How Will Kerry Be Any Different As President?

The link isn't working. Here's the article at Truthout.

Kerry's Military Records Show a Highly Praised Officer
The Associated Press

Wednesday 21 April 2004
truthout.org...

East Coast, honestly I'd have to agree with you that some Republicans are brain dead zealots, but being a dumbass is pretty bipartisan if you ask me.

One thing I AM tired of though, is the bull# about voting for Nadar.

If you tell people to NOT vote for who best represents them.. then # you.

If you tell people to vote someone out rather than someone in.. then # you.

If you abstain from voting.. the # you.

Simple as that.

How does his military evals affect your decision making about Kerry - as potential president?

Here is the rebuttal:

www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com...

Here he is speaking out against the war that got him all that "praise"
www.greene.xtn.net...

www.vnsfvetakerry.com...

members.aol.com...

Anybody need more?

Why don't you give us your own perspective on how you think Kerry's service would affect his presidency.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Why don't you give us your own perspective on how you think Kerry's service would affect his presidency.

If you are asking me here is the answer:

He served in Vietnam, then he came home and renounced his service there and accused people there of committing war crimes (how ironic).

Why would I want someone who betrayed military personnel to be in charge of them?

Do you, ECK, think that his service will influence people to vote for him?

Originally posted by COOL HAND

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Why don't you give us your own perspective on how you think Kerry's service would affect his presidency.

If you are asking me here is the answer:

He served in Vietnam, then he came home and renounced his service there and accused people there of committing war crimes (how ironic).

Why would I want someone who betrayed military personnel to be in charge of them?

Do you, ECK, think that his service will influence people to vote for him?

How do you figure that speaking out against the justifications for the war in Vietnam and/or speaking about "war crimes" is betraying military members?

Would you expect that someone should just keep their mouth shut? Would that be patriotic enough for you?

Originally posted by COOL HAND

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Why don't you give us your own perspective on how you think Kerry's service would affect his presidency.

He served in Vietnam, then he came home and renounced his service there and accused people there of committing war crimes (how ironic).

That would be called giving his perspective on the war, based on his experience. Many did the same. Many renounced the whole affair even after being true believers. There's nothing wrong with changing one's mind. That is growth.

Why would I want someone who betrayed military personnel to be in charge of them?

Testifying before congress regarding one's experience is not betrayal. It's called telling the truth. Something we could use a lot more of these days.

Do you, ECK, think that his service will influence people to vote for him?

I know it will.

Quote:

***3)*** READS THE MATERIAL GIVEN TO HIM. Bush doesn't like to read (as has been proven many times.)

End quote
_______
No he (Kerry) does not. The memo given to his people by Sullivan regarding the very lax security at Logan Airport is one example. One very serious mistake. The memo was presented to him prior to 9/11.

Let me ask you this: you're standing in line waiting to get into the theater or opera. A limo pulls up, someone gets out and and walks to the front of the line, bypassing everyone standing there. When challenged, he says "Do you know who I am? Well, this is typical behavior of John Forbes Kerry. Is this your kind of candidate?

How about saying to a voter "That's none of your business" when asked which world leaders he had spoken to regarding the election?

How about insisting that he be considered for a Purple Heart when his "wound" was, according to the nurse that treated him, about as big as a fingernail scratch and subsequently treated with Bacitracin?

How about his refusal to release all his medical records pertaining to his VietNam service?

How about his throwing another soldier's medals over the wall, and keeping his own?

How about his contradictory testimony regarding the VietNam war?

These are examples of his poor character. I won't even get into his voting record.

How will he be different than Bush? He will be much worse because he is wishy-washy and holds no strong convictions. With Bush, you know where he stands, whether you agree with him or not.

With any luck, we will never be presented with the nightmare of a President Kerry.

_

[Edited on 24-4-2004 by jsobecky]

[Edited on 24-4-2004 by jsobecky]

Well, tell us how ya really feel!

I appreciate your comments. The way I see it, while Dubya was back in Texas getting drunk, Kerry was in the 'Nam getting shot at.

After looking into his records I've come to some conclusions..

1. Kerry had a safe admin job with the Navy. Because he had experience with speed boats, he volunteered for hazardous duty. He did not have to.

2. He was thrice wounded and was awarded three purple hearts. I don't give a rat's A** what his wounds were. Did Dubya put his flesh in the line of fire? Nope. Kerry was sent stateside after the third wound. I could care less. He earned the right to go home, as did everyone who got three purple hearts. That was fair and right.

3. After reading his Naval evals I found his record to reflect excellence in service. Valor, heroism, Gallantry. A man unmoved by the enemy. Brave enough to face it down and destroy it. A man who saved the lives of some of his men. Like the other JFK. A bonafide war hero. A man I could salute if I were still in uniform.

None of these things can be said for anyone in the current administration, least of all our war president. I might just vote for Kerry based on his service alone. What is the alternative? Not voting? As long as I vote, I have a right to speak my mind for good or ill.

Still thinking....

People seem to forget that each political party appears to play a different game leading to the same conclusions, fewer freedoms, more government, more spending, and higher taxes in the midst of overwhelming assets in every CAFR in the country.

The direction and flow of things is right when it reaffirms actual liberty and prosperity for all, it is wrong when it makes any group, corporation, and economic interest ascendant over far too many others. Leaders have been too blatant asserting self interest over national purpose. Freedom is a matter of responsibility, and when people give it up at any legislative session, it may never return in quite the same way.

Dominion by the way, is arguably defined as "wise stewardship." Leadership too must intuit itself as that fine quality.

