Know what though? A he said/she said is not to Kerry's advantage--since that tends to presume at least SOME credibility on both sides.

And McCain is ultimately irrelevant to the story for as you said, he wasn't there.

Also, at some point in the next three months people are going to wake up and realize that Kerry didn't go to Vietnam, come back, and run for President--there is the matter of his record in the Senate to contend with. And it isn't going to look good.

Just in from Reuters:
"John Kerry's commanding officer in Vietnam has backed away from attacks on the Democratic presidential candidate, saying he made a mistake in accusing the U.S. senator of having lied about his wartime record."

Looks like yet another intelligence failure for the Bushits. You-all is gettin' embarrassing.

And Kerry still has real war experience while Bush has just a purty flight suit that he can take out and strut around in...

Too bad the bulk of Kerry's "real war experience" consists of working as a propogandist for the Viet Cong once he returned from his micro-mini tour of duty.

We now know that the Viet Cong knew they could not win militarily, and began increasingly to count on being able to win on college campuses. The war was lost because the American people lost their stomach for it.

Lt. Kerry was a big part of that. Again--given his claims of witnessing and participating in war crimes (which he should have reported at the time, if they happened), he is either a war criminal or a liar. There's no way out of that one.

And so all this somehow validates Bush's expertise (or lack thereof) on military matters?!? Seems like Kerry's anti-war agitations were from someone who experienced war.

As for war crimes Bush isn't one who should point fingers...WMDs, ties to al Qaeda, Abu Ghraib, open-ended reconstruction contracts, and so on and so forth.

Are you saying that once you're in a war then - dammit - you should finish it regardless of the body count, regardless of whether it's even right. Maybe it's not a matter of stomach, maybe it's a matter of brain, heart, and body. Gosh, LMA, if *YOU* were in charge, we'd still be in Vietnam stacking up body bags!

And so all this somehow validates Bush's expertise (or lack thereof) on military matters?!? Seems like Kerry's anti-war agitations were from someone who experienced war.

By your logic, FDR wasn't qualified to be CIC during WWII. After all, he hadn't "experienced war."

As for war crimes Bush isn't one who should point fingers...WMDs, ties to al Qaeda, Abu Ghraib, open-ended reconstruction contracts, and so on and so forth.

Bush isn't pointing fingers. I am. WMDs: immaterial, separate argument. Ties to al Qaeda—these have been established, and it's immaterial anyway. Abu Ghraib: isolated incidents, and not analogous to burning villages or willfully murdering innocent civilians. Contracts: also off-topic.

Are you saying that once you're in a war then - dammit - you should finish it regardless of the body count, regardless of whether it's even right. Maybe it's not a matter of stomach, maybe it's a matter of brain, heart, and body. Gosh, LMA, if *YOU* were in charge, we'd still be in Vietnam stacking up body bags!

If I were in charge we would have fought it to win, rather than this half-assed nonsense that Johnson and McNamara gave us. Where do you think the Powell doctrine came from, anyway?

There was so much suffering when we pulled out, and yet the South Vietnamese were so grateful that we tried. My husband was in Vietnam last year, and he kept getting invited into people's homes. He wasn't even there. But he's American. They remember.

We should, too.

No, it's your logic that is flawed. Tell me, what military experience does Bush have over Kerry? (dum-de-dum-dum - snooze)

OK, you're fingerpointing. whoopee. I'm fingerpointing back. Unlike Bush, Kerry hasn't lied - excuse me - relied on faulty intelligence to justify his agenda. WMDs - excuse for war - not found. Ties to al Qaeda and imminent threat to U.S. Security - excuse for war - not found. Abu Ghraib - act of soldiers having fun? - Nope, orders from higher up. Open-ended contracts with money going who knows where, and so on. This is the Administration you're proud of?!? Please! At least Kerry can read without moving his lips.

"If I were in charge we would have fought it to win,"...you mean we weren't trying to win?!? Gosh, that's terrible. A war where we didn't fight to win. But what happens when you're in a war and you can't win unless you utterly destroy the country and with a tremendous loss of life? Do you ever draw a line? Do you ever stop and take a pulse? Or is it always "War Until Victory or Death?"

