Signs Of Backlash On The Swift Boat Vets Issue (Joe Gandelman)
Joe Gandelman
You can see some signs of the backlash by reading Jeff Jarvis here and Walter Swann here.
In the past 72 hours two Republicans have told me the same thing (one said she switched to the Democratic party). And my own position — which is akin to Jarvis' — has been posted on my blog The Moderate Voice (just scroll down and down) many times before. It's this:
I do not care about George Bush's military record — so you Democrats are not scoring any points with me. I do not care about John Kerry's military record — so you Republicans are not scoring any points with me. I do not care about the Vietnam war in this election.
If anything, each day I am finding myself reacting more and more like Jarvis and Swann and find this whole thing reprehensible. (Because there is huge interest in this issue on Dean's World, I post more here than I do on my own blog on it. I also did NOT post much at all on the Bush military record controversy when that was raging).
Bush hatred is mirrored by Kerry hatred which seemingly drips from radio talk shows, emails and blogs. So both sides can stop wasting everyone's time with arguments about which side hates the most: BOTH hate the other candidate with equal passion Bush hatred and Clinton hatred are also the same animals. It's amazing to hear someone (Democrats and Republicans) say "No I don't hate so and so" then launch into a rage-filled, name-calling denunciation — and you hear this all the time.
Operatives and supporters on both sides should admit it: hate feels good, it motivates many voters and it gets people on both sides to the polls. It's also a way for both sides to use some of a campaign's limited time talking about something other than prickly issues that may lose them votes and be more complex than good guy/bad guy.
In the case of the Vietnam issue, maybe the only way for this country to return to issues is for all of us Baby Boomers to die off or to put all of our energy into getting new face lifts or making sure the Viagra dosage works — and stop reliving past glories and pursuing undying grudges.
And, in November, for some independent voters (like me), the deciding factor often becomes which party ran the less personal campaign. You hold your nose and vote for the candidate that seemed more focused on issues. Right now it appears as if both sides are only at the starting point of one of the most personal campaigns ever. And no matter who wins, the country loses.
UPDATE: The two latest big stories on the wires and net on this issue are here and here. When you watch or read these, remember or refer to our post on How The Media Works. It's already going according to the usual pattern....
In the past 72 hours two Republicans have told me the same thing (one said she switched to the Democratic party). And my own position — which is akin to Jarvis' — has been posted on my blog The Moderate Voice (just scroll down and down) many times before. It's this:
I do not care about George Bush's military record — so you Democrats are not scoring any points with me. I do not care about John Kerry's military record — so you Republicans are not scoring any points with me. I do not care about the Vietnam war in this election.
If anything, each day I am finding myself reacting more and more like Jarvis and Swann and find this whole thing reprehensible. (Because there is huge interest in this issue on Dean's World, I post more here than I do on my own blog on it. I also did NOT post much at all on the Bush military record controversy when that was raging).
Bush hatred is mirrored by Kerry hatred which seemingly drips from radio talk shows, emails and blogs. So both sides can stop wasting everyone's time with arguments about which side hates the most: BOTH hate the other candidate with equal passion Bush hatred and Clinton hatred are also the same animals. It's amazing to hear someone (Democrats and Republicans) say "No I don't hate so and so" then launch into a rage-filled, name-calling denunciation — and you hear this all the time.
Operatives and supporters on both sides should admit it: hate feels good, it motivates many voters and it gets people on both sides to the polls. It's also a way for both sides to use some of a campaign's limited time talking about something other than prickly issues that may lose them votes and be more complex than good guy/bad guy.
In the case of the Vietnam issue, maybe the only way for this country to return to issues is for all of us Baby Boomers to die off or to put all of our energy into getting new face lifts or making sure the Viagra dosage works — and stop reliving past glories and pursuing undying grudges.
And, in November, for some independent voters (like me), the deciding factor often becomes which party ran the less personal campaign. You hold your nose and vote for the candidate that seemed more focused on issues. Right now it appears as if both sides are only at the starting point of one of the most personal campaigns ever. And no matter who wins, the country loses.
UPDATE: The two latest big stories on the wires and net on this issue are here and here. When you watch or read these, remember or refer to our post on How The Media Works. It's already going according to the usual pattern....
1) It is Kerry who chose to make this campaign about Vietnam, Kerry who chose to make it the bulk of the resume he presented to people.
