1

"If he can’t handle the pressures and responsibilities of a junior Naval officer without abusing his power how can he think he’s qualified to be the Commander in Chief?"

Perhaps you think that nearly forty years of life experience does nothing to enhance one's judgement and maturity. If that is the case, take the Metro next time you're in D.C.; Bush may be driving around drunk as a skunk. War criminal or not, Kerry could hardly do worse as Commander-in-Chief than the bozo currently in place.

2

The group's report has been discrited. See here for more information.

3

Spot,

The group's report has been discrited. See here for more information.

I didn't see anything on that site you linked to that discredited the group's claims. Can you be more specific?

4

Kerry's biggest problem is that all he has is his war record. I don't remember him mentioning his 20 year Senate record or his record as Lt Gov under Dukakis at the convention or any of his stump speeches. He certainly isn't running on any bold new ideas like reforming Social Security or Medicare. His main ideas seem to be that the War on Terror/Iraq needs more allies, that we need to raise taxes on the top 2% of income earners, and that this (tax increase) will raise enough money to provide free healthcare for everybody and still give the "middle class" a tax cut. Pardon me if I don't get all goose-pimply. The Dems problem is not that Bush in unbeatable (he's clearly not), but that they picked a dud candidate.

5

Whoops, "in unbeatable" should be "is unbeatable".

6

If you take away Kerry's war record, all you have is that he's not Bush. I don't see how Bush has been bad enough that this will be a winning strategy for anybody but diehard Democrats. It might have worked against Herbert Hoover in 1932, but Bush is no Hoover and this ain't 1932.

7

Kerry put his life in danger for his country. Kerry saved a man's life while serving. People have come forward to say they served with him and the people who actually served on the boat he commanded have said that based on how his conduct whenthey served together, together with what he has done since then, they wholeheartedly support him and think he would make a great commander in chief.

Bush says that he completed his service in the Texas guard. No one has come forward to say that they served with him. He refused to take the med exam that was required. He was suspended from flying. He has a dwi in his past and admitted to a drinking problem.
our current commander in chief says that he spends time thinking of ways to hurt america.

Bashing Kerry's war record is such bad news for the right wing, but it's all they got now.
Desperate times call for desperate measures. As John McCain says, he can't believe the president would pull a cheap shot like this-referring to the attack ad which you apparently liked.

8

This is kind of strange. I don't know what you're getting at here. With the exception of the question of Kerry's participation in war crimes, the issues you raise are almost laughably trivial.

(1) The rule for reassignment is not that you get transferred after winning three Purple Hearts, you get transferred after getting three wounds that qualify for Purple Hearts.

Thanks for clearing that up.

(2) More than two years after the fact, Kerry said he "deliberated for about two weeks . . . [and] I finally made the decision to go back" after qualifying for reassignment; you show he actually filed the request papers within days of being wounded.

And this means . . . what? Maybe he egregiously lied by saying that he thought for two weeks about his decision when he actually thought for just a few days - while in the same breath describing exactly what he did and why he did it. (That is, he didn't lie about what he did or why - he lied about how long he thought about it first.) That seems like rather a strange lie to tell, but I suppose it's possible. I can't see why he'd do it or what it means if he did, but that's the worst possible interpretation you can put on the matter. More likely explanations? - (a) he put in the paperwork but continued to consider his decision, knowing he could retract his request if he chose, and in 1971 was referring to that deliberative period after filing the request but before actually making up his mind to go through with it; (b) he put in the paperwork first and continued to think about it afterward, and later misremembered the sequence of events; (c) he just plain misremembered, thinking - two years later, on another continent, in the middle of major political events - that his earlier misgivings had taken longer than they actually had.

Honestly - this is an accusation against him?

(3) "[Kerry] received high marks in the areas of 'loyalty to command', 'reliability', and 'cooperation' despite the fact that he was participating in mutinous behavior."

Note that Kerry never said he personally participated in mutinous behavior, nor even that his "opposition to the war" in any active sense began in Vietnam. He says that "the crews" of two boat squadrons had begun to disobey orders. He refers (indirectly) to himself only in saying that his commander "pressed our objections" to certain orders - implying that he himself had voiced objections, but not that he had disobeyed orders. In your prior quote, he said he opted to transfer out of Vietnam because he "could do more against he war back [home]" - but it doesn't say what he was "doing against the war" in Vietnam other than voicing "objections." None of this is incompatible with an evaluation that says he was reliable and cooperative.

From Kerry's own description of his behavior, he actively engaged in practices he felt uneasy about and later decided were objectionable or illegal, and he voiced objecttions to them at the same time he was leading missions involving those practices (and while some boat crews were actively resisting them). Since he had notable success as a boat skipper (Bronze Star, Silver Star), I would expect something like the following: Kerry would receive positive fitness evaluations, while experiencing increasing misgivings about his missions, and would seek an opportunity for other service when it became available. As a matter of fact, that's exactly what happened. None of it involves personal "mutiny," nor does it require that Kerry is lying when he says that he disliked the missions he was given. (Is there really any doubt that he was anti-war when he got back from Vietnam? What exactly are you accusing him of?)

(4) Kerry is unfit for responsible office because, by his own admission, he participated in what he should have known were war crimes in Vietnam.

This is actually a reasonable concern.

The facts are clear (enough): Kerry says (and we may as well believe him) that he participated in forbidden practices such as indiscriminate shooting in free-fire zones, etc. Kerry also claims that he was not aware that these practices were forbidden at the time, but he had increasing misgivings about them and later came to believe that they were illegal. As a result of these experiences he turned against the war and actively campaigned against in when he returned to the States.

It seems to me there are two issues: (a) should Kerry have known (could he reasonably have known) that he was committing war crimes?, and (b) should someone with his background be eligible for high office?

(A) The question whether Kerry - and the thousands of others who committed similar acts - should have known at the time that what he was doing was prohibited is complicated. One wants to say that he should have known - that it should have been obvious, either from training is the laws of war or from simple common sense. We have to uphold some such standard if we are to have a decent military at all. But the practical experience of the times seems to suggest otherwise.

All troops receive indoctrination in the laws of war, and officers receive special courses in the subject. Yet abuses were rampant in Vietnam; many abusive practices (including free-fire zones, harassment fire, village burnings, civilian assassinations, and more) were official policy. And these policies were couched in justificatory rationalizations that sought to legalize them (for instance, dropping leaflets warning villagers to leave the area, and then declaring anyone who remained in their homes "suspected VC"). Under the circumstances, when the only authoritative guidance on accepted practices - and those to whom Kerry would have to file an official objection - were actually ordering the missions on which atrocities were committed, under illegal doctrines which they declared were legal, some confusion as to what was what is understandable.

Does this absolve Kerry of failing to see the moral right? It does not, I think - especially if (as Kerry himself says) we are to uphold the Nuremburg standard that "following orders" does not obviate basic moral responsibilities. I think we must conclude that Kerry, and hundreds of thousands of Vietnam vets like him, were guilty of failing to oppose a system - a powerful, implacable, and self-justificatory system - that embraced war crimes and other moral crimes, and of participating in war crimes that they should have recognized for what they were and rejected more forcefully. (In fact, one can argue that Kerry's squadron's mutinous boat crews were more morally responsible than Kerry and other "loyal" officers.) But we can also recognize that they were driven to it by an armed and lawless force that went to official lengths, by policy and in operation, to vacate the war crimes doctrines they supposedly upheld, and to convince their own members that such violations were justified.

(B) Given this history, can such a person serve as a national leader?

