Is it some campaign-strategy then??
Find a Conversation
Is it some campaign-strategy then??
| Sun, 08-22-2004 - 11:17am |
That's the only possibility I can think of while trying to make sense of all this.
It's my understanding Kerry made his war-experience the central-issue (do we hear anything else?) in his run against Bush, trying to convince voters that he believes he would be a better CIC than Bush. No problem in itself.
Seeing how things are going however, as long as Kerry refuses to open and reveal his records, there will be room for them to be challenged/questioned as we see happening ad nauseum, and the speculations (pro and con) will continue. Latest I read now is that "he dived in to rescue Rassman".....
Could it be that Kerry uses the whole "issue" as a campaign-strategy somehow believing he will gain votes/support from the swing voters by "playing victim of a smear campaign"? Is it a distraction strategy?
He should and cán stop all the "smear" in its tracks and put an end to all the speculations and controversy, yet so far, he chooses not to.
Is there a 'protocol' of some sort preventing him?
Is it his personal unwillingness/pride 'refusing to give in' to what he considers "smear"?
If not, I think it's about time he took the entire electorate seriously and reveal his WR (so everyone can make up their own mind), instead of this rolling around in his (by now) self-fulfilling victim-role.





I knew he uncovered the BCCI scandal before, but I didn't know until I read the detailed story about the bank that it had its very origins in people who wanted the downfall of the USA and it was the bank Osama Bin Laden used. Kerry went against both parties to investigate them, so IMO, he knows more about how terrorists function through this investigation, and is in a better position to fight terrorism.
see;
http://messageboards.ivillage.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=iv-elpoliticsto&msg=3716.1&ctx=0
Miffy - Co-CL For The Politics Today Board
As to him making it a campaign strategy, I think yes. Because Iraq is such a concern and because many Republicans who don't fully support Bush's other endeavors support him for Iraq with the reasonong of "stay the course". I had one guy tell me that he thinks Bush has screwed up everything he's done so far, but we should keep him so he can clean up his own mess. Another told me that we shouldn't shift commanders mid-stream. I'm sorry but from a business standpoint if the guy isn't getting it done, he's replaced with somone who will.
My question is why would Bush let it stay in the news cylce other than he has nothing else to offer? Why would Bush want the comparison of someone who fought for his country versus his own, maybe, National Guard service? Then to whine about his medals being for superficial or self-inflicted wounds?! What did the Pentagon just give the medals away like candy? Then to hear Dole join in? Do we need Max Cleland to take on Dole? They attacked Max and he lost three limbs? Was that superficial and self inflicted? If I was a Vet I'd be PO'd at Bush for this. Instead you hear guys say they can't vote for Kerry because he came back and protested against the war? Does that mean they won't like guys who come back from Iraq convinced that Iraq is wrong? I guess in the end you say that the military and the vets are a diverse group and they'll look at things as differently as we do here on this board. But it's bad news for Bush as I think Kerry has swayed more votes his way from the Vets and military that would traditionally vote Republican.
As a side note, one woman on the Sunday political talk shows said something that stuck with me. She said "I think it's the Vietnam generation's struggle with themselves being played out". As I was too little to understand back then, it kind of fits what I'm seeing. I have no prior experience with the time. Maybe it is just them rehashing and playing it out now for closure and healing?
While this may be true, the business usually replaces the guy with someone they think will do better....and many do not believe John Kerry fits that description.
My understanding is that Kerry is attacked by these guys everytime he runs for office. Hence a lot of the articles you get from Boston where they've vetted this all before and discredited the Swift Boat Liars for Bush." This is where I believe John Kerry has bungled...he doesn't seem to grasp that what is tolerated in liberal Massachusetts will not necessarily play well elsewhere. Hence his whining to the FEC.....
<<"I don't think Kerry is being attacked because he made the issue central to his campaign. I believe the SWVT were going to attack him regardless.">>.....Website founded in April 2004
From: http://www2.swiftvets.com/index.php
Senator John Kerry has made his 4-month combat tour in Vietnam the centerpiece of his bid for the Presidency. His campaign jets a handful of veterans around the country, and trots them out at public appearances to sing his praises. John Kerry wants us to believe that these men represent all those he calls his "band of brothers."
But most combat veterans who served with John Kerry in Vietnam see him in a very different light.
Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has been formed to counter the false "war crimes" charges John Kerry repeatedly made against Vietnam veterans who served in our units and elsewhere, and to accurately portray Kerry's brief tour in Vietnam as a junior grade Lieutenant. We speak from personal experience -- our group includes men who served beside Kerry in combat as well as his commanders. Though we come from different backgrounds and hold varying political opinions, we agree on one thing: John Kerry misrepresented his record and ours in Vietnam and therefore exhibits serious flaws in character and lacks the potential to lead.
We regret the need to do this. Most Swift boat veterans would like nothing better than to support one of our own for America's highest office, regardless of whether he was running as a Democrat or a Republican. However, Kerry's phony war crimes charges, his exaggerated claims about his own service in Vietnam, and his deliberate misrepresentation of the nature and effectiveness of Swift boat operations compels us to step forward.
For more than thirty years, most Vietnam veterans kept silent as we were maligned as misfits, addicts, and baby killers. Now that a key creator of that poisonous image is seeking the Presidency we have resolved to end our silence.
The time has come to set the record straight.
==============================================================
Re the BCCI: (Aren't Commissions always bi-partisan?)
I dón't mean to belittle this achievement, just putting it into some perspective. He was doing his job as one of the representatives of the US citizens. The know-how he gathered has been well documented and