McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2004 06:04 pm
I guess that's what makes us all see eye-to-eye on so many subjects.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2004 06:07 pm
gosh when I think of hero's (political heros) the names Lee Atwater and Richard Nixon seem to come to mind, you too McGentrix? Now that I think about it RFK (you remember, the other Kennedy) had a successful run for the Dem nomination on an End the War platform til someone shot him)
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2004 06:16 pm
Are you really interested?

I have no political heroes. There are politicians who have earned my respect, but I don't really think any politician has reached hero status. Well, Maybe Reagan, but that would be a pushing it.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2004 06:26 pm
Yup, the man who was in office while senile. Explains Republican thought in soooo many ways. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2004 06:48 pm
McGentrix, why are you buying into a controversy that was not your's? For people, particularly men, of my generation Vietnam is a lingering emotional issue. But you seemed to have inherited this.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2004 12:11 am
I absolutely fail to see the rationality in condemning and vilifying a person who fights a war, sees what is happening, decides that this war is unjust and cruel, and decides to protest it when he gets home.

It is far from being Kerry alone who has made such accusations - and many more are coming out. It is fatuous to say that the media would have picked up on these atrocities - people generally do not perform them in front of cameras and such (though some did). Why is it wrong to say that troops currently fighting a war are committing atrocities? If we know such things, is it not honourable to name them at a time when they can conceivably be stopped? How is naming the truth of atrocities traducing the names of soldiers who are not involved in them? Kerry is not to blame for stupid people who took things out on returning soldiers. We could never say anything if we were to be held responsible for every stupid person who might use our words to justify some stupidity of theirs.

This vilification is stupid. Even more so, I think, than the attempts to blacken Bush with doubts about his military service - since Bush is famed for glorifying America's military might, and using it in his self-promotion, and denigrating people who do not support his use of American armed might. There is a thread of relevancy there...
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2004 01:03 am
That op-ed piece...heroic pictures of the president in the BUDGET???? That is sick. Has it been done before?
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2004 05:14 am
McGentrix wrote:
There is a time and a place for such demonstrations and doing so while others are still fighting that war is a disgusting act in my opinion.

So when, in your opinion, was "the time and place for such demonstrations"? Before the war, it would have required skills in fortune telling that humans don't have. During the war, the time and place is wrong according to you. So wrong as to make demonstrations "a disgusting act." After the war, there's no point in demonstrating against it anymore.

Which time and place do you have in mind? I don't see any left. I'm mystified here.
0 Replies
 
pistoff
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2004 05:56 am
Opposition
There was world wide oppositon to the illegal invasion of Iraq. Then the Neo Fascists lied about WMDs and connections to terrorists in Iraq.The spokespersons said there was an immediate danger, elluded to mushroom clouds, huge Bio and Chemical arsenals and indirect statements making it seem like Saddam was involved with 911 attacks.

Now the story has melded into mushmouthed, moronic giberish.

This Neo Fascist cabal is built on lies, half lies and propaganda. The Media, especially TV bought into the Grand Deceptions for three years treating the American citizenry like mushrooms: Keeping them in the dark and feeding them dung.

Now that some truth is finally emerging and the Neo Fascists are starting to weaken, the Media smells the blood and like all sharks are circling and smelling the blood and looking for the kill.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2004 10:01 am
dlowan, Krugman said specifically that Clinton didn't illustrate his budgets with the hagiographic photos -- just, ya know, pie charts and graphs. I don't know about before that. It doesn't strike me as very Bush I-ish. Reagan, though, could be...
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2004 10:46 am
That seems to be the way of dictators to have their pictures posted wherever Twisted Evil . Not that Bush is a dictator. He only thinks he is. Embarrassed
0 Replies
 
theollady
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2004 10:50 am
From the link above: Bush acts against critics on guard record and 9/11

Quote:
The records show that Mr. Bush was suspended from flying beginning Aug. 1, 1972 because he failed to take the exam. His last flight exam was on May 15, 1971.

