As far as i know the left hasn't possessed any influence within the United States for the last 50 years. Didn't you guys hunt them all down and metaphorically beat them into submission?

I don't know how the cultural elite in America can be called leftist without the whole world lighting up with laughter. Multi-million dollar film and record contracts, fast cars and women, the odd concert here and there to show they "care" and "paying back their dues to society". If this is the "left" you're talking about you obviously missed out on that whole Lenin-Trotsky-Castro thing, you know, the nationalisation of private enterprise, violent upheavals in modes of production, wealth redistribution, the restriction of free speech and uncensored education, enslavement of whole populations to feed the economic needs of the state, etc. Is this the "left" you're speaking of, or are you talking about liberals, because if your talking about liberals you need to clean up your political speech, the two are not synonymous, they're not even remotely similar.

Someone show me the significant difference between the Republicans and the Democrats and i'll show you the mathematical proof for the unified field theory.

Marco

PS: Why did Bush stall for so long after finding out about the World Trade Centre attacks, is that the look you want on your leader's face when your nation is under attack, he looked like a fool because he is a fool or was that just "creative editing"?

Everett Lee's link, which he claims demonstrates the Swiftboat Vets claims are a "sham" leads to a rather interesting page, which does nothing of the sort. No way to tell who/what MMFA is, or who "K.B. & N.C." are. And the "proof" offered amounts to nothing more than splitting hairs by pointing out that the vets, who put their names & mugs in those ads for all to see, didn't serve "on the same boat", leaving you with the implication that they therefore could not possibly be telling the truth, but no factual information contradicting what they've had to say. The doctor "didn't sign the form"? What a crock of whoey. Then, without disclosing their own pedigree & financing, they lambast the group for having NIXON ties? Get real. I'm frankly a bit disappointed in John McCain for so quickly dismissing this, high-minded as his motive may have been, considering the freakin mountains of dung the opposition has been heaping on Bush for months on end. They cry "LIBEL"? How can anything be more libelous than claiming that a sitting President has "betrayed" his country? I frankly admire the way GWB has simply ignored all of it and failed to dignify it with a response, no matter how much my gut wishes he would pull a Cheney & tell 'em where they can stick it. Obviously, my application for a position at the State Department was quietly shelved.

Cheers,
Daiwa

I wonder, if this is true, why it wouldn't have come out decades ago. He was a national figure during the Vietnam war, with many political enemies. And he's been in dozens of elections, a few of them very nasty.

Certainly his record isn't everything he wants us to believe it is, but it's hard to believe that it's actually a *bad* record.

"PS: Why did Bush stall for so long after finding out about the World Trade Centre attacks, is that the look you want on your leader's face when your nation is under attack, he looked like a fool because he is a fool or was that just "creative editing"?"

No, creative editorializing. Here's an excellent example of that, by Bill Whittle:

"Robert Wayne Jernigan is now 28 years old. People who knew him said he was quiet, somewhat stand-offish. He was not widely liked in high school.

Four years ago, a witness reported seeing Jernigan enter a building in a remote suburb of Dallas with an axe. Four people were found dead at the scene, including a nine year old girl. No charges were filed. Less than two days later, Jernigan turned up again, this time at the scene of a suspicious fire in a day care center. Miraculously, no one was injured. But it was just a matter of time.

During the next several weeks, it is possible to place Jernigan at the scene of no less than thirteen suspicious fires. Eleven people died. Eyewitnesses were unshakable in their determination that Jernigan had been on the scene. And yet the police did nothing.

Jernigan had long been fascinated with fire. A search of his apartment revealed fireman-related magazines, posters and memorabilia. Despite the deaths of fifteen people, despite repeated eyewitness accounts and photographic evidence placing Jernigan at these fires, no criminal charges were ever filed against Robert Wayne Jernigan. He remains a free man to this day.

And rightfully so. Because Robert Wayne Jernigan is an ordinary fireman for the Dallas Fire Department.* He is not a serial arsonist at all.

Now re-read the previous paragraphs and tell me where I lied.

