Solved? The Mystery of Kerry’s Crew
Mon August 9th, 2004 13:39 MSTGiven the high level of antipathy towards Kerry from the officers and men who fought with hiim, the loyalty of all but one surviving Kerry crew member has been a mystery.
These are the guys who are with Kerry at campaign stops, and who spoke up for him at the convention. They include all but one of his surviving former crewman. The one remaining crew member, Steven Gardmer is a member of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the 250 strong group of Kerry’s fellow warriors now disputing Kerry’s accuracy and honesty.
So if so many hold Kerry in contempt, why do his crew members support him? A strong motivation can be found in an old Boston Globe article…
From Michael Kranish’s account in the Boston Globe:
Kerry’s early departure meant that he was leaving behind a crew that had suffered through many bloody battles with him. Worried that crew members would be killed, he arranged for them to receive a safer assignment. When one crew member, Medeiros, tried to stay, Kerry “came and talked to me and said, `I really would like you to go. … I’d like to know you are safe, or safer.”‘
So Kerry got these guys out of dangerous combat early. Now that’s a heck of a favor (and clever planning for a future political career)! Is that the motive of the Kerry followers? Compare their views with that of over 250 other Swifties who are against Kerry. Compare it to every single officer who commanded Kerry, all of whom signed a letter proclaiming him unfit for command.
Then we have one more supporter: Mr. Rassman, who at the time was a Special Forces officer that Kerry rescued. According to the citation, the rescue was under fire, and Mr. Rassman agrees. But other Swifties who were there say there was no enemy fire - only outbound covering fire. It seems plausible that Mr. Rassman, from his perspective in the water, mistook the noise and confusion to including incoming fire. Swifties as high as 14 feet above the water, whose job it was to return fire, reported none. This sounds like an honest mistake caused by a different circumstances?
By the way, if you are a Vietnam Veteran or supporter, please help us at Vietnam Vets for the Truth. Thank you.
All;
Oh give me a break!
Isn’t that just sweet kerry arranged for his crew to get a safer assignment, does anyone have a shovel, this sh*t is really getting deep. And these dunces believe this crap ?
When the hell did he have time to worry about his crew, if he wasn’t fabricating home war movies, he was coniving another PH to speed up his own exit.
This kranish guy is a real piece of work and about as believeable.
Mark
There are at least three different versions of what took place regarding the Rassmann rescue. We are getting into the multiple choice arena; take your pick.
1. Rassmann was on a boat behind Kerry’s. It hit a mine and Rassmann, after being blown off the boat into the water, was picked up by Kerry.
2. Rassmann was on a boat behind Kerry’s. While Rassmann was bringing another weapon to a gunner, the boat made an evasive maneuver, throwing Rassmann over the side. He was pulled out by Kerry.
3. Rassmann was on Kerry’s boat and was bringing another weapon to a gunner, the boat made an evasive maneuver, throwing Rassmann over the side. He was pulled out by Kerry.
A fourth possibility:
Rassmann was kayaking in the Kerry boat wake, when three sea cucumbers attacked the fabric on the kayak (SE Asian sea cukes have sharp incisors). Rassmann tried fending them off with the single oar, electing to save his M-16 rounds for Kerry, who took all Rassmann’s money in a tiddlywinks game before they went up river. Rassmann’s flailing efforts caused the now sinking kayak to go dead in the water. His screams for help were almost lost over the strains of “Get Together” by the “Youngbloods” on Kerry’s Chinese transistor radio, but were finally heard when the radio shorted out during the guitar solo. Hearing the screams, Kerry looked back and saw what appeared to be a wounded VC in the water. He grabbed the M-79 and was about ready to pull the trigger when he was stopped by the gunner who claimed he had dibs on the next hostile they encountered. It was then they recognized Rassmann’s American accent when he yelled out “you numba hucking ten, GI, you no hucking good.” Kerry had the helmsman turn the boat and return to where Rassmann was about to go under. Kerry used a gaff to pull Rassmann out of the water, not wanting to get his pressed uniform wet. Rassmann was in the water no more than an hour; it just seemed longer fighting off those sea cukes.
Frank:
Unquestionably, option four. But other crewmembers say the song was a Bee Gees tune played on Kerry’s little 45 turntable. Something about goin’ back to Massachusetts.
Another mystery presents itself involving crewmembers. The crewmembers on Kerry’s “black mission” (his words) five miles into Cambodia on Christmas Eve 1968. Who were his crewmembers?
Kerry recalled his concerns at the time. “I thought, if I’m killed here, what will my family be told.” No mention of his crew? Was he alone? Or was he just worried that his Mom and Dad would be lied to by Richard Nixon, who at the time was an unemployed politician.
That night Kerry was fired at by Khmer Rouge (who were almost unknown until 1970) friendly but drunken Vietnamese and Cambodia government troops. He was also, at that moment, being lied to by Richard Nixon, who didn’t become President until 1969. WHAT A NIGHT!
More detail: Kerry said, “That was a wild night. That was a night like right out of Apocalypse Now. It was just surreal. Mortars going off. Tracers piercing the sky. People crazy. Flares.” Oh, the horror, the horror…
Now Kerry says he wasn’t in Cambodia (August 9th) At other times he says he was NEAR Cambodia (58 miles away at his base), at other times he was IN Cambodia (five miles) and NOT in Cambodia. Clearly Kerry has the power of prescience (Nixon), time travel (Khmer Rouge) ghost ship capabilities (There, not there) and night vision (Khmer Rouge, Cambodians and Vietnamese). And what about the mortars?
This is weird.
KINGSMILL…
What we veterans have been suspicious about and questioned for some months is finally getting into the consciousness of responsible media and it isn’t the result of a few hotrod investigative reporters; the media are the beneficiaries of a lot of hard work by veterans doing research and sharing it at all these anti-Kerry veteran websites. The things that made us stand up and take notice…Kerry’s military records, combat reports, medical records…didn’t get the scrutiny from the soft soapers because they couldn’t relate to or understand the significance of the conflicting service dates, the three PH’s, the lies before Congress and so much else that made us dig deeper and ask more questions (how many times did you hear anybody in the news bring up Kerry’s violating numerous articles of the UCMJ for his anti-war activities??). Orrrr, maybe the media just didn’t want to deal with the controversy that would erupt for questioning a “war hero’s” credibility.
This thing about Cambodia is another bombshell just getting out but was discussed among the vets months ago. The three, yes three versions of Rassmann’s rescue that I joked about is something the SwiftVets are kicking around now along with the veracity of the Rev. Alston who spoke at the Democratic convention. I haven’t been over to the SwiftVets since Saturday, but there is some serious doubt that the Rev. is being straight up about his boat time on the Kerry crew: questionable dates and actions he was supposed to have been involved in.
Weird isn’t the word!! It is almost surreal, like watching a nightmare unfold in 3D. But it is Kerry’s nightmare and one he’ll wake up from sometime in December sucking his thumb, wondering how and why he lost it all.
They’re NeoCOMs, that’s what they are!
Like many of my friends who view things political from the dexterous side, I’ve been somewhat mystified by the way our brothers and sisters on the sinister side get all lathered up whenever they hear or utter the word NEOCON. Thinking that such a word could be used to fire up our troops in a similar manner, I now offer the word NEOCOM to describe our (loyal?) opposition. Following are characteristics I’ve observed of modern Democrat operatives:
1 – Like the OLDCOMS, they are never bothered by inconsistencies in their political arguments always picking the point that will gore our ox TODAY, exhibiting great alacrity in using the opposite point to gore our ox tomorrow.
