Saw yesterday in the "Time" magazine dated 5/10/04, on page 40, that Kerry had received 10 medals for his service in Vietnam, count them 10!!.....That's sure hell of alot better than GW, so I don't know how anyone can compare his service to Bush's.....

Also, (remembering my college course I took on the Vietnam War), public support started to fall DRAMATICALLY after the 1968 Tet Offensive, so I don't think statements made by Kerry in 1971 somehow eroded public support, because by that time the war was already enormously unpopular....

I just wish Iraq would get to GW like Vietnam got to LBJ & Bush would say on live TV what LBJ said it 1968:   "I do not seek, nor will I accept the nomination for president for another term"....(That might not be exact quote but it's close)

-- Modified on 5/9/2004 10:35:34 AM

-- Modified on 5/9/2004 10:37:03 AM

Let's see, National Defense Service Medal (AKA fire-watch ribbon)for which he and every other vet qualified from the minute they took the oath. Vietnam Service, and Vietnam Campaign, (one US, one RVN) Three Purple Hearts of varying degree of validity. There's 6! One Silver Star, one Bronze Star, both won under the Forbes Blue Blood Family "Do you know who I am?" standard of "valor," and probably a few self-congratulatory unit awards and you got your ten. The one he most deserved is the special one for "wounding" yourself with a mortar and calling it enemy action I sh*t my pants award for fraudulent reporting. Too bad he didn't get that and the accompaning brig time to go with it! What about a medal for having an 8mm movie camera with him to record footage for his planned future political career? Of course, he probably made one of his peons carry that for him.

'I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment, Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes.' George W. Bush in the Houston Chronicle in 1994.

good for the goose = good for the gander

Why is one loved, and other hated by vets, military retirees and active duty military?? One wonders! Why is it mostly non-veterans who raise questions about Bush's service? Like most vets, I woulds much rather have Bush next to me in combat than Gigolo John, or God forbid, the "War Hero" Bill Clinton. And... I know where of I speak, unlike most of you. How about the hero of Chappaquiddick, Fat-Boy Ted Kennedy? Ugghhhh!


-- Modified on 5/10/2004 8:29:00 AM

did you ever think that maybe, just maybe clinton was a better diplomat and that is why we did not have a need to go to war?

HB495: USMC, I Corps Vietnam 68/69 In my view Kerry is a traitor, a liar, a fraud and a poseur. Bush is a man I'd be proud to serve with. I'd have fragged Kerry if I had served with him in 'Nam. He probably wanted to leave early because he knew he was going to get it from his own men. What combat experience do you have that equips you to evaluate his service? You don't have any idea what you are talking about. Only someone who has never seen combat would fall for the carefully crafted myth of Kerry's "valor." I got a bridge you might be interested in!

  Either you are a terrible victim of the public education system, or a typical brainwashed dittohead so prevelant in both political parties today. People like you, in this day and age, would believe the earth is flat if your party leader would proclaim so.  That explains why you have that bridge in the first place you are now trying to interest me in.  
  The premise of your question that only direct experience in any subject matter can allow one to comprehend the intrinsic nature of the topic is evidence of a childish and underdevoleped understanding of the human mind. That type of logic is the greatest anthesis of the very foundation of our nation, highly arrogant, void of character, and unworthy of being used to facilitate political discourse.
   

he is unworthy of being president.  Since I have never seen combat and unworthy of forming an independent opinion about Kerry, surely someone like Bush who has never seen combat is unworthy of being a president.  See the stupidity of your own Taliban inspired logic?????

in the presence of a bear!  Hysterical!  Imbecilic logic.

HB495 didn't extrapolate beyond the understanding of "Military Medals".  Since those of us who served as enlisted or drafted men, (E.I.. not Officer's) know that the majority of officers received "Purple Hearts" in Vietnam and the majority of the grunts did not, and that the majority of Officers did not meet the enemy in battle, we, collectively feel that most, not all, Officer Purple Hearts are at the most bogus.