I think this question depends greatly on that individual's personal history. In Kerry's case, his record is not merely that he participated in actions he should have known were illegal, and that he was personally uncomfortable with. More than that, he (apparently) actively voiced objections to those actions and attempted - within the bounds of discipline - to curtail them. He then made a decision - explicitly predicated on his belief that those actions were immoral - to transfer out of duty that required them and to then engage in significant active efforts to end those practices and the war that engendered them. He then pursued a career of public service that included attention to veterans' issues, building bridges to and establishing cooperative programs with the former enemy, and enacting his vision of proper military policy. He never shrank from acknowledging his own responsibility for his actions in the war, and he made his experiences a center point of his efforts to prevent further such transgressions later.

Given this, I think Kerry's response to his experiences, and his understanding of his own guilt, is as much as could be expected of him. Given that he, and many others, did do what they did, they then have to live with and respond to their own guilt. Kerry has responded to his by acknowledging it, accepting it, and trying to make amends by turning it into a tool for better practices in the future. It would be preferable if none of that were necessary, but after the events had happened, it seems to me, this is the best and most responsible way of dealing with them. (Even if you question some of his tactics or policies, I think it's clear that Kerry's understanding of Vietnam has always reflected a heartfelt sense that he had a responsibility to make wrong things right - which is what we want from people who have done wrong, even if we wish they hadn't done wrong.)

So, we have a man who not only did wrong by his own admission, but has actively taken responsibility for it as fully as he can. Is that kind of person fit for office? Here we have to simply draw some kind of value line. Either no one who committed or condoned abusive behavior in Vietnam is qualified for responsible positions thereafter, or at least some people who did so (e.g., those who accepted their own responsibility and tried to make good on it) are so qualified. Choosing one of these alternatives is largely a subjective matter. A few examples may help, though:

- Colin Powell was a Major in the unit that committed the My Lai murders; he received a letter from a soldier detailing various atrocities committed by Powell's unit, specifically including My Lai, before the story broke; he was charged with investigating and responding to the complaint, which he did by not interviewing any of the persons directly involved including the letter writer, and issuing a response denying the events; Powell was also directly involved in the Iran-Contra coverup, the Panama invasion, and other illegal events - Powell's fitness for high office was judged as follows: he was elevated to Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff by George H.W. Bush, and Secretary of State by George W. Bush, and is frequently mentioned as a possible Republican Presidential candidate.

- Oliver North violated numerous laws and treaties in engaging in illegal sales of arms to countries officially designated as "terrorist supporting governments"; he diverted the illegal profits of the sales to terrorist organizations in still other countries; he engaged in illegal coverups of these actions, including shredding documents and attempting to delete thousands of incriminatory e-mails; he was convicted of numerous felonies - the convictions were overturned on a matter of "privileged testimony" which does not question the truth of the actual finding of guilt; he continues to boast that he is proud of his illegal activities - North's fitness for high office was judged as follows: he was an official Republican candidate for the Senate in 1994.

- Admiral John Poindexter initiated and planned the Iran-Contra plot and personally directed every aspect of it, including the sending of arms to terrorist governments or guerrillas in two nations; he also directly participated in the coverup and destruction of evidence, and gave misleading testimony to Congress; he was convicted of numerous felonies - the convictions were overturned on a matter of "privileged testimony" which does not question the truth of the actual finding of guilt; he has never accepted any responsibility for his wrongdoing, and boasts that he took active steps to prevent the truth of President Reagan's involvement in the plot from being known - Poindexter's fitness for higher office was judged as follows: he was appointed by George W. Bush to direct the "Information Assurance Office" at DARPA, where he concocted the extremely creepy and universally reviled "Total Information Awareness" surveillance program.

Comparatively, then, how do we evaluate Kerry's record of participation in questionable combat, under orders and in extremely confused circumstances, followed by his personal conviction that such participation was wrong, his active efforts to avoid participation, and his subsequent life-long history of acknowledgement and acceptance of responsibility for those events and action to prevent their recurrence? Specifically, is this record in a potential President better or worse than the records of other potential Presidents, potential Senators, and appointed anti-terrorism program directors - records of the active coverup of worse atrocities in Vietnam than Kerry tried to prevent, of arms dealing to terrorists, of destruction of evidence of abuses and obstruction of their investigation, and of lifelong lack of repentance or acknowledgement of guilt? Again, this is a subjective question, but I think that Kerry's record stands miles above that of the confused and conflicted Colin Powell, or the execreble John Poindexter and Oliver North.

A final note: consider also that we are not really asking whether Kerry is fit for office in an absolute sense, but rather, given that we have to choose between them, whether Kerry or Bush is more fit in a relative sense. To that question there hardly seems room for debate: Kerry is a vastly better person, better leader, better thinker, and better American than Bush. If Kerry is unfit in some absolute sense, then our only choice is to elect no one President this year. But if we have to elect one or the other of the two candidates, then it hardly matters what Kerry did - nobody is worse than Bush.

9

I guess the biggest thing that worries me about Bush is the secrecy. I think most of the mistakes Bush has made and most of the negative spin stems from that practice. Every President has tried to keep secrets and every public and Congress has tried to peel away the secrecy.

Secrecy, even when started with the best of intentions, breeds contempt for the law, unaccountability, conspiracy (both real and imagined), incompetence, corruption.
Secrecy comes complete with so many drawbacks that we employ it only in the most unavoidable circumstances: CIA Secrets, Weapons Secrets, NSA, in times of war, etc.

But does that apply to SEC records of Harken Energy trades, or the reserve duty records of a public official, or the cardiac health of the Vice President, or financial dealings of an ex-CEO of a firtune 500 company, or establishing energy policy, or the limits set on environmental pollutants/toxins? Should it?

Take energy policy, the WH maintains that secret advice and deals are vital to operation of the executive branch. They claim, like every other repub or democratic WH before them, that without that secrecy the advisors could not provide objective advice to the Executive Office.
That's bullsh*t. It was BS when Clinton claimed it, and it’s BS now. You show me someone who is ashamed of the advice they're giving the President on something like oil and energy policy or industrial pollution, and I'll show you a guy whose advice is not in the public interest. Or take the VP's health; the GOP demanded it should be public information to know the shape and size of President Clinton's erect penis in the wake of Lewinsky gate. But the cardiac health of the VP when the GOP is in office is 'not relevant'.
Another important reason we avoid secrecy is because our system of government is critically dependant on 'we the people' having access to accurate, pertinent, information about our candidates. Secrecy is undemocratic. It erodes our liberties, our power, our effectiveness at every level.
When the party in the WH is in control of Congress, the primary institution left to pierce the secrecy is the media. The media is only effective when driven and uninhibited.

10

Kerry stands for nothing. He's an intellectual misfit perfectly designed for the Senate...he's incapable of making hard decisions and will always want to analyze and research a thing to death...anything to avoid making an unpopular and difficult decicion.

11

DS--You probably need to give the DNC your new fax number or e-mail address. You are still using the Summer 2002 talking points memo. Nobody's talking about Harken Energy or the TANG anymore. The new talking points are Bush mis-led the country into war, Kerry has a secret plan to end the war, and, Kerry is a Vietnam War hero.

12

Some important questions:

1) If a veteran (just by virtue of being a veteran) is to be considered a hero above reproach and who's accounts of past military events are never to be questioned (such as Kerry's and McCain's)...... don't these Swift Boat veterans also deserve to be treated with the same honor and dignity, and have their own accounts be unquestioned?

2) If one says that because these Swift Boat vets are attacking Kerry, they are automatically discounted and discredited...... shouldn't Kerry also be discredited because of his repeated public statements (including testifying before congress) in which he attacked his fellow veterans in 'Nam?

