I don't think Kerry can count on too many votes from the Veteran Community. (Even counting the 10's of pro-Kerry "Vets" in the TER community) lol
Here's some of my favorite ecxerpts:
"We have 19 of 23 officers who served with [Kerry]. We have every commanding officer he ever had in Vietnam. They all signed a letter that says he is unfit to be commander in chief," O'Neill said.
"The ranks of the people signing [the letter] range from admiral down to seaman, and they run across the entire spectrum of politics, specialties and political feelings about the Vietnam War," he added.
"I've had thorns from a rose that were worse" than Kerry's wound for which he received a Purple Heart, Hibbard told the Boston Globe in April.
"Comrades who actually served with him, almost all of them, are opposed to him, and believe he would be an unfit commander in chief and intend to bring the truth of his actual record to the attention of the American people," O'Neill said.
The people who issued the metals at the time felt that he deserved them. Hindsight is always open to interpretation. Let's not devalue the value of a purple heart by putting forth the retrospective opinions of people who did not have the guts to express those opinions when the medals were awarded. I wonder whether some of the soldiers who are fighting now in Afganistan and Iraq and in many other places around the world will be subject to the same type of conduct many years from now?
No matter how small the wound, if it is caused as a result of direct or indirect enemy contact a soldier is eligible for a Purple Heart. However, a wound resulting from negligence without enemy contact does not qualify. And that's what seems to be at issue with Kerry's first Purple Heart. Below is a letter from the physician that treated Kerry for his first wound. It's an interesting read, but only the men who were on the boat know what really happened.
Doctor Louis Letson's Letter:
"I have a very clear memory of an incident which occurred while I was the Medical Officer at Naval Support Facility, Cam Ranh Bay. John Kerry was a (jg), the OinC or skipper of a Swift boat, newly arrived in Vietnam. On the night of December 2, he was on patrol north of Cam Ranh, up near Nha Trang area. The next day he came to sick bay, the medical facility, for treatment of a wound that had occurred that night.
The story he told was different from what his crewmen had to say about that night. According to Kerry, they had been engaged in a fire fight, receiving small arms fire from on shore. He said that his injury resulted from this enemy action.
Some of his crew confided that they did not receive any fire from shore, but that Kerry had fired a mortar round at close range to some rocks on shore. The crewman thought that the injury was caused by a fragment ricocheting from that mortar round when it struck the rocks.
That seemed to fit the injury which I treated.
What I saw was a small piece of metal sticking very superficially in the skin of Kerry's arm. The metal fragment measured about 1 cm. in length and was about 2 or 3 mm in diameter. It certainly did not look like a round from a rifle.
I simply removed the piece of metal by lifting it out of the skin with forceps. I doubt that it penetrated more than 3 or 4 mm. It did not require probing to find it, did not require any anesthesia to remove it, and did not require any sutures to close the wound.
The wound was covered with a bandaid.
Not [sic] other injuries were reported and I do not recall that there was any reported damage to the boat."
RLTW
Who really gives a crap if only 2 out of Kerry's 3 battle wounds were severe enough to warrant Purple Hearts. The fact is, he fought, he saved his men's lives under fire, and he got wounded, albeit not seriously, and he was decorated for Valor. The only risk that George Dumbya Bush endured while Kerry was dodging Viet Cong bullets was from dodging field sobriety checkpoints in Texas and Alabama.
No doubt that Kerry had the fortitude to go into harm's way, as you and I have discussed before. But his actions since Vietnam have been those of a political opportunist. The issue over the validity of his first Purple Heart seems to be a legitimate question, especially since the issue is being raised by his former commanders and Sailors who served in his unit.
From the Boston Globe: ""I do not believe John Kerry is fit to be commander in chief," said retired Rear Admiral Roy Hoffmann, who helped organize the news conference and oversaw all of the swift boats in Vietnam at the time Kerry commanded one of those crafts. "This is not a political issue; it is a matter of his judgment, truthfulness, reliability, loyalty, and trust -- all absolute tenets of command.""
