COLUMBUS, United States (AFP) - The White House distanced itself from a commercial by a controversial veterans' group that accuses Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry of lying about his service in Vietnam.
"We have been very clear in stating that, you know, we will not and we have not and we will not question Senator Kerry's service in Vietnam," spokesman Scott McClellan said as US President George W. Bush made a campaign stop here.
The advertisement by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth accuses Kerry of exaggerating his bravery in the Vietnam War, lying about the first of his three Purple Hearts and lying to get his Bronze Star. Kerry was also awarded a Silver Star.
The group also charges that, by testifying against the war when he returned to the United States and alleging that US soldiers had committed wartime atrocities, Kerry betrayed US forces still in Vietnam.
With national security issues atop the agenda for the November 2 election, Kerry has been touting his service as the skipper of a patrol boat known as a "Swift Boat" in an implicit contrast to Bush, who did not go to Vietnam and faces questions about whether he completed his National Guard service.
His former crewmates have aggressively campaigned on his behalf, appearing at his side at political rallies and telling audiences stories about Kerry's exploits during the war.
Senator John McCain, a former Vietnam prisoner of war who challenged Bush for the Republican presidential nomination in 2000, has denounced the group.
And the Kerry campaign has branded the allegations as "garbage," noting that none of the men levelling the accusations served on Kerry's boat.
The group attacking Kerry does not have formal ties to Bush's reelection campaign, and benefits from a loophole in campaign finance restrictions that enables it to spend as much "soft money" as it wants on its political message.
The groups -- the best known of which, MoveOn.org, has fiercely attacked Bush -- are known as "527s," a reference to the tax-code provision that grants them special status.
McClellan coupled his comments about the ad to a broader call for closing the loophole that allows the groups, most of which are hostile to Bush, to operate.
"The president deplores all the unregulated soft money activity," he said, calling the ad "another example of the problem with the unregulated soft money activity that is going on."
"We hope the Kerry campaign will join us in calling for an end to all this kind of activity," said McClellan.
The group pulls no punches in its 60-second spot, which is running in the up-for-grabs states of Ohio, West Virginia, and Wisconsin and features 13 veterans attacking the senator from Massachusetts.
One of the veterans says Kerry's "account of what happened and what actually happened are the difference between night and day."
Another says: "When the chips were down, you could not count on John Kerry."
On 2004-08-06 00:52:29, gelfen wrote:
had to love dubya's latest gaffe about terrorists:
"they never stop thinking of ways to hurt our country and it's people, and neither do we".
This is the article i believe: New 'Bushism President Bush offered up a new entry for his catalog of ``Bushisms'' on Thursday, declaring that his administration will ``never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people.''
Bush misspoke as he delivered a speech at the signing ceremony for a $417 billion defense spending bill.
``Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we,'' Bush said. ``They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.''
No one in Bush's audience of military brass or Pentagon chiefs reacted.
The president was working his way toward a larger point. ``We must never stop thinking about how best to defend our country. We must always be forward-thinking,'' he said.
Theodore Roosevelt, that most virile of presidents, insisted that, "To announce that there should be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American people." With that in mind, I say: George W. Bush is no conservative, and his unprincipled abandonment of conservatism under the pressure of events is no statesmanship. The Republic would be well-served by his defeat this November.
William F. Buckley's recent retirement from the National Review, nearly half a century after he founded it, led me to reflect on American conservatism's first principles, which Buckley helped define for our time. Beneath Buckley's scintillating phrases and rapier wit lay, as Churchill wrote of Lord Birkenhead, "settled and somewhat somber conclusions upon… questions about which many people are content to remain in placid suspense": that political and economic liberty were indivisible; that government's purpose was protecting those liberties; that the Constitution empowered government to fulfill its proper role while restraining it from the concentration and abuse of power; and that its genius lay in the Tenth Amendment, which makes explicit that the powers not delegated to government are reserved to the states or to the people.
