The East Side Swift Boaters club says Kerry was a hero, the West Side Swift Boaters Club says Kerry was a mope. Kerry says Bush put the West Side Swift Boaters up to it. Bush flies to texas to blow the guy who paid the West Side Swift Boaters, or to practice his acceptance speech, no one’s sure which.
Kerry says bush milked it through the war. Bush can’t say shit, because Kerry’s got 3 purple hearts, and all W can claim is that he flew airplanes, and, on several occasions, was too drunk to go to his guard weekends.
For the love of all that’s holy, IT WAS 30 FUCKING YEARS AGO. WHO THE FUCK CARES? Like people can’t change their minds in 30 years. Kerry said he was against the war then. Kerry said he’s against the war now, only his voting record don’t necessarily bear that out.
SO WHAT?
Neither of these two nitwits, nor their endless supply of hangers-on, can let this foolishness go. Vietnam is ancient history. Howsabout you two twits come up with something that matters to the people who are living NOW, instead of rehashing shit that will have NO EFFECT ON ANYTHING. EVER.
Note to Newsmonkeys:
What a candidate did or didn’t do 30 years ago in a war we probably never should have been in in the first fucking place is IMMATERIAL. Kerry did this, Bush didn’t do that, it just doesn’t matter! There are plenty of things a touch more recently done or not done that you can pick on. Just leave the whole Vietnam thing alone already.
That’s easy for you to say buttonJ, but you try finding some way of discrediting Kerry. And the comparison will be with a serial underachiever like GWB.
Huh huh, not easy is it?
What do you expect the GOP to do? Roll over and die? Their boy’s a dud, so what?
He’s been neglecting his duties as a Senator while campaigning!
Sure, and Bush never left Texas while he was campaigning for President in 2004.
He missed a vote to reduce health care costs!
Not quite. Tort reform doesn’t necessarily mean cheaper healthcare. However, it does mean that if a doctor accidentally amputates the wrong leg; or fails to stitch a ureter back up (causing your insides to fill up with hot piss); there’s a cap on how much you can sue for. IIRC, the proposed cap was $250,000.
He voted against the Laci Peterson Law!
Isn’t it already illegal to kill a pregnant woman? And I doubt that anyone convicted of killing a pregnant woman would get anything less than the maximum punishment allowed by state law. It’s just not the kind of act that a jury would smile upon. Same goes for assault. I’m not even going to get into the implications of treating a fetus as a legal entity.
We never should have gotten out of it,
Never should have abandoned the democracy that was South Vietnam.
We should never have listened to those evil anti-war types like Kerry.
Bush should promise America that if elected he will return America to the Jungles of Vietnam, and do it right this time.
The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth deserve no less.
To be truly fair to them, we should allow them to go back with our new troops, and participate in the liberation of Saigon.
Let freedom Reign!
(Anticipating: “But he QUALIFIED his statement!” “He would have voted for it, but that doesn’t mean he supports it!” “Rjung rjung rjung!” Yeah, yeah, I get it, I get it. The point is Kerry has been terrible at expressing just what he’s for.)
Not in the slightest. Its only that Sen Kerry has a capacity thate exceeds the binary. You see, its not just that important, international type stuff is seldom black, white and simplistic. Its that its never black, white, and simple.
John Kerry made a mistake. He trusted GeeDubya (Praise the Leader!) to be prudent, cautious, and flexible.
Note well: the Pubbies can only claim that Kerry voted for war if they can show that GeeDubya was entirely clear about his intentions to go to war. I certainly believed he intended to go to war regardless, but that’s because I regard GeeDubya as a stubborn, self-righteous and mendacious medocrity.
So when GeeDubya told me that he was intent on preserving peace, when he told me that he would only lead us into war if there were no other option, I didn’t believe him.
Just so. I didn’t believe him either, and I’m hard-pressed to understand why Senator Kerry did.
Still, I’m disappointed in the way he’s being taken to task for answering the question he was asked: “Had you known then the truth of the WMD situation as we know it today, would your vote for authorizing military action have been the same?” [Note: preceding is paraphrased – kd99]. Some friendly reporter needs to toss him the follow-up softballs: “Do you believe the President exploited that authorization in a manner consistent with your intentions at the time of your vote?”; and “Had you known how consistent or inconsistent with your intentions the President wuld have exploited the authorization, would you have voted to bestow the authorization on this president?”
If he answers “Yes” to those two, then the hell with it; we’re doomed, and I’m writing in Kucinich.
The way I understand it, Kerry is either a bonafide war hero, or he gamed the system to get a handful of medals and his ass shipped back to the U.S. intact. If it’s the first, then there’s no issue. And if it’s the second, then it shows a capability to manipulate the System that you want in a chief executive. True, the second option means that he’s probably a lying weasel, but he * is * a politician, so that shouldn’t surprise anyone.
Yeah, I’m kind of depressed that he’s the mediocre best the Democrats had to offer, but if this is the worst smoking gun the opposition can dig up, then I guess he’ll do.
Nothing mediocre about Kerry. I really believe that attack politics has lowered us to this. All the evidence says he’s a fine man and a good leader. He’s represented his people well, somehow managing to be “the most liberal Senator” while simultaneously being a poll-dependent flip-flopper. I’m not sure what you feel makes him mediocre, and I’m not sure we would know a good leader when we saw one anymore.
From what I gather, the journalists in Massachusetts who know him best and have followed him longest don’t have a lot of good things to say about him. If he had a distinguished legislative record, then he’d be pointing to that instead of harping on his military record. But my primary evidence for “mediocre” is that the race is so close – Bush is politically vulnerable due to an unpopular war, high oil prices, and not much good economic news and a compelling candidate would clean his clock. Kerry is not that candidate.
Stuff and nonsense. We don’t hear about Kerry’s legislative record because it is boring.
Having worn a uniform and been awarded medals works. That is why we hear about it. It is a marketing decision, no more.
No what amazes me is the candidates’ pact to conceal their mutual plans to enslave the American population, whether or not they choose to simultaneously fight for their freedom. Now that is media management.