 |
| |
|
|
rah
|
|
Apolyton Prince of Moderators, Master of Reason
|
 |
Lord of the Ferrets
Jan 1970
time: 23:33
|
|
I'm not saying he authorized his own medals. I'm saying he knew the proceedures and got three PHs and got sent home. Not serious wounds but enough to get sent home. How many vets do you think got three PHs and got sent home as fast as he did? Do you actually believe that he wasn't aware of the policy? If so, you're more naive then I thought.
I'm not questioning any of his medals. They are immaterial to my arguement. I admitted, he served and should be proud. He wasn't.
He knew he needed 3 PH and convienently got them amazingly quick. I have a few buds that had more than three injuries, but didn't get a PH for every little thing and got to come home early. If they had been more aware of the system, they might have. One bud didn't come back. None of them came home bragging about being hero's either. They were satisfied that they made it home. People that weren't there shouldn't judge their bravery.
I'm saying that it wasn't very smart of Kerry to use it as his main stratagy. If he had just kept his mouth shut, there wouldn't be any problems. People couldn't have attacked it. Come on, he went to Nam, Bush didn't. People didn't need to be reminded of it, they already knew. +1 for Kerry, but Nooooooooooooo, he thought he could get even bigger play out of it and pushed it. A lot of good it's doing him now.
Like I said, it make me question his judgement. Not about what he did back then, but what he's doing now.
Last edited by rah on 25-08-2004 at 02:12
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Patroklos
|
 |
Back home in good ole Norfolk VA
Dec 2001
time: 05:33
|
|
Despite MtG remarks, I doubt that is the case. In Peace time all that paperwork gets done, but in wartime it does not, ESPECIALLY back then. We are much more anal now.
The silver star probobly got reviewed. The Bronze star probobly not and the Ph's definetly not. Like I said junior officers often write their citations themselves and submit them (I do) and then send them up. However, for routine stuff, like a PH in Vietnam, Kerry's level probobly was the review. If Kerry's CO went through each award at that time that is all he would have been doing. Kerry was a Junior Officer but also the equivalent to a department head on steroids. It would be easy to get that through.
Besides, if you have a Silver Star, Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts in four months and still have all your limbs, can speak without assistance, and are able to reproduce there is something wrong.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guynemer
|
|
I'm just astounded at the complete ineptitude of the Democrats. (Though I'm not sure why I would expect anything more.)
Here we are, spending all this time debating John Kerry's military record, which by all official and reputable accounts is exemplary and heroic.
Meanwhile, Bush and almost his entire administration (and most of his loudest supporters in the "left-wing" media) did everything they could to AVOID the military. And even that wasn't good enough for Bush, who didn't even show up for his national guard desk duty!
Show some ****ing balls, Democrats!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
It interesting, is it not, that the commies who were being bombed never called the NYTimes to complain. |
Why would they? It's not like reporters in Cambodia didn't notice that the population of the capital doubled in a year because or refugees from the bombing. By the time the bombing campaign was stopped, there were two million refugees in Cambodia.
The U.S. dropped over 275,000 tonnes of bombs on Cambodia from 1969 to 1973. That's a lot of bombs. One of the U.S. ambassadorial staff did a little experiement. He cut a piece of carboard to 1:50,000th size of a "box" (the area devastated by a B-52 payload). He couldn't find a single place in Cambodia where that box didn't overlap a village.
There's no official source for the numbers of dead, because Lon Nol's people were supposed to be incharge of surveying the effects of the bombing, but there were so many sorties that they couldn't cover them all.
Before 1969, the Kmher Rouge were a tiny group of a few hundred people, supported by the NV (I was wrong, Ned was right). Sianouk purged the leftist members of his cabinent, who ended up joining the KR. Despite this, Cambodia was a major source of supplies for North Vietnam (not NV forces in the South).
