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.

Parrot

Don't you ever get tickled by the irony of demanding that Kerry "release
his military records" when Bush blandly announces that his are "lost"?
Or is this just more agitprop?