Deinonychus antirrhopus

Any mention of Cambodia from those folks?

This effort to smear Kerry is also a broader affront to all military veterans, and the Republican Party is reaping what was sown in 2000. In order to establish moral equivalency between a decorated war veteran and a ANG pilot the war vet has to be besmirched. Just imagine if this tactic had been tried against Senator Bob Dole by a draft dodging President Bill Clinton. Bloody murder would have been cried.

I can understand a Democratic position of moral equivalency because they are traditionally anti-military and this would seem a natural tactic for them, but this Kerry smear simply reinforces my position that allegiance to Party takes precedence over national standards that should be held common by us all.

Clearly, it was President Bush's intention to run on his war leadership, and this was evident as far back as the mid-terms. Staking out this ground for solely Republican benefit would be a clear tactical advantage for it would appeal to voters who held this issue to be central in their consideration for which candidate was best suited for the office.

Senator Kerry used his military career to his advantage in the primaries and apart from Governor Dean's other shortcomings, this was recognized by voters as a necessary part of a resume in order to appeal to the voter bloc mentioned above.

The mental contortions that result from not giving Senator Kerry his due on this matter is mind boggling and borders on hypocrisy. If you are a voter who thinks this aspect of a candidate's character is important then how can you not acknowledge the moral difference between the hero and the pulling strings candidate. If you are a voter persuaded by the argument that being a war veteran forges a more resolute character then Senator Kerry is better prepared and better understands what it means to be a war President, than the current incumbent, who lacks both qualities because he wasn't in the arena of combat where these qualities are forged. If being a war hero means anything then you have to honor the achievements and give them their due.

Of course, if your voter who doesn't care about war records then you're above the fray and this is simply noise. However, if this is you then you are statistically more likely to be a Democrat for it is Republicans who are most likely to revere military service and heroism.

The party chose the wrong candidate in 2000 and now look at what it's doing to its own moral standards. I saw this with respect to McCain in 2000 and thought it was the lowest tactics of the campaingn and now again. For a party that has increasingly become dominated by social conservatives, this moral laxity smells to high heavan of calluous hypocrisy. It simply reinforces my position that many of these Republicans would sell their mothers if it would help their candidate. Have you ever told a left-wing nut that sometimes "even George Bush is right on a decision." This is the same principle - Kerry's record trumps President Bush's: deal with it. If military records and service reflect upon and shape the man, and it matters to you, then vote your beliefs, but this shortsighted smearing of military records that has become vogue by this Adminstration's fellow travellers will come back to bite the Republican's in the ass in the future for it will forevermore demean the value of military service and heroism in the political process and because these values generally have more resonance for Republicans than Democrats, the loss will be demoralizing.

The next time the nation gets into a war, why would any American with an interest in national service show up to fight? When did the U.S. come to blithely accept the tarring for political gain of honorably discharged combat veterans? . . .

But I'm also talking about the attacks on Republican Senator and former prisoner of war John McCain -- a genuine hero by anyone's definition -- during his South Carolina primary battle against George W. Bush for the 2000 Presidential nomination. And the relentless assaults on the patriotism of Democrat Max Cleland by Republican Saxby Chambliss, . . .

It's time for Bush in particular -- and Americans in general -- to get on the right side of this issue once and for all. No moral equivalency exists between Kerry and Bush on the issue of service in Vietnam. Kerry served in combat. He was shot at. Not Bush. If you don't think it's important for a President to have served in combat, fine, make your choice on other grounds. But if you do, Kerry is your man, at least on this one issue . . .

So does Jim Rassmann, the retired Los Angeles County cop who introduced Kerry at the Democratic Convention. Rassmann is a Republican, for gosh sakes. He came forward on his own and offered to campaign for Kerry, whom he credits with saving his life that day. Rassman also recommended Kerry for the Silver Star, one of the nation's highest honors for bravery under fire and the highest medal Kerry won. . .

"What matters most to me," Rood wrote, "is that this is hurting crewmen who are not public figures and who deserved to be honored for what they did." . . .

The purpose of the attacks against Kerry, however, isn't to get at the truth. It's a media campaign, with TV ads intended to create a vague, negative impression where none existed. The people behind the ads know that by any realistic assessment of the facts, Kerry has a major advantage over Bush when it comes to their respective military records. They want to muddy the waters to reduce Kerry's advantage. It's amazing that such bald-faced tactics can gain any traction with voters. . .

Dean, if you're reading this - this is precisely what I mean when I refer to tribe warfare and the gullability of the public to swallow anything that comes from the elders in their tribe. Putting one's allegiance to party above all else. Kerry's record on this beat's President Bush's but this can't be accepted honestly so it has to be smeared, just as with McCain, and Cleland. How would it have been accepted if Dole and G.H.W. Bush's records were smeared by their opponents? Republicans are smearing honorable national service and devaluing it for future elections, which is there isn't a candidate with the surname of Bush, the Party could find that's it's war hero candidate will have no tactical advantage because veteran's status will be equivalent to being a member of the Rotary Club.

Actually TangoMan, that rant of yours is quite silly.

You seem to have conveniently omitted the fact that Bob Dole's war record was attacked ( by the Nation ) and George H.W. Bush's war record was attacked ( by Clinton smear king Sid "Vicious" Blumenthal).

So much for that theory.

By the way, the claim that Cleland's "patriotism" was questioned is a myth long debunked. Its dishonest to repeat it. Chambliss attacked Cleland on his actual voting record. If you want to claim that war service insulates one from defending an actual voting record, then make that claim.

The Democrats have run tens of millions of dollars in attack ads through 527's including ads that trumpeted the false claim that President Bush had ben "AWOL" during his National Guard service. That Kerry can't take a fraction of that from the Swift Boats vets shows both his hypocrisy and his inability to take any pressure. We can guess what this shows about you.

Whether or not John Kerry's actual war service is as inspiring as you think, Kerry has lied about it since repeatedly and been caught at it. Further, his anti-war activities show his lack of character quite clearly - endorsing the slanderous lies of poseurs, contacting our enemies during wartime, and more. Galanti's statement is dead on. He points out that he refused under torture to give the North Vietnamese what John Kerry gave them for free.

Nice smear job, Tangoman.

Oh, and TangoMan, if you want to claim that it is the Republicans that are an "affront" to all Vietnam veterans, you will have to shoulder cartoonist Pat Oliphant out of the way.

Good luck, Ted Rall is busy scribbling up something no doubt to aid you.

I've blown stuff out of my nose that looks more like people than Rall's ever been able to manage. Hey...

Robin, yes I read Instapundit too. The attacks on Bush '41 and Dole had no legs whatsoever Then the coup de grace was delivered by Michael Dukakis, who remarked: "I don't think that kind of thing has any place in the campaign" unlike the fervor attached to the SBVT. It's illustrative that we had to wait this long to for deep archival searches to yield those lame attempts that died on the vine. Night and day. Fringe partisanship back then that was knocked down, not so today.

Also, I wrote that I could understand Democratic attempts to run military heros through the mud, but not Republicans who generally value military culture more highly.

We can guess what this shows about you.

It shows that I recognize the way politics is conducted today and that I don't like it and that I think that both sides should show some honor before the value of medals amounts to the same thing at a mail order degree.

Steve's attacked the illogic of Kerry's fiscal plan. Great. I'm down on Kerry for his immigration plan, identity politics, disincentivizing achievement, flawed energy policy, and plenty of other things. There's plenty of fodder to go after Kerry. Plenty. Foremost can be his anti-war statements but they are certainly different than his war activities.

I want a Bronze Star, Purple Heart and Silver Star to mean something for every citizen, not just to be honored if won by Republicans and besmirched if won by Democrats.

