[saab95]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Nah! I'm expecting Hillary to ride in on a white charger.

How about on her hubby's pecker instead? LOL

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by saab95:
So that's how badly the Democraps want to lose the election, huh?

hell, you hafta figure they don't care. I mean, they haven't told Kerry to stop pretending he's the DNC's candidate.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Polit..._040425-1.html


I still think he's grand. VOTE KERRY!

Here's a firsthand account.

I watched Kerry throw his war decorations

By Thomas Oliphant _|_ April 27, 2004

WASHINGTON
ON THE WAY to the fence where he threw some of his military decorations 33 years ago, I was 4 or 5 feet behind John Kerry.

As he neared the spot from which members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War were parting with a few of the trappings of their difficult past to help them face their future more squarely, I watched Kerry reach with his right hand into the breast pocket of his fatigue shirt. The hand emerged with several of the ribbons that most of the vets had been wearing that unique week of protest, much as they are worn on a uniform blouse.

There couldn't have been all that many decorations in his hand -- six or seven -- because he made a closed fist around his collection with ease as he waited his turn. I recall him getting stopped by one or two wounded vets in wheelchairs, clearly worried that they wouldn't be able to get their stuff over the looming fence, who gave him a few more decorations. Kerry says he doesn't remember this.

It is true that Kerry was one of the veterans group's "leaders," but in this eclectic, aggressively individualistic collection of people who had been through a pointless war, there were no privileges of rank. Kerry was in the middle of a line of perhaps 1,000 guys -- only a third or even less of the total who had assembled on the Washington Mall that astonishing week.

At the spot where the men were symbolically letting go of their participation in the war, the authorities had erected a wood and wire fence that prevented them from getting close to the front of the US Capitol, and Kerry paused for several seconds. We had been talking for days -- about the war, politics, the veterans' demonstration -- but I could tell Kerry was upset to the point of anguish, and I decided to leave him be; his head was down as he approached the fence quietly.

In a voice I doubt I would have heard had I not been so close to him, Kerry said, as I recall vividly, "There is no violent reason for this; I'm doing this for peace and justice and to try to help this country wake up once and for all."

With that, he didn't really throw his handful toward the statue of John Marshall, America's first chief justice. Nor did he drop the decorations. He sort of lobbed them, and then walked off the stage.

Some people have written secondhand accounts of that day stating that Kerry at that moment also threw "medals" that had been given to him by a couple of vets who were not there. I remember Kerry doing that later in the day after the event had broken up. He was in the company, for part of that time, of a small group of Gold Star Mothers (who had lost sons in the war). In addition to the events involving the military decorations, the veterans also held a tree-planting ceremony near the Capitol and attended congressional hearings on civilian casualties of the conflict.

From what I could observe firsthand about Friday, April 23, 1971, Kerry did not make even the slightest effort to pretend that he was throwing all of his military decorations over that fence. He did what he did in plain view, and in my case in the view of someone close enough to kick him in the shins.

It was clear to me that Kerry had arrived here with only the ribbons he wore on his shirt -- which, by the way, were referred to as "medals" by the late Stuart Symington of Missouri, one of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee members present for his famous antiwar statement.

While the idea of turning back decorations had been talked about prior to that week, there was no clear plan when the veterans arrived. The night before, the men had had a long, loud argument about whether to throw their stuff or simply place it on a long table in front of the Capitol. I watched Kerry argue for the less dramatic approach and lose.

[...]

I have always found the political junk served up by Kerry's detractors to be undignified as well as largely inaccurate.

I write now because the political junk is much higher profile now, though no less misleading -- and not, by the way, because in her fourth job in the public arena, my daughter just joined Kerry's staff. I just happened to be there that long-ago day. I saw what happened and heard what Kerry said and know what he meant. The truth happens to be with him.

I know that a lot of partisan zombies around here will dismiss him offhand because of those last two paragraphs.

Oh well, none is so blind as he who won't see.

BlackGriffen

P.S. I apologize, but I really have trouble trimming this down to essentials, because, as far as I can tell, Mr. Oliphant has a good economy of words, weaving a tightly integrated picture that doesn't really stand being cut into bits and pieces. I could have trimmed the last two paragraphs, but if I did the Bush-a-trons would just bring it up and shallowly accuse me of trying to hide it (when I made it one click away by linking it), so I'm saving space in the end.