No, it's your logic that is flawed. Tell me, what military experience does Bush have over Kerry? (dum-de-dum-dum - snooze)

The point is, I haven't been maintaining that Bush has more military experience (though he does--there is the small matter of four years as the CIC). Kerry is the one who is essentially running on his 3-4 months in Vietnam, to the exclusion of everything else he's done (in the Senate, as Lt. Gov.--everything). He's bringing this scrutiny on himself.

I don't happen to care. And it's not like the people who say it's so important now cared when it was Clinton who was running.

OK, you're fingerpointing. whoopee. I'm fingerpointing back. Unlike Bush, Kerry hasn't lied - excuse me - relied on faulty intelligence to justify his agenda. WMDs - excuse for war - not found. Ties to al Qaeda and imminent threat to U.S. Security - excuse for war - not found.

There were plenty of ties between Iraq and AQ; it's more an issue of "how do you want to catalog it." And Bush specifically stated that the threat from Saddam wasn't "imminent." He was explicit about that.

Abu Ghraib - act of soldiers having fun? - Nope, orders from higher up. Open-ended contracts with money going who knows where, and so on. This is the Administration you're proud of?!?

This is an administration that makes me feel safer than the Clairol guys would. By far.

Please! At least Kerry can read without moving his lips.

Though he doesn't have degrees from Harvard and Yale. (Which is your cue to say "they aren't real degrees; they were given to him because of his family's political connections." Because you don't want him to be smart. So, fine: stick your fingers in your ears and say "la la la, I can't hear you!")

"If I were in charge we would have fought it to win,"...you mean we weren't trying to win?!? Gosh, that's terrible. A war where we didn't fight to win.

Actually, it was. It was awful.

But what happens when you're in a war and you can't win unless you utterly destroy the country and with a tremendous loss of life? Do you ever draw a line? Do you ever stop and take a pulse? Or is it always "War Until Victory or Death?"

That's an interesting question. It seems that some sort of absolutism is necessary to make victory possible at all. Both the Revolutionary Wars and the Civil War looked unwinnable at certain times, and yet the Continental Congress and President Lincoln persevered. I tend to think that if it's worth going to war in the first place, it's probably worth fighting it to win. Back to the Powell doctrine: don't go in unless you can do it with decisive force.

Fortunately, that's not the situation we find ourselves in now. We've deposed a dictator and brought democracy to a nation that sorely needed it. Many, many lives have been saved because of what we did. There is now a democracy in the region other than Israel, and we're in a position to put more pressure on Saudi Arabia. Iran may be the next country in the area to democratize.

It's not a smooth road ahead of us, but so far we've done well.

"if it's worth going to war in the first place, it's probably worth fighting it to win" - even if the reasons were lies?!? We didn't invade Iraq to depose Hussein just for the sake of ridding a dictator - that's the only reason left. The WMDs, etc. were a bunch of bull - even folks who worked for Bush say that he had a woody early on (pre9/11) to invade Iraq and was just looking for an excuse. What if the reasons aren't right? To many people of this world the reasons smelled funny, suspiciously like manure. Should we still go all out for the wrong reasons? Considering the Bush doctrine of preemption, can we really trust someone who will invade under false pretenses? Are American lives that cheap?

Democratize Iran...good word "Democratize", It means if you don't play ball with us we're going in and blow the crap out of your country until you work with us the way we want. And - hey - money and lives are no object. As T. Roosevelt would say "Bully!"

Funny that Iran is seemingly pursuing nuclear weapons now after the invasion of Iraq. What message did we send them? How smart will it be to have our forces in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran? (Oh yeah, the Draft...)

And Bush going to Yale - Wow, I'm impressed! Did he learn anything other than how to drink and snort?

"if it's worth going to war in the first place, it's probably worth fighting it to win" - even if the reasons were lies?!? We didn't invade Iraq to depose Hussein just for the sake of ridding a dictator - that's the only reason left. The WMDs, etc. were a bunch of bull -

1) The stated U.S. policy of deposing Saddam dates back to the Clinton Administration. 2) The belief that Saddam had WMDs was present not only in the U.S. intelligence services, but in those of every country that had intelligence services, including France. 3) Bush is in a position wherein, WRT security, he has to err on the side of caution. 4) The ties between Iraq and AQ are extensive, documented and uncontroversial. Sorry if the L.A. Times doesn't like to mention them.

