OT: The Swiftees

[FatPitcher]

You knew it was coming.

I read Unfit for Command. It totally and completely changed my opinion about this group. These guys have a pretty much open and shut case. There's some debate about very small points (the SBVT Silver Star argument is their weakest point, which is why the media is giving it the most attention), but it's very telling that the Kerry camp has already changed several stories several times, while the SBVT story has not changed.

1. Kerry's "Road to Damascus" moment in Cambodia on Christamas Eve that was seared into his memory never happened. Now they're saying "well, he was near Cambodia at some point." They've also floated several different versions as previous ones get shot down.

2. Kerry's "No Man Left Behind" - The Washington Post's article confirms that Kerry ran off while the other boats stayed to pick up the crew of the #3 boat and to keep it from sinking after it was hit by a mine.

3. Kerry's 1st purple heart was the result of a shrapnel from his own grenade, not from enemy fire.

4. Kerry's 3rd purple heart was for a bruise on his arm and for shrapnel again from his own grenade, as confirmed in Kerry bio "Tour of Duty"

Note that these are ONLY the lies/misconceptions that have been addmitted/proven with Kerry's own statements and "mainstream media" analysis.

Other interesting facts you won't hear often:

- Kerry sought a draft deferral but was turned down
- Kerry joined the Naval reserve; he did not volunteer for active duty, but was activated when his unit was called (Bush's unit was never called).
- Kerry volunteered for Swift Boat duty when swift boats were only used for coastal patrols, which rarely if ever saw combat
- After Kerry received his Swift Boat assignment, their role was changed from coastal patrol to active disruption of VC supply lines via vietnam's rivers. This was far more dangerous than Kerry had expected his duty to be.
- Kerry's first Purple Heart request was turned down by his CO, who personally observed the "wound" and who was informed by Kerry's crewmates that he did it to himself
- Lt. Thurlow, a member of SBVT, was on of the most respected Swift Boat captains of the war, achieving an almost legendary status within the Navy

I spent 4 years in the Navy, for anyone who didn't know. It's probably more difficult for the rest of you guys to understand how you you'd feel if this was your shipmate doing these things, then coming back and saying that you were a war criminal. It's bad enough on its own, but when you're risking your life daily, or when you're sitting in a POW camp having those accusations thrown in your face, the feeling of betrayal cuts deep.

I think what Kerry did is far worse than Clinton's dodging and hiding, certainly more so than Bush's presumed periods of absence from the National Guard. I felt so strongly about this issue after reading the book and the various rebuttals that I sent a sizeable donation to SBVT, even though I'm not particularly wealthy right now.

If you are respectful and don't act like a troll or a Kerryite reciting "talking points", you can get good info from the SBVT forum (you'll need to register before you can post, and it takes a few hours because they have to manually activate you). There's plenty there to read in the meantime.

http://www.swiftvets.com/phpBB2/

[Teal]

Pitcher:
I've intentionally refrained from giving an opinion of Unfit for Command, because I haven't read it yet. I'm going to as soon as possible, and I really believe that politics aside, everyone should give it a look. What I do know is that these guys absolutlely have not backed down in the face of intense and sometimes biased media scrutiny. As a matter of fact, the author of the book has challenged Kerry to sue him if it's all lies. Kerry won't do it, because he'll have to release all of his Navy record, and I really think there's something there. When you've got 250+Vietnam vets who are all saying the same thing, there's something going on. They won't go away. The author was asked point blank the other day that if Bush personally called and asked him to remove the ads, would he. He said absolutely not, that this had nothing to do with Bush, and had everything to do with Kerry. This guy's been crying foul for over 30 years, it's no recent devlopment.
Now all that being said, I have not made a comment about the book, because, as I said before, I haven't read it. I have seen the ads on TV, and heard some of the vets on the news, as well as reading blurbs on the net and in the paper. Those I will comment on. I say all that to say this- flaming this thread without reading the book is of no use, and presents no argument. The TV ads- if you've seen 'em, then fire away about that, but leave the book alone unless you've read it. If you still have a problem with it after reading it, then flame away. I plan on reading it this week if I have the chance.

[FatPitcher]

The book is pretty dry, as it's written by a lawyer, but it comes fast, hard, and heavy with indisputable facts.

A good companion book is Brinkley's Tour of Duty, since it supports and corroborates much of the damning evidence.