3) If these events are ancient history that have no bearing on current political issues for this campaign...... shouldn't that also be the case for President Bush's National Guard service?

4) If not, then shouldn't this information be investigated at least as vigorously and as extensively as Bush's record (dental records, etc...)?

5) If this ad is the dirtiest of dirty political tricks...... do you feel the same way about the NAACP's ad against Bush in 2000 regarding the Texas dragging murder case? Or MoveOn.org's ad comparing President Bush to Hitler? Or that blatantly manipulative and propagandist so-called documentary "Fahrenheit 911" by Michael Moore?

6) Shouldn't those people and their organizations also be verbally denounced, rejected and shunned by not just the media, but also by Kerry & Edwards, their campaign, the entire Democrat party... repeatedly?

7) What if these veterans are telling the truth (either in whole or in part)...... Shouldn't there be a proper investigation requiring full disclosure (including having Kerry release his military records) in order to determine the facts of the events in question (just as what was done with regard to President Bush's records)?

8) Wasn't the McCain-Feingold soft-money campaign finance reform bill supposed to clean-up and eliminate this type of third-party compaign ads? And why are most of these 527s funded from the left/liberal part of the political spectrum (most notably MoveOn.org which is funded by ultra-liberal, multi-billionaire George Soros)?

9) George Soros? Aren't all billionaires "evil" conservatives?

Just some things to consider, especially since Kerry put his military service in the forefront at the DNC convention (remember the "reporting for duty" salute, etc.?), while continuing to dismiss the honorable service of National Guardsmen.

13

Here is one of the liars you are tossing your hat in the ring with, Joe.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/08/06/veteran_retracts_criticism_of_kerry/

WASHINGTON -- A week after Senator John F. Kerry heralded his wartime experience by surrounding himself at the Democratic convention with his Vietnam ''Band of Brothers," a separate group of veterans has launched a television ad campaign and a book that questions the basis for some of Kerry's combat medals.

But yesterday, a key figure in the anti-Kerry campaign, Kerry's former commanding officer, backed off one of the key contentions. Lieutenant Commander George Elliott said in an interview that he had made a ''terrible mistake" in signing an affidavit that suggests Kerry did not deserve the Silver Star -- one of the main allegations in the book. The affidavit was given to The Boston Globe by the anti-Kerry group to justify assertions in their ad and book.

Elliott is quoted as saying that Kerry ''lied about what occurred in Vietnam . . . for example, in connection with his Silver Star, I was never informed that he had simply shot a wounded, fleeing Viet Cong in the back."

The statement refers to an episode in which Kerry killed a Viet Cong soldier who had been carrying a rocket launcher, part of a chain of events that formed the basis of his Silver Star. Over time, some Kerry critics have questioned whether the soldier posed a danger to Kerry's crew. Crew members have said Kerry's actions saved their lives.

Yesterday, reached at his home, Elliott said he regretted signing the affidavit and said he still thinks Kerry deserved the Silver Star.

''I still don't think he shot the guy in the back," Elliott said. ''It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words. I'm the one in trouble here."

14

And then there's the guy who said this back in 1996:

"As far as I was concerned, the war was won over there in that part for that period. And it was mainly won because of the bravado and the courage of the young officers that ran the boats, the SWIFT boats and the Coast Guard cutters and Senator Kerry was no exception. He was among the finest of those," he said in 1996."

Who said that? Some creep named Adm. Roy Hoffman. What does Roy Boy say now in these stupid ads, 8 years later? Let's see:

"John Kerry has not been honest," before another veteran, Adrian Lonsdale, finishes the thought, saying: "And, he lacks the capacity to lead."

What a bunch of garbage.

15

Rob believe it or not I actually don't care what the DNC is tlaking about. My concern is secrecy, stonewalling, i.e. the potential abuse and the consequences to us 'regular folk'.
That potential exists for any WH. Right now Bush happens to be the one in the crosshairs because he's the one sitting in the Oval Office.
If Kerry gets elected I'll be all over his ass when he inevitably pulls the same crap.

16

Larry, you may have been misled by Mike Kranish. Take a look at George Elliott's actual affidavit.

Note that the Mike Kranish who writes for the Boston Globe is the same Mike Kranish who is writing for the Kerry/Edwards campaign.

17

Monkey Brad: your point re the Boston Globe is totally bogus. The Globe is no friend to John Kerry. Let me know if you need further evidence of that fact.

I suppose you're going to tell me that the National Conservative Weekly or whatever rag you pulled that article off of is somehow objective? Let's be serious.

The affidavit is entirely consistent with what Kranish wrote in his article. Mr. Eliot has a lot of explaining today. He is flipping and spinning like a fish on a frying pan.

These bozos aren't doing anything except making Vietnam Veterans look like a bunch of idiots. It continues to be fun watching their attempts to smear Kerry blow up in their faces.

Once again: Kerry signed up for combat duty when he didn't have to. George Bush flaked on his non-combat reserve duty. That's all that needs to be said (oh, and then there's Bush's miserably Presidency).

Let's face it, if Bush and his mindless power-obsessed Administration hadn't let 9/11 happen, Bush would have NOTHING to show after 4 years. As it is, he managed to convince a bunch of dumb kool-aid drinkers that HE is somehow responsible for making them "safer" (when, in fact, we are less safe than we were before he decided to invade Iraq).

Do I think Kerry is God's gift to the United States? Of course not. But I highly doubt that he intends to pull the kind of garbage that the Chimp and Dickless Cheney have pulled. And that is why I (and most of the country -- AGAIN) will vote Democrat.

18

Do I think Kerry is God's gift to the United States? Of course not. But I highly doubt that he intends to pull the kind of garbage that the Chimp and Dickless Cheney have pulled. And that is why I (and most of the country -- AGAIN) will vote Democrat.

Larry, you are clueless if you think that the US is going to elect a confessed war criminal. I realize that the Democrats could have nominated Charles Manson and you would vote for him just because he isn’t Bush. The rest of the country, though, isn't going to let that happen.

19

C'mon Larry. I'm no Bush fan but he didn't cause 9-11 or 'let it happen'.

20

Primary source = "hardly objective"?

Now Kranish acting as a journalist and writing copy for the Dems' campaign, I guess that's objective. OK. Fine.

21

What's happening? I'm getting dragged into the sniping. AAAAGGGGGHHHHH!

This was not. Supposed. To happen.

Let me take this opportunity to mention that when tgirsch referred to something on another thred as "the most evil thing since Cop Rock, my opinion of him improved dramatically. Good line. I may have to use it in conversation.

22

"I'm no Bush fan but he didn't cause 9-11 or 'let it happen'."

DS -- Let's say that Joe kept saying to you, "I need to know if someone is going to try to throw a pie at me in Texas. I need information about that before I will take any extra steps."

and then you had a bunch of people working for months researching the issue and they prepared you a memo that stated, "Larry Lord Determined to Throw Something at Joe Carter," which mentioned specifically in the text the possibility of a pie being thrown at Joe.

And you give Joe the memo. And Joe does nothing. Zilcho. And let's say a couple weeks later he gets a pie in the face, courtesy of yours truly.

And just for fun, let's say that if we search Joe's blog we can find a statement from a year earlier where he says, "I could do a lot more with this blog if only I had some controversial event happen to me like someone throwing a pie in my face."

Would it be fair to say under these circumstance that Joe "let it happen"?

You're damn right it would be fair.

As to whether Bush "caused" 9/11, I never said that so I won't waste time responding.

23

"Now Kranish acting as a journalist and writing copy for the Dems' campaign, I guess that's objective. OK. Fine."