[voodoo]

Well not only has this been much ado about NOTHING it has also been DEBUNKED!

BlackGriffen is awarded ***SMACKDOWN*** on the topic starter.

[Zimphire]

So a shill's account is proof? heh.

He said he threw other people's medals across as well. People that had asked him to.

Smackdown revokinated.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
So a shill's account is proof? heh.

He said he threw other people's medals across as well. People that had asked him to.

Smackdown revokinated.

Sorry, you don't have a say in the issue.

Smackdown stands.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Sorry, you don't have a say in the issue.

Too late.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Too late.

To hinder your derailing?

Unfortunately. It is pathological and sad. Seek help mkay?.

[Zimphire]

Er, I am speaking about the topic voodoo. The only person trying to derail here is you.

BTW that tactic doesn't work anymore. Ask Adam Betts.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Er, I am speaking about the topic voodoo. The only person trying to derail here is you.

BTW that tactic doesn't work anymore. Ask Adam Betts.

Tactic? Voices in your head? Paranoia? Are everybody conspiring against you?

Am I close?

Lies won't make reality different Zimphire. BlackGriffen ended the discussion with that super-debunker. Smacked down the ultrarightwing "religous" zombies so forcefully it must have been felt physically by them

You lose.

[Zimphire]

No

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Tactic? Voices in your head? Paranoia? Are everybody conspiring against you?

Am I close?

Lies won't make reality different Zimphire. BlackGriffen ended the discussion with that super-debunker. Smacked down the ultrarightwing "religous" zombies so forcefully it must have been felt physically by them

You lose.

One person's unverified story makes it all false? Pulease.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
One person's unverified story makes it all false? Pulease.

Well if one person would have verified Bush's stay in the National Guard - even if that person would have been Dick Cheney, I'd have said it pretty much ends the discussion. So yeah ONE man's UNVERIFIED story makes all the difference. Especially on a computer forum. This isn't a court of law.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
One person's unverified story makes it all false? Pulease.

Exactly.

BUT IT WAS A SMACKDOWN!1one!11

[MacGorilla]

This thread is getting old....ooooooold

[BRussell]

Check out the cover of US News this week.



Bush, who had strings pulled by powerful friends to get out of Vietnam so, according to him, he wouldn't have to hide in Canada, and who then failed to perform adequately even in his National Guard service, is depicted in military uniform.

Kerry, who volunteered for service in Vietnam, won a Bronze Star, a Silver Star, and three Purple Hearts, is depicted in civilian clothes.

That damn liberal media!

[Zimphire]

Pretty sad in order to make yourself look good, you must try to make those surrounding you look bad.

[BRussell]

Huh? I don't get what you mean, Zimphire. Are you talking to me? You talkin ta me!?

[stupendousman]

Originally posted by voodoo:
I'm sorry but all this brouhaha about who threw whose medals where and when just isn't interesting. Nor is it important.

If it is important to you, seek help.

If whether or not the next President is a man who holds a stance based simply upon which target market he's courting, and will flop and lie when called on it (regardless of the subject matter) has no meaning to you, then it's you that needs to seek help.

At least Dean was crazy, but principled. While I'd never vote for that kind of guy, I did at least respect him.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by stupendousman:
If whether or not the next President is a man who holds a stance based simply upon which target market he's courting, and will flop and lie when called on it (regardless of the subject matter) has no meaning to you, then it's you that needs to seek help.

At least Dean was crazy, but principled. While I'd never vote for that kind of guy, I did at least respect him.

Have you ever arranged the truth to look better than you are? OK, what was the problem again?

[Zimphire]

I've lied before too. But does that somehow justify it as being ok?

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Check out the cover of US News this week.



Bush, who had strings pulled by powerful friends to get out of Vietnam so, according to him, he wouldn't have to hide in Canada, and who then failed to perform adequately even in his National Guard service, is depicted in military uniform.

Kerry, who volunteered for service in Vietnam, won a Bronze Star, a Silver Star, and three Purple Hearts, is depicted in civilian clothes.

That damn liberal media!

It's not the "liberal media", it's the piss poor candidate. Maybe you can see if Dukakis will run again?

[stupendousman]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Have you ever arranged the truth to look better than you are? OK, what was the problem again?

Again...in English?

