Lead, Don't Divide - john kerry on Vietnam in politics

[CADsortaGUY]

DIRECT FROM KARL ROVE...

"We do not need to divide America over who served and how. I have personally always believed that many served in many different ways."

I wonder if he still thinks that....

...Ooops - I guess not.
<snip>
"The issue here is, as I have heard it raised, is was he present and active in Alabama at the time he was supposed to be," said Kerry, a decorated Vietnam War veteran. "I don't have the answer to that question and just because you get an honorable discharge does not in fact answer that question."
</snip>

Meh - decide for yourselves folks.

CkG

 

[Tom]

There is no contradiction in thoes statements.

The first is about the decisions people made about the Vietnam war..

The second is about truthfulness, and Kerry says he does not know the answer, in response to a question raised by someone else.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
There is no contradiction in thoes statements.

The first is about the decisions people made about the Vietnam war..

The second is about truthfulness, and Kerry says he does not know the answer, in response to a question raised by someone else.

"I am saddened by the fact that Vietnam has yet again been inserted into the campaign, and that it has been inserted in what I feel to be the worst possible way."-kerry

I wonder if he is "saddened" this time around too? Or is it only when a democrat(Clinton) is being beaten up by the VN issue.?

CkG

 

[Tom]

As I said before, I think, the issue about Bush and whether or not he actually did what he signed up for, isn't related to Vietnam.

It's a simple matter of whether or not he did what he said he did. Vietnam has nothing to do with it.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
As I said before, I think, the issue about Bush and whether or not he actually did what he signed up for, isn't related to Vietnam.

It's a simple matter of whether or not he did what he said he did. Vietnam has nothing to do with it.

Then you don't have an understanding of the issue. kerry is waving the Vietnam war hero flag and yet his statements of the past suggest he felt differently. The question of Bush's service isn't the issue here - it's the furthering of the whole Vietnam thing and kerry had done nothing to stem it and infact has allowed it to become one of his main "attractions".

"The race for the White House should be about leadership, and leadership requires that one help heal the wounds of Vietnam, not reopen them; that one help identify the positive things that we learned about ourselves and about our nation, not play to the divisions and differences of that crucible of our generation."-kerry

CkG

 

[nutxo]

unrelated but maybe someone can answer me.

How the hell did kerry get wounded 3 times in his 4 months in viet nam?

 

[Tom]

Well, again I see a great distinction between the issue of military service and the Vietnam war.

There are lessons learned during military service which could be valuable to a President, although military service isn't mandatory.

That is what I see as possibly an issue in this campaign, the relevance of each candidate's military service could be an issue if there is a disparity between the candidate's service and experience.

The issue of the Vietanm war isn't related to this directly, it is only related in those cases where someone didn't serve because of their opposition to the war, like in the case of Clinton.

The fact that Kerry actually served in combat, while Bush didn't, gives Kerry some right to claim a better understanding of certain issues related to war and veteran's issues, it isn't particularly important that it was the Vietnam war.

At the same time Bush's service record gives him a better understaning of some military issues compared to someone like Dean who wasn't in the military.

But this current "news story" about Bush's service, is only relevant in terms of defining just what Bush's actual service record is, I don't see that issue as having much to do with Vietnam, unless the issue is he did something to deliberately avoid serving in Vietnam, which I haven't heard anyone claim with regards to the current "news story" although as a seperate issue it is at least possibly one reason he was in the National Guard to begin with.

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Too funny

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
Well, again I see a great distinction between the issue of military service and the Vietnam war.

There are lessons learned during military service which could be valuable to a President, although military service isn't mandatory.

That is what I see as possibly an issue in this campaign, the relevance of each candidate's military service could be an issue if there is a disparity between the candidate's service and experience.

The issue of the Vietanm war isn't related to this directly, it is only related in those cases where someone didn't serve because of their opposition to the war, like in the case of Clinton.

The fact that Kerry actually served in combat, while Bush didn't, gives Kerry some right to claim a better understanding of certain issues realted to war and veteran's issues, it isn't particularly important that it was the Vietnam war.

At the same time Bush's service record gives him a better understaning of some military issues compared to someone like Dean who wasn't in the military.

But this current "news story" about Bush's service, is only relevant in terms of defining just what Bush's actual service record is, I don't see that issue as having much to do with Vietnam, unless the issue is he did something to deliberately avoid serving in Vietnam, which I haven't heard anyone claim with regards to the current "news story" although as a seperate issue it is at least possibly one reason he was in the National Guard to begin with.

Miss something?
The question of Bush's service isn't the issue here - it's the furthering of the whole Vietnam thing and kerry had done nothing to stem it and infact has allowed it to become one of his main "attractions".

Read the first link - then put it in the current democratic primary and Presidential race. Get your mind off Bush's military service - that isn't the issue and you have plenty of threads to try to claim Bush was awol. The issue here is kerry waving the Vietnam hero flag and his stance on the issue before.

CkG

 

[robh23]

Originally posted by: nutxo
unrelated but maybe someone can answer me.

How the hell did kerry get wounded 3 times in his 4 months in viet nam?

by getting attacked

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: nutxo
unrelated but maybe someone can answer me.

