"Unfit for Command"

Booyah. The fact that Bushies even attempt to attack Kerry's military record is laughable. It is perhaps the weakest ground they have against him...

Cycloptichorn

I respect John McCain, but this is America and the veterans should not be silenced. You can't hide from the truth forever. That's what's happening here basically: The truth may be catching up with John F. Kerry.

If that means he can't be president, then fine. He needs to answer for his actions 30 years ago.

I agree with McCain that I deplore these kinds of politics....except.....that Kerry opened himself up for it by throwing his outstanding Vietnam service in our faces for four days at convention while at the same time 1) he participated in and led protests damning the Vietnam war and some of the men fighting in it; 2) he testified before Congress that he had witnessed the atrocities committed by the men with which he served and also that he committed atrocities; 3) he flat out lied and got caught about that 'throwing the medals' over the fence incident. 4) Those wanting us to believe that Kerry was the world's greatest and most magnificent naval officer are the very ones who have slammed GWB for months over some missing pay records.

But now the very ones who have brutalized GWB on his military record say we are supposed to condemn any who say Kerry is lying about his exemplary service? Anyone who presumes to be Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces deserves this kind of scrutiny. If he can weather it, good for him. But to say he is above being questioned about it just won't wash.

I had repeatedly said he served, he was honorbly discharged, and it doesn't have that much relevance for now. Kerry is the one who decided he didn't dare run on his more recent record and chose to make Vietnam his sole qualifications to be president. So, that record is fair game for scrutiny.

Republican whining aside...

I think this issue is a big win for Kerry. The people who believe the conservative slander are already thoroughly indoctrinated into the Bush cult.

Middle America will see this issue for what it is. Foxfyre was somewhat justified to complain about the partisan mean-spirited Bush-bashing. But this isn't mean-spirited Kerry bashing?

This kind of thing turns off the very swing voter everyone knows is so important this year. The Democrats realize this and are toning down this rhetoric (as you saw in the convention).

The latest round of anti-Kerry ads attacking his service play right into the hands of the Kerry campaign. They are so transparent and easy to poke wholes into. They simply reinforce the image of Bush supporters as arrogant and mean-spirited.

The hypocrisy of our dear Foxfyre, and the other Bush supporters, will turn out to be a big plus for the Democrats.

These truths will damage Kerry considerably, they reflect poorly on his moral character and leadership ability, and those not so firmly entrenched in ABB will see that the better choice is bush.

This is the nail in kerry's coffin.

We'll talk in November.

It is mean spirited if it isn't true ebrown. Even if it is true, it would be irrelevant if Kerry himself hadn't made it the cornerstone of his qualifications for president. Look how Bush's military service has been lampooned and criticized and bashed beyond belief and he has never held it up as anything more than National Guard service when he was much younger. He certainly hasn't pretended it gave him any particular qualifications to be president. If he had, anybody who says it wouldn't have been attacked even more mercilessly is a bigger hypocrite than even ebrown presumes me to be.

as Commander-in-chief of the armed forces, he has servedquite honorably

Surely you are joking. Honor demands honesty. If you think Bush has been honest with the armed forces personnel and the people of the US then you are off your rocker, McG...

Cycloptichorn

Bush has been honest, a lot more honest than clinton, than JFK, etc...

I agree Brand X. I would never condemn freedom of speech. The thing is this is a few soldiers' opinions. The opinions of those not serving on the same boat under Kerry. Others that served on his boat say positive things. And they also have a voice. I am letting others here their comments, the same as you are voicing the opinions of others. However, logic would state that those being directly under Kerry's command would be in the best position to make a judgement about Kerry.

What about the following…"Three veterans on Kerry's boat that day Jim Rassmann, who says Kerry saved his life, Gene Thorson and Del Sandusky, the driver on Kerry's boat, said the group was lying on all fronts. They say Kerry was injured, and Rassmann called the group's account ''pure fabrication.''

Does this not hold any positive thoughts about Kerry? I tend to believe those directly involved with some one rather than some one else that observed from a distance. How about all the other quotes I listed? You are only looking at one side. It appears that your biased is not letting you see both sides.

