Art,

I'm not sure why you're clinging to this military records "issue". If you click on the site I referenced, you'll find a shitload of records, including fitreps. While I'm no expert, it's difficult at first glance to see what's missing, if anything. And certainly nobody has been specific as to what if anything is missing. I suspect that it's more an attempt at bamboozling the public into believing that Kerry is hiding something, when he clearly isn't. If I were you I would find out more about this or stop using it.

As for Cambodia, there is evidence that Kerry ferried CIA guys up the river (a la Apocalypse Now) into Cambodia on a number of occasions, just not Christmas 1968, as the article I pointed notes. What is strange about this story is that it is not something he even talks about, and he hasn't even mentioned it in 19 years - only SVBT dredged it up as "evidence" of his duplicity. And as for documentary evidence, well, given that we weren't supposed to be there, and it was a CIA mission, I think one would be hard pressed to come up with info on black missions. This frankly seems like a road to nowhere, but you seem to think its further evidence of his evil. And as for his journals, I wouldn't release my fucking diaries, especially if I'm in war. If we're going to do that, does that mean we should get all the records of W's partying and AA meetings? Where does privacy end and public interest begin? You seem to take any control of privacy as something to hide, and it simply isn't so. But as I said, there is always a quid pro quo.

I'm not going to argue his Senate record because I don't fully know it. I will say that, as you will probably admit, his opponents have distorted it to express conclusions that are at best, stretches. As in, Kerry wanted to close military bases, even though everyone, including Cheney, wanted to, etc. Without context, these sorts of claims are useless. But then again, the American public isn't exactly known for its grasp of subtlety.

I think comparing Kerry to Nixon is way out of line. He has been a distinguished Senator, and while you may quibble with his voting record, I think that comparing him to somebody who kept an enemies list and kept dirty-tricks operatives on the payroll, admitted to knowing about a burglary of political opponents, and had Ellsberg's psychologist's files stolen is a wholly disingenuous. Although frankly, I think Nixon's foreign policy acumen makes this President look like kindergarten.

As for Kerry parading his service, it wouldn't be my first choice for a strategy. But given that the President has the temerity to say things like Kerry wouldn't protect the country, etc., showing that he put himself in harm's way to do just that is an effective and persuasive counterpoint. Frankly, I don't think the issue of military service should be a big deal. However, because GWB's service (and essentially, first service to the country) is probably incomplete, without documents or a single human witness to attest, it's become an issue. If he had just finished his Guard service, that would have been fine and this would have went away. But I don't believe that he did, and neither do a lot of other people. So as a result, you end up in this pissing match over who did what 35 years ago. I betcha George didn't anticipate this when he was partying in Alabama?

I never took issue with GHWB or Dole's service, although some of the Republican opponents did. Amazing what happens when you put crabs in a barrel I guess. As I said above, military service is not a prerequisite - but if you are going to enter, you should complete it honorably.

I'll say it again - I don't know why you seem to put more credence in what a bunch of disgruntled veterans say. I'm sure they have distinguished service to the country, but so did the men on the other side of this argument. So how is that you have invested credibility into one side and not the other. You accused me of bias over impartiality - I turn around and ask you the same question. And if you're only going to look at inconsistencies in Kerry's story, but not the other, then what's the point of this discussion?

---

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" - Benjamin Franklin
"Don't you see the rest of the country looks upon New York like we're left-wing, communist, Jewish, homosexual pornographers? I think of us that way sometimes and I live here." - Alvy Singer, "Annie Hall"

I don't cling to the records issue. I do cling to the fact that only Kerry can clear some of the dispute up, and he refuses to do so either by releasing records or even speaking on the record. He has a right to do that, but he doesn't have a right to be President. He can sit on these records and keep mum, if he chooses. But when he campaigns on these very actions, and then doesn't back them up, he should expect consequences.

Hey, if Kerry wanted to release only the relevant entries of his journals that would help a lot. He won't though, so there must be a reason.

Sorry, no evidence about Cambodia missions whatever. Comments by biographers who weren't there don't count. Comments by Kerry describing the trips would count, but we haven't heard those, and I don't think we will. We haven't seen anyone come forward to confirm these accounts, at least not yet. I acknowledge that we might at some point, but I would be surprised.

It was an article you linked to in which his own biographer refers to the Christmas in Cambodia story as a favorite war story, not one that he hasn't mentioned in 19 years, and that that story had no basis in fact. That article provides no evidence of other trips to Cambodia, just comments from a biographer that wasn't there.

W hasn't campaigned on the basis of his partying or AA meetings, if he ever attended them. Kerry has campaigned on being a war hero. Actions have consequences.

Actually, I give Kerry the benefit of the doubt over the disputed claims. I don't take issue with any statement of his band of brothers. None of them confirm Cambodia stories. I figure that some of Kerry's citations are BS, but some are not. That again puts him ahead of me. I don't see how the vets are disgruntled at all. They have a story to tell, and they are telling it. They will receive no benefit from speaking up. They will be ground up by the resurrected Clinton attack machine. These vets know that, but they speak up anyway.

Kerry lied about events 35 years ago. He then made some of those events the centerpiece of his campaign. It is kind of like Gary Hart inviting journalists to tail him. One did and out came the affair. He asked for it, and he paid the consequences. I am guessing Kerry will as well.