Obama '08?

Teeny, I don't understand people like Kerry. It isn't normal. I think he has a rich boy 60's rebellious - anti establishment mindset still. It wasn't too long ago he accused our military of "terrorizing" women and children in Iraq. He hasn't gotten over his chip on his shoulder from the the anti establishment hippie days of the 60's, just my opinion. But he still owes every service person an apology, which as far as I know, has still not happened. I think he may have said he got a little over zealous in his words or some such thing, but still no apology. I have no respect, none whatsoever, for such people that lied, and know they lied. Not to beat a dead horse, he has to know he lied, or he is very very naive, which is another possibility, but I desire neither for a person charged with protecting the country.

Okie:



You say you never saw atrocities and that those you served with and talked to about their service there never saw atrocities. Fine. I take you at your word.
How does that extrapolate into "Kerry smeared all veterans", or "Kerry lied"?

Don't you think there are veterans who did see, and who have admitted to seeing, atrocities in Vietnam? Are those men traitors or liars for saying what they saw?

Yes I am in the military. Consequently, I have seen what peer pressure and groupthink does to people in the military - on a small scale, it is why racial and sexist humor goes unchallenged in the military by most who hear it .

On a large scale, it is the reason why Abu Ghraib was able to happen. It wasn't because no one saw, or knew that what was happening there was wrong. It was because of some twisted code of "honor" that says a serviceman should not turn on other servicemen - even when they are dead wroing in every conceivable way.

If you KNOW that My Lai and My Khe happened, and was wrong, how can you act like it was the only time that kind of thing happened? Or do you still deny that over 300 men women and children were massacred at My Lai and My Khe? And why was Kerry wrong for saying that it was wrong? If ANY of what Kerry said went on there, why should he apologize?

You need to get off your self-righteous high horse, IMHO.

Essentially he did, snood. Here is this statement:
"highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command...."
That being one of a package of statements that essentially misrepresented the entire military, snood. I would think you should care. Perhaps you wouldn't care if a politician accused your unit of committing atrocities for which there was no credible evidence?

I think there were atrocities, as in any war snood, but they were not run of the mill standard procedure, no way, and it has been shown that many of the stories at that Winter Soldier meeting were bogus, much driven by the anti war hippies of the 60's mindset. Look, I am not pro-war, and I was not necessarily in favor of Vietnam, but I am arguing for a realistic look at history here, thats all. Further, you would be surprised at how many bogus soldier stories there are, bogus Vietnam vets there are, I have met one or two myself, and have read about many. It is some kind of phony soldier syndrome or something.


I agree very much with you on that point, snood. I always wondered as a kid why something like the Holocaust could have ever happened. After serving in the military and working for a corporation, I understand it now. For what its worth, I was not a military type of guy, I did what I was supposed to do, I was reliable, did my job, and when it was time to get out, I was happy to leave. I only served my draft time of 2 years, actually minus 2 1/2 months due to an early out, they didn't need me once I got back stateside and any job waiting - they granted early outs. I was not lifer material, but I am glad there are career military to keep it running.


Apparently they happened, but I am convinced they were isolated cases, not on a day to day basis, no way. Kerry should apologize because he plainly said they were not isolated incidents, but happened day to day, and he testified to Congress based on hearsay, hearsay that was bogus, plain and simple, and he is responsible for painting a picture of the the American military to Congress and to the American people that was a lie. Thats why he should apologize, snood, maybe you don't think it is important, but I am here to tell you it was important to the Swift Boaters, and I think it should be important to any self respecting serviceman.


You have it backwards in my opinion. It is people like Kerry and his ilk that should have gotten off their high horse a very long time ago, and I think it is high time that you, a serviceman, should stand up for the serviceman. If you don't care, that is your right to do so, but I would think the reputation of the military and the reputation of your country should mean more to you than a cheap liberal politician in the name of John Kerry.

One last comment, I don't care about Kerry in regard to my own respect, but what I do care about is the country, and it irks me when cheap politicians run down the country, trash it, trash everything about it, and it is all bogus, too many people have died for good causes to stay silent about it. I am going to call them for what they are, cheap politicians, period.

Okie, I believe you really do care about our country. I really do care, too. And I am not defending John Kerry so much - he is basically a politician and does do what politicians do. It just bothers me more when people get so crazed when anyone criticizes the country than it bothers me when someone criticizes our country. I think dissent is what makes us America the free.

Peace.

Thanks, snood. I have found you a reasonable man at least part of the time. I guess we are on opposite sides of politics, but that goes with the territory.

Not to beat a dead horse, but I think there is a big difference between criticizing the government and various politicians, and criticizing the country. Also, I think there is a difference between criticizing individual decisions, individual downfalls, as they occur in various institutions, including the military, but I think the military by and large is a decent organization with many good people with the best of intentions.

So it is a very big irritation to me when I hear a politician denigrate and run down an entire institution or an entire country. This country is not evil at its roots, I just don't believe it. I know you are an Obama supporter, thats fine, but that has me bothered about Obama, he doesn't show me that he thinks the country is basically good. I don't know if he thinks it is. That rubs me the wrong way. Yes, we have flaws, but I don't happen to think the entire system needs changing.

We fought a Civil War about 150 years ago, and quite a few of your white brothers and fellow citizens died to help your black brothers and sisters, snood. We are all in this together, and everybody has paid a price. I don't think we need to elect a black man to validate your worth, or my worth (We should vote based on politics, not race). You have already earned it, simply by being a good citizen and serving your country. Thanks, and I mean it.

