Redstate

An epilogue, also worth reading:

Epilogue to Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry by John E. O'Neill and Jerome R. Corsi

http://www.learnedhand.com/kerryunfitepilogue.htm

John has a better take.

I wish Col Day luck, but he's about to find out how little a Medal of Honor is worth.  By the time the media is done with him people will taking up contributions for a statue of Benedict Arnold in the mall.  Somebody should suggest or get a press release writer of Nobel proportions for dumb and nasty David Wade,why do they all sound the same?  Wade, the moron, could have least left out the bit about "hero" Kerry.  But then he probably thinks the Medal of Honor is someting you win at the County Fair for best apple pie.   P.S.  trivia moment; drop the Congressional before M of H, ther's no such animal or authorized use.

when?

Oh, that is right, he never did, despite his promises that he had, that he would and that he did.

A gigilo Senator vs. a real hero who really did report for duty.

I hope the real hero cleans Kerry's clock.

a portion of his records.

It is now known that President Bush's class-ranking at Yale was higher than that of Sen. Kerry's.

about where they Kerry campaign sued these people first.

Jon Bjornson, M.D. v. Carlton Sherwood and Red, White and Blue Productions, Inc., Vietnam Veterans Legacy Foundation and NewsMax

Another "Winter Soldier" has brought a lawsuit claiming that he was libeled by Carlton Sherwood's documentary Stolen Honor. In a complaint filed August 25, 2005, nearly a year after Stolen Honor was released, a man named Jon Bjornson alleges that Stolen Honor implied he was a "fraud and a liar" who made up stories of atrocities by US soldiers in Vietnam in order to deceive the American people. Bjornson's name was never mentioned in Stolen Honor.

Represented by the same counsel representing Kenneth Campbell in his defamation lawsuit against Carlton Sherwood, Bjornson has sued not only Sherwood but also the VVLF and its board of directors. Four members of the VVLF's board are veterans who served more than five years each as POWs in North Vietnamese prisons. The VVLF did not yet exist when Stolen Honor was put together and released.

Kenneth Campbell v. Vietnam Veterans Legacy Foundation and NewsMax

Also on August 25, 2005, Kenneth Campbell initiated a legal action against the VVLF and NewsMax for which the complaint is not yet available.

Kenneth Campbell v. Carlton Sherwood and Red, White and Blue Productions, Inc.

On October 18, 2004, just two weeks before the 2004 Presidential election, a libel lawsuit was filed in Philadelphia by a Vietnam veteran and antiwar activist in an attempt to prevent the public from seeing Sherwood's documentary film Stolen Honor. Stolen Honor addressed John Kerry's antiwar activities and showed how Kerry's Senate testimony alleging war crimes and atrocities by U.S. troops resulted in the additional mistreatment of U.S. POWs by their North Vietnamese captors.

The plaintiff, Kenneth Campbell, claims that he was defamed by Stolen Honor, even though he is never identified in the documentary. Campbell is allegedly shown for a few seconds as he appeared more than 30 years ago at the "Winter Soldier" hearings held in Detroit, Michigan by the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW), where he testified about war crimes and atrocities that he said he personally committed or witnessed while in Vietnam. Campbell now alleges that Stolen Honor implies that he lied about those war crimes and atrocities. The lawsuit is now in the discovery phase and trial is not expected until next year. We will provide regular updates on the history and progress of the lawsuit. Read the docket of the lawsuit here.

George Butler, Swift Boat Film, LLC and Winter Film v. Sinclair Broadcasting, Red, White and Blue Productions, Carlton Sherwood and John Doe 1-62.

On October 21, 2004, a copyright infringement lawsuit was filed in New York City by George Butler and others claiming that they owned the copyrights to the documentary films "Winter Soldier" and "Going Upriver: The Long War of John Kerry" and other photos used in Stolen Honor.

Plaintiffs allege that defendant Sherwood was infringing those copyrights by using portions of the films and other photos in Stolen Honor, and that Sinclair Publications would also infringe on the copyrights if it showed Stolen Honor on its television stations around the country. The plaintiffs sought an injunction that would preclude the defendants from using excerpts of any of these works in any manner, including by showing Stolen Honor on the Sinclair television stations. The plaintiffs also sought unspecified damages and attorneys fees, including the disgorgement of any and all profits realized from Stolen Honor.

