Here's a reaction from the UK, declaring that the Swiftboat Vets' "Unfit for Command" book as a counterpunch to Michael Moore's criticism of Bush. Or more specifically, it is a "shit-blitz designed to counter the serious damage inflicted by Michael Moore." Nice.

Dirty politics

The only difference is that Michael Moore's criticism is based on opinion. Bush was right or wrong to stay in that classroom on 9/11, depending on how you feel. Bush either takes too much vacation or doesn't, depending on how you feel. The sacrifice of American soldier's lives is right or wrong depending on how you feel. Even helping bin Laden's family get out of the U.S. can be right or wrong, nevermind the factual issues about whether they were given special privileges to fly on those days.

The Kerry allegations are about basic truths. Were the purple hearts based on superficial wounds or weren't they? Did John Kerry really get sent to Cambodia in Christmas 1968? We already know it wasn't by Nixon as he has said. The book is filled with witnesses to these events and unless you are willing to believe that ALL these men were paid off to denounce Kerry, you have to take it seriously. None of this should be a surprise to Kerry since 25% more Vietnam Vets plan to vote for Bush according to the polls. That's a landslide in any political dictionary.

And how do you like this?

Nearly half of all voters (48%) say they have family or friends who are currently serving in Iraq or Afghanistan. These voters prefer President Bush by a 51% to 41% margin. Military veterans prefer Bush by a wider margin.

John Kerry declares that he is "reporting for duty" but the people he would command don't want to serve him.

In addition, from Michael Duff:

I find it amusing that earning medals makes Kerry a saint who deserves to be president, but when a bunch of guys who have the same medals question him, they're just a bunch of lying Republican stooges.

You can't have it both ways. You can't worship the medals and ignore them when they're pinned to Republicans.