Could Vietnam win the White House for Kerry?

guardian.co.uk ^ | Tuesday February 3, 2004 | Suzanne Goldenberg

[WOSG]

YOU GOT IT!

That is a great political bumper sticker.

[Kenny Bunk]

Are they like you in that their senses are telling them Bush may lose (because he distanced himself from the conservative wing) while their hearts refuse to admit such a possibility?

Dr. Destro, I have never been psychoanalyzed so accurately (or at such a distance). This is exactly what is going through what's left of my once-fine 1950's brain. The only chance Bush has could come down to a scenario in which the Democrats will come up with a ticket that most Americans find repulsive. But after Al Gore, even that seems a toss-up.

They (the Republicans) won't even take vote fraud seriously, even though it cost them the electoral votes of 5 states in 2000. Bush is leaving himself wide open to a no-show Republican vote because of his flagrant spending on the one hand, and this asinine "Shamnesty" on the other. Yes, Dr. Destro. I am starting to see signs of the Republicans preparing to snatch an inglorious defeat (again) from the jaws of an easy victory.

[Destro]

Probably because in your posts on the subject I saw my own feelings reflected.

[WOSG]

"Arnold was a traitor and Kerry is not a traitor no matter how partisan you want to make it. What you are doing now is smearing - a Clintonian tactic. I do not support Kerry but I do not need to become a shrill cog in the smear campaign and stoop to that level."

I dont think it is shrill to point out that Kerry stepped over the line from mere dissent to genuine unfair anti-American attacks on our military. You use the word "smear" - it apropros because John Kerry smeared the US military.

In 1971, John Kerry became a leader of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War protest group.
Kerry testified to Congress that Americans in Vietnam had "personally raped, cut off ears,
cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the
power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages,
shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the
countryside of South Vietnam." He testified, "We all did it." He said his claims
were "not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the
full awareness of officers at all levels of command."

He accused fellow veterans of being war criminals, but this awful charge
was based on trumped on stories. In his book "Stolen Valor," B.G. Burkett points
out that Mr. Kerry liberally used phony veterans to testify to atrocities
they could not possibly have committed.

Kerry publicly supported Hanoi's position to use our POWs as a bargaining chip
in negotiations for a peace agreement. Kerry threw what appeared to be his medals
over a fence in front of the Capitol building in protest, on camera of course,
but was caught in his lie years later when his medals turned up displayed on his office wall.

The navy lieutenant was viewed by the Nixon White House as its
most formidable anti-war opponent because it was understood that
Kerry's impeccable war record would insulate him from charges of
being an unpatriotic hippy. And yet the group that he allied himself with
was in fact quite radical. They desired the victory of Hanoi in this war. It is not a stretch to call the group, or to call others like "Hanoi" Jane Fonda, traitors. Kerry's war service was a cover, a stage prop,
a useful shield to deflect criticism of how damaging his words and actions were to others who served honorably.

[Destro]

This is not Central American country and our military does not enjoy untouchable protected status. Were our founding fathers traitors because they publicly stated that a standing army was a danger to the republic? Were they traitors for making such a smear? Whatever word you want to use to describe Kerry's remarks - slander - liable - stupid - etc. it is not treason - not even remotly so.

[Cate]

Uh, no, Kerry won't win based on Vietnam. There are toooooo many of us with loud voices. Gesssshhh... what a funny question.

[x]

Nice quote from Christopher Hitchens:

John Kerry should decide whether he's a moral hero for fighting in a futile and filthy war against the Vietnamese revolution, or for protesting against that war. Can I guess from his demeanor which of the two was his "noble cause"? No. Shouldn't I know by now? Yes, I should, since it's not evident at this relatively late date whether or not he's proud of voting to remove Saddam Hussein.

Kerry is trying to ride two horses at the same time and that's a feat he probably won't be able to pull off. Bush has to be careful how his people handle this thing, though: making Kerry's anti-war record a major issue will probably boomerang on Bush, because Kerry does have that war record.

Undecided voters may react strongly against Republicans' calling their attention to Kerry's 1970s radicalism too much. The question is whether enough voters will notice it on their own and draw the conclusion that Kerry is the wrong choice.

