Posted on 08/06/2004 2:57:40 PM PDT by Steven W.
Guess I have some studying to do on Monday.
This isn't about my perception and my understanding of historical events. However, its about the perception and understanding of the American voter, specifically, the undecided voters who are influenced by current events up until and including election day. To most Americans, Vietnam is an event that occured a long long time ago. Attacking John Kerry's war record in Vietnam is counterproductive, at this point.
>>>If you were active during the 80's ....
I moved heaven and earth to get Reagan elected in 1976, 1980 and 1984. Nuff said.
Letters
Humanitarian aid to Nicaraguan Contras: President Reagan, 6422 [27MR]
Remarks by, on
Central America: International Security and Development Cooperation Act (S.J. Res. 283), 6308 [26MR], 6421-6423 [27MR]
Nicaragua: Military assistance to Contras (S.J. Res. 283), 6308 [26MR], 6421-6423 [27MR]
It looks like pages 6421-6423 are the best bet. I can't get to a Federal Depository Library any time soon. If someone is interested in pursuing this, you can look up the library closest to you at Locate Federal Depository Libraries by State or Area Code
Access: The Library of Congress has recently released the Record the 43rd Congress, 1873-75. The Daily Digest is not included.
There are separate indexes for the House and Senate for each session.
You may also access the full text through Congressional Universe, beginning with the 99th Congress (1985). Other access points are Thomas (1989+) or GPO Access (1995+).
The Library of Congress has recently released the Record the 43rd Congress, 1873-75. The Daily Digest is not included.
Read chapter 3. It contains new revelations. Since the book has not been released yet, how do you know what's in it? They have moved the release date up. If you wait a few days, you may be surprised.
At this stage of the general election campaign, most folks will be perceiving all this anti-Kerry rhetoric, as a last ditch effort to help defeat John Kerry. And you know what, they'd be right.
The timing couldn't be better. If you have a vulnerable candidate running in the Dem primary, you don't expose him until after he wins the nomination. The public at large doesn't start focussing on the candidates until after the conventions and Labor day. There will be plenty of anti-Bush as well as anti-Kerry rhetoric. The Dems dropped the DWI revelation on Bush 2 weeks before the election. In many cases, you withhold the most damaging stuff until late in the race to prevent the other guy from responding or spinning it. Timing is everything.
That's a matter of perception. I think you're hoping for a miracle that will set the Kerry campaign way, way, way back. While I'd love to see that happen, I don't believe that will happen. Hoping for the best for our President is fine, but don't lose your connection with reality. After all, do you really think John Kerry would have run for POTUS, if he thought his military and political record would have undermined his chances of getting elected? Personally, I think not so.
And personally, I think Bush-Cheney will be victorious in the end, no matter what Kerry-Edwards does.
Bush has Ohio.
Gay marriage amendment on the ballot in November.
Kerry may as well just pull out.
Oh, and Cleveland Browns Quarterback Bernie Kosar is stumping for Bush. Wonder if he's mentioned Theresa Steeler Heinz is from Pittsburgh yet.
Ohio, Kosar and BUSH. Nice trifecta!
You're still not getting it - it's not Vietnam ... this has effectively exposed his inner being as devoid of anything substantive or real.
thanks ... I'll be looking! :)
it appears LexisNexis is the only source for 1986 records ... do you have an account with them?
Kerry is the one who needs a miracle to win. I don't believe the American people will elect the most liberal senator from the most liberal state to the Presidencey over an incumbent wartime President presiding over an inproving economy and an unemployment rate of 5.5%, better than Clinton had in 1996.
After all, do you really think John Kerry would have run for POTUS, if he thought his military and political record would have undermined his chances of getting elected? Personally, I think not so.
Absolutely. It is called ego. Kerry delights in rubbing his military service in people's faces because it can become a tar baby for those who are brave enough to question it. In the meantime, he gets a pass concerning his antiwar activities and dismal record as a legislator. His war record insulates him from criticism, garners sympathy when it is attacked, and becomes the focal point of his campaign defining the framework for the debate. It is a strategy that has worked for him over the past 25 years in public office. He used it to good effect to defeat Bill Weld.
Kerry's antiwar activities with the radical Vietnam Veterans Against the War, his association with people like Jane Fonda and Ramsey Clark, and his meetings with the Vietnamese Communists in Paris and then advocating their negotiating posiitions before Congress are not the stuff of heroes or Presidential candidates.
If anyone is opening wounds from Vietnam, it is Kerry. He has brought Vietnam front and center. Now he wears his four plus months of service in-country as a badge of honor, but in 1971 Kerry made it a scarlett letter to be a Vietnam veteran. Most Americans under 45 don't even remember the Vietnam War. They are accepting the revisionist version of Kerry and the media.
Now, finally, the chickens are coming home to roost. Kerry is no longer running for office in Massachusetts without any real challenge from anyone except Weld in 1996. Now Kerry's record will be scrutiinized like never before and his military record will not intimidate men like the swift boat vets. Kerry will rue the day he decided to run for President. He will be personally destroyed once the truth is known.
Back during the dem primary and dem debates I was watching and heard Kerry hiss "NIXON's Waaar". This was before Iowa and Dean was the favorite still, I think and Kerry wasn't on my main radar yet.
Anyway, I immediately Googled up his service and saw he went over in '68 when Johnson was president.
Now. If I, a housewife of average means and education, could instantly call to mind when a U.S. president was in office, the question is, why the hell didn't Michael Kranish immediately think, when told this tall tale, "Christmas? Christmas of 1968? Why, LBJ was president then, not Nixon".
So many media types being exposed as shameless purveyors of the big lie. We've always known, but it's so blatant now.
It's good that the masks are off and they can be seen for what they are.
No, if I did I'd have posted it.
I'm going to try and look at LOC.gov this morning.
John Kerry is to Vietnam what Chief Illiniwek is to Native Americans.
bump for needed publicity
On the Christmas-Eve-in-Cambodia lie, JustOneMinute has found the speech that Kerry did indeed give on the floor of the Senate in which he claimed to have been sent illegally into Cambodia. JOM seems to think that because Kerry didn't specifically mention Nixon in the speech, that Kerry's off the hook some-how. I disagree, and have said from the start that confusing which president ordered you on a mythical illegal mission isn't nearly the problem as inventing a mythical illegal mission to begin with. The point is that Kerry was never sent to Cambodia, and the evidence that he wasn't sent there and never entered Cambodian waters is pretty overwhelming. He appears to have made up the episode to advance his argument on the Senate floor against the Contras, proving that he is willing to invent personal history to serve personal ambition, a blow to his "Vietnam era" credibility which is large --if any reporter will ask him whether he has ever argued that he was ever sent into Cambodia, and if so, why did he invent such a story.
ALSO: John Kerry - March 27, 1986 Senate Speech (Christmas in Cambodia)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.