John Kerry and Vietnam

Great Debates
1081

Lots of us, when we came back from the VietNam war (or wait, what did they call it then? I forget, but it was something else… VietNam Conflict), were dissillusioned and anti-war. JK carried it to a political level when a lot of us just hunkered down with family and were glad to be home alive. JK had his reasons, ambitions and motivations, and these have labeled him, defined him. I like that.

“Reporting for duty!”? A disenfranchised soldier coming back into the fold as the ‘commander-in-chief’ - it turned some people off, but it made the liberals cream in their pants. Politics as usual. A device to enlist support.

Unfortunately, I can no longer see where the man has the capabilities to remount the “war on terror.” I really believed he could do it, but this far into the campaign he has shown me nothing except his nitpicking of GWB. He’s turned into a whiner and a backstabber. He’s impotent. Just what Al-Queda wants, an impotent president. An ineffective president.

I applaud his VietNam service, but I think his anti-war activities have dulled his edge in being able to deal with the war on terrorism.

So where do we go now? We have three ineffective candidates for the position of the most powerful man in the world.

George is ‘over-the-top,’ shooting at ghopsts.
John is ‘the returning hero’ who didn’t know how to fight then, and still doesn’t know.
Ralph is our Syssiphus, pushing his rock every four years, with noble goals, but a lack of support.

Where have all the heroes gone?

Long time passing.

1082

They get steamrolled by Karl Rove and the right-wing smear machine, silly. Just ask John McCain, Max Cleland, John Kerry…

1083

Presidents aren’t superheros, they don’t go it alone.

Competent advisors, that’s what the President needs and the sense to wisely choose from the policy options they present to him.

1084

That’s a wonderful point. Unfortunately, this only reinforces my impression of Kerry as weak on defense.

After all, his rhetoric is more pro-war than most of the Democratic Party establishment these days. And these folks are going to get the appointments, influence policy, and ultimately direct it.

1085

Not at all unfortunate. I hold my opinion independently of its consequences for Mr Kerry’s candidature.

If Mr Moto or snakespirit prefers the advice the incumbent administration receives to the alternative, then they should vote accordingly.

1086

Thankyou for the compliment also.

1087

No problem. It is something we should all consider. We’re not electing a president so much as a presidential administration, and all that entails.

1088

No wonder it’s taking longer…

The server went down when I went to post this in response to post # 417, I think. It’ll brighten things up around here; it needs it.

I’m amazed that someone can be so short-sighted.

Get a clue, Simmons. Drop your pre-conceived prejudices; you might learn something.

First stop making assumptions. I never pretended to speak for the Navy; this is your own hallucination.

“Sole justification?” Why don’t you ask questions rather than making a fool out of yourself. You could, for instance, ask what other justification I might have in making those statements (as if that wasn’t already enough?) Like what kinds of relationships I built with the regular clerks, how often I came back and visited them and what we talked about, and what I learned from them; like what the Captain told me was SOP for our unit and what my responsibilities were in filling out award justifications, accident reports, contact reports, incident reports.

You “guess…” well stop guessing. If you don’t know, ask. If that’s not good enough for you then do research. But no, you’d rather bait people and demean them when you don’t even have the slightest clue about what’s going on.

You are exactly the kind of person I was talking about when I hesitantly made my first post here. I was there. I saw what was going on. I learned a lot, and I offer that knowledge for your benefit and I get people like you making unbased assumptions, baiting me by alledging I inferred things I did not, and demeaning my experience because of your bias and prejudice.

What, are you looking for some kind of brownie points from the 'smash 'em and trash ‘em’ clan? No, I’m not making assumptions, I’m asking. Cause you sure aren’t doing anything constructive to fight ignorance; you’re certainly not operating in any accepted debating mode. What exactly are you trying to do? Discredit me? Are you trying to do to to me what Swifties for Truth tries to do to Kerry?

Well if that’s the case, go get a job on one of the campaign trails. We’re trying to debate issues here, and we need all the information we can get. We don’t need rhetoric. And we need you pumping your ego even less.