Lets not forget about the whole "AWOL" issue a few months back, it surely was not a problem for those who have not served to jump in on that feeding frenzy. I have not served before, so I sorta feel left out and unable to comment on much of this as far as how they served or if it was admirable/patriotic what have you. But if one thing is for certain, if a canidate is lying about his or her service, THEN I very much so can chime in on things. That was the whole debate about Bush, and the same goes for Kerry. Are they being honest about what they did back then? Bush in my mind has been cleared, the majority of evidence shows he did what he said he did, and aside from assertions from McCauliffe and Moore, no proof stands for him being AWOL. As for Kerry, the story deserves more scrutiny.

Mitch, since these Swifties keep changing their story, and cant't seem to make up their mind what to say, I would have thought you would let them die a slow death by now. But I understand, you have your GOP marching orders, and even you must find it hard to defend these miquided Americans who even John McCain says are being dishonorable

They are a non issue with a hidden agenda. I'll take the word of those that served on John Kerry's Boat over a bunch of politically driven egos who just want a night in the Lincoln Bedroom and will say anything to get it.

Keep hanging on this, I like when people are forced to compare Kerry's military service to GW's lack thereof!

Flash

thats a pretty broad brush there mitch. . . first off neither I nor most lefties have said its "unacceptable for repubs who never served to criticise Kerry". One specific blog apparently did. In typical fashion, you find one guy popping off and use it to paint the entire spectrum with the same stereotype. Its really a limbaugh-like technique and beneath your usual standards.

Obviously no one IS stopping ANYONE from criticising anything they like about Kerry are they? This cry of alarm you seem to be raising is about a problem that doesnt exist, ones mans opinion (daily Kos in this case) does not a conspiracy make. The fact that the swifties are funded by the republican machine and are contradicting themselves calls into question their statements, not the men themselves. By the way, Ive heard NO ONE insinuate that those guys war services were anything but admirable, if this was a democrat leaning group the republican party would have marched out example after example of how the swifties "lied" about this or that part of their personal WAR RECORD. Instead we choose to take on their own published statements instead of assasinating the charicter of the men by insinuation and assumption. Why are the unsolicited opinions and praise of the men who actually were on the same vessel with him being discounted? Are those men less meritorious than the swifties?

And do you really want to use "being under fire longer" as a yardstick? How long was W underfire? Even if Kerry served in viet nam without anything spectacular occuring for his entire tour, the man volunteered to go over there.

You only have to look at the numerous versions John Kerry's Christmas in Cambodia story to see that maybe that Mr. Kerry has a problem with one version of one story-------lets see---according to his journal entries, bio's, speeches, and newspaper interviews. He 1. entered Cambodia illegally on his own, 2. He was sent by his superiors to Cambodia on Christmas Eve. 3. He made numerous trips into Cambodia under orders.
4. He never was in Cambodia only near it.
(3 men serving ON his boat at that time say they did not go to Cambodia) Captains Quarters, Just One Minute,Powerline and Hewitt have much information on this.
If Kerry has fabricated various scenarios of this time in Viet Nam--it calls into question all of his other assertions
Maybe this is why Kerry includes no combat reports
or chronology of events for December 1968.
He needs to relase his records.

Gee whiz, that's alot of righteous indignation for a problem that doesn't exist. Especially when the whole "war hero" thing is based on such undeniable truth as "John Kerry served in Vietnam." There you go-- he's a war hero! Three purple hearts, but darn. No scars. And then all that home movie stuff, wow! Yep, that's what all Vietnam combat veterans do -- run back to the scene of their most horrifying experience to re-enact the carnage. Live it all over again, yessiree, parade it around, prove to everybody what a real war hero looks like. Nevermind his disgracing the uniform, describing fellow soldiers under fire as "war criminals," and sucking up to the enemy. It took real courage to do all that, and John Kerry's real courageous, right? He served in Vietnam! He did his best work with SDS, VVAW, and Jane Fonda after he quit though, none of whom, oddly enough, have dared show their faces anywhere near Kerry's presidential campaign, notwithstanding our war hero's celebrity parade. So where is Todd Gitlin these days? Where are all the other leftie Vietnam war heros for Kerry?? I mean, if it was courageous dissent then, it's courageous dissent now, isn't it? So what's with all this quibbling about medals or ribbons and whose got thrown over? War heros can just tell the truth, right? You know, speak truth to power and all that. Yet here's our guy, Kerry, hiding behind his shipmates, his wife, Larry King and anyone else dumb enough to swallow this valiant war hero Kool-Aid. Four months and out ain't a war hero, son. If it ain't been shot, it's just another coward heading back to the World. Hyping it now is pure hucksterism, and every vet knows it.

