Could this be why all the focus on Vietnam allowed

[Proud liberal Kat]

In other boards I go to, mostly Mom boards LOL, whenever the whole Vietnam controversy's coming up now are discussed, Bush supporters and the independents (which there are few LOL) are saying that it seems Kerry is running on Vietnam blah blah blah because he has a bad Senate record blah blah blah. So I got to thinking because it is true that I don't see much about his accomplishments and record. I know that the Media has some blame, but as far as strategy for Kerry it makes sense. He has some good things to stand on, like the BCCI?, Iran-Contra, breaking with party on Balanced Budget, bi-partisan work on POW's etc, etc. If the focus goes on Vietnam and all the ugliness and we get through the RNC and start going into September and October hammering home his record in the Senate, his accomplishments, the times he has stood apart from partisan politics and fought for what is right...that will be what sticks in voter's minds. It seems for the average undecided if everything about how hard Kerry fought for things like closing down fraudulent banking (which supported terrorism) before it was fashionable, uncovered the Iran-Contra scandal, has experience fighting in things like we need for fighting terrorism, fought for balance budgets etc, was all hashed out in July and August, it will become old by November 2nd. Better to hammer it home closer to decision day.
Kathy

[joefree1]

1. The rethugs are worry that we'll talk about Bush's record

The rethuglicans have become a one arm drummer. They're that desperate. Wait until the debates.


Download the free poster/sign here:
http://ediablo.com/eDiabloGallery.html

[librechik]

2. the main reason Kerry brought up Nam was the Pukkkes accused

him of being soft on defense, and his service is the ultimate response to that. He had to respond, even knowing they would ruthlessly attack him as the Jane Fonda of the Navy.

As for his record in the Senate, let's just do a little Republican-style scoring:

Bills introduced: Kerry-57 Cheney--2

Who was working harder, dja think?

Chump of course made no laws in his term as Governor of Texas. He did,
however, sign execution warrants on 120 or so Texas convicts, many of whom turned out to be innocent. Thousands of Iraqi civilians including innocent women and children have been slaughtered in the invasion. The Ground Zeroair quality debacle we won't know the score on for decades. But he was asleep in a FL schoolroom instead of protecting our skies when the second and third jets hit. 3000 more, using Republican math.

Kerry killed a VC carrying a rocketlauncher and probably saved lives by doing so.



Who is a bigger killer?

[Old and In the Way]

3. You are very correct.

As bad as the whole SBV blowback will be for Bush, there are far worse things for him to contemplate....like this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x644861

[A_Possum]

4. Exactly

It was way too early for the Smearboats to attack, way too much time to discredit them. (And they're going to regret it, tarred as liars for the rest of their lives, and tarring their own service, and they DESERVE IT.)

Here's my soundbite for getting across the complexity of the BCCI in a few words. Spread it around and use it any time you think you can:

Bush did business with Bin Laden's bankers while Kerry
was fighting to shut it down to terrorist and drug connections.

Long before September 11, 2001, Bush got a 25 million dollar loan from the same bankers that dealt with bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, while John Kerry fought to stop this bank's global laundering of money for drug lords and terrorists. John Kerry shut it down. He's been fighting terrorism at its roots since before George Bush ran for office.


And welcome to DU!

Note: the above loan, to Harken Energy, occurred in 1989 while Kerry was invesigating the web of money laundering by the BCCI.