||[Sep. 3rd, 2004|07:10 pm]
This regards multiple lies told about John Kerry... read or not, as you will.|
I'm getting really disgusted by the cheap lies being told about Mr. Kerry. It's not just the fact that they are lies; there are a lot of lies told in political campaigns. It's that they are so blasted *cheap*.
"John Kerry voted against a lot of important military equipment".
He voted against two defense appropriations bills. Those appropriation bills included those weapons systems. As is commented here:
a GOP liar could just as easily make the claim that he voted to shut down the entire US military... except that lie's just a little too large, and people wouldn't buy it. So, they cut the lie back, until it was one people might buy.
It's a lie using a common tactic by the Kerry-bashers right now... pretend that any Senate vote is a single, up-or-down event, and if your vote carries the day, no other action will be taken.
If that defense appropriations bill had failed, another one would have been drafted, some horses would be traded, some promises made, favors called in, and a new defense appropriations bill would be put together.
The same trick has gotten pulled over and over again on the 87 billion of extra funding Bush had to ask for. Kerry was in favor of spending the money, but he was also in favor of *GETTING* the money, and not just writing more IOUs.
If that appropriation had failed, do people *really* think another bill wouldn't have been drawn up? Do people *REALLY* think that there wouldn't have been a compromise?
I don't think anyone who thinks about the issue seriously does, but the Kerry-bashers don't seem to want anyone thinking.
The last one is kind of a two-parter. The current Republican 'line' is "why are there so many people talking about John Kerry's service record? They can't all be political opportunists, so where there's smoke, there must be fire... right?"
Sure... no one is bitter over a war that happened oh-so-long ago. People didn't bitch and moan about Clinton protesting the war ON FOREIGN SOIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(Sorry, I ran out of exclamation marks before I added as many as the typical Clinton-basher of the day used.)
The fact of the matter is, John Kerry did something that really tears up the US psyche... I say this from observation, and possibly from being a bit cynical right now, so take it in that spirit.
He talked about bad things done by the US.
His testimony was a plea that we stop sending soldiers into Viet Nam, where they would end up committing these atrocities... the atrocities that had been related to him.
He'd been told about these things, and asked to talk about them. What was he supposed to do? Ignore that request? It was part of the information that needed to be brought forward in an attempt to do something. And, I understand people getting pissed off for two reasons.
1) because they'd fought honorably, and felt their honor had been impugned by his statements, or
2) because they had guilty consciences.
The former, well, part of being honorable is taking a stand for honor. That means you *HAVE* to highlight the atrocities, bring them to light, and put an end to them. If you don't, you only *THINK* you're being honorable, and you're... well, "not a very good person" if you're willing to sweep atrocities under the rug.
The latter, well there are two classes I can see.
Those who became barbaric and committed atrocities, and can't deal with it in their own minds. Part of that is the responsibility of the US leadership of that time, part of that is their own responsibility. Neither should be laid at the feet of John Kerry, though I understand that it will be.
The other class, those who simply were exposed to the horrors of war,or maybe who slipped up and shot the wrong person, or shot at the wrong time, or whatever.
For those people, I really *DO* feel bad. But it's not John Kerry's fault that they feel bad. It's the war's fault, and John Kerry did *not* run the war. In his own way, John Kerry was standing up for them, trying to make it so there'd be no more victims. And yes, I suppose they could have felt he was attacking them for what they did, but the fact of the matter is, he wasn't.
There's a lot of bad blood over Viet Nam, and there might still be for a long time. A statement that John Kerry did something terrible, however, is one that I simply can't see how anyone can make fairly and honestly if they're fully informed about his actions. I can only see it as an attempt to manipulate emotions falsely. (Or, obviously, "as a repetition of something from a trusted, but terribly untrustworthy, source".)
What bothers me the most about these lies is not so much the lies themselves getting told... it's that they're such staples of the election campaign. Such a large portion of their message... and it's just flat out, completely, misleadingly wrong.
The only thing that will bother me more is if these lies continue to be successful for the next two months.