New Unfit for Command Thread

[Nemont]

EG,
Since I can't stay on topic

Here is the new thread as requested. Buzz and you continue to ask what qualified Bush ahead of Kerry to be CIC. Well that is not the issue here.

The issue in question is whether or not John Kerry's 4 months of service and continued leaning upon his "war record" is reason to vote for him as president.

The swifties are out to make a political statement as a response to JFK's continually bringing up his service in Vietnam. It is fact that he was there and he served. Honorable things to do. If he had just stayed on topic and left it at that he would have been fine.

Instead he decided that he would call all the men and women serving in SE Asia of war crimes, There are transcripts of his exact words, He said he threw his medals back (there are transcripts of him saying that) but he still has them, He stated he spent Christmas '68 in Cambodia (There are transcripts of him saying that) but the records show he wasn't in Cambodia until late January. If he had just served and even if he protested the war policy and war leaders then I bet all would have been forgotten.

All would be forgotten now if he would stop refighting the Vietnam war at every campaign stop. Now he is supporting the war in Iraq? But he was the anti war candidate 5 months ago.

I would like to have a strong, effective, forceful democratic candidate to run. I think if the dems could have run someone with deeply held convictions of right and wrong that candidate would have captured the swing voters. We need a strong party on both sides, even a strong third party would be good for our country.

Maybe JFK will be the next pres. but I believe it would be a tragic mistake for this country to elect him. If we all could vote simply on the environment maybe my position would differ but I can not. Do I think Bush is 100% right? no, he has made several mistakes. I simply cannot vote for JFK because I don't think even he knows what his position on any issue is going to be until he sees the poll numbers.

Nemont

 

[Calif. Hunter]

The above is pretty much a summary of my feelings, along with a couple other issues.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Uhhhh.... Nemont,

If you START the topic, doesn't that mean you are "on-topic"???

What about Dubya's behaviour between 1965-1975?

I think the Swift boat group is not just veterans, but Texan oil men who have figured out another way to try and get Dubya elected.

Why did Dubya come out and say Kerry was "honorable" and his service was "honorable"? If the Dubya campaign won't take Kerry on for Viet Nam, why are these Texans obligated to???

Cali,

The above is pretty much a summary of my feelings, along with a couple other issues .

I was guessing you had a "couple of other issues"....

 

[Nemont]

EG,

Pres. Bush is correct to say that JFK's service is honorable. My take on the Swifties is that they are still personally pissed about the things Sen. Kerry did since his service.

As for Pres. Bush's behavior ( or bahavior ) He isn't running on that record. He doesn't begin each campaign stop with, "When I was in the Alabama National Guard.....".

Why does JFK continue to wear his Vietnam service upon his sleeve? You don't suppose he feels vulnerable on defense issues do you? Perhaps his voting record and previous statements make him vulnerable.

As for being fit to be CIC I don't know if anyone would be completely prepared to be CIC of our country. I do know that JFK inspires no confidence in me that he is able to disregard the polls and make difficult decisions. Whether or not Pres. Bush made mistakes at least he made a decision and has stuck to it.


Nemont

[ 08-13-2004, 13:16: Message edited by: Nemont ]

 

[Toonces]

I we are talking qualifications to be CIC, I think W's four years of leading the the most powerful country in the history of the world during war time trumps Kerry's four months leading a swift boat crew.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Toonces,

You are probably right... He was awfully impressive landing on that Carrier in front of the "Mission Accomplished" sign.

I forget now, how many more Americans have been killed since our CIC announced "Mission Accomplished"???

I'll have to mention that the CIC says the "Mission Accomplished" happened to the families of the 2000 Idaho Guard members who are in Texas right now, getting ready to go spend a year in Iraq, instead of coaching little league....

And I forgot how good of a job Dubya did catching Bin Laden...

 

[Nemont]

EG,
You may need to read the oath of enlistment that all those guard members swore to.

Nemont

 

[JoseCuervo]

Nemont,

Do you think it was different than the Oath that Dubya swore to, when he joined the Guard??? We know how seriously he took his obligations....

I have a "hunch", that most Guard members do it for the extra pay, and the benefits, and don't think the chance of being deployed for 15 months is likely, or at least wasn't, in the recent history.

My guess is that has all changed now, and it would likely be harder to recruit people to Guard, if the probablity of deployment into war zones remains. I may be wrong....

 

[Toonces]

EG,

Rational people can differ on the effectiveness of W's leadership, however if the question here is simply deciding who is more qualified to be CIC, I don't see how you can seriously believe that its Kerry.

Bush has done the job under arguably the hardest conditions ever faced by an American President. Kerry has not.

If what you are saying is that you think the less qualified person will do a better job, then that you have a far more rational argument.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Toonces,

If you compare Dubya in August of 2000 vs Kerry in August 2004, who would you think would be most qualified???

And I would argue that Lincoln had more difficult conditions, but I am willing to give up on discussing the Civil War, without our last living Civil War Veteran, the Imaginary Corporal able to participate....

 

[Toonces]

Why do you want to compare W 2000 vs. Kerry 2004? I thought you didn't like the imaginary?

If we discount W's four years of experience then I could just say lets discount Kerry's four month experience as well.

Its just not a useful analogy.

I think history will remember Dubya in the same vein as Lincoln, FDR, Truman and JFK in that they all had exceedingly difficult tasks and decisions in their roles of CIC. I don't think we can discount experience gained by any of them when determining qualifications to lead this country.

 

[JoseCuervo]

It would seem to be a great analogy, to compare both men, just months prior to their first term in office.

If Dubya was qualified in Aug-00, then would Kerry in Aug-04 not be at least as equally qualified???

I think history will remember Dubya for squandering the world's favor after 9-11, and having handicapped our ability to influence global affairs for the next 50 years.

 

[Toonces]

OK Fine EG,

If you insist living in your imaginary world...

If we could twist the "time space continuum" and create a world where Dubya 2000 were running against Kerry 2004 then I guess they would be equally qualified to be CIC. I suppose then you could hypothetically make a rational argument that Kerry would even be more qualified especially given the fact that Kerry 2004 would have the experience of 9/11 and Bush 2000 would not.

As long as we are going down this road I bet Randy Johnson would strike out Babe Ruth 75% of the time too if the Babe were playing today.

The five minutes it took to write this post is five minutes I will never get back.

Actually six minutes since for some reason I decided to edit this stupid thing.

[ 08-13-2004, 15:10: Message edited by: Toonces ]