Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Thomas M. who wrote (44406)	5/1/2004 4:39:02 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

How Kerry Lost Vietnam Best of the Web Today - April 28, 2004 By JAMES TARANTO Those of our readers who support John Kerry's presidential bid are none too happy with the beating their man has taken this week over his shifting stories about his antiwar activity. Here are some excerpts of e-mails we've received: "It is unbelievable that the Republicans would challenge Kerry, an authentic war hero (and ever more heroic when he returned in his opposition to the awful Vietnam War) when their man, a sting-pulling AWOL, makes believe he is in the military and dresses up as a Fly Boy (what could be more ridiculous? and what else does he dress up as?)." "Please, please keep talking about Kerry's service in Vietnam. It's hilarious to see you twist and writhe to minimize his heroism." "How many military medals did John Kerry throw away? Four more than George W. Bush ever earned with the Alabama Flying Mailsorters." <font size=4> We guess we can understand why these folks are sore. Things are not going as planned for John Kerry. His Vietnam record was supposed to be his greatest asset, but instead it has turned into a political liability. Why did that happen? Here's our explanation: He talked about Vietnam entirely too much. We noticed this way back in December 2002, when in an interview with Tim Russert he even managed to work Vietnam into an answer about capital punishment. The incessant repetition makes him seem either opportunistic (trying to exploit his service to further his political ambitions) or obsessive (unable to view Vietnam from a healthy distance even after more than three decades). Either interpretation raises questions about his ability to lead the country effectively today. The adversarial press being what it is, Kerry's single-minded emphasis on his Vietnam experience also invites scrutiny of such matters as the questionable circumstances surrounding his first purple heart--blemishes on an otherwise honorable record. He became an antiwar activist. Sure, lots of Americans ended up opposing the Vietnam War, but Kerry did so by becoming the respectable face of Vietnam Veterans Against the War, a group whose stock in trade was accusations that American servicemen had committed war crimes. These claims came in the form of "confessions" from men, some of whom turned out not even to be veterans--and Kerry repeated them in sworn testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in April 1971. Kerry's involvement with VVAW has drawn attention to the group's most unsavory activities, such as a discussion of an assassination plot against pro-war senators that took place at a November 1971 meeting. Kerry played no part in that plot and might not even have attended the meeting, but inevitably a politician is judged by the company he keeps. By signing up with VVAW way back when, Kerry made it harder today to present himself as a war hero. Whereas veterans might ordinarily identify with one of their own, many are furious over what they see as his betrayal back in 1971. He attacked his opponents for not serving. This didn't start with his response to Medalgate, in which for the first time he raised the tired old question of President Bush's National Guard attendance record. Here he is in Pittsburgh April 19: "I'm tired of Karl Rove and Dick Cheney and a bunch of people who went out of their way to avoid their chance to serve when they had the chance. I'm not going to listen to them talk to me about patriotism." Such partisan demagoguery might have played well in the primaries, but it's unlikely to win over many wavering voters in the fall. Is there anything Kerry can do to get himself out of this mess? Maybe. His war record ought to count to his credit, but he'd be better off talking much less about his own heroism in Vietnam and letting others make the case instead. Probably the best moment in his entire campaign came in Iowa, when Lt. James Rassmann thanked him for saving his life. Kerry says Vietnam informs his views on foreign and military policy today. USA Today's Walter Shapiro "asked Kerry whether his dissenting view of the war, in contrast to Bush's seeming acceptance of the conflict, had larger implications for the 2004 campaign." The answer: "I think it is very relevant," Kerry said, "because I think it says a lot of things about . . . what your perceptions are about events that are different from the way that public officials are telling you that they are, and the way that military people tell you they are. I think it tells you something about your willingness to stand up and fight for the principles you believe in and the lessons you learn. And I think that it tells a lot about the kind of leadership we need now in respect to Iraq and the war on terror." Well, OK, but what does it tell us? It might be worthwhile for Kerry to give a speech explaining what lessons he learned from Vietnam and, crucially, how he would apply these to today's war. If he has any regrets about his actions as a VVAW spokesman, this would be the time to tell the country. If presidential races were decided on the basis of who has the more impressive war record, Kerry would beat Bush. But they are not, or else Bill Clinton never would have defeated a pair of World War II heroes. For that matter, George McGovern served with distinction in World War II, but he didn't have what the country wanted 30 years later. If Kerry does not learn to run a forward-looking campaign, he will surely go the way of McGovern.

To: Thomas M. who wrote (44406)	5/1/2004 10:36:40 AM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 89467

Julius' adopted son. He was the first emperor of Rome. Rome was at peace for more than 70% of his reign. There was that little matter of consolidating power from the triumverate to absolute rule. I believe it involved wiping out two Roman armies (lead by Mark Anthony and by Cassius), the Egyptian army, and the restrictions on the Hebrews which led to revolt in Judea.