I'll say this in addition: it's not about whether Kerry deserved the medals. It's how he went about getting them and what he did after the war that's so repulsive.

[Inuyasha]

So did Kerry have to capture Ho Chi Mihn to get credit for serving in Vietnam?

When you read the scoreboard, it says :Kerry - Served in Vietnam Bush- Did not.

It's that simple.

[FatPitcher]

Forget about George Bush for a minute.

Kerry was dragged kicking and screaming into combat, deserted his brothers, abused his power, committed war crimes, consorted with the enemy, and then brought shame to the entire United States military.

It's difficult for someone who has never served in the military and does not understand what honor and sacrifice are to understand how low Kerry sank in his conduct during and after his miltary assignment.

There's no scoreboard. This is about a man who disgraced his uniform and now wants to be commander-in-chief.

Do yourself a favor and read the book with an open mind. It's eye-opening, to say the least.

(Bill Clinton - dodged draft. George Bush / Bob Dole - fought in World War 2. Did it matter then? And I'd vote for Clinton before I voted for Kerry.)

[Inuyasha]

Forget about George Bush for a minute.

Kerry was dragged kicking and screaming into combat, deserted his brothers, abused his power, committed war crimes, consorted with the enemy, and then brought shame to the entire United States military.

It's difficult for someone who has never served in the military and does not understand what honor and sacrifice are to understand how low Kerry sank in his conduct during and after his miltary assignment.

There's no scoreboard. This is about a man who disgraced his uniform and now wants to be commander-in-chief.

Do yourself a favor and read the book with an open mind. It's eye-opening, to say the least.

(Bill Clinton - dodged draft. George Bush / Bob Dole - fought in World War 2. Did it matter then? And I'd vote for Clinton before I voted for Kerry.)

Forget Bush for a minute? your kidding right? Going AWOL is more heroic than serving your country in a war?

Instead of buying this anti-Kerry Propaganda, let's go with one FACT both sides will agree with : that Kerry risked his life to save another’s.

If that is a disgraceful act, then values must have surely changed since I served.

[dbdynsty25]

WHO REALLY F*CKING CARES ABOUT ALL THIS SH*T????

[FatPitcher]

DB-Most people who read the topic of a thread, click it, and post do.

Both sides do NOT agree that Kerry risked his life to save another's.

And I don't agree that Bush was AWOL, either. Not that it's relevant to the discussion. If you'd like to talk about Bush going AWOL, you can make a thread about that.

[Jared]

1. Kerry's "Road to Damascus" moment in Cambodia on Christamas Eve that was seared into his memory never happened. Now they're saying "well, he was near Cambodia at some point." They've also floated several different versions as previous ones get shot down.

Actually, this is wrong. There's no evidence that his going to Cambodia never happened. Kerry's campaign admitted that he wasn't in Cambodia on Christmas, but he's stood by saying that he's been to Cambodia. This is a pretty egregious mischaracterization of what Kerry has actually said (I was in Cambodia, but I was mistaken about XMas Eve).

2. Kerry's "No Man Left Behind" - The Washington Post's article confirms that Kerry ran off while the other boats stayed to pick up the crew of the #3 boat and to keep it from sinking after it was hit by a mine.

Are you talking about this article? Entitled "Swift Boat Accounts Incomplete - Critics Fail to Disprove Kerry's Version of Vietnam War Episode"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Aug21.html

"When the mine went off, we were still going full speed," recalled Michael Medeiros, one of Kerry's crew members. Kerry's boat raced off down the river, away from the ambush zone.

....

O'Neill claims that Kerry "fled the scene" despite the absence of hostile fire. Kerry, in a purported journal entry cited in Brinkley's "Tour of Duty," maintains that he wanted to get his troops ashore "on the outskirts of the ambush."

So there's an ambush and he tried to get out of the ambush. Afterwards, he came back and pulled someone out of the water, while they were taking fire (according to official Naval documents). How is this "running off"?

3. Kerry's 1st purple heart was the result of a shrapnel from his own grenade, not from enemy fire.

Nobody knows that this is the case. In fact, Kerry says he doesn't know if he was under fire or not...they saw the enemy and began shooting. Whether this was from his own grenade or not is pure speculation.

