I wouldn't say "went nowhere." I know plenty of people down here who think Kerry went to Vietnam and planned on getting three Purple Hearts so he would be President (a bit of a gamble, I think). Were they going to vote for him anyway? No, but they are going to keep the "noise" alive, and it might affect swing voters by either keeping them home or turning them over to the liar they already have in office.

My dad always sends me The Federalist (an ironic title since Republicans are supposed to be anti-Federalists) which is still milking the story.

On the other hand, it was good to see Chris Matthews stand up to John O'Neill on TV and say he thought Kerry "served more than most people and should be honored for it" (or something to that affect), but I wouldn't say it went nowhere. It got plenty of venom churned up, which was really all they wanted to do.

Ally

Anything that highlights the contrast between George "air canada" Bush and Dick "five deferments" Cheney and the actual combat service of Kerry can't be all bad. For Kerry I mean.
There was an news item around yesterday about the load of stage prop veterans that are being lined up for the GOP convention. More contrast, more desperation, I say bring it on.

On the other hand, it was good to see Chris Matthews stand up to John O'Neill on TV and say he thought Kerry "served more than most people and should be honored for it" (or something to that affect), but I wouldn't say it went nowhere. It got plenty of venom churned up, which was really all they wanted to do.

I'd say it got transferred to the Cambodia deal. The medal stuff pretty much petered out as a storyline - it's dead among a lot of the general electorate, mainly because it was way too disputable. The medal stuff did go nowhere, even if the effort is still out there.

The "dispute" about the covert operation in Cambodia amazes me! Kerry allegedly took part in a COVERT OPERATION and amazing enough, there are no offical records of it!
Gee, I wonder why? Maybe because it might perhaps have been a COVERT OPERATION? Maybe because such operations traditonally don't leave records? He didn't log it in his diary? Ya think maybe he was concerned about the boat getting blown up and the diary falling into enemy hands?

I think the Swift Boat Vets for Tripe are setting up an important phase of the next Republican attack, not should Bush win, but rather Kerry. This is post-election trial-balooning.

Who, in voting for Clinton *nationally* in 1992, had heard of Whitewater, the Madison-Guaranty Trust, the McDougals, and so on? I certainly hadn't. I had seen some stuff about Gennifer Flowers, and some stuff about the 'Sister Soljah' thing, and that was all that really registered, except the debates. HW was schelacted in the debates by both WJC and RP.

So, where was 'Whitewater' an issue? Mainly in the minds of the folks who were gearing up the Arkansas Project, some of whom are actually on board (as it were) with the Swift Boats Vets for Tripe.

In fact, the SBVT people are going to agitate mercilessly for a 'full review' of Kerry's Vietnam service. Someone is going to suggest that Kerry, like Bob Kerrey, was involved in a bona fide massacre. They are going to attempt to leverage this issue into an independent counsel of some kind, and begin the Starr process again. The baseless accusations in 'Unfit for Command' will be recycled 24-7 on various cable nets, and the Big Three will pick it up.

Count on it if Kerry wins.

The difference is that this time we know what they're planning and we've seen it before, at least from the Vietnam angle.

Before you jump to the conclusion that the vets' arguments have "fallen by the wayside", it helps to actually be familiar with the charges you're criticizing. Not one of the accusations has fallen by the wayside. The Cambodia story is getting more heat because it's an easier story; he lied about where he was in such a way that it's impossible for it to have been an accident. The charges that he didn't deserve his medals are still in the book and still in O'Neill's exhaustive letter to the networks in defense of his ad. The charges are very detailed and hard to refute. None have fallen by the wayside.

The charges are very detailed and hard to refute. None have fallen by the wayside.

I agree with you on the wayside thing, but actually they're not hard to refute (unless you don't want to hear them refuted): just point to the military papers. Heck, just point to the medals. The military has a process for giving those things out, and one does not have to continually prove -- thirty-five years later -- that they earned them.

Of course, there's no way to prove 100% that they're lying in a he said/he said on something that happened four decades ago.

Ally

The Cambodia story is getting more heat because it's an easier story; he lied about where he was in such a way that it's impossible for it to have been an accident.

No shit? So Christine Todd Whitman's a liar too?

And the charge that Kerry's wounds weren't sufficient for a Purple Heart? Refamiliarize yourself with what it takes to get a Purple Heart, for instance . . . a Christ, move around a little. You're too goddamn easy a target, Brett.

I'm going to Georgia Tech and getting a Comp.E degree so that I can someday become Supreme Overlord of the Galaxy. Mark my words, and tremble in fear!

...seriously, from what I can gather, that's how Republicans think Kerry planned his Vietnam service. He was one hell of an ambitious 22-year-old. He also used his fire breath to bend the Navy's arm into giving him whatever medals he wanted.