More generally, American conservatives seek what Lord Acton called the highest political good: to secure liberty, which is the freedom to obey one's own will and conscience rather than the will and conscience of others. Any government, of any political shade, that erodes personal liberty in the name of social and economic progress must face a conservative's reasoned dissent, for allowing one to choose between right and wrong, between wisdom and foolishness, is the essential condition of human progress. Although sometimes the State has a duty to impose restrictions, such curbs on the liberty of the individual are analogous to a brace, crutch or bandage: However necessary in the moment, as they tend to weaken and to cramp, they are best removed as soon as possible. Thus American conservative politics championed private property, an institution sacred in itself and vital to the well-being of society. It favored limited government, balanced budgets, fiscal prudence and avoidance of foreign entanglements.
More subtly, American conservatism viewed human society as something of an organism in itself. This sense of society's organic character urged the necessity of continuity with the past, with change implemented gradually and with as little disruption as possible. Thus, conservatism emphasized the "civil society"—the private voluntary institutions developed over time by passing the reality test—i.e., because they work—such as families, private property, religious congregations and neighborhoods—rather than the State. In nearly every sense, these institutions were much closer to the individuals who composed them than the State could ever be and had the incidental and beneficial effect of protecting one's personal liberty against undue intrusion from governments controlled by fanatics and busybodies, that which Edmund Burke presciently called the "armed ideologies," and thus upheld our way of life as flying buttresses supported a Gothic cathedral.
But the policies of this administration self-labeled "conservative" have little to do with the essence of tradition. Rather, they tend to centralize power in the hands of the government under the guise of patriotism. If nothing else, the Bush administration has thrown into question what being a conservative in America actually means.
Forty years ago, when Lyndon Johnson believed the United States could afford both Great Society and the Vietnam War, conservatives attacked his fiscal policies as extravagant and reckless. Ten years ago, the Republican Party regained control of Congress with the Contract with America, which included a balanced-budget amendment to restore fiscal responsibility. But today, thanks to tax cuts and massively increased military spending, the Bush administration has transformed, according to the Congressional Budget Office, a ten-year projected surplus of $5.6 trillion to a deficit of $4.4 trillion: a turnaround of $10 trillion in roughly 32 months.
The Bush Administration can't even pretend to keep an arm's length from Halliburton, the master of the no-bid government contract. Sugar, grain, cotton, oil, gas and coal: These industries enjoy increased subsidies and targeted tax breaks not enjoyed by less-connected.
industries. The conservative Heritage Foundation blasts the administration's agricultural subsidies as the nation's most wasteful corporate welfare program. The libertarian Cato Institute called the administration's energy plan "three parts corporate welfare and one part cynical politics...a smorgasbord of handouts and subsidies for virtually every energy lobby in Washington" that "does little but transfer wealth from taxpayers to well-connected energy lobbies." And the Republican Party's Medicare drug benefit, the largest single expansion of the welfare state since Lyndon Johnson's Great Society, was designed to appeal to senior citizens who, as any competent politician knows, show up at the polls.
None of this is conservative, although it is in keeping with the Bush family's history. Kevin Phillips, whose 1969 classic The Emerging Republican Majority outlined the policies that would lead to the election of President Reagan, describes in his American Dynasty the Bush family's rise to wealth and power through crony capitalism: the use of contacts obtained in public service for private profit. Phillips argues the Bushes don't disfavor big government as such: merely that part of it that regulates business, maintains the environment or aids the needy. Subsidizing oil-well drilling through tax breaks, which made George H. W. Bush's fortune, or bailing out financial institutions, such as Neil Bush's bankrupt Silverado Savings and Loan, however, is a good thing.
This deficit spending also helps Bush avoid the debate on national priorities we would have if these expenditures were being financed through higher taxes on a pay-as-you-go basis. After all, we're not paying the bill now; instead, it will come due far in the future, long after today's policy-makers are out of office. And this debt is being incurred just as the baby boomers are about to retire. In January 2004, Charles Kolb, who served in the Reagan and George H. W. Bush White Houses, testified before Congress that, at a time when demographics project more retirees and fewer workers, projected government debt will rise from 37 percent of the economy today to 69 percent in 2020 and 250 percent in 2040. This is the sort of level one associates with a Third World kleptocracy.
