As far as a JG telling a seasoned Corpsmen what to do, not gonna happen. You're grasping at straws if you think someone could simply demand a Purple Heart. Medals were handed out a little more freely in Vietnam I.E. CIB's for Army officers. A lot of Army officers were on three month tours just so they could get their CIB's
Sounds like more than a scratch to me. It appears that someone of a higher rank actually removed the metal from Kerry's arm--Doctors enter the military as O-3 or O-4 I can't recall off the top of my head. Kerry was an O-1, a LTJG.
Another tid bit
If you read the criteria Kerry deserved the medal. There are no if ands or buts. He was wounded in action. He had a piece of shrapnel in his arm. It was later removed by a ranking officer.
As far as my views on Clinton-- I never voted for him. No self respecting serviceman would vote for Clinton. I voted for the Shrub but I find his policies disgusting now. I'll save my rants about the loser-in-cheif for other threads though.
To address your other issues all I have to say is Linky-Linky. Show me who is bashing Kerry's service record so I can present real proof (records and the like) to refute. You're probably quoting Lt. Cmdr. Grant Hibbard who wasn't on the swift boat at the time of the conflict. He wasn't there. He's playing party politics because Kerry's comments before congress ticked him off. Hibbard has contended that the little piece of shrapnel didn't warrant the purple heart but according to the criteria (note there is no size, shape, or location stipulation within the criteria) kerry did. Why didn't Hibbard say something 35 years ago? Why didn't Hibbard recommend denial of the award. I recommend my fair share of denials or award downgrades while I served. Hibbard could have done the same. Kerry was eligible for the award. Case closed. You can build all of the "other vets" straw men you want but the truth is still the truth.
My sensitivity boils down to the feeling of disgust I get when people question a man who was wounded in battle. Sure he didn't lose an arm. Sure he wasn't killed. You can't deny though he was wounded. He had shrapnel in his arm. It was removed by a doctor. By questioning this PH your questioning Kerry's service to this country. I find it truly distasteful to question the courage or patriotism of a man who was wounded in battle-- A man twice decorated for valor.
Finally, Adm Boorda's situation involved more than two V's. Boorda was under quite a bit of stress over issues such as tailhook, don't ask don't tell, allowing women on warships, and a few other insinuations. Oh, and Boorda wasn't actually awarded the V's which probably led to his suicide--he simply wore them. Kerry was awarded the purple hearts.
There are always two sides to every issue and since neither of us were actually there you have to look at who is more credible on the issue. Your view is that anybody who questions Kerry on this has political motivations and that is fine if that is what you choose to believe. While former CNO Admiral Zumwalt pinned the Silver Star on Kerry he is also quoted to have said that Kerry had created "great problems" for him and other Navy brass "by killing so many non-combatant civilians and going after other non-military targets" and that the admiral reported added that "we had to virtually straitjacket him to keep him under control..." If you choose to question Zumwalt's credibility keep in mind that he was one of the greatest and most popular leaders the Navy has ever seen. He was the youngest man to ever serve as CNO and he is credited with fighting the hardest to seek justice for the victims of Agent Orange which culminated in the adding of Agent Orange-related diseases to the eligibility list for medical benefits from the Department of Veteran Affairs. Are you questioning his credibility and patriotism sir?
There are just far too many questions and far too many people who have questioned Kerry's record and some of these people were in a better position than you or I to know what actually happened. I don't think you can refute them all by claiming that these are all crazy right-wing conservatives. Some of these quotes from Zumwalt may well go a long way why Kerry's mission in Vietnam was shortened. He may have been too great a liability to keep him on active duty. It may well have been decided to give him his awards and ship him home ASAP.
Most of us flatly reject "black and white" worldviews such as your own, allowing the possibility of multiple angles for every issue. This adversarial "us vs them" logic seriously limits your understanding of the issue.
Most of us flatly reject "black and white" worldviews such as your own, allowing the possibility of multiple angles for every issue. This adversarial "us vs them" logic seriously limits your understanding of the issue.
I never said that the world is only "black and white" and that there aren't gray areas anywhere. I have no problem understanding the issues involved here. You guys on the left are no less adversarial than those of us on the right - listen to liberal talk radio shows and I am sure you will admit that I am correct on this point. In fact, I have found from listening to these people that they are less likely to engage in a real discussion of the issues of the day when the people they are talking to don't agree with them. Quite often they interrupt them and will even hang up on them. At least on shows like Sean Hannity's the left is given the chance to make their case before they get blown out of the water...
