 | ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
|
« Good Stuff | Main | He's a War Hero, NOT a Post-War Hero » February 16, 2004Is Biography Destiny?If biography is destiny, than you should be very worried about how John Kerry, a decorated war veteran, would handle the War on Terror, says Charles Krauthammer, in a devastating column in Time magazine. Also be sure to read Mark Steyn's exploration of what Kerry's Vietnam experience really means. Here's Krauthammer on Kerry: It is hard to see what Kerry has to offer beyond biography. The issue of our time is the war on terrorism. Bush's strategy throws out the old playbook on terrorism - the cops-and-robbers, law-and-order strategy of arrest and trial followed by complacency - and takes the war to the enemy. Kerry says terrorism is "primarily an intelligence and law-enforcement operation" - precisely the misconception that had us waking up on Sept. 12 realizing that while the enemy was preparing for war, we were preparing legal briefs for grand juries.Read the whole thing. Here's Steyn on Kerry. The only relevant lesson from Vietnam is this: then, as now, it was not possible for the enemy to achieve military victory over the US; their only hope was that America would, in effect, defeat itself. And few men can claim as large a role in the loss of national will that led to that defeat as John Kerry. A brave man in Vietnam, he returned home to appear before Congress and not merely denounce the war but damn his "band of brothers" as a gang of rapists, torturers and murderers led by officers happy to license them to commit war crimes with impunity. He spent the Seventies playing Jane Fonda and he now wants to run as John Wayne.Answer: John Kerry. Which is Reason Number One to vote against him. Posted in War on Terror
| Linked By |
Please support HobbsOnline by doing your online shopping at Amazon.com Comments
Reason Number Two: He's just another lying leftist out to humble America. Posted by: nobody important at February 17, 2004 01:09 PMI thought it wise to read both articles before commenting. Both had some good points. However, in Mr. Steyn's piece, I noticed that he just couldn't help following Wesley Pruden's (and others') custom of putting words in Mr. Kerry's mouth. Shawn Hannity has a penchant for doing this, too. They, by carefully chosen wording, leave the bait for the reader that Kerry accused his fellow veterans of atrocities. In fact, the transcript of his Congressional testimony shows, for all to see, that he was communicating what a group of veterans had related to him. If I were a journalist, I would cultivate my reputation and integrity better than that. These people are skilled writers and broadcasters. Pruden, for example is Editor in Chief at the Washington Times, and we all know who Hannity is and how much influence over viewers he has. They know exactly what they are doing--cynical manipulation of those who are not critical readers or listeners. Posted by: SemiPundit at February 17, 2004 02:22 PM"In fact, the transcript of his Congressional testimony shows, for all to see, that he was communicating what a group of veterans had related to him." You might want to do some research into those "veterans". The "Winter Project" was a fine example of agitprop, but a piss-poor example of research.
here's a post that exposes the "Vets" in question. Sorry, I can't remember where I got it. http://www.vnsfvetakerry.com/kerrys_fake_warriors.htm#KERRYS%20FAKE%20WARRIORS Posted by: Corey at February 17, 2004 07:01 PMI will look into the "Winter Soldiers" matter. I'll admit that at this point I do not know as much about it as I should. Am I being told that Kerry was misled by a group of phony veterans? If so, then it would not be the first time an American leader went public with information from sources that misled him, either through their deception or incompetence. The only point I attempted to make was that professionalism and intellectual honesty should count for something. Mr. Crawford (and others as well), please explain to me so that I may clearly understand why Mr. Steyn and Mr. Pruden intentionally distorted the wording of Mr. Kerry's testimony. I'll take the absence of a response to mean that you agree with me. Posted by: SemiPundit at February 18, 2004 01:50 AM"Mr. Crawford (and others as well), please explain to me so that I may clearly understand why Mr. Steyn and Mr. Pruden intentionally distorted the wording of Mr. Kerry's testimony. I'll take the absence of a response to mean that you agree with me." Pardon my French, but what the hell? "Please tell me why I'm correct. If you do not, I will assume I'm correct." Listen -- your initial premise, that Kerry's words were distorted, is incorrect. Got it? Kerry accused his fellow soldiers of committing atrocities in Vietnam; no amount of parsing and hair-splitting can change that fact. Since your initial premise is wrong, there is no reason to "explain" it. Just accept the facts -- Kerry accused US soldiers in Vietnam of committing atrocities. HE did it. It doesn't matter who he cited, or where he claimed the information came from -- he was the one who took the oath and made the statements. Posted by: Robert Crawford at February 18, 2004 09:14 AMI thought so. There is no reason for a major newspaper to carve out several key words of an official Senate testimony transcript and replace them with ellipses (...) for any reason other than to convey a self-serving message to gullible readers. Defend it, or nominate the Washington Times for High School Newspaper of the Year. Editor in Chief, no less..... Posted by: SemiPundit at February 18, 2004 01:56 PMSemiPundit, during his testimony, did John Kerry say US soldiers committed atrocities as a matter of course in Vietnam? Don't waffle with "he was just repeating what he was told" -- that's a cop out. Kerry is not a puppet; he has control over the words that come out of his mouth. If he didn't believe what he said, he should have let someone else testify. It's also a cop-out to say he was "indicting the command structure", since it ignores the matter of who Kerry thought was committing those atrocities. Did he say that commissioned officers went out into the fields to commit these crimes? Not that I'm aware of -- so he meant the average grunt was the criminal. Please, answer the question. No more of your silly rhetorical games -- just yes or no. Posted by: Robert Crawford at February 18, 2004 03:14 PMPost a comment
Comments Policy: Your comment is subject to deletion if it is off-topic or includes foul language or personal attack. Readers, please email me if you find comments that include egregious violations of this policy. Comments may not post immediately - do not post twice!
|
|||||||||||
