Which is better: a foreign policy with a clearly articulated grand strategy but a f#$%ed-up policy process, or a foreign policy with no articulated grand strategy but a superior policy process?

It is said that in hell, there won't be any vision. Just policy, and the law.

So I envision a John Kerry presidency.

Their is zero evidence Kerry will have a superior policy process. Judging by his action as a senator in regards to Nicaragua, Libya, and Gulf War 1, his instincts are absolutely atrocious. This is the rookie running back syndrome, the new untarnished player always has all the aspirations and expectations of resounding brilliance applied to him. Statistically speaking its nonsense, veterans are far more reliable. In this case the only people making that argument are utterly and intentionally avoiding the last 20 years of Kerry's career like the plague. See no evil, hear no evil.

word.

now I'm just crossing my fingers that Kerry will say something disparaging about the efficacy of sanctions so we can seal the deal and make use of DD's vast influence.

We are still talking about the lesser of evils. John Kerry has been caught lying about spending Christmas 1968 in Cambodia. This lie reveals a very dangerous character flaw. A normal person does not lie about something like this. President Bush may leave something to be desired---but he’s not John Kerry!

We are still talking about the lesser of evils. George Bush has been caught lying about the estate tax among other things. This lie reveals a very dangerous character flaw. A normal person does not lie about something like this. John Kerry may leave something to be desired---but he’s not George Bush!

The fundamental problem with the argument is that if you study policy long enough then you are forced to act. You can nuance this thing to death until the problem forces action on an unacceptable course. Isn't that what the Bush bashers are saying about 911. He studied the problem to long and missed all the signs?

I applaud the President for taking action. Things in Iraq are going rather well and I don't say that lightly. I spent 5 years in Germany as part of the occupying force during a time of terrorist attacking in Europe (we have spent over 50 years in Germany). Where are the European terrorists today?

In just over a year we have turned sovereign rule of Iraq back to the people and life their is improving rapidly. Read the blogs from the Iraqi's, not the media.

Want proof how long WW2 took, read this link.

http://www.kultursmog.com/Life-Page01.htm

The problem with the policy wonks is they want to study the problem to death, find every little problem that they can and then cover their ass if things don't go their way.

Policy people serve an important function, but leaders make decisions and fix problems.

In the spirit of praktike, who is on to something with regard to the revwerse applicability of Kerry criticisms... (And with apologies to Mark B, whose opinions I always respect):

There is zero evidence Bush has a policy process. Judging by his action as a president in regards to Venezuala, North Korea, and Gulf War II, his instincts are absolutely atrocious. This is the incumbent running back syndrome, the old experienced player always has all the aspirations and expectations of steady leadership applied to him. Statistically speaking its nonsense, substandard veterans generally play as they have always played. In this case the only people making that argument are utterly and intentionally avoiding the last year of Bush's career like the plague. See no evil, hear no evil.

Anyone who thinks John Kerry and his magic Cambodian hat is going to accomplish anything with the military is smoking crack.

At least you'll get tenure.

Dan,

Do you even care that Kerry will do and say anything to anyone to get elected? Do you even care that his claimed experiences in Vietnam are largely fraudulent? Do you care that he proposes 2 trillion dollars in increased spending? Do you care that he will appoint leftists to the supreme court?

'Thing in Iraq are going rather well and I don't say that lightly. '

This is clearly some definition of going well with which I was previously not acquainted. By no definition can a situation where we have 140 K troops in Iraq, are spending billions of dollars, face daily attacks, suicide bombings, have a great deal of the population angry at us (according to polls) can be called going rather well.

"I spent 5 years in Germany as part of the occupying force during a time of terrorist attacking in Europe "

AFAIK, there were no terrorist attacks on American troops in Germany after the surrender (and a little mopping up). The only terrorists in Germay were the Baader Meinhoff and they came decades later.

"Read the blogs from the Iraqi's, not the media."

Blogs are a useful window into Iraqi society. But the blogs from Iraq are (as one would expect) very mixed. There are blogs that are strongly pro-American, there are blogs that are fanatically anti-American, there are blogs that support the new Iraqi goverment, and oppose terrorists (but have no particular love for Americans as well) and so on. So blogs show a mixed picture as one would expect.

It need hardly be added that blogs cover a certain segment of population (young, highly educated, probably somewhat secular), and neglect others (tribal and rural areas, poor urban youth and others). While useful, blogs are no substitute for the media in covering much of Iraq.