2 - Like the OLDCOMS, they are committed to gaining control of all government power centers so they can direct and control all phases of private life. Karl Marx and Louis XIV are their Patron Saints. Hmm, no wonder they admire France and Germany so.
3 - Like the OLDCOMS, their intellectual Qaeda is the academy. Hmm, the fine German universities of the Weimar Republic were also the prime means to the ends of National Socialism that filled the empty heads of youths with foolishness that sent them off to willingly kill or die by the tens of millions.
4 - Like the OLDCOMS, their economics is really POLITICAL ECONOMICS that subordinates wealth building to political goals.
5 - Like the OLDCOMS, they feign humanitarianism in their expression of shock and horror at “innocent” deaths caused when America exerts its power to defend itself while urging “understanding” and “using subtlety” while ignoring the many orders of magnitude greater number of deaths inflicted in the name of “Liberation” like in North Korea, Cuba or China or by murderous but allied despots like Saddam Hussein.
6 – Like the OLDCOMS, even their mediocre lights like Barbra Streisand, Janine Garafolo and Alec Baldwin consider themselves intellectually superior to any Republicans, especially more so than President Bush and President Reagan.
7 – Like the OLDCOMS, even the most dissolute and venal spokesmen like Bill Clinton consider themselves morally superior to each and every Republican.
8 - Like the OLDCOMS, they consider their narrow minded perspective to be THE TRUTH while our more nuanced understanding are merely LIES.
I invite my kind readers to add their own observations of this strange phenomenon in the comments section below.
Prominent Neocoms include the myopic Paul Krugman…
http://pep.typepad.com/public_enquiry_project/2004/08/theyre_neocoms_.html
I was a noncom once. Does that count?
I was a noncom once. Does that count?
Walter Wallis:
Well, we’re all non-COMs now.
-sean
Search the Oxford English Dictionary. OldComs and NeoComs both have a Latin root, which means “Nincompoop”. Some Non Coms, in my experience were also nincompoops, although that was coincidental (with apologies to Walter).
Earlier I missed your description of Right and Left as dexter and sinister. I don’t know the origin of it, and have until now only seen it used to describe the head-direction of an eagle or other bird in heraldry. Good point.
Above post addressed to Adrian. Sorry.
Only minutes ago, while watching Fox News (see Hannity & Coombs), I was mystified by the not-so-silvery tongued Democratic Party operative Jeh Johnson, who said of those who might question John Kerry’s military record: “Don’t listen to what somebody said [about John Kerry] thirty-five years ago.”
I say! Does this mean, then, that we shouldn’t for a minute believe revisionist historians who today posit that all our our founding fathers were racist?
There are social scientists who today argue that Bernadette Dorn and Patty Hearst were simply women ‘fighting against sexism.’ Should we listen to people like this?
So what did Jeh Johnson mean when he said what he did about Kerry?
I swear, I think most liberals are jackbooted socialist thugs when it boils down to it. They’ll play the role of nice guy when they need to gain your sympathy, but, if necessary–and they desperately think Kerry’s election ‘necessary’–they’ll pull everything out of their bag of tricks in order to win.
Trouble is, if the investigation into Kerry’s record somehow falters, one can first look to Bill O’Reilly and John McCain, and not just Katie Couric or Peter Jennings.
I’m proud of the Swiftboat vets. I’m deeply proud of every vet who sees the truth on this matter. I hate to think, though, that the moneymen will win this thing in the end, and Americans will simply accept the half-truths and distortions as presented by Dems.
Maybe all of them–Republican and Democrat, alike–are in this thing together, and are simply trying to ratchet up our fears in order to solicit more of our fear-based campaign contributions. I’ve wondered as of late: Electioneering no longer seems to come and go simply with the onset and conclusion of elections. Instead, it seems to have become a full-time, year-round moneymaker for virtually every politician. Bill O’Reilly once asked us, “Who’s looking out for you?
I wonder: Is he? Is anyone?
Doesn’t anyone here think that with Kerry’s given ability to flip flop that he could have possibly flip floped to Cambodia, Vietnam, and quickly back to CONUS. I mean give the guy a break.
Or since the action occurred at night, perhaps he just dreamed it all.
I’m just trying to help the guy out.
John Kerry has no honor and he endangers America.
While John Kerry promises that he will take care of us veterans; those of us who weren’t born yesterday know that he’s lying and he knows it.
How do we know it? Well, we know that each and every one of the Neocoms who support him shares the feelings of “verplanck colvin” who recently posted the following on the PUBLIC ENQUIRY PROJECT site:
“…Oh, and as for Vietnam, GET OVER IT. This post-baby-boomer is sick of hearing the self-centered bleatings of a washed up generation debate over this war AGAIN. Who cares if Kerry tossed his ribbons/medals? Who cares if Bush snorted coke and missed out on reporting for duty in Alabama? I don’t!… Posted by: verplanck colvin”
These are the people Kerry would appoint to implement his policies. The fact that these folks hate us is secondary to the fact that they would be responsible for the defense of America.
DOESN’T ANYONE ELSE SEE THE ABSURDITY OF PUTTING MILITARY HATERS IN CHARGE OF OUR DEFENSE IN THIS DANGEROUS WORLD?
The Democrats have absolutely no realistic military thinkers that they pay attention to. Would any Democrat have put US soldiers on the ground to kick Saddam out of Kuwait or the Taliban out of Afghanistan? I won’t even ask about Iraq.
Under a President Kerry, Somalia would be the model for military action – get out if any Americans get killed. People in the know realize that the Clinton Somalia disaster was directly responsible for…
http://pep.typepad.com/public_enquiry_project/2004/08/john_kerry_has__1.html
lemme see…In the past several months a number of individuals, some of whom lug around some hefty ideological baggage, have been sought out and brought forward to question the accuracy of the official records and accounts of Kerry’s conduct (which themselves were constructed at the time by some of the very individuals attacking Kerry), to dispute the eyewitness accounts of those who were participants of the events, and to contradict the statements that several of the attackers have made over the intervening thirty-five years - statements consistent with the official records and Kerry’s accounts. And the group has received funding from highly partisan sources. And attack is coming some three months from the presidential election. and these bogus bufoons are champions of credibility? Most of these guys are blue suits!They would hump patio furniture if it netted them a promotion.
This is a bizarre Alice in Wonderland world! An offical record, eyewitness accounts by participants and contradictory statements by the attack dogs? At what point is any addtional defense required? At what point do they have credibility? At what point do those who are sucking this shit up recognize that they have abdicated their own critical facilities? At what point do you completely abort your own integrity for a Freeper worldview?
Beyond scoring points in a partisan political campaign it clears that the animus behind the vets is Kerry’s anti-war activity. Winter soldering occurred. Live with it. Hell, atone for it! The anti-Kerry position right now smacks of the very thing it opposes. In fact, it is the very thing it attacks.
Cambodia? Lies? I smell Rovian talking points. Tenacity of attack does not make the attack more honorable or accurate.
These freeper attacks suggest how desperate the creepers are. These attacks aren’t even worth the time of Faux News. Rather, they ought to be booked on Jerry Springer along with the rest of those from the shallow end of the gene pool.
Oh, to my fellow vets, ditch the anti-semitism. You do a real disservice to all veterans.
