1. Bush supporting independents attack Kerry's military record. Bush stays silent. In retaliation, a Kerry supporting independent group attacks Bush's miltiary 'record'. Kerry condemns the ad. Who did the right thing? John Kerry, whether you support him or despise him did the right thing.
I think Bush did the rigt thing since its illegal to coordinate with 527s. Kerry was one step shy of violating election law when he started condemning that ad, and he asked Bush to demand the Swiftvet ad be pulled, a clear violation of election law.
2. In 2000, again, independent Bush supporting groups ran ads against John McCain- firstly accusing him of the the same things that Kerry was accused of, and secondly, attacking the fact that John McCain had adopted a Vietnamese child.
McCain was accused of faking injuries and making up stories about Cambodia? I don't think so.
3. American troops commited atrocities in Vietnam. End of story. Kerry, in the early 70's highlighted these atrocities. Unpatriotic? Backstabbing? No. Fast forward Iraq 2004, Lynsey England and the Iraqi torture photos show that American troops commited atrocities in Iraq. It happens, hell British troops did the same thing for years. That is not the point, NO-ONE should criticise anybody, whether a civilian or military personel, for highlighting lapses in sanity under pressure in war-zones.
John Kerry said atrocities "Took place one a day to day basis" with "full knowledge at all levels of command." This was a lie. Yes atrocities happenned, but to proclaim it all as part of a coordinated effort to brutalize the Vietnamese people is disgusting.
4. Kerry does not deserve to be attacked over his military record, and neither should Bush. They both deserve to be attacked and attack each about their policies in relation to the race for the presidency.
If Kerry makes his war record the core of his campaign, then his service is fair game.