Yes, Robin, it appears we travel through the same blogs. My point is that Republicans should know better. Don't you have a lot of disdain for Democrats who belittle honorable service? I do. Why not apply the same standards to this SBVT smear. I do. It bothers me more because of where it's coming from. If you want to race to the bottom and have no standards and join the Democrats in denouncing proud institutions and the honors we bestow on notable service, by all means, drink the cool-aid and let your leaders show you the way. I decline to follow for sake of party. Those honors mean something even if a self-serving Boston Blueblood won them.

As for Rall, I'm fully on board with Slarti.

Complete and utter onsense, TangoMan, the attacks on Dole and Bush died out because they didn't work, not because the Clintons didn't stoop that low. Not because the Clintons "knocked it down". Blumenthal was hired by Hillary herself.

The Democrats harped for months and tens of millions of dollars on the false claims regarding Bush's national guard service, a charge that Kerry and McAulliffe repeated themselves. This is politics the Democrat style and they don't like their own medicine. This bizarre attempt by you to claim that its understandable to you that Democrats did this tells me a lot too.

The hypocrisy is beyond belief.

As for these ads being inappropriate? To the contrary, these ads are irrefutable.

It seems nothing hurts Kerry more than his own words.

This bizarre attempt by you to claim that its understandable to you that Democrats did this tells me a lot too.

Really? Looking at all of the kooks who adore Micheal Moore, post nutty stuff at DU, Kos, etc, and you're telling me that they, and their standards, are identical to those found in the Republican Party?

That tells me more a lot about why you and I never agree on anything. I can dismiss the kooks from the Right and the Left and not give them creedance. Too many people drink the cool-aid and believe all as long as it benefits their partisan ambitions.

This effort to smear Kerry is also a broader affront to all military veterans, and the Republican Party is reaping what was sown in 2000. In order to establish moral equivalency between a decorated war veteran and a ANG pilot the war vet has to be besmirched. Just imagine if this tactic had been tried against Senator Bob Dole by a draft dodging President Bill Clinton. Bloody murder would have been cried.

Ahhhhh my eyes! My eyes! My EYES! The inconsistency here has blinded me. :-)

Tangoman, how come the Draft Dodger (Clinton) didn't have to attack the War Hero's (Dole) record?

Could the current "smearing, dirty politics, etc." be the result of the Democrat "smear, dirty politics, etc." that Bush was AWOL, a deserter, and drunkard? Could that have been fueled by the desire to win...at any cost?

I can understand a Democratic position of moral equivalency because they are traditionally anti-military and this would seem a natural tactic for them, but this Kerry smear simply reinforces my position that allegiance to Party takes precedence over national standards that should be held common by us all.

Of course, but this applies to both parties which renders your criticism moot if you are trying to play one side up in favor of the other. Also, it should raise questions, IMO, about the Democrats criticisms of the War on Terror and Iraq. Are they doing it for the national good, or as you would say, "their commitment to their party has surpassed their committment to the national good"?

If being a war hero means anything then you have to honor the achievements and give them their due.

Yeah, but when they demonstrably lie? When they make up war stories for political gain?

This IMO, is the most devastating part of the Swift Boat Veterans story. That was a direct hit and no matter the response, the truth is Kerry lied...flat out lied. This isn't some nuanced thing it was a flat out lie. Further, the broader claim that Kerry was in Cambodia is even suspect.

The only support from this are Kerry's personal journals that nobody but Brinkely has seen. Throw in the home made movies and I would put a fairly high probability that some of Kerry's stories have been...embellished.

As for these ads being inappropriate? To the contrary, these ads are irrefutable.

And that's really at the heart of the matter isn't it. It's Kerry's anti-Vietnam War activities, not his honor and valor in the field.

Yeah, there are plenty of vets who have it in for Kerry about his anti-war activities. Fair game. I've got no problem with their feelings but that's a bait and switch and you're moving the goal posts.

Perhaps some perspective is in order. Kerry served in the Navy from August 1967, and was back incountry in Nov. 1968. He was awarded command of the first of his Swift Boats in Dec and left his second command in March of 1969.

He reported during his anti-war testimony that war crimes had been committed. Contemporeaneously with Kerry's tours the Tiger Force was in action and commmitted their war crimes between May and Novermber of 1967. The reports of these crimes were suppressed from the public and from many vets. Read the 4-part series written after an 8 month investigation.

The case reached the Pentagon and White House, but the investigation was closed in 1975, with the records buried in the military's archives for the last three decades, the newspaper found.

The 45-man platoon was created in 1965 as a special force to spy on the enemy in the jungles.

But when Tiger Force was sent to the Central Highlands, platoon members began to kill and mutilate unarmed civilians, records show.

Vets upset with Kerry's post war statements are completely different than this typical smear about honor and valor on the battlefield that seems to come from Bush Fellow Travellers.

Ahhhhh my eyes! My eyes! My EYES! The inconsistency here has blinded me. :-)

Tangoman, how come the Draft Dodger (Clinton) didn't have to attack the War Hero's (Dole) record?

:)

If Clinton had tried it I think he would have been seen as a immoral weasil. Somethings you simply have to cede to your opponent and work around them. Clinton had no legs to stand on, and Bush doesn't either.

Bush was AWOL, a deserter, and drunkard? Could that have been fueled by the desire to win...at any cost?

Bush was a self-admitted drunkard, a recovering alcoholic who is a convicted criminal, but as for the other charges, what was your opinion of the people making those charges. I thought they were partisan nut-cases. What's your opinion of the SBVT, that they're patriots? (Just asking?) What's the difference between them. For the record I hold the SBVT to be equivalent to DU types. What bothers me is that people with an affinity to honor military service align themselves with the Republican Party, and many of them are quick to disparage military honors for sake of party loyalty. I'm personally disappointed in those people for their putting party above honor. They join the Democrat extremists in my books. I discount many Democrats extremists precisely because they espouse these extreme values and lack honor and now I hold Republican's who are so eager to tarnish honor and valor to the same low standard. Hey, I'm entitled to my personal opinion. It used to be that appeals to military honor were a plank that appealed to conservative voters. This SBVT campaign pushes that honor into the sewer.

Also, it should raise questions, IMO, about the Democrats criticisms of the War on Terror and Iraq. Are they doing it for the national good, or as you would say, "their commitment to their party has surpassed their committment to the national good"?

I have no doubt that a sizable portion, perhaps even a majority, of Democrats oppose the war solely because President Bush is in office. The tribe loyalty there is no less troubling than on the Right. That doesn't make it acceptable. A pox on both houses.

I often wonder in these times, if there can ever be a national good that is divorced from partisan interests? It should be obvious that I do think so. I never disparage the President by calling him names. He holds an honorable office. I always refer to him as President Bush.

My issues with him deal with his competence and the direction he is taking the party. I have cited specific complaints about his conduct. I think the party would benefit from his defeat and use the time to let more capable candidates come to the fore. This defending the indefensible because you're stuck with a bad choice from the 2000 primaries makes me sick. There were plenty of candidates who were more conservative.

I think it is in the national interest to reserve for ourselves to the right to act when we are threatened without having to beg for permission from the corrupt UN. However, I disagree with how this Administration has managed the lead-up to war.

I don't agree with those who hold the UN in such high esteem. Arghh, enough, it's not about me. There should be matters that are above partisan politics. Need for war, honor and valor of vets, but slowly, common agreement on items of national interest are becoming evermore scarce.

Yeah, but when they demonstrably lie? When they make up war stories for political gain?

I'm not sure what lie you're referring to. There are many. As you and I both know, and we debated, politicians lie. You discounted that and assumed it to be par for the course, and I don't disagree too much. If it's a matter of War Stories, well, growing up I heard all sorts of tall tales from relatives who served :) LOL. You can attach the level of import you feel appropriate to the lie you catch Kerry in. From what I've read the Cambodia story is off by about a month but to me that has nothing to do with his medals, nor with the fact that he was incountry while Bush was in Alabama. Cut and dried.

