Link is an opinion piece in Saturday's Minneapolis paper (Main paragraphs copied below)


Silver Star medals (third-highest award for bravery in combat -- exceeded only by the Navy Cross and Medal of Honor) are not handed out like candy, but are thoroughly investigated and granted to only a few who demonstrated enormous courage under fire, above and beyond the actions of their peers.

Only for exceptional bravery in combat, validated by one's peers, is this award given. Marines, who are the most conservative in granting medals, have a saying: "If someone won the Silver Star medal accompanied with a Purple Heart Medal for wounds in that action, they deserve my salute" for being truly brave under fire.

The idea that a ship's whole crew would collude in a conspiracy to get their commander medals is really far-fetched. Remember, Kerry was a very junior officer whose "blue blood" connections didn't count for much in the bloody Mekong Delta with a bunch of young sailors and salty combat-tested senior enlisted men. A junior officer had to prove himself as worthy of their loyalty to survive in that environment.

-- Modified on 8/14/2004 8:04:46 PM

More than 60 officers who served with him have questioned some of his decorations. Too bad the media won't explore this as hard as they did when Bush's attendance was in doubt.

A right he earned.  

Unlike Bush serving in the guard, avoiding war, going AWOL, and finding the hawkishness to command later.

/Zin

When one of your lines of attack is blown to shit (i.e. Kerry's medals were forgeries), you blame the media for being biased against someone who you support.  
    The fact is, the anti-Kerry people have been given much play in the media.  Also, Kerry's shortcomings have been given much play also.  The reason why is that the media is going to cover any story that has "legs" until that story goes limp for lack of substance.  In short, the media is rough and easy on everyone.

Of course he had the right to throw them back, but now he wants to run as the hawk war hero. Just another example of Kerry's inability to take only one side of an issue.Look at his convention speach not once metioning his extensive senate career.
As a vet (no combat experience) I can't condone his breaking faith with his comrades. I served in peace time, I can't imagine breaking faith with guys I faced fire with but he did. Thats why he has reversed himself (another flip)saying he wouldn't have said those things the same way today,(guess he forgot that his actions would be accountable to the voters down the road)....

"Of course he had the right to throw them back, but now he wants to run as the hawk war hero"

-Nuanced thinking is not something that one of your ilk appear to be good at.  Or do you simply want to distort the truth?  Senator Kerry is not bidding to be a hawk, he seems to have been rather clear and consistent in saying that he would think carefully about the appropriateness and appropriate time for having the US engage itself in war.

"Look at his convention speach not once metioning his extensive senate career."

-I don't spend much time on politician's websites, but did so on Mr.Kerry's after Bribite, Carl, GOPGeezer and some others attacked the number of bills that he sponsored.  I checked and found that he had sponsored something like 53+ bills during his 19 year senate career.  Being a politician's website, there was a comparison to an opposing politician who Senator Kerry could use as a legislative benchmark - Mr. Cheney, according to the website, sponsored 2 bills during his 11 year house career.  Maybe you should ask that Mr.Cheney talk about his 11 year US House of Representatives career.  Of course doing so will be silly, politicians have a message that they want to transmit when giving a speech, anything which does not fit neatly into the speech format will be left out.  It probaly is difficult to explain the complexities of 53+ bills during an acceptance speech, it is also probaly difficult to explain the details of 2 (if the information is correct).  Mr.Kerry's senate career is pertinent to this election, just as Mr.Bush's time as President and Mr.Cheney's time as Vice President is.  The information on all of their failures and successes will come out and be hashed over extensively.


"Thats why he has reversed himself (another flip)saying he wouldn't have said those things the same way today,(guess he forgot that his actions would be accountable to the voters down the road)...."

-Reversing oneself, especially if one who is middle aged and looking back at their actions as twenty somethings, happens to everyone, the process is called introspection.  Would President Bush choose to be more responsible as a drinker if he could relive the years that he drank heavily?  I am sure that he would and would mean every word now if he said that he would think and behave differently.  Flips are not uncommon, I am sure that the very political people who oppose you on this board could find a number of flip-flops by President Bush to throw at you.  Does the flip-flops make Mr.Bush appear indecisive?  Probaly not, most people will or should change their positions when dealing with having the advantage of hindsight, when facing new facts or when facing new realities.

