Will on Kerry

[piece-it pete]

I'm not big on cut and pasting but most know very little about the current anointed Democrat.

Here's a small taste of the likely future:

The 1st 28 Questions For Kerry

By George F. Will
Sunday, February 15, 2004; Page B07


In the more than 250 days until Nov. 2, John Kerry can answer questions that linger despite, or because of, all he has said so far. Such as:



Other than denoting your disapproval, what does the adjective mean in the phrase "special interest"? Is the National Education Association a special interest? The AFL-CIO?

You abhor "special tax giveaways for the privileged and special interests." When supporting billions in ethanol subsidies, mostly for agribusinesses, did you think about corn-growing, caucus-holding Iowa?

Is the National Rifle Association a "special interest"? Is "special" a synonym for "conservative"?

When you denounce "lobbyists" do you include those for Planned Parenthood and the Sierra Club? Is "liberal lobbyist" an oxymoron?

All the Americans affected by laws you pass -- that is, all Americans -- refuse to pipe down and mind their own business so that you can mind their business for them. Often they hire lobbyists to exercise their First Amendment right to "petition the government for a redress of grievances." Can you despise lobbyists without disparaging that right?

You say the rich do not pay enough taxes. In 1979 the top 1 percent of earners paid 19.75 percent of income taxes. Today they pay 36.3 percent. How much is enough?

You say the federal government is not spending enough on education. President Bush has increased education spending 48 percent. How much is enough?

In January 1991, after Iraq extinguished Kuwait's sovereignty, you opposed responding with force rather than economic sanctions. Have such sanctions ever undone such aggression?

On Jan. 11, 1991, you said that going to war was abandoning "the theory of deterrence." Was it not a tad late to deter Iraqi aggression?

The next day you said, "I do not believe our nation is prepared for war." How did unpreparedness subsequently manifest itself?

On Jan. 22, 1991, responding to a constituent opposed to the Persian Gulf War, you wrote "I share your concerns" and would have given sanctions more time. Nine days later, responding to a voter who favored the war, you wrote, "I have strongly and unequivocally supported President Bush's response to the crisis." Did you have a third position?

You say the Bush administration questions "the patriotism" of its critics. You say that as president you will "appoint a U.S. trade representative who is an American patriot." You mean the current representative, Robert Zoellick, is not a patriot?

You strongly praise former Treasury secretary Bob Rubin, who strongly supports NAFTA and free trade. Have you changed your mind about him or about free trade (as you have changed your mind about the No Child Left Behind Act, the 2002 war resolution, the Patriot Act, etc.)?

You oppose immediate termination of U.S. involvement in Iraq, and you opposed the $87 billion to pay for involvement. Come again?



In 1994, the year after the first attack on the World Trade Center, you voted to cut $1 billion from counterterrorism activities. In 1995 you proposed a $1.5 billion cut in intelligence funding. Are you now glad that both proposals were defeated?

You favor civil unions but not same-sex marriage. What is the difference? What consequences of gay marriage worry you? Your state's highest court says marriage is "an evolving paradigm." Do you agree? You say you agree with what Dick Cheney said in 2000: States should have a right to "come to different conclusions" about same-sex marriage. Why, then, were you one of only 14 senators who opposed the Defense of Marriage Act, which protects that right? Massachusetts opponents of the same-sex ruling are moving for a referendum to amend the state constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. How will you vote?

You favor full disclosure of political spending. Organized labor is fighting new regulations requiring full disclosure to union members of the political uses of their mandatory union dues. As president, would you rescind these regulations?

Praising McCain-Feingold restrictions on political contributions, you said: "This bill reduces the power of the checkbook, and I will therefore support it." In December you saved your sagging campaign by writing it a $6.4 million check. Why is your checkbook's unfettered freedom wholesome?

You deny that restricting campaign contributions restricts speech. How much of the $6.4 million did you spend on speech -- in the form of broadcast messages?

Billionaire George Soros says he will spend whatever is necessary to defeat President Bush. As one who believes -- well, who says -- there is "too much money" in politics, are you appalled?

