If I can believe what I've read, Kerry served a grand total of 4 months in 'Nam. Definitely a paragon of heroism. I was just in HS during his tour of duty, too young to be drafted or enlist, so I'm not an eyewitness - so take that statement with a grain of salt.
Neither Kerry nor Bush can use their military service to defend their ability to perform the duties of Commander in Chief. Their qualifications lie elsewhere. Bush has never used his military experience to justify his qualifications. Kerry has. Kerry deserves to be scrutinized based on his claims - claims that Bush has never pretended to make. So, maybe all this just simply points to character. A qualification that we should all put a lot of stock in to.
And deferring more to the UN which has long held an anti-US bias gives me the warm fuzzies for sure.
[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 08-23-04 AT 07:37PM (CST)[/font][br][br]"Bush has never used his military experience to justify his qualifications."
[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 08-24-04 AT 08:24AM (CST)[/font][br][br]First, there was pastime in the US of finding ways to get out military obligations during the Viet Nam War--go to Canada, become a school teacher, get married and have a child, stay in school, join the ANG. The middle class and wealthy (Particularly caucasions) were extremely successfulk. Therefore, Kerry's service does mean something. Second, if you are going to go back 30-40 years to judge a candidate, then maybe that old, tired chestnut of W's DUI should be brought up and we should judge him on that. Which means in both cases that silliness is rampant. I am very disappointed in both candidates, their parties and everyone else involved in this campaign that it will probably go down in history as not only the most expensive, but also the dirtiest. Unfortunately, this speaks more about the character of both candidates (and those around them) than anything else at the moment. (As an aside, Bush denouncing the 527's is too little, too late)
Some of you might be interested in a Washington Post story (I read it yesterday) They did an investigation and found BOTH sides (relating to the swift boat controversy) to be incomplete and flawed. Could it be NO BODY is right if everyone is WRONG? It was a long time ago, peoples perceptions and memories are going to vary. It has also occured to me that if the politicians had put this much energy into Viet Nam 30 years ago, there might be a few less names on the wall.
I am with those of you who would prefer to have the candidates move on to current issues.
And speaking of current issues I pose this question even though I know the answer, who is the AFL-CIO supporting, and because I know the answer I already know who is getting my vote in November.
If it were required that I had witnessed every fact or truth I know to exist, that would be quite an unusual demand. I didn't witness the signing of the Declaration of Independence, but I believe it exists and was signed. I never saw John Kennedy's birth certificate, but I can state for a fact that he was US born and at least 35 when elected. Bob Dole is a credible public servant. The man takes viagra and likes Brittney Spears....he must be credible.
Does anybody know why this thread is so wide and stretched out, making it impossible to read without the slide bar? Or is it just that way on my screen?
I listened to John Glennnnn today, droning on and on about how "Bush should stop the Swiftboat comments". Not a word was said about the truth or non-truth of them, only that he felt Bush can stop them. Then I heard another commentator say that no matter what Bush says or requests, they ain't gonna stop, that the chief writer of the book has had an ongoing 30 year fued with Kerry that's not about to stop now.
I agree we should move on from the Viet Nam discussion to a review and discussion of the good senator's voting record over the past, say, 20 years, or last 15, or last 6 or middle 12, pick a number.
Yes, it is spread out so far to the right that I got tired (almost) of reading it (lol). What with the constant strolling from side to side. I tend to lean towards the left, you know.
Anyhow, I hope some of you saw the C-SPAN programming of the Kerry hearings from 1971. Absolutely enlightening, to say the least. I know he is surely not perfect and we may not agree on some things, but after all is said and done, he sure has my vote now.
[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 08-30-04 AT 08:55AM (CST)[/font][br][br]Well, I did not hear disrespect or vilification in his words, Don.
I heard a very passionate (and compassionate) young man caught up in a situation that he wanted those who could do something to know about. I heard the testimony on the radio on my way home from work, and then caught it again on tv later. So I listened twice (and you know I am a trained listener). LOL
His even-toned response to the situation of Sgt. Calley lead me to believe that he was thoughtful about the things soldiers are called upon to do; and while not afraid of war, understood that the means are as important as the ends obtained. I did not hear him blaming but acknowledging the things our young men were called upon to do in the name of "freedom".
It brought back the memories of the feelings I had when my best girlfriend's boyfriend -- barely out of high school, was killed in the war, and the conflicted feelings of my family when my oldest brother got a deferment but our neighbors sons did not.
My husband served in that war -- and even today we are influenced by the things he did and saw over there. Wars are like that.
Comments
Neither Kerry nor Bush can use their military service to defend their ability to perform the duties of Commander in Chief. Their qualifications lie elsewhere. Bush has never used his military experience to justify his qualifications. Kerry has. Kerry deserves to be scrutinized based on his claims - claims that Bush has never pretended to make. So, maybe all this just simply points to character. A qualification that we should all put a lot of stock in to.
And deferring more to the UN which has long held an anti-US bias gives me the warm fuzzies for sure.
Respectfully, he has. In the 2000 campaign:
[url]http://web.archive.org/web/20010107212300/http://www.boston.com/news/politics/campaign2000/news/Questions_remain_on_Bush_s_service_as_Guard_pilot+.shtml[/url]
They both use it (or used it) - and they both shouldn't - it's time for them to talk about real issues. x:-)
Second, if you are going to go back 30-40 years to judge a candidate, then maybe that old, tired chestnut of W's DUI should be brought up and we should judge him on that. Which means in both cases that silliness is rampant.
I am very disappointed in both candidates, their parties and everyone else involved in this campaign that it will probably go down in history as not only the most expensive, but also the dirtiest. Unfortunately, this speaks more about the character of both candidates (and those around them) than anything else at the moment. (As an aside, Bush denouncing the 527's is too little, too late)
I am with those of you who would prefer to have the candidates move on to current issues.
I listened to John Glennnnn today, droning on and on about how "Bush should stop the Swiftboat comments". Not a word was said about the truth or non-truth of them, only that he felt Bush can stop them. Then I heard another commentator say that no matter what Bush says or requests, they ain't gonna stop, that the chief writer of the book has had an ongoing 30 year fued with Kerry that's not about to stop now.
I agree we should move on from the Viet Nam discussion to a review and discussion of the good senator's voting record over the past, say, 20 years, or last 15, or last 6 or middle 12, pick a number.
The "clean Marine" of the right stuff days sure has changed his tune over the years, hasn't he?
Anyhow, I hope some of you saw the C-SPAN programming of the Kerry hearings from 1971. Absolutely enlightening, to say the least. I know he is surely not perfect and we may not agree on some things, but after all is said and done, he sure has my vote now.
I heard a very passionate (and compassionate) young man caught up in a situation that he wanted those who could do something to know about. I heard the testimony on the radio on my way home from work, and then caught it again on tv later. So I listened twice (and you know I am a trained listener). LOL
His even-toned response to the situation of Sgt. Calley lead me to believe that he was thoughtful about the things soldiers are called upon to do; and while not afraid of war, understood that the means are as important as the ends obtained. I did not hear him blaming but acknowledging the things our young men were called upon to do in the name of "freedom".
It brought back the memories of the feelings I had when my best girlfriend's boyfriend -- barely out of high school, was killed in the war, and the conflicted feelings of my family when my oldest brother got a deferment but our neighbors sons did not.
My husband served in that war -- and even today we are influenced by the things he did and saw over there. Wars are like that.