Everything I told you was factually true. But the spin, the context, the misdirection… The press always reports serial killers with all three names – Robert Wayne Jernigan sounds a hell of a lot more ominous than Bobby Jernigan. Quiet, stand-offish, not widely liked – instant psychopath, if you read the papers. Entered the building with an axe – oooh! That ought to get the blood boiling. That the people had died from smoke inhalation I decided was irrelevant to the story…"

Bush 'stalled' for seven minutes after the aide whispered the news into his ear. As someone pointed out elsewhere, how do you know what was said? 'The second tower has been hit. The military has been notified. Air Force One will be ready in 10 minutes'.

Go walk around the block twice. Time yourself. Then, explain to everyone here what YOU would do in seven minutes that would make a lick of difference? Say, 'hey kids, tough shit, but I gotta go pace back and forth till they prep my plane.'

Do you even understand how the chain of command works? In case of an emergency, the Joint Chiefs of Staff assess the situation, and present the Commander-in-Chief with options (if any) to react. All of this is fed by different branches of the military, and also law-enforcement and intelligence agencies.

This isn't Starcraft where you defeat the Zerg if you start clicking your finger ten seconds after you're attacked. Seven minutes in the chaos that was the morning of 9/11 is a blink.

But of course, this is thinking about something too hard. It was so much easier to just listen to Michael Moore make fun of his 'inaction'. Ha-ha, what an incompetent doofus. 'Seven minutes'... let it sink in... cut to new scene of embellished truth or complete red herrings, like the coast of Washington lacking patrols, as if al Qaida needs to swim over with the world's longest land border just a few hundred miles to the north.

Moore is a demagogue, a propagandist, and a duplicitous scumbag who 'embellishes' just about everything that comes out of his mouth, and shamelessly calls his 'fictition' a documentary.

BakerStreet, I'm not questioning its importance. But I'm questioning why, if the story is essentially true, someone wouldn't have brought it up in a previous election, or to discredit him during the testimony to the Senate which made him famous in the first place. He certainly has had enough enemies. And it's not like this is the first time his war record has been an issue in an election.

It's the same reason I treat the Bush AWOL claims with suspicion.

Um... are you answering my post or just making your own point? I mean, there's nothing in your post #62 which addresses what I was wondering about, or that I disagree with (except for the shock part, I don't see why you were surprised). But it's addressed to me.

To repeat, Kerry's war record has been scrutinized in a whole bunch of elections. Even before Kerry was ever elected to be anything, Nixon was trying to destroy his career. Remember Kerry was the face of the anti-war movement. If Kerry's war record was suspect, I think it would have come out then. Nixon was clever and ruthless, perhaps more so than any other modern president, and since Kerry as an antiwar activist was famous and influential because of his service record--if he wasn't a vet, he'd never have been testifying in front of the Senate--Nixon would of course have targeted his service record if there was anything to target. Heck, Nixon even made some *false* charges against him... he'd never have done that if there were true ones ready to hand.

Kerry's also been through a couple decades of elections since then, some of which were quite negative. Vietnam became an issue in some (not all) of them. No one's found any Vietnam dirt that stuck.

Charming. You are correct: I cannot understand your post's relevance. Good day.

"To repeat, Kerry's war record has been scrutinized in a whole bunch of elections."

Oh? I think you'll find if you look back at his Senate campaigns that these questions have been around a long time. Forgive me if you follow Massachusetts' politics closely and overlooked it...

Though futile, let me try again... You say, "Why now?", and the obvious answer is what Kerry himself is doing NOW.

This isn't a "call", it is a "response". Do you really expect people not to rebut glorified versions of his service as in: "John Kerry: A Biography "? The backlash has never been so strong because the "lash" has never been so strong.

Never before has Kerry run on a "strong military" ticket (after 20 years of being a staunchly anti-military legislator). Never before has he stood in front of the Democratic Party, saluted and said "Reporting for duty." Never before have his opponents faced him purporting a pro-war stance. Never before have his opponents found him to be banking on a "guts and glory" version of his short time in Vietnam. And..most importantly, never before have pro-Kerry 527s so heinously lauded four months of questionable service. Some people find his stance and claims questionable.

