I believe that Kerry’s motivation for Swift Boat duty was because he liked small boats and idolized JFK. Can’t remember where I read that - perhaps it was in his biography?
Again, there’s nothing wrong with this, and Kerry deserves props for not just going into the Navy, but for signing up for a second tour of duty. I just don’t think it’s accurate to portray him as some gung-ho guy who was rarin’ to get into combat. It’s just not the case. Kerry himself says so. He did not want to go into combat, and was not happy when the Swiftboat duty was changed to inland river patrol.
As if you would be seen dead with a Grauniad in your hands!
Perhaps. But I think you need to take a step further back and ask to what extent logical arguments are important when such arguments are often (and have often been proved to be) quite without relation to the actions that the one using them actually takes. Or, to put it another way, someone might give the most lucid account of why, for example, assault weapons are likely to lead to more homeland deaths, but then vote for them when it comes to the crunch because of some emotional and irrational attachment to something glorified with the title of The Second Amendment. (Deliberately provocative example to get the point across - not intended to hijack thread, as threads are already dedicated to this.)
And the masses see this happening rather a lot. And they come to one rational conclusion as a result of this - that you cannot trust a politician on the basis of his words (logical or not). This, incidentally is a logical conclusion that virtually all intellectuals come to as well as the masses, showing that there is after all quite a lot of common ground between them.
And so they go with gut feeling, or with what their daddy went with, or whatever. In a situation where no dope is straight, it’s probably not such a shabby option. Especially when you consider what intellectuals have managed to do in the last 250 years.
I think there is. Kerry’s first tour of duty on the Griddley. After which he volunteered for a second tour of duty in a more dangerous region, having learnt where his service was most needed during his first tour.
I hate to be the grammar teacher but it appears Sam’s post has inadvertently given the impression Kerry went directly from civilian life to his SwiftBoat days, rather than the intervening 12 month tour on the Griddley. I think it unlikely that Kerry subsequently joined the Swiftboats without knowing what that service entailed.
You know I’d be interested to see some cites, not because there is any credibility problem, but because I’m curious about whether service people can elect to serve in ‘combat’ or ‘non-combat’ duties. That is certainly the impression the quoted post gives.
I see the OP is an oddsmaker gauging his bets. Oh,well. In that case: You’re right, owlstretchingtime, Bush will win in a walk. Bet your fortune, & read no further.
The thing is, the Democrats are the right choice this time. (or the lesser of two evils, anyway.) But they panicked & picked Mr. John F. Blow-Dry Kerry as the supposedly most"electable" instead of taking the nominating process to test candidates–turns out they should have had a serious primary season.
They acted like Republicans & got in line behind a tepid moderate, instead of someone who would stand vibrantly for a real difference. And they may well suffer for it. But I would choose someone who spoke out against the Vietnam War; & who is an environmentalist; & who doesn’t pretend that denying poor women access to carefully performed abortion (rich women will still have it in the Bushes’ world) is a social good. So Kerry wins with me.
I voted for Nader in 2000. A lot of us who voted for Nader saw how that turned out & will vote Democrat this time.
Also, Florida has changed its voting system. No more “butterfly” ballots. No more elderly Jewish voters accidently punching Pat Buchanan.
Yeah, Florida has changed its voting system-- to something that can be hacked without any trace of what the original vote was! (I’m sure you can find sufficient references on slashdot.) And the cops are intimidating elderly black voters trying to ‘get out the vote’.
At this point, I think Kerry will have a mediocre showing at the debates, and Bush will end up winning, possibly after another recount debacle in two or three Republican states.
Well funnily enough…I did see Saturday’s Guardian (one of the servants must have left it behind )and Lo and behold if they aren’t writing Kerry off as a loser (as I have been trying to get across here)
For non-brits the Guardian is a left wing Broadsheet, pretty much the paper of the Labour party and the Liberal Left - and is very strongly pro kerry and anti-Bush, and if they’re laying into Kerry then things are bad.
As a Guardianista myself, I can tell you that Kerry is rarely reported particularly positively, either. This is perhaps because of his vastly right-wing positions a callibrated against the rest of the industrialised democratic world. Nader gets better coverage IMO.
Huh? The two statements are not related in any way. Whether Kerry did or did not want to go into combat has nothing to do with how he chose to portray himself 35 years later for political advantage.
There goes that selective reading again. While the Guardian is hardly a bastion of good journalism, instead of cherry picking your articles when you read, perhaps you should actually read all of the articles, good and bad. For instance in this one, they’re hardly writing Kerry off. You’ve also still yet to show how you get the impression that the BBC is leading you to the conclusion that Kerry has no chance.
By the way, I answered every single point in your OP, as did many other people here, yet you continue to simply ignore most of everything put in front of you. I’m going to continue with the assumption that this was simply a thinly veiled attempt at Kerry bashing. Therefore, I’ll ignore your calls for us to avoid Bush bashing here.
Bush is a big fat wanker. He may or may not win, but we (you, me, the guardian, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Vegas, etc.) do not know the outcome of the election at this time.
While the article does speak of the uphill climb that Kerry faces, I don’t get the impression you seem to get. That’s what I’m asking for a cite for. Do you have a cite from a British left-wing press source that asserts that kerry is a wimp who exaggerated his military service while poorly communicating to those who he is out of touch with, who also stands only for the most opportunistic position?
You crack me up. The Purple Heart is awarded to anyone who is wounded or killed in combat by enemy action. “Astonishing bravery and honor” has nothing to do with it.
As medals go, it’s pretty lame. I’ve never heard anyone boast about how many Purple Hearts they were awarded. I’ve known a few genuine war heroes. They were the ones with bronze and silver stars with multiple oak leaf clusters, plus other decorations.
Rank hypocrite would be more accurate. The wife does occasional freelance work for the Guardian on bird’s stuff like fashion and interior design. (she’s the one that can spell). They pay well though.
)and Lo and behold if they aren’t writing Kerry off as a loser (as I have been trying to get across here)