randomWalks

Why are rW editors taking sides in the swiftboat debate? I held my tongue on adam's earlier post.

But now that there's a second one, I really had to ask.

In the "about" page it clearly says that rW dislikes war.

What exactly is being defended here? Kerry is trying to lay claim to the fact that he slaughtered people in Viet Nam.

What the heck is going on in this election that the biggest battle being fought is whether or not Kerry did or did not kill people 30 years ago?

That is a bit more confrontational-sounding than I intended.

I raise that in an non-combative way. I'm genuinely curious as to the grounds on which folks who are anti-war see their side in this.

Why are rW editors taking sides in the swiftboat debate?

Why do we take sides on anything? You're perfectly welcome to comment or write your own post about anything you feel strongly about, zagg.

I like war much less then the average person, but at the same time I also appreciate people who have the balls to do things I would never do in a million years, even if I thought the cause was right. Soldiers and cops are necessary sometimes, not just necessary evils.

Kerry is trying to lay claim to the fact that he slaughtered people in Viet Nam.

Don't be a troll, man. The argument is whether or not Kerry was an effective commander and whether or not he deserved his Purple Hearts. The men who actually served under him say he was and he did. Even if you think he's disgusting, that shouldn't be a reason to not speak up against people slandering him with evil intentions.

Also I would like to point out that those of us who hate war should at the very least appreciate that when John Kerry got back from Vietnam he was extremely vocal about it having been wrong and a waste of lives, even though it wasn't the most politic of statements to be making at the time. Would that more people were doing it then and after every single ill-considered war since, maybe things would be different today.

Okay, I got a little confrontational also, but I wrote my post before I saw your second comment.!

great post.

Thanks for the response.

But I don't think it's trolling for the anti-war movement to criticize Kerry for the whole swiftboat thing.

Kerry isn't talking the same rhetoric he was in 1971. In regards to Vietnam, he's trying to rewrite history of what that war was about.

Anyway, Counterpunch has had two pieces on the whole debate, one from Bring Them Home Now's Stan Goff and one from Alexander Cockburn.

Also, I'm not against soldiers that don't have much of a choice in being where they are. But Kerry chose to get himself in a place where he could see some "action." (But I don't see cops as a necessary evil at all).

Kerry was the guy who started running on the 'war hero' platform, instead of his 20-year Senate record. That's why it's an issue, because he made it into one.

Kerry was the guy who started running on the 'war hero' platform, instead of his 20-year Senate record. That's why it's an issue, because he made it into one.

Yup, this was a huge miscalculation on the DNC's part. They thought the military was going to fall into line behind Kerry, and of course they didn't.

Patriotism needs to be truthfully defined. Throughout this election, there have been some respectable, distinguished Vietnam War veterans who have criticized Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry’s actions after his four months of military service. The issue at stake is not whether John Kerry spoke out against the very war he served in, accused others of committing atrocities, or met with North Vietnamese officials in Paris; he did. But, first, is it treasonous to meet with enemy officials in order to negotiate the release of fellow Americans? Certainly not if the American prisoners were freed and the terms of agreement were fair, it is not. The spin from Kerry’s enemies only goes to show that they would try anything to link Kerry to Jane Fonda, whose methods I would not approve of.

Secondly, one cannot say that he had no right to bring to light the actions of a few perverted, conceited people who in no way represented the United States military as a whole. War is hell; it can turn a few smart, intelligent minds into overambitious ones. It can stir never before suffered emotions in a soldier. Sometimes, the emotional effects of war can climb its way up the line of duty. The Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal is a perfect example of how war transforms people for the worse.

Finally, one can also not say that John Kerry had no right, even as an American soldier, to question the validity of the war he fought in for the sake of bringing fellow troops back to safety. For if we do, then that means no one has the right to speak his or her mind and that the government’s authority must never be questioned. And if the authority of governments is considered infallible, then that nullifies our justification of declaring independence from the British monarch, King George III, back in 1776. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are free to speak their minds about John Kerry’s record, but the American people do not want to sit down and hear anyone vilify the founding principles of the United States of America.

Likewise, it is not unpatriotic to call for reforms in the Patriot Act in order to ensure that civil liberties are still held to the highest degree. It is also not un-American to oppose the means of going to war in Iraq. (We all agreed that Saddam Hussein should go, but how to do so is the issue.) If you cannot arrest a murderer with charges of connections to the mafia without the evidence to back the claims, then how can we convict Saddam Hussein on charges of orchestrating the attacks of September 11th without the proof? President Bush went to war with a faulty arrest warrant. If our country’s arrest warrant is faulty, then how can we be viewed as a credible leader to the world—not just to "Old Europe", but to the people of "New Europe", the people of East Asia, the people of the Muslim world, the people of the world? Governments might sway world opinion, but the governed are the ones who actually define it.

Senator Kerry has real solutions: a tax plan that helps the middle and working classes, a health care plan that helps those in need, and a foreign policy plan that can improve the situation in Iraq, reconcile with the people of the world, and win the war against the terrorists. John Kerry is a proven patriot. Patriotism should not be restricted to supporting a current government or its policies; it should go beyond the scope of government and politics.