Dewayne:
Not bad 6 paragraphs and you managed to say absolutely nothing. Except to spout typical democrat cliche’s.
So kerry is being attacked ? Dont like it well tell him not to run. When you run with the big dogs he ought to learn to pick up his feet.
As far as I am concerned kerry is getting exactly what he deserves, and it hasnt come soon enough. What files has he released a few pages from his SRB and that is it. How ’bout ”Big John” release his FBI file or would that be too telling of what kind of sleaseball he really is.
His lying testamony to the Senate just for starters the lies he told as a political opportunist ?
You say you are a vet too, and you agree with kerry does that mean you too are a war-criminal ?
Or it doesnt bother you that the North Vietnamese Communist have honored kerry for keeping their war impetus going. And that a former KGB agent said that he couldn’t have done a better job than kerry did .
Sorry sporty, this just doesnt wash, as John O’neill said John Kerry is not fit for command.
And Where have you EVER seen Here any anti-semitic comments, Oey Vey what a putz.
Mark
DeWayne:
You’ve said a lot of things, and it’s clear who you believe.
Anti-Semitism? I wonder if you even know what this means?
To Dewayne:
A disservice to vets is done by vets who write deeply assinine, vulgar and ignorant posts. Thanks a lot. Karl Rove is the Anti-Christ? He dreamed up Kerry’s multiple statements about Cambodia and the fictitious battle there. Sure DeWayne.
This is in line with the Anti-Semitism accusation. Where did that come from? I guess when you have nothing to say, andything can be said.
DeWayne:
I decided earlier that I would keep my mouth shut, for once, in the presence of a person like you. My view all along has been that,in order for someone to develop your kind of thinking, so many intellectual and emotional compromises have taken place that discussion isn’t worth the effort.
Discussion and persuasion will never work, because nothing less than a kind of rehabilitation would open your mind enough to let some sunlight in. It isn’t worth it, and there is always the chance of recidivism. Your cement-like philosophy is so useful; it answers so many questions and soothes so many irritations.
To have mentioned Anti-Semitism tells me at least ONE thing about you, in addition to your vocabulary. You’re a hack, an imitator, which is to say that draped somewhere in your mind is a snarl of logical errors, misconceptions, prejudices, anti-war arrogance, anti-business envy and the usual decayed liberal resentments. It isn’t YOUR thinking at all, it just works. I would like to know where this lunacy came from, but really don’t care that much either.
The reason why we CAN’T let people like you win is simply that you’re incapable of composed rationalism. Your rage at the Swiftvets is one example. Whatever their faults, and there might be some, your craven acceptance of the Kerry spin is embarrassing. Your preposterous, and actually superstitious, fear of Karl Rove is another.
It is YOUR side which has calcualted that accusing us of “hatred” will condemn us and cleanse you of your own venomous obsessions. It isn’t working.
DeWayne:
I decided earlier that I would keep my mouth shut, for once, in the presence of a person like you. My view all along has been that,in order for someone to develop your kind of thinking, so many intellectual and emotional compromises have taken place that discussion isn’t worth the effort.
Discussion and persuasion will never work, because nothing less than a kind of rehabilitation would open your mind enough to let some sunlight in. It isn’t worth it, and there is always the chance of recidivism. Your cement-like philosophy is so useful; it answers so many questions and soothes so many irritations.
To have mentioned Anti-Semitism tells me at least ONE thing about you, in addition to your vocabulary. You’re a hack, an imitator, which is to say that draped somewhere in your mind is a snarl of logical errors, misconceptions, prejudices, anti-war arrogance, anti-business envy and the usual decayed liberal resentments. It isn’t YOUR thinking at all, it just works. I would like to know where this lunacy came from, but really don’t care that much either.
The reason why we CAN’T let people like you win is simply that you’re incapable of composed rationalism. Your rage at the Swiftvets is one example. Whatever their faults, and there might be some, your craven acceptance of the Kerry spin is embarrassing. Your preposterous, and actually superstitious, fear of Karl Rove is another.
It is YOUR side which has calcualted that accusing us of “hatred” will condemn us and cleanse you of your own venomous obsessions. It isn’t working.
DeWayne:
If the case is as open and shut as you say it is, how come Kerry doesn’t use your post as his defense?
Seriously. I’ve heard that the Kerry people tried to sue stations for carrying the ad, and are preparing Brown Books to discredit the Swiftvets, whose character, according to you, is universally bad. If the facts speak for themselves, why is any of this necessary?
This is confusing to me. Kerry is so clearly correct in this, has been throughout his entire military and political career, is on the right side, can prove his claims about everything, and still he releases the hounds.
I don’t get. Have you given this any thought? I would like to know and you seem to be on the inside. Dish.
This one’s for Dewy:
From another blog, since Dew’s so pro Israel.,,”"It’s Just the Live Ones They Cannot Tolerate”
Explaining Auschwitz: A group of Jewish university students is attacked by French tourists. Quote:
[Laurence] Weinbaum [Director of Research at the World Jewish Congress and resident scholar for the group], who has been to Poland more than 30 times on educational tours, says he never before saw anything like what happened, happen. “It was simply shocking,” he says. “In some way, I felt that these men were satisfied to visit Auschwitz. This was another reminder that in Western Europe there is sympathy for dead Jews; it’s just the live ones that they cannot tolerate.”
The attack occurred at while the group was on a tour of the museum at the Auschwitz death camp in Poland last Sunday.”
And Remember this dewey, the Israelis support the United States in Iraq. But as it says above the Jewish Students were attacked by FRENCH TOURISTS, THE SAME ONES THAT SUPPORT YOUR hero.
Mark
Why did Kerry run on his Vietnam record?
Because sleeping in the Senate doesn’t sound near as good as shooting a man in the back.
Form 180. Release the records.
Sorry DeWayne,
We can’t put on the Jerry Springer show because if you looked closely, he was at the DNC. And he fitted in quite well with the crowd. Matter of fact when I saw Jerry and watched for about an hour, I couldn’t tell if I really was watching the Jerry Springer show.
And again, since you mentioned documentation, the Swift Boat Vets for Truth can document everything they say. By the official records that you bring out, we are not finding that Kerry’s Band of Mothers weren’t even on the boat the dates they claim their war stories happened.
I personally encountered John Kerry in 1971 along with other members of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, judging by the flags they were carrying, and it wasn’t the American flag, there was no doubt which side they wanted to win the war. I was in EOD at the time and I must admit that because of Kerry and his followers, I had job security. We were constantly taking bombs or as they say now IED’s out of buildings placed by the followers of your hero.
And by the way, I can get you plenty of documentation to prove that.
Sir, you are supporting a total asshole, but then again as they say, “Birds of a feather;etc”.
Hi Guys,
Just checked in again after a lengthy and healthy absence to see if there was any evidence of evolution here. God, you do get bogged down in your minute party political diffferences. Two multi millionairres with corporate backing dispute the whored position of US prez to see which of their pimps wields the power., and you dispute the war record of the one who actually set foot in Vietnam and puff up the record of the guy whose daddy managed to ensure he was never in danger. I don’t blame George D as he was such a mess then that George W quite rightly felt the military could be spared the talents of his son.
It’s good to see Rhod is still flaming. He’s a great hater and I’m very fond of him, despite our vast differences. He should be careful that in his refusal to engage with his enemies he does not come across as arrogant- he wouldn’t like that thought to be held about him, I’m sure. I’m referring to your DeWayne responses. “Discussion and persuasion won’t work- only a kind of rehabilitation”- What kind did you have in mind?- Guantanamo and Al Ghraib are not producing too many Islamic Bush Warriors- maybe discussion and persuasion have been discounted too soon?
