|
Edited on Tue Feb-21-06 11:56 AM by karynnj
I understand that he (like McCain) felt that Kerry by speaking the truth exposed the ugly truths of Vietnam, making it harder for veterans. My reality is that that is not true. Veterans had a tough time in 1969 and 1970 before Lt Kerry spoke. May Lai was already known and for me and many of my college age peers, Lt Kerry replaced Lt Calley as the face of the war - his speaking out rehabilitated our image of those fighting the war. If Webb was for real, in 2004, when it was clear Kerry was the nominee, he would have read the entire transcript and there is no way you can do that and conclude Kerry was condemning the entire US military in VN.
Given the choice of helping re-elect Bush, who was pursuing policies that were disastrous and supporting a man who he hated for words he spoke 33 years before, but who could lead the country better, he should have chosen for the future, not the past. He had three choices - he could support Bush, stay absolutely neutral, or support Kerry(weakly or strongly).
If he wanted to support Kerry strongly, magnanimously forgiving him for words that hurt 33 years before, he could have been incrediblely helpful. He was in a position when the SBVT people came out to really help Kerry. He could have taken Kerry's MTP comments (that his words were over the top, he was angry and 27 yrs old)and engineered a truce. If he was for real, he would have read the entire transcript and there is no way you can do that and conclude Kerry was condemning the entire US military in VN. He could have totally defused the protest end of the SBVT issue.
Or, he could have endorsed Kerry, by saying that his ability, intelligence and skills were so important to the country, he was endorsing him in spite of actions taken in his youth. To stay neutral, he could simply stay quiet - hard - but doable.
The third choice was to support Bush - there were 2 ways to do this. To trash Kerry or to endorse Bush. He trashed Kerry. He likely helped Bush by doing this far more than he would have by merely endorsing him.
For him now to want to run against Bush's handling of the Iraq war as a Democrat is crazy. He helped return Bush to power. If his value system or judgment led him to give more weight to words said by an idealistic 27 year old who has matured into a brilliant statesman than to the death and destruction spread by Bush, I question his judgment and/or values and feel the need to speak against him. What I hate are the party people excited to have him as a potential candidate.
Out of curiosity, has he spoken in any detail about his views other than Iraq? On Iraq, where exactly is he? How can a man who 6 years ago supported a CONSERVATIVE republican like Allen, really be a Democrat? Or is it just that's the open slot?
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
