Kerry Vs. Bush..

It looks like it's going to be Kerry.

So let's hope Kerry is a hella candidate.. I just started reading Tour of Duty, the new book out about John Kerry's Vietnam years.  I'm inspired by his story.  Really, I was shocked at this John Kerry from 30 years ago.. I cannot imagine George W. Bush looking good in contrast.

Kerry: Went to Vietnam voluntarily.  His first job was maintenance for a frigate not directly involved in fighting.  He could have stayed there perfectly safe and come home after his tour.  But he volunteered for extremely dangerous duty and performed with true bravery.

Bush: Accepted a place at an Air National Guard unit, moving ahead of other applicants no doubt because his father was a congressman.  When he asked for a temporary assignment in Alabama so that he could work on an campaign he was denied permission, but he went anyway.  Now there is no record that he ever performed any service during that year.  Further, allegations of drug use and a possible stay at a rehab center in North Carolina complicate the story.

When Kerry came home from the war, he realized that it had been a mistake, and he became the spokesman for the vets who disagreed with American policy.  He stood behind his principles at a time when it was still dangerous to do so (Nixon was in office!)  Bush avoided going to the war, but did not do so out of principle, it would seem, for if he did, he has been silent on that point ever since.

They were both young men then, but recent events show that GW hasn't really changed so much.  He's still reckless and irresponsible (he's not responsible for anything, just ask him).  Perhaps Kerry's record over the last few years isn't quite as inspiring as it might be.  But he's fighting the good fight now.

So as a former Deanite, I am announcing my intention to back Kerry and like it.

•  Please keep

  us updated as you read the book. I'm hoping to have time to read it soon.

  by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 07, 2004 at 11:19:42 PM PDT

•  The good fight...

  Thanks for thinking positively. Reading Kerry's book is a good idea. We should all know his merits as well as his faults, because all Democrats, regardless of primary preference need to sell this fella hard.

  by Maxwell on Sat Feb 07, 2004 at 11:34:58 PM PDT

  •  Iran-Contra Investigations

    who is in the Bush White House and was pardoned by daddy Bush.  Wasn't it Kerry that was digging into Iran-Contra that eventually led to Mr. Abrams getting two counts of withholding evidence from Congress?

    --
    Elliott Abrams: "I can say that while I have been assistant secretary, which is about 15 months, we have not received a dime from a foreign government, not a dime, from any foreign government."

    Senator Kerry: " `We' being who?"

    Abrams: "The United States."

    Senator Kerry: "How about the contras?"

    Abrams: "I don't know. But not that I am aware of and not through us. The thing is, I think I would know about it because if they went to a foreign government, a foreign government would want credit for helping the contras and they would come to us to say you want us to do this, do you, and I would know about that."
    --
    From Boston Globe

    I'm not so sure Kerry won't be bringing some of this back to undermine Bush's foreign policy rhetoric and to question the people around him, or just to show the public that he has done something.
    

    by wells on Sun Feb 08, 2004 at 12:04:17 AM PDT

•  I wonder

  how deeply you've read the book, or understood it.  Perhaps it's just a sloppy edit in your diary?

  "His first job was maintenance for a frigate"

  In the military world this would imply he was a rating (enlisted) in either a deck division or engineering.  He was in fact an officer, which is vastly different; officers lead, but they don't work for a living.

  "But he volunteered for extremely dangerous duty and performed with true bravery."

  Not knocking the man, but officers are expected to exhibit bravery - it's in their job description.

  by bdunbar on Sat Feb 07, 2004 at 11:49:38 PM PDT

  •  To quote:

    .."His job as ensign was to make sure the Gridley stayed perfectly maintained.."

    by Sidhe on Sat Feb 07, 2004 at 11:57:12 PM PDT

    •  Right,

      what I said.

      by bdunbar on Sun Feb 08, 2004 at 01:54:08 AM PDT

      •  No..

        ..you implied that my reading comprehension was at stake, and I've just shown that I read it correctly.

        You might have apologized.

        Your other points give me the impression that you discount bravery when it is expected.  It seems that really misses the point though, doesn't it?  Wasn't GW expected to be brave?  Was he?  How does that contrast with Kerry who was really brave, whether expected or not?

        by Sidhe on Sun Feb 08, 2004 at 12:45:28 PM PDT

        •  you read it correctly

          I pointed out that what you wrote in your diary is misleading.  Again: he didn't perform maintennance on a frigate, he was responsible for making sure other guys performed maintenance.

          I wasn't aware you were expecting an apology; perhaps clarity is an issue with your writing?

          I don't discount bravery, quite the opposite.  My apologies for misleading you on that point.

          by bdunbar on Sun Feb 08, 2004 at 02:04:38 PM PDT

          •  The point at issue for you..

            ..makes no difference to me.  In what way does that distinction resonate with you?  If Kerry oversaw maintainance rather than performed it himself, in what way does this undermine my point about the distinction between Kerry and Bush?

            To me it looks as if you are picking nits because you don't like officers.  As if the work they do is not on a level with the honest work of the enlisted.  Is this your point?  If it is, in what way does that impact the comparison between Bush and Kerry?  Bush was himself an officer, was he not?

            I think you owed an apology because you impugned my reading comprehension, and just now my writing ability, without cause because the point you've based it on has no relevance to the discussion .  That's to engage you on the level of rhetoric.  Rhetorically, your attack upon my post was raising a "straw man".  If you disagree with what I'm writing, why not engage the issues directly?

            by Sidhe on Sun Feb 08, 2004 at 02:24:18 PM PDT

            •  if it makes no differance for you ...

              "If Kerry oversaw maintainance rather than performed it himself, in what way does this undermine my point about the distinction between Kerry and Bush?"

              I was pointing out a schematic difference between what was in the book, and what you posted.  I wasn't trying to undermine your original post.

              "To me it looks as if you are picking nits because you don't like officers.  As if the work they do is not on a level with the honest work of the enlisted.  Is this your point?"

              No it's not.

              "I think you owed an apology because you impugned my reading comprehension, and just now my writing ability, without cause because the point you've based it on has no relevance to the discussion"

              If it has no relevance, why are you responding to my posts?

              As to the second bit .. sloppy thinking is sloppy thinking, relevant to the discussion or not.

              " If you disagree with what I'm writing, why not engage the issues directly?"

              I don't believe I disagreed with your writing, or your original post.  You're reading quite a bit into my posts that isn't there.

              by bdunbar on Sun Feb 08, 2004 at 08:54:21 PM PDT

              •  It's pretty ironic..

                ..that you mention sloppy thinking when you are engaging in it yourself.  Look up "straw man" and "ad hominem" in any textbook on rhetoric, you'll see I'm not making it up.

                Furthermore, each of your posts has included an insult to me.  I haven't responded in kind, rather, I have engaged you on your tactics.  You ignored that.  You haven't met a single one of my points to you on your obvious attempt to win a point with rhetoric.

                When the only point of your posting is to raise a straw man and to attack me, it's apparent you simply don't have an argument.

                by Sidhe on Sun Feb 08, 2004 at 09:12:38 PM PDT

                •  no argument

                  "When the only point of your posting is to raise a straw man and to attack me, it's apparent you simply don't have an argument. "

                  That wasn't my goal, but if it makes you happy to believe that, fine.  I concede the thread.

                  by bdunbar on Sun Feb 08, 2004 at 10:40:42 PM PDT