I never said that the world is only "black and white" and that there aren't gray areas anywhere. I have no problem understanding the issues involved here. You guys on the left are no less adversarial than those of us on the right - listen to liberal talk radio shows and I am sure you will admit that I am correct on this point. In fact, I have found from listening to these people that they are less likely to engage in a real discussion of the issues of the day when the people they are talking to don't agree with them. Quite often they interrupt them and will even hang up on them. At least on shows like Sean Hannity's the left is given the chance to make their case before they get blown out of the water...
So spare me your condescending tone.
Well, if you want to talk about talk radio then you're talking about Rush and Laura and Savage. Who make a game of belittling and cutting off anyone who disagrees with them at all, much less are of the left.
Now if you want to compare left versus right on television panel shows... oh right, there aren't any left leaning television panel shows...
I never said that the world is only "black and white" and that there aren't gray areas anywhere. I have no problem understanding the issues involved here. You guys on the left are no less adversarial than those of us on the right - listen to liberal talk radio shows and I am sure you will admit that I am correct on this point. In fact, I have found from listening to these people that they are less likely to engage in a real discussion of the issues of the day when the people they are talking to don't agree with them. Quite often they interrupt them and will even hang up on them. At least on shows like Sean Hannity's the left is given the chance to make their case before they get blown out of the water...
So spare me your condescending tone.
I clearly criticized a certain way of viewing the world-- one that I thought you articulated by saying "there are always two sides to every issue." Now that's wrong-- there are multiple angles for every issue, not just two sides- or one side against another. That's a very limiting way of looking at the world. Assuming bad faith on the other "side" by setting that side in opposition creates a "black and white" adversarial relationship- which is why I called such logic that. (The rest of your post about talk-radio is clearly off-topic and not related to my post.)
Am I reading those quotes from Zumwalt correctly? Scott Thompson claims that 30 years ago Zumwalt told him that Kerry was effectively an embarrassment to the Navy and that, more ominously, if he ever got to the national stage, it would all come back to haunt him? And yet the guy pinned the medal on him anyway? So which is it? Did Kerry really not deserve the medal and Zumwalt failed to have the stones to stand up for what he thought was right? Or did Thompson have some ulterior motive for dredging up a "quote" that cannot be substantiated.
Hell, this quote from Zumwalt wouldn't even be admissible in court.
--
The thing that I think is sooooo funny about this is that after 8 years of trashing Clinton for avoiding service in Vietnam, the Republicans have managed to elect someone with a positively Clintonian service record...problematic, questionable, even Bush's own quotes about not wanting to go to Vietnam sink him on this. And THEN, when the Democrats find a front-runner who both fought in the war and opposed it. And so what to the right-wing attack dogs do? Call into question a decorated veteran.
Shameful. The next thing you know, someone will be attacking Max Cleland's record. Oh, wait.
There are always two sides to every issue and since neither of us were actually there you have to look at who is more credible on the issue. Your view is that anybody who questions Kerry on this has political motivations and that is fine if that is what you choose to believe. While former CNO Admiral Zumwalt pinned the Silver Star on Kerry he is also quoted to have said that Kerry had created "great problems" for him and other Navy brass "by killing so many non-combatant civilians and going after other non-military targets" and that the admiral reported added that "we had to virtually straitjacket him to keep him under control..." If you choose to question Zumwalt's credibility keep in mind that he was one of the greatest and most popular leaders the Navy has ever seen. He was the youngest man to ever serve as CNO and he is credited with fighting the hardest to seek justice for the victims of Agent Orange which culminated in the adding of Agent Orange-related diseases to the eligibility list for medical benefits from the Department of Veteran Affairs. Are you questioning his credibility and patriotism sir?
There are just far too many questions and far too many people who have questioned Kerry's record and some of these people were in a better position than you or I to know what actually happened. I don't think you can refute them all by claiming that these are all crazy right-wing conservatives. Some of these quotes from Zumwalt may well go a long way why Kerry's mission in Vietnam was shortened. He may have been too great a liability to keep him on active duty. It may well have been decided to give him his awards and ship him home ASAP.
Again, links. You can make allegations all you want but your not backing anything with links. I've backed my statements with facts. Kerry was awarded the stars for Valor. If you think a silver or bronze star would be awarded under questionable circumstances then chances are your wrong. I find it hilarious that you claim to seek both sides of the situation and thus immediately discount Kerry's rightfully awarded commendations while in the same breath not questioning the sources. You blindly accept the statement of one W. Scott Thompson (unsubstantiated BTW) as the gods honest truth while discounting the written record or the fact that the medals were awarded for valid reasons. You automatically buy into the conspiracy theories while discounting the actual facts... Weird.
