Interesting, isn't it, that the party membership of the swiftboaters is relevant, according to the left, but the activist group membership of the 9/11 families who slam Bush is completely irrelevent.

By this time, O'Neill had been star-spotted by President Nixon, and he met the president at the White House.

(The sunny atmosphere turned a little frostier when O'Neill confided that he'd voted for Hubert Humphrey in '68: "The people all around me were shocked" when he told Nixon he was a Democrat.)

He was also introduced to several Democratic congressmen and senators who didn't like Kerry's slanderous grandstanding.

http://www.nationalreview.com/rose/rose200404211228.asp

Man the Dum's playbook is getting a little old, isn't it? How long do you think it will be before the majority of people are finally fed up with the inability of the Dum's to rebut an argument on its facts?

Kerry opened this kettle of worms and its only going to get worse the longer he withholds any of his military records. He should never have brought up military service, just let his friends in the media note it ad nauseum while he brushed it aside. Had he done that:
A. people would respect him more ala Bob Dole and John McCain who wisely let others praise them and keep their mouths shut
B. his service would still have some impact on voters instead of being burned out which it is now.
C. This stuff would look like a real low blow for a guy who wasnt actively holding up his war record. Vietnam was a messy ugly war, we all know that. John Kerry has held himself up in this race as some sort of icon, thats just asking for mud to get splattered your way. Had he wisely kept his mouth shut, right now he could say 'it was a terrible time that i dont like to talk about, but i served the country as best i could' and he'd rightly look like a quiet hero. But since his campaign cant get a sentence out without Vietnam slipping into it, that obviously isnt an option. He tauted his record, now he has to defend it.

Mark Beuhner,

Kerry had to run on his Vietnam service because that is all he had. Very little in his legislative record would appeal to centrist swing voters. Nothing in the record gave him a creditable National security record. His service got him the Democratic nomination because Democrats thought it would negate the parties national security weakness. He had to hammer on it because that was his edge. It was the only thing that got him to this point.

Now he's stuck with it.

You people just don't get it, do you?

You can't question Kerry's Senate record because he served in Vietnam, and you can't question Kerry's Vietnam service because...uh, because....

Shut up! Dubya's stupid! Right-wing conspiracy! Chickenhawks! YYYYYYEEEEEEEAAAAARRRRRRGGGGGHHHHH!

Mebbe O-Dub can do with a little less shameless self-promotion on his blog... Media Matters is as shoddy a site as Air America is radio.

The Furher Bush likes your site. He has great plans for you.

General! Bubbie!

It's "Führer", or "Fuehrer" if you don't do umläute on your keyboard.

And, er, yeah, like all right-wing bloggers, I await further orders. Which I presume we'll get once you've learned to spell, developed some cultural literacy (look it up) and a sense of humor.

Get cracking! (note to Atrios fans - that's a slang term for "Bust a move", not literally an order to go sell crack).

[NOTE: Supporting links at the end of this component]

A question which nobody has asked Kerry: "Were you a sworn officer in the U.S. Navy or the U.S. Regular Naval Reserve when you committed your anti-war campaign.

Kerry tried to cover this up on his web site, but the truth is now available.

The answer: He was on active duty while flying an anti-war activist (Walinski) to various anti-war speeches.

He was in the Regular Reserve (inactive status) when he committed all of his anti-war actions including giving his fabric-of-lies testimony to the U.S. Senate - painting all of us who served in Vietnam as monsters, America as an atrocity-approving country, and recommending that we unconditionally surrender, abandon our allies, without any guarantee of getting our POW's back. The entire speech (see links below) is both shocking in it's allegations , it's anti-Americanism, it's lack of balance, and the huge number of lies.

Inactive status only meant that he didn't have to appear at drills, but he was recallable at any moment if the reserve was activated, and his oath as a sworn officer was still in effect. The Boston Globe falsely reported that Kerry got an honorable discharge in 1970 [Note 1].
See here for an annotated version of his speech. A link to the original transcript a CSPAN can also be found there.

You have to ask yourself if you want as CIC a man who lied to get out of combat (according to both his CO and the doctor who removed the shrapnel piece), who is still lying, running on his short four month record while accusing the man who had to serve the rest of Kerry's tour once he left of being a "Nixon Shill," who lied about Bush's service and whose operatives said the National Guard was "the easy way out" implying all National Guardists were and are cowards (National Guardists are in combat in Iraq right now. I know one of them).

Finally, a note on the atrocity issue. There are atrocities in all wars. America and democracies try to prevent them, and when we fail, we punish the perpetrators. My Lai and some actions of "Tiger Force" were, contrary to Kerry's statement to the Senate, the rare exception rather than the rule.

[Note 1: The issue is important because Kerry did not become a civilian until he got an honorable discharge, which was actually granted in 1978 - easily verifiable from his own website. The reporter, whom I have advised by email using as proof Kerry's own service record from his site, has yet to correct that error as far as I know. That same reporter has written all of the Globe's Kerry articles that I have seen (although I am not a regular reader),

The reporter, whom I have advised by email using as proof Kerry's own service record from his site, has yet to correct that error as far as I know. That same reporter has written all of the Globe's Kerry articles that I have seen, so far (although I am not a regular reader).]

Boston Globe story with wrong discharge year: http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/061703.shtml

Kerry's reported and actual service dates: http://www.tinyvital.com/BlogArchives/000803.html

First report of his attempted cover-up of service dates: http://www.tinyvital.com/BlogArchives/000802.html

Kerry's "fabric-of-lies" speech to the Senate in 1971 - annotated: http://www.tinyvital.com/BlogArchives/000799.html

I believe it is difficult for those who do not remember the time to understand just how offensive, how shocking, and how defammatory Kerry's words and actions as antiwar protester really were.

Remember the outrage at the Ted Rall cartoon mocking Pat Tillman?

Well, that might be the closest approximation in recent events to what Kerry did in the early 1970's.

Kerry slandered the same "band of brothers" he now wants to call his own and parade as a campaign tool.

Let's not forget: Kerry's own speeches were played to American POWs by the North Vietnamese as an instrument of torture. That is pretty damning.

Another, that's occurred to me. It's worth asking the vets who surround Kerry if they, too, committed war crimes.

Heck, if, indeed, they're all real vets. He has a history of consorting with fakes.