I thought Kerry served 6 months on the Gridley, not one year. I thought I looked at a timeline and it said he served from December 1967-June 1968, then after his tour was finished volunteered for the Swift boats, then went back stateside for training, then took command of his boat.

Jesse,

Hoping to improve memeorandum in the coming months to combined related items better, reducing some of the need to "piece together" stuff.

Stay tuned.

Still glad you find some value in it in its current state...

Silly Republicans. If they keep dragging this out and keep it in people's minds, by November it will seem like Kerry spent the entire 1960's in Vietnam. Voters will actually visualize John Kerry keeping watch in the tense calm on the Mekong Delta.

I think the purpose of Kerry's pushing his Vietnam record is to reassure voters he's not some liberal weenie, like Republicans might like to paint him. You see this meme, for example, in the New York Post, with an editorial saying voters should decide based upon "manhood."

By questioning his service, all they do is keep reminding voters, "VIETNAM VET, VIETNAM VET, VIETNAM VET." By November, voters will have "John Kerry = VIETNAM VET" seared into their brains.

All the controversy about Kerry regards the details of his documented service in a war zone, Vietnam. All the controversy about Bush regards whether he even bothered to show up in Alabama. Kerry cannot lose on this point, except among the idiot cracker monkeys who would believe a story about him raping teenage nuns.

Dubya's qualifications are based on "manhood"? The Post does know that the very manly Dubya doesn't like his shoes to touch the dirt, right?

If you google there's an imbalance of newsmax type stuff because they've taken every phrase and parsed things forwards and backwards. Who in their right mind is going to do a thesis on "four months"
No one, but you'll find nutter pages about tour of duty where the only quantitative phrase is "four months" while snickering about Kerry cruising around the Pacific Ocean.

They won't give this up, because it is all that they've got.

Wow, some of you are really struggling with reality here! I've been in the military for the past 12 years, and I was in Iraq and Kuwait most of the past 2 years. Let me help you out with a couple things-

"just point to the military papers. Heck, just point to the medals. The military has a process for giving those things out"

You're correct, Ally!! They certainly DO have a process! You know what that process is? Here's a quick lesson for you:

1) Soldier does something heroic.
2) Witness (fellow soldier, supervisor, subordinate, anyone present) says "Hey, that was heroic! That man deserves a medal!!"
3) Witness tells soldier's commander all about why that soldier deserves a medal.
4) Commander verifies the story if he has time, but usually doesn't. Trust is everything in the military, so award recommendations are rarely, if ever, questioned.
5) Commander drafts a citation recounting the incident. The citation is usually just a polished-up version of the after action report, which, as I mentioned previously, was submitted by some awe-struck witness. (example "While taking heavy enemy fire, LT Kerry charged the hill and killed 238 VC, saving all his men in the process."
5) Citation gets passed up the chain of command without being read, and eventually gets to some high-ranking bigwig, who promptly signs it without even looking at it. Trust me when I tell you that if every top General or government official had to scrutinize every award recommendation, there wouldn't be time for anything else.

So that's the process. So now let's go back to Kerry's Bronze Star- the ones who were there with him started asking a very reasonable question- "Who recommended us for this? There wasn't any 'enemy fire'! It was a mine blast- pure and simple!" Well, when no one was able to find anyone willing to step forward and say "It was me- I'm the one who lied about enemy fire being present" (can you see where this is going?) all eyes turned to the guy who went around saying "Look at me and my medals! I got this Bronze Star and I was getting shot at and I'm so brave!" Ah-HA!!! So HE'S the guy who wrote the citation for the award! He simply passed it up the chain of command and no questions were asked. Until now. Sorry folks, but there's no other explanation. Even the guys who got Bronze Stars for the same incident are saying, "Yeah, I thought that was weird when I saw that citation and it said I was taking enemy fire, because I sure as hell know that there wasn't any." The guy that he pulled out of the water claims he heard gunfire, and I'm sure he did. It was the guys on the patrol boats laying down suppressing fire following the mine blast (common procedure). All who were present verify that, yes, there WAS friendly suppression fire. And damn near everyone who was present also swears there was no enemy fire, and they all agree that Kerry HAD to be the one who lied and said there was. So what do you do when everyone begins to suspect you're a self-serving liar? Easy! Round up three quick purple hearts, and head on home! Oh, that reminds me, I should probably cover the procedure for getting a purple heart:

Kerry: "Hey Doc, can you sign this please? It just says that a bad guy shot me- you see I'm collecting purple hearts so I can go home!"

Doc: "But, John, you're only missing a fingernail. What about all those guys who lost their limbs, their eyes, even their lives? Do you really want to desecrate them by getting the same medal as them when all you have is a boo-boo?"

Kerry: "If it gets me home pronto, the answer is 'YES SIR!!!!'"