Brad, are you suggesting that Kranish fabricated Eliot's quotes or what? Where is the inaccuracy in Kranish' article?

The fact that you have some conservative rag stating that "the article is wrong" which includes an affidavit that is ENTIRELY CONSISTENT with Kranish's article doesn't help your case here. Not at all.

24

For what it's worth, note that Kranish apparently wrote only the "Introduction" to the Kerry/Edwards campaign book. (The Amazon Web site lists him as author, but it's apparently a bungled rush job. The book is not even in print yet, and Amazon also lists its offical title as "Kerry-edwards" [sic the lower-case], when their own cover photo clearly shows the title is "Our Plan for America" and Kerry and Edwards are listed as authors. The Amazon listing is simply screwed up.) I don't for a minute believe that Kerry and Edwards actually wrote that book, but Kranish didn't either.

I assume Kranish is sympathetic to Kerry if he was asked to write the "Introduction" to the campaign book, and I'm surprised he is allowed to continue reporting on Kerry with such an association, but, still, he is not actually "writing for the campaign." Kranish is an author, with two other Boston Globe reporters, of a recent political biography of Kerry (expanded from a story series in the Globe). Apparently the Globe regarded the campaign book Introduction as just a kind of extension of his reporting - though it still looks odd.

As for the he said/he said controversy, it's at this point indeterminate. Apparently, two weeks ago this guy Elliot signed a notarized affidavit, at the request of the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" that says, in its entire substantive text (minus the legal mumbo jumbo):

"When Kerry came back to the States, he lied about what occurred in Vietnam, comparing his other commanders and me to Lieutenant Calley of My Lai, comparing the American armed forces to the army of Genghis Khan, and making similar misstatements. Kerry was also not forthright in Vietnam. For example, in connection with his Silver Star, I was never informed that he had simply shot a wounded, fleeing Viet Cong in the back."

The SBVT then used this statement in an ad attacking Kerry. (Neither of these facts is in dispute.) Now, the BoGlob claims that Elliot told its reporter that he signed the affidavit after being pressured to do so and without considering it carefully, now regrets doing so, and believes that the last two (at least) of those three sentences are false. The SBVT group claims that they have since been in contact with Elliot directly, and that he has repudiated (to them) the statement attributed to him in the Globe (i.e., that he now denies that he recently retracted what he earlier swore was true).

Conceivably, all these claims could be true, but that would make Elliot one very flighty guy. Presumably, either the Globe or SBVT is wrong. I suspect we'll hear more in the next day or two. With no further evidence to go on, my money is on the Globe; I think that their biased reporter is more believable than the SBVT's raving lunatics. Either way, though, we'll know more soon.

25

"Larry, you are clueless if you think that the US is going to elect a confessed war criminal. I realize that the Democrats could have nominated Charles Manson and you would vote for him just because he isn’t Bush. The rest of the country, though, isn't going to let that happen."

Given the current poll numbers, you seem a bit overconfident. Is there some reason you expect Americans to suddenly rally around the President? I know I would sooner vote for Al Sharpton than see Bush II reelected. Ugh. It hurts to think about it, but amputation is better than cancer, even if one's prosthetic limb sucks.

26

"I realize that the Democrats could have nominated Charles Manson and you would vote for him just because he isn’t Bush."

Well, for what it's worth, Charlie on his best days is a much more engaging and literate speaker than George W. And Charlie can play guitar and sing better than either candidate.

Just out of curiosity, is there anything Constitutional in the way of Charlie being Presidnet?

27

Larry, Kranish seems to have exaggerated Elliott's reluctance over using "those words" into reluctance over having signed an affidavit overall. Seems overdrawn to me, in light of Elliott's explanation.

I need to submit the following clarification of my accusation about Kranish's status as a journalist being jeopardized by writing for the Kerry campaign.

Boston Globe editor Martin Baron put out a statement today stating that "[i]t is completely untrue that Boston Globe reporter Michael Kranish ever contracted to write for a Kerry campaign publication.  Earlier this summer, Mr. Kranish worked with Public Affairs, the publisher of the Boston Globe biography of Kerry...to write a short introduction to a second project: an independent, unauthorized review of publicly available documents dealing with the platform and policy statements of Kerry and Edwards.  When Public Affairs subsequently struck anagreement with the Kerry campaign to do an official book, Kranish's relationship with the project immediately ended."

The clip above came from Hugh Hewitt's blog, which currently has broken permalinks.

28

Joe:

Larry, you are clueless if you think that the US is going to elect a confessed war criminal. I realize that the Democrats could have nominated Charles Manson and you would vote for him just because he isn’t Bush. The rest of the country, though, isn't going to let that happen.

29

Monkey Brad:
Let me take this opportunity to mention that when tgirsch referred to something on another thred as "the most evil thing since Cop Rock, my opinion of him improved dramatically. Good line. I may have to use it in conversation.

You're welcome. I have to admit, I had to think a few minutes to come up with something evil enough; I almost went with Full House (Bob Saget, Dave Coulier, and John Stamos? That's pretty evil...), but then I realized there was no singing. Thus, it was not quite evil enough. No, it had to be Cop Rock.

Joe:

For the record, I would not vote for Manson over Bush, but that's about what it would take for me to vote Bush. In all likelihood, I would abstain, as I did in 1992, when there was no one worth voting for. Or, if I lived in Nevada, I would vote "none of these."

30

tg--Wow, you wouldn't vote for Manson over Bush, but you probably wouldn't vote for Bush over Manson either. I would expect that from Larry Lord, but I alway thought you were one of the reasonable lefties in here. Stock tip for everybody in here, if Bush wins start buying stock in companies that produce guns, razor blades, rope, and sleeping pills. The suicide rate is gonna skyrocket.

31

tg--I just figured it out, you thought Joe was talking about Marilyn Manson, not Charles. I could see voting for him (her?) over Bush, but I am not sure that he (she?) is eligible to run. Is he (she?) a US citizen over 35 years of age?

32

Further Update:

George Elliott actually has provided "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" with a second notarized statement reaffirming his original statement criticizing Kerry. (Available off Monkey Brad's link above, reproduced here.)

The statement is kind of odd. It focuses largely on Kerry's famed Silver-Star-winning episode in which he leaped on shore to pursue a VC carrying an RPG. According to Kerry and others, the already-wounded guerrilla was moving away from the boat to gain enough distance for the warhead to arm after firing (or just so that he himself would not be caught in the blast), so that he could attack the boat with it; Kerry pursued him and shot him before he could fire on the boat. To his detractors, this means he "shot a fleeing, wounded VC in the back" and is therefore a coward. Elliott devotes much of his statement to speculating on whether Kerry shot him in the front or in the back, and quotes a rather vague statement by Kerry on the same question.

The real issue, though, is his overall opinion of Kerry and his medal award - whether he was misquoted saying he didn't believe Kerry deserved the award, or was misquoted saying that he had repudiated such a statement. In his second notarized affidavit (recently added to the above link), Elliott says: "I have read Michael Kranish's recent Boston Globe article in which Mr. Kranish misquotes me. I fully reaffirm my statment in the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad 'Any Questions?' in which I said that John Kerry has not been honest about what happened in Vietnam. That statement is indisputably true."

