Enraging "perspective" column in Chicago Tribune

I just read this opinion piece and the a**hole that wrote it has me so angry I can barely type straight.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/perspective/chi-0405230304may23,1,3848236.story?coll=chi-newsopinionperspective-hed

Please people, don't hold back your letters to the Tribune invalidating this moron's argument.

saying something bad about kerry..so fuck`n what. kerry fought in the war and he got a silver star and was entitled to have state side duty. maybe the moran should ask bushie boy what he did during the war..

How about posting an exerpt?

John Kerry will run for president this fall on the Democratic ticket, and nothing is more crucial to his carefully crafted image than his status as a "Vietnam veteran." Kerry himself tells us time and again that his Vietnam experience, from fighting sailor to anti-war activist, factors greatly in who he is and how he will act as president. And on this I believe him, which is why, as a veteran, I will not support him.

Kerry arrived in Vietnam in November 1968 and remained only four months. He saw a little action, was decorated for conduct during a firefight or two and left at the first opportunity, more than six moths before his tour of duty was to end, because three shrapnel nicks qualified him for transfer to stateside duty as an admiral's aide.

Roy Hoffmann, Kerry's squadron commander, described Kerry's departure contemptuously: "He just simply bugged out, and any military man knows what I'm talking about." At no time, Kerry says now, did he, anyone in his unit or anyone to his knowledge, rape, torture or murder anyone. He was never involved in nor did he witness a war crime.

Lifelong civilians seem impressed with tales of Kerry's derring-do. But as a combat veteran, I see nothing remarkable in Kerry's "Vietnam experience." I flew gunships for a year and saw more action in a week than Kerry saw during his entire, abbreviated tour of duty.

From any perspective, it was fairly typical and, given its duration, particularly unimpressive, at least until Kerry arrived home and began his scorched-earth campaign for publicity and political office.

Before the ink on his discharge was dry, Kerry assumed the role of anti-war radical and traveled the country denouncing the rest of us as war criminals, telling the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 22, 1971, that we "personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal range of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country."

Kerry not fit for service for various reasons.

Too bad the worst thing Kerry has done in his whole life doesn't even approach any number of impeachable things Bush has done in office.

It's going to be tricky to run a reelection campaign when the supporters can't come up with anything good to say about the incumbent. I can't remember when I last read a pro-Bush piece, even in right-wing rags. They just seem to avoid saying anything at all about him.

ctc-TribLetter@Tribune.com

Maybe one of you guys who knows this stuff better
than me could smack this guy down. It's FReeper
nonsense, pure and simple.