Obama's weak grip on foreign policy pushes him behind McC...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080820/ts_nm/usa_poll_politics_dc
Interesting that Zogby no longer even pretends to be unbiased.

btw---nimh and snood--I was reading back in this thread and was reminded of an argument we had... You seemed to believe America wasn't ready for a black president. Have you changed your minds...or must Obama be elected to change that perception of the American electorate?

From your link:
"The reversal follows a month of attacks by McCain, who has questioned Obama's experience, criticized his opposition to most new offshore oil drilling and mocked his overseas trip."

I made bold the key words in this sentence. If the shoe was on the other foot, the chosen words would be perhaps "ads contrasting policy positions," "disagreement over," and "dismissing."

Notice anytime McCain contrasts his record with Obama's, it is now an "attack" ad, and politics of personal destruction. Alot of us are fully aware of the liberal bias in the media, and so when we read this crap, it doesn't surprise us anymore. It is is just more general run of the mill standard procedure.

hi okie---Looking at this objectively, there were ads...(the nutty Britney Spears debacle), but I agree completely with what you seem to be implying...This jump for McC is on the heels of Obama's dismal performance at the Faith thingie, as well as his fumbling of the Three AM moment. People tend to edge over to the GOP when there are serious foreign policy issuess on the front burner...especially when the other guy seems a bit limp in that area.

Zogby's narrative reads like it was written by Obama's PR rep.

Alot of people are uneasy or nervous about Obama, but McCain is viewed as the safer candidate, and as time passes, this factor should work in McCain's favor. It is exciting and stimulating to ponder a new face, such as Obama, but when the rubber meets the road, most people need to be reasssured, they want to be secure in regard to their next president, and if Obama is just too big of a risk, McCain will win.

I think the Dems are suffering a huge case of buyers remorse right now, but they simply can't admit it. They have put their money on this horse, and so they must pretend to make the best of it. Just how much emotion they can retain, and gin up out there will tell the story. They have nominated a virtual unknown, a street activist lawyer with little experience, a good talker supposedly, but I don't believe that really, just listen to all the "uh uhs" in every answer. And not very informed actually on alot of issues. I am surprised he has ever gotten as far as he has. Face it, he is a media promoted candidate, thats all.

Enjoy your little victories while you can. I think you are completely wrong; after 8 years of Republicans screwing things up and starting unnecessary and expensive wars, McCain is the dangerous choice.

Cycloptichorn

Very interesting dialogue between Okie & Snood concerning John Kerry, military atrocities and criticizing our institutions. Two distinct points of view here, and both accurately and fairly presented. In several respects I agree with both. Our basic institutions, the military included, are not beyond serious criticism, nor should they be. The dangers of "group think" and mass behavior, to which Snood referred, are real, as have been the sadly real consequences in several cases. At the same time just criticism should not be used for unrelated political or personal purposes -- and that, in my view is what John Kerry did.

Moreover in his famous testimony to the Senate committe (sitting next to an associate in the VVFT who was later proven to be a fraud masquerading as a former serviceman, and who is usually cropped out of the photos) Kerry made broad, sweeping accusations of systematic and likely deliberate war crimes that have not been supported by the facts of the war as sifted by historians. He was careful to note that he had not seen (or participated in ) these things himself, but that he had "heard stories of them" in a VVFT convention held earlier. I can't prove it objectively, but I am satisfied with the conclusion that his motivation was the advancement of his own political career, and not the welfare of humanity.

Perhaps. However today's news (Aug 20) has reports of the latest Reuters poll of likely voters, and It shows a fairly rapid swing of voters from Obama to McCain in the last month, now with McCain leading. I'm no addict or follower of the polls, and I am aware that there are many other tracking polls that may show different results. However, this is indeed a significant indicator of shifting public opinion.

I still think Obama is the likely winner, but increasingly it appears that the contest will be at least very close.

McCain had a good week - the Georgia thing allowed his 'tough-guy' side to come out, and Obama was unfortunately on vacation and didn't effectively respond to the situation.

We're just starting to round the turn to the final lap, though - the VP choices on both sides could change things big time.

Cycloptichorn

Oh, I agree there will be several more twists and turns in the relative standing of the candidates in this contest, and Obama did indeed have a "bad week" as you said.

However, the result remains uncertain in this hotly contested election. It is interesting that, despite all the hype, media bias of all kinds, propaganda of the contending parties, and all the rest, the real issues do indeed finally come to the foreground in this messy, distracting process. For all its many faults popular democracy does work -- imperfectly to be sure, but it works.

Again, I still think Obama is the likely winner - but it's going to be close.

(BTW, McCain really is a fairly 'tough guy', and tough guys are not all bad.)

I have always thought it was going to be close - this whole 'why isn't Obama blowing him out of the water?' meme never captured my imagination. I think the State voting may be less close then the national average, though, which is why I usually rely on state polls, in which Obama is still doing good.

Cycloptichorn
Ps, I think that CI was trying to get in touch with you about something.

Thanks very much - and I him. Mc Tag has my phone number from an earlier PM, and I am in the book. I don't know Cicerone's.

I'm glad Obama has finally decided to pick Hillary Clinton as VP.

Good choice, folks!

It's not the right time then to hedge my stake on my 6-1 bet on the gallant dodderer? Is that what you are saying?

What are you talking about Miller? The only one I've heard say that is Ralph Nader - is that your source?