Once again, I'll gladly concede the point that he has been quoted contradicting himself. What I'm still trying to point out is that this is irrelevant. Bush has been quoted doing the exact same thing in no less damning terms. More damning in fact; I frankly don't find Kerry's opinions on the Vietnam war all that pertinent, relatively. I do find this relevant, however:
During the 2000 campaign, George W. Bush argued against nation building and foreign military entanglements. In the second presidential debate, he said: "I'm not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say, 'This is the way it's got to be.'"
The United States is currently involved in nation building in Iraq on a scale unseen since the years immediately following World War II.
During the 2000 election, Mr. Bush called for U.S. troops to be withdrawn from the NATO peacekeeping mission in the Balkans. His administration now cites such missions as an example of how America must "stay the course."
Not to mention the others found here, all of which deal with the current problems facing this country rather than a war fought in the 1960s:http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/28/politics/main646142.shtml
So again, how is Kerry's Vietnam stance meaningful here, especially in light of his opponent?
I'll say again that Kerry being a "flip-flopper" is such a frequent issue because the Bush campaign has beaten everyone over the head with it. Bush supporters, finding it a convenient and simple idea, turn around and beat non-Bush supporters over the head with it. It's simply not a very valid or relevant line of argument and I'm sick of hearing it.
I won't say that it isn't a good technique -- Bush is trying to make his failure look like a success, and Kerry's intelligence look like weakness. Bush wants to contrast Kerry's "flip-flopping" to his own "resolve," when in fact Kerry's positions are calculated responses to developing events and Bush's are stubborn and arrogant attempts to project an image of pride or "toughness." Again, Kerry's stances are in no way any more of an appeal to voters than Bush's. Bush and his team are counting on his everyman, cowboy, straight-talking, tough guy, "it's hard work," stay the course, kill-the-brown-terrorists, God-bless-America image appealing to certain demographics in this country, and it seems to be working. Unfortunately, though these qualities may be likeable to many people, they are not necessarily the qualities of a responsible leader and should not be the ones people consider in making their decision. I think this couldn't be more transparent, and as such continue to be frustrated when people seem unable or unwilling to see through it.
EDIT: <tangent> Here's an interesting link I stumbled upon today which is quite applicable to the Bush administration and their decision-making processes:http://www.abacon.com/commstudies/groups/groupthink.html
~SteveThis comment was edited on Oct 4, 15:02.