Bush has a clearly articulated grand strategy? He didn't even have a strategy to deal with Iraq. That's just one country. Maybe his supporters like to think that he has one. I know a lot of warblogger types will take every instance of confusion and incompetence as some sort of secret rope-a-dope strategery. Meanwhile back in the real world. . .

Yes Matthew, a liberal position is sure to get you tenure at The University of Chicago!

You make quite a persuasive argument though. If we're in the business of ad hominems, "We may be smoking crack, but our candidate didn't do coke."

Whereas Kerry may have lied about Cambodia (bad), Bush just doesn't talk about the years where he did cocaine, or talk about his military service, or talk about what his tax cuts really did (I mean, tax shifts) or talk about the real problems in Iraq. So much better than lying.

I repeat that strategy, policy-making process (planning how to implement strategy) and execution/implementation are three different things. It is possible for strategies to be devised outside the policy-making process - President Reagan's strategy for destroying the USSR is an example.

Execution of the NSSC in Europe and much of the rest of the world outside the Middle East has been almost non-existent because the foreign policy establishment is so opposed to large parts of it - our career diplomats openly oppose the war on terror. That means it can only be implemented over their dead bodies. I predict a PATCO moment (Professional Air Traffic Controllers) is coming for the Foreign Service.

Much the same is true for the policy-making process, other than war-fighting, in D.C. The State Department in particular is engaged in active sabotage at this level, though there are other offenders. President Bush's failure to exert any discipline means there is no downside, for bureacracies and individuals, in carrying policy disagreements into disobedience.

Matthew is just setting himself up, so...

Do you, as a conservative, care that Bush has increased spending to the levels he has?

Do you care that he stated in the 2000 campaign that he wouldn't be a nation-builder, and has no 'attempted' to build two nations?

Do you care that he originally said that his tax cuts were to give back the surplus and then, midcourse, decided they were to boost employment?

The list could go on, and some of your statements about Kerry are overblown (I don't think we really know who is right in the SVFT stuff, but to say it's largely fraudulent is a little ridiculous).

The Hack Gap continues.

Parlor Games

PARLOR GAMES....Betting with your friends about whether Bush or Kerry will win the election is so last month. I propose a new game instead: betting on who Dan Drezner will vote for. Right now you can get 3:2 odds against...

Lol AM, touche.

Has Kerry managed to spin up a position on Korea, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Syria, or anywhere else of critical importance yet? Just wondering, seems kinda like somethin he'd want to do, running for president and all. But maybe ill take Dan's course, and just assume he has answers to all of those crises wrapped up in his secret plan, and ill further assume they wont be infantile attempts at appeasement such as he showed in his dealings with the Sandanistas. I think those are very safe bets even if i have no evidence to back them up.

oh, Tom.

In order to be a leader, you have to have followers.

“Whereas Kerry may have lied about Cambodia (bad), Bush just doesn't talk about the years where he did cocaine, or talk about his military service, or talk about what his tax cuts really did (I mean, tax shifts) or talk about the real problems in Iraq. So much better than lying.”

You have absolutely no evidence of George W. Bush ever using cocaine. This is an outrageous slander. As for his military service, he did his duty. Nobody has found legitimate fault. Once again, we are talking about a slander campaign. John Kerry has lied about his own country and fellow soldiers merely to advance his own political fortunes. We are not talking about a minor fib like some man lying about his height being 5”8 when he’s only 5”6. No, Kerry’s lies reveal a dangerous character flaw. We may look the other way, for example, if somebody tells their boss they are sick just to get the day off. But we are appalled if that same person falsely informs everybody that their mother has died. Kerry has comparably lied about the death of his own mother.

We are still talking about the lesser of evils. John Kerry has been caught lying about spending Christmas 1968 in Cambodia. This lie reveals a very dangerous character flaw. A normal person does not lie about something like this. President Bush may leave something to be desired---but he’s not John Kerry!

posted by: David Thomson on 08.18.04 at 11:24 AM

If anyone's smoking crack, I'd put my money on David Thomson.

"Do you even care that Kerry will do and say anything to anyone to get elected? Do you even care that his claimed experiences in Vietnam are largely fraudulent? Do you care that he proposes 2 trillion dollars in increased spending? Do you care that he will appoint leftists to the supreme court?"

You forgot -- famine, locusts, war, Sodom and Gomorrah returned if Kerry is elected.

