I think people know that i am no longer a fan of the GOP, but in my newfound centrist life, I do dislike calling Kerry a war hero.
I prefer the simple 'Veteran". Sure, he got some medals, but the US is notoriously fond of giving bits of metal and fabric out for minor accomplishments. Compare the CMH rols to that of the VC, and you will see a large discrepancy, with britain involved in far more numerous scrapes. Many Americans wins medals for valour fully justified, but many get them as much for being on the spot.
But the sobriquet "Veteran" is enough. Implies a fine level of service without getting into particulars overmuch and raising the possiblity of argument over who did what when and why. Being a aprt of the effort is enough to aern our thanks. If you happened to do some really great things- then so much the better, but Veteran still encompasses that.
And Iblog? I am not denigrating your hardware or any other of the fine fuckers here represented- just saying that your service alone earns our thanks.
It STILL makes him look way better than Bush, without laying it on.
He went back through enemy fire to get one of his cremates, risking his own life to save someone else's. To me, that's pretty F'n heroic.
True- but the act is somewhat debateable(there are other versions of the story) and we don't really need to keep makin' hay of it.
That said, I am still waiting for a similar Bush tale. There might be one about how he took the DUI, so his fellow pilot, drunker than Bush at the time and actually at the wheel, could have an unblemished record, but I am not crediting it...
Kerry representing himself as a was hero is a lie. Bold, plain, and simple. I respect his service but, for every Vet/friend he he displays to defend his lie, there are 20 to tell the truth. Real heroes of war do not seek to benefit from their acts. Their actions speak for themselfs. Did Bob Dole flaulnt his injuries? Did George Bush senior constantly tell us of being shot down during a bombing mission? Did John McCain drone on about being held captive for six years? Kerry has disrespected all of the brave men who served honerably in Viet Nam. SHAME ON HIM. Has one VietNam vet stood up here to defend him? Has he given us a real reason to vote for him based on his senate carreer? You may not like George Bush, our president, but he has stood up for all of us. Do you not find it interesting that he was able video tape dangerous missions in Viet Nam while leading his troops? Wake up.
by his republican adversaries to portray him as soft on issues of national defense.
Much of the record that I have seen of his voting record indicates that he is a person who studies defense issues carefully and then casts what he believes is the best vote, this is what I expect of a senator from my home state.
I think that it is not only right, but necessary for Mr. Kerry to contrast his military service record to that of President Bush. In time all truths will be known and one man will stand as honorable on the issue of his military service and one may not look as honorable. When a president sends young people off to potentially die, it is an important point that that president understands fully the consequences of his or her actions.
... I mean, what did this guy do in the Senate all this time? What's his voting record? I can't find out. None of the news reports ever seem to talk about this. All that I ever see about Kerry is he took a piece of shrapnel in Vietman, protested the war, got elected to the Senate and did... what? Warmed the bench? I mean, I'd like to know more about what this guy did of consequence in the last 20 years than 40 years ago which is all the news media wants to talk abuot.
The fact is, Kerry has been a leader in working on Veterans Affairs, working with John McCain on many of these issues.
In the late 1980s Kerry was the FIRST Senate Democrat to break party ranks in order to help the Reagan Republicans get a budget in place that actually cut the deficit.
He's been a leader for preserving civil liberties, affirmative action, and for more federal funding of health care, which is where he got the liberal voting record that the Republicans keep trying to tar him with, however, the two issues I mentioned above are examples of the fact that his record is actually less "pure" liberal than the Repubs are trying to portray him with.
His record is NOT uniformly consistent, because he DOES see complexities in issues, and is willing to vote differently depending on subtle changes and amendments to bills. While this has exposed him to the flip-flopper charge, what it ACTUALLY demonstrates is his ability to think and alter his position in a constructive give-and-take that is the life blood of the legislative process.
The fact that his name is NOT all over a range of bills is actually a heartening indication that he does NOT believe in more government simply for the sake of more government, but rather, only where the government has something to contribute.
