Clark added: ''We say to George Bush, enough is enough. You want to match early records of service? Throw it open to the public. Let's read about your efficiency reports. Let's read about that honorable discharge. Let's show it out there. Let something out. But if you want to talk about what the American people want to talk about, then let's talk about policies."

Bush, who served stateside in the Texas Air National Guard while Clark and Kerry had combat roles in Vietnam, has repeatedly said he honors Kerry's service. Last week he also broke with some veterans who have questioned the Massachusetts senator's five combat awards, declaring he believed Kerry deserved his medals.

Yesterday Bush went farther still, telling an NBC interviewer that Kerry's service was more heroic than his own. Asked whether he thought that he and Kerry ''served on the same level of heroism," Bush replied: ''No, I don't. I think him going to Vietnam was more heroic than my flying fighter jets. He was in harm's way, and I wasn't."

Nonetheless, Democrats blame Bush for being behind the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which has attacked Kerry in interviews and television ads, and he has expressly refused to call on them to stop airing ads questioning his opponent's combat decorations. Instead, the president has urged Kerry to join him in calling for an end to all ad spending by so-called 527 groups such as the swift boat group.

While Kerry refused to speak to reporters last week, ostensibly because his staff did not want him to perpetuate the story, he has raised the issue every day in one form or another as polls indicate voters beginning to blame Bush for the attacks.

Yesterday's speech by Clark, who departed the stage and left the rally immediately after his remarks, guaranteed more coverage as the Republicans convened for their quadrennial convention in New York and Kerry left for a working vacation on Nantucket.

Kerry was then introduced by Jim Rassmann, the former Army Green Beret he rescued during one of the battles now questioned by the anti-Kerry veterans.

Afterward, Kerry spokesman David Wade said of Clark: ''Obviously, he's very angry about these attacks. He does not speak for us, though."

Bush told an audience during a question-and-answer session yesterday in Lima, Ohio, ''I'm proud of my service."

Steve Schmidt, a Bush-Cheney campaign spokesman, labeled Clark's comments ''a flailing, baseless attack that demonstrates the hypocrisy of the Kerry campaign."

Schmidt added: ''John Kerry keeps trying to divide America over the past. John Kerry's hypocrisy, combined with his vacillation and indecision regarding the war on terror, are one reason he has a growing credibility problem with the American people."

The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has also called on Kerry to release all of his military records, which he previously said he could not do because of an exclusivity agreement with historian Douglas Brinkley, who recently wrote ''Tour of Duty," a Kerry biography.

During an interview with The Washington Post published yesterday, Brinkley said he had no objection if Kerry released the records, which include not only Navy documents, but his personal journals.

''I don't mind if John Kerry shows anybody anything," he said. ''If he wants to let anybody in, that's his business. Go bug John Kerry, and leave me alone."

The exclusivity agreement, Brinkley said, simply requires ''that anybody quoting any of the material needs to cite my book."

Clark challenged Republicans who have labeled Kerry a ''flip-flopper" or indecisive.

''George Bush, before 9/11, he didn't care a thing about terrorism; he didn't do enough," Clark said. ''George Bush, he didn't want to strengthen homeland security, . . . then suddenly he's in favor of the Department of Homeland Security. . . . George Bush did everything he could to keep the 9/11 Commission from meeting. He withheld evidence. He tried to withhold witnesses. Now, suddenly, he's in favor of the 9/11 Commission."

Afterward, Kerry made a brief visit to Fort Lewis to visit former Joint Chiefs chairman John Shalikashvili, who has been hospitalized there after suffering a stroke. The former army general has advised Kerry on national security during the campaign.

