21
FrontPage Article with a “D” for Dumb
Over at the always hooty FrontPage Magazine, the ambiguously accurate duo of Henry Mark Holzer and Erika Holzer are ready to open fire on John Kerry:
Kerry’s DD 214 lists a Silver Star with a combat “V” (for valor). As the major correctly observes, the “V” is never awarded with the Silver Star. But the actual wording on Kerry?s DD 214 (see www.johnkerry.com) is: “SILVER STAR WITH COMBAT ‘V’.” [Emphasis added]
First they say the “V” is never awarded with the Silver Star. The very next sentence reads:
There is an abundance of anecdotal evidence that a combat “V” (called a “Combat Distinguishing Device”) is simply not awarded with a Silver Star.
So it’s only anecdotal evidence? If you can state one never goes with the other, wouldn’t you expect more than anecdotal evidence? And what would happen if you stopped by the web site of the Department of Defense?
Soldier Awarded Silver Star with Valor (link)
Oh. Anyone else?
in 1967, I was off to Viet Nam. I became the company’s standardization officer, flying direct support for our Green Berets in the delta. I flew over 1,100 hours that year, I was awarded 23 air medals with an oak leaf cluster, I was shot down once and awarded the Silver Star with valor. (link)
ok, but no more right?
Garcia’s “tour of duty” ends when his squad is ambushed, two of his men die, and he is seriously wounded. Garcia tells us about the irony of receiving a Silver Star with Valor for his actions in that ambush. (link)
Please stop!
Affectionately know as “Top”, was a retired Master Gunnery Sergeant, United States Marine Corps. Top Shablack during his service was awarded the Silver Star with Valor, the Bronze Star with Valor, and the Purple Heart just to name a few. (link)
I said enough!
MSG Ricardo A. Garcia. Served 7th Cav, and later the Americal. Fought in The battle of the Ia Drang Valley with LTC Hal Moore. Richard earned a Silver Star with valor,was badly wounded there. Served three tours in Nam. He never really came home. (link)
ok, so could it be that there is an abundance of anecdotal evidence that Mr. and Mrs. Holzer are full of shit? They soldier on anyway:
The presence of the combat “V” with Kerry’s Silver Star on his DD 214 raises two extremely disquieting questions. How did the unauthorized “V” get there, and why has Kerry allowed it to remain?
The first question should not be taken lightly because we are talking about possible federal crimes. We are talking about the possibility of a forged official document.
Mr. Kerry, when did you stop forging official documents?
In light of the recent Swift Boat revelations and the cloud they have cast over Kerry’s awards, one plausible answer is that this is yet another example of Kerry’s multiple, and increasingly transparent, lies about his alleged heroics in Vietnam.
We agree it’s yet another example of something!
Let?s hope it won?t take a controversial TV spot to spark a mainstream media investigation of how candidate Kerry received an unearned “V” for valor.
Let’s hope it won’t take too long before Mr. Holzer receives a well-earned kick in the nuts.
Thanks to Redjalapeno for the tip.
Andrew McManama said,
August 21, 2004 at 2:40
Some people are just so stupid,….
but I love this site!
Andrew A. Gill said,
August 21, 2004 at 2:40
Funny thing, too. This “major” that they consulted doesn’t seem to have a name. I have a list, by the way, of fifty-seven former Field Marshals of the Army who swear up and down that the silver star really means that you’re a “poopy head.”
Their words! Not mine!
NTodd said,
August 21, 2004 at 3:58
You’re ignoring the fact that Bush also has a Sliver Star with a mailroom “C” (for competent delivery of base mail despite the risk of splinters from his desk). He also has an Swivel Chair Medal with Coca Leaf Cluster (for valorous snorting of cocaine at his desk, above and beyond the call of addiction), and a Purple Construction Paper Heart (for self-inflicted paper cuts while sorting mail). Do you damn Democrats really want to compare service records?
Bored Huge Krill said,
August 21, 2004 at 5:28
Incredible. Particularly incredible since the amount of research required to thoughroughly debunk the assertion fundamental to the piece consists of typing the phrase “silver star with valor” (including the quote marks) into Google.
Voila. Four pages of links (try it for yourself). What is *up* with these people?
Tom said,
August 21, 2004 at 10:16
I hate to be the wet blanket here, but i had to look it up myself.
Even though many google results show that “Silver Star with Valor” is commonly used in print, my research makes me believe that it’s technically incorrect. The Silver Star is bestowed for valor (and/or combat heroism) and for that reason is not awarded the valor device.
Wikipedia has an article about the valor device and specifically mentions this.
The Air Force Personnel Center has a page with the history of the Silver Star and only mentions the Oak leaf Cluster as an authorized device.
From what i’ve read i believe that the valor device on Kerry’s records, if truely incorrect, is just an simple mistake. The Silver Star is awarded for a higher degree of heroism than a Bronze Star with Valor device. There is nothing for anyone with a Silver Star to gain by forging a valor device to it.
Mojo said,
August 21, 2004 at 22:06
SECNAVINST1650.1G (not the hyperlink they have in the article) does include a list of medals for which a ‘V’ was authorized during different time periods. (Note that the V stands for “Combat Distinguishing Device”, not “Valor”.) As they indicate, that list does not include the Silver Star. Kerry’s bio on his campaign web site doesn’t list a ‘V’ with his Silver Star. However, the DD214 does. It calls it says “SILVER STAR WITH COMBAT ‘V’”. The service member has nothing to do with what goes on the DD214, that comes from official records. Either the citation was fouled up or the person who prepared his DD214 fouled up. In either case, it isn’t Kerry’s error and he’s not claiming the V.
Andrew A. Gill said,
August 21, 2004 at 23:45
Though the V means Valor, and is tacitly understood as such in the documents. q.v.
Note that on the Bronze Star record, “The Combat Distinguishing Device is authorized.” The Silver Star record makes no such statement. So it looks like T. VANSTIYDONCK screwed up on his DD214. Probably just copied the WITH COMBAT “V” from the line above. Easy to do. Google
“silver star with valor” -kerry site:mil
And you get twenty-two pages of military reports that made the same mistake. I suspect that the phrase may even be in common usage, since the silver star does not seem to be issued under any circumstances where a bronze star with combat “v” could not be issued.
Finally, I would like to take back my implication (without prejudice) that these people simply made these allegations up out of whole cloth. Evidence indicates that this Major (who in interests of journalism should have either been named or cited as “unnamed” or “anonymous”) was indeed correct. I cannot and should not allow such allegations to be made in light of this new evidence, and I issue my apologies to the unnamed major.
NTodd said,
August 22, 2004 at 4:24
The service member has nothing to do with what goes on the DD214, that comes from official records. Either the citation was fouled up or the person who prepared his DD214 fouled up. In either case, it isn’t Kerry’s error and he’s not claiming the V.
Yes, and I’ll note that there’s no mention of correcting the mistake in his DD215, either. Anywa, your point still stands: Kerry’s not trying to make out anything beyond what he was legitimately awarded; he has no control over these docs.
Bryan said,
August 22, 2004 at 21:44
The Silver Star is a combat award for valor and the “V” is incorporated in the medal itself. Lower ranking medals and awards, like the Bronze Star, can be awarded for “meritorious service” rather than “valor” and thus the “V” to differentiate.
In simple terms: being shot at is “meritorious”, being able to shoot back indicates “valor”.
Jessica Lynch was awarded a Bronze Star, but not the “V”.
Hondo said,
August 25, 2004 at 7:39
Two points.
1. The services do indeed treat the “V” device very differently. The US Army and USAF use the device to further “flag” an award that is based on demonstrated valor in combat. The US Navy and USMC us the device to signify an award given for actions during combat - but not necessarily for valor per se. The device must be authorized specifically in the award citation, and the award in question must be an award for which the V device may be authorized.
The services also have different lists of awards on which the V device may be authorized. For example: the Navy/USMC allow the device on the Legion of Merit and Achievement Medal, while the Army does not (I’m not positive without researching it, but I believe the USAF mirrors the Army).
However, the Silver Star is NEVER authorized a V device. The Silver Star is ONLY awarded for valor in combat. Any reference to “Silver Star with Combat V” or “Silver Star with V Device” is either erroneous or fradulent.
2. Regarding the comment above that “the service member has nothing to do with what goes on the DD214 . . . ” This is simply not correct.
For each DD214 I’ve received (more than one), I was required to review the item for correctness, THEN SIGN THE DOCUMENT. If I remember correctly, by signing I was certifying that to the best of my knowledge ALL OF THE INFORMATION LISTED ON THE DD214 WAS CORRECT. (It was, of course, subject to later verification and/or correction - based on official records.) The DD214 posted on Kerry’s web site showing his separation from active duty in 1970 has his signature. Obviously this means that he accepted what was on this DD214 as correct when he “mustered out.”
A junior officer might possibly be unaware of the specifics regarding the V device (personally, I find this unlikely - military personnel tend to be VERY interested in their personal decorations - but it’s possible). However, Kerry obviously thought enough of his military records to go through the process of amending his DD214 in 2001 (see the DD215 posted on his web site). A DD215 is issued, on request of the service member, to correct errors in an existing DD214. Kerry’s DD215 dated 12 March 2001 corrected his DD214 from 1970 by adding some additional unit decorations that he was authorized by virtue of his Vietnam service. It also made at least one correction to a decoration already listed on his DD214 (e.g., it added authorized campaign stars to his Vietnam Campaign Medal). The error regarding his Silver Star should have been corrected at this time, and almost certainly would have been had Kerry requested such a corretion.
I am thus forced to conclude that Kerry was either grossly sloppy when he corrected his DD214 in 2001 - or knowingly allowed the error regarding his Silver Star to remain uncorrected.
Such carelessness might be understandable (and forgivable) in a young man of 26 leaving military service. It’s far less understandable in a 57 year old US Senator.