The REASON that you don't hear much about Kerry's legislative record is MUCH MORE a function of our TV-driven sound byte campaign world, than it is a representation of Kerry himself. The fact is, his record is complex, and it is not easily distilled into a sound byte.
tell you all about it, and how he's the most liberal senator since Edward Kennedy. If he really met that standard, it must mean he has a voting record, right? Funny that when he voted against their budgets, they didn't consider that a conservative stance at all. Republican overspending is actually conservative in the Reaganomics school of thought.
sKerry will try to avoid his Senate record, but the RNC will make sure it's brought front and center. Then they'll be blamed for "attacking" Senator sKerry.
RLTW
Uh, Dude-
Where have you been? McCain DID most certainly USE his service to get elected- no-one could have known who he was without that in the 70s and 80s. And he's been a credit to the country in all manner of ways- holding down the last post in the GOP for Abe lincoln- the Progessive Conservative.
Dole CERTAINLY used his hero and wounded Vet status in his early campaigns. referred to service a lot in speeches. I loved the guy. Held reagan to the budget fire, trying to keep him conservative and NOT reactionary.
Kerry is no more guilty of this than those guys, although I may grant you he is doing more about less, but that also reflects how TV is done now and the generally low intellect of the american voter. So you have to "tell stories" instead of giving speeches. So it can look very canned.
Hero or not, it's very likely that many will want to re-elect a President who did a less than honorable tour of duty in the Air National Guard, was a less than C student at Yale, and failed at every business venture he touched, and 'pushed' for a war where the supposed evidence was not compelling. In the words of Micheal Moore, "Would you send you son or daughter to Irag to die?
Hero or not, it's very likely that many will want to re-elect a President who did a less than honorable tour of duty in the Air National Guard, was a less than C student at Yale, and failed at every business venture he touched, and 'pushed' for a war where the supposed evidence was not compelling. In the words of Micheal Moore, "Would you send your son or daughter to Irag to die?
Kerry has no class. Riding a boat into Boston with his old GI's. Did you ever see Bob Dole do something like that (and he actually was seriously wounded and suffered permanent disability from his tour of duty).
Actually, for one of John Kerry's purple hearts he had to go above the head of his commander (who didn't think he deserved the medal). No, he is a self-serving, self-promoting politician.
P.S. And yes, Bush is guilty of this crap too, flying onto a carrier declaring victory way too soon.
While someone who didn't even show up to his Alabama National Guard duty, and who skirted any duty in the actual theater, and who thinks that a war is just a chance to dress up like a combat pilot for a photo-op on an aircraft carrier, is NOT qualified to send our brave soldiers into battle, and possibly to their deaths.
The REASON that this comparison is so meaningful now, and was less meaningful between Clinton and Dole, is that we are ACTUALLY AT WAR NOW. And Troops are actually dying due to Bush's orders - over 900 so far in Iraq alone, in a misguided war.
BECAUSE Kerry was there, BECAUSE Kerry was under fire, BECAUSE Kerry had to save men's lives during battle, and BECAUSE Kerry saw friends and colleagues die right before his eyes, HE would NEVER have made the same type of foolhardy, rushed, thoughtless, gung-ho cowboy-mentality decision that Bush did, to enter a war that we had no NEED to enter for the purpose of U.S. security.
That, in a nutshell, is WHY it matters that Kerry was a decorated combat veteran, and Bush is not. Because we are at war. And Kerry KNOWS what that means, in real, life and death terms, while Bush and his dress-up flight suit, most obviously does not. And over 900 Brave Americans are dead, and over 5000 Brave Americans have been maimed, BECAUSE Bush did not truly understand what it means to take take this nation to war.
Dude- have you been to B-town? Riding a water taxi is one of the coolest ways to go! If I got a chance to hang with my old stick, I might quite enjoy it, whatever the reason for it.
And Bob Dole did sometimes use his wound as a draw. But always in a self-depracatory way.
BTW- were you expecting that the messiah would run for Prez? Whoever it is will be a pol.
My main point was that the constant, unending parading of John Kerry's war experience reveals an underlying insecurity on the Democrats part. Right or wrong, they are perceived by the American public as weaker on national defense than Republicans.