It's completely pointless today to argue the merits (or lack thereof) of the Vietnam war decades after it ended. At this point, it would be about as worthwhile as arguing that we should've invaded Europe in 1943 instead of 1944. Decades after the fact, any such debate is wasted effort.

The questions facing Kerry involve his own actions, both while he honorably served and afterwards. If we discount the decades since he came home, then all he has to run on is those 4 months in country. In his testimony before Congress, Kerry accused American military personnel of widescale war crimes. There are a lot of Vietnam vets who hate him for such slander.

Bring up Kerry's record and he whines that we're attacking his patriotism, even if the record we're talking about is his voting record in the Senate. Hardly impressive from someone who proclaimed to Bush "Bring it on."

VVAW was investigated by the FBI partly because of the high level of paranoia of the time. However, the fact that there was debate and a vote on the idea of assassinating Senators at a VVAW meeting that Kerry attended shows that the paranoia wasn't completely misplaced. Kerry first denied ever being at that meeting. Then, when FBI records show he was there, he complains about being under surveillance and that it isn't important. How could anyone forget being present when murder was debated? Sorry, but the story just doesn't wash.