Text 1595, 220 rader
Skriven 2004-08-31 07:29:00 av FRANK SCHEIDT (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av JOHN HULL
Ärende: SWIFT BOATERS IGNORE BUSH
=================================
-=> Quoting John Hull 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.  Not "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 ...

 JH> Don't let him talk you into thinking its Bush's fault for any of this.

I'm not blaming Bush for the Swift Boat vets attacking Kerry.  
It's *obvious* there is a tremendous amount of pent-up anger 
among that group.

 JH> And don't think that Kerry's handlers had anything to do with it
 JH> either.  John Kerry is the only one to blame.  He made the decision way
 JH> back in 1968 to use his Vietnam service as a political stepping stone. 
 JH> He fully intended to parlay his medals and his military service into a
 JH> bid for high political office, a JFK-like approach to things.

I've always thought it was a bit strange for Kerry to have some 
of his actions in Vietnam re-enacted so a movie camera could 
catch them.  That, in itself, certainly suggests future use.

 JH> Now, today, he tried to use that service as the raison d'etre to vote
 JH> him into the White House.  But, he's made claims that can't be
 JH> supported and can't stand close scrutiny.  You don't get 254 former
 JH> colleagues calling you a liar and a fake unless there is sufficient
 JH> grounds to do so.  Those guys wouldn't have come forward if his claims
 JH> were anywhere near true.  

It *is* impressive that so *many* Vietnam vets oppose him 
strongly ...

 JH> But here again, its his own fault for
 JH> stirring them up because of his 1971 Senate testimony.  Even without
 JH> the medal controversy, that would have brought them howling out of the
 JH> woods in protest. 

I, personally, think it's his *Senate* testimony which is really 
getting the Vietnam vets stirred up.  After all, the number of 
combat vets opposing his Vietnam actions are *far* smaller in 
number than the Vietnam vets who were smeared by his Senate 
testimony.  It's that much larger group which will hurt his 
chances most.  Though I'm no combat vet (my brother was in the 
thick of the WWII fighting and he has assured me I didn't miss 
anything worth while) I'm sure I'd resent it bitterly if someone 
appeared before a Congressional committee and accused *me* of 
such atrocities.

 JH> Then there is his voting record in the Senate.  That is damning enough
 JH> just by itself.

That's actually pathetic, in a way.  Here he is running for the 
highest political office in the land and he has a two-decade long 
Senate record to point to, yet he never even mentions it.  It's 
as if he had been discharged from the Vietnam war Service last 
month and is now running for president.

 JH> You and others complain about the nasty campaigning, but I haven't
 JH> seen any such coming from the Bush camp.  They haven't initiated any of
 JH> it, only responded to the ads run by Kerry and his supporters.  

I've followed political campaigns closely beginning when I was a 
pre-teen-aged kid during Franklin Roosevelt's first campaign.  The 
process has always fascinated me.  Hence I'm aware of much of the 
dirty compaigning which often takes place.  When I discuss it 
here, I'm simply recalling many of the things I've heard of and 
read about as they were happening during all the years I've 
followed politics.  I don't see that George W. Bush has been 
involved in anything other than straight campaigning.  I have 
*yet* to see him say anything about Kerry which was a lie.

  JH> They
 JH> have done an admirable job of giving Kerry enough rope to hang himself
 JH> with.  Kerry keeps yelping about the "issues" but I haven't seen him
 JH> discuss any of them in detail.  He hasn't put forth any plans for
 JH> anything - and I don't count 15-sec sound bites as plans - while taking
 JH> Bush to task for not doing enough or doing it wrong, or whatever.

I love Kerry's "discussions" of the issues.  He'll make 
statements such as "I'll create jobs!" ... and that's about it -- 
no details whatsoever.  Just *saying* that isn't going to create 
any jobs ... he never gives any details.  OTOH, we *know* what 
George W. Bush has done and can reasonably assume his next term 
will be an extension of his actions during his first term.

 JH> The Democrats made the mistake of running a dilitante, and an elitist
 JH> with an inflated idea of his own worth.  They have nothing to run on
 JH> except the trashing of their opponent by whatever means they can. 
 JH> People will tolerate a lot of things, but they won't tolerate fakes and
 JH> liars.  Its evident where the trend is going in the polls.  Kerry
 JH> didn't get a bounce out of his convention, and some polls even gave a
 JH> small bump to Bush.  Polling over the last month has shown Kerry to be
 JH> flat and in fact losing ground.  Polls this morning are talking about a
 JH> pre-convention bounce for Bush, showing him gaining significantly in a
 JH> number of critical states.  It isn't the individual poll that's
 JH> important, its the obvious trend.  And, predictably, as Kerry loses
 JH> ground, his accusations and innuendos get louder and more shrill, as
 JH> well as more petty and vicious in nature.

Politics is a fascinating game!

... Do not attempt to traverse a chasm in two leaps

___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
 * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140)