Wootten….
Are you referring to the conflicting dates of the crew pictures and the date of action when Alston got injured?
From what I gathered reading that thread about Kerry crew replacements and the boats they served on, Alston’s memory indicates a more serious head wound than he lets on or he has been getting badly coached by some really dumbass Kerry people. Those guys invented the Chinese fire drill and make the Keystone Kops look competent. It’ll be fun watching the blood drain from their heads when they are confronted with those bombshells.
DeWayne is just another length of Charmin’ TP floating in the Kerry septic tank. Fact finding takes some brain power and patience, something the Kerry dipwads lack totally.
Tony,
If Bush was in no danger, why did his base lose a number of pilots during his time there? Why did my best friend lose his life flying in the New Mexico air guard? Why did I nearly lose mine several times in training almost-accidents, but nobody ever shot at me in Vietnam.
This Bush not in danger thing is offensive. It is offensive because of the invincible ignorance it shows in the person who says it. It is offensive because it demeans the sacrifice of my best friend, who is just as dead as anyone killed in ‘Nam, but there is no wall for him. It is offensive because it demeans the sacrifice of my squadronmates in the Navy, who also have no wall on which to inscribe their name. It is offensive to me, because it demeans my service.
Ever been in an airplane on fire? Ever have a really close near miss on a runway when you are doing 135 knots? Ever land with ordinance that was fired but didn’t go (hung ordinance)? Ever lose two engines at the international date line? Ever fly an airplane? Ever fly in a combat area?
I’ve done all of the above.
Have you ever worn a flight suit?
I have. I know what Bush did, and it was damned dangerous.
Let’s hear your credentials for judging the danger of Bush’s job. I think you’re just a dishonest troll, throwing out yet one more time a slanderous and false statement about Bush.
THose of us who were in the military take this stuff seriously. Those of us who wered in military aviation take it even more seriously. We know.
You don’t have a clue.
A call for President Bush to denounce “Swift Boat Veterans For Truth”
What follows is an op-ed submitted to Salon by four veterans and authors:
“As was shamefully done previously against decorated veterans like John McCain and Max Cleland, extreme right-wing groups such as the so-called ‘Swift-Boat Veterans for Truth’ are again spreading lies meant to discredit a decorated veteran. A veteran who volunteered for combat, who was brave enough not only to withstand the rigors of battle but then the equally difficult struggle to speak the truth about war’s inevitable dark side: savagery, stupidity, recklessness, maiming, and death. These are the truths of every war — those necessary and those avoidable; those just and those unjust.
“The slander about John Kerry’s Purple Hearts and courage in command is fallacious at best and spuriously shameful. More, the attacks against Kerry’s post-discharge protest of Vietnam represent a concerted attempt to prevent others from speaking the necessary truth of their experience by those too cowardly to admit their own share in our flawed humanity — and war is nothing if not a showcase for our flaws. The old veterans’ saying goes: If you haven’t been there, you just don’t know. But more, if you’ve been there and perpetuate the myths, you know even less.
“We are children of the Vietnam-Era: Its veterans, its troubles. In time, we became the veterans of our nation’s ‘Cable News Wars’ in the Persian Gulf, Somalia, Haiti, Afghanistan, and Iraq — we know all-too-well the difficulties in communicating the ambiguous truths of our wars. But, as writers, we tried. We have each, in our own way, attempted to create a space where honest talk about war can occur without sanction: in the privacy of a book’s pages. More than ever, our country needs an open dialogue about what war is, what happens there, and what it can do to the souls of those who serve, whether or not the original call to war was based on a noble purpose.”
“‘Swift-Boat Veterans for Truth’ (a group without a single member who actually served in combat with Kerry) is attacking Kerry for, among other things, telling the truth about his war. If they succeed, hundreds of thousands of young soldiers and Marines will find it that much more difficult to tell their difficult stories — whether heroic, tragic, barbaric, or all three — when they return from Iraq and Afghanistan. So that another generation of veterans will not be rent by the difficult choice between living with a lie and feeling shamed for telling the truth, we ask you: do not listen to those who would distort a brave man’s struggle. They pursue their own sad grudges and the paltry gains of partisan fervor, and if they become the loudest voice of “truth,” all veterans will sustain the wound.”
Signed,
Christian Bauman, US Army (Somalia, Haiti), author of The Ice Beneath You.
Andrew Exum, US Army (Afghanistan, Iraq), author of This Man’s Army.
Joel Turnipseed, US Marine Corps (Persian Gulf War), author of Baghdad Express.
Buzz Williams, US Marine Corps (Persian Gulf War), author of Spare Parts.
You boys certainly huff and puff a lot - I can’t tell whether its testosterone poisoning or simply asthma but I’ll leave you to more weightier matters like the grassy knoll, black helicopters, who lost Vietnam, who lost China, who lost his marbles. Useful idiots, indeed. Do you know who is using you?
DEFENDING AMERICA
BY DAVID H. HACKWORTH
ARE McCAIN’S HANDLERS PLAYING THE WRONG CARD?
John McCain is being hailed by the press as a “genuine war hero.” But is he a war hero in the conventional sense like Audie Murphy and John Glenn?
Or is his “war hero” status the creation of a very slick publicity campaign that plays on flag, duty, honor and country?
For sure, McCain has the fruit-salad — a Silver Star, a Legion of Merit for Valor, a Distinguished Flying Cross, three Bronze Stars , two Commendation medals plus two Purple Hearts and a dozen service gongs.
On a purely medal count basis, he out-weighs Murphy and Glenn, who both for years repeatedly performed extraordinary deeds on the ground or in the air against an armed enemy.
McCain’s valor awards are based on what happened in 1967, when during his 23d mission over Vietnam, he was shot down, seriously injured, captured and then spent 5 1/2 brutal years as a POW.
In an attempt to find out exactly what the man did to earn these many hero awards, I asked his Senate office three times to provide copies of the narratives for each medal. I’m still waiting.
I next went to the Pentagon. Within a week, I received a recap of his medals and many of the narratives that give the details of what he did.
None of the awards, less the DFC, were for heroism over the battlefield — where he spent no more than 20 hours. Two Naval officers described the awards as “boilerplate” and “part of an SOP medal package given to repatriated (Vietnam-era) POWs.”
McCain’s Silver Star narrative for the period 27 October 1967 — the day after he was shot down — to 8 December 1968 reads: “His captors… subjected him to extreme mental and physical cruelties in an attempt to obtain military information and false confessions for propaganda purposes. Through his resistance to those brutalities, he contributed significantly towards the eventual abandonment…” of such harsh treatment by the North Vietnamese.
Yet in McCain’s own words just four days after being captured, he admits he violated the U.S. Code of Conduct by telling his captors “O.K, I’ll give you military information if you will take me to the hospital.”
A Vietnam vet detractor says, “He received the nation’s third highest award, the Silver Star, for treason. He provided aid and comfort to the enemy!”
The rest of his valor awards — issued automatically every year while he was a POW — read much like the Silver Star. More boilerplate often repeating the exact same words. An example: “By his heroic endeavors, exceptional skill, and devotion to duty, he reflected great credit upon himself and upheld the highest traditions of the Naval Service and the United States Armed Forces.”