"and just assume he has answers to all of those crises wrapped up in his secret plan"

Whatever Kerry's secret plans are, they cannot conceivably be worse than the invade first, we'll figure it out later strategy of GWB. A "grand vision" is useless, indeed worse than useless, its highly harmful without execution and GWBs execution has varied between tolerable and pathetic.

To erg,

I was stationed in Germany from the end of 1985 to January 1990. We flew on Pan Am to the USA 3 days before the plane was blown up over Lockerbee. The Berlin disco bombing took place while I was assigned in Germany. The BG (whose last name eludes me)was kidnampped during my tour. I believe you write before you think.

Also, it is a known fact that most if not all the reporters are safely living in the green zone and not out reporting the news. I trust the blogs because the people live in the community. Isn't this a blog also?

First off, I am not a conservative. I'm not happy about Bush's lack of attention to spending constraint, but I think it's abundantly clear that Kerry will be worse (2 trillion in new additional costs in his proposal list).

The most important role of President, particularly in a time of war, is that of commander in chief. John Kerry is utterly unfit for that job as is absolutely clear from his campaign waffling, his senate career of appeasement and weakness wrt. American enemies, his Vietnam anti-war activities, and his Vietnam service (according to the vast majority of his fellow swift-boat vets). Bush on the other hand is a war-time leader who makes mistakes, sometimes large ones, but is willing to fight the enemy (middle-easter islamic terrorism and to drain the swamp (miserable governmance in the middle east). Being a man who makes mistakes in wartime but who has the guts to fight puts Bush in good company with people like Lincoln and Churchill.

“...and some of your statements about Kerry are overblown (I don't think we really know who is right in the SVFT stuff, but to say it's largely fraudulent is a little ridiculous).”

John Kerry’s own campaign has now admitted that he lied about being in Cambodia during Christmas 1968. They are, of course, trying to put their best spin on the situation---but the con game is over. Let’s getting something straight. We are not discussing some poor slob who just got off the plane and hasn’t slept in over 48 hours, and a reporter comes up to him and he blurts out something incorrect. No, John Kerry calmly and deliberately lied to the American people. The Massachusetts senator maliciously slandered his own country and fellow soldiers.

At least you are "getting real" about where your political predilictions are. You dialogue has shown that you were aligned with John Kerry and the Democrats, at least in your view of the issues and people, quite a long time ago.

I certainly don't have a PhD in your field, but that doesn't stop me from disagreeing with your analysis of events.

My reading of things is that the Democrats don't have a clue as to how to "fix things". All they know how to do is to say that they do know (but can't say).

My take on the whole dialogue about Cambodia, Viet Nam, and John Kerry, is that he can tell stories, but you need to fact check them, as the truth content is likely to be small.

If you follow John Kerry's reasoning, then my younger brother, who spent 17 months in Viet Nam as a Marine, is more qualified to be President than John Kerry. I even have as much Viet Nam-era service as Senator Harkin (who had been saying falsely that he was a Viet Nam veteran). I don't think that any of it matters, as far as one's qualifications to do anything.

Regards,

Jim Bender

http://anglo-dutch-wars.blogspot.com/

http://17th-centurynavwargaming.blogspot.com/

http://kentishknock.com/

http://anglodutchwarsblog.com/

http://dreadnought-cruisers.blogspot.com/

Matthew reinterpreted:

Do you even care that Bushy will do and say anything to anyone to get elected, and has done so for the last 3.5 years? Do you even care that his claimed experiences in the ANG are largely fraudulent (where is his DD Form 214)? Do you care that he has put us into debt for over 7.4 trillion dollars (about $25k per citizen)? Do you care that he will appoint more rightists to the supreme court that (like Thomas, as described by Scalia) do not believe in Stare Decisis, and are judicial activists)?

"Whatever Kerry's secret plans are, they cannot conceivably be worse than the invade first, we'll figure it out later strategy of GWB"

You cant conceive of a worse policy? Not much imagination. I can conceive of some pretty nasty scenarios where the US bails on Iraq turning into Lebanon II, Iran gets armed with nukes and becomes the new Taliban, tens of thousands of troops get sent to Afghanistan to search for people who arent there anymore and end up getting their asses kicked by the people who are, NK starts churning out nukes to anyone who cares to buy em, Pakistan is overthrown by the Islamists and Kerry invites them to Camp David to ask them nicely not to nuke Israel or hand AQ a nuke, Libya goes back into business as Syria ugly twin, and our president spends most of his time hammering out the Kyoto II treaty and trying Tommy Franks in the World Court.