Mr. Bartlett said Mr. Bush missed the exam because he felt there was no reason to take it. Mr. Bush, he said, had begun his training in 1968 with the Air National Guard in Texas, where he flew a fighter jet, the F-102. When he moved to Alabama in 1972 to work in the Senate campaign of a friend of his father, Mr. Bush transferred to an Alabama unit of the Guard that did not fly the same plane. Because there was no way Mr. Bush could fly planes in Alabama, Mr. Bartlett said, he did not bother to report for the medical exam.

Mr. Bartlett acknowledged that his explanation would probably not stop Mr. Bush's critics. "They're never going to be satisfied," he said. "Their intent was not the truth. Their intent was trolling for trash."


Richard W. Stevenson and Richard A. Oppel Jr. contributed reporting forthis article.


[How can we be satisfied--- no one has confessed yet. Gotta keep on wringing, Bartlett. Truth is gonna squish out, just you wait!)
0 Replies
 
theollady
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2004 10:54 am
Thomas:
Quote:
So when, in your opinion, was "the time and place for such demonstrations"? Before the war, it would have required skills in fortune telling that humans don't have. During the war, the time and place is wrong according to you. So wrong as to make demonstrations "a disgusting act." After the war, there's no point in demonstrating against it anymore.

Which time and place do you have in mind? I don't see any left. I'm mystified here.


Great post Thomas, I am mystified too.

[au... The Real Man was a brilliant 'read', thanks for posting.]
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2004 03:42 pm
I'm still waiting, McGentrix, for evidence that Kerry ever called US soldiers murderers and rapists. Or did you just make that up to exaggerate Kerry's opposition to the war?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Feb, 2004 07:18 pm
McGentrix wrote:
America is all about free speech, but to come home from a war and to turn around and call ones brothers in arms rapists, murderers, etc, turns my stomach. I am not the only one either.


Apart from the obvious conceptual point Thomas brought up (what is the right time to criticize a war or its excesses, if not when it's actually taking place?), there's a more nitpickish aspect to this slur ...

You see, Kerry didn't actually call his brothers-in-arms rapists, murderers etc. He just quoted some people who did - and the people he quoted happen to be a group of veterans who had talked about the things they had done themselves.

See (emphasis added):

Quote:
NOTEBOOK
Military Record


http://www.tnr.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20040223&s=notebook022304_2
Post date: 02.15.04

With John Kerry making his service in Vietnam a staple of his campaign, it's hardly surprising that Republicans are making Kerry's subsequent antiwar activities a staple of their attacks on him. And the first salvo, it seems, is to deliberately misconstrue Kerry's 1971 testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

It was in that testimony that Kerry, representing the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (vvaw), uttered the now-famous question: "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" But Republicans and their allies in the press have lately been paying more attention to another part of Kerry's testimony. As National Review put it on the cover of their February 23 issue, plugging a story called "the senator's other vietnam war record," Kerry testified that day, "American soldiers 'raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, ... cut off limbs, ... randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside...'" A January 30 article in the The Washington Times reported that Kerry testified, "They ... raped, cut off ears, cut off heads," etc.

The quote, as rendered on the National Review cover and in the Times article, makes it appear that Kerry himself was, as the Times put it, committing "slander of the GIs he left behind in Vietnam." But that's only because National Review and the Times use their own language or ellipses to omit critical elements of Kerry's testimony. Months before Kerry's appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, vvaw had held what it called the "Winter Soldier Investigation" in Detroit, at which more than 100 Vietnam veterans testified to war crimes they themselves committed while serving in Vietnam. Those are the crimes to which Kerry referred in his Senate testimony, as a fuller version of his remarks--which, to National Review's limited credit, it did print in its actual article--makes clear. Speaking of the veterans who testified at the "Winter Soldier Investigation," Kerry said, "They told stories that at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war." So, far from making the allegations himself, Kerry was simply repeating what other veterans themselves had admitted. Too bad for National Review and the Times that none of them are running for president.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The Kerry moment
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/20/2021 at 05:14:51