As the Clinton/Obama mud-slinging festival continues, voters must be confused. Should they reject Hillary for making things up out of thin air, or should they reject Obama for hanging with his racist pastor for 20 years ? Decisions, decisions. The voters COULD look at the issues, but good luck finding any differences between the two candidates there. They both serve the same puppetmaster. It's said 'Vive le difference !', but in this case, there's no difference to vive. Instead, let's look to one of the Democratic heavyweight deep thinkers, DNC head Howard Dean (the Democrat's answer to Dan Quayle) for a suggestion.
Here's what Howie says about who you should vote for:
“The real issue is this. Who would you rather have in charge of the defense of the United States of America, a group of people who never served a day overseas in their life, or a guy who served his country honorably and has three Purple Hearts and a Silver Star on the battlefields of Vietnam?”
Point well made, Howie. Sounds like a strong endorsement of John McCain to me. Now, Mr. Dean did make the above statement in 2004, and he was talking about Jon Carry, but I'm sure Dean, being an honorable man (lol), would see that McCain's military resume is quite a bit stronger than Hanoi John's. I mean, at least McCain didn't commit treason. That should count for something. Then again, treason might be a plus with today's hate america far left crowd....
But I digress. It seems Sen. John McCain is going to launch a biography tour next week, and he will talk about his days as a Vietnam POW. In response, the honorable (lol) Howard Dean issued the following statement:
“John McCain can try to reintroduce himself to the country, but he can’t change the fact that he cast aside his principles to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with President Bush the last seven years. While we honor McCain’s military service, the fact is Americans want a real leader who offers real solutions, not a blatant opportunist who doesn’t understand the economy and is promising to keep our troops in Iraq for 100 years.”
The McCain people didn't much like Dean calling McCain a "blatant opportunist" in response to McCain talking about Vietnam. They think McCain has earned the right to talk about it, and then some. Also, it's about time to drop the 'McCain promises to keep the troops in Iraq for 100 years' crapola. The honorable (lol) Howard Dean knows darn well that McCain promised nothing of the sort, and was only referring to a possible small leftover guardian force, like we've had in Germany and Japan for 60+ years, not a large active fighting force. The equally honorable Obama and Clinton know this as well.
John McCain, btw, has been awarded the Silver Star, the Legion of Merit, two Bronze Star Medals, a Purple Heart and the Distinguished Flying Cross. That takes away the Left's 'chickenhawk' strategy for this election cycle (darn the luck !), especially since Barry and Hillary haven't served in the military at all, though Hillary took imaginary sniper fire. Thus, unlike 2004, military service will be MEANINGLESS to the Democrats. The Dems will do a complete 180 degree turnaround on the issue, and even turn McCain's military service into a negative. Instead of the 'John Kerry, reporting for duty' theme, the Dems are using a 'John McCain, warmongering Bush 3rd termer' meme (that word's for you, Rev). The Dems are, like I said, very honorable.
And they support the troops, no doubt about that.
Just like they did in Vietnam, a war that we won on the battlefield, but lost in the press and in the realm of public opinion. As General William Westmoreland said of US involvement in Vietnam:
"It's not that we lost the war militarily. The fact is we as a nation did not make good our commitment to the South Vietnamese."
The enemy in Vietnam said the same thing. Here's General Vo Nguyen Giap, supreme leader of the North Vietnamese Army, in a 1989 interview with CBS:
“We paid a high price [during the Tet offensive] but so did you [Americans]... not only in lives and materiel. Do not forget the war was brought into the living rooms of the American people... The most important result of the Tet offensive was it made you de-escalate the bombing, and it brought you to the negotiation table. It was, therefore, a victory... The war was fought on many fronts. At that time the most important one was American public opinion.”
Sounds like deja vu all over again. What's that they say about people who ignore history ?
About This Blog