[FairOpinion]

It's about time someone made this point.

This is what really matters:

[Enterprise]

Navarette has raised a good point, but my take on it veers slightly. The left once used Viet Nam as an issue to divide and disrupt the Nation, impugn the military, engage in violence, and try to tear down the Government. Now, once again, the left is using Viet Nam as a matter of political expedience to once again divide the country, only this time they are using Kerry's Viet Nam combat service to justify why THEY should be the ones in control of the Government that they hated so much during the war years.

[NYCVirago]

The Kerry candidacy is the perfect tribute to self-absorbed baby boomers. Many have spent the last three decades using Vietnam as a measuring stick to assess everyone who lived through it, whether they spent those years protesting the war or fighting in it.

Just don't expect much of this to resonate with my generation of Xers, or the generation that follows it -- those now in their teens and 20s.

The author nails it right here.

[fedupwithlibs]

Good Article though

[qam1]

Already posted at

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1077145/posts

[CyberAnt]

"the plan seems to be to nominate John Kerry and sell him as a rare breed of Democrat: a warrior-statesman with oodles of experience in national security and foreign policy"

If this is their plan .. it's already a "miserable failure". Kerry's time in Vietnam was 4 months. I hardly think that qualifies as "oodles of experience".

To be a warrior-statesman means you have to have "led" a war, not just participated in it. And .. as for "foreign policy" .. Kerry only has one - turn everything over to the UN.