Could it be argued that the V V F B are betraying the young men sent out to war?
That is, betraying fellow servicemen?
No, I wouldn’t seriously make that argument. The really occult thing is that I don’t really doubt they think they are acting patriotically and honorably. I believe that, somehow, they genuinely think that Kerry’s Vietnam record makes him a less worthy candidate for President than Bush, I just for the life of me can’t figure out how it’s possible to arrive at that conclusion. But then there’s a lot about American politics I can’t make head or tail of recently. Lately when I read the newspaper I feel like Bill Murray in “Groundhog Day,” only for me every day is Opposite Day.
To clear this up, it’s an American Bandstand reference. A couple of dancers would rate a song each show: I give it an 85; it’s got a great beat and I can dance to it.
On the OP: For what it’s worth, I got your point from the beginning. So it didn’t fly over everyone’s head. danceswithcats was mega whoosed; happens to the best of us. 
And we should all heed Excalibre’s wise words–if **Brutus ** is on your side, it may be time to rethink your position.
And how would you characterize Kerry’s comments in 1971, where he criticized some servicemen himself?
It is impossible to criticize these men too much for this action, if you’re a partisan Democrat, because you run into the inescapable fact that this expression of opinion is of a par with what Kerry did back then.
Funny, but the rhetoric I was offered when I was in the Navy myself was that we fought to preserve American freedom. That would, presumably, include the freedom to protest wars in 1971 and criticize presidential candidates today.
From a poster on Fark,
So did Kerry. He asked for a deferment and was denied, then joined up with one of the groups with the lowest combat potential. He served less than a year, then came back and betrayed his fellow veterans by making outrageous attacks against them.
Kerry is the traitor, here.
So you’re saying that the things Kerry described never happened?
I’d characterize them as not having anything to do with endorsing the re-election of the administration that was currently sending troops overseas, to make one distinction. To the best of my knowledge, Kerry wasn’t speaking on behalf of Vietnam Veterans For Nixon.
I’ve never heard a partisan Democrat state an opinion remotely resembling this. It is probably true that the expressions of opinion are equivalent in some sense, in so far as they both regard Vietnam. In matters of actual content and relevance, they don’t seem terribly similar to me.
I fully agree with you on this point.
Now, this is exactly the sort of thing I’m thinking about when I look at that damn billboard. For the sake of argument, let’s say that every single one of your points are true.
Fair enough. Please explain whether this is more or less honorable than joining up with a group that was not engaged in combat at all to avoid going overseas, and then failing to complete even that minimal obligation.
Fair enough. Please explain whether:
a. serving in Vietnam for less than a year is more or less honorable than avoiding serving in Vietnam altogether
b. betraying fellow veterans by making outrageous attacks against them is more or less honorable than making outrageous, patently false claims to the entire world that lead to the deaths of over a thousand American soldiers so far.
Fair enough. Please explain whether he is more or less of a traitor than Bush.
No, I am saying that those atrocities, while horrible, were rare, and the veterans who performed these were in the vast minority to those soldiers who fought bravely and honorably. I am also saying that John Kerry’s and others statements against the Vietnam war had a huge negative impact on the honorable veterans who were unfairly accused of being involved in atrocities.
You are incorrect in your belief that the President failed to complete his minimal obligations. He logged more time than necessary, then (once the war was over) asked to be discharged. He was…honorably.
a. Kerry used his service as leverage in his political career, and betrayed his fellow veterans by making brutal statements about atrocities in Vietnam. As I mentioned above, these were rare, and had a very negative impact on all veterans.
b. Bush made those claims based on the evidence he received from Great Britain and from our own intelligence sources. Even your man John Kerry agreed with the President. Now he has flip-flopped and has decided that going to Iraq may or may not be worth it “depending on the outcome”. :rolleyes:
He is more of a traitor because he is more willing to hand over the security of America to the United Nations by his policies of appeasement.
Bush let a stockpile of explosives go missing for years. If that isn’t traitorous, particularly to Iraqis, I don’t know what is!
Did Kerry lie to the Senate in 1971?
Fair enough. Any stories, personal accounts, or documents regarding any irregularities whatsoever with Lt. Bush’s military career are lies. He served his time here in the States unfailingly, despite any lack of documentation that may exist to that effect. Please explain why you think he did not choose to exercise his sterling military skill in Vietnam, where he could have served in combat as Kerry did.
Fair enough. Please explain how this is worse than actually getting over a thousand soldiers killed by making false claims. Would you, for example, reconsider Kerry as the more preferable candidate if Bush started killing American soldiers with his bare hands?
Fair enough. Please explain why you think Bush chose to ignore the much greater evidence that these claims were false and unsupported. Please explain why the president claimed to have incontrivertible evidence regarding WMD’s in Iraq, when no such weapons ever existed, and why he changed his claim from “weapons” to “weapons programs” after it became obvious that WMD’s would not be found. Please explain how John Kerry first accepting Bush’s false claims, then changing his mind about Iraq after it became obvious that the evidence was false, is worse than Bush actually making the claims in the first place and then failing to acknowledge that he was completely wrong. Please explain why a candidate who changes his mind is worse than one who sends troops to die for falsehoods.
Fair enough. Please explain why this is worse than failing to guard the security of America in the first place by allowing thousands of Americans to be killed in terrorist attacks, then failing to catch the ringleader responsible, then invading a country that posed no danger to the United States, thereby getting many many soldiers killed for no good reason, and simultaneously inflaming hatred of America across the globe…to say nothing of claiming openly that he isn’t concerned about the presumed 9/11 mastermind still at large, then denying that he said any such thing in a nationally televised debate.
You see, my point is simply this: no matter if we assume that all the bad stories about Kerry are true, and every bad thing about Bush that can’t be absolutely verified is false (and notice, I haven’t contested a single one of your claims, or called for cites–this ain’t Great Debates after all), I still, *still *don’t understand how anyone could think Kerry could possibly be a worse choice than Bush given the last four years. Even if you sincerely believe that Kerry, for some reason, decided to go out of his way to maliciously tarnish the military thirty years ago, still the fact is that soldiers are dying now, and will continue to die, because of Bush and his false claims. Whatever faults can be claimed of Kerry have been demonstrated many, many times over by Bush (except for protesting Vietnam atrocities, of course…I will concede that I don’t think Bush ever did that. But then we are talking about an administration that is keeping hundreds of people imprisoned right now with no representation or judicial review, and has made inquiries about the legality of torture…so no, that’s not a surprise either.)
Please provide documentation wherein Kerry unfairly accused honorable vetereans of being involved in atrocities. (Rather than dishonorable veterans, of course.)
Also, please provide documentation, or at least a reasonable argument, demonstrating that what happened in 1971 was:
-the young John Kerry, who on very short notice was asked to come in and testify before a congressional committee, cynically made up lies to further his own not-yet-existing political career despite the impact these lies would have on other veterans, who he didn’t care about, being a weenie horrible evil person
as opposed to:
-the young John Kerry, who on very short notice was asked to come in and testify before a congressional committee, perceived a chance to communicate to the powers that be some of the horror and tragedy of what was actually going on over in Vietnam, in an honest attempt to get the US to withdraw from the war, and thus save thousands of American lives
I mean, cynicism can be taken far, far, beyond the limits of reason.