John Kerry, Michael Novak writes in National Review Online, "took away the honor of his Swift Boat brothers, who were then as young as he was, and mostly still in harm's way. He said they and others like them had killed, burned, raped, and acted like the barbarian armies of Genghis Khan. He broadcast this message all around the world, until it echoed in the jungles and the prison camps and down the rivers of Vietnam--and these young men in uniform had no way to defend themselves."

John Kerry made his name bashing other Vietnam veterans. By making the case that war crimes were standard practice among Americans in Vietnam, Kerry helped foster a negative, and false, image of vets returning home.

If criticizing other veterans a generation ago was alright for John Kerry, why is it somehow untoward for the men he criticized to question his war record now? After all, they were just anonymous young men. He's running for president.

It is valid to disagree with Kerry’s testimony about Vietnam to Congress in 1972. But that debate is not the one being held, as it would not get much traction. Most people are ashamed of the Vietnam War and atrocities did happen.
The swiftboat operatives have no evidence or first hand knowledge that can dispute any of the Kerry’s war experience or honors. That’s what makes this different from questioning Bush’s lack of service.
Bush cannot illustrate any honorable service with standard military records.
Right now people like Bob Dole, with no personal knowledge, feel free to say Kerry didn’t bleed or his wounds were self-inflicted. How shameless are the Republicans. We are witnessing the “say anything to win” phase of the Republican attack

Thank you robert!

No thanks Robert.

????? How can you question that statement?????

Finbar can disagree with Robert because the following statement is not true: "The swiftboat operatives have no evidence or first hand knowledge that can dispute any of the Kerry’s war experience or honors."

It’s either OK to talk about military service or it isn’t - regardless of who the candidate is. If people think claims levied on George Bush’s record are inaccurate then those people (namely George Bush, his campaign and people he served with) should dispute charges they think are inaccurate. Same goes for Kerry. It’s not OK to talk about one candidates records if you think you may have found things that might be questionable but then when the coin get flipped cry foul. It seems to me John Kerry wants to talk a lot about his service in Vietnam. That’s fine, he can talk about it all he wants. But what he can’t do is claim that he and his supporters are the only people that are allowed to.

The Kerry campaign is basically saying: if you are not John Kerry or if you are not a Vietnam Vet who travels with our campaign then your criticism of him (even if you served as a sailor in a swift boat) are invalid and have no place at the table.

Hey Boyle...where you been? Send me an email to see what's up.
-Sean.

Happy Birthday to Sean Connery. He's 74 today.

Sean,

Been out of circulation for a while. Very low key summer season to the point where I'm sleep walking.

Will mail you soon and try to visit your new place of business for a business/pleasure hook up and come interesting conversation.

Hey: And happy birthday to Sean C.. Who knew? Wonder if the biggest stick in Hollywood can still ride?

Nuff said.......

Letter to John Kerry

August 25, 2004

Senator John Kerry
304 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Kerry,

We are pleased to welcome your campaign representatives to Texas today. We honor all our veterans, all whom have worn the uniform and served our country. We also honor the military and National Guard troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan today. We are very proud of all of them and believe they deserve our full support.

That’s why so many veterans are troubled by your vote AGAINST funding for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, after you voted FOR sending them into battle. And that’s why we are so concerned about the comments you made AFTER you came home from Vietnam. You accused your fellow veterans of terrible atrocities – and, to this day, you have never apologized. Even last night, you claimed to be proud of your post-war condemnation of our actions.

We’re proud of our service in Vietnam. We served honorably in Vietnam and we were deeply hurt and offended by your comments when you came home.

You can’t have it both ways. You can’t build your convention and much of your campaign around your service in Vietnam, and then try to say that only those veterans who agree with you have a right to speak up. There is no double standard for our right to free speech. We all earned it.

You said in 1992 “we do not need to divide America over who served and how.” Yet you and your surrogates continue to criticize President Bush for his service as a fighter pilot in the National Guard.

We are veterans too – and proud to support President Bush. He’s been a strong leader, with a record of outstanding support for our veterans and for our troops in combat. He’s made sure that our troops in combat have the equipment and support they need to accomplish their mission.

He has increased the VA health care budget more than 40% since 2001 – in fact, during his four years in office, President Bush has increased veterans funding twice as much as the previous administration did in eight years ($22 billion over 4 years compared to $10 billion over 8.) And he’s praised the service of all who served our country, including your service in Vietnam.