Now you gotta dance with the girlie-man ya brung here, so quityerbitchin'. He lied. Everybody does it, right? It's a private matter; it's time to move on. We'll all stay tuned for Michael Moore's re-enactment of John Kerry's personal truth, of course, but meanwhile, maybe all you Kool-Aid drinkers should watch your back with a guy who voted for the $87 billion before he voted against it, and eats his catered dinners safely on the bus.

Sheesh.

Other than Markos (who, FWIW, does not speak for the left side of the blogosphere), I don't think anybody is saying Kerry is beyond reproach simply because he served in Vietnam, nor that service in the military is requisite before one can criticize the military. Far from it. I would argue that such a line of argument is anathema to two hundred years of American history.

No, Kerry's Vietnam experience is not his raison d'etre; it's a means to an end. Since 1972, the GOP has painted the Democrats as a party ready to raise the white flag at a moment's notice. (Of course, McGovern was right about Vietnam [not so much on economics], and was also not Nixon, but somehow the Democrats owe our nation an apology for ol' George.)

Kerry's Vietnam experience is a tool, used to show that lefties are willing to fight for our country too. Yes, Kerry can overdo it at times, but that's the problem when you belong to a party that is believed to be "soft" on...well, whatever.

Of course, the Democrats aren't soft on anything. We may choose different targets on the WoT, but I can tell you that we'll all be happy when Osama is dancing to "Danny Deever."

At any rate, Kerry's record is open to attack, just like Bush's. It's just that 1) SBVAK doesn't have a great amount of credibility to begin with, and 2) like Bush's records, the onus is on the accuser to prove the accusation. Bush hasn't disproven the accusations about his records, but nothing's been proven, either. In the end, that's where we'll get with Kerry--to a muddled mess of nothing that leads nowhere. The Swifties won't win because they can't prove what they're asserting--and the burden of proof is on them.

This story has been around since early in the year. I believe that it is credible, as John Kerry, himself, testified in 1971 that he had committed war crimes. Is there a statute of limitations? Admittedly, most of his actions were simply poor judgment, not serious crimes, I still was angered by the story of what John Kerry did.

I had heard the doctor who treated him for the first scratch for which John Kerry had insisted on getting a Purple Heart. If he had not insisted, the minor nature of the scratch was such that it would have been ignored.

Probably, it is true that the story will only help John Kerry among those who are already predisposed to want him to win. People will see it as a "cheap shot". Yet, the Democrat reaction of going after the Swift boat veterans with their slime machine could turn off the so-called undecided voters that they profess to want to win over.

Regards,

Jim Bender

http://anglo-dutch-wars.blogspot.com/

http://17th-centurynavwargaming.blogspot.com/

http://kentishknock.com/

http://anglodutchwarsblog.com/

http://dreadnought-cruisers.blogspot.com/

Nice try, Monsieur Fecke, but no sale.

It is precisely because Kerry has thrust upon us this caricature of a war hero --as a tool, as a means to an end, as a ploy-- that he has now impaled himself upon the very blade he drew. John Kerry believes the ends justifies the means, as all cowards do. His record as a soldier, as a husband, as a senator and now as a presidential candidate speaks for itself on this point well enough, but that the Democratic Party would now line up behind him speaks volumes more. We are not persuaded. We are not blind.

The Dems cut and ran in Vietnam, they cut and ran in Iran, they cut and ran in Nicaragua, in El Salvador, in Somalia, and 3 times rejected the capture of Osama bin Laden despite his public threats and declarations of war, the 1993 WTC bombing, the U.S. embassy bombings, and the attack on the USS Cole. The first black president did nothing BUT run up the white flag, and now sends out his squire wrapped in Old Glory to tell us the new guy has got it all wrong.

How fitting, and defining then it is that our patriotic war hero now sends out not the truth but his lawyers to silence the combat vets he presumes to represent. And not to their homes, mind you, and neither to their publishers, their offices or their agents, but to the TV and radio stations that recognize their right to an opinion, that believe in the free-exchange of ideas, that sell air-time so their voice can be heard. Apparently, John Kerry wants them shut down, or else.

The ends justify the means, you see. And if the threat of litigation can overcome the threat of the First Amendment, then we know, as we are not blind, what a John Kerry presidency forebodes, and which must needs be dispatched, now and forever, to the same fate as McGovern's for the gutless self-serving gutter tripe that it is.

