Again, Kerry is not using that as his only qualification. In addition, he was in the Senate for two decades and has devoted his entire adult life to public service in one form or another as opposed to Bush who (as John Stewart put it) "walked around in an alcoholic haze until he was 40." If you think Kerry's "only qualification" is his military service then you have never opened up and actually looked at Kerry as a candidate, which doesn't surprise me at all.
That's right...he just talks about it. Bush is living and dealing with the issues. Monday morning quarterback is one of the easiest jobs in the world.
I disagree with your assessment of his protests once he came home. The comments that I heard were that he actually saw "atrocities" being committed and had actually committed them himself. I NEVER heard him characterize the entire military or even the "largest part of the American war effort in Vietnam" as immoral. He did make the atrocites claim, which is the word that he said in the April '04 interview that he regretted using, but he never tried to paint the ENTIRE military that way. If you have quotes from back then that dispute this, please provide them. And of course the VAST majority of the country was right there with him regarding the validity of our reason to be in Vietnam. You seem to be painting him as a fringe activist, but there was a good sized majority of people at the time who thought we had NO business in Vietnam and I thank God that we got out when we did. It would probably have been better if we had pulled out in '67 or '68, but it could have been much worse, too. It is good to see that SOME of you can admit that this coalition is not even close to the kind of support we had for GWI, Somalia, Bosnia, etc.
<b>Originally posted by andymoon I disagree with your assessment of his protests once he came home. The comments that I heard were that he actually saw "atrocities" being committed and had actually committed them himself. I NEVER heard him characterize the entire military or even the "largest part of the American war effort in Vietnam" as immoral. He did make the atrocites claim, which is the word that he said in the April '04 interview that he regretted using, but he never tried to paint the ENTIRE military that way. If you have quotes from back then that dispute this, please provide them..</b> I just watched an hour on CNN. The quotes are there... if you want them. <b>And of course the VAST majority of the country was right there with him regarding the validity of our reason to be in Vietnam. You seem to be painting him as a fringe activist, but there was a good sized majority of people at the time who thought we had NO business in Vietnam and I thank God that we got out when we did. It would probably have been better if we had pulled out in '67 or '68, but it could have been much worse, too.</b> He and his supporters seem to want to immerse him in that anonymous mass of people who protested the war. I think if you dig, you will find that his criticism bordered or resided on a claim the the entire war effort was a war crime committed by the US. <b>It is good to see that SOME of you can admit that this coalition is not even close to the kind of support we had for GWI, Somalia, Bosnia, etc.</b> Who cares? There's more value in choosing right than popular. France, Germany, and Russia are not behind this endeavor for very suspicious reasons. Leadership is always criticized.
andy... but the dems keep calling it unilaterial.. which is an insult to the ones who are helping us..
I have seen the interview with Kerry from "Meet the Press" when he came home as well as several others and did not think that he was saying that the ENTIRE military was committing "atrocities." He did come out and say that the entire war effort was misguided and shouldn't have happened, but he did not, as far as I saw, paint the entire military as war criminals, just the decision makers. Again, if you can find quotes that are contrary, please post them. I don't have time to do your research for you. Puh-leeze. It isn't just France, Germany, and Russia, it is the VAST majority of the rest of the world that felt that they were being misled by the US "intelligence" that said that Saddam was a threat. It turns out that this analysis was correct and that we did not have valid reasons to go to war. Saddam was not a threat and could not have conceivably become a threat for a LONG time with the no-fly zones, satellite surveillance, and the oversight of the US along with the international community.
When 95% of the world is against us and the only partners we had needed to be bribed to join up, it IS really unilateral. The US alone made the decision to go to war, we provided 95% of the troops, 99% of the funding, and ALL of the "intelligence" that led us to war. We spurned the international community and thumbed our noses at the UNSC even while CLAIMING that we were enforcing UNSC resolutions, even though only the UNSC had the authority to declare Iraq in violation. Where is the multilateralism?
Those puss!es had every opportunity to say what they wanted to say to Kerry's face. Instead they chose the cowards way out and disrespected him once he was gone. Very easy to do. If it would of been me, while I was in service and Bush Jr came to my table, you better believe Id of told him what an absolute failure he was right to his face. I could give two ****s if he was my commander in chief, I have the right to vote, and express my displeasure with his crappy administation. Once those idiots have to server 3 straight tours or have to serve in Iraq AFTER their duty is over (thanks to bushs loopholed system of screwing active and reserve duty personel) Then I want to hear from them and their families.
if you were british.. and you had soldiers fighting in iraq.. dieing etc.. wouldn't you be a little upset when everyone kept saying how it was unilateral.. and just united states..?
you can say what you want about some of the other nations.. but even you say the british and austrailia joined us on their own.. without humanity promises etc... so that's at least 3.. the majority of it may be lead by us.. but by definition how can it be unilateral? the kerry ticket wants to talk bout helping us build relationships with other countries... isnt' calling it unilateral insulting the countries that are in it with us?
Thats because his handlers has seen what a stumbling bumbling idiot he is when he isnt given very precise verbatim to read. Anyone catch Bush on Meet the press a while back....Thats the bumbling idiot some of you praise so highly? I mean as much as I can appreciate the Neocons fear of Terrorism, did I have to hear the word madman 5 million times in one interview?
Well If we offered billions of dollars to Turkey and other nations to "fight" with us, am I supposed to believe that England, and Austria didnt get a taste too?
The British people are just as upset about Iraq as the American people are, maybe more. Nobody with a brain would try to claim that the UK had anything approaching decision making power regarding the Iraq war. They were and are on our side, but the word "unilateral" to me has nothing to do with whether there are foreign troops there, it has to do with who made the decision to go to war. WE made that decision alone over the objections of 95% of the world and several countries agreed to help us out. That is unilateralism.
How much aid do the UK and Australia get from the US every year? Didn't the administration make it clear that anyone who wasn't with us on this would face repercussions like losing money from America or not being able to participate in the reconstruction? Not when they were not involved in the decision making process. We made the decision to go to war ALONE. They decided to support us in that endeavor. As far as I am concerned, that lack of decision making input makes this a unilateral action. And you see that as a BAD thing?!?! We will never get cooperation from other countries (on Iraq or most other issues) until Bush is out of office because Bush made the decision to thumb his nose that the rest of the world. International cooperation is the only way we will ever make headway in the war on terror and this president will NEVER get anything approaching international cooperation because he is an egotistical cowboy who has chosen to flaunt his power and insult other countries at every turn.
Based on the "intelligence" given to him. "Intelligence" that has now proven to be highly exaggerated, completely suspect, or outright false. With the "intelligence" Kerry had when making that vote, I would have voted the same way.
And pray tell, what actions did the junior war criminal Senator form Mass do to improve our intelliegence gatheringl capabilities?
As our next President, he will fund them to the point that they will be able to provide ACCURATE information about terrorist attacks to pass along to the military so that we can covertly go in and take the idiots out. EDIT: If it is fair for you to call Kerry a "war criminal," do you also believe that Bush should be labeled a "deserter?"
