Nada. Wasn't a party move, wasn't inteded to mislead the voters.
Next?
You mean like when the Bush campaign said John McCain's adopted asian child was actually a bastard child of John's and that his time as a POW had made him angry and unstable? That was in New Hampshire in 2000.
Gee, I thought I was in the loop, and I never heard any such thing. Is there a quote in an article, or a copy of a handout?
It isn't a policy issue, which is really what I am looking for, but it IS intersting. Stupid of them if they did it, but interesting.
How about when Bob Dole called for an investigation of Bill Clinton's role in the death of Vincent Foster during the campaign in 1996?
Sounds legitimate to me, considering all that has been written about it. Still not a policy issue though. So much does not add up in the Foster case. A shame it was allowed to fall through the cracks. Was Bob Dole lying? I think not.
How about the Republican Party calling into question the patriotism of Senator Max Cleland who lost both legs in Vietnam?
Is there some sort of intrinsic connection between losing legs in a war, and later being assumed to exhibit patriotism? One could argue that Kerry was patriotic when he served in Nam, but it certainly could be argued that he was not when he returned to politicize his experience to curry favor with the liberal vote.
If you have a link to the Max Cleland info, I'd love to read it. I'm often too busy to read everything out there, and these days I'm not being paid to keep up with it.
You never did answer my question, TB. Are the generals and other senior officers in Iraq today who are saying that we are winning the firefights but losing the war strategically aiding and abeting the enemy?
No. How's that for a direct answer? We knew where the sam sites were, and we needed to go into Laos, and we decided to avoid doing so. That was wrong. That's not nearly in the same
dimension as what Kerry has done or said.
Is that different than John Kerry testifying before Congress in the early 70's and stating, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam? How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"
How do you ask someone to be the last to die in ANY war? The question was asked as an act of self-aggrandizement by Kerry, meant to rally the antiwar crowd and demean the scarifice of that last man as being worthless. It was not. Even Kerry's little fleshwound was a result of what I assume is valuable service. There is a great disconnect, however, in what Kerry did to undermine the work of his remaining brothers in arms that disqualifies him for Commander in Chief.
Who is responsible for failure? Is it the architect of the failed strategy, or is it the soldiers tasked to carry it out who merely point out its shortcomings?
If you mean Vietnam specifically, there was a leadership failure, mostly in the Johnson administration, where we failed to take the actions necessary for victory. Robert MacNamara bears a lot of blame individually. Ultimately, we did triumph, decades later. Vietnam, like China, is beginning to embrace capitalism, and the "wisdom" of Chairman Mao, like Ho Chi Mihn, is falling away to dust.
You are saying that to voice dissent about our strategy is to weaken our strategy: it emboldens our enemies. Even though Bob McNamara visited the commanders in the Ia Drang valley at the beginning of the Vietnam War and realized that we would not win a war of attrition. I've got news for you. We are in another war of attrition. Invaders do not win wars of attrition. Only if it was clearly in our national interest would the American public have the stomach for the kind of sacrifice that would require. You would say that a general who points this out is emboldening the enemy. I would argue that he is merely reluctant to ask a man to be the last to die for a poor strategy.
First, I want to thank you for being at least a better foil in this debate than others.
I don't think this is a war of attrition at all. It is by the standard of the enemy, a
Jihad. For us, it is an effort to convert an environment that fosters terror and enemies into a self-governing state that could be the first of many Arab states to enjoy freedom.
Just as American style capitalism and growing freedom will do in China and Vietnam what guns did not, the best part of Iraq will be revealed when Iraqis are in charge, with a little help from us. It is as much a war of ideas as it is a war of RPG's. That's why the prisoner abuse is so distressing, because the largely illiterate Arab population is a "picture oriented" culture, and as we know, one of those is worth a thousand words. Or, apologies.
To summarize what I said before, it is the manner in which we express dissent in America that can do us harm. I contend that this harm is often willingly done, for the ideological and political purposes of liberals.
Smoke and mirrors don't change the facts: Both parties are neck deep in it.
I still want to see some evidence that parallels my Gingrich example: a lie so blatant and manipulative that there is no equivalent that I have seen. If you can find one, good for you. I haven't seen it yet.
As ar as politics in general, you have a "piece" of truth here. All human politics are inherently defective, insofar as we have taken God out of our lives, and have misinterpreted the Constitution so eggregiously that we believe, counter the the ideas of the founders, that we can have an effective, free, 100%
secular society. We can expect mistakes, and forgive the inadvertent mistakes. The lies told purposefully to mislead the public on important policy matters are a different animal entirely.
Trust me, if some republican senator had come out and said that we had too many old people, and that we should just cut off their healthcare and make them all go to work instead of keeping the present medicare system, then democratic operatives would have reason to make the statement they made. Short of that, it is a blatant lie that frightened many older citizens. That's beyond gutless puke status, in my book.
The vast majority? Was a poll taken? How do they know whose remains are in which casket? Did the vast majority of families protest the Nightline program where the names and pictures of the dead were posted? If it is thought that showing rows of caskets undermines the work their family member was doing overseas, what does that tell you about public's resolve of our military objectives?
That's actually an excellent question. Many letters have come in thanking the president for not showing the caskets, and NONE have come in demanding that they be shown. If a few arrive, they will have many other letters outweighing their opinion.
In the case of Nightline, it is a matter in
intent, an idea near and dear to the hearts of liberals everywhere. The intent was not to honor, the intent was to
display, hoping that the presence of a large number of lost lives will stir the hearts, and not the heads, of Americans.
What does that say abpout the public's resolve? Mostly, that we are human, and some people are trying to take our minds off the job that needs to be done, and instead focus our attention on the lives lost, as can be done with humans. Nightline tried to hide their real intent, which is very telling about the motives of the producers and Koppel. Knowing this tendency about ourselves, we should not exploit this weakness among our members, but instead seek to strengthjen our resolve and commitment. If we learned anything from Vietnam, it is the value of commitment.
Who's your source on that - John Ashcroft? The American Spectator? Are you saying you're not a patriot if you disagree with policy and voice your opinion like Rush Limbaugh did during the Clinton administration?
Just a reasoned observation based on a half century of a changing political climate, viewed through the writings of the founders. Careful. You are departing from discourse and heading into ad hominem again.