In 1970, rightist military leaders deposed the prince and set up a military dictatorship. After the American intervention (bombing and invasion), the party grew to include 10,000 regular soldiers, and 70,000 militia. Lon Nol was so hated that his brother, Lon Nil, was killed, his liver cut out and roasted, and distributed to a crowd. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Joseph
|
 |
Ca. USA
Feb 2000
time: 21:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by molly bloom
So Ned, bombing neutral countries without the consent of Congress or the American people is o.k. with you?
Should any 'neutrals' in the vicinity of Iraq and Afghanistan be evacuating their civilian populations?
Now as to not deliberately killing civilians- if you drop more bombs on a country than you did, on, oh, Japan, in the course of WWII, how many civilians will those bombs not kill?
Will they not kill the estimated 600 000 Cambodian civilians unfortunate enough to have been under those bombs?
'
May-August 1973
Months after the Paris Agreement, which marked the official end of the Vietnam War, the United States, under the leadership of President Richard Nixon and his assistant for National Security Affairs Henry Kissinger, steps up its bombing of Cambodia—contradicting earlier claims that the rationale for bombing Cambodia had been to protect American lives in Vietnam. During the months of March, April and May, the tonnage of bombs dropped on Cambodia is more than twice that of the entire previous year. The bombing stops in August under pressure from Congress. The total number of civilians killed since the bombing began in 1969 is estimated to be 600,000 (see March 1969-1973). [Blum, 1995; Guardian, 4/25/2002] '
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/...meline=cambodia
C'mon, Ned, trying to do a snowjob on King Richard is just too much, even for you. |
When that country is being used by the enemy, YES, YES, YES, YES, YOU GET THE MESSAGE.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bosh
|
 |
Taehan Mingook
Jan 1970
time: 00:33
|
|
Since my other thread got locked for duplicating this thread, I thought I'd post this here.
quote:
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=231
A group funded by the biggest Republican campaign donor in Texas began running an attack ad Aug. 5 in which former Swift Boat veterans claim Kerry lied to get one of his two decorations for bravery and two of his three purple hearts.
But the veterans who accuse Kerry are contradicted by Kerry's former crewmen, and by Navy records.
One of the accusers says he was on another boat "a few yards" away during the incident which won Kerry the Bronze Star, but the former Army lieutenant whom Kerry plucked from the water that day backs Kerry's account. In an Aug. 10 opinion piece in the conservative Wall Street Journal , Rassmann (a Republican himself) wrote that the ad was "launched by people without decency" who are "lying" and "should hang their heads in shame."
And on Aug. 19, Navy records came to light also contradicting the accusers. One of the veterans who says Kerry wasn't under fire was himself awarded a Bronze Star for aiding others "in the face of enemy fire" during the same incident.
Analysis
"Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" is a group formed March 23 after Kerry wrapped up the Democratic nomination. It held a news conference May 4 denigrating Kerry's military record and his later anti-war pronouncements during the 1970's. The group began running an attack ad Aug. 5 in which 13 veterans variously say Kerry is "not being honest" and "is lying about his record."
Where the Money Comes From
Although the word "Republican" does not appear in the ad, the group's financing is highly partisan. The source of the Swift Boat group's money wasn't known when it first surfaced, but a report filed July 15 with the Internal Revenue Services now shows its initial funding came mainly from a Houston home builder, Bob R. Perry, who has also given millions to the Republican party and Republican candidates, mostly in Texas, including President Bush and Republican Majority Leader Tom DeLay, whose district is near Houston
Perry gave $100,000 of the $158,750 received by the Swift Boat group through the end of June, according to its disclosure report .
Perry and his wife Doylene also gave more than $3 million to Texas Republicans during the 2002 elections, according to a database maintained by the Institute on Money in State Politics . The Perrys also were among the largest Republican donors in neighboring Louisiana, where they gave $200,000, and New Mexico, where they gave $183,000, according to the database
At the federal level the Perrys have given $359,825 since 1999, including $6,000 to Bush's campaigns and $27,325 to DeLay and his political action committee, Americans for a Republican Majority, according to a database maintained by the Center for Responsive Politics .
The Silver Star
Several of those who appear in the ad have signed brief affidavits, and we have posted some of them in the "supporting documents" section to the right for our visitors to evaluate for themselves.
