Romney Bails!

Remove all ads!

No. It's not. It's telling the Viet Cong that even our most decorated war heroes are war criminals. What do you think that told them about the gents in the Hanoi Hilton? What do you think that told the Viet Cong about the monstrosity of their enemy? Would you ever give in to such an enemy? Would you ever show such an enemy compassion? I don't think anyone can truly speculate how far reaching his comments were.

Really? I would think those men who survived the Viet Cong POW camps, and the families of those who did not, may not agree with you. Kerry's comments fueled a horrific fire that others paid for. Is it really surprising those individuals who paid for Kerry's freedom of speech chose not to vote for him? I commend those who exposed Abu Graib -- but Kerry did this to fuel his own career. That is not commendable.

Whether or not Kerry's comments added to the torture of our POW's is really speculation. Even according to ADM Stockdale's book 'In Love and War' most of the torture and killings were probably done before Kerry's activism -- the key word there is 'most.' He is still associated with the accusations of being war criminals thrown at POW's while being tortured. Fair or not, that is the path Kerry chose.

 

Being that the Viet Cong were in Vietnam and, therefore, already acutely aware of the misconduct of our troops, not a damn thing.

 

As Drew said, the NLF/NVA were already acutely aware of the horrors between by the US/GVN. That's, y'know, why they were in the NLF/NVA in the first place. At least in part.

You can't seriously contend that there were any Vietnamese circa 1970 who were unaware of just how badly they'd been screwed by American policy going back to '45. They might have been sketchy on the details, but 25 years of warfare of varying intensity tends to leave a mark.

Which, incidentally, is why the 'if we leave Iraq it'll be a bloodbath like 'Nam' argument is lacking. 'Nam was a bloodbath in large part because by the time the GVN collapsed the damn place had been at war for 30 years. Does anyone think that if the Evil Communists had won back in '54 that maybe, I dunno, there might have been just a bit less bloodshed in the aftermath?

EDIT: Actually, this all misses the point. The whole point of soldiering is that your very life is secondary to the interests of the state. If the process of discussing and revising policy causes you, as a soldier, greater suffering, up to and including death, well--that's what happens in war time. Force protection cannot be of greater importance than a public discussion of policy. And if it is, then that's probably a good time to end the war. Immediately.

 

Speaking of this, how the hell do you know that, T2? You automatically assume that he cynically chose to be an anti-war activist in order to get a quick ride to congress? It couldn't possibly be that he came out against the war because he was, I don't know, against it? If you hold the fact that he later used his military record and anti-war activism as part of his campaign platform and biography, I'm left wondering what you put in your resume. Do you skip all the details that you feel would make an employer want to hire you? What was Kerry supposed to do...just leave 1966-1971 out of his bio when he ran for office in 1972? Employers don't like big blank spots in your resume, and voters aren't terribly fond of them, either.

 

Well Drew, I'm sorry that MY OPINION of Kerry is different than yours. What I see is a man who jumped on the anti-war bandwagon for notoriety and publicity. A man who, shortly after getting his opportunity for national fame, set himself up for a political career -- I believe he went into the entire thing with a political career in mind. I find it pathetic that he chose to use that particular platform as his personal springboard.

But, according to you, his high level of integrity would never have allowed such things to be done intentionally -- it is mere coincidence that it happened that way. We all know politicians such as Kerry are actually saints among us and never have personal aspirations. They only do what is best for their fellow citizens. Take your righteous indignation elsewhere -- Kerry is as self-centered and self-promoting as any other politician.

Tal: I've never said Bush was a saint -- I didn't want him for president in 2000. I wanted McCain. But I disliked both Gore and Kerry more.

 

I do not know much about Kerry except that he was the target of the most succesful character assassination I have ever seen. During that election all I knew was that a blind monkey could do a better job than King George and his masters. The way the image of Kerry was created and controlled by Republican was a masterful piece of work. Public manipulation at its finest, sadly that is what most elections are about but the success and visciousness of that one was something else.