And everything now known shows him to be the poultroon he was thought to be.

When your enemy is down, kick him in the throat.

In other words, John's wrong. So are you.

How's that for a drive-by?

This is a great use of our court system.  

They wanted to make political points.  Kerry fought back.  Now they want to sue him.  Great.  

Sorry if I don't feel a lot of pity for someone who wanted to play the political smear game and got smeared.

I guess they forgot the part about where they Kerry campaign sued these people first.

No they didn't. It's all here.

I presume you are speaking of Mr. Wade.

these men for the sacrifices they made for our country.  

But that doesn't mean they get a free ride in the world of politics.  It's a brutal world where smears are the norm.  Why should they expect a free pass.

This is a frivolous suit.

No doubt about it Ronnie Earle makes a much better use of our court system, especially the grand jury part.  I suspect that after six years of being a prisoner of the soldiers of Ho Chi Minh, unforgetably the George Washington of his country, and considering what he's done with his life,icluding since war's end, Col Day can get by without pity.  Poor Kerry's problem,among many, is that when he should have fought back he didn't, that is, when the ads first came out.  Inexplicable, not really.  The dope realized that he had stepped into manure with Shrum's strategy of War Hero first and foremost.  Shrum, who is a strategist like H C Minh is the George Washington of his country, then sealed his stupidity for all time by advising Kerry,desperately searching for something that would give the appearance of beliefs, not to respond.  Kerry would have been better off letting the Mrs do the talking, at least she was funny.

I couldn't care less about John Kerry.  

If you guys want to get all worked up over this lawsuit, knock yourself out.

In a parallel universe not far from Kerry's house on Nantucket John F. Kerry actually did win the 2004 election by a 99 to 1 percent landslide. The Army Core of Engineers is reworking Mount Rushmore for a likeness of big John. They may have to remove Lincoln to do it, but what the hey, we're talking John Kerry here. Congress has just authorized the use of Kerry's picture on the billion dollar bill and Indonesia has just celebrated the grand opening of the first Muslim chapter of the John Kerry International Fan Club and Surf Shop.

Babies are laughing, birds are singing and beautiful music is floating down from the sky....ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...

I refuse to disparage the service of either man.  Both Kerry and Colonel Day deserve to have their service honored.

hanged if he traveled to tokyo in 1944 rather than paris in 1971-2.

I mean, Sinclair was the one that actually made the decision not to show the documentary, based on widespread grassroots boycott threats against advertisers. We should sue them too. For, you know, defamation. Or conspiracy.

The media will soon enough be telling us that Sherwood is a "serial liar" too. Well, Sherwood's investigation of the "mismangement" of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund for WDVM was retracted on air by his apologetic employer (to ward off a lawsuit), and contradicted by a GAO report. But "serial liar" is pretty harsh; how about Moonie shill?

Tell me again how you guys are against frivolous lawsuits. Tell me again how the conspiracy charges against DeLay were a joke. Tell me again how Moore should sue Bush because people boycotted F9/11. Oh wait, that would be ridiculous.

The SwiftVets went public only because John Kerry was running for President.  O'Neill has passed up many opportunities to confront Kerry in Massachusetts elections.  The bottom line is simple, O'Neill and Bud Day spoke up only because the know that Kerry is unfit to be the commander in chief.

While the Kerry campaign was able, with the complicit help of the NYT and the major networks, to blow smoke around the charges made by the SwiftVets they were never able to disprove one of them.  In fact, they had an opposition research team working to smear these real war heros who simply wanted the truth told.

This suit will likely not see the inside of a court room, nor will the suits filed by the Kerry accolates.  They will probably be mutually dismissed amid smoke and mirrors.  If they go to court, Kerry will have real problems because his spin-meisters won't be able to keep the unvarnished truth out of the court records.

We shouldn't give scoundrels a free pass just because they served in the military. Lee Harvey Oswald and Timothy McVeigh both served. Would you give Lynndie England or Leandro Aragoncillo a free pass? I have family and friends serving in Iraq and I fully support them and their mission so I am not ant-military.

