Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: 68skylark
It would be a lot easier for Kerry to defend his anti-war stance if he'd testified to specific incidents that he personally saw. As it is all he did was lend credence to the baby-killer talk that was in vogue with the hardcore anti-Vietnam war crowd back then.

I think Kerry went to Vietnam with the idea of establishing a name for himself to start a career in politics. When he came back he found himself just another vet with a lot of medals that no one wanted to hear from. Then he had the Vets against the war revelation and saw a way to salvage his ambitions.

His is potentially a good story for the aging anti-Vietnam war crowd, but that's about it. They can imagine how noble and brave they were for protesting for a short while. But most people don't want to be reminded of Nam one way or another. It's just so unpleasant. There's a reason we celebrate all our old wars all together and only once a year!
8 posted on 02/15/2004 11:11:59 AM PST by claudiustg (Go Sharon! Go Bush!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: claudiustg
It would be a lot easier for Kerry to defend his anti-war stance if he'd testified to specific incidents that he personally saw

With him being on a patrol boat -- I doubt he saw much of anything but what he or his crew did.
9 posted on 02/15/2004 11:26:20 AM PST by Jackson Brown
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: claudiustg
I think you are right and to add to it, I think Kerry had political ambitions when he went to Vietnam, I think he saw action and was revolted by the reality of it. I doubt that he ever got over it. While (and this is a stretch) he might have been well intentioned in his criticism of war, his actions hurt his country and his comrades.
He was wrong and he has to deal with the consequences.
24 posted on 02/15/2004 4:33:44 PM PST by OldEagle (Haven't been wrong since 1947.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: claudiustg
Not only that (no specifics), had they been, and had he actually witnessed these activities and didn't report them, they are considered "war crimes".

As to defending his anti-war stance .. he can't. His votes in the Senate show perfectly well how he hates the military. He has voted NO for every military armament, equipment, intelligence, etc. The fact he would vote for the war in Iraq and then vote NOT TO SUPPORT THE TROOPS who are already there proves to me he cannot be a CIC, not in war time .. and probably not anytime.

I know they will lie, but this will be very difficult to defend.
30 posted on 02/15/2004 6:48:10 PM PST by CyberAnt (The 2004 Election is for the SOUL of AMERICA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson