Would SBVFT consider Bush 'fit for command'?

georgeob1 wrote:

I won't quibble about the phrase " centerpoint of his campaign", however, John Kerry has, throughout his career in the Senate made a big, visible deal about his service in Vietnam. This continued throughout the early democrat primaries and into the early phases of the current campaign. He has repeatedly in his own speeches and public commentaries gone out of his way to work in references to his service in Vietnam, and has done so in a way that seems very odd to those of us who served there.

That's interesting. My impression up to now has been that he used the Vietnam thread in his speeches as a defensive weapon against Bush's "operation flight suit"; that the originally intended message was: "See -- just because you put on a flight suit, strut around in it on an aircraft carrier, let soldiers celebrate your 'mission accomplished', and call yourself a 'war president', that doesn't make you a credible commander in chief. In reality, you're still just a draft dodger who never even bothered to finish his draft-dodging." So far I think that's fair game, but the thread then got out of hand (this can happen in real life too...) and became this huge big deal that crowds out way too much debate about the issues that matter. At least that was my impression up to now.

This is the first time I hear that the Vietnam story played a big role in Kerry's pre-presidential campaign rhetoric too. If your story about his rhetoric is true, this would lower my opinion of Kerry enough to make me prefer, say, George Bush Sr. over him, though certainly not George Bush Jr. As it happens, I did some surfing on the Doonesbury site a few hours ago, and it turns out that Gary Trudeau painted a portrait of Kerry's rhetoric back in 1971. In fairness, I have to concede that Gary Trudeau's 1971 account of Kerry's activism does look more consistent with your side of the story than with mine. Then again, Trudeau's contemporary account of Kerry's opponents isn't very favorable either. But I am now open to the possibility that non-fanatic veterans may indeed have a legitimate axe to grind with Kerry's Vietnam rhetoric.

Now, if only we had some contemporary Doonesbury strips of George Bush Jr. to compare the Kerry strips with ...

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

george, we've gone a few rounds on this already. I've been impressed with your concession that your objections really stem from the fact that you plain don't like the guy. You're entitled to your dislike, but here you're repeating falsehoods again. ("Falsely accused of atrocities", "Much later denied he ever observed", etc., etc.)

I already showed they're falsehoods, you already acknowledged as much, why repeat them yet again?

Not really falsehoods. After your post I took the trouble to read his testimony and do some research on the VVAW group for which he was the appointed spokesman. It is true that early in his testimony he noted that he was reporting the harvest of an earlier meeting in Detroit of the VVAW at which the stories which he was reporting were exchanged. However the clear unambiguous statements he offered affirming that rather awful atrocities were the rule, not the exception - widespread and ubiquitous - were contradicted by his own experience in the war. His faiure to affirm that in my book constitutes a serious deceprion - not to mention slander of those with whom he served.

Kerry's surprise at the furor that has emerged is itself interesting. He has long been the subject of contempt and derision by his former squadronmates and by the various POW organizations. Evidently he became the chief cousumer of his own self-serving propoganda. That alonee and the serious misjudgement it entails raises serious questions about his character.

Bush joined the Air Guard, completed Air Force flight training and qualified in F-102s. He made no additional claims about his service,. The drill records about which you and others are trying to raise a fuss are no big deal. That the records might have been lost is just as believable as the assumption that he missed a drill. Generally flight billets in the Air Guard were highly prized - there were always other guys glad to take up any such opportunity. Recalls for such missed drills (if that was the case) just didn't occur.

0 Replies

Perhaps studying the history and aspects of the Vietnam war, the myriad dynamics such as those who were for the war in the beginning but then turned harshly against it, should be studied more than referring to one man and his opinion 30 years ago who is now running for President.

I'm sure MANY Vietnam vets were as angry at the war itself as they were angry at those who would criticize it.

The fact is, atrocities DID happen, whether they be big or small. And there are Vietnam vets who are angry at Kerry, but have not denied the fact that atrocities DID occur. It is MUCH more complicated than EITHER side has indicated. Many people HATE Kerry for this. But he was telling the TRUTH. Perhaps the neoconservatives would be happy with the man they have now who lies constantly to them on a daily basis in order to win political points.

But it would also be interesting to study the many "opinions" of George W. Bush back then so we can compare the differences. By all personal accounts, Dumbya was a cokehead, alcoholic, who's fraternity style socializing and straight "C" intellect didn't help him much unless Daddy was around to back him up. See, if Bush could actually remember and articulate his experiences in the National Guard, i.e., naming guys he hung out with during his "questionable" time in Alabama, then this WOULD be no fuss at all. So either he's too brain damage to remember, or he was AWOL and won't fess up as to why.

And quite frankly, as the swifties have conjured up every minute detail of bull to smear Kerry, it is what we CANNOT find in Bush's NG records that indicates how full of Bull Dumbya is.

