Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm kinda tired of the concept that this macho bullshit cuts only one way, politically. They were all fully of this shit right up to the point when Bush (wisely) backed down and decided not to make the rubble bounce in Fallujah. Then, silence. If they really believed this crap, you'd think they would say that Bush is a pansy for backing off, but the silence tells you that it was just a line. Meanwhile, conservatives are lining up to piss on John Kerry, who actually risked his life in Vietnam, to help re-elect Bush, who spent the war in Texas and Alabama in a cushy gig where he could campaign for GOP senatorial candidates.
|
1 John Kerry, as President, won't actually fight. So, who is personally braver isn't really that big an issue. Maybe you could say his time in combat gives him some insights that would be valuable in making decisions re. the troops, but frankly that level of decision is probably below the Preident.
2 John Kerry's Vietnam service doesn't seem like it was actually driven by a sense of duty. Rather, he seems to have had political ambitions early on and deemed service in Vietnam a prerequisite. Turns out he was wrong. Bubba Ho-take blew that one up. One could make the argument that Billy and W were more honest with themselves, and thus more likely to be honest in making decisions now (of course with Bill there'd be a good deal of CF).
3 What is important to me is that the President make decisions based opon what should happen and stick to those decisons. I don't trust JFK to do so. Going into Iraq was a brave ass decision, you might argue a wrong decision, but to put so much on a decision was brave of W. I don't trust JFK to be "brave" this way.
4 Falu(?) can be handled by being isolated, can't it? Over time, might not that be the better decision than killing tons of people good/bad now?
5 If aliens invade, like in Independance Day, then who is braver for battle matters. Maybe then we'd be better with JFK, but remember W is the fighter pilot.