Apologies to any of the lefties who may "go" this way and all (not that there's any thing wrong with it) but, every time I hear some jackass use the "Did you ever serve?! Then how do you know?" line as a kind of rhetorical nuke to someone who is disagreeing with them, I want to ask "Have you ever blown another dude? Then how do you know you wouldn't like it?"

You don't have to experience something to have an opinion on it.

Sorry. Can't let this go:

*The Dems cut and ran in Vietnam...

Vietnam ended under Nixon.

*...they cut and ran in Iran...

Carter went in with insufficient force, it's true. But then again, we weren't exactly involved in a hot war there.

*...they cut and ran in Nicaragua, in El Salvador...

Reagan and Reagan, there. And if by "cut and run" you mean "stayed involved until both sides finally gave up and eventually some semblance of democracy took hold," you're right.

*...Somalia...

You've got me there!

*...and 3 times rejected the capture of Osama bin Laden....

An assertion that has been proven false. The Big Dog did at least try to kill him a couple times, though, which is more than GDub did pre-9/11...or, for that matter, at Tora Bora.

So of the many times "Democrats cut and ran," one (Somalia) is true, one (bin Laden) is false, one (Iran) is arguable either way, and three (El Salvador, Nicaragua, and the biggie, Vietnam) happened under Republican presidents.

Who's soft again?

(We can also play this game all night: Eisenhower cut and ran in Korea, while Truman stayed strong in WWII. To get to a Republican who didn't "cut and run," how far do you have to go back? McKinley?)

One debates at great peril with a fool, but to hoist one publicly on his own petards is a temptation too great to resist. The arena demands it.

To suggest that Vietnam "ended" under Nixon is to ignore the actions taken by a Democratic Congress to cut defense funding, effectively abandoning American troops in the field, not to mention the ARVN and the civilian populations under our protection, millions of whom were systematically murdered after the NVA crushed Saigon. It was the Democrats, not Nixon, who controlled the purse and consequently, the fate of South Vietnam.

Carter, having naively believed in Soviet restraint after Vietnam, reduced defense spending even more, whereupon the Soviets invaded Afghanistan and Khomeini announced his return to Tehran. When the Shah appealed for U.S. assistance, Carter sailed him around on a boat and responded to the Soviets by refusing to attend the Moscow Olympics. He then withdrew to the Rose Garden, blamed us all for "malaise," discussed U.S. nuclear strategy with his 12-year-old daughter, and went on to record the most spectacularly failed presidency in modern American history.

In Nicaragua and El Salvador, it was again a Democratic Congress, in opposition to Reagan, that passed a series of amendments including the Borland Amendment, which sought to abridge the constitutionally established war powers and foreign policy prerogatives of the Executive, to assist the Sandinistas, then supported by Fidel Castro and the USSR. It was precisely because Reagan persevered, despite Congress's interference, that the Sandinistas were repudiated at the ballot box by their own constituency, resoundingly. Where is Daniel Ortega now?

That the Clinton Administration rejected opportunities to capture bin Laden is a matter of public record, all the more substantiated by the former National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, illegally removing documents referencing this matter from the National Archives in an attempt to mislead the 9/11 Commission. Not that the arrest and conviction of this one sick man, regrettably, would have altered the course of history one iota. For all any of us really know, he's already dead.

As for your parenthetical remarks, Eisenhower campaigned on the use of nuclear weapons in Korea, after Truman refused, but who instead accepted "limited war" over the advice of MacArthur, thereby accepting a divided Korea and abandoning the north to the Communists. We see the result to this day. At any rate, we know of no reliable source suggesting Ike cut and ran from anything, ever. There is no basis for such an assertion.

And as for a Republican who fights, we need only examine the record of the current administration, its forebears in prior Republican Administrations, from the rescue of Kuwait to the preservation of the Union itself.

We suggest, Msr. Fecke, that you cease relying on MTV for your news and The Simpsons for your political education. There is a war on afterall, and if you cannot determine its origins you cannot identify the enemy, let alone defeat him, for he relies on your ignorance of history and your steadfast insistance that you always know more than he. Whether in St. Louis or Fallujah, he campaigns every day for your vote, with soft empty platitudes and searing hot lead. And considering the depth and scope of your rebuttal, he's already got your number.

Easy shot.

Eracus had most of the points exactly correct.

Nixon did get us out of Vietnam, but it was the Democrats that gutted our support to the Saigon government, making it impossible for them to survive after 1973. The Saigon government was unsavory; what followed was much, much worse. The Democrats have the blood of hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese, and two million Cambodians, on their hands.