Erica said,
August 26, 2004 at 0:51
Actually sir, if I remember correctly, when I looked at Kerry’s DD214, the words “was not available for signature” appear on it. I can go back and verify.
Erica said,
August 26, 2004 at 0:59
Well, the words are there, in section 32. But I’m not sure now to whom they refer. Because I think I see Sen. Kerry’s faded signature in the appropriate spot at the end.
Forgive my ignorance. The only other DD214 I’ve ever looked at was my dad’s
I have all his dd214’s, and the last one doesn’t list all his medals. My dad never bothered to get that fixed either. Doesn’t alter the medals themselves, does it?
Chuck said,
August 27, 2004 at 20:24
When I got out of the Army in ‘92, they forgot to put my Combat Infantrymans Badge on my DD214. When you are clearing your unit, you are asked to verify that everything is correct and complete on your 214, and then you sign it. Since I didn’t care at the time (I just wanted to finish up and leave), I decided to sign it instead of having to come back the next day, wait around, and sign it. That being said, I can understand how this stuff happens. And Erica, so long as the Orders exist for those medals, it doesn’t matter if they are on the 214, as the Orders prove the award/citation.
Now if I was going to be running for office, and I was a Washington hotshot senator, I would make damn sure that my 214 was up to snuff before I ever authorized it to be displayed, especially when people were actively disputing my combat record. If I DID find something like that (V device on a Silver Star), I would immediately get it corrected, and provide a disclaimer on the site. Otherwise, you are giving tacit approval for people to believe something that isn’t true. That’s basically committing willfull blindness, which is what I would have to believe, especially after he had his 214 corrected and left the correction off, then gave himself 2 more bronze service stars than he was apparently allowed.
http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/DD214.pdf
http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/DD-215_Correction.pdf
Personally, I have to call bullsh-t…
erg said,
August 28, 2004 at 2:09
If anyone remembers, Kerry was forced to publish military records online under heavy media pressure in basically a day or so. I don’t believe he had ever published it before, and probably didn’t intend to publish it this time around before the demands. If he had not published the DD-214, doubtless there would have been cries that he was concealing something. Now, he publishes it, and he’s being blamed because there’s an error in it.
His website simply says Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat “V”. No Silver Star with Combat “V”.
Should he have corrected it when he asked for the other change ? Maybe, but that was 30 odd years after the fact, and he didn’t intend to publish it anyway.
And a Silver Star incorporates the “V” by definition, because its a combat medal. So there isn’t even any question of claiming something that wasn’t real.
Now, shall we turn our attention to GWB’s medals ? The honorable order of the Teeth, for getting your teeth cleaned, the order of the Beer Can ?
Jonathan said,
August 28, 2004 at 2:40
Um, does anyone have someone else’s DD214 to compare this to? Do we know that “SILVER STAR WITH COMBAT ‘V’” was NOT the standard way to cite a silver star on a DD214 in 1971? How about today?
If not, I’d have to agree that it’s a typo. Kerry’s silver star is a matter of record. Not much point of forging a DD214 when the real thing’s good enough. It would seem to me that a lot of partisans are desperate to keep a dying pseudo-scandal going.
In a related matter, the guy who got George Bush into the National Guard ahead of a lot of less priviledged people is now on record as having fessed up.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_08_22.php#003360
Joey said,
August 28, 2004 at 7:11
http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-lips27.html
Kerry’s Web site also carries a DD215 form revising his DD214, issued March 12, 2001, which adds four bronze campaign stars to his Vietnam service medal. The campaign stars are issued for participation in any of the 17 Department of Defense named campaigns that extended from 1962 to the cease-fire in 1973.
However, according to the Navy spokesman, Kerry should only have two campaign stars: one for “Counteroffensive, Phase VI,” and one for “Tet69, Counteroffensive.”
Look! Kerry had a chance to correct the record and he embelished it further.
I think it’s obvious that Kerry is printing up his own records at this point. Hell, the New York Times has assured him they won’t ask him any real questions.
I also noticed that all those links posted above went to Army and Marine personnel that were awarded a silver star with a ‘V’ but no one in the navy. The Army and Marines could very well have different regulations.
Badger Ellen said,
August 28, 2004 at 18:51
The U. S. Navy Memorial Foundation includes a listing for SMC Glen A. Braden (USN) who served from 8/1/1950 to 8/1972 who is reported to have received a Silver Star with Combat “V”. In an obituary in the Elizabethton Star, CDR Ralph E. Gaither (USN) (Ret) also is reported to have received two Silver Stars with Combat “V”. CDR was a Vietnam POW.
As to the Vietnam campaign medals, it should be remembered that Senator Kerry served aboard the USS Gridley during the Vietnam War and has recorded combat service from that billet.
Sergeant America said,
August 28, 2004 at 19:26
Thanks to all for the observations and personal experience!
Not wanting to throw more gasoline onto the fire; I’d just like to state that a servicemember should be/is very cognizant of his/her DD214 from my generation (USAF 1966-1970). If I were the four months “Combat Hero” Senator Kerry believes himself to be; I would DAMN sure be aware of EVERY nuance (no pun intended) of my MILITARY RECORDS! Every one of them…that’s why the services give out the records within a “pretty little folder” with information needed to fulfill your further obligations.
John Forbes Kerry needed to “ride herd” on his DD214 just as a DRAFT DODGER would on his CV. It’s a no-brainer.
Also, to those of you that have not served in the U. S. Military and wish to drumbeat the ABB mindset; if you think for one minute that veterans will allow you to disparage those who SERVED in the National Guard/Air National Guard and Reserves without redress , you may personally GO TO HELL and I’d be glad to “punch yer’ ticket!”
I had to train Air National Guard servicemembers and waved “good bye” to them as they went home to their lives and families. I was not able to do the same…I received my overseas alert and went!
Civilians, you have no credibility with your bullshit angst! Veterans can find fault with NG/ANG/Reservists; but civilians don’t got the paperwork.
Talk to me!
No brag, jest’ fact.
Serenity Now!
Sergeant America said,
August 28, 2004 at 19:57
::quote:: As to the Vietnam campaign medals, it should be remembered that Senator Kerry served aboard the USS Gridley during the Vietnam War and has recorded combat service from that billet. ::quote::
Noted!
I just wonder what “combat” in which Johnny Four Months participated while supporting aircraft carriers and searching for downed pilots? Also, what happened to SEA (Southeast Asia) in all this “sailing around?” Komrade Kerry seems to think he was “in Vietnam” while assigned to the U.S.S. Gridley…at least when “waxing the hero” at a MLK remembrance speech in 2003; I believe.
I’m talkin’ “boots on the ground” Vietnam; not qualifying for a medal/ribbon while at sea in SEA.
Cheers!
::shameless promotion:: I have the “facts” as I have found them on the ‘Net at my Blog…
A Vietnam-Era Veteran.
Anonymous said,
August 29, 2004 at 16:12
“I also noticed that all those links posted above went to Army and Marine personnel that were awarded a silver star with a ‘V’ but no one in the navy. The Army and Marines could very well have different regulations.”
Did you notice if they were awarded the “Silver Star with Valor” or the “Silver Star with V Device”? All of the ones I saw said “With Valor”, which is just a way of saying what it was awarded for so that the general public would understand. “Silver Star with Valor” is not a military term, as it is redundant. But, “Silver Star with V Device” is not only not a military term, it’s not a correct decoration/award. And that’s the fact people!
“Should he have corrected it when he asked for the other change ? Maybe, but that was 30 odd years after the fact, and he didn’t intend to publish it anyway.”
If he didn’t intend to publish it, why did he file a DD215 to ADD AWARDS??? I have awards that were awarded post Desert Storm, and an ETS Army Commendation Medal that didn’t make it on my 214 because my chain of command didn’t get it submitted fast enough to make my 214. Anyways, I never filed a 215. Why? Because to most anyone, they mean exactly squat. Besides, I have the orders that prove I was awarded those decorations. Now lets read something:
http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/DD-215_Correction.pdf
Presidential Unit Citation Ribbon
Navy Unit Citation Ribbon
Republic of Vietnam MUC Gallantry Cross Medal Color with Palm
Republic of Vietnam MUC Civil Action Medal Color with Palm
Delete: Vietnam Service Medal
Add: Vietnam Service Medal with 4 Bronze Service Stars
Some intel on the Vietnamese awards:
“The Vietnam Gallantry Cross Unit Citation with Palm was issued to every Allied nation which provided military support to Vietnam between 1 March, 1961 and the fall of Saigon in April 1975. The unit decoration thus became the most commonly awarded Vietnamese decoration to foreigners, second only to the Vietnam Campaign Medal. ”
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Vietnam_Cross_of_Gallantry
OK, so what does all that mean? Kerry added 2 unit awards (which do not denote personal achievement), 2 Foreign Awards, and then added 4 service stars to his service medal. Why is this important? Because he wanted to PAD his 214, ie. list of military achievement. It is dated March 12, 2001! It’s not like adding those decorations will get him a better job, or any more recognition. If you were an average Vet, those medals wouldn’t buy you a cup of coffee. So, WHY file the 215 at all? And in filing the 215, in 2001, he obviously knew what was and wasn’t on his 214, and he obviously knew, in 2001, he was going to want to PUBLICIZE these records, otherwise WHY file the DD215 30 YEARS after the fact?
Let me say that again:
He obviously knew, in 2001, he was going to want to PUBLICIZE these records, otherwise WHY file the DD215 30 YEARS after the fact?
If John Kerry was a man of true honor, and I believed he would make a good Commander in Chief, I would support him wholeheartedly. But that’s just not the case.
“Now, shall we turn our attention to GWB’s medals ? The honorable order of the Teeth, for getting your teeth cleaned, the order of the Beer Can ?”