4. Kerry's 3rd purple heart was for a bruise on his arm and for shrapnel again from his own grenade, as confirmed in Kerry bio "Tour of Duty"

A bruise on his arm? Here's the Bronze Star citation (which Kerry received for the same incident as the 3rd Purple Heart).

http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservi ... ords_1.pdf

For heroic achievement while serving with Coastal Division ELEVEN engaged in armed conflict with Viet Cong communist aggressors in An Xuyen Province, Republic of Vietnam, on 13 March 1969. Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry was serving as Officer in Charge of Patrol Craft Fast 94, one of five boats conducting a SEA Lords operation in the Bay Hap River. While exiting the river, a mine detonated under another Inshore Patrol Craft and almost simultaneously, another mine detonated wounding Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry in the right arm. In addition, all units began receiving small arms and automatic weapons fire from the river banks. When Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry discovered he had a man overboard, he returned upriver to assist. The man in the water was receiving sniper fire from both banks. Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry directed his gunners to provide suppressing fire, while from an exposed position on the bow, his arm bleeding and in pain and with disregard for his safety, he pulled the man aboard. Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry then directed his boat to return and assist the other damaged boat to safety. Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry’s calmness, professionalism and great personal courage under fire were in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service. Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry is authorized to wear the Combat “V”.

So his boat was hit by a mine and he was bleeding. And it's just a bruise on his arm. (And yes, he did get shrapnel in his butt from his own grenade...but that's not why he got the Purple Heart...it was for the Bronze Star incident.)

Note that these are ONLY the lies/misconceptions that have been addmitted/proven with Kerry's own statements and "mainstream media" analysis.

Admitted and proven? #1 was a mistake about the date, #2 is an exaggeration of what happened (what, he's supposed to sit in the ambush area when it happens? or is he supposed to get out and return fire?), #3 is an allegation, and #4 is an understatement of what happened.

In fact, none of the claims that the Swift Boat veterans have made have held up when compared to the documents from the time period. AND multiple people that are part of the Swift Boat vets that served with Kerry were recently praising Kerry's great service. Flip-flopping, if you will.

Roy Hoffman, today: "John Kerry has not been honest."
Roy Hoffman, 2003: "I am not going to say anything negative about him .
he's a good man."

Adrian Lonsdale, today: "He lacks the capacity to lead."
Adrian Lonsdale, 1996: "He was among the finest of those Swift boat
drivers."

George Elliot, today: "John Kerry has not been honest about what
happened in Vietnam."
George Elliot, 1996: "The fact that he chased an armed enemy down is
something not to be looked down upon, but it was an act of courage."

Larry Thurlow, today: "...there was no hostile enemy fire directed at my
boat or at any of the five boats operating on the river that day."
Larry Thurlow's Bronze Star citation, 1969: "...all units began
receiving enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire from the river banks."

Dr. Louis Letson, today: "I know John Kerry is lying about his first
Purple Heart because I treated him for that injury."
Medical records, 1968: "Dr. Letson's name does not appear on any of the
medical records for Mr. Kerry. Under 'person administering treatment' for
the injury, the form is signed by a medic, J. C. Carreon, who died several
years ago."

There's more stuff too, such as two recent people at these incidents telling their side of the story supporting Kerry. And the fact that none of the people making these claims were on Kerry's boat. And the fact that no one has made these claims until now, even though Kerry was a very public (and disliked by some) figure when he came back from Vietnam and afterwards when he became a Senator. The Swift Boat Vets have no evidence to support their claims....only 35 year old memories that are countered both by the memories of others and official documents. It's pretty disgusting.

(And btw, there are lots of Republicans that feel the same way about it. John McCain has denounced the ads, as have other Republicans. It's not a partisan issue to me, as much as it's an issue of people making damning claims without any evidence, in many cases contradicting what they've said recently, and never having said anything about this until now. It's dishonest and despicable.)

[XXXIV]

Those books and comercials........They
kinda remind me of Moore.........

Lets bend and twist and play with facts???????? til we kill each other

[Andy76]

First of all, to say there is an open and shut case is ridiculous, because there is much dispute. The so-called facts are the words of those who are mad at Kerry for protesting the war. By the way, does anybody mention that he served a full tour in the Gulf of Tonkin before his swift boat duty?

Here's a good read from the conservative Weekly Standard about SBVT:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/P ... c.asp?pg=2

[wco81]

Amazing that this "issue" has gotten so much attention. Some of the figures involved, like Corsi, are real fringe figures.

By now, even Bush has disavowed the SBVT ad. Sort of.