2) Beyond that, to me the bigger issue for a while now has been the mainstream press' reaction to this, vs. how they reacted to the ginned-up Plame affair, the ginned up Bush AWOL story, the ginned-up Halliburton and Harken Energy nonsense, and so on.
I'll also add that looking people in the eye who tell me they know Bush "lied" about WMDs while refusing, refusing to acknowledge that Kerry was saying the same things about WMDs well before Bush was even elected has been a genuine eye-opener for me.
Well, that and watching people who defended Fahrenheit 9/11 and now act outraged when a group of men who served with Kerry come out and say that he's a sleaze has been equally instructive.
It's really funny, since today's Yahoo! News includes a headline to the effect that "Kerry calls on Bush to stop Vietnam attacks."
Sure, John. Just as soon as you stop all the BS about "reporting for duty," carting all your buddies from THIRTY YEARS AGO, and spouting off about your Vietnam service every time you open your mouth.
Why not talk about (say) your Senate voting record? Heh...
It looks like you'll have to vote for Kerry. After all he was born in the west wing of the army hospital out in Colorado. That will insure keeping your independent neutrality in check.
combat troops still on duty after his military
discharge does. Remember that the Vietnam war was not lost in Vietnam. It was lost in this country and John Kerry was a leader in that defeat along with Hanoi Jane and the VVAW.
Well, no. Feeling that you're above hate, above muddled passions, above the two sides that must be exactly the same because they're both shouting -- *that* feels good. But sometimes thinking clearly means recognizing that great wrong is being done. Hate can follow along from that, and it's a pain in the ass.
I remember when I was a political agnostic who sided with the Democrats faute de mieux. Now I believe one side lies a hell of a lot more than the other and it's the GOP. The Democrats are still politicians and therefore not to be admired; but the Republicans have taught me to despise them and fear what they'll do to the country.
I have my reasons but won't trundle them out here. My point is that being angry can get in the way of thinking but is not in itself a sign of absence of thought -- thinking can make you very angry indeed. Whereas clutching your chin and reflecting on how cool-headed you are very often seems to take the place of thought.
The "I don't care about Vietnam" chant is rubbish. I care about Vietnam, and how my potential presisdent acted while there, and afterward. I want to know, in as minute detail as possible, everything about the candidates. I can make my own decisions, thank you. Getting all the relevant facts and hearing others' opinions about them is part of my methodology for determining what is creditble and what is garbage.
I can make up my own mind about this stuff, really I can.
But seriously ...
Military service is not necessarily something that is off the table in any election. However, there is a strong case to be made that, barring extreme offenses, a minute examination of a candidate's military record is nonproductive and distracts from more modern issues, particularly when the war in question is of a rather antique vintage.
--|PW|--
Who cares about Vietnam? Vietnam is not the point, except insofar as events speak to character.
Bush: baby boomer, frat boy, blah-blah, wants to stay out of Nam, joins the Texas ANG instead, spends a year learning to fly jets and two years flying interceptor missions in F-102s, one of the hairiest beasts the Air Force ever acquired. Goofs off for a year in 'Bama, barely meeting the minimum obligations, applies for early release to enter Harvard's MBA program. Eventually straightens himself out, becomes Governor of Texas, handily beating smashmouth Ann Richards, ultimately becomes a wartime President.
Kerry: Just consider the sampan incident, January 19, 1969. His crew shoots up a sampan sailed by a family of fishermen, out on the river after curfew. Result: one dead infant, a widowed mother and orphaned child, a dead husband. He chews out the crew, but here is how his after-action report reads: body count: 1 VC KIA (that's the baby); 2 VC captured in action (Those are the mother and daughter); estimated body count: 4 VC KIA (that was the husband). You like it? By all means, vote for it.
P.S.: Scorn and contempt are not hatred.
Good post - and I'm fine reading you here or on your own blog (which I also read).
There is something that has bothered me, however, about the energy with which people are beginning to declaim that this whole issue is just another illustration of political smear (usually, "right wing" political smear).
I will *not* get into a dissection of the SwiftVets claims but permit me a quick point.
