OK he is a good deal older than me but he and I often agree on things, this is one of them:
I don’t like Bush’s lack of a strong line separating Church and State, his abortion and stem cell research positions, or his “General” Ashcroft appointment as America’s Attorney General; but, stuff like the below Oliver North (admittedly Pro-Bush!) comments and other aspects of Kerry concern me enough that I unavoidably might have to throw my vote away this time by casting it for whomever the Libertarian candidate is–or, I’ll skip the voting for President altogether, and instead vote the rest of the ballot. I’m gonna be 65 on my next birthday, I’ve served behind the Iron Curtain in Berlin as well as in Vietnam and Saudi Arabia, and I value the Constitutional right I enjoy to pursue by present “occupation”, but I am uncomfortable with voting either for Bush OR Kerry.
I’ve been reading and valuing all the information from the political postings to this Hash House Harrier Running Club listserv, but I’m still uncertain (and unwilling to be badgered one way or the other about my vote for the Presidency)!
FYI, the below is yet one other thing that makes me feel like “sitting out” voting for parts of the upcoming ballot, namely for President. I’ve never felt this way before:-(
Having said the above, I urge ALL of us to OBJECTIVELY become informed voters and to actually vote for those instances where we’re comfortable with our choices. Don’t sit out the overall voting–it’s not only our right to vote, it’s our personal responsibility.
The text of O. North’s letter fiollows:
“Of course, the president keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that. Well, if he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: ‘Bring it on.'” — Sen. John Kerry
As usual, you have it wrong. You don’t have a beef with President George Bush about your war record. He’s been exceedingly generous about your military service. Your complaint is with the 2.5 million of us who served honorably in a war that ended 29 years ago and which you, not the president, made the centerpiece of this campaign.
I talk to a lot of vets, John, and this really isn’t about your medals or how you got them. Like you, I have a Silver Star and a Bronze Star. I only have two Purple Hearts, though. I turned down the others so that I could stay with the Marines in my rifle platoon. But I think you might agree with me, though I’ve never heard you say it, that the officers always got more medals than they earned and the youngsters we led never got as many medals as they deserved.
This really isn’t about how early you came home from that war, either, John. There have always been guys in every war who want to go home. There are also lots of guys, like those in my rifle platoon in Vietnam, who did a full 13 months in the field. And there are, thankfully, lots of young Americans today in Iraq and Afghanistan who volunteered to return to war because, as one of them told me in Ramadi a few weeks ago, “the job isn’t finished.”
Nor is this about whether you were in Cambodia on Christmas Eve, 1968. Heck John, people get lost going on vacation. If you got lost, just say so. Your campaign has admitted that you now know that you really weren’t in Cambodia that night and that Richard Nixon wasn’t really president when you thought he was. Now would be a good time to explain to us how you could have all that bogus stuff “seared” into your memory — especially since you want to have your finger on our nation’s nuclear trigger.
But that’s not really the problem, either. The trouble you’re having, John, isn’t about your medals or coming home early or getting lost — or even Richard Nixon. The issue is what you did to us when you came home, John.
When you got home, you co-founded Vietnam Veterans Against the War and wrote “The New Soldier,” which denounced those of us who served — and were still serving — on the battlefields of a thankless war. Worst of all, John, you then accused me — and all of us who served in Vietnam — of committing terrible crimes and atrocities.
On April 22, 1971, under oath, you told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that you had knowledge that American troops “had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam.” And you admitted on television that “yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed.”
And for good measure you stated, “(America is) more guilty than any other body, of violations of (the) Geneva Conventions … the torture of prisoners, the killing of prisoners.”
Your “antiwar” statements and activities were painful for those of us carrying the scars of Vietnam and trying to move on with our lives. And for those who were still there, it was even more hurtful. But those who suffered the most from what you said and did were the hundreds of American prisoners of war being held by Hanoi. Here’s what some of them endured because of you, John:
Capt. James Warner had already spent four years in Vietnamese custody when he was handed a copy of your testimony by his captors. Warner says that for his captors, your statements “were proof I deserved to be punished.” He wasn’t released until March 14, 1973.
Maj. Kenneth Cordier, an Air Force pilot who was in Vietnamese custody for 2,284 days, says his captors “repeated incessantly” your one-liner about being “the last man to die” for a lost cause. Cordier was released March 4, 1973.
Navy Lt. Paul Galanti says your accusations “were as demoralizing as solitary (confinement) … and a prime reason the war dragged on.” He remained in North Vietnamese hands until February 12, 1973.
John, did you think they would forget? When Tim Russert asked about your claim that you and others in Vietnam committed “atrocities,” instead of standing by your sworn testimony, you confessed that your words “were a bit over the top.” Does that mean you lied under oath? Or does it mean you are a war criminal? You can’t have this one both ways, John. Either way, you’re not fit to be a prison guard at Abu Ghraib, much less commander in chief.
One last thing, John. In 1988, Jane Fonda said: “I would like to say something … to men who were in Vietnam, who I hurt, or whose pain I caused to deepen because of things that I said or did. I was trying to help end the killing and the war, but there were times when I was thoughtless and careless about it and I’m … very sorry that I hurt them. And I want to apologize to them and their families.”
Even Jane Fonda apologized. Will you, John?
The really sad thing to me is that these two assholes (Kerry and Bush) are the best qualified men that this country can produce. They are both liars, they are both power hungry men of mediocre intelligence. they are both puppets and their respective puppet masters do not have yours and my best interests in mind. If there is any hope at all for this country it lies in Libertarian ideals and principles.
Here is Some Food For Thought:
Neither John Kerry nor George Bush could get a job in the state of Georgia as a school bus driver (they both have DUI arrests). We would entrust all of our childrens future to two men we wouldn’t trust to drive them to school. This just makes me sick.
Speaking of Making Me Sick:
Tim Connelly’s latest plea on the editorial pages of AVN really made me want to hurl. Some excerpts:
“On any given day, I never know if I’ll be treated as a God, the Devil, or both, as is usually the case.”
“It seems I’m either being praised for my efforts, questioned about my ethics and integrity, and, more than anything else, I’m perceived as being one of the most powerful people in the industry.”
“Overall, I’m pretty good at letting negativity roll off my back, and this is a really fun business, despite the bad people and the bad things people say. But I can’t win and never will. That’s okay too.
So when you meet me, have some courtesy, have some sympathy, some restraint. Cause what’s confusing you is just the nature of my game. ”
Well Tim I can only speak for myself, but I treat people based on my experiences with them, for example if I say someone is a sell out, well it is because he sold out. Get my drift here? I suspect others in life (not just porn life) feel the same way. I usually take a neutral position when I first meet someone, even leaning a bit towards giving them the benefit of the doubt. As the relationship progresses and they show themselves to be void of any ethics or integrity then I tend to treat them like the Devil that they are. As to your “Sympahy For The Devil” Quote, well I have no sympathy for you, you make your bed and you lie in it, that doesn’t warrant sympathy, sympathy comes when someone is in a situation through no fault of his own. Empathy, where I put myself in your shoes, comes to mind…If I were you, I would start by keeping my word, and one final word to the wise. This business is small and when you trash talk people, it does get back to them. So don’t try to be nice to me while sticking a knife into my back.
I Particularly liked this quote from Tim:
“so my challenge now is to be true, honest, fair and reasonable…”
Since when are these things a challenge Tim? For you, maybe it is a challenge to be true, honest, fair and reasonable. Personally I think that quote speaks volumes.