That said, it is amazing that Kerry can act the way he does and sleep at night. I love how ironic it is that he campaigns his service in Vietnam, yet condems the soldiers who fought in it. It is completely rediculous, yet completely predictible. Someone will go to great lengths to persuade people something which is unpersuadable. Such is the case in Kerry’s campaign.

It is also quite breathtaking to what extent Kerry is so devoid of any “character” whatsoever. After watching “Stolen Honor” it is disheartning at the least that someone could campaign so avidly that soldiers doing their duity fighting for us would be war criminals when there is next to no truth in it. Especially when that person was there and knows that it wasn’t like that. And then for that person to be in any kind of leadership position, let alone the position of President one of the most powerful nations on earth, at all is apalling at the least.

I had made my decision on who I am going to vote for in MY first presidential election a while ago, but never have I felt passionate about why I will vote that way.

I don’t believe Bush to be the best president America has ever had, he’s made some mistakes no doubt about it, but never will I EVER vote for someone who I believe is hitting below par in character.

I had the chance to listen to a widow, whose husband had died in the 911 attack, speak this summer and what she said only exemplifies what is missing in Kerry. She was telling the story of losing her husband and how President Bush came up to her and held her as she wept in his arms and said that she could “see that he ACTUALLY cared for me, for the American people”. It is sometimes easy to spot people of character, and that pretty much spells it out right there. There isn’t much in Kerry’s record that makes me think he is anything fake. He consistantly goes back on his own views and consistantly makes incredibly poor decisions.

As for people like y cov, you pretend like Farenheit 911 is your Bible. You’re probably right, Farenheit 911 is completely truthfull and most likely entirely unfoulable, oh, and you’re the supreme creator of original ideas. Especially when us kids can’t read books or magazines.

I could tell you what’s wrong with you, but richard mcenroe has already spelled it out to you, point by point. You say “at least Kerry has seen to war”, you’re right, and he made some real good with that experience, oh wait that’s not good, it’s mahim and contempt. Kerry’s experience with Vietnam has got to be one of the biggest stains on his record, not one of his shining moments.

For those opposed to this war, or especially those opposed to war in general, I’d like to agree with you in that war is good for nothing. It only stopped the masacre of an entire race, won us independence, end the spread of communism, you know, worthless crap like that.

All that said (and some forgotten to voice, as it is 3:00 in the morning now and I’m getting tired) I would like to complement charlie (c), samuel, richard mcenroe, and the rest on their delightful remarks.

This thread has gone on too long, time to move elesewhere.

Given a month or so, yes, I believe you would change your mind. Too bad you got here so late.

So some closing thoughts. Here is a speech by Edwards justfying the war. It is quite clear from the context that he is expecting war, that he recognizes that the result of his vote will be war.

Second, the resolution should call for an effort to rally the international community under a U.N. Security Council mandate. The president’s speech last week was an important first step, and his belated diplomatic efforts have already borne fruit. At the same time, we must not tie our own hands by requiring Security Council action. Congress should authorize the United States to act with whatever allies will join us if the Security Council is prevented from supporting action to enforce the more than 16 resolutions against Iraq.

I do not believe that “any” individual, be they soldier/sailor/marine/airman/nurse who came back and protested the war betrayed those they served with.

I believe Kerry did. Here’s why:

1. He was still an officer in the Naval Reserve when he became part of the leadership of VVAW. VVAW was not merely a protest group, but one which espoused virtually verbatim the talking points of the North Vietnamese.

2. He used his officer/hero status to advance the VVAW message and to give it the credibility it lacked without him.

3. He used the dual status (war hero/war protestor) to advance personal political ambitions.

4. He met with the enemy in order to advance their goals.

5. The rhetoric he espoused was demonstrably wrong. Its effects were a tragedy for many South Vietnese people.

He was not only a “useful fool”, but actively undermined Official United States policy (formulated, BTW by a Democratic administration) which had as its goal the true independence of the South Vietnamese from communist domination. That official US policy, as Reagan and history has proved, was not only not evil, but correct.

I was one of those who fought for that policy. Kerry fought against it using the honors he earned and his official office in that fight.

I think that is a betrayal to those of us who were right.

One more quickie then I have to run to dinner.

So first of all, Kerry and Edwards did not vote “for the war” – they voted to authorize Bush to use force as a last resort, after playing out the UN, blah blah blah. Big difference! The biggest reason they voted for the authorization was that Bush needed a credible threat to push both Saddam and the UN into action, to break the stupid stalemate. I still believe that Bush pulled the trigger to quickly. I really think the weather determined the schedule for the invasion. The troops were built up, and waiting any longer would have meant waiting a long time, for the next cool season.

2nd – the doubts about the intelligence were things like — those “mobile biological weapons factories” that Powell (very disappointingly touted at the UN): on the day the story about them broke, the NY Times reported it, and also reported that several experts believed them to be for weather balloons, as they indeed turned out to be. Ditto with the aluminum tubes – if you read the times reporting all the way through as the news about them came out, the doubts that they were for centerfuges were clear from the get go, and that they might be intended for rockets, as they indeed turned out to be. And so on. These are the kinds of doubts I meant — doubts that were in the intelligence, and that Bush administration blew past.

Remember, the commission investigtating this stuff most pointedly did not address how the intelligence was used by the administration, and if such a report is ever able to get past partisan bickering, such things will enter the official record, along with the other stuff.

About being converted… well maybe! Before I made an effort to come check out with Republicans were saying and thinking, I thought they were either evil or idiots. But when you spend some time on the other side, you find that there are people of good conscience who just see things differently. So I have been converted that far, for sure.

bruce

..a majority of both Bush and Kerry supporters, when asked, ìIf, before the war, US intelligence services had concluded that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction and was not providing substantial support to al Qaeda,î said that we should not have gone to war.