RLTW
Why didn't this Admiral Hoffmann step forward when Kerry was being awarded the metals that he received. If, as you stated, he commanded all the swift boats in Vietnam and was Kerry's superior, he could have stopped the awarding of the metals dead cold. That fact that he either did not have the courage then, or concurred with the awards only to now raise issues makes me question his own trustfulness and integrity.
For a lot of reasons, I am no fan of Kerry's, but to attempt to smear honorable service by trotting out people who did not have the balls to act when action could have changed the course of history is dispicable. As I stated earlier in a post, I hope that the brave people who are now earning metals in Afganistan and Iraq are not subject to such behavior years from now.
RLTW, I have read many of your posts and have concluded that you are politically to the right of where I stand. While you obviously want to see your candidate win, the way in how you go about providing support leaves me somewhat disgusted.
If you're disgusted, then you have not been reading my posts very well. I have never stated that I believe Kerry did not earn his medals. I wasn't there, so I will not make a judgement on it. Kerry himself has opened up the issue by promoting different versions of what he did with his medals. I've linked to other articles relating to the medals issue to add some perspective to the discussions here. Now, do I believe that Kerry is an opportunist who tries to be on all sides of every issue? Yes.
Like I've stated before, I'm a Libertarian, not a Republican. I have major disagrements with the Republicans, but like most true Libertarians, when faced with the choice of having to cast a valid vote I'm forced to vote for the lesser of the two evils. Sadly, Republicans have become the party of Big Government, and Democrats the party of Even Bigger Government. For me, the overriding issue in this election is the war on terrorism and national sovereignty. And that is why I will not vote for a candidate who's party believes that the U.S. should subjugate itself to an organization of kleptocrats and dictators, aka: The U.N..
If you truly are a moderate, then you should direct your disgust at the partisan hack demogogues of each side who, instead of debating issues based on facts, spew forth insults and idiotic rhetoric based on distortions and half-baked conspiracy theories.
RLTW
-- Modified on 5/6/2004 8:53:41 PM
-- Modified on 5/6/2004 9:08:53 PM
We can accuse each other of not reading the other's posts. If you read stuff that I wrote, you would have seen that I have taken on the liberal posters and the conservative ones. I have also agreed with some of what each side has written.
I do not agree with your view on government. There is some good in having an organized government, that works fairly well, eventhough we sometimes do not see that. As I have written before, I challenge you to live among people who are not governed and subject to the rule of law (oh, by the way, WITH do you think pass laws that encode the rule of law? Certainly not monkeys). My friend, if you lived in an ungoverned group of people, you would last as long as they found you useful and not a day longer, and so would I if I lived among such a group. I will take my chances with big gevernment republicans and even bigger government democrats any day.
One thing that I do agree with you on is that posts submitted to this forum need to be free of chronic name calling. Good day, I have a date with a small shot of gin that I have put off too long.
I've never said that I believe in no government at all. I lean toward the old Federalist position of less Federal Government with more power given to the States. I believe firmly in the rule of law, but I think the War on Drugs is a ridiculous waste of resources. The Federal Government is bloated, inefficient, and with too high a combined tax burden.
Hardly a rabid right-winger. Although, if Kerry is elected I may be forced to organize a militia and head to the Appalachians once the U.N. takes over. Enjoy your gin. 
RLTW
-- Modified on 5/7/2004 8:11:13 AM
I've heard that some villages in Vietnam still sing folk songs about the deeds of GWB - A hero to the South, A nightmare to the North.
Even if Kerry's purple heart was based on shrapnel from his own fire I guess Georgie should get a purple heart for the bump on his head received from passing out (The danger he was in - his frat buddies (Bribite ???) contemplated giving him a weggie while in his vulnerable state. Indeed, apparently it was quite atomic).
my appologies to Bribite - I didn't see your earlier post. You could not have been a frat buddy of Bush.
I suppose Kerry has made his Vietnam service such an issue because Bush is sorely lacking (a joke IMHO). Your right, if Kerry wasn't as heroic as he claims this should be exposed. However, at least he was there. Unless Kerry was a war criminal, in my view GWB's [in]actions make him a little little man.