I honestly believe that this will bite Republican's in the ass. In the future, if we don't accept medals at face value, then every decorated veteran who runs for office can have the value of his medal questioned and doubt will be implanted in the minds of the simple. Look what's happening now - the ads work. Identical ads will work against future Republican candidates - and who values military service more highly - Republicans or Democrats? This is a short-sighted strategy that is helping Bush at the expense of conservative values.

Lastly, if we can't take medals at face value, how much pride can non-famous vets take in theirs when they know that just because you've been awarded one doesn't mean you've earned it. If Senator Kerry can be tarred then so can every other medalholder. Kerry was a nobody, so to speak, when he earned his medals, just like other countless men on battlefields.

FYI - The war crimes link I provided in an earlier comment is an article that won a Pulizer Prize.

"What bothers me is that people with an affinity to honor military service align themselves with the Republican Party, and many of them are quick to disparage military honors for sake of party loyalty."

They are not disparaging military honor per se, but someone they believe sought honors he didn't deserve for the purpose of future political gain. If you honor military service, then someone who claims military honors they don't deserve is particularly despised.

"It used to be that appeals to military honor were a plank that appealed to conservative voters."

If Kerry actually deserved his military honors, then he would appeal to conservatives. But regardless of his actions in country, his anti-war conduct afterwards, and his voting record in the Senate, would raise serious questions in the mind of any conservative.

"I think the party would benefit from his defeat and use the time to let more capable candidates come to the fore. This defending the indefensible because you're stuck with a bad choice from the 2000 primaries makes me sick. There were plenty of candidates who were more conservative."

This is exactly what I think about the Democrats in 2004! They are stuck with a bad choice left over from the primaries. They should lose so they have time to generate someone more capable (though if they lose, they'll probably nominate Hillary in 2008, God help us all).

"From what I've read the Cambodia story is off by about a month"

It's off by a month, and a whole country, but whatever.

"nor with the fact that he was incountry while Bush was in Alabama"

If you really understood conservatives, you would know they honor service in the Air National Guard, too. The imputation that this was somehow akin to draft dodging is highly offensive.

"In the future, if we don't accept medals at face value, then every decorated veteran who runs for office can have the value of his medal questioned and doubt will be implanted in the minds of the simple."

Why is there an obligation to accept medals at face value? Many, many, many bogus Vietnam stories have been unmasked over the years - people who claimed they were there, and weren't, or that they won medals, and didn't, or that they served in an elite unit, when they were ordinary grunts. There is a whole cottage industry devoted to debunking such claims.

"Look what's happening now - the ads work."

Why do the ads work? Because Kerry has not refuted them on the basis of the facts. Instead, he has attempted every form of misdirection, from ad hominem attacks on the Swifties to threatening to sue. This is not what someone does when there is "nothing there". This is what someone does when they have something to hide.

And "oh what a horrible precedent" didn't seem to be a concern when the Democrats came after Bush's ANG record. Ain't payback a bitch?

"Identical ads will work against future Republican candidates - and who values military service more highly - Republicans or Democrats?"

If the target is an authentic hero, and he didn't spend several years after the war vomiting all over the military as a bunch of babykillers, then he's got nothing to worry about.

"Lastly, if we can't take medals at face value, how much pride can non-famous vets take in theirs when they know that just because you've been awarded one doesn't mean you've earned it. If Senator Kerry can be tarred then so can every other medalholder. Kerry was a nobody, so to speak, when he earned his medals, just like other countless men on battlefields."

Pshaw, Kerry didn't come from nowhere, don't give me that log-cabin nonsense about Mr. St. Paul's and Yale. He had every intention of running for office when he went to Vietnam, that's why he took his handy home movie camera with him.

And trust me, real "nobody" vets understand very well that there are a lot of bogus wannabe vets out there wearing medals they didn't earn.

Ok, I just got off the phone with a friend who is a Colonel in the Army National Guard. The whole Bush AWOL thing just glazed my eyes when it was erupting months ago, but now I'm curious about the moral equivalence of these two men. He thought that the AWOL charge was bogus but that the President hasn't cleared up the question by fully releasing his records, and thought the desertion charge made by Moore was over the top. OK, so far we're on the same page. However, he did have some misgivings and rather than straighten me out with his opinion he give me some hints and told me to look about for some answers. (just this dynamic we have, LOL, going back to grad school)

So, for all of you who follow military affairs closely, perhaps you can offer some guidance for I'm venturing far from my field of knowledge. I'm asking you to clarify some things for me. Links much appreciated.

1.) George Bush was in the ANG for 5 years, 4 months and 6 days of his 6 year obligation. Here is a lengthy summary of his military career. Here are promotion guidelines for the Air National Guard. Minimum time in grade for Lieutenant to promotion to Captain is 2 years. Here is another source. There's no disgrace in not being promoted but why wasn't Lt. G.W. Bush promoted in 5 years and why didn't he separate with a terminal Captaincy?

2.) Why after we spent $100,000 ---> to train Lt. Bush to be a military pilot didn't he fly after 1972.

The fact of the matter is no matter how many hours George put in after 1972 none of them were as a pilot. Apparently he refused to take his flight physical. . .

"What **does** a self-grounded pilot do for 2 years in the National Guard." Did he peel potatoes? Pick up cigarette butts? Make plans to cut the kind of waste, fraud and abuse he was participating in from some future budget?

3.) What bothered my friend is that he hasn't yet looked at President Bush's comprehensive records like he did for Kerry.

If you look at this site you can find a compendium of both President Bush's and Senator Kerry's released military records.

Kerry's citations and military records were a breeze to investigate. According to Kerry's DD214 and DD215 and using this medal graphic image generator this is what Kerry's medals would look like. Here is another view.

Here is Lt. Bush's ANG22. If you look in box 24, you'll note that Lt. Bush is earned the TAFMS (Total Active Federal Military Service) and TAFCS (Total Active Federal Commission Service) citations. Here is the USA Today archive on Lt. Bush's military records. Included is something called a "Military Biography" (page 3) but it is not an official record. That biography states that the President is entitled to wear a "Small Arms Marksmenship Medal" and the "National Defense Service Medal."

Why aren't these two records consistent?

Why in this photo is Lt. Bush wearing a medal that isn't listed in his ANG22 nor in his military biography that was prepared after he left service. See here for details on his ribbons. When did he earn the "Air Force Outstanding Unit Award?" There is no reference to this award in his military documents, which I grant are incomplete. The other ribbon is his commendation for small arms.

Are we looking at another Admiral Boorda situation? Gee, this type of scuriluous defamation is so easy. We've been asking for the complete military records of President Bush for years now and we're still unclear about these issues.

Now maybe someone more in the know can fill me in as I type this at this late hour.

Wow, this is an evening I'll never get back :)

Caleb,

I've absolutely no issue with criticism of Senator Kerry's anti-war testimony nor with his Senate record. I think that's fair game and not sleazy. I watched Fox News Sunday and Chris Wallace was questioning a SBVT spokesman, and the guy didn't have any evidence other than his word, yet this gets play. This was Fox, which should be most sympathetic.

but someone they believe sought honors he didn't deserve for the purpose of future political gain. If you honor military service, then someone who claims military honors they don't deserve is particularly despised.

This isn't like a Medal Of Honor Fraud. If you have no evidence to back up your claim then you're smearing. The medals are prima facia evidence that Senator Kerry earned them. The records back him up. He isn't falsely wearing them. All of the contradictions in the SBVT across time make this look like a Bush trademarked smearing and, while Vets have every right to dispise Kerry for his anti-war stance, they should be up in arms about the medals issue.

This is exactly what I think about the Democrats in 2004! They are stuck with a bad choice left over from the primaries.