One of those affidavits, signed by George Elliott, quickly became controversial. Elliott is the retired Navy captain who had recommended Kerry for his highest decoration for valor, the Silver Star, which was awarded for events of Feb. 28, 1969, when Kerry beached his boat in the face of an enemy ambush and then pursued and killed an enemy soldier on the shore.
Elliott, who had been Kerry's commanding officer, was quoted by the Boston Globe Aug 6 as saying he had made a "terrible mistake" in signing the affidavit against Kerry, in which Elliott suggested Kerry hadn't told him the truth about how he killed the enemy soldier. Later Elliott signed a second affidavit saying he still stands by the words in the TV ad. But Elliott also made what he called an "immaterial clarification" - saying he has no first-hand information that Kerry was less than forthright about what he did to win the Silver Star.
What Elliott said in the ad is that Kerry "has not been honest about what happened in Viet Nam." In his original affidavit Elliott said Kerry had not been "forthright" in Vietnam. The only example he offered of Kerry not being "honest" or "forthright" was this: "For example, in connection with his Silver Star, I was never informed that he had simply shot a wounded, fleeing Viet Cong in the back.
In the Globe story, Elliott is quoted as saying it was a "terrible mistake" to sign that statement:
George Elliott (Globe account): It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words. I'm the one in trouble here. . . . I knew it was wrong . . . In a hurry I signed it and faxed it back. That was a mistake.
In his second affidavit, however, Elliott downgraded that "terrible mistake" to an "immaterial clarification." He said in the second affidavit:
Elliott (second affidavit): I do not claim to have personal knowledge as to how Kerry shot the wounded, fleeing Viet Cong.
Elliott also said he now believes Kerry shot the man in the back, based on other accounts including a book in which Kerry is quoted as saying of the soldier, "He was running away with a live B-40 (rocket launcher) and, I thought, poised to turn around and fire it." (The book quoted by Elliott is John F. Kerry, The Complete Biography, By The Reporters Who Know Him Best.)
Elliott also says in that second affidavit, "Had I known the facts, I would not have recommended Kerry for the Silver Star for simply pursuing and dispatching a single, wounded, fleeing Viet Cong." That statement is misleading, however. It mischaracterizes the actual basis on which Kerry received his decoration.
The official citations show Kerry was not awarded the Silver Star "for simply pursuing and dispatching" the Viet Cong. In fact, the killing is not even mentioned in two of the three versions of the official citation (see "supporting documents" at right.) The citations - based on what Elliott wrote up at the time - dwell mostly on Kerry's decision to attack rather than flee from two ambushes, including one in which he led a landing party.
The longest of the citations, signed by Vice Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, commander of U.S. naval forces in Vietnam, describes Kerry as killing a fleeing Viet Cong with a loaded rocket launcher. It says that as Kerry beached his boat to attack his second set of ambushers, "an enemy soldier sprang up from his position not ten feet from Patrol Craft Fast 94 and fled. Without hesitation, Lieutenant (junior grade) KERRY leaped ashore, pursued the man behind a hooch, and killed him, capturing a B-40 rocket launcher with a round in the chamber."
Two other citations omit any mention of the killing. One was signed by Admiral John J. Hyland, commander in chief of the Pacific Fleet, and the other was signed by the Secretary of the Navy. Both those citations say Kerry attacked his first set of ambushers and that "this daring and courageous tactic surprised the enemy and succeeded in routing a score of enemy soldiers." Later, 800 yards away, Kerry's boat encountered a second ambush and a B-40 rocket exploded "close aboard" Kerry's boat. "With utter disregard for his own safety, and the enemy rockets, he again ordered a charge on the enemy, beached his boat only ten feet away from the VC rocket position, and personally led a landing party ashore in pursuit of the enemy." In these citations there is no mention of enemy casualties at all. Kerry was cited for "extraordinary daring and personal courage . . . in attacking a numerically superior force in the face of intense fire."