Zakaria's points are well made-- the hubris of the Bush admin certainly explains its botching of the postwar-- but it's not at all clear that anyone else would not have made huge mistakes as well. This is especially true as regards supporting and building up the only really effective non-Ba'athist political entities in Iraq, ie Sistani and the other religious leaders. No one, Democrat or Republican, American or European, had anything like good ties with or insight into these leaders' mentality and organizations for the same reason that no one had good intel on Saddam: the Ba'athist regime was a paranoid, Stalinist state.

Knocking over a paranoid, Stalinist regime will inevitably create chaos. Regardless of the State Dept's blueprints for Phase IV, on the ground after April 2003 there were no effective cadres of apolitical bureaucrats, no apolitical chains of command or authority, that we could have invoked to keep the electricity plants safe and running in the face of a complete collapse of institutional authority.

The "won the war but botched the peace" argument is therefore bogus. The inevitable consequence of the war was the collapse of all effective authority in Iraq. We should have the honesty and moral clarity to admit that, if the war was the right thing to do-- and in view of the shredding of the sanctions' effectiveness by oil-for-fraud, it appears it was-- then we have to accept a period of chaos and turmoil and high loss of life as the wages of this war.

Drezner,

You left out one important detail: what is the value of p at the moment?

Never mind ...

Post-communist Russia was chaotic, as were most Soviet Bloc states throughout the 1990s. Can anyone imagine how much more difficult, and bloody, and chaotic those states would have been had the regimes been knocked over by an invading force?

Get real. No planning effort, regardless of how it was executed, could have spared Iraq the bloodshed and chaos it's undergoing now.

This insipid little bit about Kerry 'lying to the American people' about being in Cambodia on Christmas is exactly the kind of trivia that people on the right, in their mentally deficient worldview, base their decisions on.

Kerry was actually in Cambodia in January and February following that Christmas.

Kerry was near Cambodia on the date of the anecdote he related.

This is what people capable of a good faith read would call an honest mistake.

To say otherwise indicates a deep character flaw, that of being a miserable hack.

From Joel W: "Do you care that he stated in the 2000 campaign that he wouldn't be a nation-builder, and has no 'attempted' to build two nations?"

Ah, the 9/11 denial that often goes hand in hand with Kerry supporters. I was finding this post a bit convincing myself until I read that... but it reminded me of why I really wish the dems had nominated Lieberman.

I just can't, in good conscience, vote for someone that wants to pretend like none of this nasty terrorism business ever happened, and thinks that if we just leave the terrorists alone, they will do the same to us. That's the impression I get from Kerry, anyway, despite my efforts to convince myself otherwise.

I consider myself fairly centrist, and I actually have a bit of resentment for the democratic party for nominating a candidate whose entire campaign boils down to "You hate X about Bush? Well, I'll do the opposite of that!" Where can I get an "Anybody but Kerry" bumper sticker?

We are still talking about the lesser of evils. John Kerry has been caught lying about spending Christmas 1968 in Cambodia. This lie reveals a very dangerous character flaw. A normal person does not lie about something like this. President Bush may leave something to be desired---but he’s not John Kerry!

Have you been paying any attention the last 4 years? For that matter did you read the post? Christ, where is my blood pressure medication...

This election is a referendum on Bush's failures as President brought on by following the idiotic ideology of the radical reactionaries that have taken over the Republican party.

When he should have heeded the warnings of President Clinton to focus on terrorism, he chose to resurrect the Star Wars boondoggle.

When he was forced to react to terrorism, he lost focus, failed to finish the job in Afghanistan, and used WMD's as a pretext to follow the PNAC agenda.

Invading Iraq has been a delusional exercise, a children's crusade based on the angel dust buzz of Shock & Awe and Magic Beans of Democracy, with no coherent plan for maintaining peace or reconstruction.

He has failed to meet his promise to the American People to create more jobs by over 7 million, but he's managed to shift more of the tax burden to the middle class and give .5 trillion dollars to the rich.

I tired of waxing poetic. Suffice to say his continued subversion of environmental conservation, education, scientfic research, civil liberties, and health insurance, is more than sufficient reason for his defeat and the repudiation of the rabid reactionary cardre controling the Republcian Party.