So, never before have these veterans been so motivated to refute his claims.

You have to see this as what it is. It isn't an "attack"; it is a response to claims that Kerry, himself, is making. His own re-invention is what is spurring this rebuttal. Kerry has made his career being *vastly critical* of his OWN ROLE, and that of his "Band of Brothers", in Vietnam, and now for some reason he is touting the same as his calling card.

that would be a lot more comprehensible or believable if it wasnt for the very similar attack campaign against mccain in 2000.   one needn't look back 30+ years to find the bush campaign has a consistent record of this kind of crap

according to an article in the Dallas Morning News (December 2, 1999), "Rivals again fault Bush over rumors":

"In recent weeks, the Bush campaign has been accused of - and has denied - spreading rumors that Mr. McCain may be unstable as a result of being tortured while a prisoner of war in North Vietnam. Several Senate Republicans, among them party leaders who favor Mr. Bush for president, have been identified in published reports as being responsible for privately pushing the allegations. Also, James B. Stockdale, a former prisoner of war in Vietnam who ran as Ross Perot's running mate in 1992, said he got a call from a friend close to the Bush campaign soliciting comments on Mr. McCain's 'weakness.'"

this is excerpted directly from worldnetdaily.com (which i remember you accepting as a plausible source for one of the initial attacks against kerry's service about 2 weeks ago).  it's basically a cleaned up version of garbage originated by ted sampley working with marge spaeth. 

McCain was awarded a Silver Star, a Legion of Merit for Valor, a Distinguished Flying Cross, three Bronze Stars, two Commendation medals, two Purple Hearts and a dozen service awards. Unfortunately the narratives for the awards only speak of his having undergone extreme mental and physical cruelties at the hands of his captors, and were described as "boilerplate" and "part of an SOP medal package given to repatriated (Vietnam-era) POWs" by Naval officers Hack interviewed. The medals were basically given out for being there, not for heroism.

The problem here is not that McCain didn't have terrible things done to him for a long time -- he did. The problem is that neither he -- nor anybody else who was in prison camp -- had a choice about whether they were endangered. But medals for heroism are supposed to be given out for actual heroic action, taken willfully and at great personal risk. They shouldn't be awarded simply because someone survived an involuntary ordeal. And didn't survive it as well as many others. McCain was quoted as saying "O.K, I'll give you military information if you will take me to the hospital" four days after his capture and later signed a confession declaring himself a war criminal. And although McCain refused an early release, the word is that he was ordered to do so by his U.S. POW commander.

It was unquestionably a long, painful nightmare for McCain to log all that time in a North Vietnamese prison and, for that, he deserves genuine sympathy -- the kind of sympathy you reserve for someone who survived a five year battle with cancer. And the experience may (or may not) have made him a better person. But based on the facts, he's not a war hero. And it speaks poorly of him to let his handlers promote him to the public in that way."

and here's a memoir from richard h davis...mccain's former campaign manager published in the boston globe.

Having run Senator John McCain's campaign for president, I can recount a textbook example of a smear made against McCain in South Carolina during the 2000 presidential primary. We had just swept into the state from New Hampshire, where we had racked up a shocking, 19-point win over the heavily favored George W. Bush. What followed was a primary campaign that would make history for its negativity.

In South Carolina, Bush Republicans were facing an opponent who was popular for his straight talk and Vietnam war record. They knew that if McCain won in South Carolina, he would likely win the nomination. With few substantive differences between Bush and McCain, the campaign was bound to turn personal. The situation was ripe for a smear.

It didn't take much research to turn up a seemingly innocuous fact about the McCains: John and his wife, Cindy, have an adopted daughter named Bridget. Cindy found Bridget at Mother Theresa's orphanage in Bangladesh, brought her to the United States for medical treatment, and the family ultimately adopted her. Bridget has dark skin.