Even folks who worked for Bush say that he had a woody early on (pre9/11) to invade Iraq and was just looking for an excuse.

Bush didn't want to invade Iraq. Hell, I'm not convinced he even wanted to be President. He got drafted into that. The war in Iraq was a huge gamble, and could bury him politically. He didn't do it because he wanted to, and to suggest such a thing is just frivolous.

What if the reasons aren't right? To many people of this world the reasons smelled funny, suspiciously like manure.

Especially the French and the Russians, who didn't want to give up either their lucrative weapons contracts or the fraudulent UN "oil for food" proceeds.

Should we still go all out for the wrong reasons? Considering the Bush doctrine of preemption, can we really trust someone who will invade under false pretenses? Are American lives that cheap?

No. You know I don't feel American lives are "cheap." But I'd rather take this war to the terrorists, and have the terrorists going after trained, armed soldiers and Marines, versus having the bombs going off in American malls.

Democratize Iran...good word "Democratize", It means if you don't play ball with us we're going in and blow the crap out of your country until you work with us the way we want.

"Blow the crap out of your country." Yes. The Iraqis were so much better off under Saddam. I want what you're smoking.

Funny that Iran is seemingly pursuing nuclear weapons now after the invasion of Iraq. What message did we send them?

Yes. I'm sure they only gained an interest in nuclear weapons in the past year. And there is the small matter of Libya . . .

How smart will it be to have our forces in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran? (Oh yeah, the Draft...)

I love the draft talk. Virtually no conservative, libertarian, or hawk advocates it. Instead, it's pushed by liberals who theorize that it would be more "fair," and then other liberals pop up to denounce the Right for wanting or planning to institute a draft. It's insane.

And I never discusses invading Iran; I think the aristocracy of the mullahs there is going to implode with little or no help from us.

And Bush going to Yale - Wow, I'm impressed! Did he learn anything other than how to drink and snort?

He learned enough to lead this country through the worst crisis it's experienced since Lincoln's day. If you were nauseated at the way Reagan was lionized after he died, you ain't seen nothing yet: you're going to be tossing your cookies plenty in a couple of decades when history starts to judge Bush '43. I'll bring you a bottle of Pepto Bismol.

This is all SO irrelavent!! The Clintons and their boy running the DNC do NOT want Kerry to win the election. They control the money and can drop a bomb on Kerry any ol' time they want. Case closed. They're keeping it close to keep Democrats angry about 2000 and hopeful for 2008. It's over. Bush will even win New York -- making all those "swing states" rather irrelavent.

I believe the Clintons have power. But that kind of power? No--can't buy it.

You-all are a piece of work. Bush didn't want to be President?!? He got drafted?!? Is he so weak-willed that he couldn't say no? No, Bush - the martyr, the Patriot - is doing it for his country...pul-lease!

So everyone including France believed Iraq had WMDs. Really? And did they all believe that he was an imminent threat to U.S. National Security? I don't think so. Ties to al Qaeda are "extensive, documented and uncontroversial" in your fantasy world. From what I've seen in the news and online the links are extremely minor along the lines of Kevin Bacon and certainly no threat to the U.S. and not worth invading over.

Bush didn't want to invade Iraq. Right - that's why he called the dogs off bin Laden (remeber him? - known terrorist) to go save Iraq from Hussein. Remember to exhale.

And, of course, the Liberals are behind the draft talk either way. The Liberals are too blame for everything. Can you-guys take personal responsibility for anything?

Look, point is, you have a known terrorist - bin Laden - STILL running around, his group quite strong and still causing trouble. Bush didn't finish that job. Bush invaded Iraq - huzzahs all around - he knows how to invade but he knows jack about anything else. We know have our military split and Iran (and North Korea) rattling their scimitars. Fact is, Bush is playing "King of the Hill" and his victory dance at the top has cheesed off damn near everyone. Standing at the top makes him and our great country a nice fat target. Are we safer thanks to Georgie? I don't think so judging by the continual stream of warnings and paranoia. Before, I would never think about having to arm my castle but in Georgie's New World I'd better lay in supplies (lots of duct tape) and lay in some heavy armaments because those terrorists are out there, ready to strike at any time.