The SwiftVets organized before Kerry was selected as the Democratic candidate and sought to undercut him during the Democratic primaries. Indeed, some of them are registered Democrats. From what I can see, these people aren't motivated by a love of Bush (although some may be) so much as an enormous hatred for Kerry based on his "war crimes" smear of them many years ago. Whether you agree with them or not, these are men that saw Kerry up close years ago and who strongly feel that he isn't fit to lead. While the charges are quite personal and they may well have let their feelings cloud their memories, it still strikes me that this is a quintessential example of the free speech protected by our constitution. But the press - and in some senses you yourself - are spinning this as being all about the troubling growth of "smear tactics." Questions are being seriously asked about whether these men should be allowed to speak their minds. Kerry and Edwards have threatened to sue media forums that run their ads.
It is perfectly reasonable to say that you don't find these men convincing or that their point isn't relevant, but it is disturbing to hear so many powerful and influential people focus on ways to get these men to shut up.
It is also disturbing to hear how quickly the meme is changing from whether these men have a point to just how nasty the "Republican smear machine" is...which is essentially just another way to drive the conclusion that we need to put a stop to this form of speech.
More about relative blowback for "smear" in my next post responding to Kyle...
In addition to doubting that Kyle was ever a "political agnostic", I am utterly floored by this assertion. Michael Moore made an entire documentary essentially declaring that Bush is slaughtering young Americans to enrich his oil buddies. His reward? He was given a seat of high distinction at the Democratic convention right next to former president Carter.
A large body of veterans who served directly with John Kerry claim that he exaggerated his tales of heroism and lied to get out of VietNam early. Not that big a deal if you ask me given how common it was to attempt to avoid service during VietNam. Kyle's response and that of the MSM? Well, this is obviously yet another horrific smear that shows that the Bush campaign will stop at nothing to spread the worst sort of dishonest, manipulative propaganda! This despite the fact that the primary link between Bush and the SwiftVets is that both Bush and many of the SwiftVets are both Republicans. Let's see if O'Neill is given a seat with the elite at the Republican Convention.
In Kyle's world, there can never be any blowback on the Democrats regardless of the outrageousness of the charges (Bush=Hitler anyone?) But any attempt to question Kerry's character - no matter how well documented (Cambodia? Winter Soldier?) is enough to drive decent people (even political agnostics!) to the conclusion that Republicans are lying, manipulative savages.
This is the new meme - same as the old meme: Democrats are high-minded protectors of the little guy who occasionally are "not to be admired" while Republicans are to be "despised" on all counts.
In Vietnam, Kerry's position was: I have my three purple hearts, excuse me boys, I gotta run.
John Kerry stood in front of the world and said, in essence, "I am an honorable War Hero whose service makes me the best choice to be your Commander in Chief". That leaves any responsible citizen with two tasks: 1) to decide whether or not his service really does make him the best choice and 2) whether he served as he said he did.
The second is what we here in the blogosphere have been hashing out for the past couple of weeks. Unfortunately for Kerry, his stories aren't holding up entirely to scrutiny. Even though parts of his stories are true, others are not. Does that matter? Not to some. But it does to me. I wouldn't hire someone who lied on their work resume. I'm certainly not going to vote for someone who lied on his political one.
1: Does past performance tell us the true character of a person?
Yes and no. Everybody has things in their past they wish did not happen, from pre-teen, teenagers and then getting out on their own no matter what circumstances were the family dynamics, and those could be wounds we all share; shame, regret and remorse. It is human to err. As we grow and get out of the self centered and become self attributing in our chosen line of work then we are growing as a whole person.
2: Whos pasts brings about maturity and does not dwell on it and their mistakes, but make those mistakes a better person for have gone through them and then have the desire to want to serve our country when called upon?
These two men running for office carry a past and we will have to chose on our own personal beliefs who we fell as an individual could carry this country into a safer and well protected future here on our soil and also preserve our title of the greatest nation on the planet.
3. Who sincerely can decipher who are our true allies and will be bold and strong enough Not to backdown being careful also what deals we make.
We have seen what Bush has done so far, he is the POTUS.
Do we believe he can keep a careful eye on us while at the same time doing what is absolutely essential to our own protection on this soil.
Would Kerry being in Senate for many years and working as one can he along with the democrats accomplish and lead us into protecting our soil.
PLEASE, PLEASE READ JOE'S POST TODAY ABOUT PROTECTING OUR COUNTRY OUR HOMELAND. AL QUEADA-MEXICO. This is one of the most important post Joe has made and the second comment above talks about his bad jounalism. Joe does have a good perspective due to where he lives.I think it is serious reading.
