When Bob Dole Said No - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Scipio · 08-26-2004, 03:00 PM

This is an editorial I read in the washington post, and it pretty much sums up not how I feel about the swift boat nonsense, but how I feel about attacks on military service generally. It's short, good, and written by somewhat of an insider who's known Dole for decades.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Aug25.html

Quote:

When Bob Dole Said No

By Noel Koch
Thursday, August 26, 2004; Page A23

"They want me to head Veterans," Bob Dole said. "They" meant the Bush White House. His tone said there were things he would rather do.

I asked him whether he was going to do it -- take on the campaign role of going after the veterans' vote. "Probably have to," he said, although he added that he knew the Bush campaign would want him to attack John Kerry, and he didn't intend to do that. He didn't have anything against Kerry, he said.

The conversation in my old friend's Pennsylvania Avenue office took me back decades. In the 1970 off-year elections, Bob Dole, freshman senator from Kansas, campaigned so aggressively for Republican candidates that he was awarded the position of chairman of the Republican National Committee. It looked like one more giant step forward for the man whose war wound in April 1945 brought him near death on three separate occasions and kept him bedridden for years while other young veterans were starting careers. When he finally learned to walk again, he did it with a vow: "I'm going to get those years back," he told his brother Kenny.

But the RNC job was a poisoned apple. It came from the White House, and Dole was expected to pay an extravagant price for it. I was, in the way of things, the bill collector. For a brief period, I worked for Charles Colson. Chuck was one day to found an important prison ministry, but before his pilgrimage took him there he styled himself a hatchet man for Richard Nixon.

Colson ran a political operation in the White House, with outreach programs to various constituencies. My "constituency" was Congress, and my job was to get Republican members to laud the president and savage Democrats -- particularly House and Senate Democrats. The idea was to keep White House enemies on the defensive. Sometimes it worked. When it didn't work, it was because the members refused to be mustered into Colson's attack machine. They valued their independence.

No one valued his independence more than Bob Dole, who had struggled for so long to regain it after years of dependency on others. Colson never understood that; he felt Dole should pay for the chairmanship, and it was assumed I could persuade him to do things he preferred not to do -- such as launching gratuitous attacks on his colleagues. "They want me to get out there and accuse Teddy Kennedy of all kinds of stuff," he would complain. "I'm not going to do that. I have to work with the guy. Besides, I like him."

Dole was no shrinking violet; he was willing to attack -- indeed, his reputation for it shadowed his career for years. But he was not willing to be manipulated. He refused to be used, and Colson swore Dole would pay for his defiance. After the 1972 election Dole was fired as party chairman. His bitterness was palpable: "They invited me up the mountain [Camp David] and threw me off."

Dole is part of a political generation that took national service for granted. What separated his service from that of so many of his congressional colleagues was that he nearly died and then spent the remainder of a remarkable life overcoming challenges that most people can't imagine -- e.g., simply getting dressed.

No one is better placed than Dole to know how arbitrary are the fortunes of war. It is not surprising to hear John Kerry's wounds belittled by men who have avoided all risk of being wounded. Someday perhaps we will be able to plumb the neuroses of those who avoided Vietnam and have ever after had difficulty living with the choice. But it is surprising to hear Bob Dole doing it. Kerry not hospitalized for his wounds? Bob Dole was not hospitalized for his first Purple Heart either.

"It was just a scratch," he later recalled. "I think one of our grenades hit a tree and bounced back." He received a Bronze Star, but that came much later, and was a bureaucratic exercise having little to do with his service as a platoon leader in the extraordinary 10th Mountain Division on April 14, 1945, the day his war ended, in Italy.

Bob Dole knows as well as any person how capricious is the gleaning of medals. Some men deserve what they don't get; some get what they don't deserve. And who should know better than he that it is craven to belittle a man's service because it didn't extend over some arbitrary stretch of time?

Bob Dole spent little time in combat. But as a result of the time he did spend, he lay on his back for years, recovering, and helping others to recover.

I spent a year in Vietnam and came home without a scratch. My brother served two tours in Vietnam, earned three Purple Hearts (and was hospitalized, and does draw disability -- weird yardsticks used to measure John Kerry's alleged shortfall), and yet spent far less time than I did in-country. Indeed, his first "tour" lasted about 15 minutes, ending on the beach near Danang in the midst of the U.S. Marines' first amphibious assault in Vietnam.

Time in-country, how often a man was wounded, how much blood he shed when he was wounded -- it is hurtful that those who served in Vietnam are being split in so vile a fashion, and that the wounds of that war are reopened at the instigation of people who avoided serving at all. It is hurtful that a man of Bob Dole's stature should lend himself to the effort to dishonor a fellow American veteran in the service of politics at its cheapest.

There was a time when he would have refused. I know. I was there.

The writer was special assistant to President Richard Nixon from 1971 to 1974. He was assistant secretary of defense and director for special planning at the Defense Department from 1981 to 1986.

Sparhawk · 08-26-2004, 05:42 PM

Here's another good one I read today, pretty much sums up how I feel.

This one from the liberal rag American Prospect, but not written by a regular contributor:

Quote:

By Gordon Carmichael
Web Exclusive: 08.26.04

Print Friendly | Email Article

I am a retired U.S. Army officer and a volunteer two-and-a-half tour Vietnam veteran. I also wear the Purple Heart and the Bronze Star with a “V” device (for valor) and oak leaf clusters (MACV General Orders Number 154, January 10, 1969) for wounds received and performance in combat action on July 3, 1968. It happened in a now-forgotten place called Long Phu village, which is in Vietnam’s Long An province. So, as a Purple Heart bearer and a soldier who volunteered to serve his country in a brutal and violent war, I am stunned and disappointed and, yes, outraged when a fellow Purple Heart veteran, who also volunteered to serve his nation in a highly unpopular war, is unfairly and vehemently attacked and has his heroism challenged by falsehoods and innuendos.

When one bearer of the Purple Heart is attacked, all wearers of the Purple Heart, from all wars, are attacked. We are talking about people who suffered injury while fighting for their flag and nation and the ideals projected by our great country. We are talking about soldiers who went into harm’s way, like so many brave Americans who risked their lives and limbs in service when their nation called. We are talking about those who went to war -- perhaps not all voluntarily, but they went nonetheless. And for going, they are worthy of the deepest respect and the highest honor. To disrespect a combat veteran is to disrespect what our nation stands for. Those who went to Vietnam went into hell. Many survived, but many others have only their names honored and remembered on a black granite wall.

Perhaps just a quick review of that Long Phu event will give some perspective and illustrate just what sort violence could flare up -- and havoc result -- in that chaotic land. I was an adviser with the United States Military Assistance Command, Vietnam (MACV). On that miserably hot and humid July day, I was acting as senior tactical adviser to Major Ky, my Vietnamese counterpart. He was commanding the 648 Regional Forces Company, Army of the Republic of Vietnam. We were conducting a “helimobile” operation -- inserted by helicopter into suspected enemy-held areas -- in the Long An province. As our unit began a ground combat sweep through the area, we suddenly came under heavy attack from a large, well-fortified enemy unit employing accurate small-arms fire. We suffered numerous casualties.