Even worse than this extravagance are the administration's unprecedented intrusions into our constitutional privacy rights through the Patriot Act. If it does not violate the letter of the Fourth Amendment, it violates its spirit. To cite two examples, the FBI has unchecked authority through the use of National Security Letters to require businesses to reveal "a broad array of sensitive information, including information about the First Amendment activities of ordinary Americans who are not suspected of any wrongdoing." Despite the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable search and seizure, the government need not show probable cause: It does not need to obtain a warrant from a judge. And who can trust any law enforced by John Ashcroft, who single-handedly transformed a two-bit hubcap thief like Jose Padilla first into a threat to national security and then, through his insistence that Padilla, an American citizen, could be held without charges, into a Constitutional crisis?
All this stems from Bush's foreign policy of preemptive war, which encourages war for such vague humanitarian ends as "human rights," or because the United States believes another country may pose a threat to it. Its champions seem to almost joyously anticipate a succession of wars without visible end, with the invasion of Iraq merely its first fruit: former Bush appointee Richard Perle, from his writings on foreign policy, would have us war against nearly every nation that he defines as a rogue. The ironic consequence of this policy to stabilize the world is greater instability. It reminds me of the old FDR jingle from the Daily Worker:
I hate war, and so does Eleanor,
But we won't feel safe until everybody's dead.
To be sure, there's more than enough blame to go around with the Congress' cowardly surrender to the Executive of its power to declare war. The Founding Fathers, who knew war from personal experience, explicitly placed the war power in the hands of the Congress. As James Madison wrote over 200 years ago:
"The Constitution expressly and exclusively vests in the Legislature the power of declaring a state of war… The separation of the power of declaring war from that of conducting it is wisely contrived to exclude the danger of its being declared for the sake of its being conducted."
But since the Korean War (which the Congress defined as a "police action" to avoid using its war powers), war has been waged without its formal declaration. Thus Congressional power atrophies in the face of flag-waving presidents. Perhaps Congress is too preoccupied with swilling from the gravy trough that our politics has become to recall its Constitutional role as a co-equal branch of government, guarding its powers and privileges against executive usurpation. The Congress has forgotten that the men who exacted Magna Carta from King John at sword point instituted Parliament to restrain the executive from its natural tendency to tax, spend and war.
Moreover, there is nothing conservative about war. As Madison wrote:
"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. [There is an] inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and…degeneracy of manners and of morals…No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
By contrast, business, commerce and trade, founded on private property, created by individual initiative, families and communities, has done far more to move the world forward than war. Yet faith in military force and an arrogant belief that American values are universal values still mold our foreign policy nearly a century after Woodrow Wilson, reelected with a promise.
of keeping America out of World War I, broke faith with the people by engineering a declaration of war within weeks of his second inauguration.
George W. Bush's 2000 campaign supposedly rejected Wilsonian foreign policy by articulating both the historic Republican critique of foreign aid and explicitly criticizing Bill Clinton's nation-building. Today, the administration insists we can be safe only by compelling other nations to implement its vision of democracy. This used to be called imperialism. Empires don't come cheap; worse, "global democracy" requires just the kind of big government conservatives abhor. When the Wall Street Journal praises the use of American tax dollars to provide electricity and water services in Iraq, something we used to call socialism, either conservatism has undergone a tectonic shift or the paper's editors are disingenuous.
This neo-conservative policy rejects the traditional conservative notion that American society is rooted in American culture and history—in the gradual development of American institutions over nearly 230 years—and cannot be separated from them. Instead, neo-conservatives profess that American values, which they define as democracy, liberty, free markets and self-determination, are "universal" rather than particular to us, and insist they can and should be exported to ensure our security.
This is nonsense. The qualities that make American life desirable evolved from our civil society, created by millions of men and women using the freedom created under limited constitutional government. Only a fool would believe they could be spread overnight with bombs and bucks, and only a fool would insist that the values defined by George W. Bush as American are necessarily those for which we should fight any war at all.
Wolfowitz, Perle and their allies in the Administration claimed the Iraqis would greet our troops with flowers. Somehow, more than a year after the president's "Mission Accomplished" photo-op, a disciplined body of well-supplied military professionals is still waging war against our troops, their supply lines and our Iraqi collaborators. Indeed, the regime we have just installed bids fair to become a long-term dependent of the American taxpayer under U.S. military occupation.
The Administration seems incapable of any admission that its pre-war assertions that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction were incorrect. Instead, in a sleazy sleight of hand worthy of Lyndon Johnson, the Administration has retrospectively justified its war with Saddam Hussein's manifold crimes.
First, that is a two-edged sword: If the crimes of a foreign government against its people justify our invasion, there will be no end of fighting. Second, the pre-war assertions were dishonest: Having decided that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, the policymakers suppressed all evidence that it did not. This immorality is thrown in high relief by the war's effect on Iraqi civilians. We have no serious evidence of any connection between Iraq and 9/11. Dropping 5000-pound bombs on thousands of people who had nothing to do with attacking us is as immoral as launching airplanes at an American office building.
To sum up: Anything beyond the limited powers expressly delegated by the people under the Constitution to their government for certain limited purposes creates the danger of tyranny. We stand there now. For an American conservative, better one lost election than the continued empowerment of cynical men who abuse conservatism through an exercise of power unrestrained by principle through the compromise of conservative beliefs. George W. Bush claims to be conservative. But based upon the unwholesome intrusion into domestic life and personal liberty of his administration and the local governments who imitate it, George W. Bush is no conservative, no friend of limited, constitutional government—and no friend of freedom. The Republic would be better served by his defeat in November.
Outstanding. I admit - I find it incredibly hard to argue with any of these points. I have repeatedly sent letters to the White House as well as to the Republican National Committee voicing these concerns. Primarily the financial irresponsibility is a chief complaint of mine. Another is the fact that President Bush favors amending our constitution to win a cultural question. The constitution of the US tells the government how it can and cannot act and how to conduct its business, not the people - and I find it truly repugnant.
Unfortunately, Kerry isn't a great alternative. Especially in the spending area - Kerry is about restricting private property by increasing taxes and increasing spending. The list of promises he has made already would explode our budget - and even a reasonable increase in taxes on the wealthy wouldn't come close to paying for it all. A vote for Bush isn't what I'd like it to be from a conservative point of view - but a vote for Kerry is a vote for increased socialism, less individual liberty, reduced private property rights, and more government intrusion into the every day life of the private citizen.
Aside from his perjury and lack of backbone for leading (by constantly polling to see how he should act and what he should do), Clinton was a much better choice than Kerry could ever be. Where are all the good Democrat candidates?!?!?!
Also – I can understand how constant war, with no end in sight, is a true threat to individual liberty. I’m happy to say that as war continues – war fatigue grows – and the American People will eventually demand that it either end or we do something else. It was this way in Vietnam. Right now the President is having a hard time keeping his popularity and support for his military actions up enough to hold on to power. Such is the wonder and greatness of our society. But at this time, Kerry is unable to define how he is substantively different from Bush except in ways that are questionable to most Americans – like taking Osama Bin Laden to court for murder. Maybe, in fact, it is a more sensible approach to dealing with the master mind terrorist – but it is not being received well by the voters.
Would anyone like to discuss any particular points in the article or my response? I find these rare and wonderful opportunities to learn a lot.
Now - as we have all been able to post more and more ad homonyms - would anyone care to discuss what Axxxr (inadvertently?) posted? Yes, Axxxr - even you're welcome to chime in here with your own opinion. Don't be afraid. Take a position and defend it with logic and evidence. Try it ... I think you'll like it. What about the article that you posted is most damming of the Bush administration (even if you do have to go back and actually read what you copied and pasted)? I dare you!
Now - as we have all been able to post more and more ad homonyms - would anyone care to discuss what Axxxr (inadvertently?) posted? Yes, Axxxr - even you're welcome to chime in here with your own opinion. Don't be afraid. Take a position and defend it with logic and evidence. Try it ... I think you'll like it. What about the article that you posted is most damming of the Bush administration (even if you do have to go back and actually read what you copied and pasted)? I dare you!
I don't we need to discuss any of my "own opinions" with you patrick,I think we have discussed enough and it should be pretty clear to you know where i stand on this issue.Oh and trust me i did read the article before i "copied and pasted"it so there's no point in wasting my time,As i have more important things to do.there is only so much time i can spend in this thread.
Now - as we have all been able to post more and more ad homonyms - would anyone care to discuss what Axxxr (inadvertently?) posted? Yes, Axxxr - even you're welcome to chime in here with your own opinion. Don't be afraid. Take a position and defend it with logic and evidence. Try it ... I think you'll like it. What about the article that you posted is most damming of the Bush administration (even if you do have to go back and actually read what you copied and pasted)? I dare you!
I don't we need to discuss any of my "own opinions" with you patrick,I think we have discussed enough and it should be pretty clear to you know where i stand on this issue.Oh and trust me i did read the article before i "copied and pasted"it so there's no point in wasting my time,As i have more important things to do.there is only so much time i can spend in this thread.
Cheers man!!
I didn't think so.
I'm very happy that there are some people here willing to have a discussion with people who don't agree with them. But I'm curious as to what it must be like to only to preach to the choir? Any sense of accomplishment or purpose? But you're not willing to share your opinion and DEFEND it so I guess you won't waste your time trying.
As for anyone else - this one has to be almost too easy. I'll be monitoring this thread (as usual) so if you want to take some of the very good points inadvertently posted by Axxxr in the previous article - I'd sure love to discuss them. I know I can learn a whole lot here.
I'm very happy that there are some people here willing to have a discussion with people who don't agree with them. But I'm curious as to what it must be like to only to preach to the choir? Any sense of accomplishment or purpose? But you're not willing to share your opinion and DEFEND it so I guess you won't waste your time trying.
As for anyone else - this one has to be almost too easy. I'll be monitoring this thread (as usual) so if you want to take some of the very good points inadvertently posted by Axxxr in the previous article - I'd sure love to discuss them. I know I can learn a whole lot here.
I've told you that there is nothing futher to discuss between you and me!We have had our little debate and its enough now.which part of that do u not understand?.I have more important things to do on esato than to talk about politics.in case you forgot this is a mobilephone forum!.Now stop your cheap sarcasm and move on.
[addsig]
On 2004-08-06 19:25:24, axxxr wrote:
I've told you that there is nothing futher to discuss between you and me!We have had our little debate and its enough now.which part of that do u not understand?.I have more important things to do on esato than to talk about politics.in case you forgot this is a mobilephone forum!.Now stop your cheap sarcasm and move on.
Sorry, I didn't mean to offend. I know I can be very pushy and thick-headed. It's one of the reasons I like to debate with people as it tends to humble me when I'm wrong (which happens once in a while ).
And thank you for taking time out to respond to me. I appreciate it.
Just curious - when you created this Political Thread and responded to others who agreed with your apparent opinion of Bush and continued to discuss things - were you spending too much time here? Oh, and just in case it wasn't clear - one doesn't have to spend hours online like I do (as I have no life) to post their opinion and defend it. One can look up an issue and get some facts and type a few short paragraphs once in a while instead of just blindly cutting and pasting articles from elsewhere.
And as for the "Sarcasm"??? I'm not sure what you're talking about. If I were being sarcastic wouldn't I say something like ...
Quote:
Wow, Axxxr is always writing such eloquent responses to questions posed to him/her, always willing to engage in intelligent debate with those who disagree with him/her, and always able to defend his/her opinions so persuasively!
Yes - that is sarcasm.
So - Anyone care to take the political thread Axxxr started and discuss politics in it?
_________________
Thanks for taking the time to read my post.
Check out JibJab.com
[ This Message was edited by: Patrick-in-CA on 2004-08-07 15:37 ]
(Reuters) -- One of presidential candidate John Kerry's Vietnam war comrades, who had appeared to back off his criticism of Kerry's war record, recanted Friday and said, yes, in fact he did question whether the U.S. senator deserved his medals.
Last week at his nominating convention, Kerry painted himself as a decorated war hero capable of leading the nation in troubled times and a man better qualified to be commander-in-chief than President Bush.
That portrayal of his time as commander of a Navy Swift Boat sparked a heated exchange this week between those who support him and those who question that image.
This week a group calling itself the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth launched a television spot accusing the Democratic candidate of betraying his country by speaking out against the war when he returned home.
On Friday, a member of that group who was one of Kerry's supervisors in Vietnam, George Elliott, appeared to back off an earlier affidavit in which he suggested Kerry did not deserve the Silver Star. In the affidavit, he said, "I was never informed that he had simply shot a wounded, fleeing Viet Cong in the back."