The plans to get us in our vulnerable places has been their plan since 9-11. It is a must read. Those that live North know how lax the Canadian border is as well.
Talk to people in Virginia where we have Navy ports and the lack of enough man power.
PROTECT THIS SOIL FIRST AND FORMOST President Bush and Senator Kerry...Get with it and demand screenings, I like Arnolds view...eye, ear nose throat idenity of people coming in. Was that an extreme statement. Yes, I have a love for this soil.
GO READ THAT ABOUT AL QUAEDA, we can each decide who we want for President as long as we still have land here to protect. They can do a few hits on each coast to wipe out OUT OUR ENTIRE ECONOMY. Lot's of our men went to Georgia because of things brewing and have travelled our big cities.
WAKE UP, this is what matters IMPassioateOpinion.
Yep.
That was one of the best comments I have ever seen, here in Dean's World or in any blog. You cut right to the root of something that goes far beyond and far deeper than this election or politics as such, and it is something that I have thought about for a very, very long time: Those who feel most passionately are precisely those who have thought most clearly.
You and some of your pals here, really have me angry, but I'll be nice.
One, John Kerry did not make this campaign about Vietnam! In a time when our security is a priority, he used his service and bravery, and what it proves about his leadership and character, as his pitch to voters.
Second, I am angry when I see comments like the poster, Jimmie. If one is able to find this blog to post a comment, then you should be able to find the evidence fully supporting Kerry like the NYTimes, Washington Post, Chgo Tribune,etc. Yet, I suspect Jimmie is one of the many freepers, fitted with bias blinders, keeping this story alive.
Third, I'm tired of the shrill, ignorant whining about how they need to 'get back to the issues' crap. Kerry has been running a positive campaign and doing just that. He tried to ignore these attacks, but that all changed when the July job figures came out.
If you wanna read more about what I think:
Bushworld
Congratulations. You have just fallen into one of the trashiest, and most-easily refuted myths of American politics: that "war heroes" are better leaders.
This is -in short- total BULLSHIT.
You ask for specifics? Certainly.
Two of the best known, and most respected presidents are Lincoln and FDR. Neither one had a lick of military experience, except Lincoln's few weeks of "Black Hawk War" militia time, to which he referred to great comic effect during his campaigns, twenty years later.
Woodrow Wilson had no military experience, but managed the greater part of World War One quite respectably, according to most historians.
By comparison, Jefferson Davis (who had one of the most distinguished records of any American war leader) trails far behind Lincoln in comparison. Truman (artillery, WW1) did not handle Korea very well, nor did Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon (all Navy men) do so with Vietnam, although Nixon managed to accomplish more within a limited sphere.
The greatest "non-warrior" victor of the Twentieth Century is, of course, Ronald Reagan; formerly known as the senile "Ronnie Ray-gun" by the venally pacifist left, Reagan was the final architect in the victory over the USSR during the 70-year Protracted Conflict, although he was never under fire.
Would you like some more evidence? Okay.
Leaders known to have shown valor under fire, but known to be less than trustworthy:
-Mussolini
-Hitler (Iron Cross first class, equivalent to US Medal of Honor. Cited by a Jewish officer; how's that for irony?)
-Mao Zedong
-General Giap
Other US leaders?
Andrew Jackson; victor of New Orleans, but persecutor of Indians.
General Grant; one of America's greatest generals, but worst presidents.
William McKinley, achieve rank as a Major during the Civil War, presided over the Spanish-American War, one of our least-defensible wars.
Eisenhower achieved the highest rank during WW2, but presided over the acquiescence of Communist domination of North Korea. Fast forward fifty years, and NK has nukes. Thanks, Ike!
Bush 41 presided over the Gulf War, and was smart enough to let the profesionals run things. Whether his experience as a combat pilot in WW2 contributed to this decision is not apparent at this time.
William Clinton never served, and presided over one of the greatest periods of growth of 20th Century America, although it is (as with Bush 41) not immediately apparent how much of this growth is attributable to his policies. Still, he was a very intelligent politician who did not do poorly.
We must conclude, from the facts, that squad-level military experience (which the great majority of future leaders had) contributes little, or nothing, to their ability as any kind of leader, much less a war leader.
Nice try, but no sale.
One thing I have noted is that each attempt to smear the Swifties gets shot down - as of now, I'm at the point that I wont even listen to criticism about them unless its coupled with the complete and unabridged Kerry military record as backup (something which Kerry still hasn't provided for us). It boils down to this - who is more likely to lie: 11 guys, or 250?
In the end, though, it doesn't matter - the other shoe drops tomorrow with the release of the Swifties ad about Kerry's recorded on camera testimony about his fellow servicemembers in Vietnam. He can't very well use a "band of brothers" whom he called war criminals once upon a time, now can he?
What this all tells us, most importantly, is that Kerry is unfit to be President - not because of what he may or may not have done in Vietnam and the immediate aftermath, but because his continual revision of history to whatever makes him look best at the moment shows a lack of personal honesty. The Democrats tried a guy who redefined 'is' for us, you'd think they'd have learnt their lesson...
...He wants Bush, he has his personal choice as his right being an American Citizen he says..., (It is his Blog and welcomes the divide but is hoping for Unity) there is absolutely no doubt he that He Will Support Whoever is our next President. He is 100% right what WE will have to do going forward.
We owe it to each and every veteran and man and woman, mother, wife, husband, sister brother, children and grandparents that manned the homefront while our soldiers fought for our freedoms. Every man and woman that during our lowest times, our saddest times WE came together...all of us... to keep these United states defended. Along with how we also gave a
helping hand to counties in dire needs.
Great love and passion will conquer out I so dearly believe and of course millions of people that will go to vote....Please read Joe's post on Al Queada on our enemies and how the Mexico connection is a serious threat.
One thing I have noted is that each attempt to smear the Swifties gets shot down - as of now, I'm at the point that I wont even listen to criticism about them unless its coupled with the complete and unabridged Kerry military record as backup (something which Kerry still hasn't provided for us). It boils down to this - who is more likely to lie: 11 guys, or 250?
Thanks for the update from that parallel universe you Bush supporters call home, Mark. Where factual and supported debunking of the Swift Boat Vets accusations do not exist, and you watch the news with ear plugs, at the ready.
There are still 3 months of Bush's 'service' still unaccounted for, from the summer of '72. In comparison, that makes Kerry's service record:
www.johnkerry.com/service
well, complete and unabridged.
One heads up about the next SBV TV ad. It fails to mention that the atrocities Kerry is seen reading off, are comments from other Vietnam veterans. Of course, you can tune in anytime to see it in power rotation, on Fox.
I could be wrong, but that "unabridged" version of Kerry's military records you linked to looks more like an advertisement than actual military records.
BTW, got any examples of "factual debunking" as opposed to other witnesses with different accounts?
(when different witnesses give different accounts, neither is "debunking" the other, but you knew that, right?)
It is truly amazing the lengths you Bush apologists will go, to avoid having to actually defend this administration.
I'm guessing it is futile of me to suggest you visit Media Matters.org, FactCheck.org, and the Progress Report, to see you work your sharp skills of denial, when an abundance of sourced, detailed and factual 'debunking' of the SBV attacks, are staring you in the face.
Hmm, which one of the so-called 'differing accounts' would TCF believe? A guy more than a mile down river, or the guy standing with Kerry in the boat?
maor, what does an 'advertisement' of Kerry's service read like, specifically? Or, was this just a lame comeback, because you have no idea what could be possibly missing from what you read on Kerry's website?
Btw, when you guys are ready to defend this administration's complete failures on issues that really matter to Americans (economy, jobs, Iraq, Homeland Security, health care), lemme know??
BTW, this is not an apology for the present administration, just a caution that the amount of passion felt may infect the critical faculties and render their operation questionable. Patience is a virtue for a reason.
If all you can do as a rejoinder is to try and resurrect the phony "Bush AWOL" charges, then you're in a pretty pathetic position - even supposing there are three months unaccounted for in Bush's military record, what in hell has this got to do with John Kerry's record? We're not having a competition on whom has the most incomplete record; we're asking Kerry to refute the claims of the Swifties - and from what I've read, there's about 96 pages of Kerry military records known to be in existence, but unreleased by Kerry. Why is that? I mean, Kerry was a sailor and as an ex-sailor myself I can think of things a sailor might have in his service jacket he'd prefer remain unknown, but I cannot imagine that there'd be 96 pages of it..
To quote in paraphrase the Kerry Campaign: "Make. It. Stop!!!"