The situation in Central America was a lot more involved than the left's dismissive "stayed around until some semblance of democracy" happened. There were years of intensive diplomacy, aid, military assistance and involvement.

Somalia - Jeff blithely blew it off, but the ties between Somalia and Al Quaeda are and were unmistakeable; they're part of Clinton's long-standing record of bobbling the war on terror.

As to Jeff's claims that Clinton *didn't* bobble attempts to capture Bin Laden, he says Clinton "...did at least try to kill him a couple times, though, which is more than GDub did pre-9/11...or, for that matter, at Tora Bora..."

Oh, Jeff. Jeeez. This is going to hurt you worse than it's going to hurt me. The "attempts to kill" Bin Laden were jokes, and everyone knew it then. As to Tora Bora - the flub wasn't Bush's, it was CENTCOM's, trying to use regular forces to push into the mountains rather than the combination of special forces and Afghans that had been poised to do exactly that (but were held back by the CENTCOM brass, who wanted to get regular troops into action). Again, and as always, leftists should be required to pass a test before commenting on national security.

So to summarize Jeff's summary: " So of the many times "Democrats cut and ran," one (Somalia) is true, one (bin Laden) is false, one (Iran) is arguable either way, and three (El Salvador, Nicaragua, and the biggie, Vietnam) happened under Republican presidents."

Now, an accurate take: Somalia was a much bigger deal than Clinton thought, and his screw-up had much bigger implications than the deaths of 18 servicemen; Bin Laden was far from false; El Salvador and Nicaragua were both victories of REPUBLICAN diplomacy and strength, and the people of vietnam were betrayed by Democrats, purely and simply.

Who's soft again?

(We can also play this game all night: Eisenhower cut and ran in Korea, while Truman stayed strong in WWII. To get to a Republican who didn't "cut and run," how far do you have to go back? McKinley?)

While were praising Nixons wonderful stand in vietnam dont neglect to remember the blatantly illegal, unconstitutional, and immoral domestic policies he was persuing. Oh and he oked the bombing of cambodia and Laos. . I know the military reasoning behind this, but it was still illegal.

"The situation in Central America was a lot more involved than the left's dismissive "
It certainly was! dont forget the Reagan/HW Bush CIA training of terrorist death squads. CIA rule number one. . when entering a non-cooporative villave (read: one who recognises the legitimate government) first liqiudate the teachers, pastors, and doctors. And lets not forget the propping up of and funding of noriega who became so despotic (with the power Reagans money and weapon sales provided) had to be removed. . by US!

Somalia began as a relief mission. there was no provision for invasion and containment. When it became a shooting war, we stuck to the letter of our mandate and pulled out. The only other option was the kind of street to street house to house meatgrinder that we have in Iraq today. Frankly I prefer to cut and run in somalia to the scene of civilians (and warlord troops disguised as such) being piled up.

Now what about Yugoslavia? Pretty sucessful, yet gets no mention. Strongly opposed by the republican legislature, by the way. Theres a hell of a lot more democracy going on there now than Iraq.

And for the BIG finale, why are we in Iraq now at all anyway? Because HW Bush didnt support the popular uprising he instigated. Cut and ran. What kind of message did THAT send to al queda?

Msr. Jason, your rebuke is pure casuistry, which belies your education. Nixon's domestic policies, from welfare to civil rights, were signed into law to accommodate the Democratic Congress which proposed them. If you understand the military strategic imperatives of the invasion of Cambodia, then the legality or illegality of the carnage it prevented is for idiots to debate. Do not do so here.

Alas, the CIA is and has been a third-rate missionary school since the Church Committee cut its balls off in the '70s. This is well-known and has long explained just why we're in this mess today. No seasoned commandante would rely on the CIA or its lesson plans to take over a paper bag, much less a 7-Eleven, let alone a village. That Noriega ate their lunch for 20 years only further proves the point.

Somalia-- a relief mission? If it's a relief mission, we send in the Red Cross, not the Rangers. Our "mandate" was to get Aidid, whom we knew to be connected to Al Qaeda and the embassy bombings. Only, Bill --that other anti-war war hero-- didn't think the whole shooting thing was, like, politically expedient --so, well, no gunships, no support, no survivors. His Defense Secretary, Les Aspin, bit the towel on that to later die dishonored and ashamed. As for the dead Somali civilians, oh, dear, which would you prefer? A few hundred armed Somalis piled up dead in Mogadishu or 3,000 innocent Americans piled up dead in New York? Your call. Oops! Too late.