But, hey, we have Saint Georgie on our side astride his White Stallion (looking suspiciously like Cheney) making the world safe for Democracy (and corporate profits). Ave Georgie!!!

"John Kerry's commanding officer in Vietnam has backed away from attacks on the Democratic presidential candidate, saying he made a mistake in accusing the U.S. senator of having lied about his wartime record"

Trying reading the article more carefully, he doesn't know if he actually shot the guy in the back or in the front. The person that wrote that article for the boston globe wrote a biography that actually confirms the the swift boat vets account.

KERRY is a fraud and you know it, how can 250 decorated vets agree? There is more to the story, try listening to the other side, maybe you''l learn some real history.

Mr. Mahatma: I think, instead of going on trips to cabins in the woods, we should just start ganging up on people. Working in groups of 5+ adults (plus however many kids), we should just periodically descend on a city like NYC or Atlanta or Baltiimore or SF. We should give the victims . . . um, hosts . . . as little notice as we can, and they can go sightseeing with us or not, as they like. They don't even have to put us up, but it's a black mark if they can't see us at all.

Whaddya think? Kind of like your faux-Comdex trips, but on a slightly larger scale.

Attila Girl, just stumbled across your back and forth with littlemrmahatma regarding Bush and Kerry. Please, stop wasting your time. A closed and ignorant mind is very hard to change with facts and the truth and that is one closed mind.

I like your views and opinions on many things, but the one thing that I think most people seem to miss is what did happen to the WMD's? We know that Iraq had them. If Saddam destroyed them, why jerk the UN's chain for so many years? Where did they go and who has control of them? I have never heard the question asked in the mainstream media.

Bush didn't have a "woody" for Iraq; he stated in his first speech as President that Iraq would have a regime change. 9/11 did not change that and Bush did not lie to anyone. Thank God Gore was not in office on 9/11. Scares me to think where we would be now if he'd won in 2000.

"A closed and ignorant mind is very hard to change with facts and the truth and that is one closed mind." goes both ways. The Bush camp is equally guilty of distortions, lies, and semantic games.

"If Saddam destroyed them, why jerk the UN's chain for so many years? Where did they go and who has control of them?" - He destroyed them; he sold them; he used them - who knows, ask Hussein but he never had them as an immediate threat to the Security of the U.S. as stated by Bush et al. The Bushies are the ones who stated that Hussein definitely had WMDs. One would think that by making such a statement that the Bushies would have had knowledge of where the WMDs were but - ooops - intelligence failure.

As for jerking the U.N.'s chain, sounds like a typical reaction from a despot. Hussein didn't want to be bullied around. And this behavior is exactly the same as Bush's dealing with the U.N. (and pretty much everybody)! For Hussein (and Bush) to act any other way would appear weak.

"Bush didn't have a "woody" for Iraq; he stated in his first speech as President that Iraq would have a regime change." - Fine but don't use a mass of lies, distortions, and 9/11 to justify the regime change. My beef with Bush was that after 9/11 he correctly went after the known terrorist Bin Laden but then veered to go after Hussein for reasons less than believable, especially the effort to link Hussein with 9/11. It didn't jive.

But back to topic - here you have Kerry who did serve and saw action - no argument here - HE SAW ACTION. For four months - fine - but at least add in time for basic training. HE SAW ACTION and served his country. His anti-war stance aftwards comes from experiencing it first-hand.

Bush, on the other hand, did not see action - no argument here. He served his country via the National Guard for four years on-and-off. He has no experience of war.

That's it. Kerry may have played the system with his medals. Bush may have played the system to get into the National Guard.

But who saw War first hand: Kerry.

I'm a swing voter. No one here has helped me make up my mind on anything other than I'm sick to death of this topic. Both sides are playing "bait and switch" with the issues. Meaning.......let's take a non-issue, blow everything way out of proportion and the american people won't pay attention to what's really important.

It's my opinion that you are all perpetuating this.

OSO (do I know you?)--
There are definitely some real issues here. M. Mahatma has been skeptical about whether a Commander in Chief who hasn't experienced combat can be as respectful of our armed forces as can someone who did survive combat. I'm not so sure, and I'll have to fall back on the FDR analogy. (M. Mahatma probably doesn't mind that so much since Roosevelt was a Democrat.)