Major Ky was killed, and I was repeatedly wounded as I moved among the troops. With Major Ky gone, it fell to me to gather the unit to repel the attack and aid the wounded. I had to call in those wonderfully brave medical helicopter evacuations, which were covered by our fire and by Navy jet aircraft providing close-air support. I also directed return fire by our unit and U.S. artillery fire on the enemy bunkers. This was all in a matter of a few terribly confused and frenetic minutes. Only the courage, steadfastness, and prior training of our gallant Vietnamese soldiers allowed us to fight off a powerful and well-coordinated, well-armed ambush. I still mourn those brave men who were killed and honor those with whom I fought alongside that terrible day.

Here I must add that these types of ambush tactics were the common thread of much of the action seen by most of our forces. In just the same manner, well-supplied and camouflaged enemy units attacked “Swift” boats throughout the combat areas. More than once, such boats provided our salvation during operations. We were supported, and perhaps saved, by men on those seemingly fearless boats roaring to our aid as we called for help. Now, in no way am I saying that John Kerry’s boat personally came to help me. What I am saying is that each and every one of those boats was a formidable and potent weapon supporting the U.S. mission in Vietnam. Every man who served aboard was a valiant warrior facing a wily and professional foe bent on destruction. Those men on those boats were heroes of the first caliber.

Soldiers go where their nation sends them. They are people of conviction who do the very best they can to serve with dignity and to survive with dignity. But the important thing is that they go. To attack any of them, especially 30 years or more later for political gain, is reprehensible, repugnant, and something my God considers a sin. To do so it to attack all of our brave uniformed men and women in all past wars -- and those currently in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, who are serving each of us.

I'm not a pundit, and writing about politics isn't my game. But it would outrage and sadden me to see a man who honorably served his country defeated because of an attack like this. If we fail to honor and hold sacred all the sacrifices made by those in our military who go when needed, we, as a nation, are doomed (not to mention damned). Those who remain silent and do not abominate the degradation of our military deserve that doom -- and should feel a deep sense of shame each time they look in a mirror or see our flag flying free and proud.

Gordon Carmichael lives in Harker Heights, Texas.

irateplatypus · 08-26-2004, 07:17 PM

How very sickeningly sanctimonious...

This man has known Dole for a long time and obviously knows that the man has great honor and respect for his fellow veterans. He knows that Dole is a man who is independent, who defies anyone who tries to make him a tool of their own ambitions.

And yet, when Dole does choose to make harsh comments about another veteran the response isn't "wow! if senator dole feels this way... a man of considerable experience and integrity, maybe there is something worth a second look." Instead the reaction is "oh man, senator dole has really gone downhill because he defies my preconceived notions."

To see a man of Dole's stature and dignity being attacked for questioning a veteran (Kerry) who testified before congress that his fellow veterans where raping and murdering as modus operandi sickens me.

smooth · 08-26-2004, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

How very sickeningly sanctimonious...

This man has known Dole for a long time and obviously knows that the man has great honor and respect for his fellow veterans. He knows that Dole is a man who is independent, who defies anyone who tries to make him a tool of their own ambitions.

And yet, when Dole does choose to make harsh comments about another veteran the response isn't "wow! if senator dole feels this way... a man of considerable experience and integrity, maybe there is something worth a second look." Instead the reaction is "oh man, senator dole has really gone downhill because he defies my preconceived notions."

To see a man of Dole's stature and dignity being attacked for questioning a veteran (Kerry) who testified before congress that his fellow veterans where raping and murdering as modus operandi sickens me.

I'm calling you out--put up or shut up:

Start a thread with Kerry's speech and explain to me where he lied and what makes you so upset about it 30 years later.

irateplatypus · 08-26-2004, 08:43 PM

kerry's speech? which speech? what did that have to do with my post about bob dole?

are we having the same discussion?

i'm talking about the washington post article listed above. it was a bit rude to call me out like that, but i'll take any challenge given to me. once i figure out what in the heck you're trying to say we can discuss this as much as you like.

care to clarify?

smooth · 08-26-2004, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

kerry's speech? which speech? what did that have to do with my post about bob dole?

are we having the same discussion?

i'm talking about the washington post article listed above. it was a bit rude to call me out like that, but i'll take any challenge given to me. once i figure out what in the heck you're trying to say we can discuss this as much as you like.

care to clarify?

sorry irate, I wasn't intending to be rude, just using the common expression: put up or shut up; as in, one wants to see the evidence or the other person needs to not complain about it.

The speech I am curious about is the one you referred to that kerry made 30 years ago. It seems to have you steamed about his character and I'm curious what he said that was so inappropriate or inaccurate.

I'm not a kerry supporter, but my wife is. if you have a legitimate beef about his character in regards to the testimony he provided to Congress in the 70's, I am interested in seeing your POV and where/why you came to your conclusion.

thanks dude, and no disrespect intended.

Scipio · 08-26-2004, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

To see a man of Dole's stature and dignity being attacked for questioning a veteran (Kerry) who testified before congress that his fellow veterans where raping and murdering as modus operandi sickens me.

I think this is what smooth is talking about.

The whole point of the article is that Dole has undermined that statue and dignity you talk about by making the rounds of talk shows to make untrue and dishonest attacks on John Kerry. Two purple hearts on the same day? Not true. 100% made up. Bob Dole is noted for being a reliable GOP hatchetman, and he's lived up to that reputation today.

But the article puts it so much better:

Quote:

Time in-country, how often a man was wounded, how much blood he shed when he was wounded -- it is hurtful that those who served in Vietnam are being split in so vile a fashion, and that the wounds of that war are reopened at the instigation of people who avoided serving at all. It is hurtful that a man of Bob Dole's stature should lend himself to the effort to dishonor a fellow American veteran in the service of politics at its cheapest.

And you're right. I see this not as words coming from a man of honor, but as merely words, to be judged on their own merits. Myself and others have found them lacking in both truth and character, and were surprised to see who uttered them.

irateplatypus · 08-26-2004, 09:56 PM

ok, i just didn't equate speech with congressional testimony.

i don't think this warrants a brand new thread... but i'll certainly do my best to respond to your questions.

my problem with kerry's testimony is this: a lot of what he said regarding the war crimes that were allegedly perpetrated by his fellow veterans are unsubstantiated. thousands upon thousands of veterans will tell you that they never took part in or saw the kinds of things kerry describes. kerry, as a young lieutenant (the lowest officer rank in the heirarchy) spending 4 months in combat accused the soldiers still lying in the mud in vietnam of horrible deeds. a lieutenant on a swift boat for four months is going to make theaterwide accusations of heinous war crimes, with responsibility going to the top of the chain of command? those who are familiar with military organizational structure know that it would be a rare thing for a lieutenant to make such observations about the entire American war effort with any degree of authority.

so what does this have to do w/my statement about dole? well, kerry had no problem testifying before congress that his fellow soldiers where acting like the Mongol hoard while his brothers in arms where held captive in enemy prisons. yet when senator dole, being at the very least kerry's equal on the issue, expresses doubt on something as trivial as the level of desert in an awarded medal people express outrage at senator dole.

it seems like there is a double standard. if the pertinent concern is the respect of veterans as the washpost article suggests, then what right do any of us have to look down our nose at senator dole when he questions a single veteran who, on a world stage, indicted nearly EVERY OTHER veteran he served with?

accusing kerry of fudging on his medals on a cable news show is drawing more outrage on veteran's respect grounds than kerry's broad attack on the soldiers in vietnam before congress.

does this seem right to anyone?

smooth · 08-26-2004, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

ok, i just didn't equate speech with congressional testimony.