What John Kerry did to his fellow soldiers was treason.

John Kerry worked the system in Vietnam to get an early out.  The most he deserves is to be ignored for his service, it was nothing special for the short time he was there.

For his service after Vietnam, working actively with the VC and NV while still an officer in the Naval Reserve he should have been tried as a traitor.  And Jimmy Carter should have been impeached for complicity in allowing his rank and "medals" to be restored.

The SwiftVets went public only because John Kerry was running for President.  O'Neill has passed up many opportunities to confront Kerry in Massachusetts elections.  The bottom line is simple, O'Neill and Bud Day spoke up only because the know that Kerry is unfit to be the commander in chief

IOW, you completely agree that O'Neill & Co. were completely politically motivated in their attacks on Kerry.

Because to some people the Swift Boats weren't a 527.  They were a group of patriots that were simply doing the right thing for our country.  

Thank God Kerry lost the election. It was the easiest decision I ever had to make votingwise - including 1998's Engler/Fieger race.

Nick, I'm not sure how to interpret your post -- maybe I'm having an off day. Kerry and his cronies filed the first lawsuit and several more, trying to silence the Swift Boat Vets and POW's For Truth. The page you linked to makes that quite clear. I posted a letter from John O'Neill and some other information on the matter at Some People Who Helped Us Dodge A Bullet Last Fall Need Our Help Now

make sure you watch 60 minutes Sunday night,Louis Freeh,guest.   Something about a President rather than seek permission to have terrorists questioned on Saudi soil opted to ask for $$ donations instead.Maybe we'll talk Monday.

Can we please move on?  The election is over, the Vietnam war is over, the 60s and 70s are over, and, really, there are more important issues of the day.  

BTW, I've read the complaint purely out of professional interest.  I wouldn't hold my breath for a Swift Vet victory on this one.  Pretty thin gruel (though the fact that they got Buchannan Ingersoll to file it suggests that they're still well funded).

I assume you will contend Kerry gave "aid and comfort" to the enemies of the US.  Right.  Because he gave anecdotal testimony of actrocities that were never refuted, or was it because he may have exaggerated some war wounds?

Even better, you could Google up America's declaration of war with France that covered the 1971-72 period.

C'mon, your guy won.  Cut it out.

> IOW, you completely agree that O'Neill & Co.

> were completely politically motivated in their

> attacks on Kerry.

Just the opposite. O'Neill said during the campaign, that if John Edwards was the Democrats' presidential nominee, you'd have never heard a peep out of John O'Neill, and probably not the other Swift Boat Vets either.  He had no dog in that fight. He only cared about John Kerry.

It was also bad timing for O'Neill. He'd just donated a kidney to his wife, and they were both recovering from surgery.

Just the opposite. O'Neill said during the campaign, that if John Edwards was the Democrats' presidential nominee, you'd have never heard a peep out of John O'Neill, and probably not the other Swift Boat Vets either.  He had no dog in that fight. He only cared about John Kerry.

What relevance would John O'Neill have in trying to defeate John Edwards?

is John wrong? I dont see Kerry as particularly down - delusional, yes, with respecct to 2008 aspiration - but not down. Kicking him in the throat might be fun (I confess that theres part of me that might enjoy it). But what purpose does it really serve?

I really dont get the point of it, thats all.

You are free to draw the conclusion that they were politically motivated only because John Kerry is a politician.

I believe they were motivated by national security concerns because they personally knew John Kerry and had followed his career.  I believe they got involved because they really believed that Kerry was (and is) unfit to command our military.

If it was simply a matter of "political motivation" they would have gotten involved in one of several Massachusetts campaigns they were invited to participate in.  O'Neill specifically said at one point that the only reason he was involved was because Kerry was running for President.  He didn't care one way or another about Kerry serving in the Senate.  Maybe because Kerry spent 20 years in the Senate doing absolutely nothing.

OK.  When the left refrains from trotting out traitors and trying to pass them off as war heros my generation will happily move on.

When the left refrains from propping up mentally disturbed women looking for fame by denigrating everything her son (a real life hero) stood for, we'll move on.

