Honest and related question here. Do the post-Vietnam era posters here care about candidates' behavior during the war? This has always struck me as a sort of generation gap issue. I can see how babyboomers can get their panties in a wad about protesters or hawks or what have you. They lived through it; it was quite poignant at the time, I'm sure. But, I was born shortly after the end of the conflict. I wasn't traumatized by my country fighting an unjust war (... in Vietnam anyway), or by people refusing to support our country in its military commitments. It feels to me like this concern over what Kerry and Bush did or didn't do back then is one that has been thrust upon me by an older -- and still politically powerful -- generation. Personally, I don't care. And, I'm wondering if my fellow Nintendo-Generation posters feel any differently about it.
I think it only matters if that candidate's behavior is consistent with our already established impressions of the candidate! Many were aghast that Clinton would be the first commander in chief without military experience. Many of those same people accept Bush's record, and now downplay Kerry's. At the same time, those who thought it was no big deal Clinton didn't serve, now rally around Kerry's services as if it's an essential part of a candidate's past. I suppose it was potentially a big deal when Clinton became the first president without military experience -- but that bridge has now been crossed. I doubt it much matters now to most people, including relatively old folk -- except as a means to affirm whatever opinion we've already formed. Sometimes i wonder why we put so much credence into what they did, or didn't do when they were in their early twenties. We would hope they've learned and adapted since then.
Odd how so many se easily dismiss the sacrifice of military service. I would wager that most in this generation would be floored if they were told they would be giving up years of the life. Then, you can pile on risking your life. Anyone who did their duty and went to War for the US deserves incredible respect. If they came back and protested the war (but not the soldiers), there were still doing their duty as a US citizen. If they used pirvilege to shirk their duty to this country they deserve disgust. Doesn't mean that they're not qualified for a job, but they are starting from a negative ... particularly when dealing with a position of leadership in the government.
first of all kerry should be commended by all americans for his service in vietnam. i think even the swift boat veterans could agree on this point. second, his protesting of the war on his return could also be viewed favorably, as history has largely judged the vietnam war, or at least the manner in which it was prosecuted, as a tragic mistake. why then has kerry's service has become an issue? two reasons, first, kerry not only protested the war, but fabricated stories about atrocities, and associated with groups who were actively giving aid and comfort to the enemy. second, kerry has fetishized his tour of duty and used it as a tool to discredit the president, and done so at a time when this country is again engaed in combat. many of us feel that the manner in which kerry and his supporters have criticised the war, particularly during the primaries, has had the de facto effect of giving aid and comfort to the enemy. it is one thing to want to defeat bush in november. it is quite another to celebrate setbacks in iRaq because they might reflect negatively on the president. kerry has lately acted more responsible in this regard, and some of his recent statements regarding iRaq are somewhat encouraging. the vietnam issue will not go away however until kerry stops answering every question, or beginning every policy proposal with "i served in vietnam."
Kerry didn't fabricate anything. At the wrost Kerry relied on a report that contained exaggerated claims and some false testimony. (where have I heard of someone doing that before?) Kerry didn't make up the atrocities he spoke about. The ones that weren't accurate were from a report that was later shown to be, in part, exaggerated and made up, though not by Kerry. But war crimes in Viet Nam were committed by the U.S. soldiers. That is not a lie, and to admit that those things happened isn't lying. But surely as a Bush supporter you can't fault Kerry for citing a report that was exaggerated or had claims in it made from other people who weren't telling the truth? I mean Bush and his team relied on Chalabi, faulty intel, etc. They said things that obviously weren't true, and yet you still support them. Kerry, however, learned about relying on claims that weren't wholly true prior to even entering the whitehouse. He comes into the position already ahead of where Bush was.
Kerry's service has been brought to the fore by the GOP, not by Kerry. If you actually listen to him speak, you will find that he will not talk about Vietnam unless specifically questioned about it. In addition, I have not heard him make a single statement about Bush's "service" unless specifically asked.
Bush is terribly vulnerable on the "Vietnam issue," so it's important that war-mongering conservatives remove that advantage from Kerry, who actually served his country. If it means lying about and distorting Kerry's numerous war medals, then so be it. This is, after all, the same campaign that told South Carolina voters that former POW John McCain was unstable and had fathered minority children out of wedlock.
As for those atrocities he was referring to the free-fire zones, and his military record shows that he was in those areas. So I would tend to believe what he says about them. The whole free-fire policy was an atrocity.
I never understood this giving comfort or hope or whatever to the enemy argument. First of all, that's just a backdoor way of calling people traitors for doing something they have a right to do. Secondly, I doubt the Iraqi insurgents, watch Dan Rather and the CBS, and know exactly what's going on over here.
Please cite the atrocities that Kerry said he witnessed, that were later proven not to have happened.
well, saddam got strategic intelligence from cnn (schwarzkopf actually made use of it the night GW1 started), so i wouldn't be surprised if the insurgents have access to american tv. also, i appreciate the implied ackowledgement that CBS and Rather are biased!
Yes, you won't find truthful journalists like Jayson Blair, Janet Cooke, Mike Kelley, Judith Miller, or Eason Jordan on newsmax.
