Originally posted by wvrevy
Ph, for crying out loud...The guy spent more time out of the white house than any president in history !!! Does that not figure in when someone supporting him questions whether or not Kerry will "show up" for work ?
It was a political mistake to leave the White House for such a long period of time. However, it is clear he continued to do his job as President, but at a different location. The perception of many citizens that he was abandoning his post is understandable. I wish he hadn't have done this so this would not have been an issue. However, comparing the Bush transfer of the Office of President from the White House to his ranch in Crawford to Kerry's incredibly poor voting attendance record in the Senate is not valid. Bush continued to fulfill his responsiblities, while Kerry did not responsibilities of representing the people of Massachusetts in Congress. There ought to be a law that a Senator that misses more than 25% of the votes in the Senate should be removed. The reason why Kerry's Senatorial was given such short shrift at the DNC in Boston is because his record is absolutely abysmal.
It can't be "proved" by the Dems because Bush has to agree to release the records, which he won't do. But again, those records he DID release show significant dereliction of duty for significant periods of time. What more proof do you need than the fact that by his OWN ADMISSION (the release of those records) he never reported for duty for months at a time ? [/QUOTE]
I don't know how you can justify using the term "Dereliction of Duty" to describe Bush's National Guard service. Dereliction of duty is a crime and it is now YOUR responsibility to tell us the crime of which you speak. I'm aware of no such crime. If you make an accusation of criminality which dereliction of duty certainly is, you should be prepared to offer proofs.
In contrast, after he returned to the U.S. from his VN war service, John Kerry went before Congress and ADMITTED that he had committed war crime atrocities while incountry. He also maligned his comrades by asserting that the Commission of war crimes was common by U.S. personnel in Vietnam. While war crimes certainly did occur, as they do in every war, Kerry's exaggerations are obscene. An admission by an Officer of the United States military of the Commission of war crimes while wearing the uniform of the United States is a far more serious matter than the absence--apparently with permission--of a fighter pilot from his duty station in the continental United States.
And I believe the people that actually served with Kerry over a bunch of right-wing jerks out to smear his name and make a buck. They've been shown to be liars more than once, and to believe them you have to think that the United States military gives out medals like lollipops. Sorry, but that just isn't true. Period. Oh, and the Cambodia thing has been debunked already, so I guess you guys will have to find another nothing issue to complain about 
[/QUOTE]
Gives out medals like lollipops? Regarding this comment that the United States military doesn't give out medals like lollipops is NOT based on historical reality. History shows that medals have been given --in large numbers--without merit. Please refer to
The Shower of Stars and the 27th Maine, by John J. Pullen. This excellent book describes the origin of the Medal of Honor and the many inappropriate awardings of that honor during the Civil War. This book shows that there are precedents to inappropriate awarding of military decorations. And, in addition, Kerry's decorations are not being debated here. The critical issue is John f. Kerry's admission to war crimes. Why he was not prosecuted is purely a function of the extreme political environment of the late Vietnam war period domestically. This is the key issue. i'm not really concerned if Kerry's awards were well-earned or not. His admission to war crimes, however, does concern me.
You believe the mere 7 soldiers, I'll believe the 250 risking their careers and reputations.
If you say that the Cambodia issue is now debunked and therefore off the table, perhaps you could offer proof that this is so.
Really ? I don't really think 15 soldiers from Zimbabwe constitutes much of a coalition, but maybe that's just me Besides, I'm not just talking about the war in Iraq, I'm talking about the global fight against terrorism...a fight where we HAVE to have the active cooperation of those two countries you so easily shrug off if we're to be effective.[/QUOTE]
Your denial of the coalition and your derision of it doesn't make it nonexistent. The absence of France and Germany does not mean there was no coalition. France and Germany have their own agendas which do not overlap with what is beneficial to the United States. The lack of consideration, courtesy, and appreciation of the American people who secured their freedoms with their blood and treasure notwithstanding, the positions of France and Germany are completely irrelevant and ought not to guide the foreign policy of the U.S.
Unilateralism is not inherently negative. The exercise of American power, especially in its own National defense, is not a negative. It does seem, however, that those who favor the ascendence of the EU and the UN are offended by American might and the exercise of American power. Western Europe--specifically France and Germany--have characterized their relations with us in a UN vs. U.S. and EU vs. U.S. context. But these are false. The truth of the matter is that the War on Terror is the context within which the United States acts. The lack of support of our so-called friends, while regrettable, is not what guides U.S. policy now. If they don't "get it", that is THEIR fault, not ours.
If you truly believe we were "greeted with hugs and flowers", there's just no point in continuing this discussion. Yes, there are those in that country that are happy we are there, though it's debatable whether it's even a simple majority, let alone "most". But I'll certainly agree that we can't just pull straight out and leave the country to fall into whatever chaos replaces us. But then, so does John Kerry. I just happen to think we screwed up by going in in the first place. But yeah, I'll grant that we now have to try to clean up the mess that Bush made. [/QUOTE]
if you would consider getting your news from sources other than left-wing mouthpieces--if you would read reports from soldiers that are currently serving or are recently returned, you would see a very different picture of the situation in Iraq. The vast majority of Iraqis want the same things that we want. Prosperity, peace, stability, and democracy. The left-wing media does not report these facts because they want you to continue to be agitated so that you will vote against the present Administration