If you could get past the urge to post juvenile rants and actually think about what is being discussed, you might realize the fact that Kerry has made his service in Vietnam one of the central issues of his campaign. He's the one who has put his wartime service in the spotlight. The questions and doubts about him are coming from veterans who served with the man, not some secret Carl Rove organization.
If you wish to make comparisons, Bush has released all of his military records, none of his former ANG veterans are disputing his ANG service, only Democrats are. In contrast, Kerry has stonewalled even the partial release of his service records, while the Sailors that served with him have been the ones raising doubts
RLTW
I see your point, Bribite has raised these well in an earlier post - I tried to acknowledge this. And you both may be completely right. However, I seriously doubt that Bush did not use the inlfuence of his family to avoid combat in Vietnam ?
It is not hard to understand why people question Bush's military record. In my view, his driving while under the influence citation and (for sake of argument) ``avoidance'' of Vietnam are consistent with being a spoiled brat. Now, some have stated that Bush only received 1 citation - Please, he was only caught once (record-wise). Coupled with his little impression of Maverick just make him look ridiculous.
I've always been against Republicans (Dem by default), but I at least regarded Bush Sr as a man (as far as politicians go).
There is a group of men who served with John Kerry on the Swift Boats. They started a website called www.SwiftVets.com
They tell the REAL story of John Kerry's actions in Vietnam.
" I don't think Kerry can count on too many votes from the Veteran Community. (Even counting the 10's of pro-Kerry "Vets" in the TER community) lol"
I volunteered at the tail end of Vietnam. I went where I was sent and did what I was told. Thanks for demeaning it.
Well, there are lot's of reasons why Kerry is unfit to be CINC, but I doubt that anyone's fitness to be CINC can alone be judged by their actions in their early twenties. It is his record over a period of years that makes him unfit, not his behavior in or immediately after Vietnam.
And if you want to say he didn't show for duty, you can shovel that somewhere else unless you have the proof the DNC has not been able to produce...
BTW, it is disdain and guard. I don't know what gurard is (there is a Gerardo), but distain can be removed with any decent laundry detergent.
In regards to drinking, yes GWB did screw up once in his 20's. But Kerry's been screwing the Military with his NAY votes for over 20 years.
When special interests try to ride their trash in on an otherwise good agenda, it changes the way a good senator looks at it.
"We have to get on with the business of cutting…We have to cut out those things we don't need. We have to cut out those things that we can do without in the military area, that we can do without in terms of the complex that is the Department of Defense…Over the course of the last year, since I've been Secretary, I've recommended terminating, cancelling, shutting down 20 separate weapons programs." - Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney, 4/30/90
"The F-14B, of course, we're terminating in '90. There's no new money in it for '91. The AHIP, the Phoenix missile, the F-15 aircraft, et cetera -- all of those are being terminated in '91…The Apache helicopter, of course, ends in '91. The M1 tank, we're proposing to shut down the M1 tank production lines in '91.” - Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney, 2/1/90
Defense Secretary Cheney tried "to reduce active-duty troop strength" from 2.2 million to 1.6 million while making "deep cuts in the Reserves and National Guard." - NY Times, 8/4/91
If President Reagan "doesn't really cut defense, he becomes the No. 1 special pleader in town…The president has to reach out and take a whack at everything to be credible [meaning] you've got to hit defense." - U.S. Rep. Dick Cheney, 12/16/84
Bush admitted in 94 to a Houston newspaper that he tried to avoid Vietnam. Regardless of the wound, atleast Kerry had the courage to serve voluntarily. Kerry is from a wealthy family and could have done a number of things to avoid the war.
The man whose life Kerry saved is a die hard life long Republican who said whenever Kerry ran he would vote for him and indeed is supporting Kerry on the trail.
I personally don't like Kerry and don't think Bush or Kerry are fit to be leaders of our nation and this world, however, to bicker about Kerry's wounds when he actually was willing to die for his country is petty. Specially when we have the "honorable" VP who said he had better things to do than serve in Vietnam, and WMD Bush who couldn't be found for almost 9 months and can't produce records to show where he was for those 9 months during national guard service.
