It's a long article, but find the time to read http://www.freezerbox.com/archive/article.asp?id=304 - then send it on to 75 friends, with a request that they send it on as well.

It's all very well to be anti-Bush, but we MUST do what we can to swing the middle ground away from the Republican machine.

I'm not even finished reading it yet, but Wow! Whoever this is is a very good writer.

it's one of the better essays that I've read

That's a damn good essay right there.

We shouldn't be reading things like this on Freezerbox. We should be hearing it from John Kerry. I don't think we have been, not nearly enough. Makes me worried.

We should be hearing it from John Kerry. I don't think we have been, not nearly enough. Makes me worried.

Which has been Kerry's problem from the get go; He needs to let Vietnam go and focus on something that's actually relevent. His advisors have to be the most moronic collection of @$$holes this side of Bush's speech writing staff. Also, being that he spent years vilifying the war and many of those who fought in it, it's an insult that Kerry's trumpeting his service as a badge of honor.

His service and every other US soldier's service IS A BADGE OF HONOR. That is different from evaluating unnecessary and unjust wars, like Vietnam and Iraq.

[quote]fantomas
[/qb][/quote]His service and every other US soldier's service IS A BADGE OF HONOR. That is different from evaluating unnecessary and unjust wars, like Vietnam and Iraq. [/QB][/QUOTE]

No kidding? I spent four years in the Coast Guard stationed in Kerry's home state. Honor, Loyalty, Devotion to duty, I know the meaning of all of these words. The difference is, after spending four months in Vietnam, this man made blanket statements concerning his fellow soldier's "atrocities" having never actually witnessed any of them (Don't believe me, check the transcripts of his testimony). What form of honor is that. The scars of these men, most of whom didn't want to be in Vietnam in the first place, have never really healed. When they came back after surviving tours in a war zone, they were spat on and ridiculed as a direct result of accusations made by "men" like Kerry. The insult I refered to is that he now wants to be placed on the same level as those whom he so vociferously condemned. That is absolutely an insult to anyone who has ever worn a uniform. Forgetting the fact that all of this happened 35 F@%$ing years ago and has nothing to do with why he can be a better president than Bush (It boggles the mind the many ways he could be better, but he chose this one). He was never the right choice for nomination. However, had he run a smart campaign based on relevent issues, the Swiftees wouldn't have caused as mush damage as they have and Bush would be running scared.

More insulting than Bush actually claiming to have served at all? It amazes me over and over how some people refuse to see the difference between the war and those forced to fight it.

Another point i am not sure i have seen much of: Chimpee and his crew have long mastered the art of battle politics (just ask Ann Richards or John McCain). When will the Democrats learn? Kerry is portrayed as a wimpy, French-speaking, bed-wetting liberal. And it's working! The response should be to portray Bush as a fundamental, fascist American Taliban. Granted, that's hard to do without alienating a lot of Christians, but can't somebody figure out how to do it? Come on.

Kerry is trying to "rise above it all." Is it possible that that's not what America wants to see?

[ September 02, 2004, 10:31 PM: Message edited by: JR in TX ]

Brookings, is it your opinion that the Vietnam atrocities did not happen, or they did but should have been ignored and unspoken?

I've read the transcripts AND listened to his testimony. The \"atrocities\" are WELL DOCUMENTED, and numerous. He was condemning THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE MILITARY LEADERS (Johnson? Nixon? Kissinger? Westmoreland? hello????), NOT HIS FELLOW SOLDIERS! It's not that difficult to understand or grasp. Also, he served TWO TOURS, not just FOUR MONTHS. He served with tremendous valor, SAVING A FELLOW AMERICAN, and leading his men with great distinction. This is all ON RECORD, not something I'm making up. It's there, documented, the TRUTH. He and millions of others, like my poor uncle, returned from Vietnam disgusted. (And my uncle was one of those \"minorities\" who kept Tom DeLay from signing up.) They spoke out about it. Kerry was the leader, and for that he will ALWAYS have my respect. The Vietnam War wasn't World War I or II or even the Korean War. It was a disastrous war we didn't need to fight, and concluded with our enemy actually taking over the country we were supposed to secure for democracy. Vietnam, as of 2004, is a COMMUNIST regime.


This is total BS! They were spat upon and ridiculed because MILLIONS of Americans strong disagreed with a war that SHOULD HAVE ENDED IN 1968. You may be too young to recall the rage that many felt about this war, which was clearly unjustified by 1970. Yet Henry Kissinger decided with Nixon (who so heartened Herr Arnold Gropenfuhrer, according to his lie-ridden speech the other night) to prolong the war for political gain, and thousands more American lives, and hundreds of thousands more Vietnamese, Cambodian, and Laotian lives were lost as a result. THAT is why people were enraged. NOT as a result of Kerry's and others' testimony and investigations (cf. The Winter Soldier hearings, etc., which established the wide array of atrocities that did occur). In fact, another Democratic WAR HERO, Bob Kerrey, admitted a few years ago that he very likely committed atrocities IN VIETNAM. It's not that outrageous, and should be discussed rather than being used as a means to slime and smear a WAR HERO. Because that's what Kerry is. My uncle wasn't. But Kerry is the real thing.