I don't know any vet's who feel that anyone who didn't serve in the military is unfit for public service.  That train of thought is foreign to military training.

John Kerry's brief service in Vietnam has become an issue because Kerry himself has made it one.  His traitorous actions of accusing GI's with atrocities after he returned is surfacing because he made it an issue!  It was untrue, which of course didn't matter because it gave him some publicity.

George Bush has never made Kerry's military service an issue one way or the other.  Of course the contrary is true from Kerry and Kerry's party, who have attempted to discredit Bush's service in the National Guard.

Here's a bulletin for you, nobody wanted to go to war, nobody wanted to go to Vietnam!  Those of us who joined did so as an act of duty, just like most of our fathers had done after December 7, 1941 and many men and women did after 9/11/01.  Other's were drafted and served with honor.  Some protested and were sent to prison for their decent, in my opinion that was honorable as well.  Others still, fled to Canada, faked injuries, etc, those I consider of low character.

To those of us who were there, Kerry's 3 Purple Hearts and a quick departure from Vietnam are extremely suspect, especially in lieu of the recent statement by at least one of the military doctors who treated him.  I believe he said that he has sustained greater injuries walking through his rose garden!



-- Modified on 5/10/2004 5:29:28 PM

By extension, you could argue that only someone who has  been awarded silver or bronze stars (or higher) is competent to review Kerry's actions in Viet Nam. Where are HB's medals and military citations?

In science, it's called peer review. As far as I can tell HB is not at Kerry's level to judge his contributions/valor.

None! Zero! Zilch!  Its impossible since Bush didn't have the courage to voluntarily serve his nation in combat.  At the time the draft existed, yet Kerry did not wait to be called up by draft!  He actually volunteered himself.  
  You also forgot to mention the 3 purpule hearts!!  The key word there is HEART.  It takes HEART to volunteer for combat service, specially when he could have dodgged service using is Blue Blood Family name.  kerry had HEART!!  Unlike WMD Bush who can't even recall where he was for 8 months of national guard service.  He certainly wasn't at any AA meetings, which is where he belonged a long time ago.  
  Lets see, kerry was on the battlefield voluntarily and managed to save a soldiers life. In contrast we have Bush at the same time in his life who was an alcoholic dodgging militarily service.  

remember, he didn't actually "win" the election in 2000; he stole it with the help of the courts & his brother in Florida.

He's also a Republican.

Case closed.

 I was only reciprocating the completely idiotic train of thought used by HB.  He asked me if I ever served in combat.  And if I had not then I was not qualified to make an independent judgement on Kerry's service.  
 You also know that Im no fan of Kerry, however, HB calling Kerry a phony coward when Kerry actually saved another American soldiers life is simply idiotic to say the least.  
 Bush hasn't made vietnam an issue, however, after running Cleland's pic next to Saddam during 02 elections Bush should be attacked mercilessly, and ruthlessly in every dirty way possible.  That crossed a line from which he cannot be allowed to return.  
 And please don't say that those of you who were there view Kerrys medals as suspect.  You make it sound like every single soldier who was there doesn't trust Kerry.  I have seen many, many veterans stand next to Kerry on the trail, including the REPUBLICAN soldier whose life Kerry saved. The fact is that the whole issue is political from both sides.  

I'll go with Webster:  "a large number of persons or things", what you have described is a handful.

Kerry won't get 20% of the Vietnam War Vets vote, if that.  And "many" (Webster's many) have family who feel much the same way about Kerry and his lack of character.

Since you brought Clinton into it I thought I would remind you of the positive effect he had on the USA as opposed to the negative effect GW will leave on our great nation for many years to come.


