There seems to be a big blank spot where I expected to see the ad...of course, it could be the websense blocker at work blocking it.

Never mind--it wasn't showing up in Mozilla. Thanks for posting that, Kevin.

As a veteran and the daughter of a Viet Nam veteran I fully support the Swift Boat Veterans in their efforts.
Shame on Kerry. He was responsible for the continued torture of our POW's. I would never remain on active duty were he to be my commander in chief. It would be kin to slapping my own self in the face.

"For those who fought for it, freedom has a flavor the protected will never know"
(author unknown)
Who did John Kerry protect? Not me..Not you and certainly not the POW's held against their will. Some of whom were there for years.
Shame on him....

"Who did John Kerry protect?"

How about the thousands more young Americans who would have died in Vietnam if he acted like a cheerleader?

Of course, the bias of that ad is inherent: you can't hear from the wives of men who didn't die because public opinion turned against the war, thanks to dissenters like Kerry.

oh I get it..
OK..It's fine for Kerry to sit before a congressional committee and slap every single vet in the face like a coward? I don't think so Joe. I respect your opinion here but I have to disagree.
What John Kerry did was cowardly as a veteran. How dare he place shame upon those who did die and those who came home to being spat on and shunned. It's people like him who sicken me. It just goes to show you that his flip-flop tactics go back even further than the last year...
He touted his service to win votes. When it was convenient for him to make a name for himself at the expense of others he did just that. Now he wants us all to forget about it? Not me
I still say shame on him...

Joe, I have to disagree. Don't you imagine there were other ways to protest the war (specifically, the government's lack of full support), other than denegrating the men fighting the war?

I was too young to go to Vietnam, but my brother and several cousins went. Most of them disagreed with the politics, but they never berated soldiers.

That's why I despise Kerry. I saw relatives go there, knowing it was an ugly thing (several, including my brother, were volunteers), but doing their duty, and then to see him speak collectively as if all our men were no better than the enemy we were fighting - how dare he, years later, speak of those men as "his brothers"?

Unless, of course, he means, as in "Cain and Abel."

I'm not a mom and I'm not a fan of soccer. However, I have to believe this ad will NOT make any "soccer mom's" more likely to vote for Kerry. Women empathize with one another and an ad like this will resonate strongly.

Joe, I have to disagree. Don't you imagine there were other ways to protest the war (specifically, the government's lack of full support), other than denegrating the men fighting the war?

I was too young to go to Vietnam, but my brother and several cousins went. Most of them disagreed with the politics, but they never berated soldiers.

That's why I despise Kerry. I saw relatives go there, knowing it was an ugly thing (several, including my brother, were volunteers), but doing their duty, and then to see him speak collectively as if all our men were no better than the enemy we were fighting - how dare he, years later, speak of those men as "his brothers"?

Unless, of course, he means, as in "Cain and Abel."

Joe - you are mistaken in your assumption.

"In his 1985 memoir about the war, Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap wrote that if it weren't for organizations like Kerry's Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Hanoi would have surrendered to the U.S."

"In his book, Giap clearly indicated that NVA troops were without sufficient supplies, and had been continually defeated time and again."

So, Joe's more concerned about those who 'would've died' as opposed to 40,000+ who died after Tet... I would guess 20,000 or so died between the time when Kerry lead protests and "public opinion turned against the war" and April 1975..... when according to NVA, it would've ended much sooner. Would public opinion have been different if the NVA had been defeated and only 10,000 died? Duh.

Typical lib, we care more about those who 'could've died' than caring about those who actually died for our country (by letting them win the frickin' war.)

Well well well. Those comments by Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap make it pretty clear that the North was about to collapse on itself. Tet seems like a desperate gamble that worked. Without people like Kerry undermining U.S. efforts perhaps a different story would have been written about Vietnam.

Now Kerry is making the same noises about Iraq. Despite all the good being done, despite all the progress being made, he's once again undermining our troops and their mission. There is nothing new under the sun. Kerry came out against Vietnam to further his political career then, he's flipped to come out against Iraq in an effort to further his political career now.

This is a powerful ad, and of course its one sided - political ads normally are. We may not get to see the wives of the thousands of soldiers Kerry "saved" by spreading lies about all our troops in Vietnam, but we will also not get to hear from the wives and mothers of those that were ravaged under the boot of North Vietnamese Communists after Kerry helped them win the war by default. Don't forget, he's gone on record in this campaign to say he was young, angry, and may have "overstated" his charges - that means he lied.

