Business Week: Flinging the Foul Mud of Vietnam

[Xipe Totec]

Mon Aug 23, 8:10 AM ET

The next time the nation gets into a war, why would any American with an interest in national service show up to fight? When did the U.S. come to blithely accept the tarring for political gain of honorably discharged combat veterans? Obviously, I'm talking about the attacks on John Kerry (news - web sites) by a bunch of angry, Bush-backing Vietnam-war vets who claim the Democratic candidate doesn't deserve all of the medals, which include Bronze and Silver Stars and three Purple Hearts, that he won in combat in Vietnam.

But I'm also talking about the attacks on Republican Senator and former prisoner of war John McCain -- a genuine hero by anyone's definition -- during his South Carolina primary battle against George W. Bush for the 2000 Presidential nomination. And the relentless assaults on the patriotism of Democrat Max Cleland by Republican Saxby Chambliss, who defeated Cleland for one of Georgia's Senate seats in 2002. If you want proof of Cleland's patriotism, all you need to know is that he lost three limbs in Vietnam.

It's time for Bush in particular -- and Americans in general -- to get on the right side of this issue once and for all. No moral equivalency exists between Kerry and Bush on the issue of service in Vietnam. Kerry served in combat. He was shot at. Not Bush. If you don't think it's important for a President to have served in combat, fine, make your choice on other grounds. But if you do, Kerry is your man, at least on this one issue.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=66&ncid=66&e=1&u=/bw/20040823/bs_bw/nf200408236115db045

[pmbryant]

1. Fabulous op-ed!

"NO EQUIVALENCY."

:thumbsup:

Peter

[Alpharetta]

2. beautiful

I had been stalling on renewing my BusinessWeek subscription which ran out a few months ago. I just might renew.

They got awfully rah-rah Bush back in 2002 and 2003 and I had resolved to stop subscribing when my 3 yr subscription ran out.

But recently their pendulum has swung back to the middle. BW still doesn't acknowledge the impact of our federal deficit and many writers there continue to act as if the tax cuts achieved an economic turnaround, but at least they're not ALL pro-Bush.

Despite BW's "dumbing down" of stories over the past 5 yrs and their continued worshipful writeups of executives who clearly are mismanagers, bullshit artists, and fraudsters, I can't name a better weekly magazine to give me business stories.

[2Design]

3. Great article.....now if this could get legs and grow on tv that would

be great......

[Xipe Totec]

4. That It's Business Week Is What Amazed Me

This is not a publication renowned for leaning left of center. It represents the center and right of center opinion for the most part. If they're angry at Bush for this, and clearly they are pointing the finger at him, then Bush is in DEEP DEEP TROUBLE.

:evilgrin:

(sp.)

[Alpharetta]

5. any chance BW would include this piece in their PRINT edition?

[chromotone]

6. Could this be the "Have you no shame?" statement...

...that turned around the McCarthy witch-hunts?

Could this be the light shown on Bush and his cockroaches that makes them scurry away from the disgusted eyes of Americans?

[Xipe Totec]

7. Fiat Lux!

Let there be light!

And for once, it is the cockroaches that are wearing the pointy boots!

:kick:

[Hamlette]

8. kicking for a great article...says it all.

[progressivebydesign]

9. Wow... Business Week has restored my faith in humans..

.. and in journalists. I've been really warmed to read so much today, coming from unlikely sources. This issue needs to bite the GOP in the butt... shame on them for doing this. Shame on them. This editorial is the most sane thing I've read all day. I'm impressed.