If you don't believe me, ask anyone who's been to combat. It sickens me to see medal-chasers in action, but they exist- and they've existed for quite a while. Okay, enough about medals...

"On the other hand, it was good to see Chris Matthews stand up to John O'Neill on TV and say he thought Kerry 'served more than most people and should be honored for it'"

OK, how about our "heroic soldiers" who abused the prisoners and took photos for all the world to see? They served more than most people. Should THEY be honored? To make a blanket statement along the lines of "anyone who served should be honored" is just plain stupid. I know of many many people who would have done much better for their country by staying home. John Kerry is one of them. "Why" you ask? Well, it has nothing to do with the fact that he lied to get medals. You see, as a leader (officer) in wartime, you MUST ensure that soldiers believe one thing above all else- that their leaders are looking out for them. The soldiers must believe that the ones in charge will devote EVERY LAST BREATH, DROP OF BLOOD, BEAD OF SWEAT to ensure the soldiers' safety during the course of the mission. John Kerry did no such thing. He got 3 band-aid wounds, and promptly headed out. Remember- 3 purple hearts gave one the CHOICE to leave- it was not obligatory. What kind of message did that send to his soldiers and all the other enlisted soldiers in his unit? I'll tell you what message it sent- "officers look out for themselves." Officers will get rattled and say "OK good luck guys! I'm outta here!!" Apparently a handful of his soldiers have forgiven him for abandoning them. Understandable, given the fact that he delivered them a national cheering audience that was more than 30 years overdue (at the DNC). But I'll tell you who will NEVER forgive him for what he did- the officers who served with him. He made their job more difficult, he hurt morale, he put their lives in danger, and he quickly rubbed salt in their wounds by coming home and bashing the ones who were brave enough to stay behind and do their duty. Reprehensible in every sense of the word. Say what you want about whether or not he deserved his medals- I could care less. What is NOT debatable is the fact that he got 3 "minor wounds" and promptly abandoned the ones he was sworn to protect. As a leader in the US Military, that's the worst insult. He would have served his country much better by never having gone to Vietnam. He is truly "unfit for command."

George Bush is no war hero. I don't think anyone (including W himself) is trying to pretend that he is.

John Kerry is the opposite of a hero, and no one claims him to be a hero more than he himself. Ladies and Gentleman, that is just plain disgusting....

Sorry- forgot about the Cambodia thing. Yeah, that was just a flat-out lie. Guess you haven't been paying attention to Kerry's latest flip-flop on that one- he said he THOUGHT he was in Cambodia. Even Kerry's not dumb enough to try the COVERT OPERATION card (you guys are funny!). If he finds ONE PERSON to come up and say "Yeah, he was in Cambodia- I can validate that claim," then I'll be happy to believe him. It won't happen, because he lied. Oh, I'm sorry! He EXAGGERATED! Is that what we're calling it now?

Funny how someone who repeats intelligence that was believed to be true by EVERY SINGLE INTEL AGENCY IN THE WORLD is branded a "liar," while someone who simply tells a flat-out, no-gettin'-outta-this-one, damn-I-wish-I-hadn't-said-that LIE is an "exaggerater!"

Three Purple Hearts and you're out. Nice rule, eh? Let's be realistic - Kerry graduates from Yale. He then joins the Navy. Why the Navy? Because it's much more likely that you'll be on a ship, far, far away from the dark jungles, claymore mines, and nasty bullets of South East Asia. And then young Kerry finds himself not on a ship, but on a little boat, much closer to the action than he really wanted. He starts looking for away out - because, damn it, the rivers in Vietnam are dangerous. A guy might get himself killed out here. Then he, by chance or fate, gets a little scratch, and he gets a purple heart. May be while he's getting treated the Medic says, "You know, two more of these and you can go home, sailor." Home. That's what Kerry wants. And so he starts working towards that end. Home, home gotta get my ass home.

Kerry is a willow. He bends to whichever wind is blowing the hardest. He's a wishy washy, flip-flopping, flake. He comes back to the States and what does he do? He joins the Vietnam Veterans for Peace. Because the winds were blowing so very hard, and the wind even grabs the medals right out of his hands and throws them away. And the winds make him denounce the war, denounce his comrades in arms, denounce even his own actions - as meager as they were - and casts a very dim light on all our service men during that cruel dark period of our nations history.

But then, times change.

Now men and women serving in our armed forces are heroes. And what does Kerry do? He stands up and says, “Hey, look at me – I too am a Hero!” And the winds are blowing again.

"The charges are very detailed and hard to refute."

What you mean is, the charges are completely unsubstantiated. I could write a book about you claiming all sorts of things that never happened and you would have a hard time refuting them too.

The bottom line is, Bush and his supporters are disgusting putrid ethics-bereft scum-suckers,
every single one of them.