Reply #14: No, and your original point still has some merit

[LittleClarkie]

that if O'Neill is going to nitpick and misrepresent Kerry's record, it should be known that O'Neill only served for one hitch, while Kerry served a good part of two.

It shouldn't matter either way for either man, but what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If Kerry is a short-termer in one way, it can be said that O'Neill was a short-termer in another way.

O'Neill has been misrepresenting Kerry for over 30 years now. Ridiculous things like saying there was a lone boy in a loincloth that Kerry killed when he was
1. not a boy
2. not in a loincloth
3. carrying a grenade laucher, which made him an enemy combatant at any rate.
4. Not alone

All from a passage in Tour of Duty that O'Neill can't figure out. Yes, Mr. Smear, there was only one guy with a grenade launcher. But that doesn't mean there were no other enemy combatants. Just that there was only ONE enemy combatant so armed.

What I can't figure out is how O'Neill could think Nixon was so magnificent when O'Neill is so much farther to the right than Tricky ever was, and even Richard Nixon was able to shake hands and make amends with Kerry before he died. That puts Nixon head and shoulders over these weirdos.

So no, I would agree, John Kerry has nothing to either explain or apologize for in regard to his service. In fact, if these people really supported the troops as they claim, they would be honorable and not even bring it up, and only center on what he did after the war. That is fair game, opinion-wise. But these are not honorable men.