i don't think this warrants a brand new thread... but i'll certainly do my best to respond to your questions.

my problem with kerry's testimony is this: a lot of what he said regarding the war crimes that were allegedly perpetrated by his fellow veterans are unsubstantiated. thousands upon thousands of veterans will tell you that they never took part in or saw the kinds of things kerry describes. kerry, as a young lieutenant (the lowest officer rank in the heirarchy) spending 4 months in combat accused the soldiers still lying in the mud in vietnam of horrible deeds. a lieutenant on a swift boat for four months is going to make theaterwide accusations of heinous war crimes, with responsibility going to the top of the chain of command? those who are familiar with military organizational structure know that it would be a rare thing for a lieutenant to make such observations about the entire American war effort with any degree of authority.

so what does this have to do w/my statement about dole? well, kerry had no problem testifying before congress that his fellow soldiers where acting like the Mongol hoard while his brothers in arms where held captive in enemy prisons. yet when senator dole, being at the very least kerry's equal on the issue, expresses doubt on something as trivial as the level of desert in an awarded medal people express outrage at senator dole.

it seems like there is a double standard. if the pertinent concern is the respect of veterans as the washpost article suggests, then what right do any of us have to look down our nose at senator dole when he questions a single veteran who, on a world stage, indicted nearly EVERY OTHER veteran he served with?

accusing kerry of fudging on his medals on a cable news show is drawing more outrage on veteran's respect grounds than kerry's broad attack on the soldiers in vietnam before congress.

does this seem right to anyone?

Scipio: sorry if this is considered a hijack to your thread. if it is, please let me know and I won't persue it here.

irateplatypus: I wanted to see what you read about his testimony. I think you are skewering a man based on insinuation and hyperbole. If you want me to see your POV, I need to see the parts of his speech that you take exception to--not your interpretation of them.

Incidentally, while waiting for your response, I read this:

Quote:

Kerry's Testimony

It turns out that the attack on John Kerry's war record was just Act 1. Now the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (and, miraculously, all the right-wing media) have turned to Kerry's antiwar record. After returning from Vietnam, Kerry became a spokesman for the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, a major force in the antiwar movement. In 1971, he testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. This famous testimony launched Kerry's political career and the talk of him as a future president. Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger can be heard fretting about it on the Watergate tapes.

This at least is a real issue, unlike the manufactured nonsense about his war medals. Does what Kerry said back in 1971 disqualify him for the presidency 33 years later?

There is some ambiguity, or purposeful confusion, about the precise objection to Kerry's ancient testimony. Is it something in particular that he said? Or is it the very fact that Kerry opposed the Vietnam War and worked to end it?

Many of those who condemn Kerry for opposing the Vietnam War are too young to have been politically aware during that period. The rest are fighting very old battles. But the fact is that the argument over Vietnam was settled long ago, and a majority of Americans decided that Kerry was right.

Members of the Swift boat group and like-minded Americans are free to try to re-litigate the basic Vietnam question. They say, from the comfortable perspective of 2004, that the antiwar movement emboldened the enemy and thus lengthened the war. That's their premise: We could have won the war by 1971 if not for Kerry and his ilk. Of course, after continuing the war for three more years, we still didn't win it. So even accepting the dubious premises of these Hindsight Hawks, blame for the lives lost after Kerry's testimony goes primarily to the leaders in Washington who kept the war going needlessly.

But most Americans came to accept Kerry's view that the war was ill advised and unwinnable at any reasonable cost. Only when that happened did the war end, and the antiwar movement made it happen sooner. If that historical judgment is correct, which we think it clearly is, then Kerry saved the lives of many more Americans in his antiwar role than he did as a Navy officer.

Kerry's testimony in April 1971 was eloquent, persuasive and damning. Consistent with his cautious instincts, Kerry never joined the extremist America-haters who hoped for a North Vietnamese victory, but instead he patiently explained to senators why the war was a disaster.

Undoubtedly, Kerry was overwrought when he declared that atrocities by American soldiers were ubiquitous. They weren't. But it is ignorant fantasy to suppose that the United States emerged from Vietnam unblemished by horrible misdeeds. What about the free-fire zones and the dumping of more munitions than during World War II? What about the Phoenix program of mass assassinations? In his new memoir, retired Gen. Tommy Franks recounts how he was tempted to kill inhabitants of a Vietnamese village because he feared they were communist sympathizers. Sometimes, temptation was not resisted.

But Kerry's anger was not directed at soldiers in the field. On the contrary, in his testimony, he blamed the Washington establishment. He lashed out at former Defense Secretary Robert S. McNamara and former national security advisor McGeorge Bundy: "Where are they now that we, the men whom they sent off to war, have returned?" Kerry asked. "These are commanders who have deserted their troops, and there is no more serious crime in the law of war."

None of what Kerry said was particularly novel or shocking. But his status as a decorated sailor sent the Nixon administration into overdrive to depict him as providing aid and comfort to the enemy, just as his current detractors seek to depict him as a traitor unfit to lead the war against terror.

The late 1960s were a moral obstacle course for young Americans, especially young men. Kerry is one of the few who got it right. He served, and served bravely as even President Bush now concedes. Then he came back home and worked to stop the killing and the dying.

George W. Bush, by the way, dodged the second part too.

-- http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...,4293259.story

Now, I can't make you explain to me why you think this is so relevant and not a mere smear tactic, but I can't understand your position without you doing so. You claim that Kerry indicted every veteran--you placed it in big caps. I interpret that to mean that you are upset about it and that you have actually seen this statement. So I'm basically asking you to show me the proof, or stop bashing on a presidential candidate.

pan6467 · 08-26-2004, 10:08 PM

When 1000's of veterans from Vietnam said the exact same thing as Kerry and yet Kerry is the only one you are attacking, it's very dishonest and politically motivated.

Read the book Friendly Fire, it was also a 1970's movie. Dealt with a woman whose son was killed in Vietnam by "friendly fire" and her search to get to the truth. Turns out she found a lot of corruption and leaders who would send men to fight only to bomb the very area later. Sounds like a very honorable war with honorable leaders in command.

Where are the GOP's issues? They are basing their whole campaign so far on Swift, and the Olympics. One is very very suspect by all the 2 Bush insiders having to resign and the second is illegal because it breaks an act of Congress.

Shows me Bush has no respect for anyone or anything and will win at all costs. That as a leader is scary. Because being a leader means you know when to compromise, you know when to take the high road and let others destroy themselves if they choose to wallow in the mud, and you have respect for others. When Bush shows me just 1 0f those 3 qualities I will have a different respect for him. Until then, IMO, he is a coward who hides behind any loophole he can get away with, and has no respect for the people he serves as president.

irateplatypus · 08-27-2004, 05:31 AM

John Kerry before congress 1971:

I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.

It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit, the emotions in the room, the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam, but they did. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.

They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, tape wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

go back and read the whole thing if you like at: http://www.nationalreview.com/docume...0404231047.asp

The problem with Kerry's antiwar activities during Vietnam is this: he made this broad-based attack on his fellow soldiers when they were still in harm's way in vietnam. the quote was used as propaganda for the communist regime of north vietnam against our POWs. if kerry had witnessed these things in the war why did he not report them to the chain of command himself? as a future AF officer, I can tell you with some authority that the idea of keeping these things underwraps is CRIMINAL. so... either he witnessed these events and kept them from being reported (which is criminal) or he did not see them and reported hearsay before congress that was damaging to his comrades. that could be construed as libelous considering the severity of the charges.

relevance to thread: the washpost article concluded that bob dole had done a less than honorable thing by criticizing kerry... citing a lack of fidelity to veteran's respect. how can you find fault with dole's criticism of kerry in light of kerry's record? especially when he is campaigning for the job of commander-in-chief on that very record.

pan, i've read more books than i can count on the war though friendly fire isn't one of them. admittedly, i have a preconceived bias against any book made into a hollywood movie. we all know that you don't think the GOP is running on any issues. though, when talking about a specific issue, you seem to find the ammunition to attack the GOP with zeal. yet, when the democratic candidate spends 3/4's of his convention speech and opens it with a report for duty... not a peep from the left about issue's relevance. i think by "not running on the issues" you should say "not running with my issues".

smooth · 08-27-2004, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

John Kerry before congress 1971:

I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.

It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit, the emotions in the room, the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam, but they did. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.

They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, tape wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

go back and read the whole thing if you like at: http://www.nationalreview.com/docume...0404231047.asp

The problem with Kerry's antiwar activities during Vietnam is this: he made this broad-based attack on his fellow soldiers when they were still in harm's way in vietnam. the quote was used as propaganda for the communist regime of north vietnam against our POWs. if kerry had witnessed these things in the war why did he not report them to the chain of command himself? as a future AF officer, I can tell you with some authority that the idea of keeping these things underwraps is CRIMINAL. so... either he witnessed these events and kept them from being reported (which is criminal) or he did not see them and reported hearsay before congress that was damaging to his comrades. that could be construed as libelous considering the severity of the charges.

your own quote makes it absolutely clear that he was reporting to Congress what other vets had told them they had done. You may know about Air Force regs, but you demonstrate little knowledge about libel and slander.

Now he may have testified to things that were over the top, but are you seriously sitting here and saying that what he said, that soldiers told him that they had personally raped and mutilated Vietnamese and that highly decorated vets had testified to committing warcrimes, was not correct?

If you want to engage in revisionist history about that war, feel free. But you now need to "shut up" about Kerry accusing all the soldiers of committing war crimes, because you haven't "put up." Your accusation was inaccurate and your own quote proves it--he constrained his testimony to the war crimes soldiers told him they had personally committed.

Now if soldiers in-country were hurt or harmed by those words, I do feel for them. As does John Kerry, of that I'm positive. It's a shame that testimony of some soldiers were used against others. Kerry felt he had a responsibility to tell Congress what was going on from his perspective and also to speak for those who weren't present at the hearing. I'm even sure that kerry would support your disagreement with his actions. But he would rightly be upset by you shoving words in his mouth that he never said, getting upset over those never said words, and then starting to question his record based on those never said words.

To sum it up:

I see your point if you claim that you feel Kerry is not a candidate you support because he testified against the Vietnam war. If you really feel that someone who did that is undeserving of the presidency, then all the power to you. But you demonstrate your ignorance or inability to use logic if you base that conclusion on red herrings, such as, that he testified that all soldiers were committing crimes, that they occurred the majority of the time, or that his statements were somehow responsible for POW's being tortured.

You should also know that, as stated earlier, I don't support kerry. My wife does, however, which is cool because she grew up extremely conservative and used to never even consider the other side of issues. I personally respect kerry for having the moxy to stand up for what he believed in at the time and testify against a war that he fought in. I can only imagine, from what I know about how we present our selfs to others and build our notions of justice and etc., how kerry must have felt when he mulled over what he was going to say. He fought in that war and must have had serious cognitive dissonance when he was figuring out his role in what he came to consider as neo-colonialism.

Now, how exactly does kerry's testimony concerning the fact that soldiers were telling him they were committing atrocities equate to someone 30 years later attacking his personal character? In fact, the most interesting part is that kerry placed the blame on their commanders, that the atrocities were natural outcomes of placing young men in inhumanely stressful situations and giving them orders to inflict whatever damage they could on the countryside. Dole, on the other hand, is saying what? that kerry didn't bleed enough to earn his respect? or what?

I've yet to see you post where kerry criticized the soldiers, but I have posted where kerry criticized the administration for their part in putting the soldiers in their untenable situation.

irateplatypus · 08-27-2004, 09:45 AM

take a deep breath.

my low opinion of senator kerry has nothing to do with the fact that he demonstrated against the vietnam war in and of itself. if that were so i'd have problems with half the baby-boomer population... and i certainly do not.

also, i do understand that he was speaking on behalf of his political group and not for himself entirely. i've read the entire transcript several times, so i'm aware of its context. but senator kerry did say that the warcrimes were "not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command." it's my interpretation from those words (and i'm not alone in this) that the warcrimes were widespread, that they were consistent, and that they were performed under the awareness of senior leadership. does that not, if not explicitly stated, implicate all soldiers over there... or at least cast suspicion upon the whole armed forces engaged in the theater? the north vietnamese thought it was a broad enough statement to use it in their propaganda and torture regimens.

and no, kerry does not deserve any admiration for the manner in which he publicized these indictments. he was a military officer with a moral and legal duty to report any and all violations of military regs and/or international law. he did nothing of the sort while in the service. so again, we can draw two conclusions from that. either..

1. he did witness the aforementioned crimes (as stated in a television interview in 1971, though later partially backtracked) and did nothing to halt their occurence.

2. he got those stories as hearsay from other veterans (though not witnessing any himself) and testified before congress without any additional weight to those statements.

I do not believe that Kerry intended his testimonies (congressional and otherwise) as evidenced by his statements on television shows after his congressional testimony to be heard without the impression of a firsthand account. What I am sure of is that if I were to make such severe accusations against fellow soldiers on such a huge stage... i would be sure not to exaggerate my charges. they would not be "a little bit over the top" as the Senator admits.

http://www.pipeline.com/~rougeforum/kerrywarcrim.html

smooth · 08-27-2004, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

but senator kerry did say that the warcrimes were "not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command." it's my interpretation from those words (and i'm not alone in this) that the warcrimes were widespread, that they were consistent, and that they were performed under the awareness of senior leadership. does that not, if not explicitly stated, implicate all soldiers over there... or at least cast suspicion upon the whole armed forces engaged in the theater? the north vietnamese thought it was a broad enough statement to use it in their propaganda and torture regimens.

enemy soldiers are going to use whatever they want to use--you surely aren't going to impugn one of our decorated soldiers based on the actions of enemy soldiers are you?

in direct answer to your question, whether kerry was leveling his charge against all vets in general, the answer is clearly no. You may not be alone in your interpretation of those lines, but that makes you no more correct in how you parse the english language.

Quoting the entire sentence (instead of half of it):

I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.

indicates that 150 honorably discharged and many other highly decorated vets testified that they committed war crimes on a daily basis with the full knowledge of officers--that's all it says. That's the correct way to interpret this. There is no way you can extrapolate that kerry is charging all vets with committing war crimes by this sentence. If you don't believe me, take this sentence into an english teacher for a third opinion.