In the years between Nixon and Newt Gingrich, the party migrated southward down the Twisting Trail of Rhetoric and sneered at the idea of public service and became the Scourge of Liberalism, the Great Crusade Against the Sixties, the Death Star of Government, a gang of pirates that diverted and fascinated the media by their sheer chutzpah, such as the misty-eyed flag-waving of Ronald Reagan who, while George McGovern flew bombers in World War II, took a pass and made training films in Long Beach. The Nixon moderate vanished like the passenger pigeon, purged by a legion of angry white men who rose to power on pure punk politics. “Bipartisanship is another term of date rape,” says Grover Norquist, the Sid Vicious of the GOP. “I don’t want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.” The boy has Oedipal problems and government is his daddy.

The party of Lincoln and Liberty was transmogrified into the party of hairy-backed swamp developers and corporate shills, faith-based economists, fundamentalist bullies with Bibles, Christians of convenience, freelance racists, misanthropic frat boys, shrieking midgets of AM radio, tax cheats, nihilists in golf pants, brownshirts in pinstripes, sweatshop tycoons, hacks, fakirs, aggressive dorks, Lamborghini libertarians, people who believe Neil Armstrong’s moonwalk was filmed in Roswell, New Mexico, little honkers out to diminish the rest of us, Newt’s evil spawn and their Etch-A-Sketch president, a dull and rigid man suspicious of the free flow of information and of secular institutions, whose philosophy is a jumble of badly sutured body parts trying to walk. Republicans: The No.1 reason the rest of the world thinks we’re deaf, dumb and dangerous.

Rich ironies abound! Lies pop up like toadstools in the forest! Wild swine crowd round the public trough! Outrageous gerrymandering! Pocket lining on a massive scale! Paid lobbyists sit in committee rooms and write legislation to alleviate the suffering of billionaires! Hypocrisies shine like cat turds in the moonlight! O Mark Twain, where art thou at this hour? Arise and behold the Gilded Age reincarnated gaudier than ever, upholding great wealth as the sure sign of Divine Grace.

Here in 2004, George W. Bush is running for reelection on a platform of tragedy—the single greatest failure of national defense in our history, the attacks of 9/11 in which 19 men with box cutters put this nation into a tailspin, a failure the details of which the White House fought to keep secret even as it ran the country into hock up to the hubcaps, thanks to generous tax cuts for the well-fixed, hoping to lead us into a box canyon of debt that will render government impotent, even as we engage in a war against a small country that was undertaken for the president’s personal satisfaction but sold to the American public on the basis of brazen misinformation, a war whose purpose is to distract us from an enormous transfer of wealth taking place in this country, flowing upward, and the deception is working beautifully.

The concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the few is the death knell of democracy. No republic in the history of humanity has survived this. The election of 2004 will say something about what happens to ours. The omens are not good.

Our beloved land has been fogged with fear—fear, the greatest political strategy ever. An ominous silence, distant sirens, a drumbeat of whispered warnings and alarms to keep the public uneasy and silence the opposition. And in a time of vague fear, you can appoint bullet-brained judges, strip the bark off the Constitution, eviscerate federal regulatory agencies, bring public education to a standstill, stupefy the press, lavish gorgeous tax breaks on the rich.

There is a stink drifting through this election year. It isn’t the Florida recount or the Supreme Court decision. No, it’s 9/11 that we keep coming back to. It wasn’t the “end of innocence,” or a turning point in our history, or a cosmic occurrence, it was an event, a lapse of security. And patriotism shouldn’t prevent people from asking hard questions of the man who was purportedly in charge of national security at the time.

Whenever I think of those New Yorkers hurrying along Park Place or getting off the No.1 Broadway local, hustling toward their office on the 90th floor, the morning paper under their arms, I think of that non-reader George W. Bush and how he hopes to exploit those people with a little economic uptick, maybe the capture of Osama, cruise to victory in November and proceed to get some serious nation-changing done in his second term.

This year, as in the past, Republicans will portray us Democrats as embittered academics, desiccated Unitarians, whacked-out hippies and communards, people who talk to telephone poles, the party of the Deadheads. They will wave enormous flags and wow over and over the footage of firemen in the wreckage of the World Trade Center and bodies being carried out and they will lie about their economic policies with astonishing enthusiasm.