We urge you to condemn the double standard that you and your campaign have enforced regarding a veteran’s right to openly express their feelings about your activities on return from Vietnam.

Sincerely,

Texas State Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson
Rep. Duke Cunningham
Rep. Duncan Hunter
Rep. Sam Johnson
Lt. General David Palmer
Robert O'Malley, Medal of Honor Recipient
James Fleming, Medal of Honor Recipient
Lieutenant Colonel Richard Castle (Ret.)

Sean Connery's best movie is undoubtably The Man Who Would be King."

I agree. Quite right, quite right.

Back to Kerry I have two points. One, Kerry's testimony never was anti-veteran. It was anti-Vietnam war, and rightly so. Second, no matter what Kerry did in Vietnam, even if he messed up and was a coward, HE WENT. George Bush didn't even have the balls to go.

Guess DB hasn't read The New Soldier.

Unless The New Soilder offers up a reason why our President was AWOL during his tour in the hot zones of Alabama, theres nothing in that book that could convice me that Bush was a better soilder than Kerry.

If by soldier you mean war criminal, then yes Kerry was far better.

Kerry hits the issues hard. He talks about health care, housing, the economy, blah, blah, blah and how bad it all is. But, does he offer any solutions or hard plans on how he's going to fix these things? Not that I've heard.

Problem is, his only real political experiences have been as the Lt. Gov. of a one of the most liberal states in the nation and in a lackluster career as a Senator for the same.

As has been said, we really can't afford on the job training for this guy.

And his his vastly inexperienced Veep won't help.

If he wants to be taken seriously, he needs to formulate and communicate some real plans on how he will protect and solve some of this country's biggest issues. Not continue with his Tourettes Syndrome responses by muttering Viet Nam everytime he's pressed for answers.

yes John Kerry is a war criminal...wow.

DB- yeah George W. avoided Vietnam, that should come into play. How can he justify sending troops anywhere if he is too much a coward to go himself? But which is worse avoiding combat like Clinton and Bush or commiting war crimes like Kerry? Kerry admits to burning down villiages. whether he was commanded to or not we cannot have someone as pres. who instead of standing up for what he know is right, does what he is ordered to do. When it comes to bush and kerry its not black and white, its black and blacker.

Kerry 1971 Meet the Press"there are all kinds of atrocities and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free-fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50-caliber machine guns which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search-and-destroy missions, in the burning of villages."

How could this man honestly condem the torture at Abu Ghraib? Lynndie England for president!?

Isn't it ironic that the same people who hurled the "baby killer" charges at the vets returning from 'Nam, are today the same people who scream and holler for the right to kill their own babies.

I guess that's too long a sentance to fit in that stupid song. Oh well.

Touche Mr. Fong. That is a great and very accurate observation.

That's only an accurate observation if you assume that most people who oppose baby killing in Vietnam are also for abortion. I'm a registered Democrat, proudly liberal in the FDR tradition, against the Iraq war, agaist George Bush, against FoxNews, against tax cuts, and against abortion.

Being anti-abortion why do i vote Democrat? Because the great scam about the republican party is that they get anti-abortionites to vote for them thinking that they can change the situation. Guess what. They can't. Only the supreme court can change Roe v Wade. It would be silly to let Republicans run wild and destroy our country because they promised to do something they constitutionaly cannot do.

Peg sorry I didn't see your post earlier. Your point is well taken, but to that I would say two things. First, I don't know that it's true that Kerry did commit war crimes. I don't know where that charge comes from, but I'd be interested in hearing more about it. Second, an individual's behavior in war must be judged by different standards than those that govern you or I. (That's why we have seperate millitary courts.) In many cases a soilder commiting war crimes was just following orders, and the higher ups are the ones truly responsible. I know Kerry was just a Lt. If I had to guess I would say that any war crime commited by him would probably be found to be the resposibilty of a higher up, if the millitary ever investigated it.

I doubt the millitary ever investigated this however because there were hundreds of war crimes violations that occured in Vietnam, and the millitary was not interested in investigating these things at the time. Thankfully our millitary is a bit more humane now.

DB, I think the point is that philosophically liberals tend to be anti-war and are very demonstrative about their feelings toward it.

Thus, calling returning soldiers 'baby-killers'. I have some personal experience with this so I know it's true.

Additionally, most liberals also tend to be 'pro' anything where they suspect a freedom might be squelched or a right might be trampled on.

Thus, considering it ok to take action against an unborn baby by it out of a womb fits the mold.