Elliott had previously defended Kerry on that score when his record was questioned during his 1996 Senate campaign. At that time Elliott came to Boston and said Kerry acted properly and deserved the Silver Star. And as recently as June, 2003, Elliott called Kerry's Silver Star "well deserved" and his action "courageous" for beaching his boat in the face of an ambush:
Elliott (Boston Globe, June 2003): I ended up writing it up for a Silver Star, which is well deserved, and I have no regrets or second thoughts at all about that. . . . (It) was pretty courageous to turn into an ambush even though you usually find no more than two or three people there.
Elliott now feels differently, and says he has come to believe Kerry didn't deserve his second award for valor, either, based only on what the other anti-Kerry veterans have told him. He told the Globe Aug. 6:
Elliott: I have chosen to believe the other men. I absolutely do not know first hand.
On Aug. 22 an officer who was present supported Kerry's version, breaking a 35-year silence. William B. Rood commanded another Swift Boat during the same operation and was awarded the Bronze Star himself for his role in attacking the Viet Cong ambushers. He said Kerry and he went ashore at the same time after being attacked by several Viet Cong onshore.
Rood said he was the only other officer present. Rood is now an editor on the metropolitan desk of the Chicago Tribune, which published his first-person account of the incident in its Sunday edition. Rood said he had refused all interviews about Kerry's war record, even from reporters for his own paper, until motivated to speak up because Kerry's critics are telling "stories I know to be untrue" and "their version of events has splashed doubt on all of us."
Rood described two Viet Cong ambushes, both of them routed using a tactic devised by Kerry who was in tactical command of a three-boat operation. At the second ambush only the Rood and Kerry boats were attacked.
Rood: Kerry, followed by one member of his crew, jumped ashore and chased a VC behind a hooch--a thatched hut--maybe 15 yards inland from the ambush site. Some who were there that day recall the man being wounded as he ran. Neither I nor Jerry Leeds, our boat's leading petty officer with whom I've checked my recollection of all these events, recalls that, which is no surprise. Recollections of those who go through experiences like that frequently differ.
With our troops involved in the sweep of the first ambush site, Richard Lamberson, a member of my crew, and I also went ashore to search the area. I was checking out the inside of the hooch when I heard gunfire nearby.
Not long after that, Kerry returned, reporting that he had killed the man he chased behind the hooch. He also had picked up a loaded B-40 rocket launcher, which we took back to our base in An Thoi after the operation.
Rood disputed an account of the incident given by John O'Neill in his book "Unfit for Command," which describes the man Kerry chased as a "teenager" in a "loincloth." Rood said, "I have no idea how old the gunner Kerry chased that day was, but both Leeds and I recall that he was a grown man, dressed in the kind of garb the VC usually wore."
The Bronze Star
The most serious allegation in the ad is that Kerry received both the Bronze Star, his second-highest decoration, and his third purple heart, which allowed him to be sent home early, under false pretenses. But that account is flatly contradicted by Jim Rassmann, the former Army Lieutenant whom Kerry rescued that day.
Van O'Dell, a former Navy enlisted man who says he was the gunner on another Swift Boat, states in his affidavit that he was "a few yards away" from Kerry's boat on March 13, 1969 when Kerry pulled Rassman from the water. According to the official medal citations, Kerry's boat was under enemy fire at the time, and Kerry had been wounded when an enemy mine exploded near his own boat. O'Dell insists "there was no fire" at the time, adding: "I did not hear any shots, nor did any hostile fire hit any boats" other than his own, PCF-3.
Others in the ad back up that account. Jack Chenoweth, who was a Lieutenant (junior grade) commanding PCF-3, said Kerry's boat "fled the scene" after a mine blast disabled PCF-3, and returned only later "when it was apparent that there was no return fire." And Larry Thurlow, who says he commanded a third Swift Boat that day, says "Kerry fled while we stayed to fight," and returned only later "after no return fire occurred."
A serious discrepancy in the account of Kerry's accusers came to light Aug. 19, when the Washington Post reported that Navy records describe Thurlow himself as dodging enemy bullets during the same incident, for which Thurlow also was awarded the Bronze Star.
