Quick, which candidate did you think I meant? John Kerry and his use of Vietnam references in his campaign ads, or George Bush and his references to 9/11 in his?

And if you approve of one but not the other, please tell me why. Thanks in advance.

Bellham
~Arguing principle from convenience is no principle at all.~

Honestly, my first reaction was "Which one is he
talking about?" when I first saw the thread title.

As for the differences between the two. I have less
of a problem with Kerry's use of Vietnam than I do
of Bush's use of 9/11 for a few reasons:

1) It's my bias.
2) Kerry volunteered for his role in Vietnam. He
wasn't the one ordering people to die, he was the
one who could've been dying. Bush had little to no
direct part in the 9/11 attacks. Any blame/credit
that goes to him should probably be the result
of his military reaction to it. Yes, some form of
reaction was necessary. No, I don't agree with the
nature of our reaction. He became the one asking
troops to die.
3) Kerry isn't really playing the "I was there and
good people died" ticket so much as the "I was in
the fighting military so you can't say I'm weak on
national defense" ticket.

None of this is to say that I don't have a problem
with Kerry's use of the Vietnam war, just that I
have less of a problem with it.

While I also dread the upcoming season of political advertising, especially given that there will be more ads than ever this year, I must ask: How could a candidate NOT use countrymen's deaths in a political campaign?

Isn't that pretty much the reason for the invention of governments in the first place? To address that whole "some of us died/are dying/have died due to people knocking us on the head" issue?

--------"Somebody hits me, I'm going to hit him back. Even if it does look like he hasn't eaten in a while." -Charles Barkley

quote:

---

Isn't that pretty much the reason for the invention of governments in the first place? To address that whole "some of us died/are dying/have died due to people knocking us on the head" issue?

---

I never thought of it that way. I always thought governments were here to organize infrastructure,health-care, education, trade, law and yes, police and military.

Joke aside: I was thinking 'what's so special about that' when I saw the thread title. They both do it.

same as Clinton executing a retarded man for some cheap political gain

they have the internet on computers now?

See, the only thing that bothers me about bush's 9/11 references is that's pretty much his pattern. It's the answer to everything the administration gets asked about. There's a little bit of terror mongering going on, been going on for the longest time. As the quote I stuck in the Zarqawi letter thread demonstrates, this administration was desperate to link iraq and al-quaeda, to the detriment of the future safety of troops and civilians in the region. He uses pictures of valiant firefighters, then cuts benefits and aid for first responders. He stands on an aircraft carrier for a photo-op, then cuts veterans benefits and funding to VA hospitals.

I ascend

quote:

---

Originally posted by chatsubo:
same as Clinton executing a retarded man for some cheap political gain

---

Now hang on, Clinton may have wanted to execute Newt Gingrich, but he didn't. Newt simply retired from political office.

--------"Somebody hits me, I'm going to hit him back. Even if it does look like he hasn't eaten in a while." -Charles Barkley

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shadoth:
See, the only thing that bothers me about bush's 9/11 references is that's pretty much his pattern. It's the answer to everything the administration gets asked about. There's a little bit of terror mongering going on, been going on for the longest time. As the quote I stuck in the Zarqawi letter thread demonstrates, this administration was desperate to link iraq and al-quaeda, to the detriment of the future safety of troops and civilians in the region. He uses pictures of valiant firefighters, then cuts benefits and aid for first responders. He stands on an aircraft carrier for a photo-op, then cuts veterans benefits and funding to VA hospitals.

I ascend

---

Weren't you the one complaining about your tax burden, Shad? Since 1994, guvmint in the U.S. has been all about reducing tax burdens. Frankly, I'd like to increase mine. You do see the connection, right?

--------"Somebody hits me, I'm going to hit him back. Even if it does look like he hasn't eaten in a while." -Charles Barkley

There is a huge psychological distance between Vietnam and 9/11. This is not to diminish what Vietnam did to the country or to the people who served but rather to point out that the dead and wounded of 9/11 are freshly so.