Did you serve? I served personally in both Active Duty Army, and 6 years in the Army National Guard. My Guard unit has been deployed 3 times during the past 3 years to support these operations either directly or indirectly (thankfully without me). Just some reading so you can get your collective heads out of your a$$es:
http://www.arng.army.mil/history/
http://www.ang.af.mil/history/Forging.asp
And of special interest to you who said Bush was dodging the draft…
“On 3 May [1968], F-100s from the 120th Tactical Fighter Squadron (Colorado) arrived at Phan Rang Air Base. By 1 June, all of the 120th’s pilots were flying combat missions. In the meantime, the 174th (Iowa), 188th (New Mexico), and the 136th (New York) had all deployed to Vietnam with their F-100s. In addition, 85 percent of the 355th Tactical Fighter Squadron — on paper a regular Air Force unit — were Air Guardsmen. ”
Also, read this for some perspective:
http://www.mblog.com/emigre_with_digital_cluebat/010785.html
So, it wouldn’t appear that being a fighter jock was such a safe ticket in dodging the draft after all!
Chuck said,
August 29, 2004 at 16:12
“I also noticed that all those links posted above went to Army and Marine personnel that were awarded a silver star with a ‘V’ but no one in the navy. The Army and Marines could very well have different regulations.”
Did you notice if they were awarded the “Silver Star with Valor” or the “Silver Star with V Device”? All of the ones I saw said “With Valor”, which is just a way of saying what it was awarded for so that the general public would understand. “Silver Star with Valor” is not a military term, as it is redundant. But, “Silver Star with V Device” is not only not a military term, it’s not a correct decoration/award. And that’s the fact people!
“Should he have corrected it when he asked for the other change ? Maybe, but that was 30 odd years after the fact, and he didn’t intend to publish it anyway.”
If he didn’t intend to publish it, why did he file a DD215 to ADD AWARDS??? I have awards that were awarded post Desert Storm, and an ETS Army Commendation Medal that didn’t make it on my 214 because my chain of command didn’t get it submitted fast enough to make my 214. Anyways, I never filed a 215. Why? Because to most anyone, they mean exactly squat. Besides, I have the orders that prove I was awarded those decorations. Now lets read something:
http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/DD-215_Correction.pdf
Presidential Unit Citation Ribbon
Navy Unit Citation Ribbon
Republic of Vietnam MUC Gallantry Cross Medal Color with Palm
Republic of Vietnam MUC Civil Action Medal Color with Palm
Delete: Vietnam Service Medal
Add: Vietnam Service Medal with 4 Bronze Service Stars
Some intel on the Vietnamese awards:
“The Vietnam Gallantry Cross Unit Citation with Palm was issued to every Allied nation which provided military support to Vietnam between 1 March, 1961 and the fall of Saigon in April 1975. The unit decoration thus became the most commonly awarded Vietnamese decoration to foreigners, second only to the Vietnam Campaign Medal. ”
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Vietnam_Cross_of_Gallantry
OK, so what does all that mean? Kerry added 2 unit awards (which do not denote personal achievement), 2 Foreign Awards, and then added 4 service stars to his service medal. Why is this important? Because he wanted to PAD his 214, ie. list of military achievement. It is dated March 12, 2001! It’s not like adding those decorations will get him a better job, or any more recognition. If you were an average Vet, those medals wouldn’t buy you a cup of coffee. So, WHY file the 215 at all? And in filing the 215, in 2001, he obviously knew what was and wasn’t on his 214, and he obviously knew, in 2001, he was going to want to PUBLICIZE these records, otherwise WHY file the DD215 30 YEARS after the fact?
Let me say that again:
He obviously knew, in 2001, he was going to want to PUBLICIZE these records, otherwise WHY file the DD215 30 YEARS after the fact?
If John Kerry was a man of true honor, and I believed he would make a good Commander in Chief, I would support him wholeheartedly. But that’s just not the case.
“Now, shall we turn our attention to GWB’s medals ? The honorable order of the Teeth, for getting your teeth cleaned, the order of the Beer Can ?”
Did you serve? I served personally in both Active Duty Army, and 6 years in the Army National Guard. My Guard unit has been deployed 3 times during the past 3 years to support these operations either directly or indirectly (thankfully without me). Just some reading so you can get your collective heads out of your a$$es:
http://www.arng.army.mil/history/
http://www.ang.af.mil/history/Forging.asp
And of special interest to you who said Bush was dodging the draft…
“On 3 May [1968], F-100s from the 120th Tactical Fighter Squadron (Colorado) arrived at Phan Rang Air Base. By 1 June, all of the 120th’s pilots were flying combat missions. In the meantime, the 174th (Iowa), 188th (New Mexico), and the 136th (New York) had all deployed to Vietnam with their F-100s. In addition, 85 percent of the 355th Tactical Fighter Squadron — on paper a regular Air Force unit — were Air Guardsmen. ”
Also, read this for some perspective:
http://www.mblog.com/emigre_with_digital_cluebat/010785.html
So, it wouldn’t appear that being a fighter jock was such a safe ticket in dodging the draft after all!
Chuck said,
August 29, 2004 at 16:16
Sorry for the multiple post. Not sure how that happened. :(
frank said,
August 29, 2004 at 18:56
Sorry, Chuckie. Bush got into the Guard to stay out of Vietnam. No amount of spinning is going to change that fact.
Chuck said,
August 29, 2004 at 21:59
Sorry Frankie, but Bush got into the Guard because it was the fastest way to become a pilot, much in the same way people enlisted in the Army instead of the Navy or Air Force during Vietnam because they could become pilots without a college degree.
Now what’s worse Frankie? Using opportunism to become a pilot, or using it the way Kerry used the domestic turmoil in the US to launch his political career?
Apparently having all the major networks in your pocket allows you to spin those facts, huh?
Chuck said,
August 29, 2004 at 22:54
Before Frankie or anyone else chimes in any further (hopefully), I want you all to think of a couple things.
Yes, Bush served in the Guard instead of in Vietnam. And if many of you were to join the Guard next week, and were given the option to check a box that said you do not volunteer to serve overseas (especially given what is going on in Iraq), you should not be faulted for that. Later on in your enlistment, you may decide to volunteer for overseas duty if the opportunity arose. If you were not selected, you should not be faulted for that. But alas, that part is speculation, so let’s stick with the facts. You serve, you claim nothing more than that you served, and that is the extent of your military service.
Now, let’s compare that to Kerry. Kerry tried to get a deferment, and when that failed, yes, he did enlist in the active duty Navy. Yes, Kerry did serve in Vietnam, however, regardless of your political leanings, it should be painfully obvious that there are some intense questions concerning more than a few of his decorations ( Two of the Purple Hearts and the Silver Star), as well as his conduct during the 4 months he served in Vietnam. What’s more, he transferred to a staff position back in the states at the first opportunity, being one of the few (if not the only) swift boat commander to do so. After he gets back, he becomes an ardent anti-war protester. During this time he falls in with a bunch of people who blatently lied about their service, and some who lied about even serving in Vietnam. Kerry threw his medals away in protest, and now we learn they weren’t actually his medals, which he now proudly displays in his office.
So what’s the worst Bush is accused of? Serving in the Guard instead of Vietnam? Being accused of being AWOL, although from his records it would appear he made up his mandatory drill time by doing SUTA’s (Split Unit Training Assemblies), which almost every member of the National Guard has done at some point or another (although perhaps not to that extent).
Did Bush get out of the Guard and then slander his fellow Guardsmen? Did Bush protest the war (God knows it didn’t take serving to do that)? No, he served and got out, much like the majority of veterans.
Now you should ask yourself, what did John Kerry do? Did his “heroics” get his a blank check to sell out his fellow servicemen and help lead a movement that in the end aided our enemies?
If you can read ALL that John Kerry did, and get past the “spin”, and if you can still support him to be the Commander in Chief, then you have my sympathy, because you are a dupe and a fool.
I’ll leave you all with this last post, because it’s become painfully apparent that many Kerry supporters are incapable of actually contemplating the fact Kerry is not the second coming of Kennedy, and to continue this argument would be as pointless as explaining fire to my dog.
Over, and out…
AlaskaGuy said,
August 30, 2004 at 0:51
Is anyone comparing someone like SMC Glen A. Braden (USN) who served from 8/1/1950 to 8/1972 who is reported to have received a Silver Star with Combat “V” to John Kerry who served 4 months????? Even if SMC Braden did recieve a V at least he earned it with his 22 years of service. He earned it especially for being a soldier who probably worked his way up the ranks as an enlisted. Not some wet behind the ears Lt. who shows up and doesn;t have a clue whats going on, goes back home and calls his fellow soldiers babykillers.
Jeff said,
August 30, 2004 at 18:44
Kerry’s Web site also carries a DD215 form revising his DD214, issued March 12, 2001, which adds four bronze campaign stars to his Vietnam service medal. The campaign stars are issued for participation in any of the 17 Department of Defense named campaigns that extended from 1962 to the cease-fire in 1973.
However, according to the Navy spokesman, Kerry should only have two campaign stars: one for “Counteroffensive, Phase VI,” and one for “Tet69, Counteroffensive.”
So Kerry asked for his 214 to be updated to a fraudulent number of campaign stars. This is not a clerical error, he submitted it, asking for the change.
Think for your self …
Bill said,
September 3, 2004 at 20:31
Oh boy. I’ve never seen so much attention to detail to ferret out some incredibly meaningless mistake made by the Navy (I don’t think the military bureaucracy has ever been noted for it’s attention to detail), during wartime, over thirty years ago. Isn’t that a bit much? Shouldn’t we be talking about the economy or health care or what their respective plans are for the war on terror? Clearly, nobody on either side is going to be swayed by some, at best, trivial detail that is unable to be proved one way or the other, so why bother. You’ve already made up your mind. As for someone’s comment about us being dupes and fools, I suggest that they eliminate all the spin, not just the spin that you disagree with. After eliminating all items related to all questions/comments above, the following facts remain: (1) John Kerry volunteered for and served on the ground in Vietnam, receiving at least one Purple Heart (that is unquestioned). (2) George Bush did not volunteer and did not see action. After that, everyhing else is really not all that relevant, is it?
