The Sick Season has begun

[Occhidiangela]

Mr McAuliffe of the DNC has attacked, possibly slandered, President Bush.

Some Viet Nam vets are laying out Senator Kerry's history, with their own spin.

An Attack on Senator Kerry

I am struck by the tone of the articles. I served under a number of Navy Captains, a few of who earned two, three and four stars, who were Swift Boat skippers in Viet Nam: Senator Kerry is in pretty good company as a Swift Boat Skipper. He was where the hot lead flew, yet some vets appear to begrudge him a Purple Heart for getting hit, albeit not losing a limb, while in a combat zone. Is this the old Army Versus the Navy rivalry coming to a head? He is then pilloried for applying for an Admiral's aid position. Well, any ambitious Naval Officer will try to hitch his wagon to a star. Plenty of well regarded officers have done so as junior officers.

Senator Kerry then came home and was an active voice against the War, as were any number of vets. He also had links to the political elite of Boston. So, he got into politics. Similarly, a different and highly regarded Viet Nam vet went to law school and got involved, in his case via veteran affairs, in high politics: James Webb, a decorated Marine who later became Secretary of the Navy and semi controversial author.

The only bit these "he did not deserve his three Purple Hearts" folks can really hang their hats on is Senator Kerry's record on POW/MIA issues in Congress, however, Ross Perot bore such a grudge on that issue that he went after George Bush senior, so once again, Senator Kerry is in good company.

I don't buy his New England Liberal politics, but I find it distressing that people are trying to smear a man who, as a young man of privilege, chose to enter the arena: plenty of his comtemporaries ran to Canada, got deferments, pulled strings, got 4F's via fraudulent physicals, etc.

Sen Kerry went forth and served. It's also obvious that he found military service to be a career choice not to his liking, as many do after their first tour, and chose other pursuits. *sigh* If folks are going to go after Senator Kerry, why this nasty spin on honorable service?

This mean spirited crap is only going to get worse from now to November. I am thinking of pulling the plug on my TV, and listening only to CD's, no radio.

[Nastie_Bowie]

Status quo for politics, American style.

Never highlight your good points, highlight your opponents bad points. Lie if neccessary.

Sad.

NB :rolleyes:

[ShadowHM]

Would you rather listen to my news stations?

Our Auditor General just released a damning report on the depth of the pork barrel here.

http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/reports.ns...20031103me.html

The scrambling, the name-calling, the blaming - it is all just starting. And yes, we have an election coming too. :rolleyes:

Edit: I do wish I could get the hang of html

[Nastie_Bowie]

Shadow,

Are you saying that politics in Canuckistan are the same as America?

NB :lol:

[Jeunemaitre]

Maybe I'm naive, or just not smart enough to know better, but I don;t think a medal awarded for being wounded in combat is not something to dismiss. The website that you linked to, Occhi, referes to Kerry's wounds as "slight" wounds to his arms and thigh. So far as I know, there's no severity qualifier to the award of a Purple Heart: the level of Kerry's injuries are irrelevant. With regard to the description of the event for which he was awarded the silver star, I'd like to say that only someone in that position could judge the valor and bravery exhibited by those actions. I don't have any frame of reference for such a situation, so I'll leave it there.

I've never taken military service lightly. Though I never served, I think every day how fortunate I am that the men and women who came before me fought bravely when they were called upon. I remember the first time I found my father's medal boxes in his chest of drawers. I asked him what they were and where they came from. He was releuctant to say any more than that the purple one was because he had been hurt, and the bronze on was for a time when he had been brave.

Since then, I've never been interested in digging up war stories, but I have tried to be respectful, and grateful to every veteran I've met. Though I may disagree with the decisions made by the government, there is little more to do than thank the soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines for doing their duty in preserving my right to disagree.

And that's all I have to say about tha-at.

[ShadowHM]

Not only do we have our own scandals taking up air time, but when there is a break from the news of Canuckistan, we get to hear about what is going on in the news in America.

Double dose of misery !