When the left chokes on the "I support the troops just not what they do" mantra, we'll move on.

When somebody of substance on the left (I know, it's an oxymoron) finally admits that the US is a force for liberty and equality in the world, not the cause of all evil, we'll move on.

I for one am not holding my breath.

But that comment was beneath you. We're generally quite fond of you around here, because when you disagree, you do so substantively, you explain why in a succinct manner, and you usually add a different tack than we'd be at or than your standard lefty shill eventually gets at, once he stops eating the tin foil on his head. You generally don't hold up the comments of one of our other Editors, off-site, in a drive-by comment. It was the first time I've seen you act like a regular Kossack in, well, forever.

except that these ind of things tend to just underscore partisan divides and bring out apologias from left and right. Its the kind of thing that hurts us overall.

If there was a real isue at stake, or a crime, I'd see nothing wrong. But this just reads like petty payback. And for what? emotional damage? angst? come on.

Oh look, a corph morph. Back to The Pile™ with you, eh hoser?

visits to paris for meetings with the viet cing while we had soldiers still fighting the VC in country

didn't you know

the only possible legal problem is the 2 witness requirment

really since i don'y know if there were 2 witnesses, i shoulfd look that up again

throw around

look, one cannot do anything and have it not be unpatriotic or treason just because one thinks a war is wrong or they say its for ourown good to lose

the nation elects reps and pres

and it is the obligation of the losers to unite in war against a common enemy

sometimes treason is called for like bonhoeffer in germany

but it is treason

I had to look it up but it fits Kerry like a camo, duck hunting,windsurfing wetsuit.

The left supports the troops.  The left does not support the bureaucrats that are improperly conducting this war.  Even Bill O'reilly admits that this war is not being conducted as it should be.  

We support legislation that requires Donald Rumsfeld to reimburse troops for equipment they were forced to purchase, because he refused to do so.  Is he going to endure criticism for not honoring his legislated duty to provide critical equipment to our soldiers?  The left wishes that bills like these were not required to force the Secretary of Defense to honor his responsibility to the troops.  And, I hope and trust, anyone who puts a "support our troops" magnet on their vehicle feels the same way.

( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/05/AR200510050
1927.html )

Furthermore, dissent with the current governmental administration does not equal treason.  (most especially when it was elected by a percentage of a point.)  

As well, disagreement with your beliefs does not equal treason.  Sometimes, in a democracy, dissent is the highest form of patriotism.  

why you believe the war is not being conducted correctly.....other than O'Reilly's comments.

If all you have is a tin-hat issue with Rumsfeld, your argument is lacking.*

dissent aimed to faciliate deafeat is unpatriotic.

the highest for of patriotism is to kill its enemies that are trying to kill us.

do you want the troops to win?

america is at war

are you with us

or do you love an imagined america that you hope emerges froma defeat?

The left supports the troops.  The left does not support the bureaucrats that are improperly conducting this war.

1. Yeah, right.
   
   
2. The people who left us these disasters should shut their pie-holes with regard to the proper conduct of war.

We support legislation that requires Donald Rumsfeld to reimburse troops for equipment they were forced to purchase, because he refused to do so.

And he refused to do so because Company Commanders in the field were not doing their jobs.  There are regulations against the use by soldiers in the field of non-Government appropriated equipment for a reason and it is not because Rummy wants them all to get killed.  Just saying.

Furthermore, dissent with the current governmental administration does not equal treason.

Perhaps, but Krap like this comes awful close (timely, no?).

(most especially when it was elected by a percentage of a point.)

Ah, so if Bush had won the 2004 election by what, 7-million votes you would all be shutting-up now?  Heck of a straw-man you got there.

Sometimes, in a democracy, dissent is the highest form of patriotism.

It would have been stupefyingly disappointing had you decided to leave out this little Talking Point™.

If John Kerry were a Republican, John O'Neill would try to defeat him. Don't you get it? It's not about politics. The Swift Boat Vets--about 250 of them and Kerry's entire chain of command--wouldn't trust Kerry to run a candy store, let alone the whole American military.

of my first comment, which I foolishly omitted the " ; ) " winky-smiley. Internet text limitations with respect to emotional content, and all that. Because I honestly dont see anything Kossackish in the text of my comment.

let me restate my subject then:

Subject: Sore winnerman? ;) (j/k)

I know teh Miers thing has been rough on you. I admire the principled stance you and Leon especially have taken. Some humor - at your own expense once in qa whihle - really will help. How else do you think I've survived four years of blood for oil?

