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

[Dari]

Kerry is playing typical washington politics. I'm surprised that he failed to learn the harsh lessions learned by Gephardt and Dean in Iowa, that Americans are against negative campaigning. It may eventually come back to haunt him if he continues.

 

[Tom]

""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"

I don't understand how you see Kerry's comments as violating the above statement.

Are you saying that Bush was/is the enemy of the Vietnam veterans and so Kerry by talking about being a Vietnam veteran is opening up some kind of division ?

In order for him to be creating a division, or exploiting a division, tell me who is on the side of the division that is opposed to Vietnam veterans ?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

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

Speaking of Bush, I thought this column was interesting, from the San Francisco Chronicle:

The WMD Inspector No One Heeded
Harley Sorensen, Special to SF Gate
Monday, February 9, 2004


St. Matthew wrote: "A prophet is not without honor, save in his own country."

Rodney Dangerfield would have put it differently. He might have said, "They love me over there, but here at home I get no respect."

Scott Ritter is a prophet of sorts, and if we had listened to him and respected his intellect, knowledge and honesty, we could have avoided the war in Iraq and its cost in lives and dollars.

In September 2002, Time magazine asked Ritter whose Iraq policy was worse, Bill Clinton's or George W. Bush's. Ritter's response:

"Bush, because of its ramifications. It threatens a war that probably lacks any basis in law or substantive fact. It has a real chance of putting thousands of American lives at risk and seeks to dictate American will on the world."

Who is this Scott Ritter guy?

He's a former U.S. Marine Corps major and former United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq. He's the answer to the question of whether the Bushies knew before the war that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

They knew, or could have known, and certainly should have known.

Before we attacked the Iraqi people, Ritter was often seen on television as a laughable "expert." The Fox News talking heads treated him as a lunatic. How could he be anything else when he disagreed with George W. Bush?

And Ritter has a temper, so that added to the fun. It was a treat to see him get all red faced and wonder when he'd explode.

It mattered not that Ritter was painfully honest and knew exactly what he was talking about.

A search through newspaper and magazine articles leading up to the war against Iraq leads me to these conclusions:

1) Bill Clinton was as concerned about Saddam Hussein as George W. Bush is, but less eager to risk American lives to deal with him. Unfortunately for all of us, the sexy impeachment fiasco pushed by the Republicans diverted our attention, so most of us weren't paying attention.

However, Ritter was far from happy with Clinton's support for the inspectors, or lack of it. In September 1998, he told Newsweek, "I heard somebody say it very effectively: '[Secretary of State] Madeleine Albright blocked more inspections in 1997 than Saddam Hussein did.' It's a funny quip, but unfortunately true."

2) The four days of intensive bombings ordered by Clinton at the end of 1998 probably taught Saddam that his efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction weren't worth the cost. The economic sanctions imposed by the United Nations at the end of the first Gulf War were seriously crippling Iraq, and trying to acquire those weapons simply added to Saddam's misery. He gave up but pretended not to. Saving face is a big deal for dictators, as it is for all politicians (see: "Johnson, Lyndon B."; or "Nixon, Richard M."; or "Bush, George W.")

Those bombings and rocket attacks, by the way, just about matched the munitions thrown at Iraq during the Gulf War. Americans didn't pay much attention, however, and the Republicans accused Clinton of "wagging the dog," diverting attention from his political problems.

3) The "intelligence community" never said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. In all the articles I read, the CIA and other agencies were very careful not to overstate the danger presented by Saddam.

For example, The Washington Post reported in November 2000, "The CIA does not agree that Iraq possesses a crude nuclear weapon. 'We don't believe they have the fissile material required for a nuclear weapon,' said one senior U.S. official. ... 'Nor do we believe they currently have the infrastructure to build a nuclear weapon.'"