If we want to get really picky, there's still something confusing about this. The line in his original statement about Kerry's "lie" about Vietnam referred to Kerry's claims about widespread war crimes. Elliott's statement about this is no more than his disagreement with Kerry over an issue on which he has no special knowledge. He also stated that he thought Kerry misreported the incident with the VC (specifically, the shooting-in-the-back issue). It is not clear which of these two claims about Kerry he is reaffirming in this new statement. The latter has to do with his own knowledge of Kerry's actions, but he then goes on to say he does not actually know what happened in the incident, but merely infers it from other sources. Then, after devoting 3 of his 5 paragraphs to the front/back question, he states "the difference [between shooting the VC in the front and shooting him in the back] is not material to any of my opinions." He states explicitly that he now believes Kerry should not have gotten the Silver Star, and that he would not have recommended him for it "had [he] known the facts" at the time, but the "facts" he seems to have in mind are that Kerry "pursu[ed] and dispatch[ed] a single, wounded, fleeing Viet Cong" - which facts have never been in dispute. (The whole point to the story is that the VC was moving into firing range with an RPG and would have destroyed the boat if he had been allowed to fire it.) Oy.

I don't know why Elliott seems to have such trouble just saying what he means, but at any rate, it's clear that he is very critical of Kerry, rejects Kranish's characterization of his position, and endorses SBVT's use of his earlier statement. So that clears that much up, at least. And my own prediction (in my previous comment) about the matter was wrong: SBVT was right in using Elliott's statement, and Kranish was wrong in saying otherwise.

Regarding Kranish's connection to the Kerry/Edwards campaign book, there seems to be even less of one than it appeared.

As I noted previously, Kranish and some other BoGlob reporters did a political-biography series on Kerry earlier this year that was then expanded and released as a book. As Monkey Brad, quoting Hugh Hewitt, notes above, Kranish was apparently also involved in a project to produce some sort of political analysis of Kerry's positions, by the publisher of the reportage book. Then, that same publisher contracted to produce the Kerry/Edwards official campaign book, with Kerry and Edwards as official authors (but no doubt ghostwritten), and Kranish was pulled off the analysis project.

The confusion: Amazon.com had Kranish listed as the author of the campaign book, and in the book description stated that he had written the "Introduction" to the book. This entry was obviously garbled, however, as their book cover photo clearly showed they had the book title wrong, and that Kerry and Edwards, not Kranish, are the official authors. Now, that entry has been silently changed. It now lists Kerry and Edwards as the authors; all references to Kranish or an "Introduction" by Kranish have been removed. However, it also gives a different but still wrong title for the book, and, although the page entry for the book does not say Kranish is the author, the book does come up under an Amazon search on Kranish's name in a way that makes it appear he is the author.

Short version: Kranish is not the author of the campaign book, and probably has nothing to do with it at all, and Amazon is just very screwed up.

33

Further Further Updated Update:

The Boston Globe just released another story (this one not by Kranish), insisting that their quote of Elliott repudiating his first statement was correct:

Globe Editor Martin Baron released a statement saying "the Globe stands by the article [claiming that Elliott said he wished he had not signed the first affidavit]. The quotes attributed to Mr. Elliott were on the record and absolutely accurate."

The story notes Elliott's second affidavit, denying the Globe's story that he had repudiated his first one, but does not offer an explanation.

In addition, the story clarifies the question of Michal Kanish's relation to the Kerry/Edwards campaign book: there is none. Its explanation is as I speculated above: Kranish was hired to write an introduction to a planned analytical review of Kerry's policies, not to the official campaign book; Kranish was taken off the analytical project when the same publisher later contracted to produce the offical campaign book. (As of 6:30pm EST, Sat 8/7, Amazon.com is still listing the book in the search results for "Michael Kranish", in a way that implies he is the author; it also still has the incorrect title for the book. The book is bouncing around among the 3,000 - 4,000 top-selling titles, although it is still not yet available.)

34

The Swift Boat guys have prepared a detailed response to the Kerry team's attacks, here:

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/002202.php

This is one issue that, obviously, leaves the reader with only two mutually exclusive conclusions:
1. That 250 men, all of whom served in close proximity to Kerry, and all of whom have no readily identifiable reason to lie about these matters, have banded together to form a conspiracy to deny the Presidency to John Kerry. To do so, they have lied publicly, and furthermore are risking prosecution themselves by filing false affidavits. That the vast majority of ALL THE MEN WHO SERVED WITH KERRY have joined this organization can only either be a mere coincidence, or further evidence as to how deep the conspiracy goes, and the depths to which Republicans will go to smash the political fortunes of the Left's sole war heroes.

or

2. John Kerry is a liar, a fraud, and a coward. At least two of his Purple Hearts were awarded under blatantly false pretenses; his Bronze Star also under false reports. His injuries were exaggerated and, in two cases, self-inflicted. His testimony to Congress, in particular regarding his experience near Cambodia, was a total fabrication.

So, what's the answer?

I suspect I know, but just that we're having a debate on the subject is VERY healthy.

35

Sorry, that was me in the post above.

36

One "readily identifiable reason" these people might slander Kerry is that they are organized by a man (John O'Neill) who was personally recruited and funded by Chuck Colson under Nixon to create a counter-organization to Kerry's anti-war group, and has apparently beem dogging Kerry ever since. That he is now doing more of the same under Bush looks like . . . more of the same. David Brinkley summed O'Neill and his group up thusly:

"These are malicious fabrications in the heat of the election," Brinkley says. He adds that O'Neill; Adm. Roy Hoffman, his main source; and the other Swift Boat Veterans "are simply malcontents who have never forgiven Kerry for his actions in speaking out against the war. They seek retribution by fabricating stories to destroy him. Hoffman, in particular, lacks credibility. His claims against Kerry have changed frequently. And John O'Neill has zero credibility. He was -- and still is -- Richard Nixon's patsy."

The official founder of the group is the wife of George Bush's Texas Lieutenant-Governor running mate. The group is financed by two major sources: a heavy Republican supporter and a family of personal friends of the Bush family (one of the SBVT donors is a Trustee of the George H.W. Bush Presidential Library). Many of the other founders have been active in Republican politics and are Republican donors.

In short, the group is the creation of explicitly partisan Republicans, and its leaders have close ties to the Bush family; the top leader has, literally, made his entire career in politics making attacks on John Kerry, at least part of that time at the direct request of a Republican President.

You really can't think of a reason they might be out to get Kerry?

As for the membership of the group, it apparently includes an impressive selection of the veterans of the riverine boat groups Kerry served in, but, significantly, none who claim to have actually served on Kerry's boat. (Some claim to have participated in joint operations with Kerry's boat, but few - on the Web site quoted by Kevin [not me - the other Kevin - not the other Kevin from Lean Left - the other other Kevin] claim to have directly observed any of the things they are criticizing.) Their most prominent critic, George Elliott, actually recommended Kerry for his highest medal; he does now seem to be anti-Kerry but can't seem to make a clear or consistent statement of his position. The SBVT claims in general largely amount to indirect inferences that they don't think things would have worked the way Kerry claims. Their most direct charges are essentially identical to Kerry's reports; they just put a different spin on them. (They claim he only received light wounds; he says he only received light wounds. So?) Notably, every single crewmember who actually served on Kerry's boat has greatly praised him and supports his candidacy, as does the man Kerry pulled out of the water to win his Bronze Star, who directly contradicts the derogatory description of the incident the SBVT is pushing. (You'd think he'd have had a good look at the incident.) Other officers are also quoted as saying they thought Kerry was aggressive and bold in combat.

It is possible that the claims the SBVT are making are true. It is certain, however, that the group was founded and led by partisan operatives with a committed interest in the GOP and Bush himself, and most prominently by a man who has been a direct agent of the GOP with the specific assignment of tarnishing Kerry for over 30 years. In many cases, the members are now repudiating positive, or even glowing, reports that they personally made on Kerry at the time of the events in question (and, significantly, before Kerry became an anti-war activist and criticized the military).