(another joke.)

When is the Left going to reimburse America for the 6.6 trillion spent on the War on Poverty started by LBJ. After forty years I think we're in quagmire with no exit strategy.

The left should by those new car magnets that say

"We support our troops, but we think what they are doing is immoral and illegal."

Did you get yours yet?

*1. Yeah, right.

Yeah.  Right.

**2. The people who left us these disasters should shut their pie-holes with regard to the proper conduct of war.

Admittedly, I don't know much about the situation in Somalia.  If you would give me some links to some objective backgrounds and history on it, I'd be happy to learn more.  I was in high school at the time Somalia was in the news, and I was thinking much more about sex, sports, and preparing for college.

As for Iraq, it is our disaster. It has been for the last twenty years, and the attempts we've made at spreading freedom and democracy are inevitably leading to civil war.  History is not necessarily repeating itself here, but there are many parallels with the way we handled Iraq in the early 80's.  I think it is practical to worry that we're creating an enemy that will eventually return to haunt us.

Furthermore, in a war, you attack those responsible for the initial attack.  If the September 11th terrorist attacks are the basis for this war, there is no reason why we should be fighting it in Iraq.  It was Afghanistan that had the links to the September 11th attacks, and that was the place we should have invested the bulk of our military resources.  Had we done so, instead of dividing our forces, who knows what we may have accomplished by now?

**And he refused to do so because Company Commanders in the field were not doing their jobs.  There are regulations against the use by soldiers in the field of non-Government appropriated equipment for a reason and it is not because Rummy wants them all to get killed.  Just saying.

I would assume, as the Secretary of Defense, that Rummy has the power to change these rules and ensure that our soldiers are properly equipped.  Again, I don't know much about how the military forms or refines its rules, but it stands to reason that Rumsfeld has the power to take care of this.

Furthermore, if it is as simple as changing a flawed regulation, why is the Pentagon dragging its feet?  Why is Congress forced to intervene on behalf of the soldiers?

**Perhaps, but Krap like this comes awful close (timely, no?).

For you to imply that I agree with disrespecting our Iraqi dead is incorrect.  For disagreeing with the war am I then automatically encamped with these folks?  By the same token, I could imply that you, in your vehement support of the war, clearly support the soldiers who are trading Iraqi death photos for pornography.  So, because you support the war, am I automatically to assume that you support the acts of these degenerates?  Of course not.

You're painting in black and white an issue that is very gray, or purple, and represented by myriad views.  Personally, I don't appreciate the subtle ad hominem attack.  

**Ah, so if Bush had won the 2004 election by what, 7-million votes you would all be shutting-up now?

Admittedly, I would have much more respect for a man who won a clear and undisputed majority.  I found him much more palatable when he purported to be a compassionate conservative during the 2000 election campaign.  If he were the man he'd claimed to be, chances are much less likely that I'd even be having this conversation.

* It would have been stupefyingly disappointing had you decided to leave out this little Talking Point<sup>TM</sup&gt.**

Feel any way you like about it.  We've all seen that majority opinion does not necessarily reflect the most positive course of action.  (ie, the widespread resistance to slave abolition in our country.)  

First, the judicious use of the <end bold> HTML tag might, from time to time, come in handy.

Second - Somalia: The Google can help.  The Reader's Digest Condensed Version goes something like this; people were starving to death, we came, we fed, we elected a new President, we finished feeding, we started nation building, a couple of helicopters got shot down, we bailed, the country has been a basket-case anarchy since then.

Civil War in Iraq:  Inevitable?  If you say so.  Certainly has all the potential to go as well as, say Somalia were we to leave now - but since you don't know much about Somalia,I suspect that's lost on you.  Re-read the preceeding paragraph again.

Rummy:  Lots of assertions for someone who admits to knowing nothing about military procurement.  But sure, he has the power - and there are damn good reasons why he's not exercising it in this case.