4) In a related matter, Clinton was far more concerned about terrorist attacks against the United States than he was about the threat of Saddam. But he had a hard time selling his concern to others, even though he tried. He originated an antiterrorist agency in government in 1994 and increased its budget every year thereafter, from an original $5.7 billion reported in 1995 to $11.1 billion in 2000.

I was unable to find any antiterrorist actions by Bush before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, but that doesn't mean he didn't do anything. It could be his efforts just didn't make the public prints, or that I couldn't find the articles about them.

5) Scott Ritter took part in more than 30 inspections missions in Iraq, and probably knew more about Iraq's WMD programs than anyone. The Iraqis were very annoyed with him and accused him and other inspectors of being spies. They were right; the inspectors were pressed into spying. That was a distraction for them.

6) As a U.N. inspector, Ritter was constantly unhappy with the Iraqis because they failed to destroy all their weapons. After the inspectors were pulled out of Iraq in 1998, Ritter appeared to change his tune, saying Iraq's weapons programs were no threat.

The difference, Ritter explained to the scoffers on TV, was that as an inspector, he expected total compliance and didn't get it. Later, as an outsider, he was able to say that even without total compliance Iraq, was no threat.

"I've never given Iraq a clean bill of health," Ritter told Time in September 2002. "I've said that no one has backed up any allegations that Iraq has constituted weapons-of-mass-destruction capability with anything that resembles substantive fact."

The politicians (including Al Gore, who warned of "imminent danger" in 1998) were hyping the Iraq threat, as were my fellow jackals of the press -- especially columnists! -- but the various intelligence agencies were far more prudent. To repeat, they often cautioned against overrating the threat posed by Saddam.

We keep losing troops in Iraq, well over 500 now. God only knows how many arms and legs were lost over there, how many pairs of eyes destroyed. The total cost to each American taxpayer before it's over has been estimated at around $3,000, and when you consider the disability payments we'll be making for the next 50 years or so, that's probably a low-ball guess.

That's quite a price for going after weapons that we had been told do not, and did not, exist. It's too high a price for getting rid of Saddam.

But the real mystery of Iraq is why we're still there. There are no WMDs; Saddam is in custody. Why, now, are we still sacrificing troops and dollars on a guerilla war that will never be won?

What is today's price for funding a president's effort to save face?

There are several people here who like to savage Ritter, though as far as I can remember, none have offered documentation to support their criticisms. I wonder how much of it came from the Faux News slurs mentioned. Note that #6 addresses the question of why Ritter changed his tune after leaving Iraq.

Whatever one may think of Ritter, the bottom line is he was right. He and Blix both provided information well before the invasion that cast Bush's intelligence claims into doubt. I remember reading a Ritter article from the summer of 2002 stating his conviction that Iraq had no significant remaining WMD capabilities. He explicitly stated Iraq had NO remaining nuclear capabilities. Yet some will claim that Iraq's lack of WMDs was a surprise, that there was no way we could have known the truth. Perhaps no one in the Bush administration reads the paper.

Finally, I think point #4 is noteworthy for all the people who claim Clinton did nothing to fight terrorism. While Sorensen doesn't cite his sources, it certainly appears Clinton did far more than Bush did before 9/11. Does anyone have better information to refute this?


(Note: this is on-topic because Ritter also made critical comments about Kerry in a different article. I don't get the logic of this either, but it works for Cad.)

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
""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"

I don't understand how you see Kerry's comments as violating the above statement.

Are you saying that Bush was/is the enemy of the Vietnam veterans and so Kerry by talking about being a Vietnam veteran is opening up some kind of division ?

In order for him to be creating a division, or exploiting a division, tell me who is on the side of the division that is opposed to Vietnam veterans ?

What comments? I'm talking about his waving the Vietnam hero flag. Are you trying to say that by him doing so he isn't bringing up the divisiveness of that time?
"I am saddened by the fact that Vietnam has yet again been inserted into the campaign..." and then he goes into why he thinks it was done in the worst way. Well what other ways did he mean? The worst being draft dodging and such according to him.
kerry seems to think that Vietnam can be used now because he "has" that issue over his rivals(minus Clark), but in 1992 he didn't think it should be an issue. It doesn't get any simpler than that. It's plain as day.

