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.

This comment was posted on to my site and I was compelled to respond to it there and then repost it here.

1. Just the same as our discussion yesterday that just being Republican doesn't make someone evil, neither does just being a veteran make you above reproach. And not questioning paid political statements is just kind of stupid. The unexamined life and all that.

2. Did Kerry actually name names that were evil bastards after coming back from Vietnam? I wasn't aware that he had but maybe he did. And anyway, its kind of a lame linguistic trick to say that if the Swift Water vets aren't to be trusted than no veterans are to be trusted especially since the SWV's have a financial stake in discrediting Kerry.

3. It seems to me that the Bush camp is the side that can't let it go or is hiring people like SWV to attack on their behalf. If they want it to go away then they should let it go.

4. Kerry's records are freely available. Bush's have somehow been lost forever. I don't see how Bush's records are being so vigorously pursued, its not like people haven't realized he shirked his duty, used his connections to avoid going to war and drank his way through his "service".

5. I don't recall the NAACP's ads against Bush for the dragging murder. And I've already publicly stated that comparing anyone to Hitler is stupid and counter productive. F9/11? Haven't seen it yet and won't comment on it. I know its pissed off plenty of people for a variety of reasons. And I don't necessarily think that that is a bad thing.

6. Naming your enemy gives that enemy power. Kerry stopping his campaign to denounce the ridiculous ads gives them more power to continue to take away from his campaign. Besides, isn't the condemnation of another vet and a Republican enough?

7. What if they are telling the truth that they don't think he was a good leader in Vietnam even though only one of them served with him? Sure. Open an investigation and spend as much money on finding out where Bush was for those two years and why he wasn't on duty.

8. Did that bill pass? Then why isn't it being enforced?

9. Um, yeah. Money makes you evil. Send it all to me instead of risking being sucked into the evil.

No one is levelling any complaints about National Guardsmen in general, just the fact that Bush's record is still AWOL even while John Kerry has published his records on his site for anyone to see.

What's wrong with a veteran saluting? Bush has "war-ified" this election based on his "service" that really just shows him to be an elitist who isn't above using family connections to get a cush post that he couldn't even complete the service to.

I agree that the lawsuit is a tactical error--the ads are so over-the-top that their effect is blunted, and as we now know, at least one of these guys either retracted what he said about Kerry or didn't, but either way, the credibility of SBVAK (Swift Boat Vets Against Kerry) ain't exactly airtight.

Look, the men who served under John Kerry's command seem pretty content with his skills as a commanding officer. If any of the men in SBVAK were men who served on Kerry's boat, it might be different. But it isn't different, is it?

This goes right up with the John McCain is the Manchurian Candidate stuff--it sets off BS detectors a mile and a half away.

Actually George Elliot hasn't contradicted himself and has signed a sworn affidavit that he was misquoted by Mike Kranish:

http://humaneventsonline.com.edgesuite.net/unfit_aff.html

Moreover it turns out that Mike Kranish had originally been commissioned to write the forward for the official campaign book for the Kerry-Edwards campaign:

http://www.drudgereport.com/dnc89.htm

Bottom line - Elliot stands by his affidavit with a second affidavit and all we have to the contrary is a Boston Glob "reporter" who had clear ties to the Kerry campaign that were not disclosed in his "story."

Bush's Guard records have been released in total to the many press outfits requesting them.
Kerry refuses to give the press access to his total records and posts only selected documents on his web site and even those the press refuses to look at. For example his silver and bronze medal paperwork have signed letters of commendation from the Sec. of Navy-------John Lehman. What????? Lehman was Sec.of Navy in the Reagan era. Probably a simple explanation for this but if we had any real reporting in this country anymore it would at least be explained to us.

John Kerry IS a war hero. Get over it and move on.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200408060010

before you get too happy with the folks spouting this crap read up on one of the co-authors of " Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry" says

"• Corsi on Islam: "a worthless, dangerous Satanic religion"

• Corsi on Catholicism: "Boy buggering in both Islam and Catholicism is okay with the Pope as long as it isn't reported by the liberal press"

• Corsi on Muslims: "RAGHEADS are Boy-Bumpers as clearly as they are Women-Haters -- it all goes together"

• Corsi on "John F*ing Commie Kerry": "After he married TerRAHsa, didn't John Kerry begin practicing Judiasm? He also has paternal grandparents that were Jewish. What religion is John Kerry?"

• Corsi on Senator "FAT HOG" Clinton: "Anybody ask why HELLary couldn't keep BJ Bill satisfied? Not lesbo or anything, is she?"

Classy eh? Im fairly sure that anyone this uninformed and predjudiced isnt really going to be a great example of "objective" information. Is anyone surprised? Im not.

Jason - you're playing the Carville/Begala game; Delay, Deny, Destroy.

OK, Corsi was a bad boy. Baaaaad Corsi.

Now - back to the man who would be CinCUS.

so if its a liberal then his pedigree trumps his statements, when its a conservative his statements trump his pedigree?

The point is (and i got into this more on a more recent thread above) if there is an agenda, then it merits being brought into the discussion. Obviously some members of the organization have a greater agenda than simply "telling the truth". In the interest of truth, factors which would tend to demonstrate that agenda are evident. Corsi wasnt just a baaaad boy, he is a baaaad boy in the employ of a republican machine whose beliefs color his supposed "telling of the truth".

"before you get too happy with the folks spouting this crap read up on one of the co-authors of " Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry" says....Classy eh? Im fairly sure that anyone this uninformed and predjudiced isnt really going to be a great example of 'objective' information. Is anyone surprised? Im not." - JasonDL

So, Jason, attacking their character is the best you can do? I suppose if you can't debate the message that only leaves you the option of smearing the messenger. As you hopefully grow mature with age, you’ll begin to recognize that such attacks are counterproductive. By not disputing the message itself, you simply reinforce its validity in the minds of your readers. Moreover, such childish attacks appear desperate, which further undermines your own credibility.

Nice try.

Tell me, Jason, is smearing Republicans (and then crying foul when criticisms are returned) what it means to be a Democrat? After reading your post and listening to the likes of James Carville, Howard Dean, Al Sharpton, et al., I'm beginning to wonder.

One more friendly suggestion: The next time you attempt to smear someone, try spell checking your own document first. Maybe you'll discover that "Im" and “isnt” require an apostrophe and "predjudiced" doesn't have three “d's.”