Ferretbait--
The WMDs are in Syria. I guarantee it.

And the issues about what happened on those Swift Boats has been made a centerpiece of Kerry's campaign. I would prefer that the campaign were about actual issues. I would prefer it if Kerry were willing to discuss specific policy proposals. But all he wants to talk about is Vietnam, and the Swifties (who are not affiliated with the Bush campaign) maintain that this shows a credibility problem, given how different Kerry's memories are from their own. Not one single person has been able to back up the Cambodia story, for example.

LMM--
His anti-war stance aftwards comes from experiencing it first-hand.

And when he took that stance, was he lying, or telling the world that he had been a war criminal, and had witnessed war crimes but declined to report them to his superiors? Which is it: either he made shit up to make the soldiers and sailors look bad, or he is a war criminal. There is no way out of that one.

Read today's Washington Post story: Larry Thurlow, one of the so-called "Swift Boat Vets" is apparently NOT so swift. "Liar, liar, pants on fire": http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13267-2004Aug18.html

Records Counter a Critic of Kerry
Fellow Skipper's Citation Refers To Enemy Fire

By Michael Dobbs
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 19, 2004; Page A01

Newly obtained military records of one of Sen. John F. Kerry's most vocal critics, who has accused the Democratic presidential candidate of lying about his wartime record to win medals, contradict his own version of events.

In newspaper interviews and a best-selling book, Larry Thurlow, who commanded a Navy Swift boat alongside Kerry in Vietnam, has strongly disputed Kerry's claim that the Massachusetts Democrat's boat came under fire during a mission in Viet Cong-controlled territory on March 13, 1969. Kerry won a Bronze Star for his actions that day.

Larry Thurlow in an anti-John Kerry ad. Thurlow said he would consider his own Bronze Star "fraudulent" if coming under enemy fire was the basis for it. (AP)

But Thurlow's military records, portions of which were released yesterday to The Washington Post under the Freedom of Information Act, contain several references to "enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire" directed at "all units" of the five-boat flotilla. Thurlow won his own Bronze Star that day, and the citation praises him for providing assistance to a damaged Swift boat "despite enemy bullets flying about him."

As one of five Swift boat skippers who led the raid up the Bay Hap River, Thurlow was a direct participant in the disputed events. He is also a leading member of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a public advocacy group of Vietnam veterans dismayed by Kerry's subsequent antiwar activities, which has aired a controversial television advertisement attacking his war record.

In interviews and written reminiscences, Kerry has described how his 50-foot patrol boat came under fire from the banks of the Bay Hap after a mine explosion disabled another U.S. patrol boat. According to Kerry and members of his crew, the firing continued as an injured Kerry leaned over the bow of his ship to rescue a Special Forces officer who was blown overboard in a second explosion.

Last month, Thurlow swore in an affidavit that Kerry was "not under fire" when he fished Lt. James Rassmann out of the water. He described Kerry's Bronze Star citation, which says that all units involved came under "small arms and automatic weapons fire," as "totally fabricated."

"I never heard a shot," Thurlow said in his affidavit, which was released by Swift Boats Veterans for Truth. The group claims the backing of more than 250 Vietnam veterans, including a majority of Kerry's fellow boat commanders.

A document recommending Thurlow for the Bronze Star noted that all his actions "took place under constant enemy small arms fire which LTJG THURLOW completely ignored in providing immediate assistance" to the disabled boat and its crew. The citation states that all other units in the flotilla also came under fire.

Unless you're from the state of Washington, you probably don't know me...........but at the rate this campaign is going..............I'm writing in Oprah Winfrey's name. I am sick to death of the Repubocats. I am sick to death of people questioning BOTH men's service records. We have a growing deficit and numerous problems here in the U.S. Neither side has discussed getting us out of Iraq or for that matter what happens when we are done with Iraq (like will we be going to Syria in search of the WMD or will we be fighting more wars in the middle east to stop terrorism etc.). I'm tired of moveon.org and I'm tired of the Swift Boat Vetran's for Truth. I'm just tired of the whole election at this point.