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

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

Speaking of Bush, I thought this column was interesting, from the San Francisco Chronicle:
<jibberish>
(Note: this is on-topic because Ritter also made critical comments about Kerry in a different article. I don't get the logic of this either, but it works for Cad.)

Nice try. Keep your jibberish elsewhere. This isn't about Bush - this is about kerry. The other thread was about Ritter and what WMD related things he had said. The kerry article by Ritter was relevant because it dealt with "what was known"(supposedly) by Ritter.
If you wanted to be close to on-topic then you would have posted the article I posted in your thread here.

Now run along.

CkG

 

[Ferocious]

The desperations by the neocons are quite amusing to observe.

Funny thing though, I still think Bush will win in a comfortable fashion. The country simply has not suffered enough yet.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Ferocious
The desperations by the neocons are quite amusing to observe.

Funny thing though, I still think Bush will win in a comfortable fashion. The country simply has not suffered enough yet.

Already been addressed.

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

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

Nice try again though.
Oh, and BTW - I'm not a neo-con incase you were insinuating I am one.

CkG

 

[Shad0hawK]

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?

getting wounded very carefully.

truth is though he was there longer than 4 months, he only had 4 months operating in a "hot" area.

most soldiers and ex-soldiers i know (including myself) would not bother applying for a purple heart for the relative scratches gotten.

i know a few grizzled non-coms who would have at least 2 dozen if he did.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: Ferocious
The desperations by the neocons are quite amusing to observe.

Funny thing though, I still think Bush will win in a comfortable fashion. The country simply has not suffered enough yet.

yes, despite inheriting a sagging economy from clinton made worse by 911 he has made us "suffer" with a great job tkaing the steps needed to increase the economy.

since the war on terror began there has not been another 911. the terrorists are on the run, and with our military holding 2 strategic locations and the avialibility of another, afghanistan, iraq, Israel we have a 2 border approach to most of the state sponsors of terrorism...and they are very well aware of that.

i personally could use more of that kind of "suffering"

 

[Tom]

"yes, despite inheriting a sagging economy from clinton "

Do you know what happened about the same time the economy started sagging ? Candidate Bush's idiotic tax cut proposal began to get traction which forced all other candidates to respond with their own tax cut promises.

Assuring that the fiscally responsible path we had been on was going to come to an end, and this caused a good deal of retraction by wise investors. So as far as I'm concerned Bush had a large part in creating the economy he "inherited."

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"yes, despite inheriting a sagging economy from clinton "

Do you know what happened about the same time the economy started sagging ? Candidate Bush's idiotic tax cut proposal began to get traction which forced all other candidates to respond with their own tax cut promises.

Assuring that the fiscally responsible path we had been on was going to come to an end, and this caused a good deal of retraction by wise investors. So as far as I'm concerned Bush had a large part in creating the economy he "inherited."

Buahahahahaha!!! Yeah - it's Bush's fault since he campaigned on tax-cuts. Each time I hear that(and it's rare because most on the left are smart enough to not even try it) I bust out laughing. The guys here at work just came over to see what was so funny. Needless to say they got a kick out of your statement too

CkG

 

[BugsBunny1078]

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.

Sounds right to me. The question seems to be if Bush got away with signing up for service got paid for such service and didn't perform such service. I have heard the issue raised before it was never answered. I believe the speculation was that George Bush senior was able to pull some strings to get this to slide. Serving in the National Guard is obviously serving the military. It is not the servicemans decision where his unit is sent to do duty. Bush's unit could have been sent to vietnam if the president had decided to do that.There are plenty of guardsmen in Iraq right now because George Bush sent them there.

 

[BugsBunny1078]

Also I like that John Kerry doesn't necessarily keep the same position that he held 20 years ago.
This shows me that he has a conscience. He is trying to do what is right and constantly questioning himself about his own views.
I like that.

