Coldblooded Murder:
Posted on 08/23/2004 9:45:17 PM PDT by John Jorsett
Almost a year ago, on the second anniversary of 9/11, I predicted "an ugly, bitter campaign - probably the nastiest of modern American history." The reasons I gave then still apply. President Bush has no positive achievements to run on. Yet his inner circle cannot afford to see him lose: if he does, the shroud of secrecy will be lifted, and the public will learn the truth about cooked intelligence, profiteering, politicization of homeland security and more.
But recent attacks on John Kerry have surpassed even my expectations. There's no mystery why. Mr. Kerry isn't just a Democrat who might win: his life story challenges Mr. Bush's attempts to confuse tough-guy poses with heroism, and bombast with patriotism.
One of the wonders of recent American politics has been the ability of Mr. Bush and his supporters to wrap their partisanship in the flag. Through innuendo and direct attacks by surrogates, men who assiduously avoided service in Vietnam, like Dick Cheney (five deferments), John Ashcroft (seven deferments) and George Bush (a comfy spot in the National Guard, and a mysterious gap in his records), have questioned the patriotism of men who risked their lives and suffered for their country: John McCain, Max Cleland and now John Kerry.
How have they been able to get away with it? The answer is that we have been living in what Roger Ebert calls "an age of Rambo patriotism." As the carnage and moral ambiguities of Vietnam faded from memory, many started to believe in the comforting clichés of action movies, in which the tough-talking hero is always virtuous and the hand-wringing types who see complexities and urge the hero to think before acting are always wrong, if not villains.
After 9/11, Mr. Bush had a choice: he could deal with real threats, or he could play Rambo. He chose Rambo. Not for him the difficult, frustrating task of tracking down elusive terrorists, or the unglamorous work of protecting ports and chemical plants from possible attack: he wanted a dramatic shootout with the bad guy. And if you asked why we were going after this particular bad guy, who hadn't attacked America and wasn't building nuclear weapons - or if you warned that real wars involve costs you never see in the movies - you were being unpatriotic.
As a domestic political strategy, Mr. Bush's posturing worked brilliantly. As a strategy against terrorism, it has played right into Al Qaeda's hands. Thirty years after Vietnam, American soldiers are again dying in a war that was sold on false pretenses and creates more enemies than it kills.
It should come as no surprise, then, that Mr. Bush - who must defend the indefensible - has turned to those who still refuse to face the truth about Vietnam.
All the credible evidence, from military records to the testimony of those who served with Mr. Kerry, confirms his wartime heroism. Why, then, are some veterans willing to join the smear campaign? Because they are angry about his later statements against the war. Yet making those statements was itself a heroic act - and what he said then rings truer than ever.
The young John Kerry spoke of leaders who sent others to their deaths because they wanted to seem tough, then "left all the casualties and retreated behind a pious shield of public rectitude." Fifteen months after George Bush strutted around in his flight suit, more and more Americans are echoing Gen. Anthony Zinni, who received a standing ovation from an audience of Marine and Navy officers when he talked about the debacle in Iraq and said of those who served in Vietnam: "We heard the garbage and the lies, and we saw the sacrifice. I ask you, is it happening again?"
Mr. Kerry also spoke of the moral cost of an ill-conceived war - of the atrocities soldiers find themselves committing when they can't tell friend from foe. Two words: Abu Ghraib.
Let's hope that this latest campaign of garbage and lies - initially financed by a Texas Republican close to Karl Rove, and running an ad featuring an "independent" veteran who turns out to have served on a Bush campaign committee - leads to a backlash against Mr. Bush. If it doesn't, here's the message we'll be sending to Americans who serve their country: If you tell the truth, your courage and sacrifice count for nothing.
Coldblooded Murder:
Quite a nice piece. Krugman manages to hit every talking-point trope they've been trying to sell the public, even the ones that are already crumbling away. This guy's like a WWII Pacific Japanese soldier, still fighting for the Emperor in 1977.
Since I am one of three adult Americans who have hypertension, I really shouldn't be reading Krugman!
The real deceptions and lies which will be uncovered will happen when, and IF, Kerry signs the forms to release his records.
Krugman is the slimiest of the slime at The Slimes!
This guy doesn't even begin to know the meaning of the word "freedom".
Unless you count the liberation of 50 million people and capturing or killing 2/3 of Al-Qaeda's known leadership as a "positive achievement".
Um...what is this guy smoking? Or drinking?