Who in their right mind could trust this man, this calculating and purely politcal animal, enough to put him in the White House? It boggles the mind.

Thank you One D...
I am not a soccer Mom and it doesn't take other women to dictate to me what is in my best interest.
I think the motive by the Swifties is clear and if it does help to swing even one then I say Yipee!
I still stand firm in that JK is a disgrace to those of us who did serve and are serving in the military. Some can turn the other cheek and forgive..I am not one of those in that group of some.

oh to be as articulate as Sean
XOXO
He will never be my President!!
This country has too much saavy to elect JK anyway so isn't it really a moot point all the way around?

So why did we fight viet nam again? The gulf of Tonkien incident? Domino theory? Comunism? For all of our chummy-ness with the Chineese these days it seems that the whole war was in vain. Americans did commit atrocities in the war as did the Vietnameese. It seems lame to criticize someone for speaking against war (unless you like war or are making $ from it). The real enemy in this whole debate is the old men who send young men off to die for bullshit reasons. Bush is currently doing this in Iraq and the American sheeple are following him without asking why. Yes, we are commiting war crimes and atrocities (see geneva conventions for details) now and all of the justifications for this war have proven false. If we really cared for our soldiers we would not engage them in battle without VERY good reason.

Born in 73, wasnt there, didnt serve.
X

X,

You say you were born in 1973. I suppose I ought to forgive your ignorance based on being young. However, 31 is not too young to ask someone to study history before making inane comments about past events. Don't take my word on the past anyone else’s. Do some reading. The "Domino Theory" you allude to was very real. Communist countries were working towards world domination in the decades after WW II and actively undermining developing democracies. I'm sorry if you believe defending freedom (1960's) and thwarting terrorism (today) are bullshit reasons. I'm certain you never served and have no comprehension of the motivation of those who do. Ask soldiers returning from Iraq or Afghanistan and they will tell you they are willingly fighting a threat over there so we don't have to fight it on our soil. To explain it in sports terms, there is no home field advantage in war.

"x" forgot to include that "Bush (is) Hitler-like, along with his storm trooper henchmen..."

Musta' deleted that portion from the Notepad copy n'paste off the DU forum, I think.

Heads up, "x"! Ever wonder why Kerry has gone to great lengths to "hide" his book about Vietnam from the contemporary discourse? Something about what was in that book, reading similarly to what you just wrote here. Or, perhaps, copied off your random, average Demo board.

Well, X, just because you can't see fit to ask why, and go to some unbiased sources (or at least a few sources from the other side of the political spectrum) for your answers doesn't mean nobody else has. Wasn't it the Liberal Left that criticized Bush for "failing" to see the writing on the wall that an attack was imminent? Of course, they conveniently neglect to mention that 9/11 was planned over a 4 to 5 year period. Now, remind me who was in office for most of that period? I guess it doesn't matter to you. The fact remains, in the LL mind, that "signs" were missed. Hindsight being 20/20 and all.

Now the Bush Administration is evaluating intelligence through the lens of 9/11 - that same lens the LL wanted them to use on pre 9/11 intelligence, and you criticize them. Justifications for war proved false? Only if you think the entire war was based on WMD's. It wasn't. That was one of many reasons. No, we didn't find stockpiles. That is unfortunate. But we did find secret programs that were in place and ready to begin mass producing illegal chemical weapons as soon as the coast was clear.

And let's not forget, X, that the only reason Baghdad was not levelled and Sodom removed during Gulf War I is because a cease-fire treaty was signed. According to that treaty one of the only things keeping troops out of Baghdad was Sodom's cooperation with with inspections. Observing the no-fly zones was another. What did Sodom do with this treaty? He wiped his butt with it.

He instituted a complex program to hide his chemical weapons programs (documented in the Kay report). He refused to allow inspectors to adequately do their job. He failed to account for tons of chemical weapons. He - daily shot at coalition plans in the no-fly zone. (some cease-fire, huh?) Now, does that sound like someone that was living up to their end of the treaty. No. You'd have to be insane to believe Sodom was upholding his end of the treaty.

Through it all, Clinton did nothing but lob a few cruise missiles at him during the Lewinsky debacle. And destroy an aspirin factory based on shoddy intelligence. Funny, no uproar from you and your friends about that little gaff.

Now, after 9/11, we have an insane dictator with delusions of grandeur (he wanted to annex Kuwait and tried to defeat Iran) with access to chemical and biological weapons. We have a massive terrorist attack on U.S. soil perpetrated by al Qaeda. There are known links between al Qaeda and Iraq. No, no operational links regarding 9/11 but there are well documented links between the two. Through the lens of 9/11 suddenly we have to deal with the reality that some of those unaccounted for chemical weapons may end up in the hands of terrorists for use against the U.S. (It wouldn't be hard to stuff several thousand pounds in a container, strap a big ol' bomb to it, and set the timer so it all goes up in the middle of say L.A. or New York)

Through the lens of 9/11 this was a completely unacceptable situation. Our safety required us to take action. Action was taken. Has it been pretty? Hell no. War never is. Are we winning? Hell yes. Anyone that says differently is lying to you.

You may disagree with Bush on Iraq, that's your right. But at least try to get a few more facts before spouting off about how the war was based on false pretenses and is a waste of lives and resources.

X -
"It seems lame to criticize someone for speaking against war (unless you like war or are making $ from it)." - well, i'm not making $ from the war, yet I believe we're doing the right thing in Iraq, know why? History lesson, folks what was UN resolution 1441? Anyone, anyone? (oh to get Ben Stein to read that aloud for me.....) I can just see it now, al-Queda about to blow off a dirty bomb, and X will say, if we cared for our soldiers, we wouldn't ask them to kill those guys..... if you cared for humanity, you would've supported this from the start. 300,000 dead Iraqis under Hussein would have appreciated it.

If you have a logical position or reasoned statement other than 'it's lame to criticize', you might get a decent debate. Otherwise, you will be criticized because you're not bringing anything to the table.....

So, you think Vietnam was a waste cuz we're so cozy to Comm China? I suppose having a US plane shot down in international airspace a year or two ago makes for good relations. Chummy? You are illogical at best.....

Take a nice long sip of that Kool-aid X...

This group is still together after all this time? Is anyone who is not voting for GWB still listening to them?

Dave (the other one)

Well Dave, there's "X".

This group is still together after all this time? Is anyone who is not voting for GWB still listening to them?

Dave (the other one)

Largebill,

What makes us any better than the communists with regards to undermining developing democracies? The united states has undermined numerous democracies, and tried to instill pupet leaders throughout the world (see Central and South American history for details). Also we are a Republic not a democracy. I am tired of hearing all of this "spreading democracy" talk when we (those who control America) are just spreading a little world domination of our own. Also the ties to terrorism and Iraq have not been proven. I am tired of having this war tied to terrorism - for whatever kind of a bad guy Sadam was he has not been conclusively linked to Anti-american terrorists. The "flypaper strategy" that the right peddles seems reckless and was used to justify actions after the fact. As far as the willingness to serve issue - in Viet Nam people were being drafted (like my uncle) and asked to kill because commies were "bad". If this war keeps up we could see the draft reinstated (see HR 163-Universal National Service Act of 2003).

S,

I am not a Democrat and I dont copy their posts. I am not a Republican either for that matter as I would be ashamed to be associated with either party as a whole.

Sean,

Being a detail oriented person that I am I have had a conflict with this justification of this war. It seems to me that we justified the invasion of the war in order to enforce a security council resolution of the United Nations that was passed following the gulf war which prohibited Iraq from having WMDs. When we tried to have the UN authorise our little invasion party we were rebuked because inspections had not been exausted (inspectors were still on the ground-we ordered them out). To get around the UN charter (which states that Nations should not invade other nations and overthrow their governments) we used a "pre-emptive self defence" stratagey to justify our invasion based on the immediate threat posed to the United States by Iraq. Without WMD's or better evidence of UN security council banned weapons programs it seems that we are in violation of the UN charter with our invasion. I realise that the "right" does not like the UN and does not want others commanding our soldiers, but we joined the UN at it's inception and we are one of the controling members. Shouldn't we at least follow our own rules? If we were to quit the UN altogether than we would no longer have the athority to ban weapons and then the weapons could no longer be used to justify the war.

Also, if we are in the business of enforcing security council resolutions, why havent we invaded Isreal? They are in violation of more resolutions than Iraq was.

Could one of you more seasoned students of history explain this to me?

X

X, you're wacko. A anti-Semite wacko at that.

Jim,

Thanks for the name calling. Not to stereotype but it seems to be a common right wing strategy - Call names but never address the issues. I do not have a problem with Jews , I do have some problems with the state of Isreal. It may take somebody smarter than you to see the difference.

Shalom
X

X - respectfully.....

"If this war keeps up we could see the draft reinstated (see HR 163-Universal National Service Act of 2003)." .....

Yeah, right. And monkeys might fly outta my butt.