Thurlow's citation - which the Post said it obtained under the Freedom of Information Act - says that "all units began receiving enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire from the river banks" after the first explosion. The citation describes Thurlow as leaping aboard the damaged PCF-3 and rendering aid "while still under enemy fire," and adds: "His actions and courage in the face of enemy fire . . . were in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service."
A separate document that recommended Thurlow for that decoration states that all Thurlow's actions "took place under constant enemy small arms fire." It was signed by Elliott.
The Post quoted Thurlow as saying he had lost his citation years earlier and had been under the impression that he received the award for aiding the damaged boat and its crew, and that his own award would be "fraudulent" if based on his facing enemy fire. The Post reported that, after hearing the citation read to him, Thurlow said: "It's like a Hollywood presentation here, which wasn't the case. . . My personal feeling was always that I got the award for coming to the rescue of the boat that was mined. This casts doubt on anybody's awards. It is sickening and disgusting. . . . I am here to state that we weren't under fire."
None of those in the attack ad by the Swift Boat group actually served on Kerry's boat. And their statements are contrary to the accounts of Kerry and those who served under him.
Jim Rassmann was the Army Special Forces lieutenant whom Kerry plucked from the water. Rassmann has said all along that he was under sniper fire from both banks of the river when Kerry, wounded, helped him aboard. Rassmann is featured in an earlier Kerry ad, in fact, (see script at left) saying "he (Kerry) risked his life to save mine."
On Aug. 10, Rassmann wrote a vivid account of the rescue in the Wall Street Journal that contradicts the Kerry accusers. Rassmann said that after the first explosion that disabled PCF-3:
Rassmann: Machine-gun fire erupted from both banks of the river and a second explosion followed moments later. The second blast blew me off John's swift boat, PCF-94, throwing me into the river. Fearing that the other boats would run me over, I swam to the bottom of the river and stayed there as long as I could hold my breath.
When I surfaced, all the swift boats had left, and I was alone taking fire from both banks. To avoid the incoming fire I repeatedly swam under water as long as I could hold my breath, attempting to make it to the north bank of the river. I thought I would die right there. The odds were against me avoiding the incoming fire and, even if I made it out of the river, I thought I thought I'd be captured and executed. Kerry must have seen me in the water and directed his driver, Del Sandusky, to turn the boat around. Kerry's boat ran up to me in the water, bow on, and I was able to climb up a cargo net to the lip of the deck. But, because I was nearly upside down, I couldn't make it over the edge of the deck. This left me hanging out in the open, a perfect target. John, already wounded by the explosion that threw me off his boat, came out onto the bow, exposing himself to the fire directed at us from the jungle, and pulled me aboard.
Rassmann said he recommended Kerry for the Silver Star for that action, and learned only later that the Bronze Star had been awarded instead. "To this day I still believe he deserved the Silver Star for his courage," he wrote. Rassmann described himself as a retired lieutenant with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. "I am a Republican, and for more than 30 years I have largely voted for Republicans," Rassmann said. But he said Kerry "will be a great commander in chief."
"This smear campaign has been launched by people without decency," Rassmann said. "Their new charges are false; their stories are fabricated, made up by people who did not serve with Kerry in Vietnam."
On Aug. 22 the Washington Post quoted a new eyewitness in support of Kerry's version. The Post said it had independently contacted Wayne D. Langhofer, who manned a machine gun aboard PCF-43, the boat directly behind Kerry's, and that Langhofer said he distinctly remembered the "clack, clack, clack" of enemy AK-47 assault rifles.
Langhofer: There was a lot of firing going on, and it came from both sides of the river.
The Third Purple Heart
The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth further says Kerry didn't deserve his third purple heart, which was received for shrapnel wounds in left buttocks and contusions on right forearm. The Swift Boat group's affidavits state that the wound in Kerry's backside happened earlier that day in an accident. "Kerry inadvertently wounded himself in the fanny," Thurlow said in his affidavit, "by throwing a grenade too close (to destroy a rice supply) and suffered minor shrapnel wounds."
