, whatever it meant, so it must be creditable enough to publish.

McCain's press release is classic black propaganda defined as an attack on a person or group using "lies, misrepresentations and innuendo fashioned to injure, impede or destroy the activity of another person or group." The lies are usually issued from contrived sources removed from the actual author. Its overall objective is to cause another person or a group to be labeled despicable, evil, frauds and non-creditable.

In this case, the method used to deliver the lies is "Prisoners of Hope." The removed sources were Sen. John Kerry, Sen. John McCain and Army Col. Joe Schlatter of the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA).

McCain and Kerry used such tactics very effectively against POW/MIA families and activists during the 1991-92 Senate Select Committee on POW and MIA Affairs. Kerry was co-chairman and McCain, a committee member.

The Select Committee, established August 1991, was tasked with the mission of resolving the lingering POW/MIA issue by either gaining the release of American prisoners of war believed to be alive under the control of Hanoi, but never released, or explaining what happened to the missing prisoners.

In hindsight, it is obvious that McCain and Kerry were more interested in using the Select Committee as a means to justify lifting the U.S. imposed trade embargo against Vietnam than resolving the issue of missing U.S. servicemen.

From the onset of the hearings, Kerry and McCain's obvious bias for Vietnam were the source of many confrontations between the Select Committee and the POW/MIA activists.

At one point during the Select Committee hearings, the Kerry/McCain team were caught coaching DIA witnesses on how to discredit satellite imagery that showed the presence of living U.S. POWs in both Vietnam and Laos. When the activists found out about the witness tampering, they confronted Kerry and demanded his resignation. Numerous letters were written to the Select Committee demanding an outside investigation of the incident.

To deflect attention from their many clearly unethical acts, Kerry and McCain teamed up again and turned on the activist, managing to divert the entire Select Committee away from investigating Vietnam focusing instead on investigating the POW/MIA families and activist for alleged fraudulent fund raising.

The Kerry/McCain team disguised their investigation of the POW/MIA families and activists and the subpoenaing of private and organizational financial records by claiming they only wanted "to get to the truth." Kerry and McCain explained that they were looking for "professional predators" who were at work within the POW/MIA issue "feeding on the false hopes of the POW/MIA families."

In actuality, Kerry and McCain adopted the presumption that anyone or organization who raised funds based the assertion that Vietnam was still holding living American POWs was committing fraudulent fund-raising and deserved to be publicly chastised and prosecuted in court.

The Select Committee was formed because of the volumes of intelligence pointing to the existence of live POWs still in captivity.

McCain, the "former POW hero," wasted no time making headlines by alleging that most of the activist involved in POW/MIA issue were only in it for the money. He stated in front of a room full of cameras, "the people who have done these things are not zealots in a good cause. They are criminals and some of the most craven, most cynical and most despicable human beings to ever run a scam."

In two sentences McCain effectively branded nearly all the activist POW/MIA families and Vietnam veteran activists as "despicable" and "criminals."

Now you know what McCain was talking about when he referred to me as "despicable" and a "fraud who preys on the hopes of family members of missing servicemen for his own profit."

Another activist whom Kerry and McCain attempted to malign was former POW, Navy Capt. Eugene "Red" McDaniel (Ret.).

McDaniel, who journalist Monika Jensen-Stevenson characterized as "one of the most tortured Americans in the history of war" was lumped into the fraud category because he had committed the unpardonable offense, in Kerry's and McCain's eyes, of drafting a letter signed by fifty of his fellow POWs urging that the Vietnam trade embargo not be lifted until Hanoi provided a full and honest accounting of all American POW/MIAs.

Nearing the end of the Select Committee, the Kerry/McCain team announced to the press that they had turned their findings over to the Justice Department and assured them that multiple indictments would follow.

Much later, after the national media had lost interest, a Justice Department official quietly acknowledged that the investigation had been completed and they had found no illegal activities and no reason to indict anyone.

I was one of the leading activists who demanded Kerry's resignation for witness tampering and one of the first the Kerry/McCain tag team singled out for investigation. They subpoenaed my personal financial records, those of the US Veteran Dispatch ( my privately owned veteran's newspaper) and Homecoming II Project, a now defunct non-profit POW/MIA organization which I had been appointed to chair.

After dissecting all of the seized records, the best the Kerry/McCain fraud investigators could deliver was an accusation that over the period of a couple of years Homecoming II had paid Ted Sampley $300,000.00 for t-shirts. I was not aware of the accusation until after it had been printed in the Select Committee Final Report. That accusation is an unadulterated lie.

It was manufactured to impugn me personally by implying that my motive for demanding an honest accounting of U.S. POW/MIAs is greed. Kerry and McCain could not document that accusation then, or can they now. They lied.

At the time of the Select Committee, Homecoming II was the most active POW/MIA organization in the country. We had office's in Washington, Thailand and in North Carolina, where I live. The U.S. Veteran Dispatch is a newspaper that I have been publishing since 1986. We were printing up to 20,000 copies per month which were distributed free to the public unless it was received by mail. The newspaper was funded through the sale of veteran related materials.

