Kerry: war hero, or coward?

[DreamOfTheRood]

Items marked in green are quotes from ImmortalSnafu

 

When was the last time you heard Kerry's senate record discussed on CNN?

 

I haven't, and that only goes to prove my point. CNN is undoubtedly for the Democratic party; not that they are particularly liberal in their politics, but they are loyal to the Dems. As such, they're definitely going with Kerry on this one. He's running on his military record, and that's what CNN is reporting. If he was running on his political record, CNN would report that.

 

 

There are only a handful of disagreeable things that he's voted for during his lengthly senate term.

 

I don't have an extensive knowledge of Kerry's political record. However, when I have read the reports on his voting records in Congress, I'll find that he has voted two ways on one issue. That really bothers me.

 

 

Which bill are you refering to? I'll assume you are talking about the $87 billion bill that passed not long after the war in Iraq began.

 

That's the one. I'm checking out your link. Give me a few minutes.

 

 

The problem with that idea is that it would only serve to further enrage the radical terrorists in the region.

 

Why should we have to placate to radical terrorists? If they're going to hate us anyway, I would rather have them hate us in the Middle East than within our borders. When Lebanon imploded in the early 80's, we should have gone in and set up a huge military base in Beirut. If we'd done that then, we wouldn't be dealing with any of this crap in the middle east now. If we go in and set up these bases, we can root out these terrorist groups that are causing so many civilian casualties, and that is the ultimate goal.

[DreamOfTheRood]

I have read ImmortalSnafu's article, which can be found here. It seems to be written from an impartial, independent standpoint, and I would suggest reading it before reading my take on it.

 

Kerry: And I might add, that vote for the $87 billion, which was was a vote to change our policy and get other nations involved and get other people on the ground and take the target off of American troops by sharing the responsibility, it was also a vote that took place long after they already committed the troops, long after they should have had the equipment that they needed.

 

This is classic blame-shifting, which is a coping mechanism used to deflect responsibility from one's self to someone else. In the quote, Kerry said that it was a vote that took place long after 'they' had put troops on the ground, long after 'they' should have had the necessary equipment. Now, it was members of Congress who voted for the war, and, since he's a member of Congress, that means Kerry voted for the war, making him partially responsible for it.

Since that is the case, Kerry should have said 'we' instead of 'they.'

This is why I don't like this guy. He wants to get the credit for the good things but wants to defer the blame to other people when he sees things going badly. He's got no place talking about 'responsibility.'

[surian]

I'll say this one more time: I don't like Kerry too much either. His political views are NOT my own. But between him and Bush... I don't think there is even a contest, Kerry is much less dangerous than Bush for this country. Bush is trying to do what he thinks is right, I'll give him the benifit of the doubt on that account despite some evidence to the contrary. However, he's also made not one single decision that I have thought was even remotely correct his entire term as President. I don't care if we have to elect a piece of swiss-cheese soaked in tobasco sauce instead of Bush... we should do it. (hehe, reading that again made me laugh).

 

But seriously, I don't mean to say that we should always vote party lines or anything like that but in this particular case... Bush is so far to the Right that its amazing he was elected in this country. He is by no means a moderate conservative as he claimed to be during his campaign in 2000 and I think that's plain to anyone who has any sense at all. Kerry has some real problems, he did vote for the war and he does think we should have gone into Iraq. He doesn't think that Bush handled the situation correctly though, and I can agree with that at least even if Kerry thought the war itself was justified.

 

The problem here is, for me at least, there is no viable party that actually supports my views. I've done a LOT of reading and independant research to come to my beliefs, they are not just thrown together from watching the news and what my parents told me when I was growing up (in fact my parents are republican and democrat respectively). I wish to god that there was a third party candidate that could actually win the presidency but it's not going to happen. If I had my way, Dennis Kucinich would be president.

 

It, very simply, comes down to this one point: Bush has proven to me and many other americans that he should not be re-elected and the only way to get him out is by getting Kerry in... that's as far as it goes to be honest.

[ImmortalSnafu]

He's running on his military record, and that's what CNN is reporting. If he was running on his political record, CNN would report that.

No, he's not. My whole point is that it is the media along with Bush that has brought up his military record to the forefront. Kerry has been trying, for the most part, to stick with the issues at hand. Look at his television commercials, only a small handfull make even a slight mention of his war record.

http://www.johnkerry.com/tv/

 

I don't have an extensive knowledge of Kerry's political record. However, when I have read the reports on his voting records in Congress, I'll find that he has voted two ways on one issue. That really bothers me.

Again, you're being rather vague in your references to his voting record. Can you please be more specific?

 

Why should we have to placate to radical terrorists? If they're going to hate us anyway,

Not establishing permanent bases isn't 'placating' to the terrorists...it's the same simple logic that tells us not to fight fires with gasoline.

