Swift boat vets
John Kerry served in Vietnam. I know, I know...why hasn't he mentioned it before. I had no idea he was a Vietnam veteran (sarcasm, thank you). Okay here's the deal. He spent 4 damn months in Vietnam. I will not say that is shameful, and it is exactly 4 months more than I served in Vietnam, but if your entire campaign to be President is based upon 4 months of service in Vietnam, and you are a self-professed war criminal, and fellow swift boat veterans are critical of you, doesn't that mean your record deserves looking at?
The liberal media has essentially decided that Kerry's dubious service (I could say dubious based entirely on his own accounts of war crimes, not the swift vets' accusations) should not be subject to investigation. However, those who also served honorably, also winning medals, who have discounted Kerry's service, should be investigated thoroughly. But there's no bias in the media.
I will assume that Kerry's purple hearts are deserved until given a highly likely reason not to believe. I haven't read Unfit for Command so I won't subscribe to their allegations, however I believe that the media has a responsibility to find the truth. Ever hear of investigative journalism? They didn't hesitate one second to go after Bush for his service in the Air National Guard. Kerry's service deserves at least as much scrutiny, and probably more since he has made it the central part of his campaign.
That deserves repeating, and those in defense of Mr. Kerry should hear it: THE CENTRAL PART OF KERRY'S CAMPAIGN IS HIS SERVICE IN VIETNAM. That alone is enough reason to examine his record closely, and why it deserves as much if not more attention as that of Bush. BUSH DID NOT SERVE IN VIETNAM. HE IS NOT A WAR HERO. HE ISN'T RUNNING ON HIS RECORD IN VIETNAM, HE'S RUNNING ON HIS RECORD IN THE MORE RECENT CENTURY, K THX. I mention this because the response from the media and the Kerry campaign (if there's a difference between the two) is Bush didn't serve in Vietnam. Or this is all a Republican attack. The vets are doing Bush's dirty work, etc etc.
In my opinion, Kerry is qualified to be President. He doesn't deserve to be, and will not be a good one, but he has the qualifications. He is at least as qualified as George W. Bush was four years ago, and probably more. His qualifications have nothing to do with 4 months in Vietnam, and everything to do with 20 years in the Senate. That is the record he should be running on, but is instead running away from. He has chosen to run on his 4 months in Vietnam, he must live with that and the consequences. I say again, Bush is not trying to convince people he'd be a good POTUS based on his National Guard service, but rather on his time ACTUALLY HOLDING THE JOB. Debate your recent public service record, John, and we will be less interested in your past. Make your past an issue, and so will others. What should concern us is now, not then.
The liberal media has essentially decided that Kerry's dubious service (I could say dubious based entirely on his own accounts of war crimes, not the swift vets' accusations) should not be subject to investigation. However, those who also served honorably, also winning medals, who have discounted Kerry's service, should be investigated thoroughly. But there's no bias in the media.
I will assume that Kerry's purple hearts are deserved until given a highly likely reason not to believe. I haven't read Unfit for Command so I won't subscribe to their allegations, however I believe that the media has a responsibility to find the truth. Ever hear of investigative journalism? They didn't hesitate one second to go after Bush for his service in the Air National Guard. Kerry's service deserves at least as much scrutiny, and probably more since he has made it the central part of his campaign.
That deserves repeating, and those in defense of Mr. Kerry should hear it: THE CENTRAL PART OF KERRY'S CAMPAIGN IS HIS SERVICE IN VIETNAM. That alone is enough reason to examine his record closely, and why it deserves as much if not more attention as that of Bush. BUSH DID NOT SERVE IN VIETNAM. HE IS NOT A WAR HERO. HE ISN'T RUNNING ON HIS RECORD IN VIETNAM, HE'S RUNNING ON HIS RECORD IN THE MORE RECENT CENTURY, K THX. I mention this because the response from the media and the Kerry campaign (if there's a difference between the two) is Bush didn't serve in Vietnam. Or this is all a Republican attack. The vets are doing Bush's dirty work, etc etc.
In my opinion, Kerry is qualified to be President. He doesn't deserve to be, and will not be a good one, but he has the qualifications. He is at least as qualified as George W. Bush was four years ago, and probably more. His qualifications have nothing to do with 4 months in Vietnam, and everything to do with 20 years in the Senate. That is the record he should be running on, but is instead running away from. He has chosen to run on his 4 months in Vietnam, he must live with that and the consequences. I say again, Bush is not trying to convince people he'd be a good POTUS based on his National Guard service, but rather on his time ACTUALLY HOLDING THE JOB. Debate your recent public service record, John, and we will be less interested in your past. Make your past an issue, and so will others. What should concern us is now, not then.
posted by Unknown at 11:48 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home