Quote:
Originally posted by filtherton
Why do you care?
|
I care because Kerry is running for President. It matters to me that he lied about his fellow soldiers to further his own political career.
I have a policy of pre-emption regarding for whom I vote. In Kerry's case, I want to prevent him from dishonoring me - which he would certainly do if he were able to fulfill his promise to subordinate our national security interests to the U.N.
Quote:
|
How are you in any position to comment on whether or not kerry portrayed vietnam as he experienced it accurately?
|
I am literate and I have a brain.
Quote:
|
You have no right to claim that anyone was dishonored because you don't know. Are you pretending that this new veteran's group is any less biased than kerry?
|
I have the inalienable right to evaluate the information and make my own conclusions, thank you very much.
The veterans' (note usage of plural noun) group has just as much right to speak up as Kerry does. It is up to each individual to decide who is more credible. I believe John O'Neill - he does not have his personal ambition at stake, as does Kerry. He also doesn't have a long history of flip-flopping, as does Kerry.
Quote:
|
That they have less of an axe to grind? Certainly atrocities happen, they're just as much a part of war as apple pie and civilian beheadings. Is it that much of a stretch to acknowledge that they actually may have been endorsed by a c.o.?
|
Yes, they do have less of an axe to grind - they haven't built their lives upon the defamation of over 2.5M of their fellow soldiers. (It takes a lot of grinding to sharpen an axe enough to whack that many necks.) Military personnel receive training to immediately report war crimes. Is it possible that there are corrupt COs? Yes. Is it a common place, day to day circumstance - highly doubtful.
Quote:
|
Is that so implausible or are you blinded by conservative talking points to actually consider the possibility?
|
Here's a little story about that: No.
Quote:
|
The republicans made vietnam an issue way back when clinton was up for election. Kerry didn't start it, he just turned the table. If only the newt gingrich republican could have forseen that the next republican administration would be composed almost completely with chicken hawks.
|
1992 has absolutely nothing to do with 2004. Kerry has made Viet Nam his main qualification to be Commander in Chief. This is rather odd considering that he spent four months in Nam over 35 years ago. He mentions this far more than his 20 or so years in the Senate. Don't you wonder why? He also has avoided mentioning his activism (read: smear campaign against his fellow soldiers) upon his return. This part of his background was completely left out of the bio piece at the convention. Again, don't you wonder why? Could it be because Kerry himself has said he exagerated his testimony (which he has since admitted).
He is a fraud. I would rather not have a fraud for President.