There are 28 more questions where these 28 came from.

____________

Good questions. More to come!

Pete

[JSE]

Question #29:

Q: Have you ever had an affair or fling with an intern?

A: Uh, NO! I mean, No? Define Affair/Fling.

JSE

[jeskibuff]

Question #30:

John F. Kerry,
You've been trouncing your fellow Democratic candidates in primary after primary. It looks like you're a shoe-in for your party's nomination. You live in a $10 MILLION dollar home and your wife's fortune is what....half a BILLION dollars??? You should be happy...

so.....
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
WHY THE LONG FACE???





Sorry guys....I just LOVE that joke...can you tell? Wouldn't it be great if some media person asked that question on national TV??

[bturk667]

Pete, what is your point?

[piece-it pete]

Pete, what is your point?

Point? It's an election year. Kerry is the current frontrunner, with IMO a good chance of a sweep nomination-wise.

Knowing his strengths & weaknesses is a very handy thing, not just his opponents (like me :), but for his allies, as well.

BTW, I think we are in for one nasty campaign this time, worse than usual. Look at the stakes: charting a sea change in foriegn policy, likely to be a guideline for 10-20 or more? years (look how long containment lasted!)(and this includes revamping our military); the very real chance for more terrorist attacks on our soil or our allies soil (which still include France & Germany), possibly chemical, biological, even nuclear; more sweeping changes in economic policy, including large changes in the tax code; building a fast response network to fight disease transmission internationally (more important than currently recognised); gay marriage; sea change in school funding (and rating); and a big prize, which will affect most of the above: control of the supreme court.

Add the fact that the countries' so divided that the last 3 Presidential elections have been won by a minority of voters (a sure sign of a deep split) and a 50/50 Senate and you've got (drum roll please):

One heck of an election year. Like the Chinese curse, it should be VERY interesting.

Pete

[tugmcmartin]

From David Limbaugh's column today:

-- Health Care: Your party acts like it owns this issue, lamenting that we have over 40 million uninsured. You tell us, essentially, that your highest economic aspiration is to restore the Clinton economy, at which point we'll be able to provide health insurance for nearly everyone. But if you'll recall, after Bill Clinton shamelessly exploited this issue against the first President Bush, he barely made a dent in the problem despite the considerable economic prosperity that coincided with his tenure. How will you be able to do more with a Clinton economy than the master himself could?
-- National Defense: In your incessant complaints about Iraq, you seem long on process and short on substance. You talk about the president's failure to build a sufficient international coalition through "multilateralism." How many resolutions would Iraq have had to violate and for how long for you to believe American military action was warranted -- even without the participation of every nation whose blessings you seem to prefer over American security? Do you truly believe that any amount of persuasion would have convinced these intractable nations?

Let's put it in terms you can better understand. Bush bent over backwards to set a new tone in trying to get along with your party, and you rebuffed him at every turn. If you Democrats won't go along with him, and often aren't even civil about it, what makes you think other nations with vastly different agendas would? And how in good conscience could you effectively entrust to other nations your constitutional duty of safeguarding America's interests?

Stated more bluntly, do you believe America should ever act unilaterally to protect its strategic interests, or would your presidency defer those decisions to the United Nations, as you suggested in the '70s and seem to be repeating today?

In retrospect, despite your bellyaching about multilateralism and weapons of mass destruction, can you bring yourself to admit Iraq is better off without Saddam Hussein? Was ousting him a moral cause?

-- War on Terror: You say that George Bush hasn't been effective in leading the war on terror and has diverted too many of our resources to Iraq. Do you base your claim on the fact that we routed the Taliban in short order despite your party's predictions of quagmire, that we've captured or killed some two-thirds of known al Qaeda members, or that we haven't been attacked again since Sept. 11, 2001? Or is it that you just have no confidence in our military and intelligence services?

-- Tax Populism: George Bush's tax cuts, despite your rhetoric, were skewed against the rich -- that is, the rich got a lesser percentage reduction. Why, then, do you mischaracterize them as "tax cuts for the wealthy"?

