Keith Devens .com

"I've had thorns from a rose that were worse" than
Kerry's wound for which he received a Purple Heart,
Hibbard told the Boston Globe in April.

And that's Kerry's fault because why? Maybe somebody should be looking at each and every one of President Bush's purple hearts and asking if he deserves them, too.

As for the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth"... don't you find it strange that that so many people can actually remember serving with Kerry, whereas it seems to be very hard to find twenty people who will say they remember serving with President Bush?

It's also unfair to assume that someone's character flaws have not healed over the last 30 years. Compare the President Bush then, with the one you know now: http://www.tylwythteg.com/enemies/Bush/bush4.html#partied

Forgive me if this is over the top, I'm an Aussie, and it all looks quite strange from over here.

And that's Kerry's fault because why?

There's a real question of whether he deserved at least his first Purple Heart. See here and here. But look, Kerry's the one making a big deal about his military service. I don't think it's very relevant to becoming President that he happened to serve in Vietnam for four months 35 years ago. And, I think it's much worse that he subsequently threw his medals away than that he may not have deserved one of them in the first place.

...don't you find it strange...

Not really. There's a big difference between serving with someone in combat and being in training or in the reserves with someone. Also, Bush moved around a bit and served with different units, though AFAIK people have come forward who remember serving with him. The false assertion that Bush was AWOL (or whatever) has been conclusively proved false, yet Kerry just the other day was parroting that line.

It's also unfair to assume that someone's character flaws have not healed over the last 30 years.

Well, you have to make that judgement. With Bush, he's clearly reformed, he's overcome his problem with alcoholism, etc. With Kerry, he's as anti-war and anti-military as he ever was. His record in the senate has been consistent over time. There are no signs that he has changed.

... I'm an Aussie, and it all looks quite strange from over here.

Nevertheless, it appears to me that you've clearly chosen which candidate you support.

(note, I edited the last line to more clearly word it)

Bush wasn't AWOL, there's a question as to if he served his time. This matter hasn't been resolved as the White House refuses to release all the required documents.

"The president and his staff are doing a very good job of convincing the public he has released all of his National Guard records and that they prove he was responsible during his time in Alabama and Texas. But the critical documents have still not been seen. The mandatory written report about Bush's grounding is mysteriously not in the released file, nor is any other disciplinary evidence. A document showing a "roll-up," or the accumulation of his total retirement points, is also absent, and so are his actual pay stubs. If the president truly wanted to end the conjecture about his time in the Guard, he would allow an examination of his pay stubs and any IRS W-2 forms from his Guard years. These can be pieced together to determine when he was paid and whether he earned enough to have met his sworn obligations."

He said he'd release everything, he did so on National TV, and he hasn't. You'd have to ask that if this were a whole load of nonsense why would they try to frantically hold onto something as trivial as paystubs?

As the the Kerry Swift boat stuff, it's from the same people who brought the nation Ken Starr and the John McCain smears in 2000.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2004/05/04/swift/index.html

Both of which died on their feet when they were properly examined and found lacking.

Keith, the point isn't whether he deserved the purple hearts or not. He'd never have been awarded them if the upper brass didn't think he was deserving for the wounds.

Anyway, what's the point of this argument? It seems so petty and, well, pointless. And anyway, being the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces isn't exactly a job you can be qualified for. The only qualification for the job is being elected President, and the only way to judge is on-the-job performance. And anyway, his potential performance at that part of the job is completely (and I mean completely) independant of his performance as a day-to-day president.

And why is it ok for a citizen to disagree with their country's regime, but not a soldier, especially concerning a war?

The issue Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have with Kerry, is NOT about Bush. They have repeatedly emphasized that they represent all political ideologies, ranks and walks of life. Had Kerry not published the book, "Tour of Duty", last January, you probably would never have heard of these people. They have genuine concerns, based on having served with him.

The Swifties made it crystal clear yesterday in their press conference that they are coming forward only because John Kerry cannot and will not confront the errors of his ways and admit that his involvement with the Leftist VVAW as a huge mistake. He also refuses to take responsibility for throwing away his medals, another mistake and a huge slap in the face to his band of brothers.

John Kerry is a manipulative parser of words in the mold of Bill Clinton. Please remember this as you consider who you should vote for. This country needs a leader with Character, Pricinples, Integrity and Morals. John Kerry, in every measure that I have seen, comes up short in all of these metrics.

John, if you have any manly fiber, admit the true and correct the record. Give these brave men from the Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth the dignity and respect they have earned. You campaign is showing its true colors by trying to smear them. Your campaign, and YOU, are doing exactly what you condemn. But that is typical for a liberal. The rules apply to everyone but you.

Bypassing the obvious nonsense that this isn't political Mr Closs, when it's obvious that in an election year it certainly is politically motivated, I'd like to point out to you that November isn't about Kerry's record, it's about Bush's time in office and if the electorate think he's done a good enough job as to give him another term.

You could run Satan in November, and if the people are not happy with the direction the country was headed in Satan would win.

Nevertheless, it appears to me that you've clearly chosen which candidate you support.

I can see why you might come to that conclusion, but no, I haven't "chosen" a candidate to support.

Partly this is because I am too far from the issues to develop an informed opinion, and partly because Australians don't get to vote for The Leader of the Free World

However, it would be right to say that I am less than impressed with Bush's policies, stance or performance on several issues. I'm not sure Kerry would do any better.

Thanks for being free with your opinions.