I’m afriad, bruce, that you are a little too open-minded. If you stay around here too long you are going to be converted.

Thanks for your kind words. I hope you are recovering well from your heart attack, and wish you good health.

Thanks for describing some what it was like to come back from Vietnam and be abused. I can’t imagine how bad of an experience that must have been.

Tying this into what flenser has been saying… I guess your experience shows that even if the opposition to the war was a minority, they certainly had an impact on the guys returning home. I wish they had understood what they were doing by taking out their anger on soldiers, like you. That is just f$#%^ed up.

Also, I hear you about how Kerry has way overplayed his 4 months in Vietnam. Compared to guys who were actually on the ground and faced much greater danger, and for much longer, his experience is nothing to brag about.

I have also been mystified as to why he didn’t seem to count on his candidacy, and especially his riding his service so hard, would tear open old wounds.

His work on the POW/MIA issue seemed to be a heartfelt effort, to me, to heal some of those wounds, so I find his lack of foresight extra mystifying. But you might view his and McCain’s POW/MIA work in different light. I haven’t been on this blog long enough to know your views on that.

I also have wondered whether it would be a good idea for him to have a public conversation with VN vets.

Also… just so I understand better where you are coming from…do you think any VN vet could come home and join the protest against the war, or is that automatically a betrayal?

I ask that because I have looked at what Kerry and other vets were doing with their protest as very specifically trying to help other soldiers by ending the war and getting them out of that situation.

Thanks

bruce

You again bring up good points. I probably do have some wishful thinking going on — it is a powerful feeling to be in a march with hundreds of thousands, and so my sense of how many folks are really opposed to the war is exaggerated. I guess that my sense is that if that many people actually were motivated to take a check on their busy lives and entertainments to actually go out and march, that really means something.

With respect to the survey that I linked to earlier… the most important point I think it makes is that both a majority of both Bush and Kerry supporters, when asked, ìIf, before the war, US intelligence services had concluded that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction and was not providing substantial support to al Qaeda,î said that we should not have gone to war.

I think that if the Dems had balls and had run against the Iraq resolution in 2002, the strong doubts in the intelligence community on both scores would have been given wide play, and the opposition to going to war among the people would have been there from the get go. I am trying to address the point you raise about the election in 2002 – that if the people really had been opposed to the war, that would have been expressed in the election itself. Unfortunately, most Americans get their news from TV, and without an organized, vocal opposition to raise the doubts about the story Bush was putting out there, most Americans believed the war was justified. The polls from that time overwhelmingly show that.

Finally, I am sorry you believe Kerry is a liar. I think Kerry has left himself open to that with his long, complicated statements. He and his campaign are really really bad at making concise statements that always hang together in a straightforward way; the Republicans are absolute masters of communicating with the public, and I wish the Dems were as good.

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0408/schanberg.php

I guess those “better informed” Kedwards backers are still mystified as to why the military detests Kerry.

Thanks for the kind thoughts.

Bruce:

If I had not served in VN and returned home to see my fellow countrymen persuaded that what was going on there was evil and not worth the sacrifice of 55,000 plus lives, many more wounded and many more than that whose lives were uprooted, I probably would be thinking just like you are.

But that ignores the Vietnam factor, about which Stolen Honor speaks. You see, to many of us, it is elemental, emotional and personal.

We see Senator Kerry as a conflicted, self centered opportunist, with deep internationalist instincts, who mainly wants the respect of the Ancien Regime. This side of him is seen in his shameless use yesterday of his four months in Vietnam to try to convince a Colorado crowd that he is “tough”. That is a reprise of his Band of Brothers moment at the Democratic Convention that so incensed people like me, John Moore and Zell Miller, veterans all.

But he has not been tough enough with his surrogates who have successfully muted those who fervently believe his testimony in 1971 stole their honor.

Likewise, he has not been tough enough to face his fellow Veterans and personally explain himself to them. A nationally televised face to face one on one with, e.g. Bud Day, the congressional medal of honor POW, might have helped to clear the air, and at least neutralize the massive resentment many of us who served honorably feel.

All of this, of course, is mainly symbolic. But symbolism is the stuff of politics. If not the mother’s milk, it is at least the juice and cereal, and baby food.

Symbols add up. The Democrats have valiantly (and mostly successfully) sought to neutralize the symbolism of the planes crashing into the WTC and the Pentagon. They have sought to ridicule the President’s congratulating the Kitty Hawk for its mission having been accomplished.

But Kerry is now left with the symbolism of goose hunting camo costumes and tarmac football games.

All I see, though, is the symbol of his appearance before the Senate in 1971, in a beribboned set of fatigues and a distinctly non-military haircut. That and the symbol of him throwing his (or someone elses, depending on which version is true) medals over the fence.

On those days, by willfully creating those symbols, he relinquished all right,title and interest to my respect or to the possibility of my vote, then or in the future. I believe there are more like me out there than the pollsters have thus far discovered. We will find out on the first Tuesday in November.

Meanwhile, Bruce, I enjoy your earnestness and your ability.

With regard to Kerry being a leader; I don’t doubt that the man has convictions, although he has certainly tried hard to obfuscate them. The real issue is, what are those convictions?

Unless we assume that he is a compulsive liar, then his conviction seems to be that the US is a bad country and that the use of US military force, unless backed by all the people of America and all the countries of the world, is a Bad Thing.

But of course, he opposed GW1. So maybe even that does not describe him properly?

That is the problem with him – nobody has the faintest idea what he would do in any given scenario. I suppose it has the advantage of allowing his supporters to read into him whatever they please. But I would like to have some idea of what I’m getting when I vote for a president.