-- Budget: You complain about President Bush's budget imbalances, yet if your plans are implemented on "health care, education and the environment," not to mention others, Bush will look like a fiscal scrooge. Given that your tax increases are likely to retard the recovery, how are you going to balance the budget without dangerous reductions in defense spending?

-- Education: Since we have proof that throwing ever-increasing federal dollars at education doesn't improve the quality of education, at what point will you quit demanding more? Is there any amount of domestic liberalism that Bush could implement that would satisfy you?

-- Leadership: I've noticed a disturbing pattern in your approach to issues. You have not only flip-flopped on the most important ones. You have tried to "nuance" your way out of your reversals, always using the same template. You voted for: NAFTA, the Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind, and the Iraq war resolution. On every one, you refuse to own up to your vote and insist it was not the legislation that was objectionable but the way it has been implemented. Doesn't presidential leadership require you to own up to your decisions? What part of Harry Truman's "the buck stops here" do you not understand?

[bturk667]

Will you be writing any positive things Kerry has done, or no?

[JSE]

Will you be writing any positive things Kerry has done, or no?

Sure, when the left mentions positive things about Bush. Gonna be a long election year!

JSE

[jeskibuff]

Will you be writing any positive things Kerry has done, or no?

You have GOT to be kidding, Bruno! For the last 3 years, the Democrats have portrayed Bush as the most evil liar in the world who cannot do one thing right but does everything wrong. According to them, he is the most stupid person in the world, but he has some magical ability to transcend that stupidity in order to carry on the craftiest deceit the world has ever known. He "let" 9/11 happen, according to some, but if he makes a move intended to prevent another 9/11 from happening, he is accused of trying to take away the civil liberties of Americans. He's damned-if-he-does, damned-if-he-doesn't. The Democrats try to cover all angles, so no matter what he does, it CAN'T be the right thing!

Frankly, I'm appalled at the level of idiocy that the Democrats have sunk to. They blame Bush for everything and give him credit for nothing. They call him a liar, but the accusation is hollow. They twist words around or read between the lines and infer that Bush is saying something that he clearly is NOT saying! Kerry calls him a liar, but as can be seen from the record of what "JFKerry" has said, the liar label easily fits Kerry rather than Bush. He says Bush has a credibility problem, but there's tons of evidence that Kerry is the one who lacks credibility.

So, we conservatives have endured hearing this endless assault on our President who we think has responded absolutely correctly to the dire situations tossed his way during his first term! We're amazed that liberals slammed GWB's handling of the economy, but when the economy suddenly turned around, they wouldn't give him ONE CREDIT for the improvement, but instead tried to change the topic to something else...like jobs. When the employment figures improve soon, they'll try to change the topic to yet something ELSE!

We conservatives don't think Bush is perfect, but we look at the alternatives in the Democratic field, and by that comparison, Bush shines like a polished diamond! Who of the original 9 dwarves had any consistency in their attitude towards terrorism? Who had a realistic view of the danger of terrorism in this world and didn't share Michael Mooron's head-in-the-sand view that there's no such thing as terrorism? Maybe Lieberman came closest, but still was better at criticism than offering alternative solutions.

Bruno, you KNOW you've been part of this assault. Show me where you've said ONE GOOD THING about GWB! I've admitted that there were things that I agreed with Clinton on (welfare reform, 55MPH national speed limit nixed, etc.). What good can be said of Kerry? I haven't seen much, just plenty of conflicts between what he says now and what he's said (and done) in the past, some pretty recent, too!

So, now that he looks like he'll be the choice of the Democrats, get ready to defend him, because he's got LOTS of baggage that stinks like raw sewage! If I find something good to say about him, I will, but to expect us conservatives to be nice to your front-runner when you've been totally unfair to our man is utterly hypocritical of you!

[FLZapped]

"Is John Kerry The New Democrat Golden Boy?
Part Two: His Military Voting Record"
By Barbara J. Stock


John Kerry stated that in his first 100 days in office he would increase the military by 40,000 troops. "In the face of grave challenges, our armed forces are spread too thin." This is pompous talk from a man running for president and running from his voting record.