How the hell did kerry get wounded 3 times in his 4 months in viet nam?

...and missed 2 days of work. He had a deal to get reassigned, then allowed to leave the Navy early to run for office; some say a can opener caused one wound, but that is still unsubstantiated.

 

[Tom]

"Miss something?
The question of Bush's service isn't the issue here - it's the furthering of the whole Vietnam thing and kerry had done nothing to stem it and infact has allowed it to become one of his main "attractions".

Read the first link - then put it in the current democratic primary and Presidential race. Get your mind off Bush's military service - that isn't the issue and you have plenty of threads to try to claim Bush was awol. The issue here is kerry waving the Vietnam hero flag and his stance on the issue before."


I didn't miss anything. You quote two things in your OP, not one. You are attempting to construe Kerry's comments in your second quote in the context of your first quote, and I am saying that they are not related.

The first quote from Kerry is about the Vietnam war, the second quote is about military service. I'm sorry you don't understand the distinction, apparently.


And I'm not making any claims about Bush being AWOL and neither did Kerry.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: nutxo
unrelated but maybe someone can answer me.

How the hell did kerry get wounded 3 times in his 4 months in viet nam?

From what I understand, he never sustained serious wounds.(One was from hitting a river-mine, another was from pulling someone out of the water(this is also where he earned his Bronze Star) while the boat was under fire and the other he got when he earned his Silver Star)

 

[Tom]

"that isn't the issue and you have plenty of threads to try to claim Bush was awol.

You posted the quote about Bush's military service story, not me.



"The issue here is kerry waving the Vietnam hero flag and his stance on the issue before."


Forget that it is important to you to discredit Kerry. Lets try to break this down into logical chunks.

For a moment forget that the war Kerry served in was the Vietnam war.

he served in combat with some distinction and was honorably discharged. agree ?

reintroduce the fact that it was the Vietnam war, does that alter the first point ?

If it does for you then you are one of the people who blames the soldiers for the Vietnam war; I don't. Or you blame the soldiers for the tactics they were ordered to use, again, I don't. Or you tell me if there's some other explanation.

Now introduce the fact that after serving Kerry protested against the war.

My opinion is that Kerry's service in Vietnam is only relevant to his opposition to the war in that he knew better than many other protestors exactly what was happening in Vietnam. Other than that his protest of the war should be considered in the same context as other people who protested against the war.

At that point you can either believe it was an honorable thing to protest the war or not. Notice the word honorable, even some people who believed the war was the right thing to do, feel that it is a perfectly acceptable behavior to protest against things the government is doing that you disagree with.

Like the way some on this forum want to do away with Social Security, is it dishonorable to express that opinion ?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"Miss something?
The question of Bush's service isn't the issue here - it's the furthering of the whole Vietnam thing and kerry had done nothing to stem it and infact has allowed it to become one of his main "attractions".

Read the first link - then put it in the current democratic primary and Presidential race. Get your mind off Bush's military service - that isn't the issue and you have plenty of threads to try to claim Bush was awol. The issue here is kerry waving the Vietnam hero flag and his stance on the issue before."


I didn't miss anything. You quote two things in your OP, not one. You are attempting to construe Kerry's comments in your second quote in the context of your first quote, and I am saying that they are not related.

The first quote from Kerry is about the Vietnam war, the second quote is about military service. I'm sorry you don't understand the distinction, apparently.


And I'm not making any claims about Bush being AWOL and neither did Kerry.

The second link was about "dividing America over who served and how." But I don't expect you to understand that. kerry is furthering the service during Vietnam question by saying what he said.

Anyway - read the first link and try to spin that.

Kerry's One-Word Speech: 'Vietnam'

CkG

Edit - I see you still continue to miss the point of this thread. I'm not discussing the war - just statements by kerry about it being used as a political tool, then and now.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: nutxo
unrelated but maybe someone can answer me.

How the hell did kerry get wounded 3 times in his 4 months in viet nam?

...and missed 2 days of work. He had a deal to get reassigned, then allowed to leave the Navy early to run for office; some say a can opener caused one wound, but that is still unsubstantiated.

What relevance does any of that have ? Don't let your hatred cloud your judgement, is there something dishonorable about only being wounded sufficiently to miss two days of service ?

Max Clelland, a fellow veteran does not seem to think so.

article

Did Max Cleland sacrifice enough for his country to meet your standards for what a veteran nneds to do to be honorable ?

 

[Tom]

"The second link was about "dividing America over who served and how." But I don't expect you to understand that. kerry is furthering the service during Vietnam question by saying what he said."

I don't think he is, the issue is whether or not Bush fulfilled his service requirements, what does that have to do with Vietnam ? I've reread the quotes you posted several times and I don't see where Kerry has contradicted his position expressed in 1992 about Vietnam.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"The second link was about "dividing America over who served and how." But I don't expect you to understand that. kerry is furthering the service during Vietnam question by saying what he said."

I don't think he is, the issue is whether or not Bush fulfilled his service requirements, what does that have to do with Vietnam ? I've reread the quotes you posted several times and I don't see where Kerry has contradicted his position expressed in 1992 about Vietnam.