After Clinton, it's unwise to assume this -- if people really want change, they'll go with change in spite of the baggage the "agent of change" may be carrying, and if they really want to throw the incumbents out, there's very little in the challenger's record that will dissuade them, especially if it's already out in the open.

[Destro]

Just fight smart. Throwing bomb shell words like traitor will not get us any votes or sympathy.

[WOSG]

"This is not Central American country and our military does not enjoy untouchable protected status."

Boy what spin. Kerry went far beyond mere critique, he slandered the military viciously. He spoke of "crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command." No institution in America is untouchable. But anyone who describes any institution in terms like that has made that institution to be an 'enemy'. Kerry described our US military as engaged in something evil and despicable, and spoke in terms that made our own military leaders out to be an evil crowd like a mafia and not our protectors.

"Whatever word you want to use to describe Kerry's remarks - slander - liable - stupid - etc. it is not treason - not even remotly so."

YES, remotely so... Kerry made slanders against our military that gave aid and comfort to the enemy that was North Vietnam and helped in the Communists' strategy to ultimately win the war. That is perhaps not treason itself but the closest relation you can come without giving away military secrets. These protestors and their lies did more to damage our military and America than spies could.

I will not use the term 'treason' to Kerry, especially in a political season where hyperbole just creates heat (eg lies about Bush like the "AWOL" canards, the lie that he "lied" about WMD, Iraq was about oil, etc.). It's more heat than light to use charged terms rather than simply reading the indictment and letting the facts speak for themselves.

But I will say this clearly: Kerry's own words condemn him. What Kerry did was wrong; it was reprehensible; it harmed America; it harmed unfairly our military; it helped lose Vietman. I dont see how such behavior, especially when he has never apologized for it, is acceptable in a man who wants to be President.

[Destro]

We should never have fought in Vietnam. Win or lose.

[WOSG]

You'd rather we didnt *win* the war in Vietnam? ... I guess you share Jimmy Carter's lunacy that it was all just an "inordinate fear of Communism" and just fine and dandy to hand Vietnam over to the Communists and Cambodia to Pol Pot and let the boat people problems fall where they may ?

hmmmm.

Whatever one's position, it never justifies slandering our military like Kerry did.

[Kenny Bunk]

The Kerry Juggernaut is rolling. The media-enabled PR campaign is moving on many fronts with a slick, highly-organized attack.

The campaign attacks GWB on his military service. Damage already done, cannot be undone.

Attacks deficit, combined with "Tax Cuts for the wealthy. "No jobs 'cause Bush stole the money to give to the wealthy."

Attacks "Lack of WMDS and twisting intelligence" to get us in the "War in Iraq."

Attacks Bush "Health Care Plan"

Put this together with tepid turnout from the right because of this damned amnesty and the wild spending, and you have a disaster in the making. It may well come down to Donna Brazile, Ed Rendell, and Mayor Daly stealing a key state or two.

[Destro]

No - if I had a time machine I would not fight the war period. If already engaged I would have supported the South Vietnamese with special forces and air support and when that failed (it did fail) I would cut our losses and run. Only Stalin and Hitler ordered their men to die without retreat. We lost Vietnam in the cold war. Move on down to a more defensable country or region. As it tursn out the domino theory turned out to be false.

[Destro]

May I add that Kerry while not saying he is against "free trade" has made statements against the laws that make it easy to outsource jobs overseas, Boom! Kerry has the Blue Collars once also known as the Reagan Republicans.

So if I can play at being an analyst, what are classic conservatives to do? Bush flawed and Kerry is not our man? Ah yes!! Our last refuge - Divided govt. What may happen is that the conservative base stays home, votes for Republicans in the Senate and Congress and either Kerry for president or leaves that vote blank.

That is what I see may be happening.

[ohioman]

He gave comfort to the enemy through his words. Any American who calls his fellow soldiers war criminals is a traitor. He may not be charged as such, but he should at least get the label asa traitor. It is not dumbing it down. Would the word sedition sit better with you?