Kerry's desire to deplete the military is a long one. One has to go all the way back to 1972 to find his first plan to take funding from the military and redistribute it to social programs. In his failed race for the Congress, his speeches centered on a simple theme--he promised to vote against all military appropriations. In an interview with Harvard's Crimson he stated that he would "almost eliminate CIA activity and have U.S. troops dispersed throughout the world only at the directive of the United Nations."

Kerry indicated that he felt the war on terror was more a legal problem than a military one. Did convicting some of those who were responsible stop any of the terror attacks leading up to 9/11? "I think there has been an exaggeration," Mr. Kerry said when asked whether President Bush has overstated the threat of terrorism. "They are misleading all Americans in a profound way." Apparently the vision of those jets crashing into the Twin Towers was not imprinted on Senator's Kerry's mind as it was for most Americans. That attack was not just a crime; it was an act of war.

In the 1980's, the Associated Press reported that Kerry sat on the board of the radical liberal group "Jobs with Peace Campaign," whose main objective was to "develop public support for cutting the defense budget."

Senator Kerry voted to reduce the defense spending levels for weapon projects by $8.8 billion in fiscal 1993. (Senate Congressional Resolution 106)

When questioned on defense funding, he said: "I have voted for almost all weapon systems that we have today with few exceptions. Unfortunately, these are people who've never met a system they didn't like. I have." Kerry voted against the B-1 bomber, B-2 stealth bomber, the Apache helicopter, Patriot missile system, the F-15, F-14A, F-14D jets, the AV-8B Harrier jet, and the Trident missile system. He also said he would make sure there were cutbacks to the M1 Abrams tank, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, the Tomahawk cruise missile, and the F-16 jet. If these are the "unimportant" items he voted against, what on earth were the important ones he did vote for? Even non-military-minded folks easily recognize most of these vital pieces of American technology that helped us to win the Gulf War and Operation Iraqi Freedom with swiftness that shocked the world. It's unimaginable that our armed forces wouldn't have these weapons and weapon systems at their disposal. What new weapons would President Kerry block?

The senator believes innovative weapons only encourage other countries to come up with their own. Does he believe our enemies will be idle just because we do nothing? It is typical liberal thinking that if we disarm so will the enemy.

Senator Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, added an amendment to the Fiscal 1996 Budget Resolution that would freeze defense spending for seven years and transfer the $34.8 billion in savings to education and job training. Kerry Voted Yea (Senate Congressional Resolution 13, CQ Vote #181: Rejected 28-71) If that amendment had passed in 1996, what condition would our military have been in by 2001?

The Senator introduced a bill to slash Department of Defense funding by $6.5 billion. Kerry's draconian bill had no co-sponsors and never came to a floor vote. (Senate 1580, Introduced 2/29/96)

An amendment introduced by Harkin and supported by Kerry was to Senate Bill 2057: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999.

This amendment would have transferred $329 million from the Department of Defense to the Veterans Affairs Department for veteran's health care programs. The transfer would be conducted by the secretary of defense in a manner which ''causes the least significant harm'' to military readiness and to the quality of life of military personnel. While it is imperative to take care of our veterans, making those presently wearing the uniform suffer is not the answer. Many in uniform were already struggling and on food stamps. Taking more from them would have been criminal. The Harkin amendment was defeated.

John Kerry ignored the growing threat to this country. We had had several terrorist attacks including the first attack on the WTC in 1993, but with blinders on, Kerry had one vision-weaken the military, cut the CIA, and use the money for his ever-growing social giveaway programs. His total ignorance of what America would need for defense in the new century is shocking. Kerry had twice placed in the Congressional Record that America had no enemies or threats to her security. Did he ignore the threats or was it that he just didn't care?

As an interesting sideline, Kerry referred twice to the downing of TWA Flight 800 as a terrorist attack. In light of such statements, one has to wonder why he continued his hack-and-slash policies of the very forces that would be called upon to protect us from such attacks.

