Bush needs more pictures of his girls on his website.
Printable View
Bush needs more pictures of his girls on his website.
George Bush *can't* run on his military service. John Kerry earned that right when he volunteered for Vietnam and served there. He also came back and told what was going on. That is the bottom line of why the "Swift Boat Veterans" is doing.
That he protested the war when he came home does nothing to diminish his service, nor does it change what he did there.
-A
This whole argument is retarded.
To believe it from John Kerry and his one veteran supporter from his crew, John Kerry single-handedly saved the lives of countless people under heavy fire, he successfully policed his own and reported every case of rape and child killing to his superiors, and he strategically planned out the destruction of many evil people.
To hear it from other people in his camp, none of whom really served under him, he was an ineffective buffoon who lied and faked injuries, and then turncoated on them after he returned from war.
The truth quite obviously lies somewhere in the middle here, but any thinking man can make certain assumptions.
1) Swift boat captains were not often placed in situations of heavy fire. Basic Military Doctrine would suggest that one can rarely expect to secure more land by capturing the river.
2) John Kerry probably did save a person or three in his time, but that does not distinguish him from any other veteran who served. Furthermore, my own personal belief is that he has never done so under heavy fire. That type of activity is usually performed only by the rarest type of devout patriot or friend, something no politician is capable of.
3) John Kerry was a low ranking officer in the military. Hate to break this news to anyone, but he wasn't a general. Low level officers micromanage. A president cannot do this. If anything, whatever military experience in combat he has (an advantage over Bush) is likely wiped out by his never having witnessed or been a part of strategic thinking. A low level officer is a pure tactician, micromanaging people underneath. This is no way qualifies a strategic leader.
4) The swift boat captains are basing 40-50% of their allegations on hearsay from the camp, 50% are pure lies, and the remaining 0-10% is actual witnessed truth.
5) John Kerry is exaggerating all of the good things he did, forgetting about the bad, and neglecting to mention that he made and/or ordered precisely 0 arrests during his tenure there, thereby implying one of the following. 1) He either never actually witnessed any of the rape or child-killing and said it after he returned for political gain or 2) He selectively chose to do nothing about it at the time, and waited until he got home. Neither road acquiesces to traits of leadership.
6) John Kerry's military record is better than Bush's. As much as I personally believe it is very likely he fabricated some of the stories, and quite possibly fabricated or exaggerated injuries to come home, that he served in war is still better than not serving in war from a moral standpoint.
The reality is quite simple. When you fabricate and exxagerate your own heroics, there are people who will naysay. I don't think the swift boat story should have any bearing on ability as a leader, because neither side is even close to the truth on the true nature and details on Kerry's service. One side embellishes a war hero, the other screams blasphemy.
People like John McCain and Bob Dole actually suffered in the war, and suffered for their country, yet continue to love their country to this day. That doesn't make either one of them immediately qualified for presidency. It equally says the same for Kerry. Votes should not be cast based on those assumptions.
Uh, Tamral, get your facts straight.
Everyone who was on Kerry's swiftboat with him was up there supporting him at the convention. The only one that didn't was no longer alive.
None of those in the attack ad by the Swift Boat group actually served on Kerry's boat. And their statements are contrary to the accounts of Kerry and those who served under him.(http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=231)
So, anyway..
I'm glad I held the belief that Clinton's lack of service meant shit about being President... so at least I can't be accused of being a hypocrite.Quote:
Originally posted by Ravenstorm
Feel free. I find it laughable (read that as pathetic) that people who try to discredit Kerry excuse Bush for ducking active service. Especially when they most likely were down on Clinton for doing it.
Raven
Is your conscious that clean Raven? Did you believe that George Bush or Robert Doyle would make a better President than Clinton due to his military record?
That's right.. I didn't think so.
I completely agree.Quote:
Originally posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
Bush needs more pictures of his girls on his website.
I disagree. The way he went about it was a slap in every soldier's face and many felt betrayed by one of their own.Quote:
Originally posted by Ilvane
That he protested the war when he came home does nothing to diminish his service, nor does it change what he did there.
-A
Now he wants to lead them.
Ilvane, you miss my point entirely, but ok. If you want to believe the John Kerry personally won the war, go ahead. If you want to believe he is some sort of superhero, and did any more than a McCain or a Dole, feel free. I personally don't, but I don't believe the swift boat vets any more than I do him.
However, in terms of ability to lead and make strategic decisions, low level officers in a war do not handle such matters. How one performs in a tactical sense has little bearing on their abilities as strategic leaders. I personally don't think Kerry's service was any more heroic than anyone else, and that he served is a measure beyond Bush's not having served.
However, had he been a true man of action and willing to show leadership and qualities of heroism, he would have stood up for what was right when it mattered. Had he witnessed child-killing or rape, he does not prevent the rape, or more rape by sitting on his laurels. He would do so by immediately arresting the person who committed the atrocity. He did not. He had precisely 0 soldiers arrested during his tenure in Vietnam. It is very easy to sit back and wait on such an issue had it been as rampant as he claimed. A true man of moral would have stepped up and done something to save the children and women as opposed to waiting until the time of greatest personal gain to have said something about it.
The true dichotomy of the whole matter is that people are arguing that military service makes him more viable to lead the military. Had he been a general, or a colonel, perhaps it would have been more appropriate to say. At best the way it is being presented right now, it is pure propaganda from both sides of the fence.
The fact is noone here has the facts. Only speculation. His commanding officers thought he did a well enough job not to make it an issue. The people who awarded him those medals didn't think of it as an issue. How well he did in Vietnam shouldn't even be the case. The fact that he was there says alot more about Kerry than Bush's record.
:lolwave::break: