Comments on: WaPo: Both Sides’ Accounts Incomplete and Flawed

By: Sandcrab

Sandcrab — Mon, 23 Aug 2004 13:00:18 +0000

I disagree with your statement regarding "a level of rage that no one expected" - I, for one, was raging about Kerry's post-war activities long before the Iowa Caucuses, and know plenty of vets who felt the same way at the same time.

By: Backcountry Conservative

Backcountry Conservative — Mon, 23 Aug 2004 12:57:55 +0000

Joyner on Kerry, Vietnam
James Joyner sums up his thoughts after reading (on Saturday evening) the story that appeared in the Sunday WaPo: Clearly, Tour of Duty and other attempts to capitalize on his Vietnam experience irked these people. On the other hand, almost...

By: Peter

Peter — Sun, 22 Aug 2004 16:18:06 +0000

Mr. Kerry picked this fight. The millions of men (and some women) who came back from our tour(s) in that war mostly are quite content to leave it in the past. Would that we are able to. Those of us who remember Mr. Kerry's antics in 1971 would have probably just quietly voted against him. It was Mr. Kerry's choice to make Viet Nam the centerpiece of his campaign. I never served with Mr. Kerry, I have no idea which, if any, of his medals were deservered and which, if any were a result of gaming the system. I saw both types awarded. I only know that Mr. Kerry surrounded himself with 'veterans', many of whom never served at all, many more who never were in Viet Nam, and portrayed every single one of us as rapists-murderers-torturers. I've lived with that for over three decades. I'm no hero, just a guy who happened to be wearing Uncle's suit when LBJ got a wild hair up his ass. I'm no war criminal, either. It is Mr. Kerry's behavior then, in 1971, and now, that make me believe O'Neil and company. I, while not particularly courageous when given a chice, have known many courageous men and women in my life. None of them have ever blamed a Secret Service Agent for falling while snowboarding.

By: bains

bains — Sun, 22 Aug 2004 04:30:01 +0000

You ask, "[t]he question that most bothers me about all this has been "Why now?". Just below this thread you comment on Willian Mood, who after years of silence finally comes forward to support certain aspects of Kerry's records.

Why now? Because affairs past have been thrust to the fore.

By: Ipse Dixit

Ipse Dixit — Sun, 22 Aug 2004 01:08:06 +0000

It's About Time
Tommorrow's Washington Post will contain a lengthy - and pretty balanced - article on the Swift Boat controversy. The piece...

By: Bill from INDC

Bill from INDC — Sun, 22 Aug 2004 00:39:13 +0000

I read it wrong. Disregard my idiocy (if you don't automatically).

By: Bill from INDC

Bill from INDC — Sun, 22 Aug 2004 00:37:57 +0000

The article was well-balanced, but the headline as I saw it was not (which is a pattern for the WaPo)

I saw "Swift Vets Accounts Flawed ..." .

By: Boyd

Boyd — Sat, 21 Aug 2004 23:04:20 +0000

I agree, the Post story is remarkably well-balanced for a news article. Their editorial page staff have been much less biased than the news staff recently. Obviously, Michael Dobbs didn't bother to consult with Dana Milbank.

And for future reference, the appropriate abbreviation for a Lieutenant Commander is LCDR.
Those naval ranks always seem to trip folks up. :)