Yet McCain’s conduct while a POW negates these glowing comments. The facts are that he signed a confession and declared himself a “black criminal who performed deeds of an air pirate.” This statement and other interviews he gave to the Communist press were used as propaganda to fan the flames of the anti-war movement.
Accounts by McCain and other writers tell of the horror he endured: relentlessly beatings, torture, broken limbs. All inflicted during savage interrogations. Yet no other POW was a witness to these accounts.
A former POW says “No man witnessed another man during interrogations… We relied on each other to tell the truth when a man was returned to his cell.”
The U.S. Navy says two eye-witnesses are required for any award of heroism. But for the valor awards McCain received, there are no eye-witnesses, less himself and his captors.
And they’re not talking.
Our POWs in Vietnam were treated appallingly. The Viets would either break a POW or kill him. POWs provided info beyond name, rank and serial number or they didn’t come back.
Based on these stalwart men’s horrific experiences, the Code of Conduct has been changed. A POW says, “Now the training is to give them something… don’t risk permanent damage to health, mind or body.”
McCain refused an early release. An act of valor? Three former POWs told me he was ordered to turn it down by his U.S. POW commander and he “just followed orders.”
McCain certainly doesn’t appear to be a war hero by conventional standards, but rather a tough survivor whose handlers are overplaying the war hero card.
Kerry’s Fitness report from his commanding officer who is now a member of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth:
NOVEMBER 28, 1969
“In a combat environment often requiring independent, decisive action LTJG Kerry was unsurpassed. He constantly reviewed tactics and lessons learned in river operations and applied his experience at every opportunity.
On one occasion, while in tactical command of a three boat operation, his units were taken under fire from ambush. LTJG Kerry rapidly assessed the situation and ordered his units to turn directly into the ambush. This decision resulted in routing the attackers with several enemy KIA.
LTJG Kerry emerges as the acknowledged leader in his peer group. His bearing and appearance are above reproach.
He has of his own volition learned the Vietnamese language and is instrumental in the successful Vietnamese training program.
During the period of this report LTJG Kerry has been awarded the Silver Star medal, the Bronze Star medal and The Purple Heart (2nd and 3rd Awards).”
George M. Elliot, LCDR USN
As a Vietnam Veteran who knows some of the swift boat people. I can say that the article from Salon is a total crock. Just one example: it claims that SBVT has no members who served with Kerry. In fact, it has 60 members who served with Kerry. The “no members” thing is total smoke. Civilians writing about this sort of thing are easily fooled, especially when they want to be. Apparently in this case, so can veterans. They imagine that people who did not serve on the boat under Kerry did not serve with him. Well, even by that definition SBVT has a guy who served with Kerry. Bur “served with” doesn’t mean just on the same boat, any more than it means on the same airplane - do we say pilots of single seat fighters served with nobody?
The Swift boats ALWAYS went out in groups. They stayed very close together (a few yards). The CO’s of boats had to be constantly aware of what the other boats were doing. The men bunked and ate together at their base when not on missions.
So Salon lies aobut someting terribly basic.
\
I’m not surprised. The left has been blindsided by the Swiftees, and are throwing everything they can at the decorated combat veterans of SBVT. They have sued them (3 suits), threatened the TV stations where the ads were to run, and run all sorts of clearly false and misleading propaganda. They are desperate to deflect the attack from the facts, and instead focus on supposed malfeasance by the SBVT.
They should be ashamed. They should be very, very ashamed, as these draft dodgers tell lies about brave combattants, just because the combatants have come forward to tell the truth.
For those who chooses to pick at FITREPS. A civilian cannot read a FITREP and tell the difference between a very good one and a very bad one. Some of Kerry’s were very bad. The reason a civilian has trouble is that there is verbiage and grade inflation. I ran Kerry’s reports by 3 naval officers, all of whom said that they showed a man who was considered trouble by his superiors.
The Salon article claims the attacks on the purple hearts are fallacious. One wonders where they came up with that gem. They weren’t there. Are they privy to information the rest of us have?
The answer is no. The answer is they have a preordained conclusion to reach, and to hell with the facts.
I’ll take the word of 60 Vietnam combat vets over a few guys looking at it years later.
Dewey:
To answer your question; No, who is using us ? It sure aint the democrats, they cant remember from one lie to the next.
As far as the testtosrone comment goes , well you have to have a pair before you can generate any.
For the Swifties, I believe every word they say, it is not like a few disgruntled passed over JGs that are coming out about kerry it his who outfit.
This board has suddenly been inundated with Kerry slugs, trying to defend their hero, probably the same person.
John F’ing Kerry could clear this all up by releasing his SRB, the complete not just selected portions. Back to the Swift-Vets, if it is untrue as all of you kerry slugs claim it is, … IT SHOULD BE A VERY SIMPLE FOR F’ING kerry TO CLEAR UP THE MATTER. BUT HE HASN’T HAS HE. Hanoi John has NOT rebutted anything the Swifties have said, lanny davis has and other sleazeballs have but not your hero.
The truth hurts and kerry is getting burnt bad by the swift-vets.
The Swifties know his record they served with him I did not, what I do know and remember is that he stabbed all of us in the back when he came back and decided to protest the war by meeting with the North Vietnamese Communists in Paris, his lying testamony before the Senate, So if you and Tony want this piece of crap bad enough for a president have him run for President of Norht Vietnam, they know and really like him there.
Mark
So,
Ever fly in combat?
Ever fly a plane?
Ever seen a grown man Naked, Joey?”
The point I was trying to make is that Bush’s service was minimal and away from hostile areas. Your distaste for Kerry is all to do with his being a perceived enemy and you contort yourself into ludicrous positions in order to pursue prejudiced political agenda. Any rational person would find Kerry’s service record to be far superior to Bush jr. That fact only bothers you because you want the Rep. Party to have the macho candidate. Why should that bother you? Your candidate could be ethnic or gay but he/she would still be pro big business- the only ideology that ultimately matters. Of course if he was gay he’d have to prefer manly men. I don’t know how you’d excuse non- WASP ethnicity but I know you’d come up with something.
You guys display an inordinate ammount of sensitivity toward arguments you consider offensive or abusive whilst flaming away at trivial matters that take your displeasure and My Lordy! ( if I can risk such profanity) aren’t you quick to take offence. You are all big boys now- I mean that in a totally hetero way- so calm down. If Kerry wins because of Bush’s stupid blunderings, you won’t lose much. The key command positions will remain untouched and no radical reform measures will be attempted. I believe your voters aren’t ready for that yet. You survived Clinton for eight years and he repaired some of Reagan’s damage. No, you can sleep easy - your more sensible friends are winning just now. They would probably advise you to drop the swiftvet stuff because, quite frankly, you are embarrassing yourselves.
DeWayne would rather page through his Little Lefty Book of Retorts than answer the question.
It’s easier to prattle about Black Helicopters and Grassy Knolls.
One thing you certainly missed along the way is that the spooky thinking is on YOUR side, and you’re no exception.
So. Why won’t your boy come clean?
Glascow,
That was pretty incoherent and off subject. Aren’t you better at English composition than that?
You seem to have a need to minimize Bush’s service. That is offensive, but to be expected. After all, the Bush-hating media had a witchhunt on the service (didn’t find any problems).
