Are you serious? His entry is not that large. There are 9 short sections. One is called "Political Contributions and Activities." It contains quite a few relevant details, with supporting citations.

In which part of freeperville did you pick up the specious idea that he's "a lifelong Democrat?"

There was a lot more than just that. A nice summary is here.

"As for Max Cleland, can you explain how criticizing a vote Of Cleland's is an attack on his military service?"

The ad Chambliss ran went beyond just "criticizing a vote." It suggested that Cleland lacked the "courage to lead." Chambliss also accused Cleland of "breaking his oath to protect and defend the Constitution."

Chambliss didn't go to Vietnam because of a bad knee.

"As for Kerry, he clearly lied about his first purple heart"

Your claim is addressed at the end of this section.

A scrupulously documented reference that thoroughly dismantles the SBVT nonsense is here.

"He also lied about Cambodia"

I guess you must be thinking of O'Neil, who told Nixon he was "in Cambodia," and then later wrote "no one could cross the border."

And on what basis do you say that, save for it doesn't run afoul of your own rather stunted worldview? Some proof would not only be nice, it'd be a shock.

Maybe its because you're happy to use the death of one soldier to disparage the patriotism of another.

Perhaps its the fact that wearing band aids to mock the awarding of purple hearts doesn't seem to bother you, suggesting the sacrifice of others doesn't really matter to you either, unless of course, they are displaying the correct political stripes.

Most likely though, its the utterly graceless 'John F'ing Kerry' reference. Low enough to question another's bravery, but too squeamish to add 'uck'.

Yeah, you're just the kind of guy to slime Tillman if he had turned out to be anything other than a loyal 23 per center.

The truth, my friend, is never bipartisan. It always takes sides.

And usually the side it takes is that of the cynic who says both sides are hypocritical on most election issues. If our candidate does popular action A it's relevant, if their candidate does it it's irrelevant. Reverse polarity if action A turns out to be unpopular. Nothing like an election to confirm the rationality of being an independent.

When the Bush 2000 campaign painted McCain as a coward and traitor

Can you provide any support to this? This all seems to be based on some idiot that was on stage with Bush in S.C. Almost certainly Bush had no idea who this guy was, given that he said equally bizarre things about Bush's dad.

As for Max Cleland, can you explain how criticizing a vote Of Cleland's is an attack on his military service? Just because the DNC says it a few million times does make it so.

As for Kerry, he clearly lied about his first purple heart given that his diary didn't even have him facing combat until well after the incident. He also lied about Cambodia (seared in his memory as it was) and lied about atrocities committed by his fellow soldiers. Forget about the medals he threw over the fence (OK, not actually his medals), he threw all the Vietnam Vets over the fence for political gain.

I recall seeing bandaids, not armbands. And let us know your basis for claiming that the people in this photo "were injured during wartime." Or that any person who was "injured during wartime" wore one of these bandaids.

And of course, had Tillman lived, and had he decided on a political career as a democrat, Bit would be denigrating Pat's service too

And on what basis do you say that, save for it doesn't run afoul of your own rather stunted worldview? Some proof would not only be nice, it'd be a shock.

The wearing of purple band aids by attendees at the republican convention in 2004 insulted everyone who had ever suffered injury for their country

Except of course by those wearing such armbands who were injured during wartime, huh?

You really think this stuff of yours isn't tranparent?

PS:
I suppose I should clarify about true service.....Compare the record of Tillman vs that of one other who is in the public eye of late, and see if you can't see any differences between them.

And of course, had Tillman lived, and had he decided on a political career as a democrat, Bit would be denigrating Pat's service too, boring us with another long-winded hack job (so many grand words to say something so shallow and thoughtless - Kerry's a bad American).

The wearing of purple band aids by attendees at the republican convention in 2004 insulted everyone who had ever suffered injury for their country. Only a republican could fail to see that

And Tillman would be, I suppose, among the first to agree with my thought.

From everything I've read of him, Tillman would have seen right through you, pal.

If you would like to become familiar with the facts of this matter, a good place to start is here.

"a guy called John O'Neil, a lifelong Democrat"

That's not what it says here. So it would be nice if you could prove that claim.

Sorry but this is too close to the disease of the mind that is destroying modern man -relative truth.

You apparently missed the point; There's no relativity about what I said. Non-relative truth takes sides.

This has always been the republican way. In ridiculing Kerry's war time injuries, they were too dumb to realize they were ridiculing everyones'.

If that's what you think, then you clearly don't understand the central issue. Let me explain it, by way of a writeup I did a few years ago about Pat Tillman:

I find the amount of press Tillman's getting to be a little disturbing. Don't misunderstand; I have a small mountain of respect for Tillman. I have sympathy for his family, his loved ones, his buddies in the field.

However, I outright refuse to be caught in the trap of regarding the death of this one soldier as being of greater impact than the death of any other. I will not hold the service of this one to be unequal to any other that serves us true.

I cannot dispute that Tillman gave up greater financial wealth to put on the uniform of his country, than most soldiers do. Certainly, he wasn't after the glory, as someone else in the news recently would seem to have done. I don't call THAT true service. He could have covered himself in a certain kind of personal glory on the football field if that was what he was about.

Perhaps some historical perspective will help me make my point clearer.

I had occasion to see "The Glenn Miller Story" again just recently, and am now struck by the parallels, as I have been in the past. Miller put on his uniform because he thought he could do some good in his country's efforts against the Nazi threat. He ended up giving his life for his choice. Who knows where Miller's music would have taken him, had he lived out his natural life, instead of ending up at the bottom of the English Channel.

Like Miller, Pat Tillman's choice was about personal sacrifice, and of service... Service of an ideal he thought bigger than himself. That kind of dedication is be cherished, certainly.

However, we must not allow ourselves to be swayed by the life position the soldier had, before he/she was a soldier. We must not allow that metric to guide us in the amount of respect shown them, be they living or dead after their service.

They're all worthy of the very same respect, living or dead. Not because of their having lived or died, not because of the amounts of money or positions they gave up, or what impact they had on us when they weren't wearing the uniform, but because of their respect and understanding of the ideals that uniform represents. Ideals they hold highest... to the point where they chose to put ON that uniform, to accept the risks associated with it... to advance those ideals.

We should hold such people, ALL who serve us true, in our hearts. And Tillman would be, I suppose, among the first to agree with my thought.

PS:
I suppose I should clarify about true service.....Compare the record of Tillman vs that of one other who is in the public eye of late, and see if you can't see any differences between them.

Note the emph on 'true service". The "one other" I'm talking about in that peice is John F'ing Kerry, of course. There's a major difference between someone serving because he holds the American ideal larger than himself, and one gaming the system for his own glory. Most of the American people knew that for what it was in John Kerry; Kerry was not about true service. His actions upon his return confirm this. That's what annoys vets so about Kerry. THEY certainly understand. That's also a major reason he's not president.. even those who are not vets understand. It's also why your comparisons dont' work.

What was that great Simpson's line?

"Support (some of) The Troops".

There was also an article in The Onion about a man who supported the troops, except those he went to high school with.

Sorry but this is too close to the disease of the mind that is destroying modern man -relative truth.

There exists, by definition, fixed, absolute and immutable truth (which one famously perfect person once said "...would set us free) and then there are the many imitators who pretend that there is no truth, just opinion because they are uncomfortable with its implications. So they become "deniers" - spelled L I A R S.

"Support (some of) The Troops".

This has always been the republican way. In ridiculing Kerry's war time injuries, they were too dumb to realize they were ridiculing everyones'.

To young soldiers risking their lives at this very moment for their country and their families, the word from the right is simple- you're a hero as long as you agree with us. Cross us and we'll crucify you.

No wonder the republican party is on the way out.

They weren't just this, y'know, disinterested third party soberly laying out facts to lead people to a stoic truth.

Translation: You don't like the truth because of it's implications.

The truth, my friend, is never bipartisan. It always takes sides.