I agree. There were certainly better candidates than Senator Kerry, however, I don't really care about the fortunes of the Democratic Party. I don't care much about their future direction. President Bush, IMHO, is bad for the Republican Party and his defeat would enable a new direction and new leadership to emerge that could put the incompetence of this Administration behind it and recapture some ground that it lost. Better to have ideological difference than incompetancy in the Presidency.

The imputation that this was somehow akin to draft dodging is highly offensive.

Senator Kerry could also have arranged a safe sinicure stateside but choose to put himself in harm's way in Vietnam. He ran a risk of death or maiming from enemy fire that was far greater than the risk of accident that faced President Bush. That choice speaks volumes about the difference between the two men. So too does the way each man conducted himself during service, apart from heroic acts. Here too Senator Kerry comes out better.

Tangoman, I don't believe anyone is arguing that Kerry's laying claims to medals he wasn't awarded. So that whole CMOH bit doesn't apply. I think the point of question is that Kerry a) Obtained at least one Purple Heart under circumstances that were...a little shaky, and b) He promptly used the three-purple-heart rule to make a hasty exit from the battlefield.

And then portrayed himself as the archetypal Vietnam Veteran. That's what's got the SwiftVets up in arms. If he had just let the whole Vietnam experience be, it's possible that none of this would ever have come to light. Tactical blunder on his part, I think.

TangoMan

Two brief points:

1) You have interesting comments. The length suggests you should have your own blog (which I would regularly visit.)

2) As far as I can see, your posts don't really address the point of the original post, which (to me) is that Kerry's response to the SBVT is basically, "waaaaaah!" To me, this speaks volumes about his ability to handle tough situations.

Cambodia blah blah blah Cambodia blah blah blah...

Read Fred Kaplan on the matter.

T-man,

If Clinton had tried it I think he would have been seen as a immoral weasil.

What do you mean "if"? Didn't you read Robin's post? How about the mocking of Adm. Stockdale? Now there was a war hero, first guy in last guy out. Prisoner of war, and he was portrayed as a nut, an idiot a simpleton.

I thought they were partisan nut-cases. What's your opinion of the SBVT, that they're patriots? (Just asking?) What's the difference between them. For the record I hold the SBVT to be equivalent to DU types. What bothers me is that people with an affinity to honor military service align themselves with the Republican Party, and many of them are quick to disparage military honors for sake of party loyalty. I'm personally disappointed in those people for their putting party above honor. They join the Democrat extremists in my books. I discount many Democrats extremists precisely because they espouse these extreme values and lack honor and now I hold Republican's who are so eager to tarnish honor and valor to the same low standard.

The SBVT is blowback for the Dems. They went down a road that lead to them getting a nice tasty chunk of their own medicine served to them. Lets run through the sequence of events:

1. Bush-AWOL.
2. Kerry War Hero.
3. Kerry fit to be President because of his service.
4. SBVT.

The first 3 follow the Democratic strategy. First hammer the Bush-AWOL story. Point to Kerry as a bona-fide war hero. The last on here I think helped Kerry in the primaries. Three was to point out that Kerry could lead the nation during war time. What they didn't apparently forsee was the SBVT reaction.

I agree it is all rather disgusting that this kind of slime has to be used (by both sides...oh and you do realize my post is about the Kerry Camp's response...err lack there of), but that tends to be the nature of politics. One sides proposes X, the other side proposes Y where the difference between X and Y is virtually zero.

I'm not sure what lie you're referring to.

Oh come on. Your kidding right? The Cambodia on X-mas eve Story is so untrue it is ridiculous. The Kerry camp has totally backed away from it without admitting it was a lie.

From what I've read the Cambodia story is off by about a month but to me that has nothing to do with his medals, nor with the fact that he was incountry while Bush was in Alabama. Cut and dried.

Uhhh no. Not quite. Yes Kerry was in Vietnam, yes he saw combat there and faced danger. That is all to his credit. But the Cambodia thing is looking like a complete all out lie. We know it wasn't on X-mas eve. The later stories hang solely on Kerry's journal. Given this is a guy who seemed to be gearing up for politics even back then I'm not sure how much trust I can put in those journals. How come they aren't brought out? Oh yeah, Brinkley has "an exclusive contract" or something. Sheesh. It makes one wonder...what are they hiding?

Ok, I just got off the phone with a friend who is a Colonel in the Army National Guard. The whole Bush AWOL thing just glazed my eyes when it was erupting months ago, but now I'm curious about the moral equivalence of these two men.

You know I can't help but think the only one who is trying to draw a moral equivalence is you, T-man.

Here I'll say it: Kerry's service is more impressive than Bush's. I'm not sure what that means in terms of being President.

And then portrayed himself as the archetypal Vietnam Veteran. That's what's got the SwiftVets up in arms. If he had just let the whole Vietnam experience be, it's possible that none of this would ever have come to light. Tactical blunder on his part, I think.

Bingo. I think if the Democrats hadn't run with the Bush-AWOl story, then followed it up with the Kerry was your typical Vietnam Vet (complete with an archive of home movies re-enacting some of the battles) and a now certain falshood on Cambodia this post probably wouldn't even exist.

Apostropher,

Bush-AWOL blah, blah, blah, Bush-AWOL blah, blah, blah.

If the glove fits you must aquit. Oh wait sorry wrong circus.

TangoMan, I find it hilarious that you are demonstrating your own hypocrisy so clearly above by deciding to return to the Bush "AWOL" lie. And add in a little slur about promotion. Nice job. The air national guard records show that Bush did accumulate sufficient drilling points for his final year to satisfy his obligations. Records are conclusive for you about Kerry but not about Bush.

apostropher, Fred Kaplan's article is hilariously goofy. Kerry was certainly not in Cambodia on Christmas Eve. 40 or 50 miles is halfway across Vietnam. The Cambodian border was outside his units patrol area and a member of his crew reports that they were not in Cambodia. Being "near" Cambodia doesn't save Kerry's lie.

Tangoman, odd that pointing to the SBVT groups' second ad is my "moving the goalposts" according to you. To the contrary, the SBVT group's criticisms of Kerry are not limited to just the subject of his medals but are a list of things from his exaggerations and lies of his service to his anti-war activism. All of these were included in the O'Neill book. The first ad wasn't able to compress all of their issues into 30 seconds.

I've seeing reports that a Kerry spokesman is admitting that Kerry's first purple heart may have been a "self-inflicted" wound.

Given the ambiguity of the award criteria, this wasn't an issue for me, but it is interesting that the Kerry campaign is screaming about the SBVT group while starting to slowly admit to their attacks item by item. First Cambodia, now the purple heart.

Ralph Peters, who if you've paid attention to his many interesting oped pieces in the past is definitely not a Bush/Cheney fan, nails the issue with Kerry in this oped piece.

T-man:

This is hardly tribal at all. I find it quite remarkable, in fact, that you would be claiming this.

Most of the folks who differ w/ SBVT (but aren't going down the "They're all GOP shills!" line) pretty much agree that they're after KERRY. Had Edwards or Clark been the candidate, SBVT would never have been formed (or, more likely, never become a household word).

More to the point, you're arguing a case that hasn't been made by either side. Dubya didn't run as a war hero, and hasn't run as a war hero. To suggest that Dubya is therefore intent on dragging down military folks in order to reinforce a "I'm not a war hero, but neither are they" concept is very strange.

Who raised the TANG business? Was BUSHAWOL created in response to Dubya's comments? Or were they an effort to dig up sleaze, along the lines of "George HW Bush left his men to die" that Sid Blumenthal peddled back in '92, and which DU resurrected in 2000?

More to the point, who is John Kerry? As a proponent of the "Winter Soldier" business, he pretty much ensured that one generation's worth of those who actually served in Vietnam (which, btw, leaves out Dubya) would hate his guts. And when he stepped outside the MA hothouse, he did so w/ one big "L" on his forehead from them.

