Curt have you ever in your life dodge bullets meant to kill you? I think fighting for your country, going into an active war zone and saving a person life does require a little moral fortitude. Don't you? Please anwser this question!

Now Bush on the other hand, get's a low score on the pilot test, take a space that should have gone to another more deserving person, cannot be accounted for almost a half year, does not go to war/battle and get strip of his flying wings for not showing up for a medical test for whatever reasons. What kind of moral fortitude does that show?? Please anwser this question!

Your good buddy, toejam is all about smear, in spite about claiming otherwise--as long as the smear is against Bush, of course. And, apparantly you are too. Pathetic really, because this campaign should be about other things.

So now we play Curt's game. Almost all of your post about Kerry have been smear and name-calling.

I asked you to anwser two question and you didn't. I dislike the smear tactics and ads and pointed out that Bush is running better than 3 to 1 in smear ads.

The sad state of affairs in american politics is that it is not about issues anymore. It's about who has the most money and who can smear the other one worst/better.

This election is about other things as hugepedro has pointed out. It's about america future, how we deal with our citizens and the citizens of the world.

There is not not one smear in my previous post. They are all public knowledge and questions that should be anwser.

I did not shallow anything hook, line and sinker. I give you more credit and would expect the same from you.

I think fighting for your country, going into an active war zone and saving a person life does require a little moral fortitude. Don't you? Please anwser this question!

Yes, I think what Kerry did required some moral fortitude.

Your reading comprehension isn't really that bad is it? You asked me a question--and I answered it. Duh.

Duh, I asked you two questions and you only anwser one, duh!

I alway thought Kerry had moral foritude to go to war, seems to taken you a long time to figure that one out, duh.

Not counting this thread almost all of your post on Kerry has been smears and name calling, duh.

Duh, I asked you two questions and you only anwser one, duh!

I alway thought Kerry had moral foritude to go to war, seems to taken you a long time to figure that one out, duh.

Not counting this thread almost all of your post on Kerry has been smears and name calling, duh.

You're right Curt... this election is starting to look like an episode of the Jerry Springer Show.

Why does anyone care, to the extent we are seeing today, what either of these guys did 30 odd years ago during the Vietnam war?

An appropriate question that deserves a thoughtful answer. Really, I think you ask three questions:

1) Does what Kerry did in Vietnam matter?

Not a whole hell of a lot, at least to me. Yes, it's a bit of evidence into his character, but it doesn't really demonstrate what kind of a president he's likely to be.

2) Does what Bush did in the National Guard matter?

I think the answer to this is "yes," because of what it illustrates about Bush. Bush stands for privilege, selfishness, and hypocrisy. He used his privileged status as the son and grandson of major politicians and his family connections to get into the National Guard. I don't see you, Curt, or anybody else disputing that he managed to leapfrog a lot of others who tried to get in, but ultimately were exposed to the risk of joining the active military units which, as everyone knew at the time, were much more likely to see combat. Thus, he selfishly took the place of some other poor schmuck who may have died in Vietnam. While he didn't want to go to Vietnam, any more than Clinton or many others, he hypocritically supported the conduct of the war--easy to do if your a$$ isn't on the line.

Those qualities of privilege, selfishness, and hypocrisy are visible today. He wants to spend billions and billions of money on Iraq, but wants to give tax cuts to himself and his wealthy buddies. He wants to rape the environment if a few bucks can be gained. He promised to restore "dignity" to the White House--by which he purported to contrast himself with Clinton--while instead committing the indignity of using falsified intelligence to start a war.

3) When are we ever going to stop refighting Vietnam?

My son came home from college this summer and one day was overhearing me in an argument with a contemporary of mine about something regarding Vietnam. I don't remember what--Nixon? Cambodia? The Stones vs. the Beatles? He said, "You baby boombers. Forty years from now, you guys will be in the nursing home, and you'll be hitting each other with canes arguing about that same $hit." Smart a$$ kid.

When you think about it, though, for those of us of "a certain age," Vietnam was THE major influence on us, politically, socially, and culturally. Many of us know people who are still arguing about the Civil War, and everyone who lived through that era is dead. Maybe we should try to let Vietnam go. Maybe we can't, no matter how hard we try.

3) When are we ever going to stop refighting Vietnam?

My son came home from college this summer and one day was overhearing me in an argument with a contemporary of mine about something regarding Vietnam. I don't remember what--Nixon? Cambodia? The Stones vs. the Beatles? He said, "You baby boombers. Forty years from now, you guys will be in the nursing home, and you'll be hitting each other with canes arguing about that same $hit." Smart a$$ kid.

When you think about it, though, for those of us of "a certain age," Vietnam was THE major influence on us, politically, socially, and culturally. Many of us know people who are still arguing about the Civil War, and everyone who lived through that era is dead. Maybe we should try to let Vietnam go. Maybe we can't, no matter how hard we try.

The Viet Nam conflict certainly was a major influence and it deserves more discussion, not less. Perhaps that is why the Swiftboat topic is such a hot button for a lot of people, including the press.

On the topic of Vietnam in general, I might agree with you, but I'm still with Curt on the issue of whether what these two guys specifically did 30 years ago ought to be the main issue in this presidential race.

One thing that comes through loud and clear in your post is that you believe it is OK to smear GWB, but it is wrong to smear Kerry.

There is much hypocrisy and selfishness in Kerry's Vietnam era history too, that would call into question his character.

Apparently we are contemporaries, but I promise I won't hit you with my cane, if you don't hit me with yours.

I always thought that facts were to persuade people and smears were misinformation to fool people.

I should ended that sentence with: persuade you away from the facts.

Let's talk about the fact of 1.4 million people added to the already high number living in poverty in the US in the last year.

Let's talk about the fact that 1.5 more millions of Americans in the last year are without health care.

Let's talk about the puny amount of low-paying jobs that have been added to a ever-rising unemployment sector in this country.

Let's talk about the record deficit and long-lasting effect on an already strain system.

Let's talk about America and it's standing in the global community. We had the world almost 100-per-cent behind us after 9-11. That support has seen a dramatic drop and seems to dropping with each passing day.

Let's talk about the lack of funding for science and education in this country. A country that once prided itself on cutting edge research.

Let's talk about the current EPA and how it protect not the enviroment but the people who pollute it.

Let's talk about the recent tax cuts and how they benefited large corp. while throwing a puny $300 to most of the American people.

Let's talk about recent tax cuts and how they actually hurt the ever-growing lower to middle class Americans, while giving more back to upper-middle class.

So what do we have of a factual nature?  George Bush was allowed to get into a National Guard unit that was full and had a long waiting list.  There was some other guy somewhere who would have been the last guy in the National Guard, but he was displaced by Bush.  Bush was able to do so because of his family connections.  Am I right or wrong about the accuracy of those statements?  My opinion is that such conduct exhibits an exercise of privilege and an act of selfishness.  Now if Bush had done that and said, “You know, the Vietnam War is a terrible thing and our government is wrong to pursue it, but I’m sure as hell not gonna get my butt shot off for it,” at least he wouldn’t be a hypocrite.  Instead, Bush has insisted that fighting the Vietnam War was the right thing to do.  In effect, it was okay for other people to risk their lives, but not him. 

You are entitled to your opinion about Kerry. I am hardly a supporter of his.  But the guy volunteered to fight in Vietnam. Maybe his wounds weren’t bloody enough for some people.