But when it comes to Kerry’s service, you say it was superior. There are 60 eye witnesses who say that Kerry lied about his accomplishments, making his service record exaggerated. I’d take a guy any day who is honest about it to someone who exaggerates his accomplishments. The problem with Kerry is his dishonesty (and fondness for left wing dictators). A man who fakes a purple heart, so he can get out of a combat zone early (he was the only one to do so), is very low on the military scale of honor. When that same man goes on to meet with the enemy, and then make all sorts of false accusations against fellow Vietnam Vets (like myself), false accusations against his country, and false assertions that hurt Vietnam Vets for years afterwards, am I to consider him honorable? Are you familiar with what he said? Did you know it was used to torture POWs which is why a bunch of them have come out against him? Did you know the Vietnamese used it in vicious anti-American propaganda just this June? What say you to that?
What do you say to the fact that Kerry’s picture hangs in a room dedicated to foreigners who helped the Communists win, in the War Remnants Museum in Saigon?
Your guy is a real, all-American guy, isn’t he.
As far as staying away from the swifties… I know some of those guys. I know they are telling the truth. So I’m not worried about being embarassed by them.
You should ask youself: why is Kerry refusing to provide all of his service records - specifically the ones about issues of contention.
Tony:
I seriously considered ignoring you, which is the thing you hate the most. I plucked your plumage here a long time ago, and I see that your bruised ego is still your Master. You need to be taken seriously I see.
Your remark that I am a “hater” and “still flaming” is, well, typical Tony. You hit bottom in taking my safely contextual comment about “rehabilitation” and turning it into an endorsement of prisoner abuse. My oldest son was an interpreter in Guantanamo, and he did prisoner transfers from Afghanistan. He is a good man. Is he a war criminal too?
Two of my other sons are paratroopers. Are they bad men, Tony? Step out of your calcified and preposterous ideology for a moment and tell me what you think of me and them. Do it! Can you, without the help of your political prism? Do you have an original thought at all?
Somewhere near the bottom you accuse me of a “refusal to engage my enemies”, and in this context, I need to mention Vietnam. Kerry does, so why not me? I engaged the enemy for over fourteen months in the Iron Triangle, Tony, in 1966 and 1967. Long before you were a drifting protein in some paleo-Brit in the UK, when your countrymen were calling me a murderer and a rapist.
I’ve seen things you can’t imagine, you maundering little shit, you repulsive little self-satisfied gasbag. I’ve seen the evil abroad in the compulsive ideologies of disgusting termites like you, the dangers of complacency and comfort, the ugliness of war and the destruction of innocence by organized evil.
Yes, I hate the acquiescent and complicit politics of the coward, of the arrogant and self-satisfied, of the speciously clever (you), of the cynic and the sophisticate. You have always fit that bill, and if anything is worthy of hatred, it is what YOU believe in. NOT YOU, but your grimy little myth system, your deconstruction and vile, snarling scorn for everything better than you are.
Kerry is irrelevant to me, in the end.
So is Bush. What matters in the end is this country and what it does for the world, what it means to The West, which everywhere is in trouble. I will die for it, and in so doing, would even die for you.
I can not find the reference above but some Lib mentioned Max Cleland as being another ‘War Hero’ , far from it.
>>>>>”To put this in perspective, by 1973, John Kerry had already accused American soldiers of committing war crimes in Vietnam, thrown someone else’s medals to the ground in an anti-war demonstration, and married his first heiress. Bill Clinton had just finished three years of law school and was about to embark upon a political career — which would include campaign events with Max Cleland.
Moreover, if we’re going to start delving into exactly who did what back then, maybe Max Cleland should stop allowing Democrats to portray him as a war hero who lost his limbs taking enemy fire on the battlefields of Vietnam.
Cleland lost three limbs in an accident during a routine noncombat mission where he was about to drink beer with friends. He saw a grenade on the ground and picked it up. He could have done that at Fort Dix. In fact, Cleland could have dropped a grenade on his foot as a National Guardsman –- or what Cleland sneeringly calls “weekend warriors.” Luckily for Cleland’s political career and current pomposity about Bush, he happened to do it while in Vietnam.
There is more than a whiff of dishonesty in how Cleland is “
GLASGOW is also Tony.
Rhod,
Cleland had tied the rings of his grenades to his harness, (kind of like John Wayne) when he got off the helicopter, he hung a grenade on the door. The grenade came off and the ring stayed on his harness. It was his own grenade. This in a way makes him like Kerry, they both managed to wound themselves.
Wooten:
That is the first time I have heard that one, I have had my own theories and this adds to that. And I feel for the guy and have in the past until his ad hominem attacks on the president then I figured that ‘mistake’ or not this guy is fair game. However, there are still alot of questions to be answered on this one.
As I have posted the dems have this guy as a hero who lost his limbs in combat when the accident could just have well occured in the states on a training field.
As far as I can find out he did not receive a PH for his ‘mistake’.
Mark
My two cents:
Cleland’s tragedy is that he made an awful mistake in the field, he admitted it years ago and resisted the Democratic Party’s urge to misrepresent it. This was in the mid-70’s I think, that phase between the two mythologies about Vietnam. We’re in the second phase now.
We were getting then to the point when we could talk about it rationally. The Left tried to use Cleland then, and he fought it, even though the precise details of his injuries weren’t discussed.
I respect Max to this extent, that many, many soldiers, Marines, airmen, sailors died or were injured by simply not being alert, or by having ignored the hazards of just being there and handling the things we had to handle. Circumstances are enemies too, and “it” happens.
Wootten would know this especially, being EOD. Inattention, and sometimes outright stupidity, isn’t enough to dismiss an injury, and I don’t think Mark or Wootten think so either.
Somewhere along the line the DNC and that greasetrap plug Terry MacAuliffe converted or overwhelmed Cleland. Politics is the ultimate corruption, which is a subject we encounter here every day. But for Kerry’s unholy obsession with politics, he might just be another brave sailor.
Rhod, Mark, and All,
Well, I have got a problem with this “war hero” crap everybody keeps throwing around. I don’t know if you remember the last Republican National Convention when the vet, like Cleland, who was missing both legs and an arm, (and also his hips) gave a big speech by the name of Ralph (Chad) Colley or not? Well Ralph got wounded by a controlled mine. Even Ralph blaims himself for the incident because he went through the same patrol lane at the same time in a pattern and they were waiting for him. Ralph graduated in my class at North Georgia College in 1966. He was one of the many from my school that served in Vietnam. He was also one of the many who were wounded or killed. In EOD, I did a lot of things most people wouldn’t do, but I like Ralph did basically what we were trained for. It was just another day at the office for us.
When you mention hero, I think of Audie Murphy, Alvin York, Richard Bong, and a twelve year old Vietnamese boy that saved the lives of most of the men in my unit one day.
I just get tired of hero this and hero that.
Wooten, Rhod:
I know what you are saying, and whether Max was coopted by the DNC or not I dont know but he is the one who let himself be coopted.
When I first learnd of the guy, Max that is I felt that it was a shame, then I learned the rest of the story, and with his attacks on the President, that I thought were unfair, but that is politics and thought he is fair game.
As far as the hero stuff goes, I agree we were trained to do a job and when we did it well we succeeded it is when we screwed up that things didnt go well. But there were always things beyond our control that we couldn’t change, and they haunt us still.
As I said on another board last night the President was on Larry King and king persisted that the President condemn the Swiftees ad, he would not king tried three times to get the president to condemn the ads and to his credit he would not. Then King tried the same trick with Mrs. Bush and she refused to condemn.