As for the depths to which the GOP will go . . . I think we know the answer to that question.

37

KTK--I am not sure you can reasonably plumb the depths that Republicans will go to win election without also looking at Democrats. While the R's have SBVT, the D's have groups like "moveon.org" (with their various Bush=Hitler ads) and various and sundry 527c's funded by the Tides Foundation that will go to just about any lengths to ensure a Bush defeat. Whoops have to leave now, I think my wife is in labor.

38

LOL. Good luck to you both Rob. I told my wife you were posting on the internet while your wife was in labor, and she said that's a sign of diehard internet addict.

39

First of all Mr. Keith, your statement regarding John O'Neill isn't accurate - O'Neill has not 'been dogging Kerry ever since', he debated Kerry on the Dick Cavett Show in 1971 and ate that Boston Brahmin's lunch and spit out the bones. It came as a shock to Nixon when O'Neill (during his visit to the White House) stated that he was in fact a Democrat, and had voted for Hubert Humphrey in 1968. Like many other Swift Boat veterans, O'Neill is not at all a Republican partisan, and has strenuously avoided any invitations to attack Kerry since that one debate in 1971. O'Neill (unlike Kerry) got OVER Vietnam, went home to Texas to live a relatively normal life as a successful corporate attorney.

I find it amusing that after John Kerry states with great bravado and hoo-hah "judge me by my record", that now everyone is screaming murder most foul when over 200 of his fellow Veterans do exactly that. If this were about Swift Boat Commander George W. Bush, the Democrats and their liberal allies in the media would all be screaming for Bush to step down, ("war criminal" and all that), the Swift Boat Veterans would be the toast of the Sunday morning talk shows, hailed as "real American heroes", and Kerry would embrace them as his "extended Band of Brothers".

Compare: countless attack ads from leftist/Democrat supporting 527 groups, who call Bush every name in the book, compare him with Hitler, fundraisers where he is called a thief, a crook, a thug, his name vulgarized by Whoopi-cushion Goldberg, Terry McAuliffe keeps a doormat in front of his office with Bush's image on it, and nobody has a peep of condemnation for those true gutter attacks. But let one, just ONE legally organized 527 group (Swift Boat Veterans for Truth) voice their opinions in the form of a book, and a television ad running in just 3 states (Wisconsin, Ohio and West Virginia), and suddenly they are the worst of the worst, and the liberal mantra is "they must be condemned". Why was there no call for condemnation of MoveOn.Org, ACT, or any of those groups assailing Bush, but Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are made out to be the bad guys?

Two words: LIBERAL HYPOCRISY.

I believe the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, I do NOT believe John Kerry. And it was KERRY who made Vietnam the centerpiece of his campaign, and invited people to judge him, and so they have.

40

Carl Smith, desperately trying to change the subject, writes

"Why was there no call for condemnation of MoveOn.Org, ACT, or any of those groups assailing Bush, but Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are made out to be the bad guys?"

Um, Carl, first of all, wrt to the MoveOn.org "Hitler" ad, you seem to forget that the ad was a contest entry and although it was available on MoveOn.org's website for a short time (along with scores of other entrants), it was not created by Moveon. Furthermore, there WAS widespread condemnation of the ad, the "liberal media" was all over the story like flies on bullcrap, and Moveon removed the ad from their site.

So what was it you were ranting about again?

I'm not a particular fan of moveon.org, but their political tactics aren't nearly as stinky as those of these Swiftboat Vet wingnuts who, as KTK explained above, are obsessed with seeking revenge for statements John Kerry made 30 years ago (statements which, ironically, helped end the Vietnam War).

41

I'm just curious. Out of the 250 veterans who served in proximity with Kerry, how many of them were actually on Kerry's boat? In other words, out of the several men who's lives were put in the most imminent danger because of Kerry's alleged vainness and ineptitude, how many are fighting against Kerry with this group. I would think they would be the first in line to attack Kerry.

42

So, the leftists have concluded that these 250 men are all lying.

All hail John F. Kerry!! Hero of Vietnam!!

Hell, had he stayed in the service after getting a cut on his arm and a piece of shrapnel in his ass, we might have won that war.

In only four months, JFK picked up 3 Purple Hearts, a Silver Star, and a Bronze Star. Geez, had he pulled a two-year tour, he would have had more medals than Chesty Puller--maybe even two or three CMH's. The evacuation of Saigon wouldn't have been necessary, because he would have killed every single VC in-country, and then the whole of the NV Army besides.

That, I think, is what these veterans must be upset about. They just didn't perform at the superb level of Kerry, and so they have circled the wagons and are lying their asses off because Kerry made them all look bad with his extraordinary heroism and conspicuous gallantry and unmatched courage and blah blah blah.

Yeah. That must be it. Man--that was easy--it isn't that hard to be a liberal after all.

Or, maybe these guys are right. And Kerry was an opportunistic coward who asked three times not to fight, then ran away at the earliest possible opportunity.

43

Kevin,

Kerry might have been an opportunist, but I wouldn't call him a coward. Shrapnel in the ass is, well shrapnel in the ass. The bullets/grenades were flying, whether from Kerry's own hand or the enemies. Having enemies shooting at ya is not a good feeling; so quit calling Veterans who served our country cowards! It just don't make you sound legit.

44

I didn't call Kerry a coward. His compadres did.

You know? The "veterans who served our country" who were there? And got shot at and hit with shrapnel, though most rarely by their own hand?

Given all this, I'm afraid that Kerry and his defenders don't "sound legit".

45

Kevin you can believe what you wish of course. And I agree Kerry made this an issue so it's fair game. But I don't think you understand how that ad might be percieved by swing voters. These ads aren't aimed at you or I. They're aimed at the undecided. These are the voters that matter in this election.

When the 'average' person (and by average I mean one who isn't a news junkie like many of us on this thread are) sees that commercial, they assume it's straight from Bush Campaign Headquarters. They don't necessarily appreciate the distinction between external orgs and Bush. However, most of them have heard that Bush dodged Vietnam and Kerry volunteered for it.
If they percieve that it is vicious, cowardly, or inappropriate, to attack an undisputed combat vet, they will probably attribute that to Bush and that could reflect poorly. So, as a likely certain Kerry Voter, I encourage them to run that commercial day and night in swing states. In fact I hope they step it up and make it even more vicious.

46

Kevin writes

"So, the leftists have concluded that these 250 men are all lying."

Um, I dunno about the "leftists" but, yeah, those 250 Republicans are "all" lying. Why? Because they hate John Kerry. Why do they hate John Kerry? See the posts above.

And just fyi, a group of 250 liars is not a large group of liars. If they had 250,000 liars, I *might* actually care. But 250 true believers? Piddly. It would be effortless to find 2500 people who are certain that the planes that flew into the twin towers were piloted by Iraqis. Do a meritless unsubstantiated claim warrant extra consideration just because a few hundred true believers and/or hate-filled losers sign affidavits? No, I don't think so.

47

Well, credit DS with the first angle I've heard that these ads HELP Kerry.

Somebody forgot to forward your memo to the DNC, though. The way they're acting, they'd sorta like to see the ads pulled.

48

"Somebody forgot to forward your memo to the DNC, though. The way they're acting, they'd sorta like to see the ads pulled."

Yup. Just like Bush "acted" like an amendment to the Constitution banning gay marriage could ever be passed.

Of course the DNC is going to complain. And the ads are going to have the same effect on Kerry's numbers that Bush's own ads have had thus far: NIL. Kerry is credible. Bush is not. Say bye-bye to the President who is so clueless that he can't even make something up about Indian sovereignty without choking on his own tongue.