But the damage is done and gullible people are buying into it. Yes, it's Orwellian that someone who served in battle is "worse" than someone who avoided combat duty. Not just from connections to get into a unit that wasn't going to see combat duty but by deliberately declinining to accept combat duty as part of that unit.

[Brando70]

I knew it was coming, and I indeed have baked a cake:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/polit ... swift.html

The Swifties are simply full of beans. They are a pro-Bush, Republican financed ad campaign. Don't believe me? A few choice quotes from the article (you have to register for the Times):

"George Elliott, one of the Vietnam veterans in the group, flew from his home in Delaware to Boston in 1996 to stand up for Mr. Kerry during a tough re-election fight, declaring at a news conference that the action that won Mr. Kerry a Silver Star was 'an act of courage.' At that same event, Adrian L. Lonsdale, another Vietnam veteran now speaking out against Mr. Kerry, supported him with a statement about the 'bravado and courage of the young officers that ran the Swift boats.'

"'Senator Kerry was no exception,'" Mr. Lonsdale told the reporters and cameras assembled at the Charlestown Navy Yard. "'He was among the finest of those Swift boat drivers.'

"Those comments echoed the official record. In an evaluation of Mr. Kerry in 1969, Mr. Elliott, who was one of his commanders, ranked him as 'not exceeded' in 11 categories, including moral courage, judgment and decisiveness, and 'one of the top few' - the second-highest distinction - in the remaining five. In written comments, he called Mr. Kerry 'unsurpassed,' 'beyond reproach' and 'the acknowledged leader in his peer group.'"


More fun with facts:

"The group decided to hire a private investigator to investigate Mr. Brinkley's account of the war - to find 'some neutral way of actually questioning people involved in these incidents,'' Mr. O'Neill said.

"But the investigator's questions did not seem neutral to some.

"Patrick Runyon, who served on a mission with Mr. Kerry, said he initially thought the caller was from a pro-Kerry group, and happily gave a statement about the night Mr. Kerry won his first Purple Heart. The investigator said he would send it to him by e-mail for his signature. Mr. Runyon said the edited version was stripped of all references to enemy combat, making it look like just another night in the Mekong Delta.

"'It made it sound like I didn't believe we got any returned fire," he said. "He made it sound like it was a normal operation. It was the scariest night of my life.'"


And who is the flip flopper here?:

"Mr. Elliott, who recommended Mr. Kerry for the Silver Star, had signed one affidavit saying Mr. Kerry "was not forthright" in the statements that had led to the award. Two weeks ago, The Boston Globe quoted him as saying that he felt he should not have signed the affidavit. He then signed a second affidavit that reaffirmed his first, which the Swift Boat Veterans gave to reporters. Mr. Elliott has refused to speak publicly since then."

Oh, and let us please consider the source. Author George O'Neil was recruited by Nixon to debate Kerry on Vietnam, and is also a long-time active Republican. As for co-author Jerome R. Cosi:

"The book outlining the veterans' charges, 'Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against Kerry,' has also come under fire. It is published by Regnery, a conservative company that has published numerous books critical of Democrats, and written by Mr. O'Neill and Jerome R. Corsi, who was identified on the book jacket as a Harvard Ph.D. and the author of many books and articles. But Mr. Corsi also acknowledged that he has been a contributor of anti-Catholic, anti-Muslim and anti-Semitic comments to a right-wing Web site. He said he regretted those comments."

You can read Cosi's warm and fuzzy comments, especially about how Islam and Catholicism promote homosexuality, at Media Matters:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200408060010


And this just in from the Department of Making Sh*t Up:

"The group also offers the account of William L. Schachte Jr., a retired rear admiral who says in the book that he had been on the small skimmer on which Mr. Kerry was injured that night in December 1968. He contends that Mr. Kerry wounded himself while firing a grenade.

"But the two other men who acknowledged that they had been with Mr. Kerry, Bill Zaladonis and Mr. Runyon, say they cannot recall a third crew member. 'Me and Bill aren't the smartest, but we can count to three,' Mr. Runyon said in an interview. And even Dr. Letson said he had not recalled Mr. Schachte until he had a conversation with another veteran earlier this year and received a subsequent phone call from Mr. Schachte himself.

"Mr. Schachte did not return a telephone call, and a spokesman for the group said he would not comment."