[voodoo]

Originally posted by stupendousman:
Again...in English?

Hey if Zimphire understands what I'm talking about - and he never does - I think you're just playing dumb.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Hey if Zimphire understands what I'm talking about - and he never does - I think you're just playing dumb.

He said once you where filled with hate. You said *that* was a personal attack.
It seems to be that he was just being perceptive.

You just called him "Dumb".
What was that? A compliment?

Now play a game of semantics with me....

[voodoo]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
He said once you where filled with hate. You said *that* was a personal attack.
It seems to be that he was just being perceptive.

You just called him "Dumb".
What was that? A compliment?

Now play a game of semantics with me....

Zimphire says a lot of things. So do you.

I actually was quoting and referring to stupendousman and implied that he was 'playing' dumb. Are you too?

I'm sure your post had a point but it disappeared in a puff of pot

[mr. natural]

Posted by SimeyTheLimey:

Isn't it interesting how people cling to discredited and debunked election year "stories?"

What's worse is shamelessly defending a silver spoon fed drunkard who opted out from putting his ass anywhere near the line of fire when his country asked for it, and then turning the other cheek when it comes to a similar tempest about the guy who actually did serve with his ass hanging out in real fire fights.

From Lerk's Bush AWOL thread, Simey wrote: "The bottom line is that Bush got his honorable discharge. That's the military's way of signalling to the world that he completed his obligations. No other proof is needed with this veteran, or any other."

If Bush's bottom line is good enough for you, one would think on military service principle alone you would be saying the same about Kerry. But, NO, you reveal yourself as a complete hack when it comes to any professed outrage over "mocking" anyone who serves in uniform. (Never mind even those who die in a war torn situation while out to make a good buck. Remember the Italian? )

As Wesley Clark wrote in today's NYTimes:

John Kerry was awarded three Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star and a Silver Star for his service in Vietnam. In April 1971, as part of a protest against the war, he threw some ribbons over the fence of the United States Capitol.

Republicans have tried to use this event to question his patriotism and his truthfulness, claiming he has been inconsistent in saying whether he threw away his medals or ribbons. This is no more than a political smear. After risking his life in Vietnam to save others, John Kerry earned the right to speak out against a war he believed was wrong. Make no mistake: it is that bravery these Republicans are now attacking.

Although President Bush has not engaged personally in such accusations, he has done nothing to stop others from making them. I believe those who didn't serve, or didn't show up for service, should have the decency to respect those who did serve � often under the most dangerous conditions, with bravery and, yes, with undeniable patriotism.

So, Simey, when will you be writing: "This is a complete non-story," as you did about all the questions regarding Bush's service?

Apparently, just like the rest of the Republican attack machine, you have no shame when it comes to playing the military service card as it suits you. :

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by mr. natural:
What's worse is shamelessly defending a silver spoon fed drunkard who opted out from putting his ass anywhere near the line of fire when his country asked for it, and then turning the other cheek when it comes to a similar tempest about the guy who actually did serve with his ass hanging out in real fire fights.

From Lerk's Bush AWOL thread, Simey wrote: "The bottom line is that Bush got his honorable discharge. That's the military's way of signalling to the world that he completed his obligations. No other proof is needed with this veteran, or any other."

If Bush's bottom line is good enough for you, one would think on military service principle alone you would be saying the same about Kerry. But, NO, you reveal yourself as a complete hack when it comes to any professed outrage over "mocking" anyone who serves in uniform. (Never mind even those who die in a war torn situation while out to make a good buck. Remember the Italian? )

As Wesley Clark wrote in today's NYTimes:

John Kerry was awarded three Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star and a Silver Star for his service in Vietnam. In April 1971, as part of a protest against the war, he threw some ribbons over the fence of the United States Capitol.

Republicans have tried to use this event to question his patriotism and his truthfulness, claiming he has been inconsistent in saying whether he threw away his medals or ribbons. This is no more than a political smear. After risking his life in Vietnam to save others, John Kerry earned the right to speak out against a war he believed was wrong. Make no mistake: it is that bravery these Republicans are now attacking.

Although President Bush has not engaged personally in such accusations, he has done nothing to stop others from making them. I believe those who didn't serve, or didn't show up for service, should have the decency to respect those who did serve � often under the most dangerous conditions, with bravery and, yes, with undeniable patriotism.

So, Simey, when will you be writing: "This is a complete non-story," as you did about all the questions regarding Bush's service?

Apparently, just like the rest of the Republican attack machine, you have no shame when it comes to playing the military service card as it suits you. :

Have I ever said Kerry's service was in any way dishonorable?

No I have not.

Actually, I have a lot of respect for his service. I might question what he did or said after his service, but that's separate. His record in Vietnam is, as far as I am concerned, admirable.

So please take your personal attacks elsewhere. If you find someone's comments about his service in the military objectionable, please address them to that person. Don't just lob your venom at me.

[Mister Elf]

So he threw away a few TOD (tour of duty) completion awards. Big deal. How is that a protest...no one cares about those anyway. They look for silvers, bronzes, hearts, and CMH's.

[mr. natural]

Posted by SimeyTheLimey:

Have I ever said Kerry's service was in any way dishonorable?

Not exactly, but from your knee jerk GOP POV this is still a *legitimate story* worth as much dirty air time as possible, yet when the shoe was on the other foot you wrote:

This is a complete non-story.

You do know what "hypocrite" means; basically you've proven yourself to be a shameless two-faced A-hole when it comes to upholding any professed standard of military honor...

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by mr. natural:
You do know what "hypocrite" means; basically you've proven yourself to be a shameless two-faced A-hole when it comes to upholding any professed standard of military honor...

Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee


portd.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by mr. natural:
Not exactly, but from your knee jerk GOP POV this is still a *legitimate story* worth as much dirty air time as possible, yet when the shoe was on the other foot you wrote:





You do know what "hypocrite" means; basically you've proven yourself to be a shameless two-faced A-hole when it comes to upholding any professed standard of military honor...

Nice ad hominems.

The distinction is that Bush was accused of a crime -- being AWOL. Factually, he wasn't AWOL, and the charge was always a "complete non-story."

Kerry, on the other hand, isn't being accused of anything in regard to his service. All that people are asking is why his story on what he did during one of his protests after his tour in Vietnam is inconsistent. He has said several things regarding what he did, or did not throw over the White House fence. The issue isn't what he did, it's whether he is telling the truth about what he did. That's why those noted Republican attack dogs in the media like Charlie Gibson are interested. It's always a legitimate story when a candidate says one thing one day, and another the next about a factual event that can only be one way in reality.

I'm not going to respond to your pottymouth. If you can't debate without calling people names, that's your problem. My position basically refutes your charge in any case. I have never attacked Kerry for his Vietnam Service no matter what you might imagine. In fact, i have said the exact opposite.

Oh, and here is a recent thread where I said that an attack on Kerry was a non-issue: http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...08#post1946823

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by mr. natural:
Not exactly, but from your knee jerk GOP POV this is still a *legitimate story* worth as much dirty air time as possible, yet when the shoe was on the other foot you wrote:





You do know what "hypocrite" means; basically you've proven yourself to be a shameless two-faced A-hole when it comes to upholding any professed standard of military honor...

That was uncalled for.

[mr. natural]

Posted by SimeyTheLimey:

The issue isn't what he did, it's whether he is telling the truth about what he did. All that people are asking is why his story on what he did during one of his protests after his tour in Vietnam is inconsistent.

How is this any different of folks asking about what Bush did during his National Guard tour? Oh, right, Bush never answered this "Gotcha" game, so he gets a free pass.

I'm still waiting to hear you say: "This is a non-story."

Did you throw your ribbons over the fence or was it your medals?

How patently non-story can you get?

(Except if you are a two-faced A-hole.)

Gotcha!

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by mr. natural:
How is this any different of folks asking about what Bush did during his National Guard tour? Oh, right, Bush never answered this "Gotcha" game, so he gets a free pass.

I'm still waiting to hear you say: "This is a non-story."

Did you throw your ribbons over the fence or was it your medals?

How patently non-story can you get?

(Except if you are a two-faced A-hole.)

Gotcha!

uncalled for and tacky.

[ink]

Originally posted by stupendousman:
In politics, you've either got to be honest, or a good liar.

Bush avoids lying by not saying much. Bill Clinton was a good liar. John Kerry is not.

It's ALGORE2000 all over again

Except that Al Gore had morals and prinicples. Kerry is just a yes-man with no charisma.

How did he beat Dean again?!?!