And Yugoslavia?? Do you mean Kosovo? Perhaps Bosnia? If that diplomatic boondoggle, that bureaucratic international quaqmire of a US taxpayer money pit has been so successful, why are we still there? Which constitutional assembly and general election did I miss and when? Why aren't our boys home? And why is it still costing us $1 billion a year, every year?

Ah, and now the "finale." HW Bush obeyed the UN mandate he was given, which was the prerequisite a Democratic Congress demanded for its support in the liberation of Kuwait. It is a certainty that the US military, with 600,000 troops and its Commander-in-Chief, was well-prepared for and willing to proceed to regime change in Iraq, if only they had the votes in Congress and the UN. They didn't. HW Bush took no unilateral action.

It was not the Executive who "cut and ran." To the contrary, he obeyed the law as defined by the duly-elected representatives of a Democrat majority Congress, which, as surely as in Vietnam, abandoned the Iraqi people to their bloody fate.

We are in Iraq today, praise Allah and a Republican majority, that their children might yet be free.

"Msr. Jason, your rebuke is pure casuistry, which belies your education"
Ok, so thats your attempt to act "more educated"? your momma. hows that, more in tune with the attemped name calling you seem to prefer?

"Nixon's domestic policies, from welfare to civil rights, were signed into law to accommodate the Democratic Congress which proposed them."
Wow, I wasnt aware that congress proposed the illegal bugging of democratic party offices. The leaking of stolen psychologists records of political opponents. the sabotaging of democrat political meetings by covert ordering of thousands of dollars worth of unneeded equipment under forged dnc bills of sale. the forming of "enemies lists" who were targeted for attack by the IRS and fbi wiretapping. are you sure these were legislative proposals?

"If you understand the military strategic imperatives of the invasion of Cambodia, then the legality or illegality of the carnage it prevented is for idiots to debate"
Speaking of idiocy, using your logic, the PRC should immediately invade Taiwan. The united states leads by example,we stand upon our steller (seriouly) record of taking the highroad. Nixon drug us and the country down.

more when i get home from work.

ca·su·ist·ry

NOUN:

1. Specious or excessively subtle reasoning intended to rationalize or mislead.

2. The determination of right and wrong in questions of conduct or conscience by analyzing cases that illustrate general ethical rules.
-------------------------------------------

So Nixon, goodness gracious, was involved in political skullduggery?? Who knew? Your original reference was to "domestic policies," which one would logically assume meant actual "domestic policies," not the untidy, rough-and-tumble world of presidential politics. Rather than defend your original statement, you change the subject. How quaint.

Watergate is the story of how a third-rate burglary attempt by Larry, Curly, and Moe was turned into a coup d'etat to remove a democratically-elected president, thereby reversing American strategic policy. The US withdrawal from Vietnam was but one objective, as the election of Jimmy Carter accelerated American withdrawal not only from the Pacific Rim, but the Arabian Crescent as well. Today, we see the result.

Watergate and its antecedents were the product, not the catalyst, of this reversal, as its origins lay with the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, which sought accommodation with the Communists. This is why the US never invaded North Vietnam, in accordance with established Democrat foreign policy supported by a Democrat-majority Congress.

How Nixon responded was to bomb Hanoi back to the Stone Age, mine the harbor at Haiphong, cut off the Trans-Siberian Railway and obliterate the Ho Chi Minh Trail, thus eliminating Soviet military assistance to Hanoi to effectively end the war. Then he armed Taiwan and charmed Mao into a strategic alliance against the Soviet Union. In return, Mao let Ho rot on the vine, thumbed his nose at the Kremlin, and invaded the North after the American withdrawal.

What Carter did was then reverse American policy toward Taiwan and instead arm the Chinese, just as Clinton would do, in violation of American and international law, some 20 years later through dual-use technology, direct upgrades to Chinese missile systems, and the clandestine distribution of American nuclear codes.

Those Chinese missiles today, replete with US missile guidance systems, are arrayed in some 300 batteries on the south China coast and aimed at Taiwan, an American ally and a free republic. The United States just sent 7 carrier groups into the region in response to Chinese military preparations for the invasion of Taiwan.

Please, do try to keep up.

I would try to keep up, really, but the fact that your actually condoning and defending nixon . . well, I cant stop laughing.

Carry on soldier.

If you don't know your history, argue the facts.

If you don't know your facts, argue the history.

If you don't know your facts or your history,

change the subject.