In Friday's Boston Globe, Elliott was quoted as saying: "It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words. I'm the one in trouble here."
Elliott told the Globe Kerry did deserve the medal.
Playing golf
Inundated with calls to verify the statement, Elliott grew media shy and said through his wife he would not talk. Earlier in the day, Mrs. Elliott said her husband was playing golf and would call back when he returned in the afternoon.
Elliott later issued another affidavit -- witnessed and notarized -- this time saying he was misquoted by the Globe and reaffirming his belief that Kerry has "not been honest about what happened in Vietnam."
Elliott also wrote: "Had I known the facts, I would not have recommended Kerry for the Silver Star for simply pursuing and dispatching a single wounded, fleeing Viet Cong."
Martin Baron, editor of The Boston Globe, said in a statement: "Regarding George Elliott's statements on John Kerry's military service, which ran in the Globe this morning, the Globe stands by the article. The quotes attributed to Mr. Elliott were on the record and absolutely accurate."
Next week the group will step up its campaign against the candidate with a book, "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry."
Veterans supporting Kerry called the ad a "smear campaign" and two whose lives were saved by Kerry hit back.
"What these people have said is not true and a lot of it is grossly inaccurate," said James Rassmann, who has appeared at many campaign appearances with the candidate.
"These gentlemen appear to be making this up as they go along and they are not keeping their stories straight," he said.
Fred Short, who also served with Kerry, said the ad shows "The Bush campaign has nothing to talk about, so they resort to these dirty tricks."
Meanwhile Republican Sen. John McCain, another Vietnam veteran, called the attack dishonorable and dishonest.
The Bush administration distanced itself from the advertisement Thursday but did not condemn it. "We have not and we will not question Sen. Kerry's service in Vietnam," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan.
(Reuters) -- One of presidential candidate John Kerry's Vietnam war comrades, who had appeared to back off his criticism of Kerry's war record, recanted Friday and said, yes, in fact he did question whether the U.S. senator deserved his medals.
Looks like the guy is standing by his original searing criticism of Kerry ...
Quote:
Last week at his nominating convention, Kerry painted himself as a decorated war hero capable of leading the nation in troubled times and a man better qualified to be commander-in-chief than President Bush.
See - it's Kerry who took us back to Vietnam and insisted his military record was a qualification in his bid for the presidency.
Quote:
Elliott later issued another affidavit -- witnessed and notarized -- this time saying he was misquoted by the Globe and reaffirming his belief that Kerry has "not been honest about what happened in Vietnam."
Elliott also wrote: "Had I known the facts, I would not have recommended Kerry for the Silver Star for simply pursuing and dispatching a single wounded, fleeing Viet Cong."
Martin Baron, editor of The Boston Globe, said in a statement: "Regarding George Elliott's statements on John Kerry's military service, which ran in the Globe this morning, the Globe stands by the article. The quotes attributed to Mr. Elliott were on the record and absolutely accurate."
Yep - the guy stands by his original criticism of Kerry - charging that his killing of a wounded Vietnam youth who was running away from him shouldn't have qualified him for a metal.
And in addition to that - 21 recipients of the nations highest honor, the Congressional Medal of Honor, have backed President Bush and expressed sharp criticism of Senator Kerry and his Vietnam record. Please see: Bush lauded by Medal of Honor winners
.
So Kerry gets some veterans to follow him on his campaign tour and make speeches about how he is such a war hero. That makes his Vietnam war record open to review and criticism. And when we take a closer look it isn't as cheery as Kerry would have us believe. In fact the PT Boat veterans group shows a picture that Kerry is showing in his campaign and claiming the people pictured are his "Band of Brothers" while only one person in the picture (other than Kerry himself) support his bid for the White House. The others in the picture are not supporting him and indeed many of them are sharply critical of Kerry and his leadership abilities as well as his conduct while in Vietnam and after as a member of "Vietnam Vets Against the War".
I guess one can only conclude that he shouldn't have made his Vietnam war record a central piece of his campaign! Anyone care to discuss?
_________________
Thanks for taking the time to read my post.
Check out JibJab.com
[ This Message was edited by: Patrick-in-CA on 2004-08-07 15:41 ]
Posted: 2004-08-06 00:52