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by ink:
How did he beat Dean again?!?!

with a really big Ketchup bottle.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by ink:
Except that Al Gore had morals and prinicples. Kerry is just a yes-man with no charisma.

How did he beat Dean again?!?!

I respectfully disagree. The similarities between Gore and Kerry morally and principally is very similar. Why shouldn't it, they come from a very similar past, fought in the same war and became very politically engaged in the Democratic party after their tour of duty. Kerry is IMO vasry charismatic. He has a sympathetic look about him and a calm but firm demeanor. When he talks he usually does so without script and from the heart. Much like Dean - just without the manic glee

I am curious as to why you label Kerry as a yes-man.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by mr. natural:
How is this any different of folks asking about what Bush did during his National Guard tour? Oh, right, Bush never answered this "Gotcha" game, so he gets a free pass.

I'm still waiting to hear you say: "This is a non-story."

Did you throw your ribbons over the fence or was it your medals?

How patently non-story can you get?

(Except if you are a two-faced A-hole.)

Gotcha!

Grow up.



On second thoughts, I will take a second to explain why the Kerry story is different from the Bush AWOL line, and why one is, at least at the moment, legitimate, while the other is not. This isn't for mr pottymouth above. He obviously isn't in the mood to be reasonable. But just for the record since my assumption that this was obvious was obviously wrong.

There are three broad differences that I see:

Corroboration.

Bush was accused of not fulfilling certain duty requirements. In the piece of my post that pottymouth excerped I pointed out that Bush had the only corroboration of his service that any veteran requires if the character of his service is questioned. He has his honorable discharge. That's an objective, contemporary, certification by a government body that his service was up to standard. Once he showed that, the story should have ended.

In the case of Kerry, there is no corroboration from the government. He's being asked aboiut inconsistent statements he has made about what he did or did not throw during a protest. The government did not issue him any kind of receipt for the items thrown. So we don't have an objective, contemporary certification. So what he said about it is an issue when what he has said has been inconsistent.


Duty v. Truthfulness

Bush was questioned about whether or not he had fulfilled his duty obligations. Kerry isn't being questioned about his duty obligations. He is being questioned about what he said about a voluntary act of protest after his duty obligations were over.

The difference is that the Kerry story is not about his military service. His military record isn't being challenged whereas Bush's was. So the conduct at issue isn't the same.

Private life v. Public Record

Bush was accused of misbehavior in his private life before he entered public life. To refute these charges, he had to produce private documents and to prove something that is realistically impossible for people in such a situation to prove (which is why the military issues honorable discharges -- to definitively answer such questons).

Kerry is being asked about A. a public act of protest made after he had entered public life as an anti-war group leader. And B. (most particularly) inconsistent statements he has made about that act while he has been in public life as a candidate and officeholder. So it is his public record at issue, not his private life.

A counter-example where I would defend Kerry.

You could change these fact around and come up with things that would, in my view, not be worthy of raising as a campaign issue. One, for example, would be the questions being raised about Kerry's first Purple Heart. I don't think that those are legitimate questions for the same reasons I don't think that the Bush AWOL story was legitimate. Kerry has contemporary corroboration from the Navy (his certificate), it's an attack on whether he did his duty when there is no official record to question it, and it occured in his private life. So I'd call that a non issue. But this story about his inconsistent statements made in public life about his public acts should be explained by the candidate.

[stupendousman]

Originally posted by ink:
[B]Except that Al Gore had morals and prinicples. Kerry is just a yes-man with no charisma./B]

Al Gore? The guy who went from moral crusader/abortion foe to a left wing nut in order to get to higher office, and then consistently exagerated about his accomplishments and tried to change who he was in order to get people to view him credibly?

You must know another Al Gore.

[stupendousman]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
I know that a lot of partisan zombies around here will dismiss him offhand because of those last two paragraphs.

Why would it be disimissed? It only further serves to illustrate that Kerry was lying to garner favor, and now is attempting some really pathetic damage control that hasn't worked much.

Oliphant claims that he saw Kerry throw awards over the fence.

When Kerry was asked in 1976 if he gave back back his medals, he stated "Well, and above that, [I] gave back the others."

While courting labor, he claimed to have thrown his awards over the fence.

Either he gave everything as he implied in 1976, or he didn't. If he did, then he lied when he said he did'nt.. If he didn't, he lied when he claimed he did.

