Text 1550, 170 rader
Skriven 2004-08-30 08:29:55 av John Hull (1:379/1.99)
Kommentar till text 1548 av FRANK SCHEIDT (1:123/140)
Ärende: SWIFT BOATERS IGNORE BUSH
=================================
30 Aug 04 07:49, FRANK SCHEIDT wrote to GARY MOORE:
FS> -=> Quoting Gary Moore to Frank Scheidt <=-
GM>> Vietnam wasn't bad enough the first time around.
FS>> And John Kerry thought he'd be considered a hero, Bush a coward
GM>> Amazing, isn't it? The Democratic Party apparently thought it was
GM>> going to ride the controversy over Bush's missing time in the
GM>> National Guard right into the White House with John Kerry at the
GM>> controls of their swift boat.
FS> Actually there's no real evidence that GWB *did* miss any time
FS> during his tour of duty in the Texas Air National Guard.
GM>> Lost, now, because of their posturing and the
GM>> response from some very bitter, and often dishonest veterans,
FS> I'm certain some of the vets involved here -- on *both* sides of
FS> the controversy -- are dishonest. I have no way of know which is
FS> which. However one thing is apparent, one group has a great deal
FS> of anger directed at Kerry.
GM>> is any
GM>> worthwhile, in-depth discussion of America's future and what the
GM>> candidates might do about health care, unemployment, education,the
GM>> economy, national security, databases and privacy issues, the
GM>> continued influx of people from Mexico and other countries to the
GM>> south,plans for any continued involvement in Iraq, etc. And that's
GM>> a BIG ETCETERA.
FS> True, those issues *are* important and should be addressed.
FS> Kerry's decision to drag the nearly-forgotten Vietnam War into
FS> the election discussion has muddied the waters completely.
GM>> I'm not impressed with the tactics or candidate of either of the
GM>> two major parties.
FS> Political campaigns are *never* nice, clean, clear-cut events,
FS> discussing issues, though all candidates will always claim that's
FS> what they want.
FS>> ... heh heh heh ... now Kerry is fighting for his political life!
GM>> He's running for the office of President. He'll win, or he'll
GM>> lose. There's not much more you can see beyond that, Frank.
FS> How about *higher* office -- say Moderator of a FidoNet echo?
FS>> And it's all because *he* wanted to drag the Vietnam War into
FS>> this presidential campaign!!
GM>> I don't know who's idea it was to play up his involvement in
GM>> Vietnam,but he was there. And he protested the war during and
GM>> afterwards,like may others of his generation did. And for those
GM>> reasons, he appeals to some. Maybe you haven't noticed, but this
GM>> country continues to be split almost in half when it comes to
GM>> putting our sons and daughters in harm's way.
FS> Actually it's the very rare parent who wants to see his offspring
FS> enter *any* dangerous situation. However when a war must be
FS> fought -- as the so-called "War on Terrorism" must be -- it's
FS> best that the young do the fighting. They are both more agile
FS> and less reluctant to do the needed dangerous things.
GM>> Many people didn't buy the
GM>> reasons for the U.S. being in Vietnam. You may have even heard of
GM>> a book or two by people such as Robert McNamara, who
GM>> second-guessed involvement in that war.
FS> *I*, at first, thought the Vietnam War was justified but soon
FS> changed my mind and, since I no-longer could see any national
FS> interest there, thought it should be abandoned. Now "won", but
FS> simply abandoned. After all, if we had really wanted to we could
FS> have put the power of the nation behind the effort and could have
FS> defeated the Vietnamese fairly easily -- though not without a lot
FS> of casualties.
GM>> The same type of controversy swirls around
GM>> the U.S. involvement in Iraq.
FS> The critical difference, though, is this: We have a great
FS> national interest in the Iraq war.
GM>> The problem with the continued focus on
GM>> Vietnam is that it takes us into the past and away from the more
GM>> pressing issues of the present and any impending events of the
GM>> future.
FS> Agreed!
GM>> The Swift Boat Vets,the Republicans and Democrats alike who
GM>> continue to focus on Vietnam,the validity of military claims, and
GM>> allegations about Purple Hearts,during this campaign for President
GM>> are doing no one a great service when the more important matters of
GM>> the present and future are being neglected. There were 35 years to
GM>> address questionable claims about Purple Hearts, and there will be
GM>> many more years after the election to resolve any questions, but
GM>> _NOW_ the citizens of this country should be hearing a discussion
GM>> of issues, debates about domestic and foreign policy,and the
GM>> candidates' plans for the future of the country.
FS> Kerry's handlers have done this nation a great disservice by
FS> having him make his Vietnam War service the prime issue in the
FS> election campaign.
GM>> President Bush has asked that the commercials by these groups
GM>> stop. Kerry has asked that they stop. These groups aren't doing
GM>> this country a favor by steering the national discourse away from
GM>> an exploration of THE POSSIBILITIES and into a quagmire of smears
GM>> and allegations about a war that ended - for many of us - more than
GM>> 30 years ago.
FS> Since neither Kerry nor Bush can stop those groups that means
FS> that there is a *tremendous* amount of formerly bottled-up anger
FS> involved.
GM>> The "Swift Boat Vets" are missing that part of the picture.
FS> True ...
Don't let him talk you into thinking its Bush's fault for any of this. And
don't think that Kerry's handlers had anything to do with it either. John
Kerry is the only one to blame. He made the decision way back in 1968 to use
his Vietnam service as a political stepping stone. He fully intended to parlay
his medals and his military service into a bid for high political office, a
JFK-like approach to things.
Now, today, he tried to use that service as the raison d'etre to vote him into
the White House. But, he's made claims that can't be supported and can't stand
close scrutiny. You don't get 254 former colleagues calling you a liar and a
fake unless there is sufficient grounds to do so. Those guys wouldn't have
come forward if his claims were anywhere near true. But here again, its his
own fault for stirring them up because of his 1971 Senate testimony. Even
without the medal controversy, that would have brought them howling out of the
woods in protest.
Then there is his voting record in the Senate. That is damning enough just by
itself.
You and others complain about the nasty campaigning, but I haven't seen any
such coming from the Bush camp. They haven't initiated any of it, only
responded to the ads run by Kerry and his supporters. They have done an
admirable job of giving Kerry enough rope to hang himself with. Kerry keeps
yelping about the "issues" but I haven't seen him discuss any of them in
detail. He hasn't put forth any plans for anything - and I don't count 15-sec
sound bites as plans - while taking Bush to task for not doing enough or doing
it wrong, or whatever.
The Democrats made the mistake of running a dilitante, and an elitist with an
inflated idea of his own worth. They have nothing to run on except the
trashing of their opponent by whatever means they can. People will tolerate a
lot of things, but they won't tolerate fakes and liars. Its evident where the
trend is going in the polls. Kerry didn't get a bounce out of his convention,
and some polls even gave a small bump to Bush. Polling over the last month has
shown Kerry to be flat and in fact losing ground. Polls this morning are
talking about a pre-convention bounce for Bush, showing him gaining
significantly in a number of critical states. It isn't the individual poll
that's important, its the obvious trend. And, predictably, as Kerry loses
ground, his accusations and innuendos get louder and more shrill, as well as
more petty and vicious in nature.
John
America: First, Last, and Always!
Go to www.madgorilla.us for all your Domain Name Services at the lowest rates.
--- Msged/386 TE 05
* Origin: (1:379/1.99)
|