More importantly, for the most part, relatively few innocent American civilians died in Vietnam while nearly all the dead were innocent American civilians on 9/11. While it’s true that many of the servicemen in Vietnam were draftees, it’s equally true that they could have dodged as many did. There wasn’t any dodging 9/11.

Finally, I agree with Shadoth that, rhetorically, President Bush’s use of 9/11 has been repugnant and part of this administration’s policy of stifling criticism with fearful insinuations.

And - not that the American public will get it - isn’t it more than a little ironic that President Bush would choose what was arguably the biggest failure of the US military and intelligence apparatus in history as his backdrop? Why would he remind people that this happened on his watch? (Guess I already answered that one.)

Kerry, however, is in an unusual position, that of having served honorable and then later speaking out against the war. If he plays his cards right, he’ll to have his cake and eat it too.

This post brought to you by Tyson Foods. It's what your family deserves

[This message was edited by digitalprimate on March 05, 2004 at 06:47 AM.]

I don't really think that Kerry can have it both ways. His service in the Navy followed by his anti-war activities will appeal to a segment of voters that wouldn't have voted for Bush anyway. It does nothing for him outside that group.

quote:

---

It does nothing for him outside that group.

---

Got to disagree with you on that one. I think his military service record and his willingness to question military adventurism will get him very far with a lot of swing voters and undecideds. His service alleys the fears of those who usually lean to the right and his protest reassures those who lean to the left.

This post brought to you by Williams-Sonoma, the place for cooks.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Splitcoil:
Weren't you the one complaining about your tax burden, Shad? Since 1994, guvmint in the U.S. has been all about reducing tax burdens. Frankly, I'd like to increase mine. You do see the connection, right?

---

I haven't gone back and looked at my posts, but I remember the thread you're talking about, I think. I probably said something rash and contrary to this at some point, but I don't really mind paying taxes for other people's kids, their schools and so forth. It's good citizenship.

Ah, here we go:

quote:

---

Teachers are getting fired for assigning too much homework. Schools are spending (in my district) millions on big buildings, fascinating artifacts, but the quality of instruction is going through the floor. School is about learning, not about the structures. The oreo lawsuit, the hot coffee at mcd lawsuit, people saying that fast food is nutritious, and by nutritious they mean makes you fat, so maybe they don't know what nutritious means. politicians only care about getting elected, and then re-elected, not about the issues they're administering.

---

Higher up in the post I said something about my taxes being wasted on the useless. It was poorly said. But what I was saying here is not that my taxes are too high, but that the money was going wrong. Looking back, it's pretty clear I was misinformed on welfare, etc. Heh.

Also, I argued at great length against the current tax cuts.

Is it just me, or have you been in serious vitriolic/sarcastic response mode recently, Split?

I ascend

"There is a huge psychological distance between Vietnam and 9/11"

I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess you're too young to either remember or have served or faced being drafted during Vietnam? I grant that time places psychological distance, but about 20 times as many people died in a war that lasted about a decade.

And if Vietnam were a 'psychologically distant' issue for the *voters* Kerry wouldn't be using it in virtually every one of his campaign ads and stump speeches. I think both Vietnam and 9/11 loom sufficiently large in the national psyche to make them potent campaign issues. All I'm objecting to is the double standard.

"His service alleys the fears of those who usually lean to the right and his protest reassures those who lean to the left."

And makes those of us in the middle wonder how far he's willing to bend and twist his positions for political convenience.

I'd have thought the Democrats would have done better if instead of complaining about Bush using 9/11 the way Kerry uses Vietnam they had come out with something along the lines of 'If Bush wants to use one of his major foreign policy failures in his re-election ads, that's his business.'

By complaining, they're pretty much admitting Bush has a strong issue in 9/11, they just don't want him to be able to take advantage of it. Either stand with him on it (like they did at the time) or laugh at him for trying to turn one of his 'lying, Halliburton-lackey, jingoistic' failures into a campaign ad. If that's what they're going to say the response to 9/11 means, stick with it.

Bellham
~Arguing principle from convenience is no principle at all.~

quote:

---

I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess you're too young to either remember or have served or faced being drafted during Vietnam?