Kerry wants us to ignore that if he had been successful in his quest, we could very well be in an all out war on American soil. Had we followed his vision, our soldiers would not have the high-tech equipment they have and use so effectively. If bills Senator Kerry supported had passed, our military readiness would be nonexistent. Had John Kerry been in charge, our soldiers would be under U.N. control.

Kerry wants us to remember that he served in Viet Nam and won a Silver Star, although he wants us to forget that he came home and called his fellow soldiers war criminals. He later admitted that he never saw any of the atrocities he testified to in front of Congress. The basis of his testimony--the Jane Fonda sponsored ''Detroit Winter Soldier'' event--has long been questioned and some say many of the ''veterans'' who testified at that event, were not veterans at all. Many Viet Nam vets were outraged at being described as vicious animals.

Kerry can't say his words were twisted or taken out of context. These votes and comments are well documented and demonstrate that John Kerry's newfound love and support of the military is strictly political, phony, and false. He still doesn't see the terrorist threat to this country. On the basis of that alone, Senator Kerry as President Kerry would be a threat to this country.

---------------------------------

Kerry's words and actioins don't line up too well.

I knew all I needed to know about Kerry once I saw Ted Kennedy on the trail with him.

-Bruce

[piece-it pete]

Will you be writing any positive things Kerry has done, or no?

Bruno, the questions Will raised about Kerry are absolutely ligit. They are NOT mudslinging. The President is the leader of the "free" world, the banner carrier of modern civilization. Billions of peoples' wellbeing, not just Americans, are directly effected by his (hers? in '08?) decisions.

Therefore, the harder the campaign, the better off we all are. True for the GOP & the Dems.

Mud is distracting & the politicos know it - polls have shown that we (the voters) are a tad shy of a full deck!

That said, character is important - just ask Lay & Stewart. And I doubt Clinton wanted the impeachment.

Hey, I've got something nice to say about Kerry! Two, things!

1) He's got nice hair.

2) He's not Kusinich!



Pete

[tugmcmartin]

Thanks for that post Bruce. Kerry will never gain my support based on his defense record alone. It is downright scary that this man could possibly be the leader of our country's military and defense strategy.

To quote someone else smarter than I: "There is a candidate out there for every position. His name is John Kerry."

T-

[bturk667]

Yet you like Bush! Yeah, he is a man of character? Where are those supposed WMD? I feel safer, how about you Pete?
How tough was the National Guard, I mean when he was there?
Is every question, like the above topic, about Bush ligit? Most conservatives seem to think there not. These are the same Conservatives that made Clinton's fleeing the War an issue, not once but twice. Evedently was good for the goose is not good for the gander!

The difference between Conservatives and Liberals: Conservatives always think there right. Liberals will at least entertain the possibilty that they MIGHT be wrong.
We all know that no one is right a 100% of time; I like the fact that there are some people that have enough character to admit when their wrong! I do not see this in Bush, or Conservatives in general. I see it more often from Liberals! Then again we are talking about politicians, character only goes so far. And that Pete, is the biggest shame of them all!!!

[bturk667]

How did that "Star Wars" thing work out?
I wish there were more who would have opposed that little sink hole.
How much, did we the tax payers, pay for that? Yeah, thats what we need. More unchecked military spending! We have just the right President for that, don't we?

[JSE]

Bturk,


Holy Smollies! What are you smoking? And quit watching CNN so much.

"These are the same Conservatives that made Clinton's fleeing the War an issue, not once but twice."

What? Clinton did flee the WAR. Bush was get this, "in the national guard". It's funny that a liberal is so opposed to war but then turns around a bashes someone for not wanting to go to Vietnam. A war liebrals were so against. Yes, that makes sense?

"Evedently was good for the goose is not good for the gander!"

See above!

"The difference between Conservatives and Liberals: Conservatives always think there right. Liberals will at least entertain the possibilty that they MIGHT be wrong."

They do? When? I can just as easily say that liberals think that conservative are ALWAYS worng and never ever right. I think it conservative Bush who has given in to some liberal wants. I guess he thinks liberal may have some valid points. Oh, wait that can't be according to you.

