Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion The Water Cooler OT: politics

There was some pretty language in it, no doubt.

The sad part was his anguish over the loss of American values. His idea of American values and mine are two different things apparently.

"Why do veterans overwhelmingly support Bush when he avoided the draft, cut veterans' benefits, and sat a bsolutely still for 7 minutes while the country was under attack. Sounds like a great war president to me..."

I find this Michael Moorian "7 minutes" argument to be interesting. What exactly did people expect the president to do at that juncture? At that point, we probably didn't even know it was a terrorist attack, neither of the building had fallen, the Pentagon hadn't happened, etc... In that context, what was he supposed to do?...stand up panicked, scare all the kids, and look unravelled in front of the media that was filming him?...NO. Like any president, he maintained his composure, finished what he was doing, and made a calm exit. Anything else would have been plastered all over the media for all the world to see.

Now, to the swiftboat ads. I have actually been following this topic since well before the book was released. Ever since Kerry started stumping with his war record as his foundation, I began to read up on the differing views out there on the subject, which is where I came across these guys' website.

Now, what's starting to piss me off a bit is the fact that the media is pouncing on these guys as partisan assassins without stopping for two seconds and looking at who they are and what they have to say. Hell, last night, Nightline went through a whole story about it focusing solely on their political and financial ties, without spending any time talking about who they were and what they had to say. Again, another pathetic instance where the media demonizes anyone that doesn't swim in the same direction that they do.

Perhaps these guys are getting funded by people that support Bush. Truthfully, I don't really care much about that...they have to get funding somewhere. What I do care about is the fact that this group is made up of fellow swiftboat commanders that served in the same boat group as Kerry, as well as superior officers to Kerry. Kerry supporters have been showing that picture of Kerry with his fellow commanders....What they don't tell you is that only one of the 22 shown are actively supporting Kerry for President. 2 are dead, 4 want nothing to do with this, and the rest are in this group against Kerry. The only ones supporting him are those that worked under him on his boat.

Let's face it, however much you want to paint them as partisan, it's pretty compelling that almost all of his peers in Vietnam think he's either outright lying or just embellishing on all of his stories about Vietnam. Before you go and tow the party line about these guys, you should do a little research into what they are saying.

In the end, the media is going to do it's best to wash this issue away as poor partisan tactics. After all, Kerry's record is the crux of his argument for why he thinks he should be President (notice you haven't heard anything about his many years in Congress). God forbid the media actually do it's job and demand accountability and seek the truth. Then again, to do so would be to possibly torpedo their own candidate. So, all they can do is cry foul and try and bury the story.

How much of this crap do we have to see before people realize how little neutrality exists in mainstream media? No one's asking them to support a particular position here. However, we should expect them to present the entire story for the public to process and form their own opinons....but, that's again asking them to put their agenda to the side and be impartial and fair....not holding my breath.

"After all, Kerry's record is the crux of his argument for why he thinks he should be President (notice you haven't heard anything about his many years in Congress). God forbid the media actually do it's job and demand accountability and seek the truth."

It seems the media is being very "hush-hush" about his voting record in Congress (which makes him THE MOST LIBERAL member of the Senate). Of all the issues regarding his qualifications for presidency, that would seem to be the most important, right?

Absolutely. Truthfully, what the swiftboat captains are preaching probably wouldn't bother me as much if it weren't for the fact that Kerry continues to pound the war-hero message down our throats. Taken at face value, his actions as they describe them sound no worse than anything else the majority of these power-hungry politicians do every day of the week....a bunch of idiot peacocks fluffing up their feathers to gain and/or retain their power. The problem here is that he's asking the American public to elect him to the highest office in the country based upon that record alone, not his service in government, which is actually much more pertinent.

Then, the problem is compounded by the fact that our biased panzy media doesn't have the balls to call him out on it.

Man, I'm on a tear...must be the lack of sleep. Little baby girl was up on and off all last night.

In reply to:

---

Let's face it, however much you want to paint them as partisan, it's pretty compelling that almost all of his peers in Vietnam think he's either outright lying or just embellishing on all of his stories about Vietnam. Before you go and tow the party line about these guys, you should do a little research into what they are saying.

---

Did you read the links in my post, Turbo? Several of these people have already admittedly embellished their stories. None of these people actually served on the same boat as Kerry, all of them on the day in question (regarding his silver star) were over 50 yards away, and all but one of his actual fellow crew members have nothing but the highest praise for him. I wouldn't say almost all his peers have a bad opinion of him.

And besides, here's my biggest problem with this whole situation. If you're going to judge someone unfit to command based on his previous military service, then you've got to be even across the board. Now tell me, who would you find more fit to command:

Candidate A: Voluntarily served in Vietnam. Highly decorated and reviewed by his commanding officers, respected by those under him.

Candidate B: Served with National Guard, after admitting he didn't have the option of moving to Canada. Missed medical exams, questionable attendance at required events, requested transfer to what essentially was a desk job. May or may not have been AWOL.

Tough choice, isn't it?

So you like W more than you liked Clinton? I forget, how did he get out of Vietnam?

That was in the past. We're talking about the future here. But you do raise a good point: military service isn't a good yardstick for measuring a presidential candidate.

No, I'm saying if we're going to judge fitness for command by past military service, than Kerry is a better choice than W, or Clinton.

But like Peter said, past military service shouldn't be the yardstick to measure fitness for office by.

Love that picture, pmb.

Aren't you afraid some arm of our enormously large and intrusive gov't bureaucracy is going to investigate you for child endangerment or something?

When I'm talking about his peers, I am talking about fellow commanders (equal rank peers) that served in the same boat group in which he served. These aren't just disparate boats based in the same port....These are like tanks groups. Like someone was saying on TV tonight, they run in packs like tanks, so what happens to one boat is going to be seen/experienced by multiple boats. The people rallying against him are decorated officers and numerous superior officers directly involved in the awarding of the awards in question. The people that are supporting him are a handfull of his subordinates.

Yes, some have recanted their statements. Some of those same people later stated that the papers that printed the recanting had incorrectly quoted them.

I'm not advocating for these guys and their story. I am advocating for the general public to resist the media's attempt to dismiss this story and dig into the actual meat of their assertions. John Kerry has done NOTHING to deserve that blind faith and trust.

As to judging someone fit to lead, I agree that this issue is not a good litmus test. The only one in the race focusing on this aspect of their experience is Kerry. Bush may be annoying/irritating, but he's the only one of the two making substantive proposals right now. Kerry is making pie-in-the-sky statements followed by military experience rhetoric. I don't care about either of their miliatary experiences, but I sure as hell am not going to vote someone into the highest office in the US based solely upon their continual banter about Vietnam and their continued avoidance of their own experience and voting record.

I think that the Democratic party made a big mistake annointing Kerry as the Golden Child. They would have been better served with someone that could run soundly on their record and their knowledge. The people are ready for Bush to hit the road, but they aren't easily going to give that power to someone who's credibility continues to diminish. If they had tapped into a more moderate JFK/Clinon-type Democrat, this thing would have been a blowout. Hell, they might have been able to pull the more moderate conservatives/Libertarians like me to their side. But, alas, the Democratic party has been overun w/ extremists and socialists.....too bad.