You might try to defend his post-Vietnam Senatorial record in this regard. I wouldn't---a proponent of the nuclear freeze, opposing weapons systems in his '84 Senatorial run, opposing nuclear programs during the Cold War---these are hardly the actions of one who supports defense. Notice he doesn't bother trying to run on the idea that he's SUPPORTED defense, only that he WILL support defense.

But, yes, in some ways, it's "tribal." The military really is a band of brothers. Sh*t on them, the way Kerry did with "Winter Soldier," regardless of what you did in 'Nam, and you're going to get the tribe of servicemen and -women after you. ('Course, the fact that so many of Winter Soldier never served at all only goes to prove the point.)

By the way apostropher...any info on when the Kerry campaign hired Kapaln? Sheesh, talk about talking points. Did he simply submit the fax he got from the Kerry HQ? Good Lord.[/sarcasm]

The funny part Steve is that its an old Kerry campaign memo ... they're well past that version. Hehe.

Tangoman,
Bob Dole appreciates your vote in '96, over the draft dodging Clinton.

When are you guys gonna actually try intellectual consistency?

Read Fred Kaplan on the matter.

Did. No new information there, other than it looks as if Kerry was, by ALL sources, not in Cambodia on Christmas.

The Daniel Boone stuff is immaterial, unless you can dig up that they were inserting covert ops guys with Swift boats in December of 1968. And then dig up any one of Kerry's crewmates who'll verify they did the drop with him. Ought to be fairly easy to do, I'd think.

Here's the best part of the Kaplan article - the very last sentence: "He was near (or in?) Cambodia in the morning, in Sa Dec that night."

So after telling us he's going to debunk the 'Xmas in Cambodia is a lie' charge he adds up his sources and is relegated to making things up - "or in?" - that Kerry's biographer didn't even assert.

So why does Brinkley need to rewrite the inconvenient chapters when folks like Kaplan are willing to rewrite the chapters for Brinkley?

I bet above the campaign din at Kerry HQ you can hear someone call out from time to time "rewrite, get me rewrite".

You can almost hear the voice in the back of Brinkley's head about the fall of his reputation as a historian.

Now I'm getting "file not found" from Slate on Kaplan's piece ... a newer memo must have caught up with him.

Is it perverse of me to enjoy watching the left squirm and whine over this?

Man, ya turn the tables and the view is entirely different...

Naw it is still there (the Kaplan piece that is).

Odd, Steve, failed for me twice in a row but is back for me too.

--It makes one wonder...what are they hiding?--

He possibly had the clap.

Anyone interested in the non-AWOL story, since he was honorably discharged, EOS, Bill Hobbs has all the linkage which includes how the NG actually worked back then and still does, to some degree.

"We will not quickly join those who march on Veteran's Day waving small flags, calling to memory those thousands of lives who died for the 'greater glory of the United States. We will not accept the rhetoric.We will not readily join the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars. We will demand relevancy such as other organizations have recently been able to provide. We will not uphold the traditions which decorously memorialize that which is base and grim."

-John F. Kerry, Epilogue to "New Soldier" (MacMillan Publishing, Co, Fall, 1971)

--
We will not uphold the traditions which decorously memorialize that which is base and grim."--

Like funding? He carried on his beliefs in the senate. He is a communisty sympathizer and an appeaser.

Don't need another one in office now that we've finally engaged Iran 25 years after another appeaser did nothing.

And you know what the really funny thing about all this is?

The generation that gave us the orders to question authority, the man, (the medals) don't want to be questioned. Can't handle being questioned.

Boy. I never expected TM to miss the last several months of the Bush AWOL story. Was he in a coma? Most (I can't say all, because I haven't looked them all up) of the charges have proven groundless. I haven't checked the promotion thing, but you would have to compare Bush to other pilots who entered training when he did. I was in the Air Force, and while the move from 2ndLt to 1stLt is usually withing two years, I'm not sure whether or not that counts training time. Also, 4 years to captain is pretty good, and folks have gone longer than that. Additionally, there used to be a sort of unofficial number of how many people there could be at any rank. Without knowing how this was handled in the Guard, it is meaningless. I look forward to TM enlightening me with evidence from the Guard circa late 1960s.

As for not flying. The F102, a doggone dangerous plane, was being phased out. If Bush wanted to continue to fly in the Guard or the Air Force, he would have had to train and qualify in another plane. Since the Guard wants to assure they won't waste training, they might have required addtional years of active duty. Does anyone know if this is the case here? Anyway, since Bush had nothing to fly anymore, he had no reason to take a flight physical. The removal from flight duty is then just a bureaucratic move.

Personally, I wish that those without experience would be a bit more careful about learning and understanding things from the military. Or accepting too readily my, or anyone else with any military background, word, either. These things can be looked up, you know. Guessing based on what you think was going on because you know how you would have done it is pointless, even if it does save time. Just about the first thing you learn in service is: "There are three ways to do anything: 1) the right way; 2) the wrong way; 3) the way the military does it."

Sandy P:

No, the TRULY ironic thing is that the same generation denigrated as "the Man," who didn't care about babies being napalmed in Vietnam, who were "square," is now held up as "the Greatest Generation."

And by whom? The very generation that was denigrating them, accusing them of not caring, of calling them "square."

Where were all the accolades back during the marches and the protests? Where was the respect for the previous generations' sacrifices (you know, the ones that ALLOWED the little snots to go to college, get hi-fis, not give Nazi salutes or lick Japanese boots) back then?

You know the even funnier thing? In Vietnam, at the highest levels, were people who'd served in World War II. Who'd been part of that "Greatest Generation." These are, of course, the very people that John Kerry was accusing of complicity in war crimes, of formatting a strategy that would leave millions of American vets utterly disillusioned with Amerikkka.

Indeed, Dean, Creighton Abrams, who I believe had taken over from Westmoreland as overall commander in Vietnam by the time Kerry was slandering all veterans in front of Congress, led a tank combat command into Bastogne to relieve the 101st Airborne who were besieged there. Later, the US Army named its current main battle tank after him.

Dang, Robin, that's right!!

I wonder how some of the WWII vets (the few who remain) feel about knowing that Creighton Abrams (who, from most accounts, was a helluva fightin' general) was complicit and part of war crimes?

More to the point, I'd recommend Lewis Sorley's book on Vietnam, which suggests that, under Abrams, the war in Vietnam (southern half) was on the way to being won, the same way that the Korean War was won: a relatively stable south, in which democracy would, probably after forty years or so, have come about.

We should at least agree to dismiss the more obviously false claims about Kerry, and we could start with the suggestion that he made his 8-mm films to push a later political career.

A credible reporter (sorry, you'd have to google the reference as to name and where he works) went through all the extant film, and concluded that a) Kerry barely appears in any of them at all (duh, assuming he's the one taking the footage), and b) he never strikes so much as an heroic pose, far less doing the 're-creation' of his heroic deeds as has been the false rumor going around that so many appear to believe.

It seems that Kerry, like the many Vietnam vets who also had souvenier footage they took with the cameras that were available for that purpose at the PX, ended up with boring 'travelogue' style in-country footage that would be powerfully soporific for anyone without a personal tie to what was shown.

I'd almost be tempted to agree, sofla, BUT:

1. I'm sure the silly arguments that Dubya was "AWOL" from the Air National Guard could just as easily be dismissed by now, no? NO? Well, then, sorry.

2. How many takes did most traveloguing soldiers do? How many times did they revisit a location, in order to reshoot a scene?

3. Was this reporter Douglas Brinkley by any chance? Or Fred Kaplan?

Dean, hehe. Being the history buff that I am, I have a copy of Lewis Sorley's book.

Dan,

You have interesting comments. The length suggests you should have your own blog (which I would regularly visit.)