By causing the activists to be investigated for fraud, Kerry and McCain not only drew attention away from their unethical acts, but also away from findings the Select Committee was finally being forced to acknowledge - "there is evidence, moreover that indicates the possibility of survival, at least for a small number [U.S. POW's held captive by Vietnam] after Operation Homecoming," (quoted from page 7 of the Select Committee January 13, 1993 report).

From the beginning it had been Kerry and McCain's objective to discredit all evidence pointing to the possibility of living US POW's left behind in Vietnam. Instead of giving the POW's the benefit of the doubt by trying to prove that they were still alive, the Kerry/McCain team took the position that there was no proof that POW's were still alive.

Both Kerry and McCain continued to work hard to normalize diplomatic and trade relations with communist Vietnam. Kerry and McCain knew that President Bill Clinton was being pressured to lift the embargo and that he needed their help because candidate Clinton had promised, in an April 27, 1992 campaign letter, not to normalize relations or offer any assistance to Vietnam until it had fully assisted in solving the live POW issue.

"Before I would normalize relations or provide assistance to any of the countries involved, they would be required to open their files and actively assist in solving this issue. I firmly believe that America should never leave its warriors on the battlefield. This is not a political issue; it is a moral test of those values and traits that made America great," Clinton said in the letter.

POW/MIA family organizations remained adamantly opposed to removing the embargo. They believed, rightfully so, that the embargo was the only leverage powerful enough to force Vietnam to come clean.

By 1994, the way was clear for Kerry and McCain to provide political cover for President Clinton with his efforts to lift the U.S. trade embargo against Vietnam.

In a smoothly choreographed political maneuver, Clinton used the two "Vietnam War heroes" and their "no POWs are left alive conclusion" as justification to lift the trade embargo...having them stand side by side with him when he made the announcement.

At the same time, to ensure that the POW issue could be not be resurrected by the POW/MIA families and activist, Kerry and McCain consummated their deceit by spoon feeding tainted and false data to Susan Katz Keating, an ambitious Washington Times reporter who was hoping to write a bestseller book - Prisoners of Hope..

Kerry and McCain also relied heavily on their secret Pentagon collaborator, Army Col. Joe Schlatter who from 1986 to 1995, was tasked with running the Defense Intelligence Agency Special Office for POW-MIA Affairs.

Schlatter's job while heading the POW/MIA office was to correlate and interpret the hundreds of intelligence reports about living American POWs left in Southeast Asia that were pouring into the Pentagon.

Schlatter had actually early on in his assignment begun to systematically kill on paper the several hundred U.S. servicemen described as prisoners in the intelligence reports.

Later when called upon by the Kerry/McCain team, Schlatter joined in attempting to discredit (killing the messenger) any individual or group that got in the way of plans to normalize U.S. trade relations with Vietnam.

Schlatter made sure that Keating was issued a special Pentagon identification card giving her extensive access to his office, thoughts and opinions. Schlatter often acted as a private conduit between the Kerry/McCain team and Keating.

By November 1994, Keating had written and published Prisoners of Hope; Exploiting the POW Myth in America (Random House). In her acknowledgments, Keating makes mention of her indebtedness to "contacts within the Department of Defense." In addition, she gave "special mention" to "POW hero, Senator John McCain, who graciously returned every phone call and answered every question."

It did not take the POW families long to learn that Keating's Prisoners of Hope was a foul regurgitation of Kerry and McCain's allegations against the activists who had diligently kept the POW/MIA issue before the American people for years, people Keating labeled as "phonies and unscrupulous."

Keating wrote that the POW/MIA issue was a "destructive national myth" and that President Clinton should immediately get rid of it by declaring dead all servicemen listed as missing in action. He did shortly afterward.

Prisoners of Hope is sloppy, plagued by lies, and gross errors. Using innuendos, lies and scrambled facts, along with the help of Kerry and McCain, Keating, attacked all the leading POW/MIA activists. She hoped to convince her readers "that for more than 20 years POW/MIA families, veterans, and concerned citizens, faked the issue of American servicemen still missing from the Vietnam War to "scam the American public of millions of dollars" in donations.

Keating accused former Vietnam POWs "Red" McDaniel and Mark Smith, Senator Bob Smith, R-NH, former Congressman Billy Hendon, R-NC, former Congressman John LeBoutillier, R-NY, former Army Lieutenant Colonel James "Bo" Gritz, former Army Green Beret Ted Sampley and others of being "charlatans and frauds" who were helping to "further" the POW/MIA "conspiracy myth" for "profit."

Even after many victims of Keating's poison pen offered factual evidence of her misrepresentations and negligence, the establishment press still took Keating's work at face value.

Instead of recognizing Prisoners of Hope as undocumented literary garbage, they gave it "rave" reviews, adding that it was time for POW families to move on and forget the "ghosts" of Vietnam.

In 1995, not long after Keating's Prisoners of Hope hit the book stores and the discount table, Col. Schlatter retired.

From the safety of his retirement, Col. Schlatter finally admitted his true colors on the Internet, "I am a retired Army colonel and my politics are somewhat to the left; I am a yellow-dog Democrat and voted for Bill Clinton twice. I favor serious gun control."