By the way, I am a veteran of Korea and an ardent Republican and will be voting for George W. based on the real issues facing this country. However, I do so despite the comparison of military records, not because of them. Comparing military careers, Kerry’s service beats Bush’s hands down…something that George W. Bush agrees with, in fact. There’s no shame in that, and just because you support Bush doesn’t mean you have to be a sycophant about every single position and item that arises between Republicans and Democrats. Like it or not, it is clear that Kerry has the background and experience to be Commander-in-Chief, based on the last thirty years of his service to this country. What he may not have is the same sort of public support that Bush enjoys. Ultimately, that may or may not be important, because Bush’s support is far from unanimous.
Dean said,
September 6, 2004 at 8:24
Actually Bill , I think that character is very important and as a veteran of the first Gulf War I’m positive that if J F’n Kerry earned what medals he put himself in for, Then he would be the most decorated veteran in history. I challenge anyone to go down to there local V.A. hospital and ask veterans how many purple hearts did they recieve. Officers are the only ones who had Purple Hearts awarded thrice and are certainly the only ones who were awarded them while standing and not in a bed. Four months in country and bailed on his now so called band of brothers. You as a veteran can’t be that stupid Bill, and then to sit and say that his fellow soldiers were rapists and murderers after he left them there. “Come On” George W. Bush never used his military service as a tool for getting elected. His home of Texas has nothing but praise for him and you think that this piece of crap senator is worthy of being my Commander in Chief, I’d rather have William (dodge the draft) Clinton. I’m embarrased to hear a veteran spewing the kind of illiterate nonsense that you are talking Bill. If you want to know me and what I’m made of; Ask the men that I served with. On that note look at what J F’n Kerry’s fellow Swiftboat Veterans have to say about him. Oh wait they are all involved in the conspiracy against Kerry…..
Norman said,
September 6, 2004 at 17:49
Actually, Dean…
I think Bill made the most sensible post I have read on this topic. All these factless claims are being thrown around, but if you throw all that garbage aside, what is really being done? These are merely attacks on someones character, and it disgusts me that people don’t take the time to find out for themselves what is actually known.
I found this board by searching for info on this Silver Star debate, and I still cannot conclude that the “V” was rightfully there, a mere mistake, or a blatant move on Kerry’s part to exploit his war record. In any case, everyone seems to agree that it is redundant (the Silver Star is for Valor). Regardless, its obvious that there are Vets who are very bitter about Kerry’s actions after the war, and I think most people can understand those feelings. Would you feel the same way if everyone went with the gov’t and didn’t speak out and we fought this war into the ’80s? When does it become right to speak out about something that is wrong? Should the soldiers at Abu Ghraib have spoke out earlier? This can all be debated. What we do know is that we have two politicians who have served their country. Why aren’t Vets criticizing the chickenhawks in the current administration and past administrations who have sent our sons and daughters into battle? All I ever hear is Clinton, but we all know there are a lot more than just him.
Dean said,
September 7, 2004 at 0:36
Are they factless claims norman or did you not notice the accounts of J F’n Kerry’s fellow swiftboat veterans. Or do you believe that they are all speaking on behalf of the Republican party. The Facts: John F Kerry came home from Vietnam after his four hour tour, Leaving county and abandoning his fellow soldiers. also doing so on a technicality or munipulation of the military rule that someone is allowed to leave combat duty after recieving three purple hearts. Getting home and using that three months to spark his political career. He has admitted to embellishing his stories of atrocities. He has been outed on the merits of his purple hearts, and most of his other awards although we now must assume they were all fraudulant. He jeopardize the lives of American P.O.W’s by substantiating the Norths claims of them commiting war crimes and this is comeing from the vets that actually made it home. How many did not. As for Bush’s military service, He (GWB) must have had special insider knowledge to know that his Guard unit would not be sent to Vietnam. Kerry has brought up his military service to advance his career, How hipicritical when he so condemed it at the time. Bush never asked for a deferment as Kerry did and Bush didn’t commit the crimes that were commited at Abu Grab prison. You are one of the Morons that went to Michael Moore for your facts and can’t think for yourself. Me , I’ve talked to veterans, I’ve read transcripts from the Winter Soldier meetings and all of the Senate hearings that followed and I’m kind’a not surprised to hear you talking about us still being in Vietnam in the 80’s as you probably believe that Al Gore created the Internet. Kerry didn’t do America any favors by slandering the soldiers that were over there. As I see it he gave merit and validity to the Peace lovers that spat upon them as they returned. My Grandfather was a Marine in WW2 and to see the cover of John Kerry’s book, The New Soldier, simply turns my stomach. I’m wasting my time here so I’m ending this disscussion and hope that you enjoy your freedom and “God Bless America” and the Soldiers that keep her free.
April Dauenhauer said,
September 8, 2004 at 23:44
I too found this website from Googling the question of silver stars vith V. I felt the need of more facts. After reading the discussions, I realized why I believe the “padding” on Kerry’s military record is deliberate. It’s that he was not embarrassed to take three! purple hearts in just four months, for some scratches, while many other vets got less for losing their limbs (or lives). After that Kerry was not ashamed to slander his comrades in arms to our Congress. Bank tellers are trained to spot phony bills by handling the genuine currency. All of us who know and love the men who have served our country in the military with honor, are able to spot the phony, because we are close to the genuine guys. Real heroes don’t puff their deeds. ’nuff said.
Bill said,
September 10, 2004 at 15:09
Note to Dean: Your points would be much more acceptable if you could spell (or use a spell checker), construct a proper sentence and had matured past the need to write J F’n Kerry. You are obviously not a veteran of any service. Anyone can see that by reading your posts (what vet would say “I’ve talked to veterans…”).
For the rest of us, it is important to note that we are not voting for God. Certainly every Presidential candidate in the last 30+ years has had some character flaw or another, and I would guess that that has been true of every President (virtually every one of the Founding Fathers was a supporter of slavery, for example). Bush has his problems in this regard as well, and since it is on topic here, his military service is foremost among them. In my view, we Republicans have panicked because the Dems have been able to put forth a candidate, during a time of war, that has war experience superior to the President; indeed, superior to most of our administration. We have been successful in beating that out of them to this point, so hurrah for us. There were two ways in which we could have responded to Kerry’s (seemingly never-ending) talk about his military service. First, as we did, with a vengeful attack upon that service, which, though effective, is also a bit embarrassing, and opens us up to similar critique (which George W’s record may not stand up to). Second, we could have stood up on day one and loudly proclaimed our admiration for Kerry’s service and personally thanked him. This would have shut the argument down completely, we come out on the high road (no, we’re no longer on that) and we could have moved on to more important things.
I will be honest and admit that I do not know the details of Kerry’s actions after the war except to the extent that he protested our involvement there. I think that the tenor of those times was very different than our country today, and even just thirty-odd years later we have a difficult time understanding, especially those who weren’t there. However, I see Kerry’s resolve when he came home to be nearly heroic in nature. The Vietnam War was wrong from virtually every point of view, and that’s not a partisan opinion. Someone asks the question regarding Vietnam Vets, “how many did not” make it home? The more important question might be “how many MORE would not have made it home had the war continued?” I agree that much of the “content” of the anti-war movement in the 70’s was misguided at best, but it did force an end to our involvement there, which, ultimately, was a good thing. As for that starting Kerry’s political career, well, that just doesn’t make any sense at all. What’s most interesting is that those who claim that his return from Vietnam and subsequent protests was the start also claim that his time IN Vietname was a manufactured start to his political life. Which is it?
Bill said,
September 10, 2004 at 15:09
Note to Dean: Your points would be much more acceptable if you could spell (or use a spell checker), construct a proper sentence and had matured past the need to write J F’n Kerry. You are obviously not a veteran of any service. Anyone can see that by reading your posts (what vet would say “I’ve talked to veterans…”).
For the rest of us, it is important to note that we are not voting for God. Certainly every Presidential candidate in the last 30+ years has had some character flaw or another, and I would guess that that has been true of every President (virtually every one of the Founding Fathers was a supporter of slavery, for example). Bush has his problems in this regard as well, and since it is on topic here, his military service is foremost among them. In my view, we Republicans have panicked because the Dems have been able to put forth a candidate, during a time of war, that has war experience superior to the President; indeed, superior to most of our administration. We have been successful in beating that out of them to this point, so hurrah for us. There were two ways in which we could have responded to Kerry’s (seemingly never-ending) talk about his military service. First, as we did, with a vengeful attack upon that service, which, though effective, is also a bit embarrassing, and opens us up to similar critique (which George W’s record may not stand up to). Second, we could have stood up on day one and loudly proclaimed our admiration for Kerry’s service and personally thanked him. This would have shut the argument down completely, we come out on the high road (no, we’re no longer on that) and we could have moved on to more important things.
I will be honest and admit that I do not know the details of Kerry’s actions after the war except to the extent that he protested our involvement there. I think that the tenor of those times was very different than our country today, and even just thirty-odd years later we have a difficult time understanding, especially those who weren’t there. However, I see Kerry’s resolve when he came home to be nearly heroic in nature. The Vietnam War was wrong from virtually every point of view, and that’s not a partisan opinion. Someone asks the question regarding Vietnam Vets, “how many did not” make it home? The more important question might be “how many MORE would not have made it home had the war continued?” I agree that much of the “content” of the anti-war movement in the 70’s was misguided at best, but it did force an end to our involvement there, which, ultimately, was a good thing. As for that starting Kerry’s political career, well, that just doesn’t make any sense at all. What’s most interesting is that those who claim that his return from Vietnam and subsequent protests was the start also claim that his time IN Vietname was a manufactured start to his political life. Which is it?
