Discussion in 'Politics' started by freeandfun1, Sep 3, 2004.
BUSH'S BID FOR HISTORY
Even I'm shocked by this one here.
A dogfight for the presidency
Only in an election year ruled by fiction could a sissy who used Daddy's connections to escape Vietnam turn an actual war hero into a girlie-man.
As we leave the scripted conventions behind us, that is the uber-scenario that has locked into place, brilliantly engineered by the president of the United States, with more than a little unwitting assistance from his opponent. It's a marvel, really. Even a $10,000 reward offered this year by the cartoonist Garry Trudeau couldn't smoke out a credible eyewitness to support George W. Bush's contention that he showed up to defend Alabama against the Viet Cong in 1972. Yet John Kerry, who without doubt shed his own blood and others' in the vicinity of the Mekong, not the Mississippi, is now the deserter and the wimp.
They are running scared. That piece is just pure BULLSHIT and I can't believe the editors of the NYT let it run. I thought even they wouldn't stoop this low.....
Well said. Trudeau is also using part of his upper-class tax break money to fund that $10,000 reward. I guess the trickle-down effect DOES work!
And...how does one think that Bush has 'risen to a level few presidents have ever reached'? Shouldn't that be reflected in an astronomical approval rating? I'm reminded of when he gave that speech at Mt. Rushmore where the camera angles had his head next to and in proportion to Lincoln et al.
And only in an election year could a person say that we should vote for him because he served for a few months in Vietnam despite the fact that he not only was against this war when he came home but chose to tell lies about his fellow veterans even while they were still fighting, dying, and struggling to survive in POW camps. He also has a decidedly anti-defense voting record (he voted against funding the troops and claimed that he voted for it before he voted against it, which pretty much sums up Kerry the flip-flopping doubletalker pretty well).
Just a few months? So no months is worse by that logic, right?
American soldiers committed war crimes in Vietnam is a lie? NOPE.
Coming out against a war that was wrong (and history stands on his side) after having fought in it was courageous and the right thing to do. He was against the war, not against the troops. Much like I, as we speak, am against the war in Iraq, but as long as policy makers make it impossible for us to leave, I support the troops and hope they do whatever is asked of them courageously and safely.
Kerry voted against funding the troops? Well, he did vote against the bill, but he had a REASON, which no one talks about. He didn't want to vote for a bill that would be payed with borrowed money. Then again, EVERYTHING is payed with borrowed money nowadays. Damn I wish we had a surplus.
First, you missed his point. his point is Kerry is only running on his four months in Vietnam. Nothing else. and while im sure having been in combat experience is good, i dont know how serving for a few months qualifies one for the presidency. There are other factors. none of which Kerry is mentioning.
Second, Kerry didnt have a good reason for voting against funding the troops. There is no excuse to vote to put the soldiers in harm way and not to vote to support them. Your right Kerry did have a stated reason for voting agianst it. He voted against it because we wouldnt raise taxes to pay for it. That makes it even worse. Think about it. Raising taxes is a higher priority than the lives of our troops to this man.
So you agree with Kerry that they were not isolated incidents and that they were committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.
I don't think it was courageous at all. He said all these things and appeared at events with phony veterans who made all these false claims. I also don't think it was courageous to give the North Vietnamese this ammunition to use as propaganda for the POWs. He also was way off base when he said that Communism wasn't that big of a threat and that the Vietnamese didn't know the difference between democracy and Communism (I think South Korea, most of Eastern Europe, and the millions oppressed by Communism could tell you how much of a threat it was and how it was different than democracy).
Separate names with a comma.