Col. Schlatter's admittance that he is a "leftist," a Clinton loyalist who favors "serious gun control," and a "Yellow Dog Democrat, (meaning he would vote for a yellow dog before he would a Republican)" might explain why he so vigorously defends the communist Vietnamese?

Forever the loyal partisan collaborator, Co. Joe Schlatter has kept the lies in Keating's failed book alive by posting it's contents on the Internet on news groups such as alt.war.vietnam.

By 1997, he created a "MIA Facts" web domain miafacts.org. Any time information or comments pertaining to the POW/MIA issue or information critical of McCain and Kerry appear on the Internet, Col. Schlatter will jump in suggesting that the poster should visit his web pages to read "the real truth" about what he calls the "POW/MIA myth." Miafacts.org is peppered with twisted facts, lies, and distortions, pure black propaganda.

By Ted Sampley
U.S. Veteran Dispatch
February 29, 2004
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 03-15-2004, 09:01 AM
Arrow's Avatar
Arrow Arrow is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Indian Territory
Posts: 4,240
Distinctions
POM Contributor 
Default

Thank you David.The"establishment" has tried to pull downThe Last Firebase on theWashington Malltrying to remove the POW-MIA issue out of the sight of the visiting public. I'm not sure it is still there.This is what I know. The Last Firebasehad on handblack ring binders filled with pageafter page of newspapers clippings ofVietnam Veterans that had died from cancerway before their time. Page after page of reports of ptsd related suicide, death by cop, single car accidents.There was not enough time for me to go through all of them.They have been keeping the cause of the Vietnam Veteran in the public's face for years on the mall.This long and most won't read it butit's for the record.
The Unrelenting Effort to Silence The Last Firebase


By Donna Long
U.S. Veteran Dispatch
September/October 1994 issue


Some of the same Washington, D. C. elitist snobs who, in 1981, helped Jan Scruggs, president of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund, stop the American flag from being permanently flown directly over the National Vietnam Veterans Memorial have now joined his new and unrelenting effort to evict POW/MIA activists from vigils near the memorial.

Scruggs, who does not believe Vietnam held live POWs back after 1973, has made no secret of his contempt for POW activists whom he has publicly categorized as "vendors exploiting the POW/MIA issue for personal gain."

In commenting about POW/MIA families, Scruggs told the Morning News Tribune of Seattle, WA, "I'm kind of sorry for them, that they don't have normal lives."

Since the dedication of the memorial in 1982, Vietnam veterans and POW/MIA family members have maintained POW/MIA vigils adjacent to sidewalks leading to the Wall "to remind politicians of the abandonment of American Vietnam War veterans who were left behind against their will in Southeast Asia."

The activities of the POW/MIA activists who operate the vigils, which are set-up on "demonstration sites" designated by the National Park Service, are supposed to be protected by the First Amendment. Under that free speech amendment, activists demonstrating on federal land can offer for sale to the public printed materials that display messages directly related to their cause and activity.

Last year, the Commission on Fine Arts, a presidentially appointed group of bureaucrats who have a say in what Washington, D.C.'s memorials should look like and represent, jumped in to help Scruggs' rid the area near the Wall of those "disgusting non-artistic" POW/MIA vigils they claim are cluttering up the sidewalks.

Members of that commission are lobbying Congress for new laws which they hope can be used against the POW vigils. The Commission on Fine Arts said publicly in 1982, while opposing the placement of the American flag over the Wall, that there was no need to "adorn the memorial with patriotic claptrap."

The primary target of Scruggs and his federal government bureaucrat friends is The Last Firebase Veteran's Archives Project which has maintained a 24-hour POW/MIA vigil near the Lincoln Memorial since 1986.

The Last Firebase is a non-profit veteran's organization whose leadership is made up of Vietnam veterans and POW/MIA family members. It has the full endorsement of the National Alliance of POW/MIA Families. Outside of the U.S. and Vietnamese governments, The Last Firebase holds the largest database of POW/MIA information in the world.

Activists who man The Last Firebase raise funds by selling printed materials, including POW/MIA related t-shirts, bracelets, and books, which are used to finance national and international campaigns designed to focus public attention on the POW/MIA issue.

Once Washington's elite have cleansed "their monument" of the "embarrassing" Last Firebase vigil, then the "long-haired, booney, hat-wearing, over-the-hill wannabes" won't have any place to "hang around," swapping stories about "a war they lost." Most importantly, they will not be there cluttering up Washington's most visited "tourist attraction" with their unsightly presence.

This type of in house contempt for Vietnam vets who don't wear a "three-piece" suit and eat sushi for lunch is typical among the Washington bureaucrats who view the Vietnam Veterans Memorial as nothing more than military art and a tourist attraction.

The following is a documented chronology of how upper-crust politically motivated "Beltway Insiders", a multi-million dollar corporation, and an equally greedy, pompous, self-serving former folk-hero Vietnam vet, have joined forces in an attempt to shut down The Last Firebase and rid themselves of "undesirables."