The bottom line is this: I can understand why FatPitcher and other vets would be upset with Kerry. I can especially understand how his postwar actions were insulting, and also how his current use of his service as a rallying point for his campaign is hypocritical considering his previous statements. My Dad and I had a long talk about this the other night. He's a Vietnam vet and he is flummoxed as to how anyone (especially me) could vote for him.

But I am appalled at the double-standard applied to Kerry as opposed to Bush. Bush's defenders repeatedly said the president couldn't have been AWOL because he was honorably discharged. And you know what, that's good enough for me. Yet when a Republican 527-funded group produces a bunch of testomonials (and no real proof) that openly contradict not only THE OFFICIAL MILITARY RECORD but also statements some of them made previously, well, by gum, they must be telling the truth.

If you want to vote for Bush, by all means do so. But this is a hit campaign started because the President is now facing a real political battle.

[RiverRat]

I must say, Kerry has brought this all on himself. The JibJab cartoon does not lie. Kerry’s entire campaign, or at least the entire emotional hook of his campaign, lies in his Vietnam record. Given that, and given the amount of time involved in the race, you HAVE to expect that eventually the Republicans will start picking at it. What else is there to pick at? Kerry doesn’t put anything else forward for voters to contemplate. If he had something else, this issue might die down. But he doesn’t, and it won’t.

Having said that, I can’t believe how foolish the R’s are for taking the bait and risking what little credibility they have. All Bush had to do was acknowledge Kerry’s service in Vietnam and thank him for it, but point out it’s got nothing to do with being president in 2005 and get on with the real issues. He may have to do it a thousand times, but that’s all he had to do to make Kerry’s war record go away. But it’s too late for that now. He’s all over the map saying yesterday that Kerry should be proud of his service while allowing these Swift Boat guys to trash the hell out of it (everybody knows the White House could have had this stuff pulled in a heartbeat if it wanted to). He’s turned this thing into a big pile of mush; the sad part being that’s probably just what he intended to do. But clearly, he’s now in the position of trashing a man’s Vietnam record which, even trashed, is superior to his own. Fortunately for Bush, it probably won’t matter a hill of beans in the end.

[Teal]

"Going AWOL is more heroic than serving your country in a war?"


Talk about swallowing an abject lie...look it up, dude. Non event. Look, I don't care about the guy's Vietnam service. In my opinion, it was for nothing more that political brownie points, but it shouldn't be a campaign issue. But John Kerry, no one else, MADE this his issue. How can he be a war "hero" and at the same time be a "hero" to the hippie nutboys by coming back and trashing his comrades? What difference does it make whether his record is true or not, some of you ask? It brings up a question of integrity and character. He'd better be telling the truth, because if he isn't, he's cooked. Not for Vietnam, per se, but for anything that he's been so adamant about that may be a lie. If I'm a Vietnam vet, and I've come home and led the charge to color the war with a psychedelic coat of anti war paint, then I'd be stupid for bringing it up as a campaign issue. But he has, and the swift boat veterans are calling him on it. Who's telling the truth? I can't say for sure. But I know that they aren't backing down, and Kerry keeps "tweaking" his story every time they lay down a charge. That doesn't look good for a man who claims to have events "seared" into his memory.
And the SBV's ads have nothing to do with Bush. Highlight, copy, paste, and flame that line all you want, but it doesn't change anything. Some of the vets have said they were going to vote for Edwards, had he won the primary. They're not all fans of the President.
What it boils down to is this: if Kerry wants this to go away, the only way it's gonna happen is if he releases ALL of his service record, not just the parts he wants you to see. If there's nothing to hide, then there's no reason not to. If he's telling the truth, and the records collaborate it, then this all goes away. But that's the only choice he has. Blindly swinging at Bush as if he is doing it is pathetic. Demanding that the Swift Boat ads be pulled, while not pulling his own stupid "Bush is at it again" ad (which is a shot in the dark if I've ever seen one) is hypocritical at best. It'll be pulled only when he does what he needs to set the record straight. The Vets have already said Bush can ask them to stop all he wants, they will keep running the ads and keep talking. The Swiftees have taken an enormous beating, and they keep getting up and coming right back without batting an eye. Think about that...

[Brando70]

Oh, and lest I be accused of trusting a liberal rag like The Paper of Record, this is just the tip of the iceberg. The Chicago Tribune also published a statement from one of its former editors, a man who served with Kerry and said the events surrounding his Silver Star are pretty much as documented. In fact, I believe no person who actually served in the same boat as Kerry has come out against him.