"Yeah, thats what we need. More unchecked military spending! We have just the right President for that, don't we?"

Last time I checked, the President did not have a unlimited check book. I think Kerry even voted to spend some money of terrorism. I know, it's true.

I don't think Bush has been wishy-washy at all. Did he get some bad info, probably so. But, I don't think he has been wishy-washy on anything. He pretty much does what he says and means what he says. Kerry on the other hand apparently just tells anyone what they want to here regardless of what he really thinks. He seems to talk out of his ass most of the time. Give in to everyone. Oh yes, that's what our country needs. We will be much better off under the control of the UN.

Utopia awaits!!!!!!

JSE

[tugmcmartin]

How did that "Star Wars" thing work out?
I wish there were more who would have opposed that little sink hole.
How much, did we the tax payers, pay for that? Yeah, thats what we need. More unchecked military spending! We have just the right President for that, don't we?

Star Wars worked out great! Well, at least the first three movies.

I'm not sure what you mean by "unchecked military spending." Last time i checked, any budget has to get approval from both houses of Congress before it gets implemented. At the time the Star Wars program was implemented wasn't there a Democrat majority in Congress that would've had to approve that budget that funded that program? The fact is, no spending goes unchecked in reality. If budgets start ballooning and the deficit starts growing (like it is now) our representatives in Congress deserve as much credit (or discredit) as the president of the moment. And that, my friend, is what most ticks me off about what my fellow repubs are doing right now. Where's the fiscal responsibility??? I don't see it ANYWHERE in DC right now in either party. Though i'd much rather see "unchecked military spending" than unchecked spending on useless/failing social programs (at least at the federal level).

T-

[piece-it pete]

Yet you like Bush! Yeah, he is a man of character? Where are those supposed WMD? I feel safer, how about you Pete?
How tough was the National Guard, I mean when he was there?
Is every question, like the above topic, about Bush ligit? Most conservatives seem to think there not. These are the same Conservatives that made Clinton's fleeing the War an issue, not once but twice. Evedently was good for the goose is not good for the gander!

The difference between Conservatives and Liberals: Conservatives always think there right. Liberals will at least entertain the possibilty that they MIGHT be wrong.
We all know that no one is right a 100% of time; I like the fact that there are some people that have enough character to admit when their wrong! I do not see this in Bush, or Conservatives in general. I see it more often from Liberals! Then again we are talking about politicians, character only goes so far. And that Pete, is the biggest shame of them all!!!

does that help ?

Of course I like GWB. I agree with him at least 85% of the time!

WMD isn't a character issue, in my view. According to the entire worlds' intelligence services, including France, Germany, Russia, & the UN the existence of WMD wasn't in doubt. If I recall, the question was should we invade over it. I agreed with the current administration. So did a clear majority of Congress, including Kerry. As a matter of fact I believe we should've anyway. Our enemies are not neccessarily nations, now, and many things are linked together. I'd sure like to hear Nixons' view! (Talk about character flaws! But the man was a foriegn policy genius.)

And the fact is, we ARE safer, feeling or not. Libyas' cleaning up. Syrias' cooperating. Pakistans' clamping down internally. These are only the things we know about, much happens behind closed doors, & none of it would've happened if we hadn't shocked the world with our awesome (and righteous) might.

Did he do the right thing by hiding in the National Guard? No. His duty was to do what his country asked. It's still different than the current crop of Dem contenders, though - he didn't get discharged & run around burning flags & spelling America with a "k". So if it's an issue, he comes out ahead by default. But still hardly a shining moment for the Bushes.

The GOP & the Dems describe each other very differently. I will say I'm often wrong - just ask my wife! lol. And one of these days I'll put up a post on what I don't like about GWB. But of course AFTER the election !!

I agree that character is hard to find in politics. Not impossible, though, and so far this admin. has been very clean.

Pete

[FLZapped]

How did that "Star Wars" thing work out?
I wish there were more who would have opposed that little sink hole.
How much, did we the tax payers, pay for that? Yeah, thats what we need. More unchecked military spending! We have just the right President for that, don't we?

