[IamConservative]

This whole campaign reminds me of a joke.

(Short version, embellish lavishly in retelling.)

A politicians dies, gets to the pearly gates. St. Peter informs the politician that all dignitaries have to spend one day in hell, one day in heaven and choose where to spend eternity.

The day in hell is spent on a splendid golf course with all the perks where the politician shoots 4 under par.

The day in heaven is spent floating from cloud to cloud meeting past acquaintances and discussing spirituality and eternity.

Following, the politician informs St. Peter that hell is for him.

Upon arriving in hell, the Senator finds a barren wasteland where the inhabitants are rummaging through refuse for food. The politician finds the devil and seeks to understand where the beautiful golf course is with the beverage service, 19th hole, poker game, etc.

To which the devil responds: "Yesterday we were campaigning..."

[ken5050]

CW..did you read Tony Blankley column in today's Washington Times..a must read..

[GailA]

He could be bothered to take film footage of his 'heroics' but couldn't be bothered to take footage of all the supposed atrocities that were committed. One would think film footage to prove it would have been a MUST.

[The_Reader_David]

I'm absolutely inclined to agree that the issue is what Kerry did when he got back from Vietnam, not what he did there.

Let's grant for the moment that he serve honorably, was heroic, and that his self-accusation of war-crimes was mere youthful histrionics, not an actual confession. The fact remains that the "Vietnam War" was really just a campaign in a larger war, commonly called the Cold War. The entire record of Kerry's public life during the Cold War reads like an attempt to undo any service he did in Vietnam: from his histrionic 'testimony' about war-crimes in Vietnam, to his first Congessional campaign with its promises to virtually abolish the CIA and subject the projection of American military power to UN approval, to his opposition to Reagan's defense build-up and support for the anti-communist insurgency in Nicaragua, all of his public actions relevant to foreign policy during the Cold War gave aid and comfort to the Soviet Union and it allies.

Much has been made of his votes for defense cuts in the wake of our victory in the Cold War. These, while a bad idea when viewed retrospectively in light of 9/11, really are not the main issue. The main issue is that Kerry himself says he will lead 'with the lessons I learned in Vietnam'. It is his record during the Cold War which reveal those lessons, not his grasping at the purported 'peace dividend' at the end of the Cold War.

Evidently the lessons by which he would lead are

• Improve troop morale by making specious accusations of war-crimes while the troops are still in the field.
• Drastically cut back intelligence operations when the United States is engaged in a long, multifacetted conflict, fought both by open military conflict on multiple fronts, and covertly by clandestine operations on both sides and in propaganda, against an enemy ideologically committed to our destruction.
• Don't spend tax money on weapons systems relevant to either deterrence or war-fighting even in the context of a long, multifacetted conflict. . .against an enemy ideologically committed to our destruction.
• Deny support to and vilify allies on the ground when they are trying to displace oppressive governments friendly to our enemies in the long. . .

That he voted against weapon systems during the brief period when we were arguably at peace is not the problem with Kerry, the problem is precisely that he may try to conduct foreign policy according to the lessons he learned in Vietnam, because we are again engaged in a long, multifacetted conflict, fought both by open military conflict on multiple fronts, and covertly by clandestine operations on both sides and in propaganda, against an enemy ideologically committed to our destruction.

[Bob]

From the article:

But what Kerry did in Vietnam is not the real issue.

Sorry, Linda, it's a big one. Then again, maybe it's not.

Maybe it's what he's always claimed to have done versus what he really did.