The grenade incident is actually supported by Kerry's own account, but the shrapnel wound was only part of the basis for Kerry's third purple heart according to official documents. The evidence here is contradictory.
Kerry's account is in the book Tour of Duty by Douglas Brinkley, who based it largely on Kerry's own Vietnam diaries and 12 hours of interviews with Kerry. "I got a piece of small grenade in my ass from one of the rice-bin explosions and then we started to move back to the boats," Kerry is quoted as saying on page 313. In that account, Kerry says his arm was hurt later, after the mine blast that disabled PCF-3, when a second explosion rocked his own boat. "The concussion threw me violently against the bulkhead on the door and I smashed my arm," Kerry says on page 314.
And according to a Navy casualty report released by the Kerry campaign, the third purple heart was received for "shrapnel wounds in left buttocks and contusions on his right forearm when a mine detonated close aboard PCF-94," Kerry's boat. As a matter of strict grammar, the report doesn't state that both injuries were received as a result of the mine explosion, only the arm injury.
The official citation for Kerry's Bronze Star refers only to his arm injury, not to the shrapnel wound to his rear. It says he performed the rescue "from an exposed position on the bow, his arm bleeding and in pain." The description of Kerry's arm "bleeding" isn't consistent with the description of a "contusion," or bruise.
Rassmann's Aug. 10 Wall Street Journal article states that Kerry's arm was "wounded by the explosion that threw me off his boat," which would make that wound clearly enemy-inflicted.
In any case, even a "friendly fire" injury can qualify for a purple heart "as long as the 'friendly' projectile or agent was released with the full intent of inflicting damage or destroying enemy troops or equipment," according to the website of the Military Order of the Purple Heart. All agree that rice was being destroyed that day on the assumption that it otherwise might feed Viet Cong fighters.
Another major discrepancy raises a question of how close Kerry's accusers actually were to the rescue of Rassmann. Tour of Duty describes Rassmann's rescue (and the sniper fire) as happening "several hundred yards back" from where the crippled PCF-3 was lying, not "a few yards away," the distance from which the anti-Kerry veterans claim to have witnessed the incident.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bosh
|
|
Taehan Mingook
Jan 1970
time: 00:33
|
|
continued...
quote:
First Purple Heart
Two who appear in the ad say Kerry didn't deserve his first purple heart. Louis Letson, a medical officer and Lieutenant Commander, says in the ad that he knows Kerry is lying about his first purple heart because ¡°I treated him for that.¡± However, medical records provided by the Kerry campaign to FactCheck.org do not list Letson as the ¡°person administering treatment¡± for Kerry¡¯s injury on December 3, 1968 . The person who signed this sick call report is J.C. Carreon, who is listed as treating Kerry for shrapnel to the left arm.
In his affidavit, Letson says Kerry's wound was self-inflicted and does not merit a purple heart. But that's based on hearsay, and disputed hearsay at that. Letson says ¡°the crewman with Kerry told me there was no hostile fire, and that Kerry had inadvertently wounded himself with an M-79 grenade.¡± But the Kerry campaign says the two crewmen with Kerry that day deny ever talking to Letson.
On Aug. 17 the Los Angeles Times quoted Letson as giving a slightly different account than the one in his affidavit. The Times quotes him as saying he heard only third-hand that there had been no enemy fire. According to the Times, Letson said that what he heard about Kerry's wounding came not from other crewmen directly, but through some of his own subordinates. Letson was quoted as saying the information came from crewmen who were "just talking to my guys ¡¦ There was not a firefight -- that's what the guys related. They didn't remember any firing from shore."
Letson also insisted to the Times that he was the one who treated Kerry, removing a tiny shard of shrapnel from Kerry's arm using a pair of tweezers. Letson said Carreon, whose signature appears on Kerry's medical record, was an enlisted man who routinely made record entries on his behalf. Carreon signed as "HM1," indicating he held the enlisted rank of Hospital Corpsman First Class.