I do (click on my name) but I like battle :) and Steve and company are a great bunch to argue with.

Slarti,

I brought that up because it appeared to me that Caleb was conflating the military dishonor of impersonators with the questionong of properly awarded medals. Kerry was awarded every medal through proper channels. 35 years later is not the time to lay scurilous charges and try to invalidate those medals on hearsay. What Caleb was referring to is not the latter process but really guys looking to shine light on the frauds. You can't go up to any medalwinner you don't like and claim that they didn't earn the medal. It's like a "did you beat your wife" question.

Tactical blunder on his part, I think.

Maybe yes, maybe no. Kerry wasn't going to spend any money on publicity before the Republican Convention. You know the saying, any publicity is good publicity, especially when it's free. In a perverse way this has blowback for President Bush for it is hard not to compare the two men and this tactic rings true of the McCain 2000 slime.

However, maybe you're right. Senator Kerry's poll numbers are going down. Is there a causal relationship? Quite probable, but without Kerry positive countervailing messages, who knows how sticky this is.

If he had just let the whole Vietnam experience be, it's possible that none of this would ever have come to light.

First off, some of these guys have been stalking him since the war, so I think it would have come up. Lot's of sore feelings from his anti-war days.

Secondly, President Bush was trying to appropriate the role of strong leader, decisive and forthright in the face of the enemy, and did so in 2002 to great effect. Remember the fracas about questioniong the patriotism of the Democrats? I'm not talking about its later manifestation directed to the anti-war fringe, but stuff that was going on in the midterms.

Steve

Oh come on. Your kidding right?

No, I was serious, but I think you misunderstood me. I was asking which of many lies you were referring to, not which lie that I've never heard of.

but that tends to be the nature of politics. One sides proposes X, the other side proposes Y where the difference between X and Y is virtually zero.

I'm with you on this point. The Democrats are no purer in motives. Look at how they lapped up the Moore F9/11. Haliburton drilling for oil on Mars selling the Moon to TranOrbital. I'm railing against everything being partisan. By all means let's examine each candidate's military records. Kerry's anti-war testimony is fair game. Some will dispise him for it, others will see moral courage in being anti-war, going incountry, coming back to fight against it, while others will see opportunism. What gets under my skin is the questioning of medals awarded. Walk up to any medal winner, say you don't like them, and make sh*t up and lay a charge. That's all it takes.

Here I'll say it: Kerry's service is more impressive than Bush's. I'm not sure what that means in terms of being President.

For some people, nothing at all. For other voters, it'll mean everything. I'm not at either extreme and what it says about Kerry I put in perspective as I compare him to the incumbent. The facts in isolation are hard for me to assign a value to, but in comparison, the facts become more germaine. If it was Kerry vs. McCain, there'd be a wash on bravery, with McCain showing stronger moral fortitude for resisting torture.

Robin,

by deciding to return to the Bush "AWOL" lie. And add in a little slur about promotion.

Read what I wrote. I didn't really follow the AWOL fracas when it was current and I didn't above. What I wrote in my comment had to do with Lt. Bush's medals. Surely, you're not staking out the ground that no one should look into President Bush's military record. Of course, if you are staking out that position I could see if foreclosing some interesting inquiries and this would give the President a tactical advantage.

Look again at what I wrote and follow the links. I'm asking for clarification if I made an error, humbly even. Is Lt. Bush wearing a medal he didn't earn?

When did asking why someone didn't earn a Terminal Captaincy after more than 5 years of service become a slur? That really is a thin skin you're wearing.

I've seeing reports that a Kerry spokesman is admitting that Kerry's first purple heart may have been a "self-inflicted" wound.

I'm sure you're an honorable man, Robin, but this type of hearsay evidence does little to convince me. Could you please provide a link to back up your recollection so that I can have a basis other than your word upon which I can form an opinion. I do my best to do the same. Look above for the linkfest. LOL.

I hope you're not referring to a leg scratch like the one that earned Senator Dole a Purple Heart. "After all, Dole was given a Purple Heart for a leg scratch probably caused, according to one biographer, when a hand grenade thrown by one of his own men bounced off a tree." The military authorities thought Dole earned his Purple Heart and that's good enough for me. The military authorities, using proper procedures thought Kerry earned his medals, and that's good enough for me. What the SBVT are doing is opening up questioning for every medal that has been won. It's only OK now, because you guys dispise Kerry. Look at how you support this smear, but backed up President Bush in trying to keep his military record in the shadows. This is not objective behavior.

Go ahead, mock Kerry for bringing his own camera crew to Vietnam. I'll say silent. Mock Kerry for throwing away his medals, but only the ribbons. I'll stay silent. Mock Kerry for embelishing, or lying about the date, of his Cambodia story. I'll stay silent. Try to devalue the guy's military history and fight back against the political hackery.

President Bush is going to try to use his incumbency and initiation of military action to portray himself as a strong leader. He's earned his incumbency and the right to make some claims. Points ceded. He can run on his record, so too can Kerry. The President shouldn't though go too far and claim that he's uniquely qualified in this respect because of Party affiliation, which was going on in the midterms. Rebutting that is not invalidating his valid claim to leadership. Kerry's medals are his trump card over Bush. Assign them no value if you like, but this SBVT smear is too low, and the fact that the gullible are being convinced just reinforces the fact that smears work. You watch, it'll bite the Republicans in the a**. This is just like providing funding to Ralph Nadar in the short term, and making him a viable candidate and as Tacitus wrote "seeing the GOP sponsor Nader to beat the Dems calls to mind the Israelis sponsoring Hamas to beat the PLO."

I read your NY Post Link. Some very good points in there, and some I disagree with. No doubt that Kerry isn't pure as all get out. Fine. Criticize him on those points.

What strikes me as peculiar thought is that no one questions where President Bush's Band Of Brothers are. Read this exchange between Scott McClellan and a reporter:

Q Scott, when Senator Kerry goes around campaigning, there's frequently what they call "a band of brothers," a bunch of soldiers who served with him, who come forward and give testimonials for him. I see, in looking at our files in the campaign of 2000, it said that you were looking for people who served with him to verify his account of service in the National Guard. Has the White House been able to find, like Senator Kerry, "a band of brothers" or others who can testify about the President's service? . . .

Q Scott, can I follow on this, because I do think this is important. You know, it might strike some as odd that there isn't anyone who can stand up and say, I served with George W. Bush in Alabama, or in Houston in the Guard unit. Particularly because there are people, his superiors who have stepped forward -- in Alabama and in Houston -- who have said in the past several years that they have no recollection of him being there and serving. So isn't that odd that nobody -- you can't produce anyone to corroborate what these records purport to show?

MR. McCLELLAN: David, we're talking about some 30 years ago. You are perfectly welcome to go back and talk to individuals from that time period. But these documents --

Q Hey, we're trying. But I would have thought you guys would have had a real good handle on --

MR. McCLELLAN: - these documents make it very clear that the President of the United States fulfilled his duties --

Q Well, that's subject to interpretation.

MR. McCLELLAN: No. When you serve, you are paid for that service. And these documents outline the days on which he was paid. That means he served. And these documents also show that he met his requirements. And it's just really a shame that people are continuing to bring this issue up. When --

Q I understand --

MR. McCLELLAN: No, no, no, no. People asked for records to be released that would demonstrate he met his requirements. The records have now been fully released. The facts are clear --

Q Do you know that a lot of these payroll records are --

MR. McCLELLAN: -- the facts are clear --

Q -- you can't read them. Have you looked at these? You can't -- how are we supposed to read these?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think you can talk -- one, we put it out on email. It's a lot easier to read, I think, on the email version because that was the --

Q Oh, you did put it on our email?

MR. McCLELLAN: We are going to, if we haven't already. But it was sent to us in email form from the Personnel Center in Denver, Colorado.