49

Kevin,

"Or, maybe these guys are right. And Kerry was an opportunistic coward who asked three times not to fight, then ran away at the earliest possible opportunity."

"I didn't call Kerry a coward. His compadres did."

Dude, did you just try to slip this by us? Or are you gonna claim that I'm taking your words out of context? Or do you wish to retract/restate your denial?

50

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh2004.htm

Read it and weep (if you luv Bush).

We'll come back in a few days and see whether this Swift Boat garbage changes anything.

51

http://www.electoral-vote.com

52

Dude,
here's what I said

"Or, maybe these guys are right. And Kerry was an opportunistic coward who asked three times not to fight, then ran away at the earliest possible opportunity."

Did the period between "right" and "And" confuse you? Because next time I'll use a comma, or a colon.

53

"Or, maybe these guys are right. And Kerry was an opportunistic coward who asked three times not to fight, then ran away at the earliest possible opportunity."

Dude, is that similiar to someone saying,

"Or, maybe these guys are right. And You are an opportunistic coward, and run away when called on slippery semantics"

54

All depends on what "these guys were right" in saying. If they said I was a coward to hid behind rhetoric, and that's the argument you're holding to be valid, then you would be correct.

I imagine it's not a lot of fun for you to read Will, Buckley, or Steyn? Because you're confused about what the editorialist is saying, versus his source?

Stick to the front page and the comics section, anonymous the king. It's all written in sixth grade English.

55

Perhaps I just misunderestimated your english- I wasn't calling you a coward, just as you weren't calling Kerry a coward, or does that distinction not work both ways. Better yet, I don't think it works at all.

56

Fair enough. Enough about a guy's use of a colon or not, and focus on the bigger issue here. Is Kerry lying about his service in Vietnam, or are these 250 other guys?

57

Not sure Kevin, must it be an either/or question? And must it be all 250, all lying about what? I don't think I could give you a blanket answer unless I know exactly what you are asking.

58

Wow turns out Ted Samply, one of those criticizing Kerry did the same thing to Bush's daddy over WW2:
http://www.usvetdsp.com/story46.htm

59

Kevin,

it hardly matters what Kerry did - nobody is worse than Bush.

If Charles Manson were running against Bush, would you vote for Manson? If Osama was running against Bush, would you vote for Osama?

Do you think the average voter agrees with your position?

60

What's the truth? Who should I believe? Very important questions when important issues are involved. The answers should effect one's actions and overall beliefs and viewpoints.

I've had 1 great advantage over most people for most of my life.
I KNOW that John Kerry is a liar! I've known it since 1972 when I first heard of him.

Those 2 facts: that John Kerry IS a liar and I KNOW it should tell you a lot about what I think of the current Swift Boat controversy, the current presidential campaign, and the overall structure of my political viewpoint. Those 2 facts have had and now do have a tremendous influence on my thinking.

I am a Vietnam combat vet from 1969. In my year there, I spent some time riding and working off of boats in the Delta and on the rivers. I wasn't with Kerry {unless you consider me as Kerry Near- you know- within 50 miles!}, but I saw and experienced the milieu of the time and place. The Army's version is a 100 times closer to the truth and my experience than John Kerry's.

61

I was there too! Well, within 50-100 miles. What I saw and experienced there qualifies me above all others who weren't actually there, to pronounce my opinions about the nature of then Lt. Kerry's character. One need not make a big leap to extrapolate from there, just what kind of president Lt. Kerry would be. Don't let the self annointed pundits sway you good people.

62

I am a Catholic, a veteran and a Republican. I have and always WILL base my judgement on TRUTH.
I KNOW that the military thoroughly investigates incidents that lead up to the awarding of medals. Make NO confusion over that, that's how it is done. I find it VERY unChristian-like to back people who "talk" without fully knowing. The records have been released and there can be NO denying them: http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_kerry/military_records.html

How about Bush's record? He claims he served in the Alabama ANG but there are NO records and no "flight buddies" coming forward to back up his claim.
Bush has also established "free speech zones" :
http://www.amconmag.com/12_15_03/feature.html
an act that would be contemptable in the eyes of the Lord. What if Jesus were faced with being cordoned off in such areas in His days? Is it beyond reasonable thinking to equate His crucifiction as an act of quelling His free speech?
We also must ponder why Bush has allowed the "No Child Left Behind" Act go unfunded. Doesn't anybody realize that HUNDREDS of schools are threatened with closure because they don't get the necessary funds to bring schools up to specifications?
How about our national debt that is now well over $7 Trillion dollars? That's THE largest it has EVER been! We are saddling OUR grandchildren with OUR debt!
How about sending CIVILIANS under a "no-bid" contact under Haliburton into an unsecure zone where civilians have died?
How about Bush breaking a PROMISE in his 2000 campaign to DO something to protect the environment? He actually wants to allow drilling in a wildlife preserve in Alaska! He hasn't done anything to stop pollution and allows industries to continue to pollute our world! Without the environment we die!
I REALLY hope you folks ask yourselves "WWJD"?
Would Jesus protest a unnecessary war? Would Jesus agree with the polluting of the planet He left for us to care for? Would Jesus go drilling for oil at the environment's expense? Would Jesus silence protestors in "free speech zones"?
I am tired of my party's willingness to follow such unGodly activities as Bush's.
Beware of false prophets! They don't necessarily HAVE to be religious figures!

63

Now that Kerry has admitted that he wasn't in Cambodia.......what else has he embellished?

64

Roger,

Who knows- everything that comes outta that man is a lie- but I doubt that he's anywhere near as dumb as Bush. I don't want a dumb president- he kinda embarrasses me whenever he opens his chimpy mouth to utter words strung together in an attempt to form sentences.

65

I KNOW Kerry lied about the general situation of our soldiers commonly committing atrocities. I can give details of "what did I know and when did I know it," concerning atrocities, but not here, not now.
In fact because of what I know, most soldiers know, and the brass know of the general situation concerning atrocities, and because of Kerry's known lies about the general situation, I and we actually assume that Kerry is lieing when he says that he committed atrocities. Especially since Kerry never gives any details of time and place for his atrocities, I have assumed that his admission of atrocities were just a ploy to demonstrate how sincere he is about atrocities generally taking place. It plays well with those who want to believe his general atrocities story and at the same time doesn't cost him anything. He can't be prosecuted for any specific crime, and there are no specific victims to be seen and cause anyone to feel revulsion towards him.

Joe Carter is right: let's punish all specific war crimes, and don't cover them up or justify them by saying "war is a crime" or "this war is a crime" or "everybody did it."

By comparing memories and sitreps, his Swift Boat buddies may yet find Kerry's real, specific war crimes within his 4 months of service among them in exaggerated, inaccurate reports, and 35 years of contradictory statements.
The trouble is, I'm not sure John Kerry and friends are going to thank them for proving that he didn't lie about his war crimes. In 1996, after studying testimony and reports of the incident for which Kerry received the Silver Star, a reporter decided that the real story of the incident had all the earmarks of a real, specific war crime.
Instead of rejoicing, and thanking the reporter for outing him, and finally proving to the world that he wasn't a liar, John Kerry went wild, calling on all Vietnam veterans he could find to declare that this incident was NOT a war crime.
{While it does deserve a look, even the present, new story does not seem to qualify as a real, specific war crime.}

It would be so much better if John Kerry would come right out and tell us where, when, and how he committed one real, specific war crime. A real one as in: shooting unarmed prisoners is a war crime, but engaging the enemy in a battle is not a war crime; deliberately shooting innocent civilians in a free fire zone is a war crime, but shooting an enemy soldier in a free fire zone is not a war crime, etc.
After 35 years, Kerry hasn't proven that he is a real, specific war criminal, except by his own uncorroborated admission of vague "war crimes." I don't think they took place. I don't think his Swift Boat buddies think they took place, although they seem to be sifting the evidence now, and considering that it might be possible.
{Shades of Gary Hart, don't invite an investigation if you can't stand one.}

I know John Kerry is a liar, and I hope that he is lieing about his personal war crimes. I still really believe that he is.