That legislation was sponsored by the most liberal reps in the House - Rangel, Baghdad Jim McDermott and others. There is no chance of this bill passing. It's politically dead, so why are the dems funneling doom and gloom emails about this subject and blaming Bush to be behind it? My assumption is that they want to implement forced community service if they could. Why have the private sector do something that the government could mess up by one hundred fold.

You can be against the war, and you're entitled to your opinion of the reasons for it. but don't resort to 'scare' tactics to make your point.

I heard the POW ad by the Swifties on the radio a few minutes ago -- it's quite compelling.

"x": you don't have to be a Democrat to copy and paste anything. I don't believe I ever wrote anywhere that "(you) (were) (a) (Democrat)," just that what you've resulted here is pretty much a copy'n'paste from your random, randy, monotonistic "storm trooper, henchman" harping Demos. Perhaps if I'd used the term, "Liberal," that would have been more specific. Lately, I just can't tell.

Just watched the new Swiftboat ad, thx for the head's up Jim - it's devastating.

If 'x' is neither republican or democrat, and he doesn't think he's liberal, is he left of liberal? Don't they call them radicals?

Yes, X, we should immediately invade Israel for defying U.N. Resolutions passed by Arab states. Because why should Israel be able to defend itself against murderous terrorists?

As for having inspectors on the ground. Why hadn't they completed their mission in the previous 12 - 12!! years? Because the inspections were a sham. As the Kay report pointed out (it says a lot more than simply 'we didn't find stockpiles' you know) Sodom was engaged in a complex strategy of hide-the-ball with the U.N. inspectors. And surely as someone that has thoroughly looked into this whole issue you know that the only reason Sodom let inspectors back in at all was because troops from the U.S. and it's allies were moving into position at Iraq's borders. Even then, Sodom tried to play around with the inspections. Sorry. Too little. Too late. He had 12 years - including the several years he altogether refused to allow inspectors into Iraq.

And don't think for a minute that because corrupt governments (I'm looking at you France, Germany, and Russia), that were receiving bribes from Sodom, blocked our efforts in the U.N. that we were somehow unjustified in going in. That's ridiculous. The oil-for-food scandal will be breaking soon. It will highlight the corruption in the U.N. and France, Germany, and Russia and explain why they were so anti-U.S. and so pro-Sodom.

One drummer,

I'm working on something new. I think I'll call it social libertarianism or something like that. Like many of my generation, I dont feel like my values are reflected by either party and am left choosing between which party I hate the least or moving to another country. With a Christian apocalypse death cult (people who belive that by prophecy the world will end soon and/or are trying to make it so)at the helm my thinking hardly seems that radical.

x

What are you babbling about? Who said the world is about to end? Certainly not Bush. Are the terrorists that attacked us and attack Israel daily a grave danger to our society and our safety? Yes. Are they harbingers of the End of Days? Hardly.

I can understand your frustration at an apparent lack of representation. Get over it. No party is going to think exactly like you because nobody else is going to think exactly like you. Unless, of course, you start your own political party, then you will be happy as a clam. Your adherents might not be all that happy - just less disgruntled than in other parties - but you'll be sitting pretty, ideologically.

No political party is perfect, and yours won't be either. Something most of learned in kindergarten, you have to share this world with other people who don't think exactly like you. Deal with it.

x -
interesting terminology 'Christian apocalypse death cult' that you invoke.... I suppose that your dismissiveness of any one who is of the Christian faith is not hate speech in the least. Especially if they work in government. Heaven forbid if anyone of your generation should refer to a muslim, jew or buddihist with the same invective. It would be called hate speech. Not if they are Christian, right? How pc of you.... that something you're working on is religious intolerance.....

Living in America doesn't mean that you are forced to convert to a state religion - the government here doesn't make you be Muslim, Jew, Christian, Hindu, Mormon, etc. yet you take a swipe at the faith of govt leaders (Bush I assume) at a time when Islamofascists are beheading 'infidels' on behalf of their 'religion' in the middle east. Maybe you would prefer the conversion that those folk would impose upon you?

OneDrummer, why argue with X -- he's a looney tune and an anti-Semite. Ooops, my mistake, he's not an anti-Semite, he just doesn't like Israelis.

x thank you for signing your name. That way it is easy to look at the bottom of your posts and not bother to read them. I won't call you names, however your world view needs work. Swiftvet and POW's for truth.

I'm trying to figure out just what the fuck x is doing here. His spelling and phrasing says he's not an American; I'm leaning toward British.

With all due respect, the widows are misinformed, and being used by the very people who are responsible for their misery and grief.

For that a