'During the administration of William Jefferson Clinton, the U.S. enjoyed more peace and economic well being than at any time in its history. '

  And "many" have family who feel much the same way about Bush and his lack of character as well.  Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  But for the Republicans to call Kerry a coward on service is like Bill Clinton judging another person's infedility harshly, or OJ Simpson supporting womens rights.  Its beyone hypocrisy.  
  I understand its doesn't take an ounce of character to run pics of Saddam next to a war veteran during elections.  Bill Clinton never defamed and insulted Bob Doles honorable service to his nation.  Clinton was a draft dodger who admitted to it.  He didn't go around defaming veterans.  However, in 02 Bush a known dodgger of not only the draft but also national guard service compares a veteran to saddam.  And for that alone he deserves to be thrown into Najaf without armor.  Plain and simple!!

It's a load of manure to say that Bush was responsible for an ad questioning Max Cleland's voting record in the 2002 election. It's even more dishonest to call the ad an "attack" on Cleland's patriotism.

During the 2002 election, the Chambliss campaign produced an ad featuring Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. The ad didn't morph Cleland into either of these figures or say that he supported them. It noted at its beginning that the United States faced threats to its security as the screen was briefly divided into four squares, with bin Laden and Saddam in two of them and the other two filled with images of the American military.

It went on to explain that Cleland had voted 11 times against a homeland-security bill that would have given President Bush the freedom from union strictures that he wanted in order to set up the new department. The bill was co-sponsored by his Georgia colleague Sen. Zell Miller, a fellow Democrat. Bush discussed details of the bill personally with Cleland, and Chambliss wrote him a letter prior to running his ad urging him to support the Bush version. Cleland still opposed it, setting himself up for the very factual charge that he was voting with liberals and the public-employees unions against Bush and Georgia common sense.

It is perfectly ligitimate to criticize the Senate votes of a senator in a Senate race. To suggest otherwise is absurd. The Veterans of Foreign Wars endorsed Chambliss over Cleland, which made its nod on the basis of the two candidates' differing records on national-security and veterans issues. I'm a member of a VFW chapter in Georgia and I can tell you that the VFW would not have been complicit in a gutter campaign based on smearing a Vietnam veteran.

You are seriously uninformed.

RLTW

   And you forget that this is the very same Homeland Security Bill that Bush DID NOT want.  Thats right, Bush was agains this bill.  Regardless, to put a American veterans face next to saddam for voting against one bill after his years of service to this country is beyond despicable and beyond unpatriotic.  Criticize him for not voting for the bill, but to put his face next to saddam makes Chambliss(another draft dodgger might I add) a lower life form than Saddam himself.  A veteran in a wheelchair who lost 3 limbs and served his nation honorably being shown next to saddam by a draft dodgger??  If that doesn't disgust you to the fullest then you are the one who actually did inhale.  
   And since Bush didn't want Homeland Security in the beginning its perfectly ok to run his pic next to saddam I assume!  Im only using your standard!!  Get real

Cleland's face was shown at the end of the ad. Right after pictures of U.S. Military personnel. Was it a tough ad? You bet. But the issue was fair game. If you want to express outrage about unfair ads, you should direct your energy at ads like the NAACP's despicable ad trying to link Bush to the murder of James Byrd. Oh wait, that ad was true, the evil Bush was really behind the wheel of the truck, nevermind.

Just like the Democrats and the NAACP, you are trying to blame Bush for something that he had nothing to do with. And that is a very lame argument.

RLTW

  You don't hear me defending hypocrites and liars like Jessee Jackson either.  The NAACP's ad was despicable, outrageous, disgusting, and abhorrent, and insult the the memory of James Byrd.  And the ad with Cleland was just as abhorrent and despicable.  
  Im glad to see the Republicans adopted the standards of discourse from the Jessee Jackson school of thought, which explains why you say the issue was fair game.  
  And since the issue is fair game, by those rules all the Republicans, specially Bush who were adamently opposed to the Homeland security IN THE FIRST PLACE should have their faces next to Saddam in ads.  
  You should not have any problem with that since that is your own standard.  You yourself have said it is fair game.  Before you say things like that you should atleast have know that how adamently Bush was against Homeland security!!  Selective history works well party mobs, not with informed people!!!!!

You're making some assumptions about my politics a that are very uninformed. You're also trying to change the subject. You claimed in your previous post that Bush was behind the "despicable ad" that targeted Cleland. And because of that he deserves to be "attacked mercilessly, and ruthlessly in every dirty way possible". Yet, Bush had absolutely nothing to do with it. Nor, regardless of your incorrect assertion, was the ad an unfair attack on Cleland's "patriotism". Yes, Bush was initially against the Patriot Act and later on, Cleland voted against the final draft of the bill that the President ended up supporting. The ad was an attack on Cleland's record, not character. At least be honest about your dislike for Bush, rather than making lame excuses for your dishonest claims.

RLTW

  Just as I am honest about my deep dislike for kerry.  Yes Bush is directly reponsible for the ad!!  When a member of the Republican party runs an ad featuring the picture of a war veteran next to saddam simply for voting against a bill and the leader of that party stays silent he in turn deserves every ruthless and merciless attack in the book.  He stayed silent during such a despicable attack against a war veteran and therefore what goes around comes around.  Bush had everything to do with that act by staying silent.  A war veteran's face next to Saddam??  No good American, let alone a war veteran deserves that.  And on top of that by a group of draft dodggers!!
  When you picture an American veteran next to Hitlers cousin, you are attacking his patriotism, his character, his humanity, his service to our nation, his life, his courage, his valor, and his very commitment to our country.  All this for one vote??
  Cheney has voted against countless defenst systems and voted for budget cuts.  Does that justify showing Cheney's face next to Saddam??  
  I atleast had the courage to condemn the James Byrd ads as well as an American.  You have yet to admit that the Cleland ads were unacceptable.

  Twisted and flawed logic no doubt are 2 words that appeal to the party mob, however, you still fail to answer my question as to what justifies running a war veterans picture next to Hitler's desciple.  An American war veteran??  
  The reason you don't answer the question is that you do not have the courage to admit your party is wrong.  You accused me of hating Bush and I am honest enough to admit it just as I admit to being disgusted by Kerry.  I don't have a Republican or Democratic blindfold over my eyes.  Why is it so hard for you to admit that the Cleland ads are just as vile and disgusting as the James Byrd ads.  You were offended by the Byrd ads and rightfully so.  Then why can't you show the slightest disapproval for an ad that pictured a war veteran next to Saddam.  Why is it so hard for you defend a war veteran over a politician??

First of all, I'm not a Republican. I voted for Cleland in 1996. I've met him before and think he is a decent man. I voted for Chamblis in 2002 because Cleland had become nothing more than a party-line voter for the Democrats. That is why he lost, plain and simple. You can wrongly accuse me of being a Republican all you want, but you're just completely wrong about the ad being a vicious attack on Cleland's patriotism. It was a brutal attack on his voting record for sure. And Cleland's voting record is why he lost by a landslide, nothing more.

RLTW

  Put party affiliation talk aside.  You use the word "voting record."  As if Chamblis isn't a party line voter for the Republicans(DUH)  Please explain which Amecian has a voting record so bad that it justifies putting that American's face next to Saddam.  Over and over again you fail to answer that basic and really very simple question!!  What the hell justifies putting an American war hero's face next to saddam??  
  And if a voting record becoming too party line is justification enough to be pictured next to saddam then I can think of many Republican who deserve the honor.  Of course you would be outraged.  The fact that you don't see the hypocrisy of the application of your own standards in the Byrd ads vs. the Cleland ads is evidence of an empty anger.

First of all, you're the one who brought up party affiliation as an issue, not me. You wrongly assume me to be a Republican "with blinders" because I disagreed with your claim about Bush being at fault for the Cleland ad. Secondly, I answered the question very clearly. You just don't like the answer. You're wrong about the ad, no matter how many !!'s you add to your posts. And I would bet that you have not even seen it. No empty anger here, but plenty on your part.

RLTW

-- Modified on 5/11/2004 1:01:27 PM