"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article t,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

The Un-Kerry: Meet John O'Neill, the Vietnam vet who once debated
John
Kerry
on The Dick Cavett ShowFreeRepublic.com
"A Conservative News Forum"

snip unreadable quoting

I guess serving in the military is bad according to the Bush campaign.

I don't think so. I think trotting out one's service in the miltary
when
you've fought in a war you despised is a bit odd.

One does not preclude the other.

It's even more odd when all the Democrats seem to be syaing you can't
challenge his patriotism because he was a war hero.

No, you shouldn't challenge his patriotism just because he objected to
the Vietnam war.

It doesn't strike you as odd that the current Democrat part is made up of
people who overwhelmingly oppsed the Viet Nam war, but have a decorated
vetran of that war as their
persumtive nominee?

The war hero and military service part simply
strengthens this point.

Only if it's as he's reported it. That seems somewhat clouded now.

But it's fair to challenge Bush on his miltary service?
If that's fair then going after Kerry's service in Viet Nam and his
subsequent
avtivities after, are fair game.

I think when there are such questions as those raised by both O'Neil and
Kerry deserve to be investigated.

Vietnam war crimes? I don't expect that to happen soon, maybe after the
9/11 commission finishes its job.

Shouldn't they have been investigated when he admitted to them?
I'd say it's way overdue.

Kerry has declared himself to be a war criminal.

If you twist his words hard enough, that is.

No twisting at all, he flat out admitted to war crimes, or was it
atrocities?