The REAL issue on John Kerry

[Gustaf]

I can understand that someone would be unwilling to report his fellow soldiers out in the field. These things are very often not allowed to be reported, unofficially of course. I am reminded of that movie with Tom Cruise and Demi Moore, about the guy who's murdered in Gunatanamo base.

[Gustaf]

It is a questionable issur for the Republicans to attack Kerry's Vietnam record. In the end it will remind people that he is a veteran, and that will backfire for the republicans.

There's a lot more here than whether Kerry's a veteran or betrayed his fellow soldiers upon returning to consort with Jane Fonda in the US.  The big issue is that like a lot of Vietnam veterans he was turned into a complete defeatist.  Given the current context - continued determination by numerous enemies to kill Americans - it seems to me this type of Vietnam-era anti-war type is singularly unqualified to be President.

He was a young man at the time, political maturity at that age isn't very common. He did show bravery, that says something. I agree with Zachman that there's a risk in talking about Vietnam, so I don't think they will. They'll attack his record, which is bad enough...

[Gustaf]

"they'll attack his record which is bad enough".

Huh?  Since when is it off limits to attack someone's record?  Oh, I get it.  It's been OK for Dems to hammer Bush's record for the last 12 months night and day, but it's "bad" if Bush goes after Kerry's.  That seems fair.

Ehhh...that isn't what I meant, though I can see how it could be interpreted that way. What I meant was "they'll attack his record which is bad enough for Kerry, since it might give Bush the election".

[Gustaf]

OK, sorry.  I misunderstood your post.

It's OK, it was badly phrased, but I'm not the kind to reason in such a way.

[Gustaf]

I should know that by now.  Again, my apologies.

It's fine. I can see how it could be mmisunderstood, but I didn't think of that way of interpreting it. I'll probably misunderstand you at least once before election day...

[Gustaf]

Steven,

You posted FACTS, not opinions. But you will be accused by some of the Democrats on this forum of engaging in smear tactics. The double standard is soooo funny. They can talk endlessly about whether or not George Bush was or wasn't in Alabama in 1973, but the ACTUAL VOTING RECORD of a US SENATOR is off limits.

Speaking of double standards, I was watching Aaron Brown on CNN the other day and he opened the hour by informing the audience that there was a rumor going around the internet that portrayed Kerry as quite a lecher.  He went on to say that CNN was not covering the story because it was simply an unconfirmed rumor spread by the right-wing drudgereport.  Immediately after he was done speaking about Kerry's alleged indiscretion he launched into a story on Bush's National Guard service.

So let me get this straight, when unconfirmed allegations of misconduct are made against a democrat they are dismissed as mere rumors.  When unconfirmed allegations of misconduct are made against a republican, they are immediately vaulted to the front page of every newspaper in the country.  What hypocracy.

There ae facts in the Bush service case, but generally all people are biased. I have to say that I find it a little pathetic when political activists accuse each other of double standards...like Republicans would never do that, or like Fox commentators are always unbiased, etc.