Quote:
Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Oct 17 2004, 04:52 AM
A few points...
The only reason I used the word attrocities is because John Kerry used the word himself.
Challenging was fine. Flames Addictions trotted out the Bob Kerrey mixup theory and that's when I jumped in. That had to be corrected as he was the one that was mixed up.
Next, what Kerry did 30 years ago as a 25 year old junior officer in the Navy has NOTHING to do with what the Bush administration has done today. It alsoe has NOTHING to do with what John Kerry would do with the Presidency.
I should also point out again, that I don't think anything John Kerry described himself as doing....or that he's been accused of by the Swifties is so horrible that it would disqualify him from my consideration for President. I've said it on numerous occasions, yet it is still assumed that I've taken another position.
I would ask you to judge the events independently as I try to judge all events independently. It seems the people on the left like to answer arguments with "Well Bush has done this......" instead of judging Kerry's actions on their own. I only ask this because this is what I do, and it's the only way that I will take anyones opinion on the matters serioulsy. If one can't separate Kerry's actions 30+ years ago from Bush's actions 2 years ago they have a serious objectivity problem.
Long enough for ya? 
|
You're certainly correct. Bush's actions today have nothing to do with Kerry's actions 30 years ago.
Do you believe that Kerry committed atrocities (basically yes or no)? Do you believe that a man who has committed atrocities should be elected President (again, pretty much a yes or no)?
Those two questions involve both the current Presidential campaign, as well as events that happened 30 years ago. The two seem pretty darn connected to me.
The only reason I bring Bush in is that if 'we' believe and confirm (apparently with Kerry's support) that Kerry 'committed atrocities', that has a DIRECT impact on the current campaign, regardless of when said atrocities were committed. Thus, it is important to balance that point of view with any other candidate and their 'evil' acts. I'd hate to see Kerry's 'atrocities' pointed out without equal representation of Bush 'atrocities'. That wouldn't be democratic
If Ralf Nader had been blazing bodies in Vietnam I'd point that out too... but I haven't heard anything like that