Then you chose not to read and/or think.
Continually perpetuating the question of Bush's service IS "dividing America over who served and how".

Now back to kerry and how he is waving his Vietnam hero flag inspite of his position on Vietnam in politics in 1992.

"We do not need more division. We certainly do not need something as complex and emotional as Vietnam reduced to simple campaign rhetoric. What has been said has been said ... but I hope and pray we will put it behind us and go forward in a constructive spirit for the good of our party and the good of our country."

Kerry's One-Word Speech: 'Vietnam'

CkG

 

[Tom]

"Edit - I see you still continue to miss the point of this thread. I'm not discussing the war - just statements by kerry about it being used as a political tool, then and now. "

Well, I think you keep missing my point, Kerry is not using his veteran status in Vietnam because it was in Vietnam, but because he is a veteran.

The fact that the war he is a veteran of happens to be the Vietnam war does not mean that he isn't due the same respect and same political benefits that accrue to any veteran of any war.

 

[Tom]

"Then you chose not to read and/or think.
Continually perpetuating the question of Bush's service IS "dividing America over who served and how"."

No it isn't. The political benefit that a combat veteran of Vietnam accrues not because it was Vietnam, but because he served his country in combat. That benefit comes to any combat veteran of any war.

On the other hand, not fulfilling one's commitments, whether it's to one's wife or the National Guard is going to have a political cost. By saying that, I'm not saying Bush didn't fulfill his commitents, I don't know if he did or not. I'm only discussing it because you see Kerry's statements about it in a context that I don't think Kerry intends them or that I think is correct.

to put it more simply-

Kerry does not deserve to lose his status as a veteran because his war happened to be Vietnam

and Bush does not deserve a free ride on any conduct of his, if there was anything questionable, because he served during the same time frame that the Vietnam war was going on.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"Edit - I see you still continue to miss the point of this thread. I'm not discussing the war - just statements by kerry about it being used as a political tool, then and now. "

Well, I think you keep missing my point, Kerry is not using his veteran status in Vietnam because it was in Vietnam, but because he is a veteran.

The fact that the war he is a veteran of happens to be the Vietnam war does not mean that he isn't due the same respect and same political benefits that accrue to any veteran of any war.

No, I'm not missing your point and I didn't say he wasn't due respect for his service.

kerry was defending Clinton in 1992 against attacks on his non-service and Vietnam dodging. kerry obviously now thinks that Vietnam can be used in campaigning just because he served - it's too bad for him that his stance on the issue is on record.

You can't just pass it off as "well that is when he served and he's just saying he's a veteran" - he said(in 1992) - "We do not need to divide America over who served and how. I have personally always believed that many served in many different ways."

CkG

 

[Tom]

"We do not need to divide America over who served and how. I have personally always believed that many served in many different ways."

But that comment is about what people did with regards to Vietnam. It is saying that not going to Vietnam as a soldier shouldn't be a disqualification.

But that isn't the same thing as saying that the veterans of Vietnam don't deserve the same recoginition and so forth that ALL veterans get, and that includes a certain political advantage.

And this whole issue about Bush seems to me to be a completely seperate issue. I'm not saying Bush did anything wrong, because I don't know the facts, but to the extent there is anything to the story it almost seems as though you feel that because Bush happened to be in the National Guard during the Vietnam era, that nobody is allowed to look at his service record because if they do they are playing the Vietnam card.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"We do not need to divide America over who served and how. I have personally always believed that many served in many different ways."

But that comment is about what people did with regards to Vietnam. It is saying that not going to Vietnam as a soldier shouldn't be a disqualification.

But that isn't the same thing as saying that the veterans of Vietnam don't deserve the same recoginition and so forth that ALL veterans get, and that includes a certain political advantage.

And this whole issue about Bush seems to me to be a completely seperate issue. I'm not saying Bush did anything wrong, because I don't know the facts, but to the extent there is anything to the story it almost seems as though you feel that because Bush happened to be in the National Guard during the Vietnam era, that nobody is allowed to look at his service record because if they do they are playing the Vietnam card.

kerry is campaigning on Vietnam - not just that he is a veteran. Yes the Bush thing is seperate but his comments on it still don't mix well with his previous stance. Now, if kerry really did mean those things he said in 1992 he wouldn't be waving the Vietnam hero flag. Bush isn't the subject here - kerry and his comments on using Vietnam to campaign on are.

"The race for the White House should be about leadership, and leadership requires that one help heal the wounds of Vietnam, not reopen them; that one help identify the positive things that we learned about ourselves and about our nation, not play to the divisions and differences of that crucible of our generation. "-kerry

CkG

 

[sandorski]

By the amount of flailing going about, it seems obvious that Bush is in trouble.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: sandorski
By the amount of flailing going about, it seems obvious that Bush is in trouble.

That's cute...keep trying to say that. Seems that the others are "in trouble" by the amount of flailing and whining they are doing.

kerry isn't going to get a free pass on what he's done and said just because some people think Bush is bad.

CkG