Wah. Deal with it. ;]
On the Bush-AWOL subject, as the only 'witness' that Bush was NOT in Alabama some thirty odd years ago acknowledged he is suffering from Alzheimers and doesn't even remember being there himself, I think the charges can not only be safely dismissed, but so can any deseperate moonbat trying to cling to them. The MSM apparently thinks so as well, which is especially telling since they are primarily supporting Kerry.
Economy:Growing faster than under Clinton (or ever), and recovering nicely from the one-two punch of the 2000 pop of the dot-com bubble, and 9/11.
Jobs:See economy.
Iraq:Saddam Hussein is no longer in power. (Hence:Mission Accomplished). Iraq has a sovereign government on track to a representative constitution. Jihadists are dying by the boatload. Lowest rate of casualties for any war America has ever entered. Speed of initial conflict makes the term blitzkrieg seem slow. Children no longer imprisoned or killed and thrown into mass graves. All those records of illegal payoffs to Kerry's chums at the UN, in France, Germany, etc.
Homeland Security: All I have to say is, you don't really pay attention, do you? No terrorist attacks against the US since 9/11, vast numbers of terrorists and supporters arrested, detained, or killed. Unprecendented cooperation between federal, state, and local police and intelligence services. The only way it could be done better is fookin' magic, and I don't think you're candidate is that much of a wiz.
Health Care: Buzzword. It is against the law for medical providers in the USA to refuse emergency treatment. You might be unable to afford the cranial-rectal separation surgery you desperately require, but universal health insurance wouldnt even fix that for you. The US system isnt perfect, but it works FAR better than any of the government-run healthcare socialist bureacracies to our North or in Europe.
There, Bush's record defended. A lot of good Democrats put effort into making these things happen as well. Too bad Kerry isn't one of them.
Gentlemen, from my comments on 8/23, there is a very live url link (blue) to John Kerry's complete service record. Otherwise, please offer up a credible, sourced link that proves differently.
Second, John Kerry doesn't need to refute the claims of the SBV, because the three websites I have already suggested you visit, have done the work for him. Refute their findings, or drop the subject.
Economy: Growth slowed to a crawl, rising oil prices causing havoc, and tax cuts were a failure.
Jobs: Net loss-1 million plus and Hoover worthy. Bush resorting to cooking the numbers, and part-time at McDonald's won't feed a family. August job figures announced right after NY GOP Convention. Bounce Killer?
Iraq: Nearly 1000 soldiers dead and 16,000+ injured for a 'Big Lie'. A majority now think, never would we sacrifice for just one dictator, and personal revenge.
Homeland Sec.: Porous borders, and Montana gets more aid than NYC. Nuclear and Chemical sites unsecured, and 39% percent think terror warnings are politically motivated.
Health Care: Side with big donor Drug Co. while Seniors choose btw medication or food. Medicare bill finally unraveling for the scam it really is.
Funny, these issues never make it into the Bush TV ads??
Your statements show a profound ignorance combined with political passion and naivety. Nice use of buzzwords and propaganda, but unfortunately the net truth content of your post is zero. Now, if you want to debate real word issues, we can talk. But spouting Moore-onisms gets you dismissed as a barking moonbat.
You know, I don't think that word means what you think it means. For example, it's not "backlash" for a Kerry supporter like Jarvis to be opposed to anti-Kerry people.
tcf:
Some someone has proved that Kerry really was in Cambodia on Christmas Eve, dispite the fact that the Kerry Campaign admits he wasn't? No? Score one for the swifties.
Someone has proved that Kerry's 1st Purple Heart was for an injury that required more than a band aid in treatment? No? Score another for the swifties.
Your "Kerry's complete military service records" site contains all the documentation that led to Kerry getting awarded his first Purple Heart? Really? Could you please give us the URL to the form submitted by Kerry's superior officer, because I can't find it. Thanks.
Nicely worded dodge of my response, which contains no specific denial of what I wrote. When you idiots from the Right cannot dispute actual facts, you resort to calling them 'propaganda'. If the 'net truth' of my post was zero, why didn't you bother pointing it out?
Are there nearly 1000 soldiers dead? Yup. Are our national borders wide open to exploitation? Yup. Is the FDA doing the biding of the drug companies by denying purchases from Canada? Yup.
True, I do not know what a service record looks like. But, all you have is a Cambodia story, and a book full of lies from discredited SBV.
Greg D., if these two things are all you have against John Kerry, compared to the failed presidency of George Bush, November should not come as a surprise.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.