Dean said,
September 12, 2004 at 2:33
Bill,
You’re right I can’t spell or form a sentence. You vote I’ll vote and hopefully America will never expierence another 9/11 . You obviously hate Bush and could care less about the facts. I guess I should start cutting and pasting from a word processor so that I don’t appear ignorant. It’s funny that I represent the Veterans as Yes I’m a combat Veteran, Decorated although I don’t have 4 purple hearts and the Congressional Medal of Honor. Johnson once said that those screaming make love and not war, Don’t look like they can do either. Also when a person becomes a Veteran, They still refer to Veterans as Veterans. You are very good at using your spell check Bill but as usual you lack common sense. I’d like to meet you and welcome you to Boot Camp Bill. Also I find it funny that the people screaming the loudest about the war are not usually involved in actually fighting the war. But don’t worry Bill you enjoy your day off on Veterans day “My gift to you” ! I will not argue about Kerry with you as you will only see my misspelled words and not the content. I will never believe that John F. Kerry was a hero for imbellishing his stories of atrocities in Nam. I base this on the message I’ve recieved from Family members (4) living (2) engraved on the wall. Were there atrocities commited ? I’m sure that there were. My problem is that he generalized and said that all were guilty. He dis-respected the Uniform, He dis-respected his fellow soldiers by leaving them early and then spewing lies about how they had cut heads off, Raped, etc…. He is well know in Vietnam and is regarded as a hero to the once North Vietnamese. As for the results from our involvement. I as a veteran don’t like to think that all those men died without a cause. I do know that after dealing with us, Communism didn’t spread across Asia (Domino Theory) as many predicted. Globaly the real numbers came after we pulled out of Saigon ( Now Ho Chi Mihn City)as the N/V slaughtered what was left. I’d like to think that all was not a waste But any time you place reporters and critics into something as emotional as a war the outcome is and will always be the same. My point is that you Bill are an Arm Chair Quarterback and should stick to watching the Michigan Vs. Notre Dame game.
Dean said,
September 12, 2004 at 2:52
“What’s most interesting is that those who claim that his return from Vietnam and subsequent protests was the start also claim that his time IN Vietname was a manufactured start to his political life. Which is it?”
They are one in the same. He was wearing the uniform when he returned and was still on active military status when he started his platform as a peace activist. He jeopardized the safety and welfare of prisoners of war by validating the claims of the Vietnamese captors. He stood in front of the Wall (illegaly I should add) and made a political comercial promoting his bid as a U.S. Senator. He has used (again illegally) Pictures and home movies that he produced while in Vietnam as a tool for his current campaign and has also used every opportunity to tell about his adventures in Nam and his now exposed lies about events that led to his awards, and Purple Hearts. I spend at least 12 hours a week at the Veterans Hospital and have met thousands of Vets, although I’ve never met any that got multi- Purple Hearts without seeing a hospital bed. Even a person who has never know the military or its customs should be scratching his/her head on that one.
Bill said,
September 14, 2004 at 18:31
I don’t hate George Bush at all and nothing I’ve said would indicate that I do. You’ve made that point up to support whatever it is you are trying to say. I voted for him in 2000 and supported his work following 9/11/2001. I have a number of problems with the war in Iraq (and, despite the widespread belief that an intelligent person cannot separate the two), I do support the work of the soldiers themselves (and I do something about that besides just saying so, in case you wonder). I will again be voting for George Bush in November, but as is clear, in the list of pros and cons between the candidates, Kerry’s military record outshines that of my candidate.
As I said before, I too am a veteran, having served briefly in Korea. I do not have any “significant” decorations but am not jealous of yours or Kerry’s. I honor them, in fact.
I would be interested in the content of your arguments, Dean, if there was any. You say things like “Kerry is a hero in North Vietnam,” “welcome me to Boot Camp Bill,” “I am sure there were [atrocities committed]“. Those aren’t substantive arguments at any level and, really, are just dumb. My original point was only that there are a lot of people that seem desperate to find some trivial factoid that tells how horrible John Kerry really is (”illegally filmed a commercial…” ?!?!) when it DOES NOT MATTER. Having a substantive position would be useful. The rest is not relevant.
George Bush has said, publicly and repeatedly, that John Kerry has a “better” military record than he has. Clearly, the President isn’t hurt by this and doesn’t see the need to attack on the point. Why are the rest of us so busy with it? It’s not the end of the world and it doesn’t even mean that Kerry would be an effective Commander in Chief.
We undermine our arguments, not strengthen them, with this kind of approach. In fact, I think that’s what so many of us liked about Ronald Reagan and now like about George Bush as he deals with terrorism, Congress, elections, etc. He has a clear focus on the larger issues facing him.
Finally, like it or not, the quality and power of your arguments are directly related to your ability to present it. Note that the Constitution (for example) doen’t start “Us the peeple…”
Anonymous said,
September 14, 2004 at 22:51
Boo Hoo, I’m so ashamed that Bill can’t comprehend what I’m xprss’n . Kerry is a fraud and you Bill are an idiot. Did I spell Idiot correct? Can you understand me Bill or do you need some Geritol. George Bush has nothing against John Kerry. It’s you and me dumbass ! We were wearing the uniform that he shit all over. You are alright with this Bill? Pull your head out of your ass Bill. If Kerry called you a Baby Killer and said that you cut off heads and raped women in Nam, Would you be offended? Did you cut off heads in Korea Bill, Hey I bet you did. You are a Baby killer aren’t you Bill, Raped you some Korean women while in country , didn’t you ? “Please don’t kill me G.I. Me love you long time” Are you offended by this Bill ? Good, then now you understand.
Dean said,
September 14, 2004 at 22:53
Boo Hoo, I’m so ashamed that Bill can’t comprehend what I’m xprss’n . Kerry is a fraud and you Bill are an idiot. Did I spell Idiot correct? Can you understand me Bill or do you need some Geritol. George Bush has nothing against John Kerry. It’s you and me dumbass ! We were wearing the uniform that he shit all over. You are alright with this Bill? Pull your head out of your ass Bill. If Kerry called you a Baby Killer and said that you cut off heads and raped women in Nam, Would you be offended? Did you cut off heads in Korea Bill, Hey I bet you did. You are a Baby killer aren’t you Bill, Raped you some Korean women while in country , didn’t you ? “Please don’t kill me G.I. Me love you long time” Are you offended by this Bill ? Good, then now you understand.
Dean said,
September 14, 2004 at 23:08
“Bill should be back with a response in a day or two because he will be busy with his spell check and paragraph structure.” “You Go Bill” When your wife is done proof reading your words; we will be here waiting…..(Jeopardy theme Song)…….
Bill said,
September 15, 2004 at 18:50
Actually, Dean, I’m fairly certain that there’s nothing I need to say. You’ve made yourself quite clear.
John said,
September 19, 2004 at 15:47
Dean said,
September 20, 2004 at 5:49
Yep…. Read It, And all Americans should also read Unfit For Command. Another good read is the transcripts from The Dick Cavett Show June 30th. 1971. The Debate of John F. Kerry and John E. O’neill. Dick Cavett asked the two if they thought that a bloodbath would occur if we pulled our troops from Vietnam. O’neill responded that he thought that it would cause a bloodbath. Kerry responded that he thought that no more then five thousand would perish. Unfortunatly O’neill was correct, An estimated 3.5 million to include the 2.5 in the Killing Fields of Cambodia, 1.4 million refugees, many of whom made it to the United States although Tens of thousands of “boat people” perished. Ironicly Kerry could not produce one incident of the many atrocity claims that he had used to spark controversy. Since 1971 Kerry has admitted to embellishing his stories of attrocities and It is now known that many of his so called Band Of Brothers never even served in Vietnam. It is also know that the peace movement in the United States gave comfort to the enemy, as they saw Civil Unrest as a victory and a reason to continue the fight in S.E. Asia. The Vietcong revere Kerry and Jane Fonda, and the whole peace movement. Kerry’s photo hangs on the Wall in a museum in (Saigon) Ho Chi Minh city, that celebrates the North Vietnamese victory over the Americans. Kerry disregarded our POW’s He betrayed his fellow servicemen, and he is a fraud.
John said,
September 21, 2004 at 0:20
Dean-I’m curious what you thought of the senate testimony above, exactly? I’m a undecided, which is how I stumbled across this page. Although I think it’s a minor decision point, all the static about military service is interesting. I wouldn’t bother with “unfit For Command” both because I don’t have time, and because I wouldn’t trust much out of any of these books that are published around elections nowadays. They’re certinly partisan and the conclusions they draw are questionable at best. Anyway, what do you draw from that testimony? I won’t say what I get, just yet.
Dean said,
September 21, 2004 at 3:42
John,
If you are not willing to research what is said in “Unfit For Command”, then our time would be best spent elsewhere. Also, I should add that John E. O’Neill is the person who debated JFK on the Dick Cavett Show in 1971. This is not a new battle for O’Neill. He was offended by John Kerry’s comments upon returning to the States. Kerry reopened wounds when he used a photo of his fellow Swiftboat veterans. The book is 185 pages and you are an intelligent individual, John. If you can invest $20.00 and a couple of hours reading then get back with me and we can discuss the Senate transcripts you posted above. I do read quite a bit and can seperate the Kitty Kelly’s from the John E. O’Neill’s. “Unfit” is essential reading for all who plan to vote in November.
Anonymous said,
September 21, 2004 at 22:40
Dean. If I had already made up my mind, then I would read pointless partisan drivel like Unfit for Command or go see Fahrenheit 911 because they would make me feel good about my decision. However, I haven’t made up my mind and am interested in something more.
I asked you on this board because it sounded like you had some definite opinions that I don’t really see, but am open to. That O’Neill was “offended” by Kerry’s statement seems pretty unimportant. For every person that didn’t like what he said, there’s one that did. Frankly, I don’t see anything that Kerry said either int he Cavett show or the Senate testimony that’s so bad. He definitely wanted the war to end immediately, definitely believed that a significant amount of “immoral” activities were taking place. Kerry certainly stretches the arguments, but so does O’Neill. I could definitely spend more time on re-reading those things, but nothing struck me, on either side, as an out and out lie. Stretch the truth? Certainly. The “problem” with the Cavett debate was that both Kerry and O’Neill were both more interested in “winning” than having any sort of discussion and just attacked and talked over each other at every opportunity, stretching the truth as they went. It was more humorus than anything (or would have been, with a different topic).