Seriously, look around the Web and you'll find a lot of stuff about these guys. The Daily Howler in particular has had some good articles this week:

www.dailyhowler.com


And yes, I know most critics are liberals, because conservatives seem content to take this mularkey at face value. But there are few (Bill O'Reilly, John McCain, and now it seems, even the President) who are saying enough is enough with these guys. That grinding noise you hear everytime a Swiftie speaks is their axes hitting the stone.

[Teal]

"But this is a hit campaign started because the President is now facing a real political battle."


Riiiight... You just roll over and go back to sleep, now...

[Bill_Abner]

Personally, I don't care about the Vietnam stuff all that much. If Kerry received medals in Vietnam for stubbing his toe on some bamboo, I really don't care. He went, he went on his own, he served 2 tours, he asked for dangerous combat duty and the official Navy record says he served honerably, and received 3 purple hearts. Done deal case closed, move on to the issues. (Although I'll take the word of the guy Kerry actually saved over others.) It was also his right to protest the war when he returned. Vietnam was a huge mistake, and speaking as a nephew of someone who was there, there was a lot to protest about that f**ked up situation.

That said, I don't think serving in the military is a pre-req for being President. A lot of people, good people, avoided Vietnam. It doesn't make them anti-American. If I had the Bush family clout, I woulda stayed in Texas, too. Bank on it. My issue with Bush is with his policies. (Or the people who actually tell him what those policies are.) I'm still waiting for the debates, when we will hopefully see the two talk about the current topics of the day and not whether or not John Kerry received his Purple Hearts in the "right way" or whether or not Bush dodged the military. I don't care about any of that.

I will say this, the level of negativism from the President is almost unprecedented. Usually the incumbent can stay above that fray and run on his record. I really dunno if Bush can do that. History is not on the man's side and unless they can haul Osama up on stage in shackles, or somehow we get a net gain in jobs in 2 months, I don't see Bush winning. I'm checking http://www.electoral-vote.com/ and praying it stays that way.

From the website:

Big news today. Zogby has released polls in 16 battleground states. As usual, it is possible to find some good news for each side. For Bush, the good news is that he is ahead in Ohio by about twice the margin of error. Ohio is an absolutely must-win state for him. (Looks like I have to start kicking some Buckeye ass to get people in gear. - b;)

If he loses Ohio, it is almost certainly back to the ranch for him. But he is now ahead there 51% to 46% with a MoE of 2.6%. He also has a solid 8% lead in West Virgina, despite the job losses there. Two very welcome pieces of news.

The problem is that all the rest of the news is bad. Kerry is ahead in the other 14 states, sometimes only by a hair, but still ahead. Kerry is even statistically tied in Arkansas, Tennessee, and Virginia. That is not supposed to happen. If Bush has to fight for the northern South, it will drain money away from Ohio, Florida, and Missouri. The Zogby poll for Missouri puts Kerry at 49.3% and Bush at 48.8%, but since I am not keeping track of tenths of a percent, I'll call that a tie. Close enough for government work.

Polls from other pollsters in Arkansas, Illinois, Texas, and Virginia don't change much. It looks like Bush is going into the RNC far behind. Zogby puts the score in the electoral college at 324 for Kerry and 214 for Bush, even worse than EVP's score. But next week belongs to George Bush due to the convention.

[wco81]

Oh and for the record, it was Bush who started this by calling himself the "war president" and flying on that carrier.

So it brought into question who was going to be the best commander in chief. The only way Kerry was going to counter that was to go into his combat background.

[Brando70]

"But this is a hit campaign started because the President is now facing a real political battle."


Riiiight... You just roll over and go back to sleep, now...

Sure, the election has nothing to do with it. After all, Kerry's only been in the public spotlight for 20 years, it's just a big coincidence.

Read the Times article and you'll see that these guys were carefully recruited by Elliott and other pro-Republican supporters. They are like MoveOn.org and other third-party political organizations. This isn't just a group of vets trying to tell the truth, they have serious political motivations for doing this.

I agree with others that I don't think military service is a prereq for being the President. In a lot of ways, I don't blame Bush or his father for getting him out of serving in Vietnam. Likewise, I don't blame Kerry for coming back and criticizing the war after he served in it. It was 30 years ago, and a lot has changed since then. Kerry's military service or Bush's military service have no bearing on who I'm voting for.