And say what you will, but the fact remains: Kerry went to Vietnam, while the chickenhawks found every reason NOT TO. W, above all, went missing for A YEAR! He has since had THE GALL to claim he would have \"gone if asked,\" even though on his enrollment form for the Air National Guard, which his father and that Texas politician Barnes helped him secure, he checked that HE DIDN'T WANT TO GO OVERSEAS!

So what is, Flipflop Chickenhawk W? You did or you didn't want to go? You checked that box but you really wanted to head to Vietnam? You were flying planes or you were grounded as the records say? You were boozing and working for some Alabama pol or you were serving your country as an enlisted man? You were there or you weren't? If you were, why doesn't anyone remember you? WHAT A JOKE! These creeps can't hold JOHN KERRY's JOCK!

What planet are you on? These same scumbags ran a similar HATE CAMPAIGN AGAINST JOHN McCAIN IN 2000! They claimed he was a traitor! They claimed he'd fathered a black child out of wedlock and pushpolled it in South Carolina, Strom Thurmond-land! They claimed that McCain gave away American secrets to the Vietnamese! THEY ARE HATEFUL, HATE-FILLED creeps who didn't serve yet will tear down anyone who did! Can't you see that? High-level Republican operatives were gearing up for Kerry in 2003! Had Edwards got the nomination they'd have trashed him FOR NOT SERVING! It's always something with these fake and phoney and hateful people. And yet they never hesitate to send young Americans into battle, and start talking abstractions when people site the human costs, on both sides. They're disgusting. If ANY of them ever leapt into a river while under fire to save a fellow soldier, you let me know. Okay? Thank you.

I think he's woken up and realized that these people are as ruthless as the Huns, and can only be dealt with by direct, repeated action. These GOP psychos--and I DO NOT MEAN ALL MEMBERS OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, just the wackos in charge in Washington--hammer out the same lies over and over again, refuse ever to answer for their mistakes and mistruths, and try to fool as many people as possible ALL THE TIME.

Fortunately, it's NOT working anymore. More people last time voted for Gore, and even more will vote for Kerry this time.

Nope, not at all. Atrocities occurred on both sides. War is, in and of itself, an atrocity. I'm not sure what you guys think war really is, but lets give it a theoretical breakdown. Wars are ostensibly fought by teenagers who, ripped from their mundane average lives, are thrust into situations of not only having to kill one person but dozens. War is a breakdown of civilization. The atrocities commited by those soldiers where commited under an unfathomable level of duress and, while not entirely excusable, were the logical extension of the environment they were in. War is an insanity which breeds insanity, not some "sensitive" campaign to defeat your foe. In the end, the true villains of that war were policy makers who never actually graced the battlefield.

This is total BS! They were spat upon and ridiculed because MILLIONS of Americans strong disagreed with a war that SHOULD HAVE ENDED IN 1968. You may be too young to recall the rage that many felt about this war, which was clearly unjustified by 1970. Yet Henry Kissinger decided with Nixon (who so heartened Herr Arnold Gropenfuhrer, according to his lie-ridden speech the other night) to prolong the war for political gain, and thousands more American lives, and hundreds of thousands more Vietnamese, Cambodian, and Laotian lives were lost as a result. THAT is why people were enraged. NOT as a result of Kerry's and others' testimony and investigations

Which is why MY uncle, and many others like him, had eggs hurled at them and were called "baby killers" upon arriving home. Because people had a legitimate beef with foreign policy? On what moon of Saturn does that logic hold up. You're Right, atrocities are well documented, but were never seen by Kerry. He gave descriptive accounts of horrors and then, when asked if he'd seen them personally, he said "no, but I've heard stories from other soldiers" (Which is equivalent to "No, I'm not a credible witness, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night"). Vietnam vets were painted as the bad guys while Nixon won a landslide election, yet people were upset with the administration?

And lets get real here for a moment. I don't care which party would attack which party concerning candidate X's military service. Having served in war time, peace time, or Miller time is NOT a qualification for the Presidency. Unless you are a former Joint Chief, General, Admiral, or Secretary of Defense, prior service in no way prepares you for, or qualifies you for, being a Commander-in Chief. Some of the best Presidents in history never served a day in a foxhole. And when it comes to draft dodging, there are very few people in this thread who wouldn't have taken a long hard look at the Canadian border as opposed to becoming "the last person to die for a mistake." This unbelievably stupid rationale is why I'm stuck voting for Kerry as opposed to maybe Edwards or another candidate who brings something more tangible to the table than these "Back in Vietnam..." speeches.