It took me a while to figure out that whole thing. Regan used "Star Wars" and the associated propaganda to cause the collapse of the Soviet Union. He had them so damned scared we were actually going to do something they dumped what little money left into trying to keep up with what we were spending.

I don't know that I would have done that and it did almost bankrupt us in the process, but it served it's purpose - it was the economic equivalent of drinking them under the table.

-Bruce

[FLZapped]

Thanks for that post Bruce. Kerry will never gain my support based on his defense record alone. It is downright scary that this man could possibly be the leader of our country's military and defense strategy.

To quote someone else smarter than I: "There is a candidate out there for every position. His name is John Kerry."

T-

Ya know, I've been a Democrat all my life(and my family as far back as I can figure). Right now, I can't stand what the party has become. It's full of sociaists who want to make the people enslaved, uhm, dependant on the government for their daily exisitance - essentially, their god.

That means people like Kerry, Dean(Vermont has leaned heavily socialist for a while), Clark, Ted Kennedy, Gore....

I can't say I'm thrilled with the Republican party either, but they are a lot closer to what I believe than my own party is of late.

Once upon a time, the Democratic party was considered to be conservative.

I wonder if Jesse is available.....

-Bruce

[jeskibuff]

Mr. President, I also rise today--and I want to say that I rise reluctantly, but I rise feeling driven by personal reasons of necessity--to express my very deep disappointment over yesterday's turn of events in the Democratic primary in Georgia.

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. By that I mean that yesterday, during this presidential campaign, and even throughout recent times, Vietnam has been discussed and written about without an adequate statement of its full meaning.

What is ignored is the way in which our experience during that period reflected in part a positive affirmation of American values and history, not simply the more obvious negatives of loss and confusion.

What is missing is a recognition that there exists today a generation that has come into its own with powerful lessons learned, with a voice that has been grounded in experiences both of those who went to Vietnam and those who did not.

What is missing and what cries out to be said is that neither one group nor the other from that difficult period of time has cornered the market on virtue or rectitude or love of country.

What saddens me most is that Democrats, above all those who shared the agonies of that generation, should now be refighting the many conflicts of Vietnam in order to win the current political conflict of a presidential primary.

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.

We do not need to divide America over who served and how. I have personally always believed that many served in many different ways. Someone who was deeply against the war in 1969 or 1970 may well have served their country with equal passion and patriotism by opposing the war as by fighting in it. Are we now, 20 years or 30 years later, to forget the difficulties of that time, of families that were literally torn apart, of brothers who ceased to talk to brothers, of fathers who disowned their sons, of people who felt compelled to leave the country and forget their own future and turn against the will of their own aspirations?

Are we now to descend, like latter-day Spiro Agnews, and play, as he did, to the worst instincts of divisiveness and reaction that still haunt America? Are we now going to create a new scarlet letter in the context of Vietnam?

Certainly, those who went to Vietnam suffered greatly. I have argued for years, since I returned myself in 1969, that they do deserve special affection and gratitude for service. And, indeed, I think everything I have tried to do since then has been to fight for their rights and recognition.

But while those who served are owed special recognition, that recognition should not come at the expense of others; nor does it require that others be victimized or criticized or said to have settled for a lesser standard. To divide our party or our country over this issue today, in 1992, simply does not do justice to what all of us went through during that tragic and turbulent time.

I would like to make a simple and straightforward appeal, an appeal from my heart, as well as from my head. To all those currently pursuing the presidency in both parties, I would plead that they simply look at America. We are a nation crying out for leadership, for someone who will bring us together and raise our sights. We are a nation looking for someone who will lift our spirits and give us confidence that together we can grow out of this recession and conquer the myriad of social ills we have at home.

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, Mr. President, 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.

- from a speech John Kerry made in February 1992 on the Senate floor in response to Republican Bob Kerrey's attacks on Bill Clinton's draft-dodging.

