[Atrocities]

Well, all the reports I've seen say that it is merely possible that the documents are forgeries, which is a moot point, since a graphics suite on a computer is more than capable of re-creating a document in the style of a typewriter, flaws and all. If these documents were presented in a criminal case, it would be about 50/50 chance that a judge would admit them into evidence (depending on how solid the forgery arguement is), and in a civil case, they certainly would be admitted as evidence. Because it apparently cannot be proven one way or the other, the burden is on the Bush Administration to convince everyone that they are false, not simply claim it and expect it to be so.

I tend to agree.

Bush should talk about his service record because it is part of his character. Past history has a large influence on current behaviour, and that is a very important thing to consider when giving a person authority over one of the largest militaries in the world.

Indeed, my point exactly about Kerry. www.swiftvet.com clearly state that he is unfit to command. Who better to judge a man by his past service record then the men who served with him.

And Bush has been the president for four years now, so this debate about his service record is mute. It should have been an issue in 2000, but it was not. It is mearly pay back by the DNC over what the Swift Boat Vets had to say about Kerry.

Additionally, why knock Bush when Clinton out and out fled the country to avoid duty in Vietnam. That issue clearly cracks this arguements foundation that Bush is not fit to lead the country. And Clinton's decision to leave to avoid duty has never been disputed. In fact it worked for him in his 1992 bid for office.

So in essence, what the DNC is saying is, "What is good for the goose is not good for the gander." This kind of attitude really annoys me because it seems to be how the DNC thinks. Bush never attacked Kerry's military record, the swift boat vets did, and the DNC cried like little spoiled rotten children over it. Now, in pay back, the DNC is attempting to whip up a debate over Bush's service record at the very same time that CBS comes out with its story and more likely than not, fake documents.

Most people are not fouled by this text book example of a "COOKED" story designed by the DNC as pay back over the Swift Boat Vets stance against Kerry. It is cheap politics and mud slingling at its best. A brillant manuaver to be sure, but never the less one that clearly demonstrates why the DNC should be denied the White House for the next four years.

Clinton recommended not bringing up military service because he knew that was an invitation for more attacks on Kerry because of his actions as a war protestor.

Clinton is a smart man and they should have listened to his recommendation. He did win two terms you know.

Kerry, as far as I have seen, has only been calling for Bush to release his full service records, like Kerry has already done.

Kerry too has not released his full service records. But I agree, if Bush has not, then he should.

There hasn't been any attacks coming from Kerry along the lines of "Bush is a coward for joining the ANG instead of going to war with the rest of us". Other liberal Groups are calling it another form of draft dodging, and saying that Bush was a spoiled kid (most likely true) that had strings pulled to get out of an uncomfortable situation (evidence is leaning toward this).

I think both men grew up with a silver spoon in their mouths. And yes, strings were pulled for bush, but no more than what has been done for other rich kids who went on to be senators and such. This really is a pointless arguement. It should have been an issue in 2000.

These attacks have also been coming for years, before Bush was even elected... not just when CBS runs a story on some memos about Bush's "service".

The authenticity of these memo's is in question. Therefore they should be viewed as a mute point until they can be proven real.

The Swift Boat ads, by comparison, were flat out lies and slander (the doctor who "treated" Kerry, the men who "served with" Kerry but in a different area of Vietnam, etc) concocted by a group that is probably just pissed off that Kerry didn't think that war was such a great thing after returning.

The book "Not Fit For Command" has been on the NY Best Sellors list for over two weeks now and Kerry has said nothing about it. He has offered no rebuttle to the statements in the book, nor has the DNC been able to question it.

The DNC has however, come out and attacked the SBV's and taken statements out of context. This has been proven and repeatedly embarassed the DNC.

Kerry made his service a part of his run for the office. Bush did not make his service an issue in the 2004 election other than to say that he is proud of his time as a TexANG'er.

And I personally think anyone who believes war can be a good thing needs their head checked; this includes several in the Bush Administration, all of which, I may point out, have never been in a war.

I would like you to list names and proof that they think War is a good thing. Additionally, FDR had never served in a war nor had many of his administration. The same thing goes for Clinton. I think in this regard the point of view that because they have never been in a war disqualifies them to run the county is wrong.

And finally, I believe I've made it clear in other Posts that I don't like Kerry as President either. I think both of them are not good for the job, but as the current election system favors only one of the two getting the job, I would rather Kerry give it a shot than have Bush continue screwing things up (while being on vacation, no less!) for four more years.

I say this, if Kerry is elected, then we will most likely have him and his lawsuite happy vice president for eight years. Given Kerry's record, and the fact that he has been in office for over a decade and done nothing about the very issues he now says he will do something about, just announces that he is not the right man for the job.

If Bush wins, we only have to deal with him for four more years and then perhaps the DNC can offer us a valid canadate for President. We all know that Dick won't run, and if he did, he would not win.

I say pick the battle, go for 2008. Better to suffer four more years of Bush than eight years of Kerry.