RCow

Geez louise, that's the fuggin point. This group should be the very folks who should hold everyone to the same standard -- yet they continually let partisanship and ideology supplant their principles. Criticize a Republican on a military matter and it's "shut up, you didn't serve." Scream foul on criticsm of Democrat's decorated and thrice wounded in combat record and it's a pile on effect. I saw another of AD's lame "well, the Democrats do it on race" and if that's true has do it make OK on military matters? Yeah, good response AD. So, is he saying "yeah, that's how it works?" That would hit smack dab at the heart of the credibility issue. Bush, Cheney and Chamblis get a free ride that would send most veterans into a rage if they were Democrats. At least McCain and a few others keep hope alive that these issues can be treated fairly.

I have read your posts. Though I obviously have a biased view (like everyone), on the question of a possible CinC I believe your standards for Kerry and Democrats are consciously or uncousciously far greater than any Republican. I also believe that if the roles were reversed (Bush served, Kerry did not) you and many others on this board would go nuts on anyone examining every detail of the service record to prove that they are no hero -- or worse -- did not serve honorably. Their exists a double-standard that reflects poorly on veterans and those who claim to be ardently pro-military.

As completely expected the mob mentality rules again. It's a mutual admiration society that can't even examine their hypocracy re: the concepts of patriotism, military service and honor. It's obvious that partisianship has permanently supplanted these ideals. Never let these principles stand in the way if there's Democrat to be beaten no matter that their own Republican candidate can't hold a candle to his opponent. The irony of the "lemmings" comments continue . . .

Thanks for the weak non-answer.

Come BIB, you can do better than that. There's no broad stroke, it's at the heart of the issue. Doesn't it seem Republicans get a free ride on military service while Democrats have to get severely wounded in battle and have win the Medal of Honor? Bob Dole, who I HAD a great deal of respect until his "superficial wound" comment this week, was wounded in his first few weeks (days?) in a combat zone. As far as I knew he never fired his weapon or was cited for acts deemed worthy for medals. However, he was universally deemed and respected as "war hero" as he should. No one questioned his service, no one snickered and said he didn't do much, it simply wasn't an issue dispite the fact that the Dole campaign AND the Republicans, veterans, etc. never missed an opportunity to say Dole served and Clinton did not. Let's also assume George, Sr. was a Democrat. There is no doubt the Right would criticize his war record: How was he responsible for lost mission? Was it really a battle? Didn't he screw up, wasn't he a bad pilot, was he somehow responsible for the death of his mates? Why did he jump out of a perfectly good airplane? Didn't his Daddy pull strings to take him out of the combat zone? Again, no questions, no inquires, no slander from Democrats.

You guys have way too much time on your hands. Do you really expect anyone to read let alone answer it?

Simple response: you and the right would never treat a Republican this way. If a Democrat criticized a Republican's war record just slightly, let alone using blatant lies and smears, the Right would brand them a unAmerican, unpatriotic, country-hating, military bashing, communist. Why is OK to smear McCain, smear Max Cleland and bash Kerry on highly suspect charges about details of a "skirmish" in the friggen field, but give Bush a total free ride? There was enough crap on Bush's embarrassing "service" record to fill 3 Democratic presidental campaigns. When will so-called military and veteran supporters (including vets themselves) apply the same standards to Democrats as they do to Republicans? When will they put the honor of service and the interests of veterans (health care for instance, pay, etc) before partisan politics? At one time I used to think that Republicans had a point about Democratic attitudes toward the military. I truly believe Democrats have improved public attitudes toward veterans (health care) and there virtually no "anti-military" pockets of note, and very little resistance to military spending (though never enough for the Republicans). However, nearly everytime Democrat has a respectable service record they are bashed like a serious political threat -- their mere presence sends Republican veterans and ardent military supporters into tailspin ("does not compute, danger, Will Robinson") This is particular maddening when it's a Democrat with a respetable record vs. a Republican with a (ahem) questionable record (Bush, Chamblis, Rumsfeld, Cheney, etc, etc). This also extends to veteran issues, problems in military decision making, proper equipment and funding. Republicans get a pass -- and if an officer or any ex-military criticseThe concerns of partisan victories consistently outweigh the respect of service -- no matter how impressive. To put it mildly, the Republicans and Right have lost all credibility on military matters.

It's ironic that y'all use the word lemmings over and over again.

Ah, the King of literal strikes again. Nice job. Let us know when you'll have a reasonable discussion. Of course he didn't mean lawyers alone are responsible for compiling facts. But you knew that.

Holy moly, you got a bomb der for sure. You betcha, should cost da Kerry guy the election. As sure as brats go wit da beer, you betcha. Much more powerful indictment than getting 1000+ soldiers killed for no good reason, leading the nation to Hoover-esque job losses, a stagnant market, booming oil prices (I thought Iraq's oil would help?), a joke of a homeland security strategy, a failed (and expense) education plan, a health care bill that makes the education plan look like the Marshall Plan, a bitterly divided nation and a country will a hopeful vision. Good Lord, "Lambert?!" Clearly Kerry is not the President we need for these difficult times.

Is there a undecided poster (between Bush and Kerry, not the other insignificant candidates ) or pro-Kerry poster who really agrees with posts on this thread saying that this whole SBVT issue is a Kerry campaign blunder? These posts seem a bit too "hopeful" about Kerry's so-called mistake. Those who supported Kerry aren't going anywhere and it's likely the GOP attacks have strengthen their support of the Democrat (and very happy Kerry is vigorously pushing back on the lies). Likewise, those supporting Bush (or just anti-Kerry or non-supporters in general) are all in a lather that this is somehow a bad move on Kerry's part (and some actually believe Bush is a new clean campaign advocate). The only people that matter are soft supporters on either side and the very few undecided voters in the middle. I've yet to hear from one but I'd think defending Kerry's "distiguished" war record from slander from the right doesn't strike me as a bad thing. Likewise, I can't imagine these voters would feel comfortable with a campaign to question Kerry's service record especially when his record is a stark contrast to the President's. Bush supporters took a gamble and lost -- they tried to discredit his record and failed -- now the Kerry folks are simply attempting to put a dagger in the issue. If Bush supporters back off then we can examine Kerry's next move, but to suggest this is some kind of Kerry blunder is to ignore the key battlegrounds on the political landscape.

The obligatory: "link?" Don't mean offense but this is the first I've heard of this. And considering all the crap (i.e. lies) flying around . . .