For you to imply that I agree...

I made no such implication.

clearly support the soldiers who are trading Iraqi death photos for pornography

Either back that statement up with something not from the moonbat left blogs or widthdraw it - immediately.

The rest is not worth my time at this late hour.

..."basket case anarchy" before we got there, as well as after we left.

And his point in making the extreme ridiculous parallel was precisely that it would be absurd for you to possess that position.

Basket-case?  Most certainly, fair point, good catch.

Anarchy?  Technically, no.

Not entirely certain where you're going with the second part, but it's probably because I just cannot get to sleep and am running below empty right about now...

...but internecine warfare isn't the West's standard of political stability...

Warfare among rival factions within Somalia intensified, and in 1991 Barre was ousted from his power center in the capital by nationalist guerrillas. Soon afterward, an insurgent group in N Somalia (the former British Somaliland) that had begun its rebellion in the 1980s announced it had seceded from the country and proclaimed itself the Somaliland Republic. In Mogadishu, Mohammed Ali Mahdi was proclaimed president by one group and Mohammed Farah Aidid by another, as fighting between rival factions continued. Civil war and the worst African drought of the century created a devastating famine in 1992, resulting in a loss of some 300,000 lives.

A UN-brokered truce was declared and UN peacekeepers and food supplies arrived, but the truce was observed only sporadically. Late in 1992, troops from the United States and other nations attempted to restore political stability and establish free and open food-aid routes by protecting ports, airports, and roads. However, there was widespread looting of food-distribution sites and hostility toward the relief effort by heavily armed militant factions.

Second point isn't my horse; I just thought I'd mention that he was rhetorically exaggerating how generalizing an opponent's position leads to ignorance of each other's points and misunderstandings.  /shrug...

of anything to Africa is always a tricky proposition - but fine.  As I said, it's a technicality.  Dictatorships (even ugly, brutal, violent ones) are not anarchy and that's what Somalia had until about 1991.  Hard to imagine it could get worse than that but they have certainly managed.

On your second, got it.  Thanks.  All I'll say in my defense is that he was using "We" as if he was speaking for "The Left" - which (unfortunately for him) includes some rather unsavory, and noisy, elements he would probably rather care to not associate.  To each his own.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...

And thanks.

I thought it had the 'u'. Since the word sounds French, I just stuck in the extra vowel.

OK.  When the left refrains from trotting out traitors and trying to pass them off as war heros my generation will happily move on.

When the left refrains from propping up mentally disturbed women looking for fame by denigrating everything her son (a real life hero) stood for, we'll move on.

When the left chokes on the "I support the troops just not what they do" mantra, we'll move on.

When somebody of substance on the left (I know, it's an oxymoron) finally admits that the US is a force for liberty and equality in the world, not the cause of all evil, we'll move on.

See, this is exactly the kind of argument that's profoundly uninteresting to me.  I know some folks "on the left" -- folks with whom I passionately disagree on occasion -- and they'd meet each of your "tests".*  That you won't confront their actual beliefs but only a caricature of those beliefs testifies only to your lack of seriousness.  (Admittedly, you have plenty of company in these days of volume over substance.)

By the way:

1. The Republicans win elections by being the adults in the room.  If you descend to arguing the right-wing equivalent of "Bushitler loves Cheney's oil machine," you cease being the adult.  
   
2. The merits of the Swiftvets' current complaint will be decided in a court of law.  Personally, I'm not impressed, but (fortunately for the Swiftvets and their lawyers) they don't need to impress me.  They need to prove their case to a jury -- assuming that they can make it past the judge.  Until they do, their allegations are entitled to no deference.  (The same also holds true for the half-dozen or so complaints that Kerry supporters have filed against the Swiftvets.)

von

*See, e.g., my wife, my grandmother (91 and still fiesty), and several of my good friends.  

"That you won't confront their actual beliefs but only a caricature of those beliefs testifies only to your lack of seriousness."

I am more than willing to take "them" on in any open forum with an extended debate format.  The problem is finding someone willing to have the debate.  My use of "caricature" in the above post is simply a matter of expediency in the belief that the caricatures are clear enough to the watchers that they will convey the meaning of my argument.