... avoid commenting in this area. Kerry has his chops. Bush doesn't. Live with it.
Kerry was and is entitled to his opinion about Vietnam. If your particualr branch of the Republican Party thinks that, nationally, they are going to do the same number on Kerry they did on Max Clelland (sp?) in Alabama, you will "...have another think coming" (as my mother used to say).
IMHO, both Kerry and Bush have serious flaws. But then again, we never get perfect choices in life, I will decide how to cast my vote after all the information is in.
Harry
-- Modified on 5/5/2004 6:56:25 AM
I spent three tours in Vietnam, 1968 - 1969 in the Marines, First Recon. I have been shot at more times than I care to recall. I had some injuries, greatfully nothing serious. I did however hump many brothers out with serious and lethal injuries, so I know the difference between a band-aid and a guy holding his guts in!
Band-Aid Purple Hearts are "in my opinion" nothing more than "Officers" self promotion (ground pounders don't get to write their friends up in the Officers Club over gin and tonics). So BFD, thats one of th perks of the Officer Corp, however, I didn't, nor did the Republican Party make JFKerry's Vietnam record an issue. The slacker can't complete a sentence without ramming his Vietnam "heroics" down America's throat! Now we are discovering, from eye witnesses that his "Purple Hearts" are little more than a LOOPHOLE he used to get out of combat! (3 Purple Hearts and you could request transfer out of the combat zone, which Kerry Immediately did)
Nobody's doing a number on Kerry, he did the number on himself by self promoting his war record as maybe only strength! As far as Max Clelland is concerned, could it be that the people of Georgia just didn't agree with his voting record? Which was very anti-defense! And in the same manner, JFKerry is now being exposed for his voting record of anti-defense, and he too will lose.
Personally I think Kerry will bow out before the election, maybe a phantom illness. But I hope he holds on because he is just sooooooooo unelectable.
And just in case PUCK reads this, how in any stretch of your "vivid" imagination can you claim that I disparaged your service with my remarks? What I stated is very clear to just about anyone, especially those who are veterans, that the great majority of Veterans will not support Kerry! His outright lies about American atrocities in Vietnam will not be forgotten by many, and most especially those of us who were there! Again, like it or not, TER Vet Community notwithstanding, Kerry will not receive much, if any support from the overall Veteran Community and the great majority will not just vote for Bush, they will support him! That you served, I honor, I also honor your difference of opinion - its one of the things we (Vets) fought, died and still fight for.
You demeaned my service by your statement.
"I don't think Kerry can count on too many votes from the Veteran Community. (Even counting the 10's of pro-Kerry "Vets" in the TER community) lol"
Your use of quotes shows that you hold my service in contempt. That shows me you still aren't terribly clear on those rights you claim to have been fighting for.
Perhaps I could opine that you just got off on being able to run around the jungle with an M16 and kill people. That, of course, would be demeaning.
BTW, let's get clear on Kerry's supposed accusations. When he testified before Congress and spoke of atrocitites, he was reporting on what he had heard from other veterans at a seperate hearing - he was not accusing all vets nor stating that he had witnessed widespread war crimes. It is disingenuous to imply otherwise. It's on the web, Bribite - look it up.
Now be a man and admit you mischaracterized his statements.
I'm trying to understand your logic. You criticize bribite because he criticizes Kerry, but assert that "Kerry was and is entitled to his opinion about Vietnam."
Well, bribite "was and is entitled to his opinion about Kerry." To coin a phrase, "Live with it."
It never fails to amaze me that many on the Left or self-styled moderates will rise to the defense of someone of the Left for their opinion, but will suggest that criticism of that opinion from the Right is somehow less worthy of protection. It is only the silencing of an opinion which is offensive; criticism is legitimate, unless I woke up this morning and Saddam was now in the White House.
even when you make yourselves look silly. Such is the workings of a democracy, and the fact that you can state whatever you want within reason is why democracies are go great.