[ September 03, 2004, 06:57 PM: Message edited by: Brooking's boy ]

Ironic or sad? The very same statement can be made about our current war in Iraq.

Exactly.

Without a doubt. Only this time, the American people understand the difference between the incompetent commander and the commanded.

Kerry brings more to the office of Commander-in-Chief by virtue of his service in Vietnam than Bush does, period. Running several businesses into the ground and then buying a lot of stock in a baseball team you don't run doesn't do anything to prepare you for being the Commander-in-Chief, as opposed to being a lieutenant in the navy which does little to prepare you. And saying that Bush has done the job for four years so he must be able to do it demonstrates a fundamental lack of reality. He's a failed Commander-in-Chief. He's allowed the hawks of his administration to frame a war we cannot win through conventional warfare in a strictly conventional structure. And those hawks have entrenched us in a conflict of their own construction in Iraq that achieved none of its stated goals and created problems both for the citizens of Iraq and the world that weren't there before. He's allienated necessary allies to whom we had to come crawling back on our hands and knees a year later only to be told at best maybe and at worst no. He's proposed a change in our troop deployments that will make us less mobile and less responsive while decimating foreign communities that rely on our military bases in the name of saving taxpayers money, entirely ignoring the fact that it will cost taxpayers more in the short term than it will save in the long term. How could John Kerry do a worse job? I suppose if all the uniforms were changed to fuscia and Taps was replaced by "Boogie Woogie Boogle Boy" he could make a start.

[ September 06, 2004, 11:37 AM: Message edited by: jqueer ]

Kerry brings more to the office of Commander-in-Chief by virtue of his service in Vietnam than Bush does, period. Running several businesses into the ground and then buying a lot of stock in a baseball team you don't run doesn't do anything to prepare you for being the Commander-in-Chief, as opposed to being a lieutenant in the navy which does little to prepare you. And saying that Bush has done the job for four years so he must be able to do it demonstrates a fundamental lack of reality.

Never said that. Though actually being Commander-in-Chief for a period of time would in fact be viewed as experience in being Commander-in-Chief by anyone with a third grade education. Bush has indeed failed. He needs to be voted out. The problem is, he never will because Kerry is so completely off message and off point. The only things I can assure myself of when I see Kerry give a speech on TV is that; A. His position on Iraq has been altered from the last speech, and B. He fought in Vietnam. A retarded hamster (ironic in this case) could win against this strategy without breaking a sweat, or doing any of the heavy lifting (see Swiftees). Democrats are left with either a candidate too stupid to realize that he can win on issues and real plans to improve the America of today (instead of, say, 35 years ago), or a candidate that has no strong opinion on any important issues (see FMA, Iraq) and no clear vision of how to reestablish American credibility. This idiotic personal Vietnam fetish of his almost makes me believe the conservo-nut jobs who think Kerry is Hillary's sacrificial lamb put in place so that she can win in 2008.
Although, if he changed the uniforms to cut-off muscle shirts, and the song to "In the Navy", I might re-enlist.

[ September 07, 2004, 04:56 PM: Message edited by: Brooking's boy ]

And I didn't say he doesn't have experience as Commander-in-Chief. I said that his experience, in fact, proves that he is inable to do the job. As to whether he'll be voted out or not, I'll leave that up to the polls in November.

[quote]jqueer:
[quote]Brooking's boy
[/quote]Never said that. Though actually being Commander-in-Chief for a period of time would in fact be viewed as experience in being Commander-in-Chief by anyone with a third grade education.[/quote]And I didn't say he doesn't have experience as Commander-in-Chief. I said that his experience, in fact, proves that he is inable to do the job. As to whether he'll be voted out or not, I'll leave that up to the polls in November. [/QB][/QUOTE]

Sorry 'bout the third grade education remark. We're on the same page. This topic just gets me so damn angry. This is the only shot we have of getting rid of Dubya and our guy can't stop fighting the wrong battles. It's frustrating.

[ September 07, 2004, 07:52 PM: Message edited by: Brooking's boy ]

Even the Log Cabin Republicans won't be voting for him!

Over in North Idaho there is alot of anger and controversy over many many bumper stickers sighted put out by the North Idaho Repugs. that say Kennedy and Kerry the KK Klan, which does wonders for North Idaho's stained image as a haven for the white supremesists.

They risen about an iota in my estimation.

Now, they just need to keep in mind that the Republican-led House made its first order of business yesterday NOT the 9/11 commission recommendations, tax policy, etc., but ANOTHER FEDERAL AMENDMENT BANNING GAY MARRIAGE!

It's NOT OVER!