SCRUGGS SUED THE POW/MIA ACTIVISTS

November, 1991 - Jan Scruggs, president of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund and Frederick Hart, a Vietnam War protestor and the designer of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial "Three Servicemen Statue" in Washington, filed a copyright infringement suit against Homecoming II Project (former keeper of The Last Firebase), Red Hawk, Inc. (former publisher of U.S. Veteran News and Report), and Ted Sampley, a highly decorated Vietnam veteran who was chairman of Homecoming II and president of Red Hawk, Inc.

The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. sought to stop Homecoming II, the U.S. Veteran News and Report, and Ted Sampley from using the image of the "Three Servicemen Statue" on POW/MIA t-shirts and the payment of back royalties.

In the lawsuit, Scruggs and Hart, who paid their attorneys over $100,000 from money the public had donated to the memorial fund, alleged that their ownership of the copyright and charging royalties are important to provide a source of income needed to maintain the Vietnam Veterans Memorial and to protect the statue's artistic integrity.

Sampley's lawyer argued that under copyright law, a national symbol could not be copyrighted. He maintained the "Three Servicemen Statue" was a national symbol for all Vietnam veterans and their families.

Scruggs and Hart's lawyers told the judge that the copyright was valid because the statue was nothing more than "a piece of art with no function or symbolic meaning.

SAMPLEY ARRESTED--THE LAST FIREBASE IMPOUNDED

February 1, 1992 - Several trucks carrying an estimated dozen United Stated Park Police made a morning raid on The Last Firebase demanding that Sampley order The Last Firebase dismantled and removed from federal land.

Sampley refused and was arrested. The police then dismantled and impounded The Last Fire Base charging Sampley with demonstrating without a permit.

Charges against Sampley were later thrown out of court and The Last Firebase property was returned to the activists and their permit to demonstrate reissued.

FEDERAL JUDGE ORDERED ACTIVISTS TO STOP USING IMAGES OF STATUE

February 4, 1992 - Rejecting Sampley's argument that the "Three Servicemen Statue" could not be copyrighted because it belongs to the people, Judge John Garrett Penn ruled that the Scruggs/Hart copyright was valid. He ordered the POW/MIA activists to stop making and selling "unauthorized images" of the statue and that all items the activists possessed containing the image be impounded.

In his ruling, Judge Penn said the activists had attempted to justify their unauthorized use of the images by "wrapping themselves in the flag of patriotism." He said the public is served by the enforcement of the copyright.

SCRUGGS WON AN UNPRECEDENTED JUDGEMENT AGAINST ACTIVIST

December 10, 1992 - Federal Judge Charles R. Richey rejected Sampley's documented argument that activists at The Last Firebase had grossed, in a 3 year period, less than $72,000 in sales of printed material featuring the "Three Servicemen Statue." Judge Richey awarded Scruggs' memorial fund and Hart $300,000 in damages and $59,000 in attorney fees saying he had based the $300,000 damages, in part, on an affidavit from Walt Sides, president of Warriors Inc. In the affidavit, Sides, who operates a booth adjacent to The Last Firebase, said that he pays Scruggs' memorial fund 10 percent of his booth's gross sales of t-shirts with the copyrighted image of the statue, which tabulates to approximately $10,000 per year.

SEVERELY WOUNDED, HOMECOMING II PROJECT AND THE U.S. VETERAN NEWS ARE DISSOLVED

March 1993 - As a result of the judgement and with their finances depleted, Homecoming II and the U.S. Veteran News and Report, which had occupied The Last Firebase since the mid-80s, were forced to dissolve. During its tenure of The Last Firebase, Homecoming II had diligently distributed millions of pieces of literature explaining the plight of American POWs and MIAs and had given away nearly 700,000 issues of the U.S. Veteran.

The activists quickly reorganized and The Last Firebase Veterans Archives Project and the U.S. Veteran Dispatch became the new occupants of The Last Firebase.

SCRUGGS TRIED TO DEFEND JUDGEMENT AGAINST ACTIVISTS

March 1993 - Scruggs, responding to thousands of faxes, calls and letters demanding an explanation as to why Scruggs' organization holds a copyright on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, which is supposed to be a public monument, began a counterattack.

He wrote to one activist, "The courts have spoken on the issue [copyright] for several hundred years. Patents protect inventors from those who steal their ideas and line their own pockets. Copyrights do the same for authors and artists."

To another he wrote, "We initiated this lawsuit only after being forced to do so. Now that we have won we will take measures to get the money which could have been used to help the Memorial rather than go to a for profit enterprise such as REDHAWK [U.S. VETERAN NEWS AND REPORT]. The money is available. Sales are brisk at the Memorial. Thousands of dollars in cold hard cash from tourists is changing hands every day."

Scruggs wrote, "The Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund is not involved with Agent Orange, POWs, or other veterans issues. We are involved in protecting the memorial from those who misuse it and we are cooperating with the Federal Bureau of Investigation in protecting the memorial from those who threaten to use explosives to destroy it."