The real problem I have with any campaign like this is that character assassination tends to obscure the issues. We're sitting here talking about stuff that has little to no bearing on the election today. Discussing Kerry's actions from his youth is like saying Bush shouldn't be President because he was a staggering drunk until he was 40. If you vote for Bush, I hope it's because you're voting because you support his agenda and the issues he believes in, not because a bunch of guys are trying to throw dirt on an irrelevant issue.

[Sport73]

I guess no one cares about what these 2 men have planned for this country over the next four years?

It's fascinating that we debate the actions of 30 years ago as though they are the ultimate measure of what will take place in the next 4.

Kerry served. It's that simple. Debate the record until your hearts content. He risked his life, and did more than I or most in this forum ever have. Show some respect for ALL veterans by at least acknowledging that ANYONE who served in active combat duty deserves your respect.

Bush did not, and that's OK by me. Most wealthy and educated people did not serve in that war, and no one looked forward to the idea of shipping off to die in a war that made no sense.

Can the republicans PLEASE give it a rest? If 30 years ago is so important, then let's talk about COCAINE addiction, ALCOHOLISM, and DRUNK DRIVING. Let's talk about conspicuous absences from the Air National Guard. Let's talk about 4 years of DEFECIT making policies.

Better yet, let's talk about where we want to be 4 years from now and which of these 2 has a plan to get us there...

[RiverRat]

I guess no one cares about what these 2 men have planned for this country over the next four years?

Essentially, that's correct. It's not exactly true that no one cares though. It's more a matter of whatever happens in the next four years is not going to depend a whole lot on who gets elected.

I've lived under both democratic and republican administrations, and frankly, it just doesn't make all that much difference. Bush and Kerry will both fight terrorism as best they can if they are elected. They may do it differently, but both will do it likely with mixed results. Deficits will go up and down. Stocks will go up and down. Taxes may go up or down. And life goes on anyway.

It is very hard for me to imagine that my life will be drastically different the next four years depending on who is president. Most people believe the same way, I would imagine. So unless you're a diehard conservative or liberal (most people aren't), future agendas just don't grab your attention.

So what's left? Arguments over who's the better "man". Both sides know it. That's why they do it.

[Spooky]

I guess no one cares about what these 2 men have planned for this country over the next four years?

Essentially, that's correct. It's not exactly true that no one cares though. It's more a matter of whatever happens in the next four years is not going to depend a whole lot on who gets elected.

I've lived under both democratic and republican administrations, and frankly, it just doesn't make all that much difference. Bush and Kerry will both fight terrorism as best they can if they are elected. They may do it differently, but both will do it likely with mixed results. Deficits will go up and down. Stocks will go up and down. Taxes may go up or down. And life goes on anyway.

It is very hard for me to imagine that my life will be drastically different the next four years depending on who is president. Most people believe the same way, I would imagine. So unless you're a diehard conservative or liberal (most people aren't), future agendas just don't grab your attention.

So what's left? Arguments over who's the better "man". Both sides know it. That's why they do it.

Ya know, I RARELY get involved in any political posts because I do not think this is a place for that kind of discussion, BUT, what RiverRat stated above really sums up nicely the way I have been feeling about elections recently. Nice job River!!!!

It probably is not the most 'patriotic' viewpoint or the most 'politically correct', however, I get so goddam disgusted on how the candidates start acting when election time comes around that I get SO turned off by both parties, my mind starts thinking, 'to hell with it, does it really matter that much in the end anyway'!?!?!?

I actually get embarrassed for the candidates when they start acting like little kids on a playground. I am just waiting for one of them to finally bring a ruler to one of the debates and just whip ‘em out and measure right then & there!!!!!!!!! Seems as good of a way to determine who’s the better man than any I have seen so far.

Yuck!

[wco81]

Actually, regardless of who gets elected, the winner may end up being associated with some tough times, the kind of bad times associated with Carter.

By the end of this decade, the fiscal s*** could hit the fan.

[FatPitcher]

So Jared, "No Man Left Behind" was a lie, by your own admission. As was Christmas Eve in Cambodia listening to President Nixon (not prez yet) and being shot at by the Khmer Rouge (did not exist yet). All this was seared--SEARED--into his memory.

I'll get more in depth with the other stuff later when I have time to write.