mightynine said:
Hey, how does this have anything to do with protecting the country against Al-Q?
Oh, right, it DOESN'T.
Didn't John Kerry just spend a week making the argument otherwise. The thesis of the 4 day convention seemed to be John Kerry served in Vietnam therefore he is fit to be President. They didn't even speak about his political career, so they seemed to be making the case rather clearly.
I agree it makes no sense at all. I don't care about his service record, I care about his political record. What he did during the McGovern campaign, what he did as Lt. Governor for Mike Dukakis, and what he did as Senator for 19 years is what should impact whether he is capable of protecting the country. Unfortunately Kerry doesn't agree and for some strange reason wants to run away from his political record and solely focus on his 4 months in Vietnam. John Kerry made a concerted effort to erase the last 33 years of his life from the record, so I guess we're stuck focusing on Vietnam and the crimes he committed there.
Either way it's bad news for John Kerry, whether you want to focus on the past or the present, neither one makes John Kerry look good.
I'm just amazed that Democrats would choose a guy who admitted to brutalizing people and burning down villages as their nominee. I think a lot of people are willing to look past that and focus on current issues, but I don't see a lot of liberals being able to look past these things John Kerry has admitted to.