Do you think maybe, just maybe, Bill Clinton was the wrong guy to juxtapose Kerry's Vietnam service with George W. Bush's avoidance of it? Or how about the hubris of Jimmy Carter in criticizing the president's, or any president's, foreign policy? Could it be that after the Hillary-Care debacle, Senator Clinton may not have been the right speaker to stress health care issues? Might sore-loser Al Gore have been an ill-conceived choice to whine about the Florida election controversy?

Actually, I thought they carried it off rather well, and Jimmy Carter at this point doesn't have to answer to anyone but himself and God. I think despite his failings as a president he's now passed on to 'elder statesman' status...

...but then I'm not of your political persuasion.

And, while you've brought up the subject of Kerry's service to the country in Vietnam, I would only say

(a) During his speech, Clinton admitted that he, along with W., got out of going to Vietnam, which struck a note of frank honesty in his portrayal of Kerry, in sharp contrast to W.'s refusal to own up to the fact that he not only got out of going (as was his right as the son of a wealthy family), but then shirked even those simple duties;

(b) whatever else you say about Kerry, call him ambitious, call him liberal, call him overbearing in his rhetoric, but you can't say the man lacks courage. Well, you can SAY it, but you ought not to say it, because it wouldn't be true if you did.

I am much cheered by the prospect of John Kerry as the next leader of the free world. I disagree with him about much, but I know that for all that, he will not be surrounded by super-hawks from the Nixon administration who regard the House and the Senate as mere instruments of (or impediments to) their will.

What's really funny to me...is that Kerry went to Vietnam...came back and protested along with all of the other hippies that called the vets "baby killers"...and now keeping abortion legal is the most important issue for those SAME old hippies...

Am I the only one that thinks this is weird?

(Click my name for hilarity!)

Had to love Hillary’s speech where she tried to appear hawkish and supportive of the military when as the other member of the Clinton co-presidency she supported the First Liar in stripping our defenses to the bone and selling our military technologies to the highest bidder.

Is anybody REALLY listening? I hope so.

It is my opinion that John Kerry did his chosen four month tour in Viet Nam for the same reasons he’s done everything else in his life: to prepare for his run at the Presidency.

His logic at the time was that if it helped JFK #1 (a legitimate warrior), then is would help JFK #2.

He needed combat experience to complete the presentation and got that by jumping onto a river boat for a few weeks. In his four month service “at the front”, he picked up three purple hearts and a citation for bravery.

All looks pretty good on a political resume don’t it?

Then, he comes back, checks to see which way the wind is blowing and as usual, bends with the times when it is clear that the War is unpopular. Even going as far as becoming the mouthpiece for Veterans against the War and discarding his(???) medals to make a political statement.

As I’ve said: he’s Clinton without the personality.

Boyle, under your lens, I think every Dem except perhaps Zell Miller is a traitor-in-waiting to the Traitor-in-Chief, Billy Boy.

As I said in my first post of the day, you can call Kerry ambitious, even too ambitious, which you've just done.

Are you also saying he's a coward?

That his service time (however long or short) on the swift-boat was padded and protected somehow, so that he wouldn't be shot?

Go ahead...just say it. You think he's a coward.

Why can't someone just differ from you and (in your opinion) be wrong on the issues, without being an evil person?

Don't you recognize the difference between political wisdom and practical wisdom which Aristotle clearly outlines in Book VI of his Nicomachean Ethics?

Or the difference between knowing something is right and doing it?

Clearly not, since you claimed the other day in the Tour de France posting that "knowing" about the race should equal victory in the race.

Washington has such a poisonous atmosphere nowadays; why don't you buck that trend instead of jumping on the bandwagon?

Good point, Raging Fred. Very astute! "It's all about me" -- that's the Dems' motto.

Hello, McGadfly, Hello!!

You once wrote “you don’t know me”. The same holds for you. You don’t know me.

But it’s kind of funny to see you write in a frenzy. This is what happens when facts are presented and there is no logical or factual comeback that can be had.

Anyway, I am proud to say that I am a conservative (and not necessarily a compassionate one). My standards are based on what I believe is the right thing to do. So, I do not lean all the way right all of the time.

To give you an example, if a guy like Joe Lieberman were nominated and running for President on the Democratic ticket, I would more than likely cast a vote for him. Not necessarily because of his political philosophies either way but because I believe him to be a fair, honest and moral statesman who would make a good leader. I would feel more comfortable with a man like that in the White House than with some of the current offerings and that includes ALL of the current offerings.

John Kerry, on the other hand, and his surrounding band of Democrats, are duplicitous congenital liars. He and they will do ANYTHING and say ANYTHING to get to the White House. You may argue that this is the same trait for all and I would agree that by degree that is true.

However, Kerry has been practicing for this his whole life. Ever since he cruised with JFK on a sail boat in the waters off of Hyannis many moons ago, his push has been to posture for the acquisition of the Presidency. He has proven this by his less than spectacular record in the Senate as he has been using his membership there to get him to where he is now.

That is why I believe his short service in Viet Nam to be along these lines.

Now, please don’t ever suppose that my comments in anyway mean that I think Kerry a coward. Your request for an admission shows me that, as most liberals do, you jump to your own reactionary conclusions. I really don’t have to explain this but for the sake of argument, I will say that I don’t think John Kerry is a coward.

In fact, to a much lesser degree than Kerry, I am a Viet Nam vet and would never even think that. Kerry had to have big ones to put himself in harms way by any measure and he did that by doing his service in a combat zone.

Also, I don’t think that Kerry is evil. I just don’t think he is a good man and I really believe based on his track record that he would make a bad and ineffective President and is not the right man for the job.

To close, I would offer that the “poisonous” D.C. atmosphere has been created by a bunch of partisan Democratic punks whose platform consists solely of Republican bashing.

P.S. – you’ve got the Lance thing wrong as well.