The Union is what needs defending this year. Government of Enron and by Halliburton and for the Southern Baptists is not the same as what Lincoln spoke of. This gang of Pithecanthropus Republicanii has humbugged us to death on terrorism and tax cuts for the comfy and school prayer and flag burning and claimed the right to know what books we read and to dump their sewage upstream from the town and clear-cut the forests and gut the IRS and mark up the constitution on behalf of intolerance and promote the corporate takeover of the public airwaves and to hell with anybody who opposes them.

This is a great country, and it wasn’t made so by angry people. We have a sacred duty to bequeath it to our grandchildren in better shape than however we found it. We have a long way to go and we’re not getting any younger.

Dante said that the hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who in time of crisis remain neutral, so I have spoken my piece, and thank you, dear reader. It’s a beautiful world, rain or shine, and there is more to life than winning.

© 2004 In These Times

Now, serious security analysts have begun to admit that the goal of a democratic, pro-American Iraq has receded out of reach. Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies - no peacenik - writes that "there is little prospect for peace and stability in Iraq before late 2005, if then."

Mr. Cordesman still thinks (or thought a few weeks ago) that the odds of success in Iraq are "at least even," but by success he means the creation of a government that "is almost certain to be more inclusive of Ba'ath, hard-line religious, and divisive ethnic/sectarian movements than the West would like." And just in case, he urges the U.S. to prepare "a contingency plan for failure."

Fred Kaplan of Slate is even more pessimistic. "This is a terribly grim thing to say," he wrote recently, "but there might be no solution to the problem of Iraq" - no way to produce "a stable, secure, let alone democratic regime. And there's no way we can just pull out without plunging the country, the region, and possibly beyond into still deeper disaster." Deeper disaster? Yes: people who worried about Ramadi are now worrying about Pakistan.

So what's the answer? Here's one thought: much of U.S. policy in Iraq - delaying elections, trying to come up with a formula that blocks simple majority rule, trying to install first Mr. Chalabi, then Mr. Allawi, as strongman - can be seen as a persistent effort to avoid giving Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani his natural dominant role. But recent events in Najaf have demonstrated both the cleric's awesome influence and the limits of American power. Isn't it time to realize that we could do a lot worse than Mr. Sistani, and give him pretty much whatever he wants?

Here's another thought. President Bush says that the troubles in Iraq are the result of unanticipated "catastrophic success." But that catastrophe was predicted by many experts. Mr. Cordesman says their warnings were ignored because we have "the weakest and most ineffective National Security Council in post-war American history," giving control to "a small group of neoconservative ideologues" who "shaped a war without any realistic understanding or plans for shaping a peace."

Yesterday Mr. Bush, who took a "winning the war on terror" bus tour just a few months ago, conceded that "I don't think you can win" the war on terror. But he hasn't changed the national security adviser, nor has he dismissed even one of the ideologues who got us into this no-win situation. Rather than concede that he made mistakes, he's sticking with people who will, if they get the chance, lead us into two, three, many quagmires.

First of all, thank you for pointing out to all of us that Mr. Kerry was never struck by a BULLET. It was only SHRAPNEL that entered his body! I did not know that! Hell, what's the big deal about a bunch of large, sharp, metal shards ripping open your flesh? That happens to all of us! In my opinion, if you want a Purple Heart, you'd better be hit by a bullet -- with your name on it!

Secondly, thank you for sending Bob Dole out there and letting us know that Mr. Kerry, though wounded three times, actually "never spilled blood." When you are in the debates with Kerry, turn to him and say, "Dammit, Mr. Kerry, next time you want a Purple Heart, you better spill some American red blood! And I don't mean a few specks like those on O.J.'s socks -- we want to see a good pint or two of blood for each medal. In fact, I would have preferred that you had bled profusely, a big geyser of blood spewing out of your neck or something!" Then throw this one at him: "Senator Kerry, over 58,000 brave Americans gave their lives in Vietnam -- but YOU didn't. You only got WOUNDED! What do you have to say for yourself???" Lay that one on him and he won't know what to do.