In the end, I’ve not been able to figure out what all the hubbub aoubt John Kerry has been in terms of his military service. Well, that’s not quite true. I do realize that the hubbub is there because he made it his lead issue and has stuck with it, at least until the last week or so. If the gist of what his critics say is true, then I can understand that, well, Kerry worked the system for his own political future, made some horrible, terrible mistakes when he joined the peace movement. However, if they’re more wrong than right, then Kerry served honorably and came home to fight for changes he saw as necessary. In the first case, it’s bad, but his record in the thirty years since certainly seems to reflect a much more moderate viewpoint. In the second case, he served for four months, so how useful is that really going to be to a potential commander in chief? Not very convincing arguments either way. That’s what I’ve been trying to figure out.
Anyway, Dean, I know you’ll not agree with me and say that Kerry is a scumbag, and I guess it’s cool that you have made up your mind, but I was just looking for some honest, legitimate help. Since I won’t have time to read the book (and doubt it’s veracity), I’ll search elsewhere.
John said,
September 21, 2004 at 22:40
Dean. If I had already made up my mind, then I would read pointless partisan drivel like Unfit for Command or go see Fahrenheit 911 because they would make me feel good about my decision. However, I haven’t made up my mind and am interested in something more.
I asked you on this board because it sounded like you had some definite opinions that I don’t really see, but am open to. That O’Neill was “offended” by Kerry’s statement seems pretty unimportant. For every person that didn’t like what he said, there’s one that did. Frankly, I don’t see anything that Kerry said either int he Cavett show or the Senate testimony that’s so bad. He definitely wanted the war to end immediately, definitely believed that a significant amount of “immoral” activities were taking place. Kerry certainly stretches the arguments, but so does O’Neill. I could definitely spend more time on re-reading those things, but nothing struck me, on either side, as an out and out lie. Stretch the truth? Certainly. The “problem” with the Cavett debate was that both Kerry and O’Neill were both more interested in “winning” than having any sort of discussion and just attacked and talked over each other at every opportunity, stretching the truth as they went. It was more humorus than anything (or would have been, with a different topic).
In the end, I’ve not been able to figure out what all the hubbub aoubt John Kerry has been in terms of his military service. Well, that’s not quite true. I do realize that the hubbub is there because he made it his lead issue and has stuck with it, at least until the last week or so. If the gist of what his critics say is true, then I can understand that, well, Kerry worked the system for his own political future, made some horrible, terrible mistakes when he joined the peace movement. However, if they’re more wrong than right, then Kerry served honorably and came home to fight for changes he saw as necessary. In the first case, it’s bad, but his record in the thirty years since certainly seems to reflect a much more moderate viewpoint. In the second case, he served for four months, so how useful is that really going to be to a potential commander in chief? Not very convincing arguments either way. That’s what I’ve been trying to figure out.
Anyway, Dean, I know you’ll not agree with me and say that Kerry is a scumbag, and I guess it’s cool that you have made up your mind, but I was just looking for some honest, legitimate help. Since I won’t have time to read the book (and doubt it’s veracity), I’ll search elsewhere.
Kevin Freeman said,
September 21, 2004 at 23:02
What an ass!
All Americans should also read Unfit For Command. - What the hell for?
Dick Cavett asked the two if they thought that a bloodbath would occur if we pulled our troops from Vietnam. O’neill responded that he thought that it would cause a bloodbath. Kerry responded that he thought that no more then five thousand would perish. Unfortunatly O’neill was correct, An estimated 3.5 million to include the 2.5 in the Killing Fields of Cambodia, 1.4 million refugees, many of whom made it to the United States although Tens of thousands of “boat people” perished. - That’s right, John Kerry was responsible for those deaths.
Ironicly Kerry could not produce one incident of the many atrocity claims that he had used to spark controversy. - Not true. And what’s wrong with sparking controversy?
Since 1971 Kerry has admitted to embellishing his stories of attrocities and It is now known that many of his so called Band Of Brothers never even served in Vietnam. - Hee hee!! What!?
It is also know that the peace movement in the United States gave comfort to the enemy, as they saw Civil Unrest as a victory and a reason to continue the fight in S.E. Asia. - Common sense would tell even you that the military organization from the Pentagon down to the leaders on the ground were more involved in the fighting than the peace movement. And how many lives were saved by drawing an early end to the war, which the peace movement played a huge part in? Ending a war in the interest of peace, by definition, would give the enemy a reason to stop fighting, wouldn’t it.
The Vietcong revere Kerry and Jane Fonda, and the whole peace movement. Kerry’s photo hangs on the Wall in a museum in (Saigon) Ho Chi Minh city, that celebrates the North Vietnamese victory over the Americans. - True. So what?
Kerry disregarded our POW’s He betrayed his fellow servicemen, and he is a fraud. - Hee hee!
Dean said,
September 21, 2004 at 23:13
If Kerry can make up lies to fit his agenda, and that’s alright with you then by all means roll with John Kerry. I hope that the best interest of the country is what’s important to him, But what I see is someone that is willing to tell everyone everything that they want to here, Thus the flip-flops and the waffling. Again I disagree that what O’neill has to say is in any way partisan although I base that on an educated opinion as I’ve read the book and have seen the professionalism that they show on there website. It is not a good comparison to mention Moore or Ferenheit 9/11 as he is a know liar and preys on American emotion to encite controversy. Moore has a very partisan objective that he does not hide. If you go to the discussion board on SwiftVets.com you will not find anything promoting Republicans, Democrats, or Bush.
I’m including the Mission Statement from the Swiftvets forum. Please note there is no mention of George Bush.
Senator John Kerry has made his 4-month combat tour in Vietnam the centerpiece of his bid for the Presidency. His campaign jets a handful of veterans around the country, and trots them out at public appearances to sing his praises. John Kerry wants us to believe that these men represent all those he calls his “band of brothers.”
But most combat veterans who served with John Kerry in Vietnam see him in a very different light
Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has been formed to counter the false “war crimes” charges John Kerry repeatedly made against Vietnam veterans who served in our units and elsewhere, and to accurately portray Kerry’s brief tour in Vietnam as a junior grade Lieutenant. We speak from personal experience — our group includes men who served beside Kerry in combat as well as his commanders. Though we come from different backgrounds and hold varying political opinions, we agree on one thing: John Kerry misrepresented his record and ours in Vietnam and therefore exhibits serious flaws in character and lacks the potential to lead.
We regret the need to do this. Most Swift boat veterans would like nothing better than to support one of our own for America’s highest office, regardless of whether he was running as a Democrat or a Republican. However, Kerry’s phony war crimes charges, his exaggerated claims about his own service in Vietnam, and his deliberate misrepresentation of the nature and effectiveness of Swift boat operations compels us to step forward.
For more than thirty years, most Vietnam veterans kept silent as we were maligned as misfits, addicts, and baby killers. Now that a key creator of that poisonous image is seeking the Presidency we have resolved to end our silence.
The time has come to set the record straight.
http://www.swiftvets.com
Dean said,
September 21, 2004 at 23:20
Thank You Kevin, Your helping me make my point……Hee Hee ! Lefties are so cute and animated, Gotta love em………
Kevin Freeman said,
September 22, 2004 at 0:29
The mission statement is fine. I don’t think too many people would argue with the facts, and the rest is open to argument, certainly.
1. Senator John Kerry has made his 4-month combat tour in Vietnam the centerpiece of his bid for the Presidency. - True.
2. His campaign jets a handful of veterans around the country, and trots them out at public appearances to sing his praises. - True
3. John Kerry wants us to believe that these men represent all those he calls his “band of brothers.” - Not true. Of course John Kerry, and everyone else on the face of the earth, understands that he is not universally loved. The daily polls would remind him of that in the case that he forgot. Do you suggest that John Kerry would (or should) fly around veterans that DON’T like him and make appearances at his appearances?
4. But most combat veterans who served with John Kerry in Vietnam see him in a very different light. - May or may not be true. Hinges on the word “Most”. And it doesn’t matter much anyway. At times, George W. Bush has had less than a 50% approval rating. Does that mean that he’s wrong? If he had a 2% approval rating, or if all but one or two guys condemned Kerry, that would be one thing. But that’s not the case.
5. Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has been formed to counter the false “war crimes” charges John Kerry repeatedly made against Vietnam veterans who served in our units and elsewhere. - Why the supposition that the war crimes charges were “false”? Is this group claiming that there were no “war crimes” committed?
6. And to accurately portray Kerry’s brief tour in Vietnam as a junior grade Lieutenant. - Yes, that’s accurate.
7. We speak from personal experience — our group includes men who served beside Kerry in combat as well as his commanders. - Kerry’s own group includes the same kind of men. This group points that out in the second sentence of their mission statement.
8. Though we come from different backgrounds and hold varying political opinions, we agree on one thing: John Kerry misrepresented his record and ours in Vietnam and therefore exhibits serious flaws in character and lacks the potential to lead. - I agree that they agree on that.
9. We regret the need to do this. Most Swift boat veterans would like nothing better than to support one of our own for America’s highest office, regardless of whether he was running as a Democrat or a Republican. - Fair enough. It may or may not be fair to ask: Have they been as suspect and vocal about the discrepancies in Bush’s service records?
10. However, Kerry’s phony war crimes charges. - See above.
11. His exaggerated claims about his own service in Vietnam. - Exaggerating the positives and downplaying the negatives is what happens during campaigns, and throughout life, for most of us.
12. His deliberate misrepresentation of the nature and effectiveness of Swift boat operations. - I’ll assume that this is true.
13. Compels us to step forward. - OK. They’re clearly compelled.
14. For more than thirty years, most Vietnam veterans kept silent. - Why is it improper for Kerry to speak for “most” vets, but acceptable for this group to claim that they do?
15. As we were maligned as misfits, addicts, and baby killers. - Vietnam and its aftermath, like the Civil War and its aftermath, was a horrible, tragic and eminently regrettable period of our past for all sorts of reasons. And like the Civil War, it still reverberates today. It is, though, again like the Civil War, primarily history and not the present. You’d be hard pressed…very hard pressed…to find even a significant minority of people that would call Vietnam Vets misfits, addicts and baby killers.
14. Now that a key creator of that poisonous image is seeking the Presidency we have resolved to end our silence. - John Kerry is noted by many as one of the people in this group, so this is true enough. I don’t see that it’s reasonable to say that any single person is responsible for creating that image. He wasn’t, for example, seen in that role five years ago. Hell, most of the population had never seen him. And just how does a Junior Grade Lt. come to wield this sort of power?
15. The time has come. - Odd that the one single man that destroyed the reputation of every Vietnam Veteran garnered so little attention until he ran for president. You would think that his name would be in all the schoolbooks, that everyone would know his name like they know Genghis Kahn, Napoleon Bonaparte, Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein and the rest.
16. To set the record straight. - Nothing wrong with that at all; in fact, it’s number one on the ol’ Bill of Rights. But there’s precious little evidence that they’ve set the record straight. Or, for that matter, that Kerry has set it straight. Seeing no clear decision on this point after thirty years of history leads me to think that “setting the record straight” will never happen.
I’m not sure how I helped you make your point, but if I did, your point is a rather weak one, even with my help. Whatever that point is.
Dean said,
September 22, 2004 at 2:25
Nice comeback Kevin, this I can respect. You raise some good questions and points. The hee hee thing kinda put me off at first but I guess you can contribute when poked.
“I’m not sure how I helped you make your point, but if I did, your point is a rather weak one, even with my help. Whatever that point is.”
My point is that the Main Stream Media has you brainwashed and you find it difficult to weigh all the issues, as you stated earlier, about not reading “Unfit For Command”. The other point was that your post was just immature and without any substance. If you were labeled a rapist and a baby killer, maybe you would understand! People keep saying that this is a non-issue, but I have to wonder if Kerry was the reason that our veterans were mistreated upon returning from ‘Nam. He helped bring about the end, although I don’t believe it was done correctly, I can’t blame Kerry for the mass killings that were done when we left Saigon. But I do question his motives. I think he was self-serving and I think he betrayed alot of people that would have given their lives to save his ass. As a veteran I question the amount of awards he recieved, I question the manner in which they were recieved and I just detest the fact that he only served four months on the ground. He left his fellow soldiers there and when you are in combat, the cause and reason disappear, it becomes about bringing you and your brothers home. Nothing More, Nothing Less. Kerry left and for that, he is a coward and a piss-poor excuse for a soldier, and a piss-poor excuse for an American. News Flash: Veterans Day will be held on November 02 this year.
Anonymous said,
September 22, 2004 at 3:34
First of all, there’s no such thing as a Mainstream Media as you think of it. That’s a farce dreamt up and promulgated by Rush Limbaugh. In this country’s history, there has never been such a wide variety of information sources available to read, study and consider as there is today, so put that out of your head. Even if there was, how could you possibly know that it had brainwashed me? You have no idea who I am, what I read, what I believe. I assume that you know what you’re talking about and have some real basis for the things you say. Why do you assume that I am ignorant? Is it simply because I don’t agree with you?
You say that my previous post is without substance. Can you tell me where the substance is missing? I agreed with most of that mission statement and gave reasons why the others at least may not be true. Where am I wrong?
You say that if I were labeled a racist and a baby killer I might understand. Have YOU yourself been labeled a rapist and a baby killer, Dean? If not, how do you know how these folks feel? And what about the veterans that were either (a) not called rapists and baby killers or (b) were called that, but did not accept that label. How do you know what they feel? I think you’re guilty of the same thing you accuse John Kerry of: speaking for everybody.
Yes, John Kerry was self-serving. Fine. So what? Do you suppose that any recent President, nay, any President was not self-serving? Do you know that even George Washington insisted on driving around in a fancy carriage to promote his own image as the leader of the country *after* he was elected?
Can you respond to this question: You detest that he only served four months on the ground. What is your opinion of George Bush’s service (or that of Rumsfeld, Cheney or Ashcroft while we’re at it). If you’re pissed at just four months, you must be fucking livid that the President and most of his cabinet did nothing. A second question on that: why does it upset you that he left after four months? Is it just because he didn’t put in more time? I’m seriously asking…it’s an interesting point. How long would he have needed to stay to satisfy you or are you irritated for some other reason? I think you said you were a veteran, right? Why did you leave? Are you a coward, and a poor soldier and American because you didn’t re-up? What about your friends, are they cowards because they went home? Why aren’t you a career soldier?
For myself, I consider service as a Senator, President, Representative, Diplomat, etc. as service to this country, as important, necessary and “useful” as that of a soldier. Our government was originally founded on that principal, as early representatives weren’t paid for their work. Although that lifestyle is way more lucrative now, and too many of the top positions are held by the very wealthy in the search for power, I still believe it is a service, not a gift.
In 1972 (or whatever year it was), that John Kerry petitioned to leave the service in order to pursue a Senatorial position in the hope of being able to effect change in this country (as I would submit he desired to do), well, then that’s alright with me. He didn’t quit (for example) to take a job with a defense contractor, and it doesn’t seem that he quit just to avoid danger, or avoid serving. He could easily have gotten a desk job somewhere just as easily as he got out early. He got out to continue serving, just in a different capacity.
You also say that Kerry is a coward? What about what he did in Vietnam that says he’s a coward?
Dean said,
September 22, 2004 at 6:02
Ouch: That is 10 minutes I’ll never get back !!
Kevin Freeman said,
September 22, 2004 at 18:10
Dean-I’ve noticed in all the previous posts that when you try to put something forward, or ask someone a question and they respond to it, or when someone asks you a question or an opinion, you almost always just change the subject. I know (and you probably know) that you can’t support your positions. Can you prove me wrong?
All that I can see that you’ve ever said is that “John Kerry is a fraud, and you should read Unfit for Command which will prove it.” What the hell? Is that all you’ve got?
I challenge you to respond to any of the questions I asked you above, clearly, with some reasonable explanation or fact to support your answers (”John Kerry is a fraud” is not a fact). Absent that, it’s clear what kind of political intellect you are.
For your convenience, I’ll paraphrase some of the questions I asked, but see above for the whole context:
1. Why do you assume that I am ignorant? Is it simply because I don’t agree with you?
2. You say that my previous post [regarding the swift boat vets mission statement] is without substance. Can you tell me where the substance is missing? I agreed with most of that mission statement and gave reasons why the others at least may not be true. Where am I wrong?
3. Do you suppose that any recent President, nay, ANY President was not self-serving?
4. You detest that Kerry only served four months on the ground. What is your opinion of George Bush’s service (or that of Rumsfeld, Cheney or Ashcroft while we’re at it). If you’re pissed at just four months, you must be fucking livid that the President and most of his cabinet did nothing.
5. Why does it upset you that he left after four months? Is it just because he didn’t put in more time? I’m seriously asking…it’s an interesting point. How long would he have needed to stay to satisfy you?
6. What of what John Kerry did IN VIETNAM suggests to you that he’s a coward?
We all eagerly await your answers.
Dean said,
September 22, 2004 at 21:27
Denied
Kevin Freeman said,
September 22, 2004 at 21:50
I didn’t think you’d have the courage or the facts to be able to formulate an answer.
You’re just a chickenshit coward. You’ll happily jump up and down and whine about John Kerry being a fraud, but when challenged on it, you can’t even respond at the most basic level. What a freakin’ loser.
Bill said,
September 22, 2004 at 23:39
Right on, brother. Right on.
Dean said,
September 23, 2004 at 4:46
Bill is back, Does your wife know your on the computer again Bill?
This little Bastard starts his shit by calling me an ass,
Disects my writing with his little immature quips and has no interest in hearing anything I have to say. So explain to me why I should give you the time of day? You are imature….Hee Hee… You are a name caller and now Bill is your biggest fan. Congrats. You are an antagonist and not interested in anything but what you already think you know. As for calling you ignorant, I didn’t what I said was that your first post was immature and lacked any kind of substance. As for me being a coward, I’d beat you to an inch of your pathetic life you little faggott. See now look what you’ve done, Now I’m name calling.
Kevin Freeman said,
September 23, 2004 at 14:28
And yet, Dean, you still cannot answer a single question!
You’re ignorant because: (1) You have a strange notion that when someone asks you a question it’s because they DON’T want to hear an answer, which make no sense. (2) You say that I’m not interested in anything but what I think I know, but in fact, I have already agreed with quite a few things that you have said (see my previous posts). You seem not to realize this.
You’re a coward because: It seems like you’re on this board to put your view out there and convince others what a fraud Kerry is, but now when directly asked about things, you run away instead of continuing the fight.
Many of the folks on the board (and, like Bill, there are probably a number who, at this point, are just enjoying watching you get pushed around). Even if you believed that I could not be convinced, maybe you could sway someone to understand what you’re saying. But you could only do that if you said something intelligent! C’mon, give it a try.
P.S. You should be careful about talking about “beating faggots”. Someone might get the wrong impression of you. Or maybe the right one?
Dean said,
September 23, 2004 at 18:17
Kevin, You are a little piece of dog shit and anyone who has read anything you have written above surly agrees. I’m not sure your American, let alone old enough to vote and you constant name calling gives no validity to the message you try to convey. I know your insecure with yourself and you hide behind your computer to escape the reality that you are a looser. My best advice would be for you to Join the Army and then talk your shit around real men. They do have a don’t ask, don’t tell policy now so the time you can spend in the shower would be priceless. You lacked hte basic knowledge of the topic and that is why I’m wasting my time. You start with and I’ll quote, “What an ass !” Now how in the hell am I supposed to take you serious? You cut and paste my posting (Learned that from Bill I’ll bet) Then disect it with little stupid quips…ie….Hee hee..What? You message gets lost son! Take a debate class there at Mrs. Johnsons 5th. grade and then present yourself in a way that may deserve a response. By the way; If you read the posts above, Bill resorted to attacking my spelling and sentence structure, thus his message was lost as well.