In making policy, "doing nothing" is ALWAYS an option. That is essentially the policy route Sen. Kerry has chosen, as of now, in regard to a strategy in dealing with the radical Islamist threat. [As an aside, please note that I am NOT a Muslim-basher--I believe that our enemy in this struggle is not the politically/religiously driven tactic of terrorism, nor is it Islam, rather a very specific group of people who adhere to a very martial interpretation of Islam.]

By choosing, as Matthew Yglesias suggests one should do, to support Sen. Kerry because he will eventually formulate something coherent (OTJ training, I suppose) or at least manage the "drift" better is reckless at best when we are, whether we choose to believe it or not, in a war.

True, muddling through sometimes works, but that approach to the rise of radical Islamism-practiced by administrations of both political parties through the course of two decades, BTW-helped to provide us with that open piece of land in lower Manhattan and the gleaming new limestone wall of the Pentagon I see from my office window every day.

As much as the Bush administration frustrates through missteps (hopefully learning along the way, as well), at least it seems to understand the fundamental fact that we are at war. That crucial distinction seems to be lost on Sen. Kerry as he continues to articulate a law-enforcement approach to the problem.

I try not to see the presidential race as choosing between the lesser of two evils: I believe that both men, though flawed, truly strive to do right by their country. I just think that Pres. Bush understands that we are at war and Sen. Kerry does not.

On the Cambodia thing, personally i dont really care, but i do find it weird and it doesnt make me like the guy any better. Mainly, lets not pretend it was a throw away line. Kerry was making a serious argument predicated on the fact that he was in Cambodia being shot at by Cambodians and he remembered it bitterly because it was x-mas. Without being in Cambodia the argument made absolutely no sense.
It would be equivalent to me saying I was in Canada last year and was robbed on the street, therefore Canada is a dangerous place. But then it turns out I was actually in Seattle. My response that, oh, I was close to Canada doesnt solve the problem.

“This insipid little bit about Kerry 'lying to the American people' about being in Cambodia on Christmas is exactly the kind of trivia that people on the right, in their mentally deficient worldview, base their decisions on.

Kerry was actually in Cambodia in January and February following that Christmas.”

Your explanation simply does not hold water. John Kerry repeatedly was very explicit about spending Christmas 1968 in Cambodia. His language was detailed and very precise. Furthermore, the evidence is piling up that Kerry probably never set foot in Cambodia whatsoever.

These same people who would critique Kerry as a man based on a tiny error would excuse every mistake of Bush's due to sympathy with his policy positions. Critique of his character is dismissed because, after all, 'he's a good Republican'..

The sad thing is that this butchery of reason whereby a tiny error is elevated to a character destroying flaw, is a reversion to the principles of reverse reasoning. The reasoning employed by witch trials, Medieval church scientists, and the like. It shows how fragile discourse is, how parties who seek to destroy discourse have every advantage available to them.

I don't see how anyone can claim Kerry will have a better strategy. Look at the people he has surrounded himself with in his campaign and suppose that they are examples of the kind of people who will serve in his administration, So far (before all the airbrushing on his web site) they have gotten his dates of military service wrong, attributed another officers missions to him, and claimed he was vice-chair of the intel committee.
His only way to get from our allies what he has promised the American people is to sell us out with signing on the the World Court, Kyoto, or any other euro-weenie plan that puts us in our place.

The supprted-the-war but opposed-the-postwar position is untenable. The shitty postwar came with the war, because Iraq presented and continues to present us with nothing but bad and less bad options. The American people recognize this, which is why Kerry's charges will not persuade anyone that he can do a better job with Iraq.

For the undecided voters, the election will come down to a contest between battle fatigue-induced isolationist yearnings and the painful, solemn realization that we are again involved in a decades-long global struggle for survival.

By claiming to support the war while criticizing the postwar failures, Kerry is sure to sweep the crucial pro-war second-thought liberal vote, which should tip Hyde Park, Williamstown, and Ann Arbor into the D column in November.

If, on the other hand, Kerry wishes to persuade millions of undecided voters, he should cease trying dance on the fine distinctions of the armchair nation-builders and start tacking isolationist. "Come home, America. Bring our brave troops home. Do not allow any more men and women to die for a mistake. Let the Iraqis rule Iraq. Let the Europeans fend for themselves."

Gore went hard populist in the waning days of Nov 2000, but it was too late. I'd bet good money that Shrum will convince Kerry to go isolationist/"Come Home America" in the last few days before this election. It's by far the best chance he has of winning this year.

Isnt there a difference between a tiny error and gross self-agrandizing falsehoods?