"As a vet (no combat experience) I can't condone his breaking faith with his comrades"

-As far as the first part of your quote is concerned, the lack of combat experience makes you a "baby hawk", please come back and lecture when you have wings.  Can't say that I disagree with the second part, but I am sure that the time will come for Mr.Kerry give a complete answer to what his intentions were.  Some information indicates that his intent was to end the Vietnam war as quickly as possible.  I am sure that there are people who have been and are raking over historical documents on him looking for dirt, he will have to explain any that is found.

As usual, Kerry was on both sides of the issue.  He wanted to make a very public display of throwing away his war medals, pandering to the anti-war movement.  But he didn't want to actually lose his precious medals, so he threw other GI's medals and some of his ribbons.

I think it is a mistake to spend more time bashing him over his time in Viet Nam.  That said, he should open up his military records and end this silly debate....unless there is something to hide.  There are 3 areas that fair game and subject to scrutiny from the public and hopefully, from the press.  First, he is accountable for his testimony after he returned from the war.  The things that he said about the military once he got back were over the top and the public should be aware of it.  Second and most importantly, his voting record in the Senate is definitely something that should be scrutinized and is probably the best indicator of what he believes and where his priorities are (and aren't).  Finally, beyond sweeping generalizations about how he will conduct a more sensitive war on terror, he should be challenged to what that means substantively.  So far, it has all been sound bite quips with no substance and no deeper questioning about the implications of his policy proposals.

1.  He now claims that he didn't throw his medals over the White House fence!  "Nuanced"?  He now claims they were someone else's!  (If it weren't so blatantly sad it would be funny)

2.  His Senate career is highlighted by a couple of attempts to gut the CIA, so radical that not one Democratic Senator signed on with him!  And attempting to stonewall Ronald Reagan's attempts to destroy the USSR, fighting everything Reagan did in winning the cold war.

3.  He now says that he will revamp the "Intelligence Community", but in reality as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee he rarely showed up!  He did however continue to produce legislation to gut their budgets, even after the first WTC Bombing in 1993.  Reversing himself?  Or just lying to get a vote?

4.   Hanoi John has never flip flopped on his accusations of American Servicemen in Vietnam!  That is just a cold ass lie!  He said then as he says now anything that he thinks will get him ahead, making shit up at will.  Their were thousands of Vietnam Vets who were against the war on their return, Hanoi John is one of a handful to made up lies to make their points, and allot of those VVAW pukes were proven never to have been in Vietnam, some not even in the Military at all.  Just as he lied about being in Cambodia at Christmas in 1968, that lie was verifiable and was proven an outright lie.  His other lies are not and they undermined those still in Vietnam, especially those who were imprisoned.  It was traitorous.

5.  I do have the combat experience, and not 4 months!  2 tours in the jungle and never witnessed any atrocities or war crimes, nor would I have stood for them.  As far as explaining what is found about Hanoi John's military record, "Unfit for Command" is Amazon's #1 Seller!  America is learning what a Fraud this asshole is.

they agree with you.  

"I do have the combat experience, and not 4 months!  2 tours in the jungle and never witnessed any atrocities or war crimes, nor would I have stood for them."

-Good for you, at least we are on a similar page in this regard.  But it is too bad that you, given the proper experience, do not have more respect concerning what war can do and have more of a willingness to use it thoughtfully.  

that you posed.  But at the same time, Mr.Bush has many questions to answer concerning his stewardship of the country over the last 3+ years.  The one who answers best should win in November.

Gaining five decorations in 134 days? Something motivated him to get out early. If he had served a full tour and lived, he would have, what?  Fifteen decorations?  

It isn't breaking faith to say, as strongly as possible, that Vietnam was a really, really bad political decision and a strategic blunder.  Surpassed only recently with Iraq.  "Here, take the medals back, I got wounded for nothing."

/Zin

Hardly a complete rebuttal of Kerry's career in the Senate.

Given the CIA's string of total failures and fiascos, in hindsight, would gutting it out have been that bad?  It seems actually prescient not.

You are right, though, Kerry would represent a backlash against what has become of Reaganism.

/Zin

And not even one co-sponsor, not even Ted Kennedy!

All the others you quote, almost all failing even to come to a vote, he was a hanger on, co-sponsor.

