Reply
Wed 11 Feb, 2004 03:09 pm
http://www.usvetdsp.com/jf_kerry.htm
Apparently, there are many Vietnam veterans who have taken umbrage at Kerry's run for the presidency. They have opened a website which details his anti-war activities during the Vietnam War.
What effect do you think that this will have for Kerry's candidacy? How do you think that the information presented will impact on YOUR attitude about Kerry?
It's a circle.
"War hero" and "peacenik".
I don't think it'll sway any of the hardcore and as to the middle I just wonder if they'll pick the side they agree with or the other.
Of the Vietnam Vets I know there are a handful that still hate Hanoi Jane and I'd guess they're the same type that would maintain a grudge against Kerry or anyone else that protested the war.
They're a pretty small minority of the whole though. I'd be surprised if it's more that 5% or so of all the Vietnam Vets that hold those types of views and Kerry's protests were pretty tame compared to a lot of other stuff that went on.
I doubt it'll hurt him much.
The picture of him being at a Hanoi Jane rally and his defense, or lack there of, voting record wll come to the forefront soon. National security has recently been number three as a concern on polls, I believe this will be rekindled in light of his stance.
I don't think he'll get the vote of many veterans, or current military.
I had rather have Bush in office than Kerry who claims to be an internationalist and believes more in international opinion than what is best for our interest. He has flip flopped on many things he's said about defense issues but I think the true Kerry is reflected in his actual voting record.
I still feel the Dem's are going to be sorry they hurried this nomination and didn't support Clark, given issues are secondary to the nomination, to just ousting Bush.
being both a vietnam vet and vietnam vets against the war, I am inclined to think most of this re Kerry and Bush is a non-starter with the exception of Bush's uniformed stand on the aircraft carrier (crass at best)
I am really surprised that more people have not taken an interest in these findings. I know that many people on this forum would do anything to displace Bush in November. Personally, I am not so crazy about Bush myself, but now I am between a rock and a hard place.
I despise a number of Bush's stances on certain issues, and some of his judgements. But I do believe that national security needs to be the US' top priority. I now question whether Kerry has the "stuff" to keep the US secure in this troubled times. What do you all think?
I think Phoenix, that Bush has created much of this "troubled times"..imo..
The vietnam war was an unjust war a lot of good people were against it for good reason. Kerry served his country honorably and was a war hero. He must of seen some pretty horrible things over there and he was expressing his American rights of free speech to tell the truth about it. Furthermore there are a lot of veterans that are for Kerry.
Lastly anyone could do just as well for our country as Bush and any democrat could do better.
I hope that people keep bringing up Vietnam for any reason, it only serves as a comparison to the present situation with Iraq.
I dunno. I think that Bush has possibly blown the situation out of proportion, but that is besides the point. The US had been getting "messages" all along, that there were terrorists, all over the world, hell bent on destroying the U.S. (WTC 1993, USS Cole, for example). IMO Clinton did not take apropriate steps to nip the problems in the bud.
For eight years, the al Queda and their ilk were given free rein to regroup, and become stronger and more organized. Although there is no way that we could know for sure that it could have been prevented, 9/11 was a wakeup call. What has occurred subsequently, to me, is an indication that we cannot keep our heads in the sand when it comes to people wanting to destroy the US.
Considering that I find Bush a mixed bag, at best, I was looking to see if a Democratic candidate would be chosen whom I could feel secure that he would perceive national security as a priority. What the US does not need now, is a peacenik!
BTW, looking back at history, I agree, as many people do now, that Vietnam WAS a tragic mistake.
Phoenix32890 wrote:I dunno. I think that Bush has possibly blown the situation out of proportion, but that is besides the point. The US had been getting "messages" all along, that there were terrorists, all over the world, hell bent on destroying the U.S. (WTC 1993, USS Cole, for example). IMO Clinton did not take apropriate steps to nip the problems in the bud.
For eight years, the al Queda and their ilk were given free rein to regroup, and become stronger and more organized. Although there is no way that we could know for sure that it could have been prevented, 9/11 was a wakeup call. What has occurred subsequently, to me, is an indication that we cannot keep our heads in the sand when it comes to people wanting to destroy the US.
Considering that I find Bush a mixed bag, at best, I was looking to see if a Democratic candidate would be chosen whom I could feel secure that he would perceive national security as a priority. What the US does not need now, is a peacenik!
BTW, looking back at history, I agree, as many people do now, that Vietnam WAS a tragic mistake.
This sums up my wish for an opponent to Bush as well. If the Dem's can't put up someone with a strong foriegn policy and a plan to keep a strong defense of America, I will not be able to vote for them.
I will vote for Kerry -- and this other nonsense is just that -- NONSENSE.
My guess: Kerry is gonna win this thing and will be one hell of a lot better leader of Ameica than Bush could ever be.
Frank Apisa wrote:I will vote for Kerry -- and this other nonsense is just that -- NONSENSE.
Kinda like all the nonsense the Anti-Bush crowd keeps spewing eh?
Phoenix, I know you have an aversion to labels -- doesn't "peacenik" seem way too simplistic to you?
It seems to me that Kerry was protesting the Vietnam war, specifically, which can be argued on its own merits, but doesn't translate to some general unwillingness to be tough where necessary, at all. I'd think you would base your opinion on what sort of a president Kerry would be in these diffcult times on what he is saying now, what his record is (he voted in support of action in Iraq, which shows a willingness to take a hard line if he feels it is necessary), ya know, facts.
NOT on a decades-old picture of a principled, paid-his-dues veteran protesting a specific war that he served in.
I wouldn't label Kerry a peacenik, but more of an appeaser.
Kerry's record, both as a legislator and as an anti-war activist speaks for itself. He's toast on National Security, Family Values, and consistency. While I'm not by any means impartial on this, I note that I belong to several Veterans Organizations, and what discussion to which I've been party regarding Kerry has been at best less than complimentary. At the local VFW and Amvets bars, he's a laughingstock, when not inciting clear outrage.
Sorta interesting the folks who foam the fiecest about Bush the Younger's National Guard service maintain that Kerry's contemporaneous Vietnam era faux pas are, by virtue of being decades in the past, irrelevant to the present situation.
Is that addressed to me? If so, can you cite some foaming, please?
Nah, Soz, not directed at you ... more like at the Michael Moore/Terry McAuliffe types. You don't foam, 'least so's I've noticed.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace