Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Dune on January 27, 2004, 02:21:17 PM
-
January 27, 2004, 8:25 a.m.
Vetting the Vet Record: Is Kerry a proud war hero or angry antiwar protester?
by Mackubin Thomas Owens
John Kerry, we know, is running against John Kerry: his own voting record. But there is another record that John Kerry is running against, and this has to do with his very emergence as a Democratic politician: Kerry, the proud Vietnam veteran vs. Kerry, the antiwar activist who accused his fellow Vietnam veterans of the most heinous atrocities imaginable.
John Kerry not only served honorably in Vietnam, but also with distinction, earning a Silver Star (America's third-highest award for valor), a Bronze Star, and three awards of the Purple Heart for wounds received in combat as a swift-boat commander. Kerry did not return from Vietnam a radical antiwar activist. According to the indispensable Stolen Valor, by H. G. "Jug" Burkett and Genna Whitley, "Friends said that when Kerry first began talking about running for office, he was not visibly agitated about the Vietnam War. 'I thought of him as a rather normal vet,' a friend said to a reporter, 'glad to be out but not terribly uptight about the war.' Another acquaintance who talked to Kerry about his political ambitions called him a 'very charismatic fellow looking for a good issue.'" Apparently, this good issue would be Vietnam.
Kerry hooked up with an organization called Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW). Two events cooked up by this group went a long way toward cementing in the public mind the image of Vietnam as one big atrocity. The first of these was the January 31, 1971, "Winter Soldier Investigation," organized by "the usual suspects" among antiwar celebrities such as Jane Fonda, Dick Gregory, and Kennedy-assassination conspiracy theorist, Mark Lane. Here, individuals purporting to be Vietnam veterans told horrible stories of atrocities in Vietnam: using prisoners for target practice, throwing them out of helicopters, cutting off the ears of dead Viet Cong soldiers, burning villages, and gang-raping women as a matter of course.
The second event was "Dewey Canyon III," or what VVAW called a "limited incursion into the country of Congress" in April of 1971. It was during this VVAW "operation" that John Kerry first came to public attention. The group marched on Congress to deliver petitions to Congress and then to the White House. The highlight of this event occurred when veterans threw their medals and ribbons over a fence in front of the Capitol, symbolizing a rebuke to the government that they claimed had betrayed them. One of the veterans flinging medals back in the face of his government was John Kerry, although it turns out they were not his medals, but someone else's.
Several days later Kerry testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. His speech, touted as a spontaneous rhetorical endeavor, was a tour de force, convincing many Americans that their country had indeed waged a merciless and immoral war in Vietnam. It was particularly powerful because Kerry did not fit the antiwar-protester mold — he was no scruffy, wide-eyed hippie. He was instead the best that America had to offer. He was, according to Burkett and Whitley, the "All-American boy, mentally twisted by being asked to do terrible things, then abandoned by his government."
Kerry began by referring to the Winter Soldiers Investigation in Detroit. Here, he claimed, "over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command."
It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit, the emotions in the room, the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam, but they did, they relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.
They told their stories. At times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.
This is quite a bill of particulars to lay at the feet of the U.S. military. He said in essence that his fellow veterans had committed unparalleled war crimes in Vietnam as a matter of course, indeed, that it was American policy to commit such atrocities.
In fact, the entire Winter Soldiers Investigation was a lie. It was inspired by Mark Lane's 1970 book entitled Conversations with Americans, which claimed to recount atrocity stories by Vietnam veterans. This book was panned by James Reston Jr. and Neil Sheehan, not exactly known as supporters of the Vietnam War. Sheehan in particular demonstrated that many of Lane's "eye witnesses" either had never served in Vietnam or had not done so in the capacity they claimed.
Nonetheless, Sen. Mark Hatfield inserted the transcript of the Winter Soldier testimonies into the Congressional Record and asked the Commandant of the Marine Corps to investigate the war crimes allegedly committed by Marines. When the Naval Investigative Service attempted to interview the so-called witnesses, most refused to cooperate, even after assurances that they would not be questioned about atrocities they may have committed personally. Those that did cooperate never provided details of actual crimes to investigators. The NIS also discovered that some of the most grisly testimony was given by fake witnesses who had appropriated the names of real Vietnam veterans. Guenter Lewy tells the entire study in his book, America in Vietnam.
Kerry's 1971 testimony includes every left-wing cliché about Vietnam and the men who served there. It is part of the reason that even today, people who are too young to remember Vietnam are predisposed to believe the worst about the Vietnam War and those who fought it. This predisposition was driven home by the fraudulent "Tailwind" episode some months ago.
The first cliché is that atrocities were widespread in Vietnam. But this is nonsense. Atrocities did occur in Vietnam, but they were far from widespread. Between 1965 and 1973, 201 soldiers and 77 Marines were convicted of serious crimes against the Vietnamese. Of course, the fact that many crimes, either in war or peace, go unreported, combined with the particular difficulties encountered by Americans fighting in Vietnam, suggest that more such acts were committed than reported or tried.
But even Daniel Ellsberg, a severe critic of U.S. policy in Vietnam, rejected the argument that the biggest U.S. atrocity in Vietnam, My Lai, was in any way a normal event: "My Lai was beyond the bounds of permissible behavior, and that is recognizable by virtually every soldier in Vietnam. They know it was wrong....The men who were at My Lai knew there were aspects out of the ordinary. That is why they tried to hide the event, talked about it to no one, discussed it very little even among themselves."
My Lai was an extreme case, but anyone who has been in combat understands the thin line between permissible acts and atrocity. The first and potentially most powerful emotion in combat is fear arising from the instinct of self-preservation. But in soldiers, fear is overcome by what the Greeks called thumos, spiritedness and righteous anger. In the Iliad, it is thumos, awakened by the death of his comrade Patroclus that causes Achilles to leave sulking in his tent and wade into the Trojans.
But unchecked, thumos can engender rage and frenzy. It is the role of leadership, which provides strategic context for killing and enforces discipline, to prevent this outcome. Such leadership was not in evidence at My Lai.
But My Lai also must be placed within a larger context. The NVA and VC frequently committed atrocities, not as a result of thumos run amok, but as a matter of policy. While left-wing anti-war critics of U.S. policy in Vietnam were always quick to invoke Auschwitz and the Nazis in discussing alleged American atrocities, they were silent about Hue City, where a month and a half before My Lai, the North Vietnamese and VC systematically murdered 3,000 people. They were also willing to excuse Pol Pot's mass murderer of upwards of a million Cambodians.
The second cliché is that is that Vietnam scarred an entire generation of young men. But for years, many of us who served in Vietnam tried to make the case that the popular image of the Vietnam vet as maladjusted loser, dehumanized killer, or ticking "time bomb" was at odds with reality. Indeed, it was our experience that those who had served in Vietnam generally did so with honor, decency, and restraint; that despite often being viewed with distrust or opprobrium at home, most had asked for nothing but to be left alone to make the transition back to civilian life; and that most had in fact made that transition if not always smoothly, at least successfully.
But the press could always find the stereotypical, traumatized vet who could be counted on to tell the most harrowing and gruesome stories of combat in Vietnam, often involving atrocities, the sort of stories that John Kerry gave credence to in his 1971 testimony. Many of the war stories recounted by these individuals were wildly implausible to any one who had been in Vietnam, but credulous journalists, most of whom had no military experience, uncritically passed their reports along to the public.
-
Is this the war criminal SEAL Kerry or the REMF turned puddle pirate turned hippie Kerry?
-
I had always agreed with the observation of the late Harry Summers, a well-known military commentator who served as an infantryman in Korean and Vietnam, that the story teller's distance from the battle zone was directly proportional to the gruesomeness of his atrocity story. But until the publication of the aforementioned Stolen Valor: How the Vietnam Generation Was Robbed of Its Heroes and its History, neither Harry nor I any idea just how true his observation was.
In the course of trying to raise money for a Texas Vietnam Veterans Memorial, Burkett discovered that reporters were only interested in homeless veterans and drug abuse and that the corporate leaders he approached had bought into the popular image of Vietnam veterans. They were not honorable men who took pride in their service, but whining welfare cases, bellyaching about what an immoral government did to them.
Fed up, Burkett did something that any reporter worth his or her salt could have done: he used the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to check the actual records of the "image makers" used by reporters to flesh out their stories on homelessness, Agent Orange, suicide, drug abuse, criminality, or alcoholism. What he found was astounding. More often than not, the showcase "veteran" who cried on camera about his dead buddies, about committing or witnessing atrocities, or about some heroic action in combat that led him to the current dead end in his life, was an impostor.
Indeed, Burkett discovered that over the last decade, some 1,700 individuals, including some of the most prominent examples of the Vietnam veteran as dysfunctional loser, had fabricated their war stories. Many had never even been in the service. Others, had been, but had never been in Vietnam.
Stolen Valor made it clear why John Kerry's testimony in 1971 slandered an entire generation of soldiers. Kerry gave credence to the claim that the war was fought primarily by reluctant draftees, predominantly composed of the poor, the young, or racial minorities.
The record shows something different, indicating that 86 percent of those who died during the war were white and 12.5 percent were black, from an age group in which blacks comprised 13.1 percent of the population. Two thirds of those who served in Vietnam were volunteers, and volunteers accounted for 77 percent of combat deaths.
Kerry portrayed the Vietnam veteran as ashamed of his service:
We wish that a merciful God could wipe away our own memories of that service as easily as this administration has wiped their memories of us. But all that they have done and all that they can do by this denial is to make more clear than ever our own determination to undertake one last mission, to search out and destroy the last vestige of this barbaric war, to pacify our own hearts, to conquer the hate and the fear that have driven this country these last ten years and more, and so when in 30 years from now our brothers go down the street without a leg, without an arm, or a face, and small boys ask why, we will be able to say "Vietnam" and not mean a desert, not a filthy obscene memory, but mean instead the place where America finally turned and where soldiers like us helped it in the turning.
But a comprehensive 1980 survey commissioned by Veterans' Administration (VA) reported that 91 percent of those who had seen combat in Vietnam were "glad they had served their country;" 80 percent disagreed with the statement that "the US took advantage of me;" and nearly two out of three would go to Vietnam again, even knowing how the war would end.
Today, Sen. Kerry appeals to veterans in his quest for the White House. He invokes his Vietnam service at every turn. But an honest, enterprising reporter should ask Sen. Kerry this: Were you lying in 1971 or are you lying now? We do know that his speech was not the spontaneous, emotional, from-the-heart offering that he suggested it was. Burkett and Whitley report that instead, "it had been carefully crafted by a speech writer for Robert Kennedy named Adam Walinsky, who also tutored him on how to present it."
But the issue goes far beyond theatrics. If he believes his 1971 indictment of his country and his fellow veterans was true, then he couldn't possibly be proud of his Vietnam service. Who can be proud of committing war crimes of the sort that Kerry recounted in his 1971 testimony? But if he is proud of his service today, perhaps it is because he always knew that his indictment in 1971 was a piece of political theater that he, an aspiring politician, exploited merely as a "good issue." If the latter is true, he should apologize to every veteran of that war for slandering them to advance his political fortunes.
— Mackubin Thomas Owens is an NRO contributing editor and a professor of strategy and force planning at the Naval War College in Newport, R.I. He led a Marine infantry platoon in Vietnam in 1968-1969.
From the National Review Online (http://www.nationalreview.com/owens/owens200401270825.asp)
-
So can we try him as a war criminal?
-
I didnt think many gang rapes happend on boats....I could be wrong though
-
Originally posted by Saurdaukar
So can we try him as a war criminal?
Nope....that's for Bush. Kerry gonna be the next Prez....haven't ya heard?
-
Good read... thanks.
probably pretty accurate.
Charon
-
vietnam was an illegal and immoral war.
That goofy anti john kerry site that popped up after iowa is already downl.
http://www.usvetdsp.com/jf_kerry.htm
-
More right-wing propaganda...smear campaign.
LOL...sorry...had to say it after all the BS posts about "liberal propaganda" on the forum.
-
Couldn't read the cut and paste, too long.
So just say Kerry wins, who's his Vice Pes running mate against Bush? I'm serious.
-
Al Gore:rofl
-
Basically, he could be the current President, so Gore is not a completely overused and destroyed by Mr. Black BBS smilie thing.
Really, can the Democrats choose one of the loosing front runners for a running mate?
-
It will be Edwards or Clark. It will be someone from the south.
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
vietnam was an illegal and immoral war.
Correct we should just have stood by and let communism invade anywhere it wanted to....
At least you are showing your colors...
-
How was communism invading? The people of that country wanted it. Why shouldnt we have just let them alone. Instead we fought to keep it a french colony/dictatorship. Study some history.
-
Groinhurts, thats it! Lol, you sour sob, the fat gay bastards are going to finance your trip to NV and the Bunny Ranch, and a black woman named Katherin Jones is going to bury that chip on your shoulder once and for all. I've had it with you.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Correct we should just have stood by and let communism invade anywhere it wanted to....
At least you are showing your colors...
Not bad for someone not even born at the time and not even in USA ;)
"...we...." LOL
Do you fight in Iraq as well ?
Next thing might be you telling me how you defended Croatia when it needed you, instead of watching it from safe distance.
-
gotta love a guy who is a "war hero" but came back and spat on the military, couldn't wait to throw his medals away yet salutes his backers at every "winning" opportunity...
not to mention the fact his rich arse liberal wife runs the show, and you thought Hillary was bad ... LOL :rofl
-
Originally posted by Eagler
not to mention the fact his rich arse liberal wife runs the show, and you thought Hillary was bad ... LOL :rofl
Yeah...but you have to admit that Heinz 57 is much better than A1!
-
I've to follow my new year resolution :)
-
If i could i would have voted for Kerry rather than Bush. :aok
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
vietnam was an illegal and immoral war.
Vietnam was not a war - it was a police action.
-
Might as well not rehash Viet Nam- it was stupid for the US to be in it for a number of reasons. Illegal? I dunno... the South Vietnamese seemed happy to have us there. But then there's that "Gulf of Tonkin" thingy...
Anyway, who would make a good running mate for Kerry? Hmmm... would he be stupid enough to put his personal Karl Rove (Teddy Kennedy) up there with him? Nah, that's a sure loser on the national level. I guess I'd have to agree with the thought he'd select from the next viable candidate after Dean. That'd solidify his hold on the greatest number of voters, and let's face it, there isn't a whit of difference between the major candidates socially anyway.
-
Right on Eagler! Even worse still is walking away (deserting) your unit while the Vietnam war is ongoing.
-
Regardless, I think Kerry is going to get the Democratic ticket.
-
Good job Westy. If you have a false or unproven claim, it's best not to name names. :)
-
So Kerry answers his country's call and does his duty, even tho he does not believe in it. When he returns home he does everything he can to make sure noone else has to die in a War they did not believe in. OMG how can we allow this man to walk around free? He obviously should have had strings pulled so he could have stayed stateside to ditch his duties to work on political campaigns.
I'm still leaning in Clark's direction, but a Kerry/Clark ticket does not sound bad.
-
How is the info false or unproven? I've found nothing to debunk the accusation that GWB walked away from his Guard duty for a year during the Vietnam war. On the contrary I find plenty that convince me that he deserted.
I'm all ears if you have sources (links?) with true facts that he did not.
-
I'm all ears for "true facts" that he did anything illegal or improper during his service. I know lots of people that "walked away" from the military. Everything I've seen indicates that he got an honorable discharge.
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
How was communism invading? The people of that country wanted it. Why shouldnt we have just let them alone. Instead we fought to keep it a french colony/dictatorship. Study some history.
So Vietnam was a French controlled country in the 1960? Right... Yo do know the Vietnamese kickced them out in the mid 1950s? The communists were just one fcation, not everyone loved them... But look I understnd how you would want them to win, bad USA, booo. Go go China, go go Mao, go go Stalin!!! Workers of the world unite!!!
You know if we, uhhh I mean evil imperialist amerikan nazi stormtroopers, yes, had lost the Korean war I bet you'd be saying the Korean people wanted communism...
Everyone just loves communism, they love it so much they build great big walls to keep the communism just for themselves.
Hristo, I see myself as an American, I love this country. I'm sorry you are bitter and small and that you hate it out of your ignorance. As for the "we" I am not ashamed to associate and identify myself with the people who sacrificed for my freedom and my opportunity, as all of us are Americans - good or bad. I'm not taking credit for anything they did I just consider them and their actions part of my community and culture and history of my new home...
My family left yugoslavia because communism sucked, I dont regreat it one bit.
-
Funked I tend to agree that it was okay for draft dodgers and people who were against that war to have walked away. I even support those who went to Canada to avoid having to serve.
But Bush was not drafted. He also cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars in training. And he flaunts and hypes that dubious, non-combat career at every opportunity he has while at the same time he cuts verterans benefits at home and fails to help properly equip the US forces in Iraq.
At this time do you want me to cut&paste articles on this or should I just provide the links to the issue?
So while you seem to feel that his choice to not perform his duty for over a year (in the safe, cushy, part-time, stateside assignment he had) wasn't illegal and improper I certainly do since tries to use his military "record" as a chest thumping positive. And from my readings on Bush's background many other people feel the same too.
My post was slightly subtle sarcasm aimed at Eagler and his hateful sounding opinion of Kerrys' actions as an anti-war vet and activist. At least Kerry served and earned thos medals. things I cannot say of the current brave Commander in Chief.
-
Originally posted by rpm371
So Kerry answers his country's call and does his duty, even tho he does not believe in it. When he returns home he does everything he can to make sure noone else has to die in a War they did not believe in.
that's fine but ur either a military hero or your a military hater - how can you be both?
I think his mindset is too weak for the country & its present terrorist threat - u can bet on our enemies prayin to allah this admin is replaced with any of the spineless left choices...
And it would be a John/John ticket is the want to stand any kind of chance
-
"how can you be both? "
Easy! A military hero is someone who distinguished themselves in combat (something GWB never did btw). And since this is the US of A and not Nazi Germany or North Korea he's MORE than earned the right (which all US citizens have under the 1st Amendment. Till GWB yanks that too...) to express his emotions towards the government or the military complex which had sent over 58,0000 Americans to thier death in such a bull**** war.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
that's fine but ur either a military hero or your a military hater - how can you be both?
I think his mindset is too weak for the country & its present terrorist threat - u can bet on our enemies prayin to allah this admin is replaced with any of the spineless left choices...
And it would be a John/John ticket is the want to stand any kind of chance
I consider myself conservative on most issues, but I find this stance to be pretty simplistic. Viet Nam was arguably a civil war in which we chose to get involved. Whether or not it was for a good reason doesn't really matter, because we half-assed it from the leadership level and wouldn't do what had to be done to win. We set ourselves up for a great big fall to the tune of 58K soldiers dead. That's just stupid by any reasonable person's reckoning.
John Kerry, though I abhor his social politics, earns my respect for having served with distinction. To question his fiber is a slap in the face to any such person who's been there. Disagree with his politics, but don't question his courage- unless you have proof I don't know of.
-
Originally posted by Westy
How is the info false or unproven? I've found nothing to debunk the accusation that GWB walked away from his Guard duty for a year during the Vietnam war. On the contrary I find plenty that convince me that he deserted.
I'm all ears if you have sources (links?) with true facts that he did not.
I have nothing to debunk the alleged existance of bigfoot. I have seen photographic evidence, footprint casts, etc. Therefore it must exist.
I'm all ears if you have sources (links?) with true facts that it does not.
-
That sux Groin. But I wish you luck.
-
So you don't see the parallel of believing an unproven accustation due to the lack of evidence to the contrary?
-
I do not as you try to show it. Definately not in the case of Bush and his willful absence from duty in 1972. It's not inuendo. It's not rumour. He did not show up for over a year.
http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/
http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/3671
http://www.motherjones.com/news/outfront/2003/01/ma_217_01.html
http://www.georgewalkerbush.net/militaryrecord.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/20010107212300/http://www.boston.com/news/politics/campaign2000/news/Questions_remain_on_Bush_s_service_as_Guard_pilot+.shtml
need more?
-
No, what we have is no evidence that he did. We have no evidence that he did not, except for the lack of records.
Of course, the government has never stopped paying a serviceman because a record snafu thought he was dead, only to find out that he had been alive all along.... that never happens. The record keeping of the military and all other government branches is immaculate.
Want me to post some bigfoot links?
-
RPM said it already, but it bears repeating.....
1. He serves with distinction.. Silver Star, Bronze Star, 3x Purple Heart.
2. He comes home and excersizes his right as an American to protest the War.
3. Some idiot considers this a contradiction.
4. Sheeesh!
-
Kerry had more right to protest the Vietnam war than most.
If he can't, who can?
-
MT that would be nice if the protests hadn't caused politicians to tie the military's hands, causing a lot of our boys to get killed or maimed.
-
I can bet you $10 on this one- there won't be a single Republican in the re-elect Bush campaign that would be stupid enough to try to impugn Kerry on his war record.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
MT that would be nice if the protests hadn't caused politicians to tie the military's hands, causing a lot of our boys to get killed or maimed.
Not to disagree with you too much, but do you suppose the thought of all-out war with the USSR or China had anything to do with it too?
-
Funked how did the protests tie the Poli's hands?
Honest ? here.
-
IMO there's plenty of proof there. IT's easier than connecting the dots. But waving it all off as eronious kept military records is a reach to say the least. I imagine the truth is what you want to believe McGroin. Bush has had ample opportuntiy to answer the accusations and doesn't.
I for one do not like Bush for his shallow character. I don't know who I am voting for but it won't be him even if he tries to dress himself up with credibility and depth via Guilliani. I don't doubt the accusations that he was awol for a year doing political work in another state. And IMO the charade just gets worse when the lying sack insinuates he was eager and able for Vietnam combat duty but his request (which no one has a copy of) was so unfortunateyl turned down as he failed his flight physical. Why? Because his unit never saw him for over a year.
-
Ping, if the politicians had not been involved, the war would have been over very quickly. The US would have bombed the snot out of the North and made a massive invasion. Game Over.
Instead they dicked around fighting a limited war, and wasted time, money, and human lives.
Kieran makes a good point about the threat of WWIII, and this was certainly a factor for the politicians, but the increasing public resistance to the war was a bigger factor IMHO. The number one goal of any US politician is to get re-elected. Everything else follows from that.
-
medals and all - he's too weak to lead this nation at this time & the majority knows it...
-
I understand that, but I thought that the politicians were demanding hands on from day one.
-
Eagler, You are just not you without the GWB avatar ;)
-
Westy, try as you might, there is nothing in there about GWB being AWOL. Obviously there is some on usual stuff in the records, but the phrase AWOL or "deserter" or "desertion" does not appear. The USAF made their final verdict on his service and that was an Honorable Discharge. If he did all these things wrong (as you conclude from inadequate documentation), would that not have precluded an Honorable Discharge?
In any case, it's irrelevant. The issue here is not what Kerry (or Dubya) did in the service. It's what Kerry did AFTER his discharge.
-
Originally posted by Ping
I understand that, but I thought that the politicians were demanding hands on from day one.
I agree, it was a ****up before the protests started happening. But the protests didn't help things, just made it worse for our guys. Easymo has posted a bunch on this over on AGW, do a search over there for his posts in Kerry threads. Easymo was out there in the **** at the time, I was just a zygote, so I defer to him on this topic.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
I can bet you $10 on this one- there won't be a single Republican in the re-elect Bush campaign that would be stupid enough to try to impugn Kerry on his war record.
Seems there are some Repubs on this BBS that ARE indeed that stupid.
yowser
-
LOL, Kerry was the driving force that lost the war, and Bush wasn't missing for a year because he got an honorable discharge. Sometimes you scare me, Funked.
-
Originally posted by SOB
Sometimes you scare me, Funked.
It's normal for the weak-minded to be intimidated by greater intellect. It's like in sci-fi movies when really smart aliens invade the earth. I can really empathize with my homey Miko right now.
-
LOL, you are my alien hero, Funkynuts!
-
I just have a hard time when I hear the term "war hero" when I've also read/heard that he walked happily side by side with people that spit on returning war heros and referred to them as "baby killers" Yes he served and thats awsome. But to come home and disrespect his own service in the fasion that he did....that's another story.
-
You've got to be kidding. With Bush's connections (his he was making as well as "Dad's") there was no way in hell he was getting out with anything less than an honorable discharge.
As for what this topic was originally about? I see nothing wrong with what Kerry did. Sure he kept his medals while he tossed his ribbons along with the medals several vets gave to him for use in a righteous and very symbolic act of protest. That Kerry kept his medals is of no consequence to me. It's small peanuts compared to Bush's repertoire of fugg ups.
-
Originally posted by SOB
LOL, you are my alien hero, Funkynuts!
If you are nice to me I will help you study for the GED.
I AM SO SMRT!!!
S-M-R-T!!!
S-M-R-T!!!
S-M-R-T!!!
DOH!!!
-
This is going to be an Interesting election year.
Gets out the jiffy pop.
-
Originally posted by Westy
With Bush's (sr' and his that hge was making) connections there was no way in hell he was getting out with anything less than an honorable discharge.
Huh? HGE?
-
Originally posted by rpm371
So Kerry answers his country's call and does his duty, even tho he does not believe in it. When he returns home he does everything he can to make sure noone else has to die in a War they did not believe in. OMG how can we allow this man to walk around free? He obviously should have had strings pulled so he could have stayed stateside to ditch his duties to work on political campaigns.
I'm still leaning in Clark's direction, but a Kerry/Clark ticket does not sound bad.
If that's how you see Kerry, then you're not payin attention to what he really did and why.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
RPM said it already, but it bears repeating.....
1. He serves with distinction.. Silver Star, Bronze Star, 3x Purple Heart.
2. He comes home and excersizes his right as an American to protest the War.
3. Some idiot considers this a contradiction.
4. Sheeesh!
Are you aware of recent accounts by his peers of that time, that he was only looking for an issue to advance his political career? Did you watch 60 minutes?
Are your eyes open for only Bush?:)
-
Kerry/Clark won't happen...
"Kerry was only a Lt. and I was a General." Clark
Kerry/Edwards has more plausability.
-
Originally posted by Westy
Funked I tend to agree that it was okay for draft dodgers and people who were against that war to have walked away. I even support those who went to Canada to avoid having to serve.
But Bush was not drafted. He also cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars in training. And he flaunts and hypes that dubious, non-combat career at every opportunity he has while at the same time he cuts verterans benefits at home and fails to help properly equip the US forces in Iraq.
At this time do you want me to cut&paste articles on this or should I just provide the links to the issue?
So while you seem to feel that his choice to not perform his duty for over a year (in the safe, cushy, part-time, stateside assignment he had) wasn't illegal and improper I certainly do since tries to use his military "record" as a chest thumping positive. And from my readings on Bush's background many other people feel the same too.
My post was slightly subtle sarcasm aimed at Eagler and his hateful sounding opinion of Kerrys' actions as an anti-war vet and activist. At least Kerry served and earned thos medals. things I cannot say of the current brave Commander in Chief.
C'mon Westy....just tell the truth...you hate Bush and can't stand the fact that he got elected.
Just because he didn't serve in country he's a bad man? Safe and cushy? You ever fly a fighter hotshot? It's dangerous and folks die while training every year.
No one will change your mind.....it's just interesting how hateful you sound when you post.
-
More than that Ping. With the candidates from both sides IMO no matter who gets elected your average US citizen is going to take up the rear. It'll boil down to whether one wants to vote for a long or short shaft.
-
Westy so you assume it must have been corruption that got him the Honorable Discharge, not the simpler explanation that the confusion about his attendance was resolved to the USAF's satisfaction?
-
Originally posted by Westy
More than that Ping. With the candidates from both sides IMO no matter who gets elected your average US citizen is going to take up the rear. It'll boil down to whether one wants to vote for a long or short shaft.
It's not even long or short. It's just a question of whether you want ribbed or lubricated.
-
Originally posted by Westy
"how can you be both? "
Easy! A military hero is someone who distinguished themselves in combat (something GWB never did btw). And since this is the US of A and not Nazi Germany or North Korea he's MORE than earned the right (which all US citizens have under the 1st Amendment. Till GWB yanks that too...) to express his emotions towards the government or the military complex which had sent over 58,0000 Americans to thier death in such a bull**** war.
Express his emotions? Oh...you must mean the throwing of his medals...oh wait...they were not his medals....nevermind.
You serve in Nam you little toad or are you just a student of the war?
Well, if Kerry wins the big one, I know I'll feel better that everything will get fixed and he'll bring peace and prosperity to the USofA....and just in the knick of time too....4 more years of Bush and life would end as we know it.
Some of you guys got it all figured out.:)
-
Rude, I had no opinion on Bush at election time. He seemd to me to be a puppet but then so did Gore. So I did not vote for either.
However in two years time I have come to regret seeing Bush elected. So yes you're right. And FWIW I'll accept almost any other candidate, from literally any other political party, over him in 2004. Almost. For IMO Kerry is a lousy choice as he's similar to Bush, in that he's a "career" politician, and Kerry voted favorably in 2001 on the legislation that empowered Bush.
-
"You serve in Nam you little toad or are you just a student of the war? "
Get a grip.
-
In any case, it's irrelevant. The issue here is not what Kerry (or Dubya) did in the service. It's what Kerry did AFTER his discharge.
Bingo!
His voting record will carry him to the presidency or keep him from it....kinda simple huh?
-
"To insult him because you disagree with his politics is petty and telling."
-
Originally posted by Westy
Rude, I had no opinion on Bush at election time. He seemd to me to be a puppet but then so did Gore. So I did not vote for either.
However in two years time I have come to regret seeing Bush elected. So yes you're right. And FWIW I'll accept almost any other candidate, from literally any other political party, over him in 2004. Almost. For IMO Kerry is a lousy choice as he's similar to Bush, in that he's a "career" politician, and Kerry voted favorably in 2001 on the legislation that empowered Bush.
Well, I'll tell ya what....I can respect your opinion of Bush even tho I do not agree with it, unlike the Euro's that pipe up from time to time...to them, I offer a great big tough titty, get over it and mind your own business kinda thingie.
That's one of the things I love about my country...we have the freedom to spout off because it was earned....the socialists earned ditka....they get to mouth off for free and truthfully, by Sponge Bob Boxers get tied in a knot when I read their crap on this board.
to Westy... to the Dems...let's get it on and elect a president!!!
:)
-
That's more than a fair wrap up. :)
Rude
Westy
-
Originally posted by Westy
That's more than a fair wrap up. :)
Rude
Westy
C'mon Westy, the least you could have done was go all Mr.Black on Rude and threaten to beat him up at the con. THAT'D show 'im! :)
-
I will snipar teh Westy for his mean comments about our chimpy leader.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
medals and all - he's too weak to lead this nation at this time & the majority knows it...[/B]
That might not be the case. Some of the latest polls show Kerry ahead of Bush.
You can find them here.
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm
-
Well I'm already eating crow on Dean. Of course, if he'd just stuck to what got him attention in the first place he might be okay now. Angry is good; psycho is psycho.
Of course I was right on Clark though... the guy needs to freeze his opinion on topics for a mandatory one-week period. "No flip-flopping for an entire week, Wes. Sorry, it's in the contract you signed..."
Well, that and he needs to disassociate himself from social driftwood such as Michael Moore.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
That might not be the case. Some of the latest polls show Kerry ahead of Bush.
You can find them here.
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm
yep, " Princeton poll" was conducted during the week btwn 8 & 5 to catch as many dems at home as possible :)
all the results were skewed dem in their polling .... 10 more months, slanted polls won't matter
-
American Research Group Poll. Jan. 27-29, 2004. N=768 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.5 (total sample).
"What if the election for president were being held between George W. Bush, the Republican, and John Kerry, the Democrat, for whom would you vote: Bush or Kerry?" Names rotated
George W. Bush / John Kerry / Unsure
ALL 46 / 47 / 7
Republicans 89 / 3 / 8
Democrats 12 / 81 / 7
Independents 39 / 55 / 6
;)