---

Fair enough, but I’ve lived my entire life with a father with severe PTSD.

But that’s neither here nor there. The psychological distance of which I spoke manifests itself more in the limits of dialog people put on an issue. Almost everything about Vietnam is now open for discussion, but many things about 9/11 aren’t, due in no small part to the fact that many people still don’t know what it all means for us as a nation or for themselves as individuals. I would argue that 9/11 has not reached the point in most people’s minds where they can think about it dispassionately; at least it hasn’t to the same degree our national psyche can with Vietnam.

The difference is not only one of distance - which I still maintain is an important factor - but also of kind. If Kerry were using Vietnam the way President Bush is using 9/11, the ad would look something like this:

Pan over field of dead soldiers somewhere in the DMZ. Show medics removing a wounded soldier to a evac helicopter…

You get the picture. I doubt the public would find this appealing either.

This post brought to you by Dell. Easy as Dell.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shadoth:
Is it just me, or have you been in serious vitriolic/sarcastic response mode recently, Split?

---

Erm, yes, sorry. I'll rein in my barbarism again. Work has been limiting my time, and when I'm pressed for time AND discussing politics, I get barbaric.

kerplunk

quote:

---

Originally posted by digitalprimate:
But that’s neither here nor there. The psychological distance of which I spoke manifests itself more in the limits of dialog people put on an issue. Almost everything about Vietnam is now open for discussion, but many things about 9/11 aren’t, due in no small part to the fact that many people still don’t know what it all means for us as a nation or for themselves as individuals. I would argue that 9/11 has not reached the point in most people’s minds where they can think about it dispassionately; at least it hasn’t to the same degree our national psyche can with Vietnam.

---

Extremely well said, digi.

kerplunk

"many people still don’t know what it all means"
"9/11 has not reached the point in most people’s minds where they can think about it dispassionately"

As Splitcoil observes, very well put. But with respect, we simply don't have the luxury to wait 30 years to decide what 9/11 means.

"If Kerry were using Vietnam the way President Bush is using 9/11..."

Kerry has been including his purple hearts, testimonials from a soldier who he pulled out of a river (saved his life), photos of himself with a rifle slung over his shoulder, *and* his post-Vietnam questioning of the war in his campaign. And if Kerry still believes Vietnam was the moral quaqmire he once made it out to be, why shouldn't he show fields of dead soldiers in Vietnam, with the tagline, 'We Won't Be Fooled Again'?

But Vietnam is not something *everyone* is now able to address dispassionately, and many people are quite capable of addressing 9/11 dispassionately. If we limit political campaigns to issues over which nobody feels strong emotions, we may as well pack up the tent and go home.

I have no objection to Kerry raising his Vietnam or post-Vietnam experiences, and letting the public judge for itself. By the same token, Bush should be free to reference 9/11, and let the public judge for itself. If Kerry's right, they'll decide Bush is a fool for trying to use his own 'miserable failures' to get people to vote for him.

Bellham
~Arguing principle from convenience is no principle at all.~

As an outsider, it is impossible to judge wether Kerry would be a good president. But in my book there is a hell of a lot difference between talking about something positive one has done (saving someones life), and creating some spin about what was essentially a big failure (letting 9/11 happen).
Also: Kerry distances himself from the atrocities of Vietnam, whereas Bush steals the shine from the underpaid firefighters of NYC.
Well both make me cringe: Kerry should be more modest and Bush should just keep his dirty fingers off ground zero. But within two evils, Bush does seem worse.

Bush should be as open about his military service record as Kerry has been about his. He cleary hasn't. The double standard is how the press still hasn't gotten to the bottom of the Bush MSR. Next to Bush prancing on an aircraft carrier in a flight suit Kerry is the modest candidate.

Now, lets have a full disclosure by our Bones vs Bones candidates on their membership to an elite secretive death cult.

quote:

---

Originally posted by stonebird:

Now, lets have a full disclosure by our Bones vs Bones candidates on their membership to an elite secretive death cult.

---

What, the Masons?

Justin Roby
Adjunct Instructor in English
GWU