Just a retraction from one of its sources.

Personally I think this whole issue is way over blown by both sides.

I prefer to say our guy went, their guy did not.  And frankly neither one is a deal breaker or maker.  Just part of the overall picture.

If I though Bush was a good pres, I would not care that he might have avoided service. I did not care about Bill.  If I disliked Kerry, his service would not make me a believer.

I do hope we can move on to more substantive issues, but I am not holding my breathe...

There Bribri- my pinko-ness bared for all to see....

"the masses" while they take care of who they are really beholden to.

This guy works for a campaign.......ask him.

-- Modified on 8/6/2004 2:38:07 PM

-- Modified on 8/6/2004 2:39:08 PM

I agree.  His service is not the issue.  His voting record in the Senate is DEFINITELY a valid issue.  The aspiring commander in chief has voted against every major weapons program that is fielded in our armed services, not to mention his votes to gut our intelligence services. He has the worst voting record of almost any senator currently in office.  
  What is at issue is his lying about the characterization of the military and its conduct in Vietnam while he was there.  Drop the purple hearts issue, but his conduct after he got home should give voters pause.

conflicting reports about his military status while he was speaking at anti-war rallies, but if he was John Q Citizen, he had a right, some might say duty, to tell what he had seen, and to protest whatever faction of the war he disagreed with. If he lied about what he had witnessed, that is another matter entirely. I have no reason to believe he lied about atrocities, given that several atrocities committed by American troops have been well documented.
I agree with you that his voting record is a major issue in this election, and I would be interested in reading more about that, but not in hearing more generalizations and dogmatic politicizing. "He has the worst voting record of almost any senator currently in office" is overbroad and lacks substance, and sounds like something Rush Phlegmball might come up with, without further substantiation.

the problem is he doesn't want to talk about his own Senate record!

As far as his right to protest the Vietnam war after serving, no problem.  It wasn't a popular war.  Many who served honorably did, but they did not lie about their fellow soldiers.

However, Kerry's Congressional testimony that war atrocities were widespread is just bullshit.  His graphic comments were parroted from member of the V.V.A.W. and SO FUCKING MANY OF THOSE ASSHOLES were proven to never have been in Vietnam that it stinks.  Some were exposed as not even being Veterans at all!

Of course some atrocities happened, it was a war not a holiday picnic, but they were reported and punished.  If Hanoi John saw as he states he did war atrocities, he was bound by Oath and Honor as a Naval Officer to report them!

He never did.

His actions as an officer, more importantly his actions as a wannabe politician after, are fair game and very instructional as to what kind of a man his is, or isn't.

I'm glad for John McCain that he has found forgiveness for Kerry, that's big of him, and his personal choice!.  After his release from the Hanoi Hilton, John McCain said publicly that John Kerry testimony before Congress was used as an additional excuse to torture him by his NVA captors!  

But for him to make disparaging comments about others who served as "without honor" is truly unforgivable!  He has no right to condemn others for their points of view or for exercising their First Amendment Rights, something those men consider their duty.

Whether Kerry wins or not, he will ALWAYS be a scum sucking TRAITOR to me!

biographer of Kerry and is writing the official Kerry/Edwards campaign book. And if you go to the Drudge report, you'll find that the supposed retraction is no such thing.  The vet in question said the Globe article misrepresented what he said and he DID NOT retract his assertions in the book or TV ad.

he has accomplished in his 19 years in Senate?  What legislation did he author?  No one is talking about his Senate history.

His recant to his recant because the other anti-Kerry people said so and he believes them now, more than he believed documented facts from Kerry and his mates in Vietnam when it happened does not sound right. He has discredited all the others statements by his actions proving him to be a liar.