April 4, 1993 - Scruggs answered the complaint of the brother of a man who is still missing in action as a result of the Vietnam War, "Personally I would like to settle this entire affair and become friends. Each time we try we have been rebuffed. Believe me, we will continue aggressive tactics to get the money owed to us from those who can clearly afford it. After all our legal fees are being paid by Homecoming II. And I have no sympathy for t-shirt vendors."

SCRUGGS - THE CATALYST IN A NEW ATTACK

April 14, 1993 - Scruggs wrote a letter to J. Carter Brown, chairman of the Commission on Fine Arts. In the letter, Scruggs told Brown that "groups claiming to help American POWs" and "others who claim to be helping the Vietnam Veterans Memorial" are "retail operations making a small fortune." He suggested that because "structures" being used on some First Amendment demonstration sites have been there for a long period of time, they have achieved "a degree of permanency as to merit design approval" by the arts commission.

APRIL 15, 1993 - Brown answered Scruggs with a three paragraph letter thanking him for his continuing concern for the memorial and telling Scruggs that he had passed his letter on to the National Park Service.

APRIL 26, 1993 - Scruggs, an attorney, wrote Brown back, informing him that the National Park Service is "powerless to take corrective action" against the POW/MIA activists, "because of the First Amendment there is a right to demonstrate" and "a part of one's demonstration can consist of selling items with one's First Amendment message emblazoned upon merchandise." Scruggs added, "allowable merchandise includes tourist souvenirs such as t-shirts, buttons and other items."

Scruggs wrote, because the demonstrations "are perfectly legal," the National Park Service "has no authority to deny anyone a permit to demonstrate and sell merchandise as part of their demonstration." He added, "I have researched the law in great detail, believe me" and ended his letter by calling upon Brown to "exercise your authority under the law to halt all sales activities at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial until such time as the demonstrator's structures have met the high architectural standards for which our city is famous."

MAY 27, 1993 - Brown wrote to Robert G. Stanton, Regional Director of the National Park Service. Brown called the area between the Vietnam and Lincoln Memorials a "mess" and lamented over why "one or two" groups should be allowed to spoil the beauty of "one of our great monuments" (obviously referring to the Lincoln Memorial, since he suggested that the groups be moved out of the main visual axis connecting the Lincoln Memorial, Washington Monument and the Capitol).

SCRUGGS BEGAN MEDIA PRESSURE

JUNE 20, 1993 - WASHINGTON POST - Scruggs, described as the Vietnam veteran who "conceived" the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, attacked POW/MIA activists on First Amendment demonstration sites near the Wall, saying they had created a "K-Mart on the Mall". Scruggs said the activists should only be allowed to pass out brochures and "things like that." The Post quoted National Parks Service spokesman Sandra Alley as saying the Park Service is "concerned about the carnival atmosphere" and is studying regulations to "better control" the area.

NOW THAT I'VE GOT YOUR ATTENTION

JUNE 21, 1993 - Scruggs wrote Sandra Alley telling her that demonstrators near the Wall are selling pins, sweatshirts, videos, patches and other items in violation of their permits. In addition, Scruggs said that he learned from an (unnamed) appointee of President Clinton that one of the demonstrators had set a gas can next to a generator. Scruggs called the latter alleged incident "a clear and present danger" to the public and reminded Ms. Alley that the Park Service had the right to immediately revoke permits for both alleged violations.

ENTER SEN. KERRY---THE PRO-HANOI POLITICIAN

JUNE 30, 1993 - A call was logged in at the Park Ranger Kiosk, located at the entrance to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, from the office of Senator John Kerry (D-MA). According to the log book, Kerry's office asked about the "vendors" near the Wall and was told to contact the Park Service Public Affairs office.

Kerry, who was chairman of the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ), a member of the committee, led the fight on the U.S. Senate floor to lift the trade embargo against Vietnam.

(POW/MIA activists at The Last Firebase have publicly accused both senators of suppressing evidence during the committee's investigation that American POWs were held years after the end of the Vietnam War).

THE SECOND COMING

JULY 13, 1993 - An article written by Scruggs, headlined "Seedy side of the memorial," is published in USA TODAY. In that article, Scruggs compared his crusade against POW activists who demonstrate near the Wall to Jesus chasing the "money-changers" out of the temple. He ended his sanctimonious posturing by declaring that "real" demonstrators should "only be allowed to give away pamphlets and brochures."

(What Scruggs failed to include in his "holier than thou" tirade against "making money at a sacred place" was that his memorial fund has received thousands of dollars in royalties from the sale of t-shirts and other items that bear the image of the copyrighted "Three Servicemen Statue" generated at First Amendment demonstration sites near The Wall).

SORRY I DIDN'T ANSWER SOONER

JULY 16, 1993 - Sandra Alley answered Scruggs' June 21 letter. Ms. Alley told Scruggs the Park Service is doing its best to enforce permit regulations and is considering changing the regulations.

WHAT'S SO HARD ABOUT DENYING FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS?

DECEMBER 17, 1993 - Scruggs sent a memorandum to Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt.