I could care less about how you feel about John Kerry or even Me. You’re questions are void of any kind of response, as you don’t know shit about Military, John Kerry, or any of this topic.
I’m going to humor your ignorance a little bit.
John Kerry was sent to Vietnam during the war. A combat tour consists of usually 11 months on the ground although most are dedicated to staying with the unit and wind up extending.
They give people the Purple Heart when they are wounded in combat. They usually pin this on the pillow of the soldier, as it is usally at the hospital where this is presented. The Purple Heart is a revered medal and in most cases is presented after the person has died.
The only reason that any of this is an issue is because Kerry used it as his platform. All of his bids for office, going all the way back to the seventies.
Back to our story: Now Kerry is deployed and while in Vietnam, He is put into a Swiftboat unit. They patroled the rivers and deltas. While there He is awarded Three Purple Hearts, A Bronze Star and a Silver Star, All this in four months.
Next he uses a military provision that allows a person who has recieved Three Purple hearts a ticket home. Walking I should add!
His fellow soldiers didn’t object as they had already labeled him a Purple Heart hunter and self serving and In combat that is the worst label that one can recieve.
Kerry went home and immediately helped form the VVAW (Vietnam Veterans Against The War). He was very active in his protests and you’re right Kevin “there is nothing wrong with having a voice”.
He made serious claims of brutal atrocities that he had witnessed while serving. He also IMHO endangered the lives of American soldiers who were engadged in battle or were prisoners of war.
Our enemies exploit civil unrest, They see it as a tool to help their cause. The Vietnamese government atribute the peace movement to the sucess of what they call the War of the Americans.
Next Kerry meets with the North Vietnamese government accidently while vacationing in Paris. This stuff is not made up and is well know unless you factor in the Non-existant MSM. By Kerry meeting with the enemy in Paris, He gave aid and comfort to the enemy and should have been arrested and jailed under the UCMJ (uniform code of military justice). Kerry was still in the military.
These are simply my views and about 600,000 other veterans of military service.
I think Kerry is a coward because he ran from the Pentagon like a scared little girl while others stood and became heroes.
I think he is a coward because he refuses to release all of his military records.
I think Kerry is a coward because he left his fellow soldiers after only four months.
I think he is a coward because he has exploited medals that me and all veterans hold sacred.
BTW, I was deployed as a unit and returned with my unit when I served!
His senate record sucks IMHO
He has no plan for Iraq IMHO
He has flipped on every issue imaginable.
He allowed or didn’t object to protesters swarming the Republican Nation Convention. He campaigned during the Republican Nation Convention, all of which is a violation and a disregard to Democracy as a whole.
The protesters by the way (IMHO) endangered homeland security by extending the resources of our military and police forces. It must be remembered that we are at war.
Again this disregard for public safety tells me that he is only thinking of himself.
He shifts blame on Bush when the Swiftboat vets arrive and claims there is a Republican conspiracy against him, But yet he never condems Michael Moore and the Smear Campaign that Moore waged against Bush. He is self-serving !
Anyway Kevin, I don’t see any reason to continue the personal bashing so your next post will dictate where this goes. Please remember that I do not endorse Bush, Kerry, Swiftvets for truth, or my favorite Football players for truth. Although I do endorse the ShrimpboatVeterans for truth.
Ron said,
September 27, 2004 at 18:06
It looks like Kevn isn’t here any more. Let me jump in:
Irrelevant Items
================
John Kerry was sent to Vietnam during the war. A combat tour consists of usually 11 months on the ground although most are dedicated to staying with the unit and wind up extending. (”Usually” 11 months…”most” stay with the unit. That’s accurate.)
They give people the Purple Heart when they are wounded in combat. They usually pin this on the pillow of the soldier, as it is usally at the hospital where this is presented. The Purple Heart is a revered medal and in most cases is presented after the person has died. (OK. But those “usually” cases you mention above are far from any sort of requirement. Your implication is that John Kerry wasn’t injured “enough”. That’s just wrong.)
The only reason that any of this is an issue is because Kerry used it as his platform. All of his bids for office, going all the way back to the seventies. (OK. I would too.)
Back to our story: Now Kerry is deployed and while in Vietnam, He is put into a Swiftboat unit. They patroled the rivers and deltas. While there He is awarded Three Purple Hearts, A Bronze Star and a Silver Star, All this in four months. (Sounds like an active, engaged, soldier to me. The awards, which I’ll point out here are not awarded by John Kerry to himself, but by superiors that probably don’t have any vested interest in his decorations, appear to be fairly impressive.)
Next he uses a military provision that allows a person who has recieved Three Purple hearts a ticket home. Walking I should add! (Three Purple Hearts sounds like a legitimate reason to go home, and it seems as though his superiors though so too. You are correct, however. He could have volunteered for more action.)
Kerry went home and immediately helped form the VVAW (Vietnam Veterans Against The War). He was very active in his protests and you’re right Kevin “there is nothing wrong with having a voice”. (That’s right)
Opinion-Only Items
==================
His fellow soldiers didn’t object as they had already labeled him a Purple Heart hunter and self serving and In combat that is the worst label that one can recieve. (Some soldiers may have thought this. Others may have not. A few may have even been envious. What others might think now is perhaps different than what they thought then while they were all getting shot at.)
He made serious claims of brutal atrocities that he had witnessed while serving. (Brutal atrocities are part of the legacy of Vietnam, unfortunately.)
He also IMHO endangered the lives of American soldiers who were engadged in battle or were prisoners of war. (In your opinion, OK. It may even be true. The peace movement may also have saved thousands of lives. Impossible to know.)
Our enemies exploit civil unrest, They see it as a tool to help their cause. (That makes sense, sure.)
The Vietnamese government atribute the peace movement to the sucess of what they call the War of the Americans. (The Vietnamese government may think this although I’m sure they are much more likely to give the “victory” to their people and their military rather than to American peace protesters. Additionally, I don’t understand it to be the view of military experts, historians, active participants, etc. I prefer a studied interpretation of the war to one which has a purely political/nationalistic purpose to it.)
Next Kerry meets with the North Vietnamese government accidently while vacationing in Paris. This stuff is not made up and is well know unless you factor in the Non-existant MSM. By Kerry meeting with the enemy in Paris, He gave aid and comfort to the enemy and should have been arrested and jailed under the UCMJ (uniform code of military justice). Kerry was still in the military. (Yes, this is well documented, even in the “MSM”. It hasn’t been very notable because, well, it’s not all that notable. If his actions were as extreme as you point out and he gave “aid and comfort” to the enemy, he would have been arrested. He wasn’t.)
These are simply my views and about 600,000 other veterans of military service. (Actually, they are simply your views. The other 600,000 can speak for themselves, I’m sure. A few might even disagree with you.)
I think Kerry is a coward because he ran from the Pentagon like a scared little girl while others stood and became heroes. (Earning Three Purple Hearts, a Silver Star and a Bronze Star, or even just one minor decoration, or nothing at all; while actually standing on the ground in combat shooting at the enemy and being shot at, for four months, or even for four minutes, is not a coward in my book. Sounds like you would categorize a fair number of our soldiers would qualify as cowards!)
I think he is a coward because he refuses to release all of his military records. (OK.)
I think Kerry is a coward because he left his fellow soldiers after only four months. (You keep repeating this one point, but as before, three Purple Hearts sounds like a legitimate reason to go home, and it seems as though his superiors though so too.)
I think he is a coward because he has exploited medals that me and all veterans hold sacred. (I’m not sure what you mean by “exploited medals.”)
BTW, I was deployed as a unit and returned with my unit when I served! (I thank you for your service to my country.)
His senate record sucks IMHO (OK)
He has no plan for Iraq IMHO (OK)
He has flipped on every issue imaginable. (OK)
Delusional Paranoid Items
=========================
He allowed or didn’t object to protesters swarming the Republican Nation Convention. He campaigned during the Republican Nation Convention, all of which is a violation and a disregard to Democracy as a whole. (Campaigning at any time is not illegal in any way whatsoever. Even if it were, calling it a disregard to democracy would be quite a stretch.)
The protesters by the way (IMHO) endangered homeland security by extending the resources of our military and police forces. It must be remembered that we are at war. (For one thing, the protestors are not John Kerry. As Benjamin Franklin said: “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Whether you agree with them or not, and whether you understand it or not, those protests are precisely what Franklin would have considered “essential liberty”.)
Again this disregard for public safety tells me that he is only thinking of himself. (Again, the protestors are not John Kerry. In fact, the protestors of which you spoke were protesting against George Bush much more than they are clamoring for John Kerry.)
He shifts blame on Bush when the Swiftboat vets arrive and claims there is a Republican conspiracy against him, But yet he never condems Michael Moore and the Smear Campaign that Moore waged against Bush. He is self-serving ! (Yes, of course.)
Attempted Humour But Not Funny Items
====================================
Anyway Kevin, I don’t see any reason to continue the personal bashing so your next post will dictate where this goes. Please remember that I do not endorse Bush, Kerry, Swiftvets for truth, or my favorite Football players for truth. Although I do endorse the ShrimpboatVeterans for truth. (At the very minimum, you did directly endorse the Swiftvets for Truth and I am quite sure that you would/do endorse George Bush for President.)
I feel the same way that most of the people that you have been arguing with do. This issue is (a) one that has either a lot evidence on either side, or little evidence on either side and therefore cannot be easily resolved and (b) is unimportant in the whole scheme of the election, especially when compared to George Bush’s military record.
What is much nmore importa