The actions of the vietcong notwithstanding, and whatever deplorable psyops they were using against POWs aside, kerry wasn't accusing the POW's of deserving what they got.

he got those statements as heresay and plainly stated that they were comments others had told him. dude, it's then up to congress to dig up more evidence. He said "other vets have told me, so I'm telling you" that's all he said. it's not a criminal trial. if you are getting your notions of rules of evidence from law & order, two things you should know: one, it's a television show and isn't very accurate (heresay isn't "wrong" or inadmissable), and two, this wasn't a criminal trial so it isn't relevant.

congress was doing a preliminary investigation to get to the bottom of reports that had been going on for quite a few years. you are jumping to all sorts of conclusions based on your interpretation, and that interpretation is clouded by your preconceived desire to not have respect for kerry in the first place. you appear to be looking for a reason to justify what you already believe. and other people who share your desire are twisting statements out of context and then throwing an extra layer of contempt on top.

pan6467 · 08-27-2004, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

John Kerry before congress 1971:

I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.

It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit, the emotions in the room, the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam, but they did. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.

They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, tape wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

go back and read the whole thing if you like at: http://www.nationalreview.com/docume...0404231047.asp

The problem with Kerry's antiwar activities during Vietnam is this: he made this broad-based attack on his fellow soldiers when they were still in harm's way in vietnam. the quote was used as propaganda for the communist regime of north vietnam against our POWs. if kerry had witnessed these things in the war why did he not report them to the chain of command himself? as a future AF officer, I can tell you with some authority that the idea of keeping these things underwraps is CRIMINAL. so... either he witnessed these events and kept them from being reported (which is criminal) or he did not see them and reported hearsay before congress that was damaging to his comrades. that could be construed as libelous considering the severity of the charges.

relevance to thread: the washpost article concluded that bob dole had done a less than honorable thing by criticizing kerry... citing a lack of fidelity to veteran's respect. how can you find fault with dole's criticism of kerry in light of kerry's record? especially when he is campaigning for the job of commander-in-chief on that very record.

pan, i've read more books than i can count on the war though friendly fire isn't one of them. admittedly, i have a preconceived bias against any book made into a hollywood movie. we all know that you don't think the GOP is running on any issues. though, when talking about a specific issue, you seem to find the ammunition to attack the GOP with zeal. yet, when the democratic candidate spends 3/4's of his convention speech and opens it with a report for duty... not a peep from the left about issue's relevance. i think by "not running on the issues" you should say "not running with my issues".

In the Kerry quotes you use, he does not condemn "all 2.5 million" Vietnam vets, but talks of the soldiers he has talked to, the 150 honorably discharged.... vets in Detroit. Big difference.

I don't think the Right is running on the issues and I think Kerry did open himself to some of this. I find the whole focus being shifted to just that aspect pathetic and showing a lack of issue attention (by everyone, the media, the candidates, the people on this board, including myself).

If Bush were running on issues he truly believed in and knew were better the GOP wouldn't have to run these divisive ads that only reopen Vietnam and tears the country apart again and even more.

Kerry is acting very divisive also by just not ignoring the ads. He should ignore the ads continue arguing the issues and if he wants (and he should be allowed as he did serve honorably, regardless of what the ads say) he should be allowed to say what he wants about his service and it should be left at that in respect to every other vet out there. Unless you can provide US Navy documented proof he is lying, it is all just innuendo and he said- he said bullshit that takes focus off the true issues.

If people then want to argue about his anti-war actions after he got home, I believe that's fair (provided they use the WHOLE speech and not just the text they want and add inuendoes). It's still divisive and 1000's of other vets did it but it is a legitimate argument then. You have proof of what he did and said. It is still a non issue and extremely divisive but a more legitimate argument.

Personally, if I were Kerry, I'd ignore the whole thing. I wouldn't cry foul to the election committee, I'd simply tell the press my medals, my service and my official records speak for themselves, I don't have to answer to anyone about my service 35 years ago, because I'm older, wiser and I want to rebuild our country and this is how. Then let it go and make sure my staff and supporters not worry about it or answer the charges back.

By letting the mud bother you, you allow them to make people believe there maybe something to what they say. By ignoring it, saying my record stands on its own merits and I choose not to relive the war, you show people a strength that you can handle the pressure of adversity and remain focussed and steadfast.

Just my opinion.

PS. as far as him saying "a little over the top" Passionate people when impassioned, nervous and trying to explain things do go overboard. EVERYONE on this board has. Testifying before Congress is no different. We can all say we wouldn't do this or say that, but when the adrenaline flows and you are trying to make a point and someone asks you a question and you want the answer to drive a point home... who is to say that they would not embellish or "go over the top a bit"? That doesn't mean anything, and doesn't show me, personally, a character flaw.

pan6467 · 08-27-2004, 12:46 PM

Another note, don't want to have to edit. When not giving credence to attacks, by answering them in a way that is good for you and then moving on, was probably Clinton's biggest trait I liked.

He didn't publicly focus on the mud, he'd answer then go about trying to do his job. Like him or not as a president you had to admire that about him.

smooth · 08-27-2004, 01:36 PM

My wife tells me that kerry is dwelling more on issues than this one particular wedge.

But I don't agree with you that the best thing for kerry would be to ignore the accusations. People want to hear the accused speak and defend themselves. If they don't, a hint of legitimacy seeps onto the canvas. We see this consistently in criminal trials and skilled attorneys are well aware of this in their council to only keep the worst performers off the stand. Not rebutting the allegations is the absolute worst strategy despite all our federal and state protections explaining that one doesn't have to.

Even Clinton had to repeatedly answer his accused--he didn't just speak once and ignore the accusations.He may have been an excellent speaker and statesman in his response, but he definately gave an account from his perspective.

Unless you're watching kerry like my wife is, maybe you can tell me how he is publicly dwelling on the mud? Every time I've seen him speak, he is talking about his plans for the future, health care, jobs, education, & etc.

irateplatypus · 08-27-2004, 03:58 PM

when i've seen him speak he usually addresses the swiftvets issue with one gallant challenge or two... then switches the subject.

at least he's doing more issue driven rhetoric than his convention speech consisted of.

pan6467 · 08-27-2004, 04:18 PM

I didn't say ignore totally, I said just say, "I point to my record and I choose to stand by it now instead of living in the past here's my view for the future." You may have to say that a lot at first but.... That's where my Clinton analogy came in, he answered, made his point and moved on (mostly).

Kerry gets down and dirty because he does exactly what the right wants him to do. He changes his story a little, or says, "I was a little over the top." and so on. Then his staff goes to the Elections committee and accuses Bush (and it is shown rightfully) of working together with these groups and shows he is being affected by these ads. Clinton was teflon, he said do your worst, made his replies but always moved forward. (That was probably why he was hated so much because he didn't let anything get to him in '92 and he didn't stray off the issues.)

While he still focuses on issues but he is also very much reacting negatively to the ads in such a way that even if he focuses 95% on the ads, people see the 5% of his sight on the ads. By using my model above, and basically acknowledging, "yes theads are out there, but they do not merit any attention." forces the other side to get nervous and to keep attention on them, forces them to get further out there to the degree their ads become obvious total lies and they start looking foolish.

I'll use a Clinton example, in '92 election, Clinton was accused of smoking pot. He said, "I tried but couldn't inhale, because I'm allergic to smoke. But I truly tried." Then he moved on and focused on the issues. BOOM attacks stopped, what could they do, say "see he admits he tried it." Because of the way he answered people just made jokes of it and it lost all legitimacy as an attack issue.

Yes, it was a national joke, yes he acknowledge the attack, but he answered in a way that the attack had nowhere to go.