"For quite a while I have been unsuccessful in persuading your agency that the vendors at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial are simply that ....they are not demonstrators ...they are vendors selling souvenirs to tourists," Scruggs wrote. Scruggs told Babbitt that the Park Service plans to "eventually somehow get around to issuing regulations" to get rid of the demonstrators and expressed his "utter amazement" at the Park Service's "inability to accomplish this small task." Scruggs ended his letter by offering to give Babbitt's department a tour of the memorial.

OH, MY GOD - EVEN THE WORST WINTER OF THE CENTURY CAN'T SHUT THEM DOWN!

JANUARY 31, 1994 - Brown wrote to National Park Service Director Roger Kennedy telling the director that he had driven by the Lincoln Memorial during the snow, which had shut down the U.S. government, and regretted to report that despite the "severity of the weather," the "vendors" in front of the Lincoln Memorial were still there.

(The Last Firebase, which is located across from the Lincoln Memorial, near the Reflecting Pool, maintained its 24-hour vigil for POW/MIAs that day, as it has every day, 365 days a year, regardless of the weather).

Saying that the commission's lawyers were "very nervous" about taking any steps that might be "construed as an abridgment" of the demonstrator's rights, Brown suggested relocating the demonstration sites to a "less conspicuous spot" as an alternative.

I'LL GET RID OF THEM!

FEBRUARY 27, 1994 - Senator Kerry visited the Park Ranger Kiosk at the Wall and wanted to know what was being done about the POW/MIA demonstration sites. According to the daily log book, after Park Ranger Oates explained the permit process to Kerry, the senator asked, "Aren't the memorial people doing anything about it?" Oates told Kerry that there is a controversy about the POW/MIA vigils. To this Kerry replied, "They are disgusting. We'll do something about it tomorrow."

PITTING "BROTHER AGAINST BROTHER"

MARCH 1994 - BRAVO VETERANS OUTLOOK published a vicious attack by Scruggs on fellow Vietnam veterans who man POW/MIA vigils near the Wall. In that article, Scruggs called upon Vietnam veterans to protect their "sacred" Wall from the greedy "money-changers" by writing a letter to Stanton asking him to change sales regulations on First Amendment demonstration sites.

(Again Scruggs failed to mention the thousands of dollars his organization had received and the money it continues to receive to this date from some of the demonstration sites he so vehemently attacks. The Last Firebase, which refuses to recognize the copyright on the "Three Servicemen Statue," is not among the groups that pays copyright royalties to Scruggs' organization).

"BELTWAY MEDIA" SILENT ON MAIL FRAUD INVESTIGATION OF SCRUGGS's FUND RAISING

APRIL 20, 1994 - CBS THIS MORNING reported that Pennsylvania Attorney General Ernie Preate was investigating the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund's direct mail fund-raising activities.

"This organization raised over $4.6 million over the last three years on claims that it is going to use that money to maintain the Wall. In fact, under our conservative estimates, we can say that only about $230,000, or only 5 percent, has actually gone into events and maintenance of the wall area," Preate said. Calling Scruggs' direct-mail letters "misleading and fraudulent," Preate added that according to VVMF's tax returns, Scruggs' organization raised over $2 million in 1992.

"Only $180,000 was spent on taking care of the Wall, while $630,000 was spent on fund-raising. The remaining money went to public education and ceremonies to commemorate the Wall," Preate said.

"The National Park Service and the American taxpayers are already spending more than $750,000 a year to take care of the Wall, it's a sum the Park Service says adequately covers the needs of the monument," said CBS THIS MORNING reporter Hattie Kauffman.

(There's something perversely evil about someone who calls upon Vietnam veterans to "protect their sacred Wall" from POW/MIA activists who fund their cause by offering tangible items to the public, while raising millions of dollars in donations under the fraudulent pretext of maintaining the Wall).

SCRUGGS' MEMORIAL FUND TRIED TO COLLECT JUDGEMENT BY ATTEMPTING TO SEIZE SAMPLEY'S PROPERTY

April 27, 1994 - The Kinston Daily Free Press reported that a sheriff's deputy had called Sampley to inform him that the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund was ordering his property seized as partial payment of the $359,000 judgment. The date of June 3 was set for the public auctioning of Sampley's property.

THE FIRST AMENDMENT IS COSTING US MONEY

MAY 4, 1994 - S.J. DiMeglio, president and CEO of Guest Services, a multi-million dollar corporation that operates the Park Service marinas, kiosks and vending operations on the Mall, met with Stanton and complained about his company losing money to First Amendment demonstration sites.

TO PROTECT THE PARK VISITOR

MAY 18, 1994 - The Park Service published a proposed regulation change in the Federal Register that would limit sales on First Amendment demonstration sites to books, newspapers and traditional printed material, such as pamphlets and leaflets. Stanton claimed the demonstration sites near the Vietnam Memorial, which are the only ones attacked in the proposed regulation change, "have severely disrupted the quality of the park visitor experience." The public was given a 60-day period to comment on the proposed regulation change.

ACTIVISTS FORCE SCRUGGS TO CANCEL AUCTION

June 3, 1994 - The Kinston Free Press reported that Scruggs had backed down from auctioning Sampley's property.