0 Replies

1. George W. Bush DID NOT complete his ANG duty. http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000625682

2. George W. Bush lied about it.

3. George W. Bush was a DESERTER (AWOL being missing for 30 days, Deserter being more than 30 days)

4. George W. Bush was PAID, according to his military records, for drills that were not performed. Would that be THEFT?

5. George W. Bush wears a medal in his military photo that was earned by his unit BEFORE he arrived there, and therefore, that he did not earn and did not have permission to wear.

Now, is that not worse than coming back from Vietnam and letting people know what was going on? Do you feel the same about the person that "outed" the Abu Graib prison abuse? Do you expect soldiers serving in Iraq today to be angry enough 35 years from now to stop the person that passed on the prison abuse CD from running for president?

0 Replies

I honestly don't know what to say. If someone doesn't see the difference between missing drills or not showing up for a physical and the impact of Kerry's words on men who were held prisoner and mistreated, then so be it.

I've read some of what these POWs have said and what they had to endure because of Kerry. I cannot imagine Kerry wasn't aware of this impact.

Because of the pain he caused them, many of them just cannot forget. I don't blame them.

0 Replies

'Bush and I were lieutenants'

0 Replies

If someone doesn't see the difference between someone going to Vietnam and doing his duty, doing it well, and coming home and doing what he could to end the war that he had seen firsthand was unjust, and a man who shirked his responsibilities to the extent that she should have been punished at least three times that I know of (punishment being sent into combat) but somehow was given a pass... then so be it.

As others have said, do you mean that there should be no dissent? Even if you could show a direct cause and effect between (truthful) testimony and what POWs endured, it could still be argued that Kerry saved more lives than were damaged, by helping to bring the war to a close sooner. Either way, it seems immaterial in this election. If character is what you are concerned with, Kerry shows far more of it in these two scenarios. He did his duty, did it well, and took the more difficult path due to his personal convictions, which he has stuck to throughout. (Contrary to what has been commonly repeated here, he has never "recanted" his testimony.) If character is what you're concerned with, and if you put any stock in these two scenarios, surely Kerry will be your choice.

0 Replies

squinney wrote:

1. George W. Bush DID NOT complete his ANG duty. http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000625682

2. George W. Bush lied about it.

3. George W. Bush was a DESERTER (AWOL being missing for 30 days, Deserter being more than 30 days)

4. George W. Bush was PAID, according to his military records, for drills that were not performed. Would that be THEFT?

5. George W. Bush wears a medal in his military photo that was earned by his unit BEFORE he arrived there, and therefore, that he did not earn and did not have permission to wear.

Now, is that not worse than coming back from Vietnam and letting people know what was going on? Do you feel the same about the person that "outed" the Abu Graib prison abuse? Do you expect soldiers serving in Iraq today to be angry enough 35 years from now to stop the person that passed on the prison abuse CD from running for president?

How forcefully you project accusations and innuendo as fact.

0 Replies

innuendo From latin innuendō which would make it a Romance language word. Isn't French a Romance language? Are you French McG?

0 Replies

The POWs see Kerry as a traitor. Their perception of his character is more important to me than mine or anyone else's.

As for President Bush's military record, it was addressed in 2000. Many voters didn't believe the lies then, and my prediction is they aren't believing them now.

Four more years.

0 Replies

McCain was both a POW and a spokesman for POWs. He doesn't see Kerry as a traitor.

0 Replies

And new documents have come to light since 2000.

I still dunno what I think about it all, and it may yet be proven wrong. That'd be no skin off my nose, and doesn't affect my vote one way or the other. But these allegations seem more fact-based than those put forward by the SBVfT, so far.

0 Replies

McCain is actively campaigning for President Bush. He is doing all he can to see that Kerry is not elected.

Although McCain has not said nor implied that Kerry is a traitor, it will be interesting (to me, at least) to see what he has to say about him (if anything) in his memoirs.

0 Replies

McCain is actively campaigning for president Bush -- and explicitly refuses to say anything negative about Kerry. He also quite stridently called on Bush to condemn the SBVfT ads (which he has yet to do...)

0 Replies

now Soz, you remember George did everything in his warchest to paint McCain as a brainwashed wacko in the last election, so McCain is tainted at best (besides he is from Arizona and we all know Arizonians are too weird for words) besides George let us know McCain had an Asian child (adopted) so he must be a demmunist sympathizer. You know how much I hate them demmunists!
See you in Boston? YES YES YES

0 Replies

:-D

0 Replies

McCain has refused to say anything negative about Kerry's military record.

If he thought much of Kerry himself or Kerry's senate record or Kerry on the issues, do you think he'd be campaigning for President Bush?

0 Replies

He's said lots of good things about Kerry, both general and specific.

He's a Republican, though. <shrugs> He wants a political future, he's campaigning for Bush. Doesn't say much one way or another, except for maybe that within that context his refusal to say negative stuff about Kerry means even more.

0 Replies

Check out former (Reagan Adm.) Secretary of the Navy James Webb's take on the situation. He was in Vietnam. He knows the Bush family.

http://www.jameswebb.com/articles/variouspubs/insidenavy.htm

0 Replies

Would SBVFT consider Bush 'fit for command'?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know