Q One other thing on this. To corroborate these records, will the President do two things -- one, will he authorize the relevant defense agency in Colorado to release actual pay stubs for the President? And if those don't exist, will the President file a form, as he can do at the IRS, to at least look for a '72 or '73 tax return that would corroborate what you claim are payroll summaries that he actually got paid for this duty?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think this information is his payroll records. It is my understanding this is the information that is available from his payroll records. And it shows the days on which he was paid. So that's the information that I understand is available. In terms of tax returns, the President, like most Americans, does not have his tax returns from some 30 years ago.

What's up with that? Was Lt. Bush on a super-duper secret mission and had to skulk around so that no one would see him on base.

RW,

Bob Dole appreciates your vote in '96, over the draft dodging Clinton.

President George H.W. Bush got my vote over Governor Michael Dukakis. He was a war hero too. Does that count?

JorgXMcKie,

I never expected TM to miss the last several months of the Bush AWOL story. Was he in a coma?

No, not in a coma. These types of smears usually make my eyes glaze over. I didn't follow the F 9/11 tempest too closely either. I tried to avoid this SBVT garbage as well, but the questioning of earned medals gets under my skin. Besides, I try to pick my fights because they take up so much of my time with all of the researching and reading. This is fun and a hobby, not a damn job, LOL.

I look forward to TM enlightening me with evidence from the Guard circa late 1960s.

I specifically asked for help in interpreting this data and acknowledged my own limitations in understanding. Besides, Lt. Bush was in for over 5 years, and you should ask what a Terminal rank bump is all about. Not uncommon from what I know (relatives who served in KW, and the few friends that I have that currently serve.) Lt. Bush's record is unusal enough for me to be curious about.

If Bush wanted to continue to fly in the Guard or the Air Force, he would have had to train and qualify in another plane. Since the Guard wants to assure they won't waste training, they might have required addtional years of active duty.

The F-102 was being moved from frontline service into the guard units in the late 1960s just as George Bush was joinging the Air National Guard. It was completed phased out by 1976.

It is not up to a lowly Lt. to self-select and refuse to take a flight physical in order to interpret Command Level directives and help them out by choosing to drop his flight status. That choice is made by his superior officers.

Anyway, since Bush had nothing to fly anymore, he had no reason to take a flight physical. The removal from flight duty is then just a bureaucratic move.

Whoa!! Hold on their pardner. That's a whole lot of revisionism your peddlin'. The choice wasn't his to make and go back and look at the record - they wanted him to continue to fly. It's not a bureaucratic move.

I'm sure you're an honorable man, Robin, but this type of hearsay evidence does little to convince me.

Well I've heard it too, and the important thing to remember is these guys (Kerry, Bush, Edwards, Cheney) do the majority of their "talking" through their intermediaries and staff, especiallly when it is unpleasant.

I am skeptical of this one though as it is regarding a comment that could be quite different than intended if taken out of context. I'm basically going to play wait and see.

Here you go T-man. I'd say bot, kettle, and black there. Slime all-around on this one.

By the way, you do know my post is simply noting the Kerry response to the attacks on his military service. Personally I find them unpersuasive. It is meeting slime with counter-slime. Then to whine about dirty politics is just childish.

What's up with that?

I've got an idea: Bush was in the TANG, not the Air Force or the Navy. In the field, you're constantly with other guys. In the TANG, you're on an irregular one-weekend-a-month (or similar) routine, where guys might not get to know each other very well. Particularly if it's not gone on very long.

Steve, Yeah I caught the point of your post and I don't disagree - the Kerry response is quite tepid. My first screed had more to do with why SBVT is even getting airplay and the eagerness of some people to believe it because it says something bad about Kerry. Sorry to have hi-jacked the thread :(

Thanks for the link. It made for interesting reading. JorgeXMcKie should read it as well for it demolishes the excuse for Lt. Bush missing his physical.

Per the link, it appears that there are questions that remain unanswered, and the questions in and of themselves don't rewrite history. Don't you want to know the answers? I surely do.

Turn it back on Kerry. What did he mean with his anti-war testimony and let him account for the specifics of his charges that upset many veterans. Go whole hog. He's accountable for his words, be they true, exaggerations, or outright lies. Let the chips fall where they may.

Looking at both men like this isn't sliming in my book, it's simply tough campaigning on the facts. Making crap up, and having no documentation to support your charges, as per the SBVT fiasco, is exactly like a McCain sliming.

I don't really know how to counter a charge of equivalancy. I honestly don't believe it is hypocrisy to look into the military records for something as basic as fulfilling mandatory requirements while condemning sliming of medals that were earned.

There are unanswered questions about how well Lt. Bush performed his duty. There are issues around Lt. Kerry's anti-war testimony. I think both are fair game. I'm sure a closer examination of both records will reveal character shortfalls about both men and I have no problems with that. However, when Vice President Cheney's campaign plan is ""Principle is OK up to a certain point, but principle doesn't do any good if you lose" then we're descending into slime land again. Why? Because idiots buy it and it works. The tendency is to believe anything that makes your disfavored candidate look bad. Case in point was how people were drinking the cool-aid pushed by Micheal Moore in F 9/11. You and others derided them. I didn't jump in and defend Moore. Are you guys smarter than the fools who wanted to believe all of the tripe and conspiracy that Moore was pushing about the President, or is it different because it's easier to believe crap about your political opponent? Do you recognize crap when you see it?

Recall what happened when it worked spectacularly for the Bush Campaign:

A Zogby International poll taken one day after the New Hampshire primary shows the Arizona senator leading Bush, 44 percent to 39 percent in South Carolina, whose primary is Feb. 19. Another poll, by Rasmussen Research, had Bush leading 41 percent to 40 percent, a statistical dead heat.

The poll numbers represent an astonishing turnaround from last month, when Bush had a 20-point lead over McCain in South Carolina, and from December, when he had a 45-point lead. The net effect has been to erode the aura of invincibility Bush once carried. The campaign has responded by stepping up attacks on McCain--a strategy many supporters have urged.

Notice the similarity of this tactic that we saw in 2000:

At the rally here, Bush supporter J. Thomas Burch Jr., chairman of the National Vietnam and Gulf War Veterans Coalition, told the crowd that McCain as a senator had frequently opposed legislation of interest to veterans, including health care for Gulf War veterans and locating those missing in action from Vietnam. "He had the power to help the veterans," Burch said. "He came home [from Vietnam] and forgot us."

Bush declined to either endorse or reject Burch's characterization of McCain's record in the House and Senate. "You need to ask them [leaders of veterans groups]. What I stand by is that they have looked at both of us and they have chosen me to be the nominee. I'm proud of that." Bush did say that he thinks "John McCain served our country well, he was a warrior on behalf of America."

to this recent performance:

The format also offers a highly public airing of unsubstantiated charges against Bush's opponent, Sen. John F. Kerry, that the campaign would never make directly.

And Bush doesn't jump to refute those.

For instance, in Beaverton:

"Q On behalf of Vietnam veterans -- and I served six tours over there -- we do support the President. I only have one concern, and that's on the Purple Heart, and that is, is that there are over 200,000 Vietnam vets that died from Agent Orange and were never -- no Purple Heart has ever been awarded to a Vietnam veteran because of Agent Orange because it's never been changed in the regulations. Yet, we've got a candidate for President out here with two self-inflicted scratches, and I take that as an insult. (Applause.)

"THE PRESIDENT: Well, I appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you for your service. Six tours? Whew. That's a lot of tours.

Let's hope that there are more people who see through these smears and see how they reflect back on the people propogating them:

A pink-faced overweight man approached. "I'm Jim Gunn," he said to Kerry. "Do you remember me?"