 

[leeboy]

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

Couldn't have said it better sandorski. CAD, your fear is showing and fear = smear time, seems like the Cons are finally realizing there are not as many apathetic people in this country as they were counting on. Doh, America is waking up just in time for the election. Not what the Cons wanted to hear.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: leeboy

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

Couldn't have said it better sandorski. CAD, your fear is showing and fear = smear time, seems like the Cons are finally realizing there are not as many apathetic people in this country as they were counting on. Doh, America is waking up just in time for the election. Not what the Cons wanted to hear.

Hehe - believe what you want to believe - I've addressed this already.

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Ferocious
The desperations by the neocons are quite amusing to observe.

Funny thing though, I still think Bush will win in a comfortable fashion. The country simply has not suffered enough yet.

Already been addressed.

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

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

Nice try again though.
Oh, and BTW - I'm not a neo-con incase you were insinuating I am one.

CkG

Nice try but it's not even close.

CkG

 

[leeboy]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Originally posted by: Ferocious
The desperations by the neocons are quite amusing to observe.

Funny thing though, I still think Bush will win in a comfortable fashion. The country simply has not suffered enough yet.

yes, despite inheriting a sagging economy from clinton made worse by 911 he has made us "suffer" with a great job tkaing the steps needed to increase the economy.

since the war on terror began there has not been another 911. the terrorists are on the run, and with our military holding 2 strategic locations and the avialibility of another, afghanistan, iraq, Israel we have a 2 border approach to most of the state sponsors of terrorism...and they are very well aware of that.

i personally could use more of that kind of "suffering"

Yawn, yawn, yawn. Think if you keep spouting that old Clinton gave us the $hitty economy we are suffering through, we will start to beleive it? Not a chance, soldier. Your fear is showing.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"yes, despite inheriting a sagging economy from clinton "

Do you know what happened about the same time the economy started sagging ? Candidate Bush's idiotic tax cut proposal began to get traction which forced all other candidates to respond with their own tax cut promises.

Assuring that the fiscally responsible path we had been on was going to come to an end, and this caused a good deal of retraction by wise investors. So as far as I'm concerned Bush had a large part in creating the economy he "inherited."

Buahahahahaha!!! Yeah - it's Bush's fault since he campaigned on tax-cuts. Each time I hear that(and it's rare because most on the left are smart enough to not even try it) I bust out laughing. The guys here at work just came over to see what was so funny. Needless to say they got a kick out of your statement too

CkG

so you work on a ship of fools ?

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
""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"

I don't understand how you see Kerry's comments as violating the above statement.

Are you saying that Bush was/is the enemy of the Vietnam veterans and so Kerry by talking about being a Vietnam veteran is opening up some kind of division ?

In order for him to be creating a division, or exploiting a division, tell me who is on the side of the division that is opposed to Vietnam veterans ?

What comments? I'm talking about his waving the Vietnam hero flag. Are you trying to say that by him doing so he isn't bringing up the divisiveness of that time?
"I am saddened by the fact that Vietnam has yet again been inserted into the campaign..." and then he goes into why he thinks it was done in the worst way. Well what other ways did he mean? The worst being draft dodging and such according to him.
kerry seems to think that Vietnam can be used now because he "has" that issue over his rivals(minus Clark), but in 1992 he didn't think it should be an issue. It doesn't get any simpler than that. It's plain as day.

CkG

There is no divisiveness about Vietnam heroes. As far as I know pretty much everybody agrees that the soldiers who fought in Vietnam deserve the same respect as any other soldiers who fought for their country.

The divisiveness is about whether or not we should have been in Vietnam and/or was our strategy sound. That is a completely seperate issue.

You will have to explain this comment of yours to me-

"and then he goes into why he thinks it was done in the worst way. Well what other ways did he mean? The worst being draft dodging and such according to him."