'evidence is piling up he never set foot in Cambodia'

That is pure unadulterated BS. Of course, if you believe the Swift Boat Dudes, I guess Kerry, like, is a puppy killer and stuff.

Please show a source for Senator Harkin's claim to be a Viet Nam vet. I've never heard or read of him making this claim though he was a jet pilot in the Navy.

And please tell us how the Bush Admistration plans to 'fix things'. I'm glad to see you admit things need fixing though. Of course, I don't see why we should trust those responsible for screwing up so badly to be able to fix them.

As for Cambodia, it's unclear where Kerry was that Christmas. It is true that he was running missions to drop off CIA personnel and still has a hat given to him by a CIA agent.

And if you want to fight the battle of 'veteran lies', there remain serious questions about George Bush's service.

The bottom line is Kerry volunteered to go to Viet Nam, he fought honorably and was awarded medals. George Bush used his father's connections to get into the Texas Air National Guard and avoided service in Viet Nam.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/bush/articles/2000/05/23/1_year_gap_in_bushs_guard_duty/

I agree that this is a stupid story, but I would also advise that if George Bush spent his postwar years claiming to have repeatedly violated Soviet airspace in his NG fighter it would be an issue.

"On the Cambodia thing, personally i dont really care, but i do find it weird and it doesnt make me like the guy any better."

You should personally care. John Kerry is running for president. He is not trying to be our next dog catcher. I think I’m being very fair describing this lie as similar to someone lying about their mother’s death to get some time off from work. This is not an "ordinary" fib. There are lies and there are lies! Some lies are beyond the pale. John Kerry’s lie is most disturbing and should make us all cringe.

"In fact, other nation-building efforts over the past decade have gone reasonably well, when well planned and executed."

Cambodia ?
Bosnia, where the UN stood by and watched a genocide?
Rwanda, the same?
Haiti, still a mess not one by two "multilateral interventions" later?
Kosovo, where NATO became the air force for a disreputable guerrilla army?
The Congo, still bleeding?
Liberia?
Sierra Leone?

Where do I look on the map for "gone reasonably well" ?

"The fundamental problem with the argument is that if you study policy long enough then you are forced to act. You can nuance this thing to death until the problem forces action on an unacceptable course. Isn't that what the Bush bashers are saying about 911. He studied the problem to long and missed all the signs?"

Uhh, no, that is a strawman on your part. The criticism against Bush is that he ignored the problem as long as he could because he really, really wanted to blow a wad in missile defense, and then when someone finally got through to tell him of how deep and immediate the terrorist threat was, he went fishing, and vacationed the next 30 days. The criticism against Bush is that he didn't pick a National Security Advisor, or a Secretary of Defense, or an Attourney General, he picked additional political flacks, wholy unsuited to defending this nation.

It does no good for John Kerry to present a detailed plan about Iraq. I cannot be implemented until January at the earliest, and the "facts on the ground" will be different then. They will likely be different before Novemebr 2nd. In addition, the odds are very good that we are not getting full disclosure about IRaq from our this administration, so there is no foundation to build a detailed plan on. It does no good to say "I will dedicate 50,000 troops to being order to Sadr City" when tomorrow Sadr City insurgents may collapse over the capture of Sadr, or may riot in a way that requires 100,000 troops.

In contrast, Bush does have all the information at his fingertips, and can affect events immediately, but still offers no details on how we will win Iraq.

All Kerry can do, and needs to do, is indicate how his approach would be different. And he has. If choose to believe Bush is equally or more capable of bringing former allies onto our side, of calming the anti americanism spreading throughout the middle east, of building the new alliances that are needed to win the war on terror, then by all means, vote for him. You are grossly mistaken, but vote for him.

Kerry was actually in Cambodia in January and February following that Christmas.

Matter of fact, no, he was not. Or, so say those who served with him.

And why won't he sign hte 180 to open up his records to the public, so the public can verify his claims? In one move, he could silence and discredit his detractors. But he won't do it, despite the fact that Bush did so with HIS records... at Democrat insistance.

Kinda makes you wonder what Kerry's hiding, doesn't it?

“As for Cambodia, it's unclear where Kerry was that Christmas.”

Unclear? Not according to John Kerry’s campaign staff. They now admit that he did not spend Christmas 1968 in Cambodia. If you can’t believe Kerry’s own people---who can you believe? The crap has hit the fan and we now know that John Kerry is willing to lie about things that normal people wouldn’t even consider.