 

Agreed joacqin, but perhaps the character assassination was primarily successful because of the target, not just the efforts of those who chose to air the dirty laundry. I do believe some of the anti-Kerry propaganda were lies, but lies are most believable when they are close to the truth. Kerry was an easy target because of Kerry.

The democrats put the candidate most susceptable to character assassination as their front runner. Kerry was popular among the democrats, but just did not have enough support from moderates to get elected. He should never have been in the race. There were several other democrats who could have beaten Bush.

It's just like that this election as well. I don't think ANY republican could have beaten Edwards. Now there is a good chance a republican will win the presidency again. I don't think Clinton can win a national election against McCain. Obama has a chance, but it's going to be close. The republicans are starting to close ranks around McCain because they are starting to realize he is the republicans' only hope of holding the White House.

 

T2 - I don't know, man. I know some vets, although older than I, who still commented that after being in Vietnam, it changed them, and they were strongly anti-war after returning to the US. I think many of them opposed the war as a result of what they had seen there. I remember working with one guy who felt that the average American soldier who served in Vietnam had been completely screwed over, not only by the Vietnamese, but by his own country as well. I'm sorry, but it's not a hard stretch to believe that Kerry may be one of those who was actually changed by the war. Maybe that's why he became a politictian in the first place (I'm just really just guessing). I understand that there was a lot of optimism during that period, when people believed that they could change the world by becoming involved in something meaningful. But I could be wrong, since I was born after the "JFK years of Camelot."

I don't know if the bar for politicians and the political sphere has always been as low as it is these days. If it was, then that's really too bad. I would like to think that it's just a symptom of our own times, that it's THIS bad. I think it was a Obama who commented recently that if the bar was set any lower for politicians, "it would be in the sand." But I would, at least, like to believe that not everyone is as self-serving as you have portrayed them in your post.

 

Can you show me where I said this? All I said was that you were making unfair, unprovable, assumptions about John Kerry. That there were several possible interpretations of why John Kerry came out against the war and why he decided to run for congress. I don't presume, even for a second, to know what motivates any man. Frankly, neither should you. The truth is that only John Kerry knows why John Kerry decided to join a 20,000 strong organization of Vietnam veterans who opposed the war. Only John Kerry knows why John Kerry later ran for office. I don't speak for John Kerry, and neither do you.

Perhaps John Kerry did come out against the war solely for political gain, doing it only so he could get political points from both his anti-war record and his status as a war hero, but you have no evidence whatsoever to prove it. He has neither exploited nor abused his authority while in office (and has, in fact voted against his own financial interests on more than one occasion), and he would have made a hell of a lot more money in the private sector than he makes holding public office. To come out and act as if it's obvious that Kerry only came out against the war because he wanted power for power's sake, and cared not one whit about who was hurt in the process without even a shred of evidence to back it up shows an extreme and irrational level of bias. It makes it appear as if the only reason you hate the man is the simple fact that he is a liberal veteran and came out against the war.

 

Hate is such a strong word Drew, one I never used. I said I didn't trust him. I didn't agree with the direction he wanted to go in -- that's why I didn't vote for him. I have also met, and served with, many Vietnam veterans. The one's I knew had distinct opinions of Kerry, just as they had distinct opinions of Jane Fonda, MaNamara, and Nixon. I know several who still won't watch any movie with Hanoi Jane in it.

I exagerated the views you've been presenting of Kerry in the same way you have been exagerating mine. Our opinions differ of the man and I don't have to prove anything about how I feel, just as you don't. In arguments, such as this, both side always state their views as statements -- there is rarely an 'IMO' in front of those statements. I can't prove I'm right and you can't prove I'm wrong. Fine, get over it and stop trying to get personal with the attacks.

Chandos: Excellent post, definately points to think about.

 

My use of the word "hate" was an exaggeration, but I was using it as a pejorative which you obviously understood. Beyond that, I didn't exaggerate your arguments at all, and I've been no more personal than you, so feel free to dismount from your horse.

 

Wow, Drew, now you're implying that T2 enjoys bestiality? Sheesh, talk about getting personal.