This is your comment, not Kerrys. I don't know how you get that out of his statement. Specifically tell me where Kerry says draft-dodging was the worst, and when he accused Bush of draft-dodging..

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
""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"

I don't understand how you see Kerry's comments as violating the above statement.

Are you saying that Bush was/is the enemy of the Vietnam veterans and so Kerry by talking about being a Vietnam veteran is opening up some kind of division ?

In order for him to be creating a division, or exploiting a division, tell me who is on the side of the division that is opposed to Vietnam veterans ?

What comments? I'm talking about his waving the Vietnam hero flag. Are you trying to say that by him doing so he isn't bringing up the divisiveness of that time?
"I am saddened by the fact that Vietnam has yet again been inserted into the campaign..." and then he goes into why he thinks it was done in the worst way. Well what other ways did he mean? The worst being draft dodging and such according to him.
kerry seems to think that Vietnam can be used now because he "has" that issue over his rivals(minus Clark), but in 1992 he didn't think it should be an issue. It doesn't get any simpler than that. It's plain as day.

CkG

There is no divisiveness about Vietnam heroes. As far as I know pretty much everybody agrees that the soldiers who fought in Vietnam deserve the same respect as any other soldiers who fought for their country.

The divisiveness is about whether or not we should have been in Vietnam and/or was our strategy sound. That is a completely seperate issue.

You will have to explain this comment of yours to me-

"and then he goes into why he thinks it was done in the worst way. Well what other ways did he mean? The worst being draft dodging and such according to him."

This is your comment, not Kerrys. I don't know how you get that out of his statement. Specifically tell me where Kerry says draft-dodging was the worst, and when he accused Bush of draft-dodging..

Are you for real? He never accused Bush of draft-dodging...try to keep up with things here. kerry's statementes in 1992 were because of Clinton's draft dodging which is what his statements were trying to defend. But what kerry said included more than just those draft dodging type things. He said that those were the worst ways possible to bring up Vietnam - not that they were the only thing. His statement that "I am saddened by the fact that Vietnam has yet again been inserted into the campaign..." thereby includes other ways of introducing Vietnam into the race. I guess he thinks waving the war hero flag is OK now since it is him who has the flag instead of someone who was waving it when running against Clinton.

~buts amaze me at times....

CkG

 

[Tom]

"Buahahahahaha!!! Yeah - it's Bush's fault since he campaigned on tax-cuts. Each time I hear that(and it's rare because most on the left are smart enough to not even try it) I bust out laughing. The guys here at work just came over to see what was so funny. Needless to say they got a kick out of your statement too"


It might be funny to you, but it is also a fact that Bush's campaign tactic of running on a tax cut platform was initially opposed even by the other Republican candidates, McCain for example, as irresponsible. But because his tactic was working he was able to force all the candidates to respond with tax cut plans of their own. This was a major change in the direction of future fiscal policy, which before had been focused on reducing the debt.

Now, I think it would be hard for you to disagree the above is factual. You may disagree about the significance of those events in terms of the slow down in the economy that occured during the same period.

But the only rational basis for disagreeing with me about that is if you buy in to Bush's idea that deficits don't matter. Which y'all might think anyone who disagrees with that is a fool, or hilarious, but I'm sticking with my position that deficits do matter.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"Buahahahahaha!!! Yeah - it's Bush's fault since he campaigned on tax-cuts. Each time I hear that(and it's rare because most on the left are smart enough to not even try it) I bust out laughing. The guys here at work just came over to see what was so funny. Needless to say they got a kick out of your statement too"


It might be funny to you, but it is also a fact that Bush's campaign tactic of running on a tax cut platform was initially opposed even by the other Republican candidates, McCain for example, as irresponsible. But because his tactic was working he was able to force all the candidates to respond with tax cut plans of their own. This was a major change in the direction of future fiscal policy, which before had been focused on reducing the debt.

Now, I think it would be hard for you to disagree the above is factual. You may disagree about the significance of those events in terms of the slow down in the economy that occured during the same period.