The fact of the matter is, although people feel that the world is coming to an end when someone opposite their political viewpoint gets elected, the republic will roll on. You and your kindred spirit cried in your beer (in addition to filing lawsuits, fuming into microphones, and crying out for special prosecutors) during Clinton's two terms, but Clinton's terms came to an end and a new administration took office. Amazing how a democracy works, isn't it. Oh, but maybe you are not too keen on a democracy, maybe you want state control as long as the state control conforms to your viewpoint.
Boy, am I damned glad that I am a self styled moderate, I can live through any administration without getting an ulcer from yelling at the television or newspaper or news magazine. Plus my blood pressure stays at a pleasant centerline (wow, there is that word again, "center").
we all criticize eachothers opinions. That's what makes this so fun. For example, that you ``woke up this morning'' is highly unlikely in my opinion.
-- Modified on 5/5/2004 10:10:31 PM
... I want to get off the level of personal on this with both of you, especially James.
James, I'm glad we still have enough hormones that we find ourselves posting on a board like this. I'm even happier we aren't both still armed and have got smarter over the years.
Bribite, you have a right to your (unmoderated) opinion. So does James. All of us are big boys. If it were my board, I would not moderate either of you.
Kerry and Bush both served. Kerry was in country and got shot at. He could have avoided service, but he did not. For that, he is entitled to some respect. Both Mr Kerry and Mr Bush have things from their youth they wouldn't do today. IMHO, both are deeply flawed as leaders.
If I could pick a candidate, it would be McCain. I would pick McCain even though I disagree with him strongly on many aspects of social policy. Sadly, the US did not let me make the choice for everyone.
If I had to choose right now between Kerry and Bush, I would pick Kerry. That is because I detect an air of dumb assed innocence in Mr Bush -- he isn't clever and strong enough to manage and manipulate his closest advisors. Mr Kerry is, at least, a focused manipulative politician, who has a proven ability to work hard and has been successful at being successful. If he focuses as well on doing the same thing for the country, I think he should do a good job. By the way, the GOP understimates Mr Kerry at their own risk. His style seems to be to focus on things very late. It has worked for him.
We will disagree. I will continue to read both your posts. I like to hear what people who disagree with me have to say. Thanks for sticking up for your opinions.
Harry
Uh, dude- Do you actually read News Max? Looks like a Washington Times moony front to me.
The moment I saw them discuss Sean Hannity (sp?) like he actually knew anything- my red flag came up..
Can you get some more references- maybe Pravda or Tass? Maybe the Chinese News Agency? Or Fox?
When you refer to the Far East Economic Review, the Economist, the Times, the New York Times, or even the Gaurdian- we might pay attention. Until then keep up with your fiction reading- its clearly doing wonders for your intellect.
BTW- since the present US Military is led by nimrods, how can we do worse? When we went in to Iraq, I thought 100K was too few. We kicked ass over the regulars, but to hold it? Now I was right and Rummy was wrong. Kerry has already said he will stay in Iraq, so what's your beef?
Bush and his family did everything to keep their trust fund baby out of harms way, but had no problem sending other American's children to fight and die to support a corrupt government. I don't care whether it was a scratch or a more serious injury that got Kerry the Purple Heart. Everyone that served in country came away changed, physically and/or mentally and all deserves our respect. As far as the people that served with Sen. Kerry, everyone has an agenda. Open your eyes, Bush is not for America, Bush is for Bush and his friends. Bush is as unAmerican as you can get. Read the constitution, the guys that wrote that were real Americans, not like these posers.
-- Modified on 5/7/2004 6:17:13 AM
Well, I'm a vet, 25 years to be exact, and I support Kerry, but there are a few points that need to be made:
1. The fact that Bush's attendence records cannot be found is well understandable. They are generally purged from records. I dare say if you tried to track down the records of others in his unit, you would find the same thing. He served and I salute him for that.
2. No 20 year old leutenant is qualified to be Commander in Chief! It takes maturaty, and life experience.
If I sound like I am defending the person I wish voted out of office, I am. Forget the past, look at the men as they are today. When I do that, I am forced to choose Kerry.