The point here is that you can not have it both ways. For or against killing babies when it suits your purpose.

This is how the liberal mind works.

I got your point. I'm trying to tell you that I'm liberal, and that's not how my mind works. Soilders are not resposible for the crimes of thier commanders. If the US millitary kills babies(which, everyone has to admit it probably has with all the bombing and the like) then the blame rests squarely on the shoulders of one George W. Bush.

I see your point about having it both ways, but there is a difference when it comes to abortion. Many people do not see unborn (or partially born) human fetuses as babies. These people see babies as humans fully outside the womb. Therefore they are not having it both ways. In abortion, no babies are hurt. Just fetuses.

I happen to disagree with this, but that is how the "liberal" mind works, not as you suggested.

I moon for rebuttal.

...as anything else would waste valuable seconds.

Hey Lenny, still wanna go bowling?

Wow. Just saw JK's testimony on C-Span. Do those SBVT ever mislead in thier ads!

The Man Who Would Be King is a great film! Another excellent Connery film, and of the same year (1975) as TMWBK is The Wind and the Lion. In fact, I highly recommend that film in order to see a Hollywood production celebrating a Republican president for a unilateral invasion of a sovereign nation, toppling its government in order to stop muslim terrorists from harassing American interests.

The film is about TR invading Morocco at the turn of the last century b/c of the kidnapping of an American by muslim pirates. I assume the film is largely fanciful although based on real events. The movie is extremely timely particularly b/c of the contrast between TR and W. TR has the marines invade Morrocco march into the palace in the capital and overthrow the government, then they set out on their mission to destroy the power of the Mohammedan bandits. Once that is accomplished they march back out of the capital to the pier and sail home giving not one thought to how the Morococans would cope with having had their government overthrown. TR apparently did not believe in "nation-building."

Connery is his usual larger than life self playing a muslim bandit named Mulay Achmed Mohammed el-Raisuli the Magnificent. Of course, he makes no effort at all to appear Arab in the slightest degree nor does he attempt to hide his thick Scottish brogue at all. The amazing thing is that despite the fact that Connery never plays anything other than himself in films (think of his "Spanish" conquistador in Highlander) he still is so magnetic onscreen that you just don't care. The definition of a movie star.

Brian Kieth is perfect as TR.

Check it out.

I would agree with your assessment of the Wind and the Lion.

This was one very good (if not believable) film.

Had a very young and sweet Candace Bergen playing the female lead with great chemistry between her and the Hollywood tripod, SC.

Kept waiting for him to say 'Goeldfinga' though.

All I got to say is that anyone who critizes John Kerry HATES AMERICA!!! The utterly despise, detest, and spit upon the greatest nation on Earth by attacking one of its men in uniform. Anyone who buys that book is a traitor to the American cause. Anyone who speaks out against the war record or Anti-war stance of one of America's finest soilders should be tried for treason. I really don't know why you people hate America so much! It's given you material well being. It's given you the right to worship freely. It's given you the right to believe in your kooky ideas of "conservatism", which you wouldn't even have a right to believe in Vietnam! If you really love America, you should hush up, get in line,salute Lt. John Kerry, and vote this great war hero for president of the United States!!

Finbar, I've been reading your posts and you are the most Anti-American of all the posters. Why are you so ashamed of your own country? Why do you hate the land that made you free so much that you would attack a man who has defended it. You disgust me sir! If you hate America so much why don't you just get out! If you want a country where you can't accuse anybody of war crimes, go to North Korea!! You'll love it there! War crimes all the time! And snotty little Lt.'s can't say anything!

I agree. If you love conservatism more than your own country, than you should just get out and move to Russia!!

Now there's a high minded, tolerant liberal.

"Anyone who buys that book is a traitor to the American cause".

Maybe we should be burning those books so nobody can read them, eh DB?

Gives me a chuckle that he same phonies who are always railing about First Amendment rights are the ones who are the quickest to squelch free speech when it suits their purpose.

Talk about your Brown Shirts.

it's a joke Boylely Boy. That kind of intolerance is exactly what conservatives do to progressives. Thought it might help if you were on the recieving end, to help you realize how stupid such talk is.

It's hard to tell when you're joking, as most everything you write is a joke.

Still think you're nuts.

The insane often feel the sane are "nuts".

I dont believe that Bush should send out soilders to fight for crap he started, and he didnt serve in a war himself. I think he should just pull all of the soilders out of the war, and let them go back to their families before they all die out there.