Also appearing in the ad is Grant Hibbard, Kerry¡¯s commanding officer at the time. Hibbard¡¯s affidavit says that he ¡°turned down the Purple Heart request,¡± and recalled Kerry's injury as a "tiny scratch less than from a rose thorn."
That doesn't quite square with Letson's affidavit, which describes shrapnel "lodged in Kerry's arm" (though "barely.")
Hibbard also told the Boston Globe in an interview in April 2004 that he eventually acquiesced about granting Kerry the purple heart.
Hibbard: I do remember some questions on it. . .I finally said, OK if that's what happened. . . do whatever you want
Kerry got the first purple heart after Hibbard left to return to the US .
McCain Speaks Up
Sen. John McCain -- who has publicly endorsed Bush and even appealed for donations to the President's campaign -- came to Kerry's defense on this. McCain didn't witness the events in question, of course. But he told the Associated Press in an August 5 interview:
McCain : I think the ad is dishonest and dishonorable. As it is none of these individuals served on the boat (Kerry) commanded. Many of his crewmates have testified to his courage under fire. I think John Kerry served honorably in Vietnam.
At this point, 35 years later and half a world away, we see no way to resolve which of these versions of reality is closer to the truth.
Sources
Michael Kranish,¡°Veteran Retracts Criticism of Kerry ,¡± The Boston Globe, 6 August 2004 .
Jodi Wilgoren, "Vietnam Veterans Buy Ads to Attack Kerry," The New York Times, 5 August 2004.
Douglas Brinkley, Tour of Duty, (NY, HarperCollins, 2004).
Jim Rassmann, "Shame on the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush," Wall Street Journal, 10 Aug 2004: A10.
Ron Fournier, "McCain Condemns Anti-Kerry Ad," Associated Press, 5 August 2004.
Michael Kranish, "Kerry Faces Questions Over Purple Heart," The Boston Globe , 14 April 2004: A1.
Michael Kranish, "Heroism, and growing concern about war," The Boston Globe, 16 June 2003.
Maria L. La Ganga and Stephen Braun, "Race to the White House: Veterans Battle Over Truth; An ad calls Kerry a liar. His Vietnam crew sees a hero. Memories, and agendas, are in conflict." Los Angeles Times 17 Aug 2004: A1.
Michael Dobbs, "Records Counter A Critic Of Kerry; Fellow Skipper's Citation Refers To Enemy Fire" Washington Post, 19 Aug. 2004: A1.
William B. Rood, "FEB. 28, 1969: ON THE DONG CUNG RIVER
`This is what I saw that day'" Chicago Tribune 22 Aug 2004.
Michael Dobbs, "Swift Boat Accounts Incomplete: Critics Fail to Disprove Kerry's Version of Vietnam War Episode," Washington Post 22 Aug 2004: A1.
|
One interesting thing I learned from that article is the magnitude of the woud is COMPLETELY irrelevant when it comes to awarding a Purple Heart (and you can even get Purple Hearts from friendly fire). Its a bit strange for people to complain that Kerry's wounds didn't merit Purple Hearts when this is the case. So, while the Democrats have done plenty of spinning of Kerry's war record (like claiming that Kerry volunteered for a Swift Boat position knowing it was dangerous, when it Swift Boats were used for pretty safe coastal patrols when Kerry signed up), the swift vet ads aren't based on much besides hearsay, third hand accounts and BS.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Mad Monk
|
 |
of Ice Cream
Mar 2000
time: 23:33
|
|
Funny you should mention that.
quote:
Willie Horton redux
Jay Bryant (archive)
February 1, 2004 | Print | Send
To the best of my knowledge, the Bush for President campaign is not short of cash, but if they are, I have a suggestion as to how they can save some money if John Kerry gets the Democratic nomination.
Instead of paying big bucks for fancy new commercials, they could just pull the old Willie Horton ad out of the 1988 archives and run it.
For those of you too young to remember that long-ago campaign, it featured Bush the Elder against Massachusetts Governor Michael "Tank Commander" Dukakis.