Anonymous opponents used "push polling" to suggest that McCain's Bangladeshi born daughter was his own, illegitimate black child. In push polling, a voter gets a call, ostensibly from a polling company, asking which candidate the voter supports. In this case, if the "pollster" determined that the person was a McCain supporter, he made statements designed to create doubt about the senator.

Thus, the "pollsters" asked McCain supporters if they would be more or less likely to vote for McCain if they knew he had fathered an illegitimate child who was black. In the conservative, race-conscious South, that's not a minor charge. We had no idea who made the phone calls, who paid for them, or how many calls were made. Effective and anonymous: the perfect smear campaign.

Some aspects of this smear were hardly so subtle. Bob Jones University professor Richard Hand sent an e-mail to "fellow South Carolinians" stating that McCain had "chosen to sire children without marriage." It didn't take long for mainstream media to carry the charge. CNN interviewed Hand and put him on the spot: "Professor, you say that this man had children out of wedlock. He did not have children out of wedlock." Hand replied, "Wait a minute, that's a universal negative. Can you prove that there aren't any?"

you may not call this similar either.   in a way it's not.  mccain is a credentialed conservative republican who should never have had this inflicted on him. "

kingbee: I dunno who the first writer is, but I disagree with him. I'm sure you could easily find asinine op-ed quotes from almost any publication, and that one seems particularly "Op". What was the date on that one, btw? Wa it when McCain was running? Honestly I don't blanket-approve of any particular publication. If it appears they've done their job and there is substance there, I'll quote them. I know better than to dump just anything that agrees with me, I've been hoisted on my own pitard far too often. That one I disagree with.

REGARDLESS, I don't see how it would effect his electability, since being a war hero means *dick* as far as I am concerned, unless he, himself calls upon it as demonstrative of his ability to lead. That was my point above. Kerry is stating that his behavior in Vietnam is reason to trust him as President. If McCain stepped up and said "I'll be a great President because I spent years as a POW", then, frankly, he should expect it, too, whether he deserves it or not.

The second quoted article is, again, all about dark, anonymous dirty tricks. I don't doubt there are people that stoop to this kind of thing, but I can't equate them because the swift boat vets are out in the open, telling what they consider to be the truth. I think the difference is that you assume that this is a black-and-white, lie-or-truth- situation. I don't think it is. I think those who were in and around Kerry interpereted Kerry's behavior in different ways, with the majority now apparantly expressing their doubts abou this performance.

Sure, there may be lies floating around, and if there are, on either side, I'm sure they'll be ferrited out. Some will of course say that we shouldn't be delving into it at all, and I tend to agree. You have to expect Kerry's opposition to focus on his military service if he, himself makes it his calling card.

"it's shameful for an administration prosecuting a war in which hundreds of thousands of service people are putting themselves in jeopardy to trash two men who are decorated combat heroes. "

Seriously, you are just proving Brad's point. You see this as a wrong now, but you tolerated it when third parties do such to Bush. It suits your purposes to call everyone that challenges Kerry "the administration", but when the same happens on the other side, it is "free speech".

Again, you can't seem to tell the difference between private individuals, 527s, and "administration". I hate to break it to ya, but Kerry is the soft money hog in this election, and has enjoyed the ability to run a "clean campaign" because of it.

So, where you have been all along when the same sort of people were trashing Bush's military service and comparing him to Hitler on moveon.org and elsewhere. George Soros has invested millions of dollars in Kerry's campaign, and has engineered a huge smear campaign online and off. Not the same thing? If it is the same thing, why choose now to start throwing fits about 527s? Why aren't you over there talking about "low blows"?

P.S. I think Brad has a 'swift boats' blog that this might be more in line with. Granted, the double-standard is right in line with the topic...

never before have these veterans been so motivated to refute his claims.

Nixon was plenty motivated and powerful. And a senator is arguably the second-highest office in the land--there's lots of motivation there too. Senatorial campaigns are big enough to get some national coverage, and big enough that you have thorough oppostion research. Of course there's *more* now but I think there would have been sufficient motivation before. You obviously do not. Perhaps we should leave it at that.