Posted on 08/29/2004 4:58:32 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
During the run-up to the GOP convention in New York City, Republicans have been busy running down John Kerry, his Vietnam service and his subsequent anti-war work particularly. [snip] Hearing all the anti-Kerry swift boaters' criticism of Kerry, one would assume that the Vietnam war was a ''cakewalk,'' as one Bush administration adviser predicted the Iraq excursion would be. Given the Kerry critics' version of what went on in Vietnam, there were only sad teenagers in loincloths to worry about. And, therefore, we should have won that war. But we didn't -- and there's the rub. It is Kerry's post-Vietnam anti-war statements made in the early 1970s that so upset his opponents. Kerry's old accusations are artifacts of their time. When taken out of the heated context of that war, their meaning is distorted. Back then, his listeners could discriminate. Now the aging and raging veterans supporting Bush are taking umbrage at charges never aimed at them. Their rancor has only increased with time. [snip]
(Excerpt) Read more at suntimes.com ...
2+ years in the VAW is hardly remarks
Does this chuckle-head know that the Vietnam war went on well past Kerry's traitorous and slanderous remarks in 1971?
The fact that he was a abject slanderer and U.S. traitor is what is making Kerry's life so rough these 33 years later. These remarks, and his questionable service record, are what makes him unfit for command.
The Chicago Sun Times = just another media whore for Kerry/Soros '04'.
Kerry is proud that, upon his return from Vietnam, he eagerly believed anyone who said Americans had done evil things without any effort to verify their stories or even verify those making allegations were who they claimed to be. Virtually every "newsroom" in America believes this will make him a great president.
In the eyes of the left, the protesters were more important than the veterans and the casualties of VietNam.
This is the continued re-writing of history to frame the 60's generation as noble, and great even though they accomplished nothing and became the greediest, most self-centered group in our nation's history.
Yeah being called a War Criminal and baby killer is a real hang-up. this brain-dead a hole doesn't have a clue as to what this is REALLY about. skerry was working with the commies against this country. VVAW was funded in part by the commies. this guy better get a brain.
Kerry's old accusations are artifacts of their time. When taken out of the heated context of that war, their meaning is distorted. Back then, his listeners could discriminate. Now the aging and raging veterans supporting Bush are taking umbrage at charges never aimed at them. Their rancor has only increased with time.I congratulate the author for an ingenious Catch-22. It is now impossible to quote Kerry without being charged with "quoting out of context." No matter how much of Kerry's testimony you include, even if C-SPAN shows the entire session, you are quoting out of context because that was then and this is now. You wouldn't understand even if you were an adult at the time and neither would your audience.
How does the author know this? Did he pen this in 1972, while he still understood events in context? If not, if he can trust HIS memory now, why can't any of the rest of us do this trick? Don't ask me!
A fitting homecoming for Vietnam Vets will be a GW landslide. The MSM will try to spin it some other way, but that's the reality. That old Jewish saying about revenge being a dish best served cold has never been truer.
From what I understand, many vets were pretty upset back then about Kerry's blanket condemnationto the Senate of all vets as war criminals.
Opposition to the war in Vietnam was within Kerry's right to oppose. The line was crossed when he branded the military with the broad brush of war crimes and offenses. As in all wars, the bitterness of losing comrades, the violence, encourages brutality and war crimes in a small percentage of combatants. Hanoi Jane and John were wrong to use the military as a whole to blame for the war that the politicians were responsible for.
That argument is wearing thin. Some people have phony drivers licenses and other credentials, and it doesn't undermine the credibility of the entire system.
First, these vets are not necessarily supporting Bush; they are against Kerry. Second, if Kerry's charges weren't aimed then who the heck were they aimed at? Third, how lovely to call veterans "aging & raging". Fourth, this guys is a moron!
Thanks for your very fine remarks. And I'm sure I speak for all the others who were fortunate to find them here and read them today.
Yeah, I think you've hit the nail right there. Libs are trying to be on all sides of this issue -- typical libs. They say Kerry's slanders of the military are ancient history. They also say his slanders are entirely appropriate to apply to Iraq today.
It was the post Watergate US congress that pulled air support for SVN. In 1972, ARVN defeated a conventional invasion attempt from the north with the help of US air power. By then, the internal insurgency had already been defeated. It took a cross border invasion by a dozen divisions with Soviet armor to destroy the ARVN, who were the last to give up. The Soviets sent that armor. A liberal US congress did not send the air power to stop it (as it had, successfully, in 1972). Nixon's strategy of supporting ARVN and getting our ground troops out worked. The Dems couldn't stand that, and after Watergate they deliberately sold out SVN and handed the country over to the communists. A million people died as a result. Why did they do it? They were just like John Kerry. They wanted the north to win. They thought the north, killers of a million innocent people, deserved to win, and that we didn't.
There is a word for this in standard English usage.
Its not exactly like John F*ckin' has had to answer the questions. The partisan media has been running interference for him. And its NOT the Republicans who made his service the issue. Then again its not like one expects the media to give up their investment in Kerry - they have too much at stake.
What the heck does THAT mean? Sounds like a Kerryesque single sentence flip-flop to me! The media can be funny without realizing how much they reinforce one of Kerry's least liked traits --- his being ALL over the place. It just keeps getting better!
Who is this guy . . . Orwell's lost grand-nephew?
...Galanti never knew John Kerry in Vietnam. A Navy pilot captured in 1966, he spent seven years as a prisoner of war. He said, "I was in solitary over a year. Seven by seven room, concrete beds."
Galanti does not remember hearing Kerry's name at the Hanoi Hilton, but he does remember the voice.
Part of the new Swift Vet ad has Kerry explaining the military atrocities he says he saw in Vietnam. Kerry said that American soldiers "... razed villages in the fashion of Genghis Khan."
Galanti said, "Kerry gave for free what I and many of my comrades in prison camps took torture to avoid saying."
Hey, what's to forgive, right, Mr. O'Rourke?
I also notice that the author of this swill doesn't mention the 86% or so of all the 527 spending coming from the Dems. Go figure.
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.