Again with Clinton and '92, he was accused of many affairs. He went on 60 Minutes with Hilary said, "yes we seperated and I was unfaithful but my wife and I got back together and she forgave me." Then he moved on and focused on the issues. BOOM... the ads stopped because he turned the tables and the 92 Bush team couldn't use it anymore. What were they going to do, say his wife forgave him, why should you?

Yes, he was Slick Willy, and his answers may not have been the truth, but he answered in a way that was respectful and moved on with more people supporting him because of the way he answered and moved on. Kerry needs to learn that from Clinton.

smooth · 08-27-2004, 04:38 PM

Maybe so pan, but one difference, that may or may not be significant, is that those allegations were true about Clinton.

We saw similar explanations from Schwarzenegger over here in California. There was much talk that the new trend in politics may be to just admit a bit of personal failure, defuse the opposition, and go on with your message.

But two points need to be made: that may not hold true for this type of assault. First, the accusations aren't even true and they already are laughably out of bounds. But some people are still not saying WTF? about them, so it becomes apparent that someone needs to call it to their attention. Second, the amount of money being poured into this campaign is *huge* compared to times past. It's quite possible that the opposition might have asked why the public should forgive clinton even though his wife did if it had the gumption or money to take it that far.

But I think you attribute too much to his reponses. The viewpoint I have is that people were content with the economy and domestic situation. They were safe and well-fed. That's why he was Slick Willy, because he was full of shit, everyone knew it, but most of the people were economically satisfied enough to just let it pass. I don't think that accusations became an issue or failed to become an issue due to the way he dealt with things--but rather due to the economic conditions that provided the context in which he was running.

I don't agree with you that kerry is speaking on the issue too much. I don't agree that what you suggest is a good strategy for an unproven candidate (Clinton was up for re-election, too, a factor I didn't list above) and I don't agree that he is even discussing the issue all that much. So neither case do I think your assessment is correct on that part. But that's just my personal belief. I don't agree that answering accusations gives them legitimacy nor do I think that ignoring them will result in their going away short of some external factor.

pan6467 · 08-27-2004, 07:23 PM

We agree to disagree, that's ok. We all have differing views of what we would do in any given situation but noone truly knows what their reaction would be until they are truly there. It is easy for me to say, "confront answer and move on." But in all honesty I don't know if in Kerry's situation I would act any differently.

As for Arnie, there were massive innuendoes and press stories going about his being close to Nazis and having to take cultural appreciation classes, and grabbing co-star actresses asses. Yet, Arnie confronted, answered and moved on and nothing stuck. Was it just his celebrity or the class in which he handled the accusations. I would have to believe the class. May not like his politics but I do like the way he handled the negativity. I think most people respect that.

Running to the election committe and crying about how much money the group has or who is funding it, IMO, shows me personally a weakness and that when the fire gets too hot Kerry looks to douse it externally and cries about fairness. As president, especially if he still has a GOP Congress life for him will be very unfair, will he not be able to move forward and effectively because Congress won't work with him? Will he be crying foul every time Congress disagrees and says no? (I don't think so, I personally believe Kerry to be a good man. But with his reactions to the negative ads, I do wonder.)

And THAT wonder is truly what the GOP wants. The defamation they know won't change minds, but Kerry's reactions to the ads. Kerry is showing weakness, and they will hammer that weakness.

BTW the example of Clinton was his first run in '92. Bush was not re-elected because of "it's the economy, stupid." and Clinton was able to focus on issues. Another big factor was Perot though. Make no doubt about it, in '92 Bush did all he could to try to find something that would stick to Clinton,but Bill didn't let anything stick and focussed on the issues.

Clinton never cried foul over any ad against him. Clinton knew his whole life was open to scutiny and that the GOP would try to spin things. But never an ounce of fear or showing it got to him. He'd give his smile and shake hands with people and look straight into the camera and say, with his little Arkansasian southern drawl '"George Bush wants to keep his office as much as I want to take it away from him." And that would be that, not an ounce of "why you picking on me?"... "This is totally unfair". CLASS ACT AND GREAT PRESIDENT (woulda been a helluvalot better had the GOP let him do his job)...... just hate his wife. Of course, Clinton had Carville to help with the fires also, and Carville is one ice cold sumabitch, but a great strategist.

In '96 when Clinton was up for re-election, yes people felt more secure and were more prosperous, BUT also Dole ran a very clean campaign against Clinton and IMO the better man won because the issues were what the whole campaign was about in '96.

pan6467 · 08-27-2004, 07:48 PM

Another thing the GOP wants from the ads.

Look at us, 2 Dems wanting Kerry elected but at odds with each other over how he should handle it and if it shows weakness. Divide and conquer. The ads, (yes are dispicable, yes divisive to this country, yes make us relive a very bad point in history) have but one purpose and that is becoming painfully clear, show how Kerry handles adversity and challenges. Doesn't matter if the ads are shown not to have an ounce of truth... they are showing weakness.

Only way to avoid this is don't play their game. Kerry needs to get a backbone, make his statements on the ads, politics is a dirty game, you can't keep crying to the Elections Committee and expect people to respect you. Move on and not cry foul. Show the public it doesn't bother him. Let the people like us argue whether the ads go over the top, while he focusses on issues.

smooth · 08-27-2004, 07:53 PM

ok, yeah. I was citing Schwarzenegger as being an example supporting your position.

lol, I'll just blame the 92' vs. 96' point on my surgery and pain meds!

so you might be right. before I was in agree to disagree mode, but now I'll say that you seem to have the evidence as far as politicians go--despite what we may have as examples from criminal trials. I'm willing to say you appear to be right on this then, guess I'll put that at the feet of the pain meds, too!!

have a great weekend.

btw, I'm not a democrat and I don't necessarily want kerry to win. but my wife is a supporter.

pan6467 · 08-27-2004, 08:11 PM

I appologize for the name calling... you Non Dem. (meant as a joke never know how people take things, esp. on pain meds...lol)

smooth · 08-27-2004, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

I appologize for the name calling... you Non Dem. (meant as a joke never know how people take things, esp. on pain meds...lol)

no problem, I wasn't offended, but I did have to take another bath!

...and subsequently redress my wounds

...but on that note, at least my wife is hot and a sponge bath isn't too bad of a late night option! have a good night.

08-26-2004, 07:17 PM	#3 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	How very sickeningly sanctimonious... This man has known Dole for a long time and obviously knows that the man has great honor and respect for his fellow veterans. He knows that Dole is a man who is independent, who defies anyone who tries to make him a tool of their own ambitions. And yet, when Dole does choose to make harsh comments about another veteran the response isn't "wow! if senator dole feels this way... a man of considerable experience and integrity, maybe there is something worth a second look." Instead the reaction is "oh man, senator dole has really gone downhill because he defies my preconceived notions." To see a man of Dole's stature and dignity being attacked for questioning a veteran (Kerry) who testified before congress that his fellow veterans where raping and murdering as modus operandi sickens me. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill

08-26-2004, 08:43 PM	#5 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	kerry's speech? which speech? what did that have to do with my post about bob dole? are we having the same discussion? i'm talking about the washington post article listed above. it was a bit rude to call me out like that, but i'll take any challenge given to me. once i figure out what in the heck you're trying to say we can discuss this as much as you like. care to clarify? __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill

08-26-2004, 09:56 PM	#8 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	ok, i just didn't equate speech with congressional testimony. i don't think this warrants a brand new thread... but i'll certainly do my best to respond to your questions. my problem with kerry's testimony is this: a lot of what he said regarding the war crimes that were allegedly perpetrated by his fellow veterans are unsubstantiated. thousands upon thousands of veterans will tell you that they never took part in or saw the kinds of things kerry describes. kerry, as a young lieutenant (the lowest officer rank in the heirarchy) spending 4 months in combat accused the soldiers still lying in the mud in vietnam of horrible deeds. a lieutenant on a swift boat for four months is going to make theaterwide accusations of heinous war crimes, with responsibility going to the top of the chain of command? those who are familiar with military organizational structure know that it would be a rare thing for a lieutenant to make such observations about the entire American war effort with any degree of authority. so what does this have to do w/my statement about dole? well, kerry had no problem testifying before congress that his fellow soldiers where acting like the Mongol hoard while his brothers in arms where held captive in enemy prisons. yet when senator dole, being at the very least kerry's equal on the issue, expresses doubt on something as trivial as the level of desert in an awarded medal people express outrage at senator dole. it seems like there is a double standard. if the pertinent concern is the respect of veterans as the washpost article suggests, then what right do any of us have to look down our nose at senator dole when he questions a single veteran who, on a world stage, indicted nearly EVERY OTHER veteran he served with? accusing kerry of fudging on his medals on a cable news show is drawing more outrage on veteran's respect grounds than kerry's broad attack on the soldiers in vietnam before congress. does this seem right to anyone? __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill

08-26-2004, 10:08 PM	#10 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	When 1000's of veterans from Vietnam said the exact same thing as Kerry and yet Kerry is the only one you are attacking, it's very dishonest and politically motivated. Read the book Friendly Fire, it was also a 1970's movie. Dealt with a woman whose son was killed in Vietnam by "friendly fire" and her search to get to the truth. Turns out she found a lot of corruption and leaders who would send men to fight only to bomb the very area later. Sounds like a very honorable war with honorable leaders in command. Where are the GOP's issues? They are basing their whole campaign so far on Swift, and the Olympics. One is very very suspect by all the 2 Bush insiders having to resign and the second is illegal because it breaks an act of Congress. Shows me Bush has no respect for anyone or anything and will win at all costs. That as a leader is scary. Because being a leader means you know when to compromise, you know when to take the high road and let others destroy themselves if they choose to wallow in the mud, and you have respect for others. When Bush shows me just 1 0f those 3 qualities I will have a different respect for him. Until then, IMO, he is a coward who hides behind any loophole he can get away with, and has no respect for the people he serves as president. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

08-27-2004, 05:31 AM	#11 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	John Kerry before congress 1971: I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command. It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit, the emotions in the room, the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam, but they did. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do. They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, tape wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country. go back and read the whole thing if you like at: http://www.nationalreview.com/docume...0404231047.asp The problem with Kerry's antiwar activities during Vietnam is this: he made this broad-based attack on his fellow soldiers when they were still in harm's way in vietnam. the quote was used as propaganda for the communist regime of north vietnam against our POWs. if kerry had witnessed these things in the war why did he not report them to the chain of command himself? as a future AF officer, I can tell you with some authority that the idea of keeping these things underwraps is CRIMINAL. so... either he witnessed these events and kept them from being reported (which is criminal) or he did not see them and reported hearsay before congress that was damaging to his comrades. that could be construed as libelous considering the severity of the charges. relevance to thread: the washpost article concluded that bob dole had done a less than honorable thing by criticizing kerry... citing a lack of fidelity to veteran's respect. how can you find fault with dole's criticism of kerry in light of kerry's record? especially when he is campaigning for the job of commander-in-chief on that very record. pan, i've read more books than i can count on the war though friendly fire isn't one of them. admittedly, i have a preconceived bias against any book made into a hollywood movie. we all know that you don't think the GOP is running on any issues. though, when talking about a specific issue, you seem to find the ammunition to attack the GOP with zeal. yet, when the democratic candidate spends 3/4's of his convention speech and opens it with a report for duty... not a peep from the left about issue's relevance. i think by "not running on the issues" you should say "not running with my issues". __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill Last edited by irateplatypus; 08-27-2004 at 05:45 AM..

08-27-2004, 09:45 AM	#13 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	take a deep breath. my low opinion of senator kerry has nothing to do with the fact that he demonstrated against the vietnam war in and of itself. if that were so i'd have problems with half the baby-boomer population... and i certainly do not. also, i do understand that he was speaking on behalf of his political group and not for himself entirely. i've read the entire transcript several times, so i'm aware of its context. but senator kerry did say that the warcrimes were "not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command." it's my interpretation from those words (and i'm not alone in this) that the warcrimes were widespread, that they were consistent, and that they were performed under the awareness of senior leadership. does that not, if not explicitly stated, implicate all soldiers over there... or at least cast suspicion upon the whole armed forces engaged in the theater? the north vietnamese thought it was a broad enough statement to use it in their propaganda and torture regimens. and no, kerry does not deserve any admiration for the manner in which he publicized these indictments. he was a military officer with a moral and legal duty to report any and all violations of military regs and/or international law. he did nothing of the sort while in the service. so again, we can draw two conclusions from that. either.. 1. he did witness the aforementioned crimes (as stated in a television interview in 1971, though later partially backtracked) and did nothing to halt their occurence. 2. he got those stories as hearsay from other veterans (though not witnessing any himself) and testified before congress without any additional weight to those statements. I do not believe that Kerry intended his testimonies (congressional and otherwise) as evidenced by his statements on television shows after his congressional testimony to be heard without the impression of a firsthand account. What I am sure of is that if I were to make such severe accusations against fellow soldiers on such a huge stage... i would be sure not to exaggerate my charges. they would not be "a little bit over the top" as the Senator admits. http://www.pipeline.com/~rougeforum/kerrywarcrim.html __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill Last edited by irateplatypus; 08-27-2004 at 09:47 AM..

08-27-2004, 12:46 PM	#16 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	Another note, don't want to have to edit. When not giving credence to attacks, by answering them in a way that is good for you and then moving on, was probably Clinton's biggest trait I liked. He didn't publicly focus on the mud, he'd answer then go about trying to do his job. Like him or not as a president you had to admire that about him. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

08-27-2004, 01:36 PM	#17 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	My wife tells me that kerry is dwelling more on issues than this one particular wedge. But I don't agree with you that the best thing for kerry would be to ignore the accusations. People want to hear the accused speak and defend themselves. If they don't, a hint of legitimacy seeps onto the canvas. We see this consistently in criminal trials and skilled attorneys are well aware of this in their council to only keep the worst performers off the stand. Not rebutting the allegations is the absolute worst strategy despite all our federal and state protections explaining that one doesn't have to. Even Clinton had to repeatedly answer his accused--he didn't just speak once and ignore the accusations.He may have been an excellent speaker and statesman in his response, but he definately gave an account from his perspective. Unless you're watching kerry like my wife is, maybe you can tell me how he is publicly dwelling on the mud? Every time I've seen him speak, he is talking about his plans for the future, health care, jobs, education, & etc. __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

08-27-2004, 03:58 PM	#18 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	when i've seen him speak he usually addresses the swiftvets issue with one gallant challenge or two... then switches the subject. at least he's doing more issue driven rhetoric than his convention speech consisted of. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill

08-27-2004, 04:18 PM	#19 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	I didn't say ignore totally, I said just say, "I point to my record and I choose to stand by it now instead of living in the past here's my view for the future." You may have to say that a lot at first but.... That's where my Clinton analogy came in, he answered, made his point and moved on (mostly). Kerry gets down and dirty because he does exactly what the right wants him to do. He changes his story a little, or says, "I was a little over the top." and so on. Then his staff goes to the Elections committee and accuses Bush (and it is shown rightfully) of working together with these groups and shows he is being affected by these ads. Clinton was teflon, he said do your worst, made his replies but always moved forward. (That was probably why he was hated so much because he didn't let anything get to him in '92 and he didn't stray off the issues.) While he still focuses on issues but he is also very much reacting negatively to the ads in such a way that even if he focuses 95% on the ads, people see the 5% of his sight on the ads. By using my model above, and basically acknowledging, "yes theads are out there, but they do not merit any attention." forces the other side to get nervous and to keep attention on them, forces them to get further out there to the degree their ads become obvious total lies and they start looking foolish. I'll use a Clinton example, in '92 election, Clinton was accused of smoking pot. He said, "I tried but couldn't inhale, because I'm allergic to smoke. But I truly tried." Then he moved on and focused on the issues. BOOM attacks stopped, what could they do, say "see he admits he tried it." Because of the way he answered people just made jokes of it and it lost all legitimacy as an attack issue. Yes, it was a national joke, yes he acknowledge the attack, but he answered in a way that the attack had nowhere to go. Again with Clinton and '92, he was accused of many affairs. He went on 60 Minutes with Hilary said, "yes we seperated and I was unfaithful but my wife and I got back together and she forgave me." Then he moved on and focused on the issues. BOOM... the ads stopped because he turned the tables and the 92 Bush team couldn't use it anymore. What were they going to do, say his wife forgave him, why should you? Yes, he was Slick Willy, and his answers may not have been the truth, but he answered in a way that was respectful and moved on with more people supporting him because of the way he answered and moved on. Kerry needs to learn that from Clinton. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?" Last edited by pan6467; 08-27-2004 at 04:27 PM..

08-27-2004, 04:38 PM	#20 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	Maybe so pan, but one difference, that may or may not be significant, is that those allegations were true about Clinton. We saw similar explanations from Schwarzenegger over here in California. There was much talk that the new trend in politics may be to just admit a bit of personal failure, defuse the opposition, and go on with your message. But two points need to be made: that may not hold true for this type of assault. First, the accusations aren't even true and they already are laughably out of bounds. But some people are still not saying WTF? about them, so it becomes apparent that someone needs to call it to their attention. Second, the amount of money being poured into this campaign is huge compared to times past. It's quite possible that the opposition might have asked why the public should forgive clinton even though his wife did if it had the gumption or money to take it that far. But I think you attribute too much to his reponses. The viewpoint I have is that people were content with the economy and domestic situation. They were safe and well-fed. That's why he was Slick Willy, because he was full of shit, everyone knew it, but most of the people were economically satisfied enough to just let it pass. I don't think that accusations became an issue or failed to become an issue due to the way he dealt with things--but rather due to the economic conditions that provided the context in which he was running. I don't agree with you that kerry is speaking on the issue too much. I don't agree that what you suggest is a good strategy for an unproven candidate (Clinton was up for re-election, too, a factor I didn't list above) and I don't agree that he is even discussing the issue all that much. So neither case do I think your assessment is correct on that part. But that's just my personal belief. I don't agree that answering accusations gives them legitimacy nor do I think that ignoring them will result in their going away short of some external factor. __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

08-27-2004, 07:23 PM	#21 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	We agree to disagree, that's ok. We all have differing views of what we would do in any given situation but noone truly knows what their reaction would be until they are truly there. It is easy for me to say, "confront answer and move on." But in all honesty I don't know if in Kerry's situation I would act any differently. As for Arnie, there were massive innuendoes and press stories going about his being close to Nazis and having to take cultural appreciation classes, and grabbing co-star actresses asses. Yet, Arnie confronted, answered and moved on and nothing stuck. Was it just his celebrity or the class in which he handled the accusations. I would have to believe the class. May not like his politics but I do like the way he handled the negativity. I think most people respect that. Running to the election committe and crying about how much money the group has or who is funding it, IMO, shows me personally a weakness and that when the fire gets too hot Kerry looks to douse it externally and cries about fairness. As president, especially if he still has a GOP Congress life for him will be very unfair, will he not be able to move forward and effectively because Congress won't work with him? Will he be crying foul every time Congress disagrees and says no? (I don't think so, I personally believe Kerry to be a good man. But with his reactions to the negative ads, I do wonder.) And THAT wonder is truly what the GOP wants. The defamation they know won't change minds, but Kerry's reactions to the ads. Kerry is showing weakness, and they will hammer that weakness. BTW the example of Clinton was his first run in '92. Bush was not re-elected because of "it's the economy, stupid." and Clinton was able to focus on issues. Another big factor was Perot though. Make no doubt about it, in '92 Bush did all he could to try to find something that would stick to Clinton,but Bill didn't let anything stick and focussed on the issues. Clinton never cried foul over any ad against him. Clinton knew his whole life was open to scutiny and that the GOP would try to spin things. But never an ounce of fear or showing it got to him. He'd give his smile and shake hands with people and look straight into the camera and say, with his little Arkansasian southern drawl '"George Bush wants to keep his office as much as I want to take it away from him." And that would be that, not an ounce of "why you picking on me?"... "This is totally unfair". CLASS ACT AND GREAT PRESIDENT (woulda been a helluvalot better had the GOP let him do his job)...... just hate his wife. Of course, Clinton had Carville to help with the fires also, and Carville is one ice cold sumabitch, but a great strategist. In '96 when Clinton was up for re-election, yes people felt more secure and were more prosperous, BUT also Dole ran a very clean campaign against Clinton and IMO the better man won because the issues were what the whole campaign was about in '96. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?" Last edited by pan6467; 08-27-2004 at 07:31 PM..

08-27-2004, 07:48 PM	#22 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	Another thing the GOP wants from the ads. Look at us, 2 Dems wanting Kerry elected but at odds with each other over how he should handle it and if it shows weakness. Divide and conquer. The ads, (yes are dispicable, yes divisive to this country, yes make us relive a very bad point in history) have but one purpose and that is becoming painfully clear, show how Kerry handles adversity and challenges. Doesn't matter if the ads are shown not to have an ounce of truth... they are showing weakness. Only way to avoid this is don't play their game. Kerry needs to get a backbone, make his statements on the ads, politics is a dirty game, you can't keep crying to the Elections Committee and expect people to respect you. Move on and not cry foul. Show the public it doesn't bother him. Let the people like us argue whether the ads go over the top, while he focusses on issues. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

08-27-2004, 07:53 PM	#23 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	ok, yeah. I was citing Schwarzenegger as being an example supporting your position. lol, I'll just blame the 92' vs. 96' point on my surgery and pain meds! so you might be right. before I was in agree to disagree mode, but now I'll say that you seem to have the evidence as far as politicians go--despite what we may have as examples from criminal trials. I'm willing to say you appear to be right on this then, guess I'll put that at the feet of the pain meds, too!! have a great weekend. btw, I'm not a democrat and I don't necessarily want kerry to win. but my wife is a supporter. __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

08-27-2004, 08:11 PM	#24 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	I appologize for the name calling... you Non Dem. (meant as a joke never know how people take things, esp. on pain meds...lol) __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"