Kerry nodded warily. Gunn was the leader of the Coalition of Retired Military Veterans and had attacked Senator John McCain during the 2000 Republican Presidential primary in South Carolina. Kerry had written a letter protesting the charges that another veterans' group had made against McCain—essentially, that McCain was "anti-veteran"—and he had got the other Vietnam combat veterans in the Senate to sign it. Now Jim Gunn said to him, "I just want you to know, Senator, that you were right about McCain and I was wrong. Bush lied to my face, and I'll never support him again." Gunn proceeded to file a bill of particulars against the President on veterans' issues. Then he sighed and said, "I wish there was a machine that could really say when someone is telling the truth, but you sound sincere when you talk about our issues. I represent seventeen thousand vets in South Carolina—I'm like their union boss—and if you run for President next time we're with you."

Look here for the tactics that have already been used by either the Bush Campaign or their fellow travellers.

Among the rumors circulated against McCain in 2000 in South Carolina was that his adopted Bangladeshi daughter was actually black, that McCain was both gay and cheated on his wife, and that his wife Cindy was a drug addict.” . . .

“Some of George W. Bush's supporters have questioned Republican presidential candidate John McCain's fitness for the White House, suggesting that his five years as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam drove him insane at the time.”

Here is the site of one of McCain's slanderers and you'll notice his involvement in the anti-Kerry attacks.

And for those who think Senator Kerry was way off-base in his anti-War charges, you'll have to take on General Tommy Franks as well: (look here (bottom of page) for a more detailed transcript)

Fox's Sean Hannity didn't look too happy today when now-retired Gen. Tommy Franks backed up John Kerry's old claims of atrocities in Vietnam.... After Hannity had detailed Kerry's charges--which included stories of beheadings and the shooting of innocent civilians--Franks agreed with them. The "things Kerry said are undeniable," the general told his surprised host, explaining that "things didn't go right" in Vietnam. ...

So, I'm not sure that the issue is kettle calling the pot black. I suppose it comes down to a matter of discretion on whether degree of slime mitigates against the charge. It should be clear that I think Kerry is outgunned in the sliming arena by the Bush forces. I'm unclear as to your opinion: does degree matter or not?

Slarti,

At first glance you offer a plausible explanation for President Bush's lack of a Band of Brothers. However, we're not seeking a group of men who stand behind the President based on his valor. All we're seeking are groups of pilots, mechanics, who served on those same weekends. The President wasn't in an invisible suit as he fulfilled his duties. Personnel records can provide people who worked alongside him on those days that he served. Simple. They don't need to vouch for the President's character like Kerry's Band does, simply vouch for his presence.

You ever go on a road-trip, T-man? Maybe to an "away" college? Maybe go drinking at a bar or two down there?

You sure you could find someone from that bar who'd remember you thirty years later?

Now, a couple of folks have apparently been found who DO remember Dubya from that period. Dunno how credible they are, but there's a couple who at least say that they do.

As for Franks' comment, my understanding of what he said (and what many a historian of our involvement would say) is that, yes, atrocities were committed by US troops. The question is whether they were the norm.

I'd venture that there were atrocities committed, some hushed up, some not. But was it the sort of thing that occurred as a common "day-to-day" occurrence, as John Kerry said?

Ever read E.B. Sledge's "The Old Breed"? It's about Marines in the island war in the Pacific. He recounts tales of Marines committing what would be considered atrocities. I don't think anyone would say that this was the norm. I certainly don't think it would justify such an accusation in front of a Congressional committee in sworn testimony.

Steve,

Your original point was about the lack of vigor in Kerry's rebuttal so let me try to bring this response back on topic.

I'm starting to sense that the situation is really a "Beat your Wife" type of problem and the best thing to do is let the accusers self-destruct.

The missing 10th Brother, Steve Gardner, who features prominently in the SBVT testimony, has now admitted that he wasn't present when Kerry earned any of his medals.

Another SBVT, Alfred French, senior deputy district attorney of Clackamas County, who signed a sworn affidavit: (another link here)

French's comments have been used in anti-Kerry ads by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a group of Vietnam veterans who have said the Democratic presidential candidate lied about or exaggerated his actions during Swift boat river duty in 1969.

The ad campaign has become a national issue, and French's admission to The Oregonian last week that his signed affidavit was not based on personal observations raised the emotional level of the veterans-versus-veterans debate in Oregon.

This man who has sworn to uphold the law, has foreswarn that oath and publically uttered a lie, and a libel.

I know lot's of readers are eager for the SBVT claims to be true, but the more I look into this the more I think these people are drinking the special cool-aid. None who were frothing at the mouth about F 9/11 and who now have a spring in their step because of the SBVT smear have any moral ground to complain about F 9/11 which, while a classic work of propoganda, at least had its facts correct while it was stringing them together in a tinfoil hat fashion even while it was leading the viewer into fantasyland. The SBVT smears can't even muster that much credit.

What's the military call this type of operation? Hmm, oh yeah, a clusterf**k.

You noted Kerry's lack of response. Perhaps the wisest thing to do is let your opponents lose all credibility all on their own and stay above the fray to avoid as much shrapnal and avoid dignifying the smear. Hopefully, the public looks at the tactics of smearing and sees a recurring pattern:

The technique President Bush is using against John F. Kerry was perfected by his father against Michael Dukakis in 1988, though its roots go back at least to Sen. Joseph McCarthy. It is: Bring a charge, however bogus. Make the charge simple: Dukakis "vetoed the Pledge of Allegiance"; Bill Clinton "raised taxes 128 times"; "there are [pick a number] Communists in the State Department." But make sure the supporting details are complicated and blurry enough to prevent easy refutation.

Then sit back and let the media do your work for you. Journalists have to report the charges, usually feel obliged to report the rebuttal, and often even attempt an analysis or assessment. But the canons of the profession prevent most journalists from saying outright: These charges are false. As a result, the voters are left with a general sense that there is some controversy over Dukakis' patriotism or Kerry's service in Vietnam. And they have been distracted from thinking about real issues (like the war going on now) by these laboratory concoctions.

Ha ha ha. Tangoman you are so funny...and such a Kerry fanboy.

However, we're not seeking a group of men who stand behind the President based on his valor. All we're seeking are groups of pilots, mechanics, who served on those same weekends.

You're making an error, here. Your error is there's anyone who happened to (even briefly) consistently serve the same weekends, and find him noteworthy enough to remember 30 years later.

For comparison, I was in college 20 years ago, and outside of people who were my friends, I'd be hard pressed to recall more than a few classmates. And these were people I spent 2-3 hours a week with, 20 or so weeks in a row.

It's not as if he was the son of anyone truly famous, back then, or that anyone (including him) was aware that he'd be running for President in a few decades.

Anecdote warning: I work with a guy who I met 20 years ago in college. He remembers it; I don't. Sometimes life is funny that way.

Oh, and I ought to say that I find this sort of escalation of criteria of satisfaction in re Bush's service records to be closely akin to a group of Republicans demanding to see Kerry's wound scars that earned him Purple Hearts. It'd be interesting, no denying that, but tasteless (not to mention disrespectful) in the extreme to ask.

You may infer from that last whatever you please.

Oh please. F 9/11 was wrong on both the facts and the propaganda spin, not just the spin.

When I don't have a link to a claim, I am in the habit of expressing the claim such that its clear that I'm not weighing it as heavily. I did so in my statement above that I'd heard that the Kerry campaign was beginning to admit that Kerry's first Purple Heart might have been self-inflicted ( an assertion that Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann inappropriately and ignorantly abused Michelle Malkin about ). This is where I saw that assertion about the kerry spokesman.

TangoMan, you keep claiming that you are decrying all partisan attacks. But you put the lie to your own claim by comparing only the Kerry campaign's acts to all of the Bush campaign's acts and what you characterize as Bush's "fellow travellers".

We are not falling for it.

They're thieves.