It seems these people have short memories when it comes to the attacks on the president just a short time ago.
As far as I am concerned we are in a fight here, with liars and cheats, and if they are going to claim to belong to the other side then they too are the enemy.
As I said I am real sorry about Max Clelands injuries, (*)
(Honestly I am I never wanted anyone to get hurt but it happened and when I finally saw the reality of the whole thing it set me back for quite awhile, naieve when I first went there absolutely,Then it hit me that I had a job to do, which was a Radioman, and tried to do it the best I could, Then we came home and left a lot of guys over there and then the protests started and this is when i asked myself why I was so lucky and that there are these people who were against us just for doing our job. And at the time there were no heroes, just war criminals, baby killers according to the protestors and kerry himself)
(*) regardless how they occured his attacks on the President , our guy, makes him part of the problem and not part of the solution.,
Therefore fair game as they have attacked the president so shall they get theirs in return. I have been pissed for 37 years and now they bring this up and all of a sudden we have a ‘hero’ in John kerry and the current President because he was in the National Guard is somewhat less that a man that john kerry is.
Just as a reminder the President has been called a Deserrter, AWOL, AND VIRTUALLY A COWARD, by people who should know better, Max himself has referred to the National Guard as weekend warriors,(kerry calls them the Back-door draft, but 6000+ names on the wall are National Guardsmen and Reserves. I am sure that their families didn’t expect that.
Mark
More on Kerry’s “band of brothers”
If you’re wondering why Kerry’s “band of brothers” is so willing to stick with him against 250 Swiftvets, this sounds like powerful motivation.
Kerry’s early departure meant that he was leaving behind a crew that had suffered through many bloody bat…
Off the subject of Cleland for a moment.
I still want to know why DeWayne accused us here of anti-semitism. I have seen many favorable remarks on this blog for Israel over the past year, and some condemnation of the raging hatred of Jews by Islamofascists, but NEVER a single remark that would even brush by anti-semitism. NEVER.
A form of anti-Semitism exists on the right among those who describe themselves as “paleo-conservatives”, the most famous being Pat Buchanan.
Paleo-conservatives have issues with “neo-conservatives” who are largely Jewish intellectuals who have moved from Jewish progressivisim to conservative internationalism. It’s said, in some circles, that “con” is short for “conservative” and “neo-con” is short for “Jewish”.
Still DeWayne won’t answer the question as to why he made the accusation, nor does he explain why Kerry won’t release his records or deal with the opposing Swiftvets with facts. Why?
I think DeWayne and those like him are content with the comforting but inoperative ideas of Leftism, otherwise he wouldn’t prattle about black helicopters and grassy knolls as a means to condemn us.
The anti-Semitism charge is a magnitude worse, however, and demands an explanation. We don’t have one, nor will we it seems, so the lustre is off ALL of DeWayne’s fools-gold opinions.
DeWayne has associated himself with a Party which still considers Arafat a statesman, and a successful “peace process” as one which disadvantages Israel. This much is true.
Credentials:
1. Independent voter (never voted for the admitted draft-dodger, Clinton, nor for BushII);
2. Enlisted, 1967, Army: chose OCS as enlistment option;
3. Commissioned 2Lt., Infantry, 1968; six months as Platoon Leader,24th Inf. Div, Ft. Riley Kansas & Germany;
4. 1969: Jungle Warfare School, Panama; 3rd Platoon, Charlie Co., 1/16th Inf., 1st. Inf Division, Lai Khe/Iron Triangle, Viet Nam(Combat Infantryman’s Badge, Bronze Star, Oak Leaf Cluster);
5. Promoted to 1st Lt, Aug. 1969-assigned to vacant XO position, C 1/16th; re-assigned to S2, 3rd Brigade HQ(Army Commendation Medal)
6. 1970; transferred to 25th Inf. Div when 1st Div. was “withdrawn”; assigned as Battalion S2, 2/22nd Inf., Cu Chi & Cambodia;
7. Honorably discharged, San Diego CA 08/70: total time in ‘Nam; 13 months.
=======================================
Folks:
Point One. There were many ways to honorably avoid service during ‘Nam; one could, if one’s religious convictions dictated, declare one’s self a contentious objector(as a friend did, and served two years as an orderly in a VA hospital); one could if one’s political/ethical values required it, protest the war, burn your card and take the chance of being jailed(as several friends did); one could put one’s name in for a National Guard slot, serve one’s allotted tour and hope for the best.
It was NOT honorable in my estimation to procure a dubious 4F rating(as several of my ex-friends did), use political pull to get into the Guard, leave the country or to get magically passed over by your draft board.
Point Two: I have made a extensive inventory of BushII’s military records as provided by him on the net; I have discovered the following:
A: Bush was selected over 150 men on the Texas ANG waiting list even though most were more qualified and many had been on the list for 3 years;
B. On his enlistment contract he requested not to be assigned overseas. He received a direct commision to 2Lt straight from Basic Training despite the fact that his class standing was “unremarkable”;
C. Bush was selected for flight training even though he had posted a score of 25 (the lowest score he could get and still be eligible) on his Flight Aptitude Test.
D. Soon after receiving his wings, Bush applied for a transfer to a non-flying position: it was denied.
E. He failed to appear for his next scheduled flight physical and lost his flight rating. Although regs at the time required an investigation and report to higher for any such dereliction, none was made. Bush never made an attempt to take the physical over the next two years, and never flew again;
F. He applied for and received a transfer to the Georgia ANG for the express purpose of working on a political campaign: this was granted;
G. He never showed up in Georgia, save to have his teeth cleaned;
H. During his last two years, the maximum number of points earned by Bush was 46 (50 was the minimum for a “good year”-satisfactory completion of obligation). IF one had the minimum 50 pts, an additional 15 “gratuitous” points (bonus points) could be awarded by the unit commander. Bush’s records show that he received the 15 gratuitous points (thus making it appear he had had a successful year) even though he was ineligible to receive them. His normal hitch should therefore have been disciplinarily increased by up to two additional years;
I. Despite the above, Bush requested and received an early discharge based on his original estimated termination date for the purpose of attending Business School. This was granted (Why not: he hadn’t had a valid MOS in 2 years).
These are the facts of record: my reading of them leads me to conclude that there is no reasonable explanation for the many departures from procedure and regulation other than influence exerted on his behalf; I must also conclude from his behavior after earning his wings that Bush had no intention of flying a ‘102 in or out of combat and that the steps he took to accomplish this end were less than honorable.
Stating these facts and conclusions in no way slanders Mr. Bush (the truth is a complete defense to charges of slander), much less any of the brave men and women who, unlike him, undertook a service obligation and fulfilled it. Indeed, it does them a disservice to bring them into this sordid mess at all. If you feel yourself dishonored, I am in no position to gainsay you.
I don’t know if I’ll vote for Kerry; but as I never voted for Clinton, so I could never vote for Bush. My father, the WWII Airman (enlisted), would rise from his grave and kick my ass.
C3/6 Bro….
Every once in awhile, this site gets visited by people who just jump in and start blogging without reading any commentary….they just want to spit out their opposition and go no further to look for the truth. You seem to have spent some time in reviewing George Bush’s Air Guard service, but are you aware of any Guard and Reserve regulations pertinent to obligations? I think not, and I say that because Bush’s Guard service is not an issue anymore. He served honorably and did nothing to defraud records of his service. So, when you question GW’s stateside Guard service, be aware you’re on thin ice…..and I wouldn’t recommend you go into a bar or gathering where any Guardmen are congregated with that attitude. Now, if you want to belabor the fact the he used the influence of his father to get some sort of preference, have at it; many Senators, Congressmen and other powerful people in this country back then used their influence to keep their kids out of harm’s way, including Al Gore Sr.
The main gripe I have with your commentary is why you even make Bush’s military service an issue. He never did; it only came up back in April when Kerry arrogantly spouted out of the clear blue that famous campaign line “I left blood on the battlefield, George Bush didn’t” which got the attention of a lot of veterans, not just the Vietnam vet. Then Kerry started bragging about the medals he collected, kept up that line throughout his campaign and “reported for duty” at the Dem convention.
No combat veteran spouts on and on about his time in a conflict except those who hang around bars and tell everyone within earshot how they won the war singlehandedly. Kerry has made his military service an issue and now he has to answer some questions about fabricated and embellished reports. I won’t go into detail but there are conflicting stories from his own mouth and from his Army spokesmen, Rassmann and Hurley, about details of action that just don’t add up. He has never personally come forth to dispute the claims of his detractors who he call liars, choosing instead to send forth his mouthpieces to throw insults and denials while he whines from afar. The majority (58% and growing) of veterans opposed to Kerry have challenged him to sign a Form 180 to release all his military records, including medical, which he refuses to do. Personally, I’d like for him to take a lie detector test, but fat chance!! Bush’s records are out there; what Kerry has released is what he thought he wanted us to see but veterans have found too many suspicious entries in his documents. Now he is doing his damnedest to dodge the inevitable scrutiny by calling into question the credibility and honor of the majority of those his served with in the PCF’s.
But to all of us who served back then, the questions surrounding his service have less import than what he did after his four months in Vietnam. He took the unpopularity of a war and used it to enhance his quest for political power. His anti-war activities and statements before Congress that disgraced and brought shame to all the men who honorably served in Vietnam is what is at the core of our disdain for John Kerry. Had this country been more supportive of the war in Vietnam back then, John Kerry would probably still be in prison for his acts of sedition and violations of the UCMJ while he was still required to abide by military regulations as a reservist. But their were too many admirals and generals around back then who were just marking time and cycling down in their careers who didn’t want to make waves; I know because I served with a few.
We know you will exercise your right and vote for Kerry because you have already stated your disgust for George Bush. Well, at the risk of getting what’s left of my ass handed to me in a Dixie cup by my six veteran brothers, three of whom served in WWII and are now at peace, I’m voting for Bush. Having the Oval Office occupied by a pompous, arrogant self-serving liar is not what this country needs for the next four years.
This country just deserves better than John Kerry.
C3/6 Bro:
It wasn’t necessary to provide your creds, but its good to hear from a Wolfhound.
This blogsite was not established as a pro-Bush vehicle. Lots of us wound up here primrily because of our distaste for Kerry; as far as I can tell, none of us is happy to be here for this reason. This is hard and dirty.
This may also apply to you, but our war goes on because of our sacrifice, our pride, our reputations, our habits, our children and our country, and the stain on our history that Kerry caused so many years ago. Lots of vets of other wars have the same claim on this issue. The picture doesn’t include Bush because the picture was painted by Kerry.
With your service and experience, you’ve gained the right to evaluate the military service of George W. Bush. You’ve been fair about it, but for me the scales never tipped in Bush’s direction; rather they tipped away from Kerry.
What about Bush’s military service? If I had a penny for every injustice, every misuse of rank, every misstep and act of incompetence or laziness by an officer or EM, every failed effort, every lie and act of weakness or fear, every act of bullying and abuse, every strain of favoritism and imbalance IN VIETNAM, I wouldn’t have had to work all these years. Bush’s performance, whatever it was, is no surprise.
I’ve reconciled myself to that, and have said so many times on this and other blogs. The military isn’t a harbor full of heroes. It’s distinguished from civilian life only in the special hazards of employment and the statistical possiblities that some of it will get really awful. Otherwise, it’s civilian life in drab colors. Only a fool grinds an axe over these sorts of things.
Kerry never came to the table with the humility imposed by war experience, with the clear-eyed understanding of human frailty, the sense of loss induced by failed good intentions, with the affection and respect and insight veterans have for one another, whatever their real-life differences. He was above that, in his enduring arrogance and sniffy superiority, Kerry was indifferent until his Band of Brothers were necessary as a political garment.
Worst of all, what he claims to have observed - the behavior of men at their worst with no reference to the pressures and reflexive rage that men feel in war - he attributed to a huge moral and political failing on the part of EVERYONE but himself.
Listen to his confession of “war crimes” and you hear a man without remorse, cleverly claiming to have been an instrument of forces larger than himself. No man “confesses” to war crimes as John Kerry did. It’s ridiculous. Kerry is both an instrument and ABOVE the instrument simultaneously.
Kerry takes responsibility for nothing. The world is a fishbowl but Kerry doesn’t swim in it. He lacks humanity, humility, the levelling and softening power of real confession and real grief. He’s a fraud, the war and its veterans are props. In comparison I will take the flawed and blemished man Bush, because Bush at least SEEMS to want to be better. Kerry has no such wish.
MOLOCH
Give me one good reason why the President should condemn the Swifts ad. ?
First they are A-political, there beef is with John kerry and that is it they consider him unfit for command, regardless whether its dog-catcher or used car salesman, and certainly not President of the United States.
Secondly, kerry by his anti-war activities after returning from Vietnam were nothing short of treason, he betrayed the Swift-boat veterans he served with and he betrayed all veterans who have ever served.
Third we were accused of war crimes by a traitor who said he committed them himself, when his real reference was to ROE he himself did not understand but went ahead made the accusations with no benefit of rebuttal from anyone who believed differently.
You say Bush should condemn these ads, how about kerry condemning the moveon dot org lies about the President, how about Kerry dis-avowing the 10s of millions of dollars spent by the world communist George Soros, thru Moveon.ORG these ad s should be condemned first and formost by Hanoi John Kerry.
Get a life MOLOCH.
C3/6 Bro:
Sorry. I misread 2/22nd as 2/27th.
To mark from 8/24, where you posed the question “Give me one good reason why the President should condemn the Swifts ad.?”.
I’m going to give you, INSTEAD, one very good reason why he should NOT condemn that ad or any other, but this requires an observation first. It goes to the unbridled and grandiose hypocrisy of liberals! For they are the one’s who stridently scream for their cherished Freedom of Speech. Art becomes speech, signs become speech, flags become speech, and even money become s a form of speech. They want that constitutional right for pornographers and gays and anarchists and just about everybody…except who..do you suppose? Except those WHO DISAGREE WITH THEM, that’s who!
Can you imagine it? The Demon-cratic candidate for the Presidency DEMANDS that the sitting Republican President tell the swiftees to cease and desist!!?? Uh.., rein up there Mr. Kerry. That’s gonna take a constitutional amendment, don’t-cha-know? I watched all the TV talking heads like everybody else and I did not see where any of them spotted this little liberal contradiction uttered by one John Fraud Kerry.
Folks! They do it and get away with it all the time. Next time you confront a liberal bring up this issue and give ‘em hell.
More on Kerry’s “band of brothers”
If you’re wondering why Kerry’s “band of brothers” is so willing to stick with him against 250 Swiftvets, this sounds like powerful motivation.