[GAsux]

Hmmm let's see.

#1.) I love how the Republicans are going to use Kerry's "protesting" as a campaign issue. Let's be honest. Who on earth has a more valid reason to protest a war than a person who actually fought it? Sure hippies are great and well intentioned and their cause is admirable. But their opposition to war in general is purely theoretical. I don't understand why anyone remotely thinks its an issue that a man who witnessed war first hand, and had legitimate first hand experience upon which he could base his opposition, actually did so. Gee what a dick he is. He actually FOUGHT in the war, saw it first hand, and concluded that it was wrong and came home to protest against it in the hopes of saving others from having to do what he did. Yeah, what a shady guy. He should have stayed home, helped run campaigns in the South, and dick around in the National Guard for a while so that 40 years later he could say "Well I WOULD HAVE gone if they asked me.". Bush's stand on Vietnam is clearly MUCH more credible.

#2.) There are mountains upon mountains of evidence that document the kinds of activities Kerry claimed. Indiscriminant bombing, random artillery strikes on civilian populations, the indiscriminate use of harmful chemicals, and on and on. The fact that such things happen certainly does not demonstrate the fact that every Vietnam soldier was a baby raping murderer, but to deny the existence of such acts is naive at best and outright dishonest at worst.

#3.) Based upon this gem of journalism, I suppose one is to assume that Kerry is obviously going to lose because he's now lost the support of Vietnam Vets everywhere who hate him for serving his country like they did and coming home to voice his opposition to it. I'm pretty sure they'd much rather lend their support to a proven warrior with combat experience like Dubya who's already demonstrated his willingness to go to bat for the people currently "defending freedom by denying them pay raises, funding for quality of life issues, etc.