Other things that stick out that these negative quotes are biased is the question…"How well all of these men knew John Kerry?" How about the discrepancies between how some of them described Kerry thirty-five years ago and how they describe him today? These all suggest that their opinions are largely based upon political differences rather than objective assessments of Kerry's military record. For example, Rear Admiral Roy Hoffman gave one of the negative quotes, but the Los Angeles Times reported: . . . Hoffman and Kerry had few direct dealings in Vietnam. A Los Angeles Times examination of Navy archives found that Hoffman praised Kerry's performance in cabled messages after several river skirmishes.

Foxfyre I think you hit it on the nose when you said that Kerry participated and led protests damning the Vietnam War. Why do these soldiers who previously praised Kerry, like Hoffman above, suddenly says such negative things about him? Because they did not like what Kerry said about the protesting the War. As BrandX said veterans should not be silenced, shouldn't this apply to Kerry too? And just because he protested against the war does not mean he was not a good soldier when he served.

I for one never said anything negative about George Bush's military service and will not say anything negative against Kerry's service either. McCain is correct in saying they both served honorably. I do not believe anyone is saying Kerry is above being questioned, just that you need to look at both sides. I was just pointing out the falsehoods of what was stated about Kerry. I would say the same had it been Bush being condemned.

I also do not believe that Kerry is running solely on his Vietnam record to be president. I think he points out his service as Senator among other qualifications.

I think he has been honest with everybody Cyclop. Despite all the allegations about a 'secretive adminsitration' etc., I think history will be very good to GWB re his honesty and forthrightness and integrity. You may despise his policies and those are fair game.

So far, however, despite the most polarized congress and most polarized polulace in my memory and the best efforts of his enemies to pin him on something, his administration has been virtually scandal free. That is nothing short of miraculous and speaks well to the kind of person he is and the kind of people he surrounds himself with.

He may not get the highest marks for competence in several areas, but on the integrity meter, once we're past those who can see nothing but bad in him now, he'll do okay re integrity.

LOL, they were with scary kerry (and one served on the same boat with him as welll), is your point that you can't see the boat next to you? If so you are wrong.

"George Bates, an officer in Coastal Division 11, participated in numerous operations with Kerry. In UNFIT FOR COMMAND, Bates recalls a particular patrol with Kerry on the Song Bo De River. He is still "haunted" by the incident:

With Kerry in the lead, the boats approached a small hamlet with three or four grass huts. Pigs and chickens were milling around peacefully. As the boats drew closer, the villagers fled. There were no political symbols or flags in evidence in the tiny village. It was obvious to Bates that existing policies, decency, and good sense required the boats to simply move on.

Instead, Kerry beached his boat directly in the small settlement. Upon his command, the numerous small animals were slaughtered by heavy-caliber machine guns. Acting more like a pirate than a naval officer, Kerry disembarked and ran around with a Zippo lighter, burning up the entire hamlet.

Bates has never forgotten Kerry's actions."

My point Karzak is that there are two sides. You are unwilling to see the other side. Both have opinions. However, by far, aside from one, those closest in the action with Kerry, say positive things. There is no way for sure for anyone other than those there to know the truth. I realize that - it is obvious you do not as you only mention one side. I realize that there is a possibility that some of those negative things could be true or at least partially, I also realize looking at all the data, it is more likely that those in the boat with Kerry know a little more. You also have to consider the fact that Kerry said lots of negative things about Vietnam, these individuals did not like and therefore have incentive to say negative things. Most likely as with all things where you hear two sides, the truth lies somewhere in between. Was Kerry perfect as a leader in the Vietnam, highly unlikely. Was he is horrible as you make him out to be, also highly unlikely, After sifting through all the crap, it is likely he was an honorable and decent leader, no more and no less.

I also believe that the majority of the voters are unlikely to base their vote on Kerry's Vietnam service whether they consider it positive or negative.

bm

Those closest to hussain say positive things as well.

I don't believe that. Prove it.

No they don't...

Aside from what Pdiddie stated, I am speaking of those closest in combat action, not those closest to him as in being cohorts.

Gosh, you don't remember very far back, do you?