Stop fighting Vietnam, already!
I got an email the other day featuring quotes from 20 or so distinguished members of the armed services explaining why the were not going to vote for Kerry. The fact that this is yet another case of voting against one candidate rather than voting for the other candidate is beside the point. I'd rather focus on the nature of these men's arguments: not a single one cited a single thing Kerry has done since 1972.
To give you an idea of how different the world was in 1972: my parents had never met each other, I was 8 years shy of being a fetus, the Soviet Union was still together, the Beatles were still together, Elvis was still alive, and so on. It was a long friggin' time ago.
What I'm getting at is, why are all these people still fighting Vietnam? (I include Kerry in this question, because I think his focus on his military record from 30 years ago was a bad idea.) But also, and perhaps moreso, why are Kerry opponents attacking him for things that he did so long ago? Do his anti-war actions after returning home make him any less capable of being commander-in-chief than a man who may have supported the war but sure as hell didn't fight in it? And don't forget that Bush used to be an alcoholic, but that should hardly be used against him now, should it?
John Kerry has plenty of vulnerable areas that his opponents could be attacking. I know I'm not exactly a swing voter, but come on people, make an argument I might actually care about. And to Kerry, I say, "Congratulations, you're a war hero. I'm duly impressed. What are your plans to help our nation today?"
Song lyric of the day:
"You say you want a revolution?
Well, you know, we all want to change the world
And you know it's gonna be alright"
-The Beatles, "Revolution"
To give you an idea of how different the world was in 1972: my parents had never met each other, I was 8 years shy of being a fetus, the Soviet Union was still together, the Beatles were still together, Elvis was still alive, and so on. It was a long friggin' time ago.
What I'm getting at is, why are all these people still fighting Vietnam? (I include Kerry in this question, because I think his focus on his military record from 30 years ago was a bad idea.) But also, and perhaps moreso, why are Kerry opponents attacking him for things that he did so long ago? Do his anti-war actions after returning home make him any less capable of being commander-in-chief than a man who may have supported the war but sure as hell didn't fight in it? And don't forget that Bush used to be an alcoholic, but that should hardly be used against him now, should it?
John Kerry has plenty of vulnerable areas that his opponents could be attacking. I know I'm not exactly a swing voter, but come on people, make an argument I might actually care about. And to Kerry, I say, "Congratulations, you're a war hero. I'm duly impressed. What are your plans to help our nation today?"
Song lyric of the day:
"You say you want a revolution?
Well, you know, we all want to change the world
And you know it's gonna be alright"
-The Beatles, "Revolution"
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home