Tell that to the 5 million Vietnamese the Kmehr Rouge killed after we left.
I just love to see 'rats panicking like this!
"Fifteen months after George Bush strutted around in his flight suit...."
I kind of liked George Bush's "strut", didn't you? He sure looked great in that flight suit. Didn't see anyone on board turn their back on him. :)
I agree with author, we should have an open and positive campaign. Tell John Kerry to answer to the charges brought by the men who served with him!
About the only thing he didn't do was quote from pat buchanan's latest anti-Bush book.
Here's a message from an American who is serving his country: (1) You are an idiot, a lemming, and a 'girly man'. (2) Your article is a monument to emotionally charged ignorance. (3) Don't presume to lecture others about telling the truth unless you have some of it on hand.
And Kerry needs to work on his sissy baseball toss, the hell with the botox LOL
politicization of homeland securityBy that he must mean the ACLU's campaign against so-called racial profiling. ;')
Airport SecurityYou really want airline safety? Make the airport screeners fly on a plane once a week. And if you think the rent-a-guards manning the scanners at your airport appear unfocused or distracted, you've never been to LAX. I've seen security personnel turn down the volume on the metal detectors so they can debate whether or not Yasmine Bleeth is hotter in person... Everybody quit whining. To those of you who find a pat down and a thorough investigation of your carry on luggage an invasive violation of your civil liberties... You don't like someone poking around your precious duffel bag? Try having strangers attempt to identify you by the mole on the left side of your nutsack dangling from a corn stalk in some field in Nebraska and then tell me where's the greater loss of privacy.
by Dennis Miller
3/15/2002Civil LibertiesCurrently the ACLU is upset because Arabs and Muslims are being unfairly profiled. Unfairly? You always hear that the majority of Muslims and Arabs are law-abiding. Hey, the majority of any group is law-abiding. But you don't leave your front door wide open at night just because the odds are in your favor.
by Dennis Miller
February 22, 2002
While I think some sort of profiling is necessary, I am troubled by the way it's being interpreted by the irresponsible. For example, there was Louisiana Representative John Cooksey, who called on police to pull over anyone wearing, quote,"a diaper on his head and a fan belt around it." You hear how ignorant that is? Completely overlooks the threat posed by people with a parachute around their nipples and a lemon zester dangling from their Adam's apples.
Now human rights advocates are up in non-arms about our indefinite detention of suspected terrorists. You think it's inhumane to detain them here? If we really wanted to **** 'em over, we'd send em back to Afghanistan.
George W. Bush will be reelected by a margin of at least ten per cent
No it wasn't. It was a cowardly act. If he had come back and said 'I participated in war crimes, I would like to face trial', that would have been a heroic act. Instead, he came back and said, 'I participated in war crimes, vote for me in November'.
People in Massachusetts must be awfully dumb.
Krugman actually equates Abu Graib with the alleged atrocities of Vietnam! This is truly gall. He refutes not one point the Swiftvets have made. Not one. He offers no evidence of anything he states in the article. This is the house of cards that the left have built.
Their entire system is built upon lies:
1. America was as evil as the Communists in Russia.
2. America was the country that had imperialist designs on Vietnam.
3. America Committed the atrocities in the Vietnam War.
4. America Lost the Vietnam War on the battlefield.
5. America's true heros were John Kerry, Jane Fonda, Bill Clinton and the VVAW.
6. Bill Clinton's draft avoidance was an honorable position.
7. John Kerry will be a good President because of his experience in Vietnam.
You have to give them credit. They tell Big LIES. Lies that take knowledge, dedication and perseverance to discredit.
This election isn't just about defeating John Kerry. It is about refuting the leftist lies of 45 years.
This is why the left - and Krugman is the example here - is in such apopoleptic hysteria about the SwiftVets. The truth the Swift Vets and the POW's are telling about Kerry is about to destroy a series of leftist memes that have gone unchallenged for decades. They are imploding.
In a year we will be having serious discussions about whether or not the Democrat Party is a viable opponent to the Republicans. The immolation that is going to occur in November and at some point the Democrats are going to have to ask the questions "How did we nominate John Kerry?" "What is wrong with the DNC and the party heirarchy that we nominated such a flawed man with such easily documentable foibles?" "How are we going to beat the Republicans when we nominate a spoiled child for President - not once but FOUR TIMES?"
I hope they never figure it out!
Regards,
TS
>>Looked much better than Kerry's salute.<<
You mean when he reported for doody??
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.