As Governor, Dukakis had instituted a prisoner work-release program whereby violent criminals were allowed to spend part of their sentence under sub-minimum security conditions. This was supposed to help the inmates get ready to go back into society, but what it mainly helped them do was escape. This did indeed put them back into society, but unfortunately, a number of them proved to be just a teensy-weensy bit short of fully adjusted. One guy, named Willie Horton, raped a woman in Maryland, and he became the poster boy for what a bad idea the program was.
Now Horton was a black man, so Dukakis and the Democrats screamed "racism" until they were blue in the face, conveniently ignoring the fact that the issue had first been raised by Dukakis' primary opponents, who were all Democrats.
In the primary, it wasn't racist, you understand. Democrats don't do racism, ever, ever. Not even former Klansman Senator Robert Byrd. Anyway, the voters saw through the Democrats' protestations, as well as the idiocy of the work release program, and decided Dukakis should do his societal adjustment somewhere other than in the White House.
John Kerry was Dukakis' Lieutenant Governor. And according to all available reports, he backed the work release program lock, stock and barrel. Except of course there weren't any locks – that was the problem. There weren't any stocks, either, although that old time New England punishment might have been appropriate for some of the convicts, or perhaps even the politicians, like Dukakis and Kerry, who dreamed up the silly work release idea.
The barrel thing is what Kerry could be over as his party's nominee for President.
What Dukakis should have said in 1988 was this: "The work release program was a noble experiment, but it failed. I am asking the state legislature to repeal it, and I pledge never to institute such a program at the federal level if I am elected. My heart goes out to all the victims of the crimes committed and I want you to know that I have learned my lesson."
In politics, that's called the Third Defense, but Dukakis didn't offer it and to the best of my knowledge Kerry has never disowned the program either.
Their response was simply to cry "racism," which didn't work at all in 1988, but it did spook the 1992 Bush campaign, which was managed by an entirely different, and vastly inferior, cast of characters. They failed to run any effective negative commercials against Bill Clinton (Bill Clinton!) and got their hats handed to them as a consequence.
In the wake of Bob Dole's ineffective 1996 campaign, the joke around Republican circles was that he had run the worst presidential campaign in American history since 1992.
It has been widely reported that Bush the Younger was disgusted by the campaign run by the second-stringers in 1992 and vowed never to let it happen in his political career, a vow he has, to date, kept.
Nobody "likes" negative advertising, but there is a technical political term for a general election candidate who abjures it when his opponent does not: the term is "loser."
In mid-July of 1988, I remember attending a small Capitol Hill dinner party with some Republican members of Congress and a few of my fellow consultants. As we sat around the table, we were all required to predict the winner in November. At the time, Dukakis had a double-digit lead over Bush. (People forget that Bush's election that year was no cakewalk, although he ended up with a decisive victory due to the fabulous campaign engineered by Jim Baker, Lee Atwater, media guru Roger Ailes and others.)
As it happened, I was next-to-last to give my prediction. Up to that point, everyone had predicted that Dukakis would win. I said Bush.
Why? the group wanted to know.
I answered that while I hadn't seen any research, it was my belief that no one could rise to the top in Massachusetts Democratic politics without having done things that – in the hands of Roger Ailes – would disqualify them for election to high office in the rest of the country.
The last person to respond was Ailes, who I presume had seen the research, and who smiled and said that Bush would win.
Like Dukakis, Kerry has risen to the top in Massachusetts Democratic politics. Karl Rove's team resembles the 1988 group far more than that of 1992, and his boss regards 1992 as his anti-role model.
Given that the utterly unelectable Howard Dean appears to have descended to the Kucinich-Sharpton level of seriousness as a candidate, Republicans should now root for Kerry.
Veteran GOP media consultant Jay Bryant's regular columns are available at www.theoptimate.com, and his commentaries may be heard on NPR's 'All Things Considered.'
©2003 Jay Bryant
|
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/...b20040201.shtml
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
25-08-2004 01:16
|