No wonder slaying monsters seems like a better choice. B)

[Nastie_Bowie]

Not only do we have our own scandals taking up air time, but when there is a break from the news of Canuckistan, we get to hear about what is going on in the news in America. 

Double dose of misery !

No wonder slaying monsters seems like a better choice.  B)

Amen, sister!

Cheers!

NB :lol:

[kandrathe]

:) Yup. And we both know that in November our choice will again be between two white men who are a front for their own cadre of special interest financial backers. The part I'm sick of is that continual examination and scrutiny of these guys youthful decisions. I made some mistakes when I was young, and I learned from them and moved on, I think we all did (except Al Gore). I'm not even sure how far back deception and politics goes back, but I'm sure it is to Roman times at least.

Frankly, if I were picking Presidents, neither Bush or Kerry would be in my top ten list. This reflects my attitude to any position of authority (like police officers). Those who most desperately want it are usually the ones I most want to keep it from. I guess what I'm asking myself is; What are the agenda's these guys will push for over the next 4 years and which can I live with (or will do the least amount of harm). From an international relations POV, a change of administration would do us good in being able to repair some of the damage done during the last 4 years. But, insofar as agenda, either will (should) focus almost entirely on homeland security and mitigating the growing threat we seem to be facing. My thoughts are that national security is the most important primary job of the federal government. We cannot return to a pre-9/11 world where we are blithely heedless of where the next catastrophy will occur.

As far as the Bush agenda of the last 4 years (or at least post 9/11); I just don't think they have done a very good job communicating why they are doing what they are doing. My understanding is that the Bush doctrine is that; Terrorists need a place to safely base and plan their attacks from, and this can be due to a chaotic state, such as Somalia, or a sympathetic state, such as the former Afghanistan under Taliban rule.

The Axis of Evil speech clearly put Iraq, Iran, and North Korea as the primary root of the biggest threats to the US national security. Now that is debatable, but that is what our government tells us. We don't really know why they think that, but prior to the Iraq war we trusted that they had some evidence to support their claims. We know that Iraq and Iran in their own ways supported the Palestinian struggle in the middle east. This is a continual source of friction that is fueling a growing tide of Islamic unrest. The US position must be then that if we can dry up the sources of funding and arms supplying the Intifada, then we can force the Palestinians to capitulate and accept the Oslo accord. We have no control over Isreal, other than severing all our funding of them. I'm not against using that trump card, and we've probably sent way too much money into Isreal already. Anyway, I do think that the current administration is doing alot to work with many nations, influence nations, or intimidate nations on stopping terrorism. A crucial step in that is to remove all state complicity, or sponsorship of terrorists and not give the terrorists any designated safe areas to rest or plan.

But, then you have to question things like; "Why were the bulk of the 9/11 terrorists from our supposed friend and ally, Saudi Arabia?" "What role does Yeman, and Afghanistan and our support of the former Muhajadin fighters play in our current troubles?"

So how would Mr. Kerry solve our national security threats I wonder?

[kandrathe]

My uncle fought in the south pacific during WWII. One of his stories was in taking one island that was rife with snipers. The leader of his platoon was a very tall and stocky fellow, and either suicidal or incredibly brave. In one day while he was spotting snipers, he was shot 6 times and none were serious enough for him to consider leaving his platoon. They were all grazes or shallow tissue hits, one through his right cheek while he was shouting an order. From what I surmised from my uncles attitude was that during that time, when you saw so much carnage and death around, you felt lucky to be merely grazed. No one was there for the ribbons, and they were happy to get the job done and get home. His opinion was that it was the ones who jumped off the landing craft first and got gunned down who were the real heroes.

[--Pete]

Hi,

This mean spirited crap is only going to get worse from now to November. I am thinking of pulling the plug on my TV, and listening only to CD's, no radio.

Yep. And I'm trying to avoid the topic online, both in fora and www sites. It's cutting into my posting, but, frankly, the stench this political season is overwhelming. Must be a combination of excessive BS and global warming. Anyone that's ever spent time in a barn during the summer knows whereof I speak :)

--Pete