What a complicated, nuanced fellow Kerry is! At best he is just a liar, at worst he is a liar, and a war criminal! What a position to be in! It took him 4 months and 35 years to get there. Is that an excuse or an indictment of his competence?

Of course, I realize, that he is a political liar for a political cause. Some consider that not only a natural thing to be, but also a good thing to be when it is for the right cause. After all, he helped to end the war with his lies, and that is supposedly the best thing that could happen. I'm sure that Kerry's more ardent supporters only admire him the more if they believe that he lied for the good of the anti-war cause.

But I don't see it that way. The truth is a precious commodity and you should never let go of it lightly, not even for a good cause. If I can't trust John Kerry for the truth 30 years ago, because he believed for whatever reason that it was best for him to lie, then I don't think I would be wise to trust or believe his truth, facts, or promises now.

One last point. Someone said the Vietnam War was an outrageous, surreal, horrid war. I've noticed that if you watch the anti-Vietnam War movies or read the novels you get that impression. And usually the anti-Vietnam experiences are put into fictionalized works or artistic medium which let their creators have the artistic freedom to create the surreal.

OTOH those who were just writing to tell of their experiences without an anti-Vietnam War theme, would give real names, dates, and places and they seem to have had what I experienced psychologically in Vietnam. There was no surreality. We experienced Reality. It was intense.
To me time compressed dramatically: 4 hours ahead was like tomorrow, 24 hours was like a week, and 36 hours ahead was too far ahead in the future to worry about. At the same time, awareness expanded exponentially. It was important to see everything that was there. It was just as important to not see anything that wasn't there. Even in long hours of drudge and ennui Life was intense. Reality ruled. Knowing the truth in any situation was a great survival strategy in combat life. I think it is probably a great survival strategy in all of life.

While Truth is not all things to all men.
Truth does ring true wherever we fairly test it.
One truth that I could be said to have "fairly tested" in Vietnam could best be summed up after the fact as "John Kerry lied."

66

While Truth is not all things to all men.
Truth does ring true wherever we fairly test it.
One truth that I could be said to have "fairly tested" in Vietnam could best be summed up after the fact as "John Kerry lied."

Is it True that you stopped beating your wife? We don't doubt that people have had experiences. It's all in the re-telling where things get sticky. If you're gonna get your panties in a bunch because Kerry is uh, 'complicated' and 'nuanced', then WTF do you think politicians do all day? Their job is to do precisely that with the laws so that ordinary folk don't bother to look into the details of laws and crap that they pass. Kerry was a bragging son-of-bitch about his service in Vietnam. Bush was a cowardly chimp in Alabama. So what. Get over it.

67

"Bush was a cowardly chimp in Alabama. So what. Get over it." --bahbah

You won't find me speaking disrespect of anyone who served in the national guard then or now; nor of Rear Echelon Military Personel, nor of Navy or Air Force people, nor of non-Vietnam serving military personel. The nation needed people in all these positions. Anyone who did these jobs did honorable service as much as I did, even if they sought those jobs out to avoid combat service.

But I don't think that cowardice was the real reason people took these other jobs. When put to the test these people did their jobs and generally served well. No, I think these people had good, positive reasons for serving where they did, such as better jobs, better job skills training, good resume experience, and just because these jobs better fit the ebb and flow of their lives at the time.

In the 18th Century there developed the idea of the Republic of Letters- the idea that everyone who could read, think, reason, speak, write, or judge literature or intellectual ideas was an equal citizen of that "virtual" republic with equal rights to participate in the processes, and with equal standing before the "court of opinion" and where everyone had equal honor. There was no king nor were there any nobles whose honor automatically by nature stood out over and above others and whose ideas therefore had to be automatically accepted and considered superior to others. Everyone's work and ideas had to stand on its own merits. Everyone who read, wrote, and reasoned was an equal citizen. Our First Amendment embodies this idea in America.

In America there has also developed a kind of "Republic of American Military Service" in which everyone who has ever served in American military service is an equal citizen. As long as that service was honorable, then the service of each individual citizen is equal in honor and standing before the "court of opinion." The privates service is as honorable as the general's service. The non-combat soldier's service is as honorable as the combat soldier's service. The sailor's service is as honorable as the airman's service. The guardsman's service is as honorable as the soldier's service. The non-decorated soldier's service is as honorable as the decorated soldier's service. The Gulf War soldier's service is as honorable as the Revolutionary War soldier's. The Civil War soldier's service is as honorable as the World War II soldier's service. The citizen soldier's service is as honorable as the career soldier's service, etc.

So Kerry, I, Bush, and any other Veteran are simply of equal honorable service.
Well maybe not. Kerry says that he committed atrocities. That's not honorable service, if he did.
Kerry says that I committed atrocities or I must be covering them up. If so, then my service isn't honorable.
Kerry says Bush failed to meet his Guard responsibilities by missing some meetings. That would not merit a honorable discharge, if so. But I for one would gladly exchange such a light and innocent charge for the one Kerry lays on me and my fellow vets.

As for the fourth vet, we don't know who he is or what the charge is against him. Maybe Abu Ghraib and they know everybody did it! All we know for sure is that when Kerry and Company see an American soldier they are immediately thinking atrocity, and what war crimes can they think he did. And guess who wants to see the new American vet subject to the European International Criminal Court.

The good news is Kerry hasn't been elected and the fourth veteran has not been tarred and charged and still has his honorable service.
Bush has produced his military records proving he met all his service requirements for an honorable discharge and two witnesses have said he did serve with them in Alabama. Another vet rises from the dust of Kerrydom.
I didn't do atrocities nor war crimes and haven't covered any up. My testimony and that of everyone I know, along with the records are against Kerry's unsubstantiated charges. I am innocent and my honorable service is restored.
We know Kerry lied.

So we're back to Kerry lied and he still says he committed atrocities, but as far as I know he still refuses to give sufficient details to identify when and where the bodies are buried.
Maybe Kerry and Company just like charging American soldiers with war crimes so much that he will accuse himself just for fun, whether he did it or not. Is this honorable service?

A lot of people may not like to read this. That's O.K. They don't have to read it.
All this writing has been brought on because with all the stuff flying fast and thick this year, I've run across several people saying they're confused and can't make heads or tails of what the truth is or who to believe. I can see why that is. I've been there a time or two in the past and know how hard it is to be in that situation when you really care.

But I've been thinking, this year it is not only easy for me, it is especially easy for me to find the truth and to know what to believe.
This may not work for you, but it certainly does for me.
I served in Vietnam in 1969, and it can be interesting sometimes to wonder sometimes what good or bad that I personally got out of the experience. This year I've recently found something good that I got out of it, that I had never realized before.
I got a shining beacon of truth to cut through a whirlwind of lies and propaganda.

I know John Kerry lied in 1972 and since then.
I know I shouldn't listen to John Kerry or his associates and boosters.
I know I shouldn't believe his ideas, stories, or promises.
I know I shouldn't believe any stories or promises associated with his stories or promises.

And it's all smooth sailing after that!

68

Shrapnel in the Ass! Then he can prove it with a hand held metal detector. Maybe Bush will bring one to the debate.