"Republicans have tried to use this event to question his patriotism and his truthfulness, claiming he has been inconsistent in saying whether he threw away his medals or ribbons."

Which is TRUE, and why Kerry is having such a hard time spinning otherwise.

It's hillarious how when Kerry's record or honesty is being challenged, it's always diverted into a challenge against his "patriotism". It's a transparent ploy and really doesn't work IMO. One of these days Kerry is simply going to have to take a stand, act like a man, stick to a story, and be honest. Otherwise, he's never going to be President.

[djohnson]

Originally posted by stupendousman:
It's hillarious how when Kerry's record or honesty is being challenged, it's always diverted into a challenge against his "patriotism". It's a transparent ploy and really doesn't work IMO. One of these days Kerry is simply going to have to take a stand, act like a man, stick to a story, and be honest. Otherwise, he's never going to be President.

This is why he will never be President.

[Spliffdaddy]

among other reasons.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
On second thoughts, I will take a second to explain why the Kerry story is different from the Bush AWOL line, and why one is, at least at the moment, legitimate, while the other is not . . .

I think that's a reasonable analysis, but I'll play devil's advocate and add the following:

I was always satisfied with Bush's Honorable Discharge as evidence that, as far as the service was concerned, he fulfilled his obligations. Nor do I condemn him for going into the Guard instead of going to Vietnam - I can't do that unless I'm prepared to say that I would've done differently. However, despite the HD, I don't think it's illegitimate to inquire as to what a Presidential candidate actually did in the service, and whether he distinguished himself or was a slacker. Everyone then has the right to decide for themselves whether it's important. I don't think we should draw a line and say "Everything before this date is of no interest, and everything after is." We have a legitimate interest in knowing a candidate's background and life experience.

Another example is Bush's drinking problem. It's of interest not only because it happened, but because he overcame it, so it reflects both weakness of character and strength. And although it happened many years ago and not even hardcore Democrats are going to base their vote on it, along with all the other things we know about him it gives us a degree of insight into the totality of the person, which is of legitimate interest. Like Rush Limbaugh's drug abuse, it's also weighed against the conservative tendency to moralize and condemn others for similar transgressions.

The same goes for Kerry. The fact that he served in combat and served bravely does reflect on his overall character and tells us that he has more insight into the realities of war and might have more personal courage than Bush or Cheney (although it could also be argued that such experience could be a detriment rather than an advantage in a political leader, who must often make dispassionate military decisions). Similarly, even though they happened so long ago, his anti-war activities help us understand his total make-up. Some people believe he was traitorous, while others believe he demonstrated further courage and conviction. That's democracy - put it all out there and let people make their own judgments based on their own life experiences.

I think it's all relevant to a degree, I think the real question is how much weight we put on it. I think an argument could be made that although Bush got his HD, what he actually did in the service is of more import than whether Kerry threw his medals or his ribbons or whether he made inconsistent statements about it ten or twenty years later. I'm more interested in the fact that he participated in a public protest than in what he actually threw or what he has said about it. I think inconsistent statements are worth noting, but one has to keep them in perspective - Kerry is, after all, a politician. Kerry's spinning over the course of 40 years is of little more interest to me than Bush's incomplete and inconsistent statements about his drunk driving - I expect them both to spin things. Hell, I still laugh when I think of Bush standing up and saying at one of the 2000 debates: "I'm an environmentalist."

I think it mostly comes out in the wash anyway. People who lean towards Kerry for policy reasons are going to dismiss the unseemly stuff; ditto for Bush supporters. It just tends to reinforce our preconceptions and gives us something to throw in the other side's face. I don't know anyone who's actually going to vote based on Kerry's inconsistent statements about ribbons or medals, or any of Bush's similar spin jobs about his background.

[BRussell]

In related news, George W. Bush has been caught lying about his college years according to this.

A good deal of massaged memory seems to have slipped into these two little paragraphs from Ron Suskind�s review of Karen Hughes�s new book, Ten Minutes from Normal. Bush�s Yale transcript shows no course called �History of American Oratory.� And the underappreciated athlete couldn�t have played varsity rugby because there wasn�t any varsity.

I find this lie to be outrageous and it's typical that the media have been covering this up for their man George the flip-flopping liar.