And thanks, also, Mr. Bush, for exposing the fact that Mr. Kerry might have actually WOUNDED HIMSELF in order to get those shiny medals. Of course he did! How could the Viet Cong have hit him -- he was on a SWIFT boat! He was going too fast to be hit by enemy fire. He tried to blow himself up three different times just so he could go home and run for president someday. It's all so easy to see, now, what he was up to.

What would we do without you, Mr. Bush? Criticize you as we might, when it comes to pointing out other men's military records, there is no one who can touch your prowess. In 2000, you let out the rumor that your opponent John McCain might be "nuts" from the 5 years he spent in a POW camp. Then, in the 2002 elections, your team compared triple-amputee Sen. Max Cleland to Osama bin Laden, and that cost him the election. And now you are having the same impact on war hero John Kerry. Since you (oops, I mean "The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth!") started running those ads, Kerry's poll numbers have dropped (with veterans, he has lost 18 points in the last few weeks).

Some people have said, "Who are you, Mr. Bush, to attack these brave men considering you yourself have never seen combat -- in fact, you actively sought to avoid it." What your critics fail to understand is that even though your dad got you into a unit that would never be sent to Vietnam -- and even though you didn't show up for Guard duty for at least a year -- at least you were still IN FAVOR of the Vietnam War! Cowards like Clinton felt it was more important to be consistent (he opposed the war, thus he refused to go) than to be patriotic and two-faced.

The reason that I think you know so much about other men's war wounds is because, during your time in the Texas Air National Guard, you suffered so many of them yourself. Consider the paper cut you received on September 22,1972, while stationed in Alabama, working on a Senate campaign for your dad's friend (when you were supposed to be on the Guard base). A campaign brochure appeared from nowhere, ambushing your right index finger, and blood trickled out onto your brand new argyle sweater.

Then there was the incident with the Crazy Glue when your fraternity brothers visited you one weekend at the base and glued your lips together while you were "passed out." Though initially considered "friendly fire," it was later ruled that you suffered severe post traumatic stress disorder from the assault and required certain medicinal attention -- which, it seems, was provided by those same fraternity brethren.

But nothing matched your heroism when, on July 2, 1969, you sustained a massive head injury when enemy combatants from another Guard unit dropped a keg of Coors on your head during a reconnaissance mission at a nearby all-girls college. Fortunately, the cool, smooth fluids that poured out of the keg were exactly what was needed to revive you.

That you never got a Purple Heart for any of these incidents is a shame. I can fully appreciate your anger at Senator Kerry for the three he received. I mean, Kerry was a man of privilege, he could have gotten out just like you. Instead, he thinks he's going to gain points with the American people bragging about how he was getting shot at every day in the Mekong Delta. Ha! Is that the best he can do? Hell, I hear gunfire every night outside my apartment window! If he thinks he is going to impress anyone with the fact that he volunteered to go when he could have spent the Vietnam years on the family yacht, he should think again. That only shows how stupid he was! True-blue Americans want a president who knows how to pull strings and work the system and get away with doing as little work as possible!

So, to make it up to you, I have written some new ads you can use on TV. People will soon tire of the swift boat veterans and you are going to need some fresh, punchier material. Feel free to use any of these:

ANNOUNCER: "When the bullets were flying all around him in Vietnam, what did John Kerry do? He said he leaned over the boat and 'pulled a man out of the river.' But, as we all know, men don't live in the river -- fish do. John Kerry knows how to tell a big fish tale. What he won't tell you is that when the enemy was shooting at him, he ducked. Do you want a president who will duck? Vote Bush."

ANNOUNCER: "Mr. Kerry's biggest supporter, Sen. Max Cleland, claims to have lost two legs and an arm in Vietnam. But he still has one arm! How did that happen? One word: Cowardice. When duty called, he was unwilling to give his last limb. Is that the type of selfishness you want hanging out in the White House? We think not. Vote for the man who would be willing to give America his right frontal lobe. Vote Bush."