Yes each leader, Kerry or Bush may be "different," but if the conclusions they reach are the same, and worsen our country, then it is a voter's government choice by "lesser of evils." That position should never have to be attained, if a candidate flooded the nation with virtues in policy, inescapable sound principles. Such things are desirable, possible, and qualitatively attainable.

[Edited on 24-4-2004 by SkipShipman]

How can any president who cheats to win an election still be considered a solid choice?

How can a president with deep ties to the Bin Laden family still be considered a good candidtate post 9/11?

How can a president who puts the interests of the countries finacial elite first still be considered by the masses to be a good pick come November?

How can any president turn the support of so many people in the world against the US after suffering through a tragedy like 9/11? How is that even possible?

I'm not saying that I necessarily believe John Kerry is a saint. But he is a way better choice than Bush because even Spuds Mackenzie would be a better choice than Bush! Someone pointed out earlier in this thread that Kerry filp flops on issues. I would challenge that every politican does that. Especially during election time. The nature of getting or keeping your job is telling people what they want to hear.

But honestly, I think too many Americans equate The War in Iraq to a feel good retaliation for 9/11, and that is exactly what this administration wants the masses to feel. And it is so scary.

As a foreign citizen whose country was named by Bin Laden I will tell you that I am currently more afraid of the Bush administration than I am of Al Qaeda. By a long shot. Because it doesn't take a lot of stepping outside this situation to see that more problems are being created than solved.

Keep America strong folks. Vote wisely.

ECK

I agree that Kerry's military service is something we should be thankful for.

There are holes and discrepancies there, BUT...
that was over thirty years ago. There is way too much diiging up real old dirt on both sides of the aisle, IMO.

I don't know how old you are, but I was prime draft material at that time. When I look back at my politics then, and compare them to my politics today, I'd be looking at two diiferent men.

And that is the way it should be; we should grow and learn over the years. I don't know of one person in their late teens/early twenties that will be the same person thirty years from now. So we should be more tolerant when we look at the actions of two very young men back then as opposed to now.

I don't think that a good military man automatically makes for a good president, or vice versa. Sometimes we need Solomon, sometimes we need Attila. It depends on the world at that point in time.

I'm still gonna vote for Bush.

_

misscleo

You are not voting FOR Kerry as much as you are voting AGAINST Bush.

You should post some proof of your statements, such as

Cheating to win an election

Turning the support of so many people in the world against the US

etc.

I would be very interested in the basis of your allegations.

_

Thanks all for the thoughtful comments. Definitely plenty of ideas to chew on.

Jsobecky,
I am 35 and served in the Gulf War with the 101st Abn. That's why his military record struck me as important.

Yes, we all change over the years - hopefully. I certainly have. I've grown more tolerant. More rational. More inclined towards diplomacy. I used to be a hawk on defense - before the neocons came along and flipped everything. I am still a hawk on the defense of my nation. Just more wise when it comes to what fights to pick and how to finish them.

Trust me, I don't like Kerry and I voted for Bush in 2000. (I've been a life-long conservative Republican) I cannot abide what this administration and its zealot minions in congress have done to our nation and military. I would never have imagined there could be a president more damaging than Bill Clinton.

Anyway, my comments were basically just to say, if I must vote, to be a part of the process, and there is only these two candidates (which is a sham of a system), Kerry's war record is something I can respect far more than Bush's. And trust me, I am well aware of all the other arguments for and against both men. That is just the one thing that speaks to me.

Between the two, Kerry clearly is the one who stepped up and got the job done - under fire.

Bush has set us back 20 years with regards to foreign policy.

I think he means well, but is not sophisticated enough to see the big picture. ie. our country in the long run. He is overly simplistic and tends to see everything in black and white. The world is much more complicated than that.

His "You are with us or against us" remarks reminded me of a Mafia boss giving an ultimatum.

Brute force should ALWAYS be the last resort and in my eyes, we had other options to explore rather than invading Iraq.

.

Quote:
Bush has set us back 20 years with regards to foreign policy.
End quote.

_____
Are you referring to the actions of certain UN members who did not support us going into Iraq? Members like France and Germany?

Could you clarify what you mean with your statement?


_

So true, Facefirst.

Also on Kerry:

I can't help but be struck by Kerry's list of accomplishments and the languages that he can speak. He learned Vietnamese while there and is fluent in French (more languages I'm sure). Combine his educational background, extensive travel and military experience, you've got a helluva resume. He doesn't need people standing around telling him what to do. He can figure it out all by himself. Unlike you know who.

Someone mentioned awhile back that Kerry's flip-flopped. That's one reason why the last time a Senator was elected it was Kennedy. Lawmakers have to play the give and take game. And as humans, they do change their minds and beliefs at times, as well as allegiences. I don't think we should focus so much on that aspect. Someone who is unbending and unforgiving worries me much more.

[Edited on 19-09-2003 by EastCoastKid]

Originally posted by jsobecky
Quote:
Bush has set us back 20 years with regards to foreign policy.
End quote.

_____
Are you referring to the actions of certain UN members who did not support us going into Iraq? Members like France and Germany?
Could you clarify what you mean with your statement?
_

That is one part of what I was talking about. Those same countries went into Afgahnistan with us and very possibly could have gone into Iraq with us given time.

Strong-arm tactics work in the short-term, but good diplomacy is better for the long term.

.

ECK

Quote:
I am 35 and served in the Gulf War with the 101st Abn. That's why his military record struck me as important.
End quote.

Perfectly understandable. I still don't understand all your objections to GWB and the war, tho. I do agree that the mess over there is getting worse, and IMO this is because the troops are being held back. Rumsfeld's fault here.

It's good to hear that you are still undecided, and still open to listening to all points of view. Not enough of that, IMO.

__