Neither side seems to want to deal with the truth. It's all smoke and mirrors.......but what do you expect from politicians................

Well, clearly the brass had been given the idea that the boats were under fire at that moment. But by whom were they given that impression?

Some accounts I've read suggest that Kerry himself might have helped to write the Thurlow citation.

Thurlow says they weren't under fire, and he's willing to give up his own medal, if that's what the citation was based on. That's a pretty strong testimony.

Keep going; you've got more than 200 more guys to discredit.

The Kerry campaign has repeatedly stated that the swift boat ads are baseless, pesonal attacks on their candidate. They claim that nothing said in the ads is true. The siwft boat vets seem to be fairly adament that what they are saying is the truth. John Kerry can end this argument forever by signing a little peice of paper known as the standard 180 form. This would make public ALL the records regfarding his service in Vietnam, including his medical records and injury reports. He has refused to do so thus far. I wonder why this is so. Is Kerry trying to hide something? Are the ads true? I am forced to believe that they are. I have found that as a general rule people caught in scandals like this, especially politicians, do anything, and make available every piece of information that could clear their name, and try to withhold or block any information that could prove their wrongdoing. If John Kerry has nothing to hide, and he has not lied about his war record, he should have no problem signing that one little piece of paper.

Too Bad these Vets are lying.
Can they remember the May Lai massacre in 69.
527 old men, women (after they were raped), and children walked into trenchs and shot in cold blood. Do they remember?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/vietnam/trenches/mylai.html
My Lai Massacre
On March 16, 1968 the angry and frustrated men of Charlie Company, 11th Brigade, Americal Division entered the village of My Lai. "This is what you've been waiting for -- search and destroy -- and you've got it," said their superior officers. A short time later the killing began. When news of the atrocities surfaced, it sent shockwaves through the US political establishment, the military's chain of command, and an already divided American public.

My Lai lay in the South Vietnamese district of Son My, a heavily mined area of Vietcong entrenchment. Numerous members of Charlie Company had been maimed or killed in the area during the preceding weeks. The agitated troops, under the command of Lt. William Calley, entered the village poised for engagement with the elusive Vietcong.

As the "search and destroy" mission unfolded it soon degenerated into the massacre of over 300 apparently unarmed civilians including women, children, and the elderly. Calley ordered his men to enter the village firing, though there had been no report of opposing fire. According to eyewitness reports offered after the event, several old men were bayoneted, praying women and children were shot in the back of the head, and at least one girl was raped, and then killed. For his part, Calley was said to have rounded up a group of the villagers, ordered them into a ditch, and mowed them down in a fury of machine gun fire.

Word of the massacre did not reach the American public until November of 1969, when journalist Seymour Hersh published a story detailing his conversations with ex-GI and Vietnam veteran, Ron Ridenhour. Ridenhour learned of the events at My Lai from members of Charlie Company who had been there. Before speaking with Hersh, he had appealed to Congress, the White House, and the Pentagon to investigate the matter. The military investigation resulted in Calley's being charged with murder in September 1969 -- a full two months before the Hersh story hit the streets.

As the gruesome details of the massacre reached the American public serious questions arose concerning the conduct of American soldiers in Vietnam. A military commission investigating the My Lai massacre found widespread failures of leadership, discipline, and morale among the Army's fighting units. As the war progressed, many "career" soldiers had either been rotated out or retired. Many more had died. In their place were scores of draftees whose fitness for leadership in the field of battle was questionable at best. Military officials blamed inequities in the draft policy for the often slim talent pool from which they were forced to choose leaders. Many maintained that if the educated middle class ("the Harvards," as they were called) had joined in the fight, a man of Lt. William Calley's emotional and intellectual stature would never have been issuing orders.

And what's the point? We know about My Lai. Investigations established that this kind of thing was genuinely rare. The Kerry problem stands: either he witnessed--and participated in--atrocities, and should have reported them to his superiors at the time. In which he's a criminal.

Or he lied in front of Congress and said he's perpetrated and seen war crimes. In which case he's still a criminal.

Try again.

If I remember correctly, during the recent Kerry/Bush debate, Kerry stated something about his two tours in Vietnam.

Did anyone catch that ? I thought he bailed out after 3 months.

Semper Fi