"The whole idea behind the memorial was to help heal the wounds of the whole Vietnam War and to help the vets recover," Scruggs told The Free Press. Scruggs said that the memorial fund had been told that "The only thing Sampley really wants is for us to foreclose on his property in order to become what he considers a martyr. But, we're not going to make him a martyr. That's not really what we're about anyway."

Although the auction was canceled, the memorial fund can still foreclose on Sampley anytime within the next 10 years.

GEE, THANK YOU FOR ASKING ME TO COMMENT ON YOUR PROPOSED CHANGES

JUNE 9, 1994 - Scruggs wrote a letter to Stanton saying he is "pleased to respond" to Stanton's request for public comments on the proposed regulation change concerning "vendors at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial."

(Scruggs' invitation to comment on a regulation change that he worked over a year to put into motion is so incestuous that it warrants no comment).

JUNE 16, 1994 - Brown wrote Stanton praising him for his "courageous leadership" in taking action against the "vendors."

TO HELL WITH FREE SPEECH - WE'RE LOSING MONEY

JUNE 30, 1994 - DiMeglio wrote Stanton about the increased number of First Amendment "vendors" on the Mall since their May 4th meeting. Saying Guest Services had lost over $300,000 in sales in June alone and expected to lose about $750,000 in July, he told Stanton that the Park Service must either tighten policy regarding First Amendment demonstrators or grant Guest Services relief by a reduction in its franchise fee.

(The dramatic increase in the number of groups getting permits for First Amendment Demonstration sites on the Mall in June was deliberately created by the Park Service. On Memorial Day weekend, a Park Service employee, sympathetic to the POW/MIA cause, told The Last Firebase that he had overheard his superiors talking about how they were going to "flood the Mall with so many t-shirt vendors that Congress would become involved because that's all they would see when they drove by the Mall."

The employee said his superiors "joked" about how they were going to issue permits to "everyone and everyone's brother." The Park Service "created a forest in order to cut down a tree," by telling people in a June Washington Post article how easy it was to get a "free speech" permit. By September 1, the Park Service had succeeded in "flooding the Mall" with 200 t-shirt vendors.

GET RID OF THEM OR ELSE

JULY 11, 1994 - DiMeglio wrote Stanton and threatened to "indefinitely postpone" scheduled construction on the Mall of four new kiosks by Guest Services unless the Park Service enacted a "speedy adoption" of regulation changes to limit "competing free speech" vendors.

JULY 18, 1994 - The 60-day public comment ended. The Park Service said the response from the public was "about even" in its comments "for and against" the proposed regulation change.

FRAUDULENT LETTERS EXPOSED IN PUBLIC COMMENT

SEPTEMBER 4, 1994 - THE STARS AND STRIPES veteran's newspaper reported that hundreds of form letters supporting the Park Service's proposed regulation change were fakes, raising the "specter of mail fraud." Someone it seemed, signed the computer generated letters with the names and addresses of people without their permission. Most of the names affixed to the approximately 1,300 letters were either those of slip holders at Park Service-owned marinas (operated by Guest Services) or temporary or past employees of Guest Services.

Guest Services at first told STARS AND STRIPES that they had nothing to do with any of the fraudulent letters, but later admitted that their company had printed a form letter with the names of employees of Ameritemps, a company that supplied Guest Services with temporary workers. The company said it contacted "95 percent of the employees" to let them know their names had been used. Guest Services, however, denied that it sent in letters with the names and addresses of people who were slip holders at the Park Service owned marinas that are administrated by their company.

"I believe that we probably did the text (of the fraudulently signed form letter)," Andrew Normandeau, secretary of Guest Services told STARS AND STRIPES in a follow up article, adding that he was going to write a letter to the Park Service with the "findings" of an initial, internal investigation.

The Park Service, which also denied any connection to the fraudulent letters, said the 1,300 form letters would not be considered in their assessment of the public comment.

HO, HUM, YAWNS--THE POSTAL SERVICE

SEPTEMBER 11, 1994 - STARS AND STRIPES. An Inspector General's official told the veterans newspaper, "We're checking it out," but added that the case (of the fraudulent letters) was probably more within the jurisdiction of the Post Office.

"It's not clear that the mail fraud statute has been violated here, but we will look into it," said John Brugger, a Post Office spokesman. A long-time postal inspector, speaking on the condition of anonymity, told the STARS AND STRIPES that he doubted mail fraud had been committed because "no money or property was involved."

(EXCUSE ME! Money isn't involved? What about the one million dollars Guest Services complained to the Park Service about losing because of "unconscionable proliferation of these First Amendment vendors." What about Guest Services' threat to delay construction on the Mall unless new regulations are enacted to get rid of the "free speech" vendors? And just what is involved when someone signs the name of someone else to a letter without their permission and mails that letter to a government agency supporting a regulation that would deny POW/MIA activists the right to raise money for their cause?)