 

I would rather have them hate us in the Middle East than within our borders.

You think they won't bring the fight to our doorstep? There's the families of 3,000 people who will tell you otherwise.

 

When Lebanon imploded in the early 80's, we should have gone in and set up a huge military base in Beirut.

In the early 80's we did set up a military base in Lebanon. Here's a refresher: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_1983_U....Embassy_bombing

 

If we'd done that then, we wouldn't be dealing with any of this crap in the middle east now. If we go in and set up these bases, we can root out these terrorist groups that are causing so many civilian casualties, and that is the ultimate goal.

We will never win against the terrorists by building bases in their homelands. Creating those bases would be catastrophic for America. The whole region would rally against us. Suicide bombings would be occuring a dozen times a day, both at home and abroad. Our soldiers would be dying in vast numbers, and the ranks of our enemies would swell uncontrollablely. Can you not see how placing a series of massive military installations throughout the region would ignite anger and fuel Al Qaeda's propaganda campaign?

 

I'm doing a large bit of research on Kerry's voting for the war in Iraq before I post a response to your latest post.

[ImmortalSnafu]

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The President is authorized to use the

Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary

and appropriate in order to—

(1) defend the national security of the United States against

the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council

resolutions regarding Iraq.

(PUBLIC LAW 107–243)

 

This is what Kerry voted yes to. Bush was authorized to use military action only if it was to defend the national security of the United States, or to enforce an UN resolution. Iraq posed absolutely no threat to our national security, and the security council did not pass a resolution that enforcement by the military. Therefore, Bush violated the law that Kerry and the rest of the congress voted for. Kerry, along with most of the other senators voted for a bill with enough protection that the President couldn't use the Armed Forces on a whim. Why Kerry hasn't brought this up in response to George W. Bush's claims is a mystery to me.

 

I posted a link to Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan Security and Reconstruction Act of 2004 so you can see exactly what is was Kerry voted against. That is the infamous $87 billion bill.

 

Links of interest:

http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/1441.pdf

UN resolution 1441

http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf

PUBLIC LAW 107–243

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c108:48:./temp/~c108hxxwIF:e0:

Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan Security and Reconstruction Act, 2004

 

(EDIT: I'm expanding on this post, I was exhausted when I wrote this last night so I didn't elaborate)

[tyjet3]

Therefore, Bush violated the law that Kerry and the rest of the congress voted for. Kerry, along with most of the other senators voted for a bill with enough protection that the President couldn't use the Armed Forces on a whim. Why Kerry hasn't brought this up in response to George W. Bush's claims is a mystery to me.

 

Probably because it's not 100% true...

[ImmortalSnafu]

How so?

[tyjet3]

Well think about it. If you were running for president, do want to go forward with information that could ultimatly hurt you if is proven wrong?

 

Kerry is just playing it safe. Plus i thinks it's better if canidates don't point fingers all the time. People miss the important things otherwise.

[surian]

I couldn't agree more tyjet. This entire smear campagin against Kerry and Bush by each side is sickening to me. The real issues don't revolve around whether or not Bush went AWOL or if he was passed ahead of other more qualified people into the national guard to avoid Veitnam. Nor is it important if Kerry was actually a war hero or not. The important issue here is do you think Bush has done a good job as president. If so, go vote for him. If you don't think he has done a good job then ask yourself if Kerry can do better, if so go vote for Kerry. If you don't like either candidate then you have to ask yourself who you think would do better between the two, which one is "less unqualified" than the other. I know that's a bad way to look at things but it's the system you are forced to deal with if you want your vote to have any chance of influencing this particular election (third parties just don't have a chance).

 

For me, I don't think Bush has done a good job at all. I don't think Kerry has the best ideas in the world but I do have faith that he'd do a better job than Bush. To me it's a no brainer but that's just me. Others will have different issues with either candidate, however those issues should NOT include such mundane and irrelivant things as are being debated right now on the media and by each side.

 

Remember, all this "mud slinging' is focused towards the most valuable demographic in any election, the swing voter. These are the people who have no strong opinions on the current issues and so they don't affiliate themselves with either party naturally. The only way to get them to swing YOUR way is by making the other party look bad. Since these people don't care enough about the current issues to make a decision, one of the easiest ways to swing them is by attacking the other candidate's credibility on non-issues. It's just the way our election system and 2 party system work together. It's unfortunate and I personally think we really need to re-examine our current 2 party system. You know that there are actually laws in place that make it impossible for a 3rd party candidate to become a viable presidential nominee without vast private sources of money to use. Republican's and Democrats don't have this problem because while in office both parties have passed laws making them the favored 2 political parties in our country. The system is litterally designed to keep 3rd party candidates out of the white house.

[ImmortalSnafu]

When I said 'How so?' i was asking why you think that wasn't 100% correct.