OT - US Presidential Candiates Arrested!

[Krsqk]

alarikf said:
Oh my god, he CHANGED HIS MIND!

No, but seriously, there is no contradiction between being proud of what you are doing at the time and not in favor of the larger policies. When I was in Iraq, I took photos. Can you read my mind as well as yuo can read Kerry's and tell me why? I didn't think so.

EDIT: let me add some words that I think better explain what I mean: There is a world of difference between doing one's duty and trying to right wrongs. When he (or anyone) volounteered to go to Vietnam, to fight and perhaps die for his country, that's a powerful oath you take. You have a duty. It's not just pride in one's work, it's a calling. But, frankly (speaking from personal experience), almost getting killed tends to focus one's mind really well on what is important in life and what is not. And, I would guess that when his duty was over, he felt that he could then move on to dealing with issues or what he heard. A soldier or a marine or a sailor, is not going to disobey, be derelict, or otherwise bring shame upon their oath or their service. But when that is done, then they can reflect on what it was they were asked to do. Again, it takes a courageous man to do such reflection and come to the conclusion that the way the war was waged was wrong. END EDIT

And, perhaps he had an epiphany of sorts. When you're in-country for months and you see just one side, and then you get out and you talk to others and they tell you that they committed atrocities, that certainly could change someone's mind. And, hopefully, it *would* - again, I have a lot more respect for someone who can change their mind, especially on something of vast importance, than for someone who is going to stubbornly cling to some erroneous beleif.

That's why I can't have respect for anyone who says, at *any* point in their life, "Mistakes? I can't recall any I've made..."

That is not the type of person I'd like to be having a beer with.

I don't claim to be able to read his mind. His actions simply seem to indicate that he thought war was fine, or at least that being a hero in a war was fine. All right, no complaints there. But you can't say he simply just changed his mind about war, because he came back and said that he himself committed war crimes! That's not "Well, I used to think war was good, but now I've been enlightened to the evil we're doing"--by his own testimony, he was evil during his four months over there, while at the same time he was making films which promoted war. Something just doesn't add up there. If he had honestly just changed his mind, then I could handle that. But apparently, he held both of those opposing viewpoints simultaneously. Maybe he's just a little more open-minded than I am.

He didn't just "see the big picture" once he got out--he was right there involved in it (his atrocities). That didn't have anything to do with his duty or following orders. If he did commit them, why did he come back and say so? Conviction for that can bring some serious penalties, and he basically confessed in open testimony. And if he really did commit them, how can he say he is "proud" of his service to our country? That doesn't sound like something one can be proud of.

I repeat myself--either he was involved in war crimes while he was making war films, or he lied in his testimony and never saw or committed any war crimes. Either way, his motives are suspect.