PUBLIC COMMENT 4-1 AGAINST REGULATION CHANGE

After removing the 1,300 fraudulent letters from consideration, the "almost even" count of people for and against the proposed new sales regulations on First Amendment demonstration sites dramatically changed to approximately 3,035 against the regulation change and 774 in favor. Of the 774 in favor, 241 were form letters and petitions signed by Guest Services employees. Some 2,500 park visitors to the Wall - the very people the Park Service claimed were having the "quality" of their park visit experience "severely disrupted" by First Amendment demonstrators - signed cards during their visit to the Wall against the regulation change.

In addition, a private poll of visitors at the Wall by Jacobs, Jenner and Kenton, revealed that 55 percent of those polled felt the First Amendment activists had "little or no effect" on their experience, while 24 percent found them to have a "positive effect."

It should also be noted that about 160 million people (20 million a year) have visited the Wall since The Last Firebase began its POW/MIA vigil in 1986. Prior to the May 18, 1994 60-day public comment period, the Park Service had received less than 50 complaints about activists on First Amendment demonstration sites.

(That should be the end of the story, right? Wrong. It appears that the Park Service doesn't give a damn about how the public really feels. The call for public comment was nothing more than a technicality required by law, the results of which Park Service officials said they were not obligated to act upon. The Park Service is going to get rid of the POW/MIA activists, by hook or crook, and the only question left now is when and how).


BELTWAY MEDIA IGNORED FRAUD
Not one news organization, with the exception of the STARS AND STRIPES (which put the story out on the wire service), reported the mail fraud scandal. Instead, the Washington Post and CNN produced one-sided reports on the terrible "T-shirt Pollution" on the Mall, never bothering to look below the surface for the real story of the who, what, when and how behind the regulation change and damage such a change will do to the right of free speech.

THE BOTTOM LINE

Money, politics and greed - that same unholy alliance which caused the abandonment of Vietnam veterans during and after the war in Southeast Asia, is the motivation behind the effort to evict The Last Firebase. If that alliance succeeds, Scruggs will be praised by the pro-Hanoi Kerry crowd for silencing the voice of the POW/MIAs, lauded by the uppity arts commission and the Park Service for making the memorial a "pretty tourist attraction." He will no doubt be thanked by Guest Services (perhaps with a "donation" for his "maintenance" of The Wall charity?) for getting rid of "competing free-speech" demonstrators.

Then, unless he's in jail for fraudulent fund raising, Scruggs will continue to smile all the way to the bank and a Guest Services employee with a foreign accent will be selling Scruggs' copyrighted "Three Servicemen Statue" t-shirts, coffee mugs, statues, pins, patches and other Vietnam "military art" items out of a brand new kiosk located - you guessed it - on The Last Firebase's First Amendment demonstration site.

__________________

Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions of 1798: "In questions of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 03-15-2004, 10:11 AM
SuperScout's Avatar
SuperScout SuperScout is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Out in the country, near Dripping Springs TX
Posts: 5,734
Distinctions
VOM Contributor 
Default Thanks, Sis and David

For doing the research, and posting this eye-opening expose of those that have harmed the efforts of the POW/MIA groups. An unconscionable crime has been commited by John Kerry, aided and abetted by John McCain; both men deserve our contempt and utter disdain.
__________________
One Big Ass Mistake, America

"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 03-15-2004, 11:53 AM
Seascamp Seascamp is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 3,754
Distinctions
VOM Contributor 
Default Strange bed fellows....?

I was working in Vietnam during the April 2000 25th celebrations when the Honorable Sen. McCain was there and totally slam-dunking the current Stalinist regime for POW abuses. It got the Red Party Bubbas all riled up, in total denial, and the crap was hitting the fan, big time. So much so that I felt it best to go back to Singapore and wait out the crap-storm. Good idea I think because some of the southern VN population was stirring a bit, but stirring not over abuse of US POWs, no, but stirring about the tens and tens of thousands of Vietnamese who have simply gone poof into thin air.

So the fact that Sen. McCain finds common cause with Sen. Kerry; who is an intense advocate of the current VN Stalinist regime and their attendant human rights abuses, seems to be more than a bit unusual. But politics renders some strange bedfellows I suppose and the McCain-Kerry link-up has to be one of the strangest.
There is also an elected representative out of Texas who was also a Hanoi POW and he calls the Kerry positioning as it is. But his thoughts are purely back page stuff and don?t see the light of day very much at all. Too bad, as it certainly contrasts with Sen. McCain?s political allegiances and publicly professed positions that, in turn, seem to be opposite of what he himself was hollering about in Vietnam.

So who knows about all of this, I certainly don?t and don?t pretend to. I salute to all former POWs that suffered and died at the hands of the Stalinists.

Scamp
__________________
I'd rather be a hammer than a nail, yes I would, I really would.
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
John Kerry 39mto39g General Posts 5 07-25-2006 04:44 PM
John Kerry 39mto39g General Posts 7 05-29-2006 04:35 PM
GWB Ended His Flyin Career SUSPENDED FROM FLYING!! exlrrp Political Debate 8 03-13-2004 08:57 AM
John Kerry ???? MM38084 Political Debate 30 02-23-2004 04:17 PM
considering military officer career - seeking advice thebrad General Posts 47 12-06-2002 10:10 AM

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:44 AM.


Powered by vBulletin, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.