"Parrot" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 13:22:38 -0400, DSK wrote:

What's truly outrageous, however, is that Kerry came back to the states
and
provided propaganda for the enemy...

???

The fact that the Religious Republican Right-wingers fabricated a photo
of him standing next to Hanoi Jane makes Kerry culpable for "providing
propaganda for the enemy"?


... the same propaganda that the Vietcong
tortured our guys to obtain.

???

... For that reason, he's unfit to be called
"Commander in Chief".

In the opinion of many (including this veteran), Kerry is more fit to be
CinC than a rich well-connected frat boy who went AWOL from his cushy
Viet Nam dodging ANG post.

You have to realize that, in those days, anyone who questioned our
involvement
in that war--in ANY way--was seen by many as traitorous. Remember the
bumper
sticker slogans, "America--love it or leave it"?

In those days, speaking the truth about the war was seen by many hawks as
being
"propaganda" or "support of the enemy." It's not too different today, is
it?
Those who question the current positions of the administration (whatever
today's
positions might be) are criticized as "soft on terrorism" or "supporting
bin
Laden."

Part of the outcry with regard to Kerry's positions against the war--and
his
testimony to Congress--is that he was an articulate spokesman for that
position.
And even though his time served in country was short, he did have quite a
lot
more credibility than many of his contemporaries who spoke out against the
war
without having served in the military in any way.

Once our troops are committed to a conflict, then it's the responsibility of
our nation to support those troops by all means possible, and see to it that
they win that war no matter how ill-conceived the war may or may not have
been in the first place. To do otherwise may not be traitorous, but it
certainly is an act of sedition. This is why countries invest so much
resources in propaganda...because it works, and it wins wars.


The anti-Vietnam War demonstrations provided a ray of hope for the enemy,
with the idea that if they could just inflict enough casualties, turn
American public opinion, and hold on a little longer until the next
President was elected, then they'd win the war.

Our country's actions during the Vietnam War sent a dangerous message to our
enemies. Reagan and Clinton unfortunately reinforced that message by their
respective troop withdrawals in Beirut and Somalia. The voters in Spain
also reinforced that message in their most recent election.

With our Presidential election in November, I think we can send an extremely
strong message to would-be enemies that the US will never, ever back down in
the face of adversity. Unfortunately, we can also send the exact opposite
message by electing Kerry.