2 things…

1) Reasoning with the delusion is a waste of time.

2) Hal only pipes up when he knows you have a point. His sheer volume is evidence he knows the criticism is hitting the mark.

The louder he whines the more in trouble he knows Kerry is in.

2) Go back and read the President’s SoU from 2025: ” Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.”

3) The critique on the WMDs is fair–we thought they there were there, but we haven’t found them, same some evidence of programs.

4) I can accept the argument on a Qaeda to a point–and I will agree that Cheney in particular exagerrated that claim.

5) You know that I disagree with you, as I have on it, as to the degree to which actionable 911 wanring existed. Beyond telling me that they should have done better, you never really told me how.

None of this rise to the level of the war criminal/war hero dichotomy. Pointing that out is dragging him down–it is a legitimate issue (which you haven’t answered, btw).

You mean Bush can’t have it both ways? Mission accomplished, yet 4x more dead after the statement? Imminent threat, yet not even a whiff of WMDs? Al Qaeda connections, yet not even a shred of evidence? 9/11 warnings, yet no explicit instructions so he couldn’t do anything?

Really, now. Me thinks you should apply the same analysis to your own candidate. But you can’t, so it’s easier to drag someone down than to raise up your own guy.

Again, what a way to win.

However, you still miss the point, as you do with the Gore situation: it isn’t about the internet, Lovestory, PBJs or even Viet Nam: it is about broader behavioral patterns which these anecdotes underscore.

In Kerry’s case it is symbolized by the quote: “I voted for it, before I voted against it” (and yes, I understand how the Senate works, and while no doubt a technically true statement, it is poor way to present the situation). Beyond symbolism, the problem is well defined by the fact that Kerry wants to be both a war hero and war criminal who came back and told the truth and redeemed himself. You simply can’t have it both ways–and Kerry often wants it both ways (and it isn’t just anti-Kerry folks who have noted this fact).

Look. The right needs to neutralize Kerry’s service record. It does so by trivializing it. You’re helping out in this effort in your own small way. So, “You Guys” really fits the bill. No cabal membership card required.

The reason it’s reached the level of the absurd is because y’all have done an extremely amazing job of making it so.

Witness the “I invented the internet” flap with Gore. Something twisted into the absurd by a giddy bunch of school ground bullies out on the playground smoking. Or the whole “Lovestory” issue.

You’re just doing the same thing to Kerry. Focussing on the trivial, expanding it beyond recognition so the clueless are fooled into thinking it’s a real issue.

I have no doubt it will work.

But gee, what a way to win.

Why point out the VN connection?

You miss the point or are being obtuse on purpose. Futher, I wish you would stop to “you guys” routine. I am not part of a cabal, I post what I want to post based on my own views.

The point is that the Kerry seems to patologically need to mention Viet Nam, or hadn’t you noticed?

Really, now. This is pretty much at the level of a third grade playground, ain’t it? Imagine a man in Vietnam, out in the jungle, surrounded by the finest of millitary cuisine.

I simply can’t imagine that ANYONE would fall in love with PBJ in that situation, much less trade frequently for them.

You guys are so clever.