Kerry concentrated so much on his military background at the DNC, it's interesting to find out what some[/i on active duty actually think of the man...maybe instead of letting the six undecided voters in Ohio decide the election, we should just let the military vote and go with whomever they choose? http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/25935.htm -- New York Post DEM'S MARINE MISFIRE By STEFAN C. FRIEDMAN uly 31, 2004 -- SCRANTON, Pa. — John Kerry's heavily hyped cross-country bus tour stumbled out of the blocks yesterday, as a group of Marines publicly dissed the Vietnam War hero in the middle of a crowded restaurant. Kerry was treating running mate Sen. John Edwards and his wife, Elizabeth, to a Wendy's lunch in Newburgh, N.Y., for their 27th wedding anniversary — an Edwards family tradition — when the candidate approached four Marines and asked them questions. The Marines — two in uniform and two off-duty — were polite but curt while chatting with Kerry, answering most of his questions with a "yes, sir" or "no, sir." But they turned downright nasty after the Massachusetts senator thanked them "for their service" and left. "He imposed on us and I disagree with him coming over here shaking our hands," one Marine said, adding, "I'm 100 percent against [him]." A sergeant with 10 years of service under his belt said, "I speak for all of us. We think that we are doing the right thing in Iraq," before saying he is to be deployed there in a few weeks and is "eager" to go and serve. The Marines — all of whom serve at nearby Stewart Air Force Base — wouldn't give their names. It wasn't an auspicious start to the senators' "Believe in America" bus tour — a 22-state, 43-city tour that will cover roughly 3,500 miles over 15 days in an effort to carry some of their momentum out of the Democratic convention...
from the article: But they turned downright nasty after the Massachusetts senator thanked them "for their service" and left. "He imposed on us and I disagree with him coming over here shaking our hands," one Marine said, adding, "I'm 100 percent against [him]." That's not really what I'd call 'downright nasty'. I would call it disagreement. I don't think this is any big deal, but I will say that if the President came over to shake my hand, in front of cameras, as some sort of publicity thing, I would probably handle it like these guys did. I would be polite, but let it be known that I disagreed with the man on policy issues.
Geez you mean Kerry didn't tell them he had 3 purple hearts? Although it's funny, that's exactly the reason why most political trips are very well planned (meaning the candidate knows who he is suppose to talk to and they know what tehy shoudl do). Apparently kerry decided to go off the script and he got some bad press from it.
If Bush supporters here are going to ignore responses and repeat the same themes over and over, I'm adding them to 'ignore'. For one last time, Kerry protested the war when he returned. There is nothing wrong and something VERY RIGHT about what he did. Many soldiers are upset over that; too bad. These soldiers are upset because they don't see him supporting the War in Iraq. The very basis for the war has been put into question forcing the White House to blame bad intel. Kerry has every right, in fact, a duty to criticize a President's use of questionable Intel to initiate a unilateral War.
You ever think maybe soldiers don't appreciate him protesting this war while they and others are still over there actually fighting it? Especially those, like those in the article, who believe they are fighting for a good cause.
Cohen, isn't the largest part of Kerry's problem that he was caught lying or exagerating about what he saw in Vietnam? Didn't he make accusations that were and could never be proven? Didn't he basically make sweeping criticisms of American soldiers in Vietnam without being able to back it up? It's fine for him to change his mind. The American democratic republic is all about collective intelligence. That's how I see Kerry's problem, as I understand it. Anyone have anything else to add or a rebuttal? BTW, the war is not unilateral. There is a coalition. It's just that some of the most popular kids arent' in it...
Originally posted by giddyup Cohen, isn't the largest part of Kerry's problem that he was caught lying or exagerating about what he saw in Vietnam? Didn't he make accusations that were and could never be proven? Didn't he basically make sweeping criticisms of American soldiers in Vietnam without being able to back it up? Haven't heard about anything substantiated; you did? It's fine for him to change his mind. The American democratic republic is all about collective intelligence. True, but what did he change his mind about? That's how I see Kerry's problem, as I understand it. Anyone have anything else to add or a rebuttal? BTW, the war is not unilateral. There is a coalition. It's just that some of the most popular kids arent' in it... We all really know that it's a coalition of 2.
<b>Originally posted by Cohen Haven't heard about anything substantiated; you did?</b> Absolutely. Just last night I was watching CNN Presents-- an hour on John Kerry. They examined his life. The primary complaint from other veterans was that he had portrayed the war as one massive abuse by all American soldiers. Certainly those kinds of events occured in isolation, but it does not characterize the largest part of the American war effort in Vietnam. Even Kerry readily admits much regret about how he expressed some of these matters. On that show last night, in an April '04 interview he begged off that he was young and angry. This is something I learned last night that I had never heard before: his best childhood friend was killed in Vietnam. That probably explains a lot about his change of heart. <b>True, but what did he change his mind about?</B> I guess you'd say the validity of our reason to be in Vietnam. <b>We all really know that it's a coalition of 2.</b> For material and practical purposes, yes, but for political purposes the coalitiion is much larger-- kind of like taking the nerds to a rumble. Not much help... but smart!
I just don't get it. Why do those in the military and/or those formerly in the military prefer an arm-chair quarterback who ditched "real" duty to a guy who actually served? I totally don't understand. Who would you want sending you to war? I also don't get people who bi**h about Kerry being a peace activist after Vietnam. Being in a war should should change one's perspective...
I don't get people who think serving in a war automatically makes you a good president, or even better than someone who has not served. And I also don't get candidates who use that as their only qualification. There are a lot of good, smart people in this world who have not been in the service.
i agree. when clinton was running the dems were downplaying the importance of military service. now they are trying to use military service as a political advantage, to the point of it being the central issue of kerry's whole campaign. the real issues take a back seat to the fact that kerry served in viet nam for 4 months. id rather vote based on the issues, not kerrys past military service or dubbyas past desertion of duty (allegedly), cocaine use (allegedly), dwi (allegedly) or insider trading (allegedly).
Since this is talking about military etc.. I just want to say that the democratic ticket seems to want to talk about building stronger relationships etc with other countries... but they seem to call this war unilateral.. I think all they are doing is dissing the british.. austrailia etc.. as americans we should be thanking the british for being on our sides.. i know i'd be ticked off if my country was fighting in a war and the people in the other country I was fighting with all seemed to say they were fighting alone..
Kerry's military service is but one of many issues in his campaign. If you see it as the "central issue," then you did not listen to any of the speeches during the DNC and you certainly have not listened to Kerry speak. Kerry talks about the "real issues," but all the GOP attack dogs seem to do is rail on and on about how military service doesn't matter (unlike in '92 and '96 when you would have thought that the GOP would NEVER nominate someone who hadn't served) and how Kerry's service is somehow invalidated because he protested Vietnam when he got home (much like MANY returning soldiers did. IMO, Vietnam, like Iraq, was a war that NEEDED to be protested as it was clear that the higher ups had their heads up their collective a$$es. Fair enough, but shouldn't those ancillary topics at least play a small part in the decision making process? I will grant you that there is no "proof" of the cocaine use or insider trading (though what are we to think of the "youthful indiscretions" comment regarding drug use?), but it is more than an "alleged" DWI, that one is on the record.
I am glad that the British, Aussies, and a few others are involved, but there is a VAST difference between this coalition and the group assembled by the elder Bush during the first Gulf War or the groups created for actions in Bosnia, Somalia, and Rwanda. "Coalition of the bribed" is a pretty apt moniker for this one with the major exception of the British and Australians. The other countries involved only got involved after we ponied up grants and "humanitarian aid" packages for their countries.