Hope these help, Mr. Bush. And remember, when the American death toll in Iraq hits 1,000 during the Republican convention, be sure to question whether those who died really did indeed "die" -- or were they just trying to get their faces on CNN's nightly tribute to fallen heroes? The sixteen who've died so far this week were probably working hand in hand with the Kerry campaign to ruin your good time in New York. Stay consistent, sir, and always, ALWAYS question the veracity of anyone who risks their life for this country. It's the least they deserve.

Yours,

Michael Moore

Mmflint@aol.com

PS. George, I know you said you don't read the newspaper, but USA Today has given me credentials to the Republican convention to write a guest column each day next week (Tues.-Fri.). If you don't want to read it, you and I will be in the same building so maybe I could come by and read it to you? Lemme know.

###

It's equally naive to think that the Kerry campaign wasn't thrilled with the $62 million in private money spent on anti-Bush advertising. As predicted, the new campaign finance laws have enormous loopholes, and rich Democrats are using them to try to portray Bush as too dumb, too malleable and too shortsighted to be president.

Why do Bush and Kerry and their minions and their supporters stoop so low, even though Americans are all but screaming at them to stop the dirty stuff? The answer is unambiguous -- negative ads work because we let them work.

Ads demonizing Kerry as no friend to veterans, as unprincipled on the issues, as a man who can't make up his mind are beginning to drive Kerry's poll numbers down. If he doesn't recoup, he will lose the election.

Ads portraying Bush as uncaring about the lives of Americans, a tool of big oil and a hell bent war mongerer have diminished him for many. If the personal attacks continue and he wins re-election, he will not have the widespread respect a president needs to govern effectively.

To the amusement and disdain of the world, we do this every four years.

The Bush team is expert at this phony business of painting its rival as unworthy. In 1988 George H.W. Bush's presidential campaign, advised by his son, a young George W. Bush, said it had nothing to do with the "third party" ads that showed a murderer, Willie Horton, morphing into Michael Dukakis, the Democratic nominee.

The Bush juggernaut also painted Dukakis as a "card-carrying member" of the American Civil Liberties Union, as if that were some kind of deviant, communist front. Candidate Bush went to flag factories to try to hint, falsely, the governor of Massachusetts was no patriot.

Four years ago it was such nonsense as Gore's kiss, Bush's long-buried DUI, the question of who invented the Internet and something called the "soft bigotry of low expectations."

We like to think we vote primarily on issues. If so, under Bush, the nation has lost jobs and begun an unpopular war. But Kerry wants to raise taxes and says the war has been waged badly, although he voted to authorize it. Under Bush, the deficit has soared because of tax cuts, which he wants to keep while cutting programs Americans like. Meanwhile, he wants to change the Constitution to ban gay marriage. Under Kerry, domestic spending would increase but his figures about how he would pay for everything and lower the deficit are too murky to make sense. And he hasn't said how he would get us out of Iraq or patch up relations with the cantankerous allies.

Let's face it. We elect presidents based on our gut reaction to them as people, which we often get wrong. We think of Bush as a nice, amiable, good-neighbor type who is centered, has a good wife and isn't pretentious. It's easy to think of going bowling with Bush. We think of Kerry as aloof, patrician, hard to figure out, with a wealthy, complicated wife.

The truth is the two men are much the same. They went to Yale, are smart, warm, funny, ambitious, physical, shrewd, sophisticated, calculating, wealthy and used to having their own way. The rest of our image about each man has all the substance of cotton candy, the hype of multimillion-dollar spin machines.

I think we shouldn't pay any attention to any campaign ads for the rest of the election season. We should judge each man by what he says in his speeches, in interviews and in the debates and by what he does between now and then. Neither man has this election locked up.

They may keep slinging mud, but the rest of us don't have to let ourselves get spattered by it.

Ann McFeatters is Washington Bureau chief of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Toledo Blade. E-mail: amcfeatters@nationalpress.com.