But the only rational basis for disagreeing with me about that is if you buy in to Bush's idea that deficits don't matter. Which y'all might think anyone who disagrees with that is a fool, or hilarious, but I'm sticking with my position that deficits do matter.

No rational person will attribute the slow down to Bush campaigning on Tax-cuts. THAT is what is funny - I don't care that he influenced the other candidates, and I never disputed that.

CkG

 

[Tom]

"Are you for real? He never accused Bush of draft-dodging...try to keep up with things here. "


Is it really necessary for you to turn this and most other discussions into personal attacks ?

You are accusing Kerry of creating some kind of divisiveness by bringing up the fact he is a war veteran.

And secondly you accuse him of some kind of hypocrisy by doing so.

But the point I keep making is in order for your first accusation to be true, you need to explain why it is divisive for Kerry to bring up the fact he is a war veteran. I've explained repeatedly why it isn't, you have not even disagreed with me, having said you give Kerry his due for being a veteran, or something to that effect..

And if your first accusation is not true, then your second accusation is meaningless.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"Are you for real? He never accused Bush of draft-dodging...try to keep up with things here. "


Is it really necessary for you to turn this and most other discussions into personal attacks ?

You are accusing Kerry of creating some kind of divisiveness by bringing up the fact he is a war veteran.

And secondly you accuse him of some kind of hypocrisy by doing so.

But the point I keep making is in order for your first accusation to be true, you need to explain why it is divisive for Kerry to bring up the fact he is a war veteran. I've explained repeatedly why it isn't, you have not even disagreed with me, having said you give Kerry his due for being a veteran, or something to that effect..

And if your first accusation is not true, then your second accusation is meaningless.

You seem to miss the point that kerry isn't just saying he's a Veteran - he's waving the Vietnam Hero flag.

Kerry's One-Word Speech: 'Vietnam'
Nope just trying to be a "veteran" campaigner

Whatever though - you seem to apologize for his change in stance and won't look at this without an excuse in hand. He clearly stated that he was saddened by the introduction of Vietnam into the race(back then) and now has made it his central issue.

~buts unite!

CkG

 

[Tom]

"No rational person will attribute the slow down to Bush campaigning on Tax-cuts. THAT is what is funny - I don't care that he influenced the other candidates, and I never disputed that.

CkG "


If Bush's tactic was ineffective you would have a point, it wouldn't have mattered. But the fact is it was effective, it was so effective that virtually all candidates had to adopt some kind of tax cut plan.

So it was virtually a sure thing that the fiscal policy was going to shift away from the direction that it had been on for several years.

You apparently don't think that investors cared about this shift, I think they did. I think they realized that a plan that had worked quite well for almost a decade was coming to an end. At worst this would mean spiraling deficits, at best it would mean uncertainty about what would happen.

Either way it would affect investor decisions, at least it would lead to more caution until the future path was known.

For example, one frequent example of why the economy slowed was the end of the internet boom. But what caused the internet boom to end ? At least one possible factor was a pull back in investor's willingness to invest in risky ventures, this is exactly the kind of response you would expect when investors are feeling uncertain about things that affect the economy, like fiscal policy and deficits.

You may disagree with me, but please tell me why this analysis is irrational ? Particularly given the economic facts we can look at over the past 4 years ?

 

[Tom]

"You seem to miss the point that kerry isn't just saying he's a Veteran - he's waving the Vietnam Hero flag.

Kerry's One-Word Speech: 'Vietnam'"


I read that article, it isn't written by Kerry, it's written by a journalist. Is the journalist quoting Kerry as coming into a room and saying "Vietnam" ? I don't see the quote in the article, instead it seems to be the author's own inability to differentiate between the War and the soldiers that fought in the war that leads to the author's surprise at Kerry's success.

Do you have more direct evidence that Kerry is using Vietnam because it was the Vietnam war, and not because he is a veteran of that war ?