Most of this was printed in today's newspaper, but I found the text of the speech at http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1071921/posts

In addition, the Richmond Times-Dispatch had this to say:
Today's presidential campaigns have brought similar broadsides against President Bush for his service in the Texas and Alabama Air National Guard during the Vietnam era. Senator Kerry has taken part in the fun 'n' games.

Evidently leadership in 2004 requires a divisive figure willing to re-open the wounds of Vietnam, to victimize and criticize another who served in the National Guard. And a current leader ought to be one who, in tasting power at the tip of his tongue; sates his appetite by not hearing -- by rejecting -- the very plea he made to presidential candidates a dozen years ago.

In a nutshell, Kerry is a BIG hypocrite who talks out both sides of his mouth! He acts as if anything he's done or said in the past disappeared from the face of the earth.

[bturk667]

The Star Wars program is exactly what I mean.

[bturk667]

Bturk, Let's see what I can come up with.


Holy Smollies! What are you smoking? And quit watching CNN so much. Sorry, I don't smoke. What do you smoke?

"These are the same Conservatives that made Clinton's fleeing the War an issue, not once but twice."

What? Clinton did flee the WAR. Bush was get this, "in the national guard". It's funny that a liberal is so opposed to war but then turns around a bashes someone for not wanting to go to Vietnam. A war liebrals were so against. Yes, that makes sense? Everyone knows one of the ways to get out of going to Vietnam was to get onto the National Guard.

Now, I never bashed Bush, I bashed Conservatives. And what Bush did is what a coward does, just like Clinton. Hell, I might have been right behind Bush. Problem is that I do not have the political pull to leap frog over the 500 individuals that Bush did to get into the Guard! Can you say"Thanks Daddy!"

"Evedently was good for the goose is not good for the gander!"

See above!

"The difference between Conservatives and Liberals: Conservatives always think there right. Liberals will at least entertain the possibilty that they MIGHT be wrong."

They do? When? I can just as easily say that liberals think that conservative are ALWAYS worng and never ever right. I think it conservative Bush who has given in to some liberal wants. I guess he thinks liberal may have some valid points. Oh, wait that can't be according to you.

I'll stick to my above point, thanks very much!

"Yeah, thats what we need. More unchecked military spending! We have just the right President for that, don't we?"

Last time I checked, the President did not have a unlimited check book. I think Kerry even voted to spend some money of terrorism. I know, it's true. Largest deficit in the history of the Nation!

Bush used 9/11 and the fact that it is a Republican controlled Congress to get all the funding he wants, PERIOD!!! Every time the Dems want to lower it, there called unpatriotic. Right?!?

I don't think Bush has been wishy-washy at all. Did he get some bad info, probably so. But, I don't think he has been wishy-washy on anything. He pretty much does what he says and means what he says. Kerry on the other hand apparently just tells anyone what they want to here regardless of what he really thinks. He seems to talk out of his ass most of the time. Give in to everyone. Oh yes, that's what our country needs. We will be much better off under the control of the UN.

Sorry, I never said Bush was wishy-washy. At least I don't remember doing so. Hey, if my info was bad, can I use the same excuse Bush uses in regards to the WMD? Who mentioned the UN?

Utopia awaits!!!!!!
Not with Bush at the helm!
JSE

Have a nice DAY!

[bturk667]

Did the rest of the countries you mentioned go to war with Iraq? AH NO!
Sorry to burst your bubble Pete; we are not any safer then before. Lybia was never a threat to us. Since Saddam HAD NO WMD, HE WAS NOT A THREAT TO US! As long as every politician keeps an open boarder to the south, WE WILL NEVER BE SAFE!

Remember four years ago when Bush was competing with Senator McCain for the Republican nomination? Who brought up Bush's National Guard service?

If you consider lying to the people as being very clean, then what is dirty?

[JSE]

"Sorry, I do not watch CNN. "

So............................... what are ya smokin?

JSE

[JSE]

So Bturk,


I get the picture you dislike libs and reps. So who would you like to see run for Pres.?There has to be somebody. Is there anyone in Washington you admire? Anyone outside Washington? Anyone?

JSE