As far as gutting he CIA, as it turns out, Clinton didn't need Hanoi's help.

Other than the 30 to 40% of leftist wacko's out there (present company included), there exists no backlash to Reagan in this Country.  You might remember that if Hanoi and his cohorts in the Senate would have had their way, we would still be fighting the cold war against the USSR and millions would still be living under the tyranny of Communism.

Kerry isn't making ANY issue of his pathetic Senate career because American's would reject him based on his record!  So, it appears that job will be left up to the Bush campaign, and I believe they will make the case using footage of Hanoi John himself!  The more American's learn about Hanoi John Kerry the worse it is for him.

Which may actually get him elected.  He knows that liberals who give detailed policy agendas often don't get elected (think Mondale, Dukakis).  Probably smarter to just give generalities and ride the anti-Bush wave.

1) If they were somebody else's he didn't throw his medals.  If he threw his medals, or gave a photo-op for doing it, he was no longer in the JFK mode.  So, Kerry *did* change his life's plans, but he was always a prima-donna.

2) As I've said, given the failures of the CIA (including never foreseeing the weakness of the USSR) it seems a gutting of the CIA was due when Kerry proposed it.  I don't even find your claim that Clinton gutted it convincing for a second. Yellow-Belly Bush overran Afghanistan and Iraq with Clinton's "gutted" military. You don't have a lot of credibility with the word "gutted" anymore Bribite.  Furthermore, as you've pointed out about Yellow-Belly's deficits, "Congress makes the budget."  No president since Nixon has had power to "gut" an agency without Congress. Republicans would have crucified him for trying. It would have been like Carter opening up to China instead of Nixon.

Just how bad off was the CIA under Clinton?  I did notice that when double agent Aldrich Ames was driving around in a Porsche paid for by Soviet money, nobody in the CIA thought that was unusual. I think the only "gutting" must have been of your brains.  I don't know if the CIA or Clinton did that to you.

As for Ronald Reagan winning the Cold War, I'll just say, Reagan wasn't responsible for the fact that Soviet infrastructure hadn't been upgraded since the 1950s.  Reagan didn't create Chernobyl.  Reagan didn't create the coup that toppled Gorbachev.  The only "success" Reagan had against the USSR was in Afghanistan.  The US survived Vietnam. If the Soviet Union had been healthy, it would have survived Afghanistan.    

3) So, Kerry rarely showed up for the Intelligence Committee Meetings. Between within what time periods? How often did he show up then? What are the stats, where's the source?  Moreover, how does it compare to other Congressman on other committees?  I've found I have to watch you closely Bribite, because your rhetoric is often unrestrained by, and undescriptive of, the facts.  

4) This one is just a rant.  So, many VVAW were never in Vietnam.  Fair criticism of them, but how can this apply to Kerry who was definitely in Vietnam? And who left the VVAW partially for just the reason you cited (see the FBI file on him.)  Kerry said servicemen committed atrocities.  This is a matter of record.  From the air, we napalmed women and children. There was the massacre in Mai Lai. There were others that were never prosecuted.  "War is hell" is in our heritage. There is no argument with this, Bribite.

5) I'm sincerely impressed that you had two full tours.

You never witnessed an atrocity and you never stood for one. I hope you're not saying this proves there were no atrocities by US troops in Vietnam? You're lying as much as Kerry here. You couldn't know this based on your service alone. It's like saying that because you have never been involved in a murder that Americans never commit murder. So, why would you be more incensed by one and not the other?    

Now, as you served two full tours, I believe if Kerry had done the same, and lived, he would have had over twenty decorations?  How is it that a putz like Kerry found the persuasive skills finagle undeserved decorations and you couldn't?  I say, if he earned them, then he's one brave SOB and deserves to be president.  If he didn't earn them, then we need to make him president, because given his awesome powers of persuasion, he might have the Arabs trading us oil for sand within a month, and have Al-Quaida deliver Osama to us as a traitor to their cause.

I'm waiting to see how Americans will respond to "Unfit" also.  I'm thinking that Bush's voters, the Fans of Failure, will buy it quickly to confirm their worse fears about Kerry.  When they've bought it, the sane parts of the country will pick it up off the library shelf and put it down quickly in disgust.  I give it 10 days on the bestseller list.

/Zin