To expand somewhat...

Point 1 "trotting out traitors".  I will freely admit that the phrase is an IED.  I would be happy to modify it.  The central point, however, is that a man (Kerry) who spent a grand total of just over three months "in-country" and then made a career of calling Vietnam vets baby killers is not a "war hero".  Then to add insult to injury the Kerry machine attempts to smear Bud Day.  I'll give Kerry his "medals".  It's his actions after Vietnam while still a Navy officer I have a problem with.

Point 2 Cindy Sheehan.  The woman is a flaming moonbat.  Personally, I'm glad to see her on TV because she is so incoherent she hurts "the cause".  I would offer substance here, but it's just so detatched it looks more like a caricature than the caricature.

Point 3 "supporting the troops".  Disclaimer, my son is a recently retired US combat Marine and this is personal to me.  The points you make about "reimbursement" are simply BS.  Support for the troops consists of honoring the mission, and supporting the families at home.  The left does neither of these, and a bill before congresss to throw federal dollars anywhere isn't support.  Support is a personal committment on the order of the committment given by my son and his Marines.

Point 4 speaks for itself.

The biggest problem is finding anyone on the left who is willing to make an argument of substance.  Substance is NOT "this policy [pick any] is a mess".  Substance is "this is what I would do now".  Substance is what Gingrich did in 1994 with the Contract for America.  What we get these days, unfortunately from both sides, is touchy-feely crap.  

Since the word sounds French, I just stuck in the extra vowel.

It's just Kerry who acts French. You spell it the same way, but when you say it out loud you do your best Peter Sellers impression: "Where is that polkkkhrune?"

A not insignificant part of our troll traffic drives by with a comment that doesn't need to be summarized as, "One of your Editors disagrees with you," with a supporting link, then not so much as another word.

no apologies needed. Youre fighting an important fight, ill try to be less random in my off the cuff commentary. Must be the fasting :)

seriously, didnt realize that until now. I just have been a fan of his for ages. Makes perfect sense in hindsight...

The merits of the Swiftvets' current complaint will be decided in a court of law.

Let us not allow the term "Swift Vets" to devolve into meaning "Veterans-in-general who get into some scrape or another with John Kerry."

The group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth was composed entirely of people who had served in the Navy, on Swift Boats, during the Vietnam War. The group was headed by Admiral Roy Hoffman, who commanded the Swift Boats during the Vietnam War. SBVT was organized as a '527' because they knew from the get-go that they were going to be in the middle of a campaign for partisan political office. That group ceased being active right after the election. The Swift Vets "returned to their homes." There is nothing to see there.

The VVLF is not a '527' – it's a 501(c)(3) – and the organizers were POWs – mostly fighter pilots – not Navy Swiftees. Their mission is to do research and produce educational materials about the Vietnam War. They probably never would have gotten into anything with John Kerry except that his guys sued them first. But, if we're going to have lawsuits, and we need to do research, there's nothing quite like the power of subpoena. Kerry wanted this trouble, so let's have him testify under oath about it.

But none of that has anything to do with the Swift Vets.

What we get these days, unfortunately from both sides, is touchy-feely crap.  

Conceded.  And conceded, too, that Cindy Sheehan is a fool.  Indeed, I think you make some excellent points; my only point (and my apologies if I overstated it) was that I see no reason whatsoever to continue to Swiftvet v. Kerry debate.  

Not necessary.  You simply used me as a caricature of a right side argument :>).  A good one at that.

With respect to the lawsuits, I'm more that willing to let the dead (Kerry) stay dead.  The current legal flap concerns, in my less-than-humble opinion, the desire of Kerry and/or his accolites to punish the men they see as responsible for his fall.  From everything I can read it appears that the "counter suits" (not technically correct, but you get the idea) are being employed to stop the Kerry folks.

reporting for duty", has a nice ring to it.

by election time "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" had become "Swift Vets and POWs for Truth", with the POWs being the same ones now involved with VVLF, and John O'Neill recently sent out a letter (I've posted it here) asking those who allied themselves with the Swift Vets last fall to help the VVLF and Carlton Sherwood with legal expenses. It's a worthy cause.