Oh, I wonder who this W. Scott Thompson is... Wait a minute: Thompson - a former assistant to the secretary of defense in the Reagan administration. Wow, imagine that-- Thompson is a republican. I wonder if that has anything to do with this. I find it equally odd that Thompsons statements are just now coming to light after sitting in the closet for 30+ years.
Hmmm I wonder if there's still more to the story... Wait there is, remember in '96 when Kerry was being accused of war crimes? Who came to his defense?
Sen. Kerry's staff arranged a news conference at the Courageous Sailing Center in the Charlestown Navy Yard. It also flew in several people who attested to Sen. Kerry's character and his version of events.
They were retired Admiral E.R. Zumwalt Jr., who commanded U.S. naval forces in Vietnam; retired Capt. George Elliott, Kerry's commander at the time of the shooting; retired Cmdr. Adrian Longsdale, who commanded shoreline operations at the time; and Mr. Belodeau, an electrician who is currently working in Michigan.
Also participating by phone from San Francisco was Michael Medeiros, who was the rear gunner on the Swift boat. Tom Vallely, a former Marine and Sen. Kerry's close friend, introduced each speaker.
Mr. Zumwalt, with two Navy ships and the USS Constitution anchored over his shoulder, said he remembered only two such incidents from Vietnam and one of them was Sen. Kerry's.
Mr. Zumwalt also said he wanted to recommend Sen. Kerry for an even higher medal, the Navy Cross, but approval would have taken too long. Instead, he personally approved a Silver Star and sped along the award to improve morale at a time his sailors were taking heavy casualties.
"To me it was such a terrible insult, such an absolutely outrageous misinterpretation of the facts, that I felt it was important to be here," Mr. Zumwalt said. "A wartime commander has a lifetime responsibility to look out for the guys under him."
Again turn Rush off and do some fact checking yourself. You'll be surprised how quickly the stories fall apart.
Finally, for all you guys bashing Kerry's record you should do so with a grain of salt. Remember, by bringing Kerry's alleged failings to light you are also bringing the fortunate sons record to light also. If you want to compare the two feel free but I dare say Kerry's record is of a much higher caliber.
Well, considering the service record of most of the Republicans in Congress (at least the 106th), McCain is just about the only one with a military record to smear at all.
Again, links. You can make allegations all you want but your not backing anything with links. I've backed my statements with facts. Kerry was awarded the stars for Valor. If you think a silver or bronze star would be awarded under questionable circumstances then chances are your wrong. I find it hilarious that you claim to seek both sides of the situation and thus immediately discount Kerry's rightfully awarded commendations while in the same breath not questioning the sources. You blindly accept the statement of one W. Scott Thompson (unsubstantiated BTW) as the gods honest truth while discounting the written record or the fact that the medals were awarded for valid reasons. You automatically buy into the conspiracy theories while discounting the actual facts... Weird.
Oh, I wonder who this W. Scott Thompson is... Wait a minute: Thompson - a former assistant to the secretary of defense in the Reagan administration. Wow, imagine that-- Thompson is a republican. I wonder if that has anything to do with this. I find it equally odd that Thompsons statements are just now coming to light after sitting in the closet for 30+ years.
Hmmm I wonder if there's still more to the story... Wait there is, remember in '96 when Kerry was being accused of war crimes? Who came to his defense?
Again turn Rush off and do some fact checking yourself. You'll be surprised how quickly the stories fall apart.
Finally, for all you guys bashing Kerry's record you should do so with a grain of salt. Remember, by bringing Kerry's alleged failings to light you are also bringing the fortunate sons record to light also. If you want to compare the two feel free but I dare say Kerry's record is of a much higher caliber.
motherjones.com: Yeah, that is a real credible source. They have no agenda whatsoever...
It cracks me up when you consistently claim that any Republican who says anything negative about John Kerry has no credibility and thus is automatically lying. But you cite some internet magazine that just so happens by coincidence to be liberal's wet dream and we must all automatically accept that it is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? You ought to do stand-up comedy my friend because you are priceless...
And the fact of the matter is there are a frightening number of military awards that have been undeserved over the years. Your assertion that there is no chance that a Silver Star or Bronze Star could be awarded under questionable circumstances is quite simply a lie and you do not know what you are talking about. Feel free to check out what Col. David Hackworth, America's most decorated living soldier, has to say about military awards. I think you will be embarrassed by what you don't know about this issue. Of course I am sure you will dismiss him as some right wing lunatic when in fact he is fair and balanced in the columns he writes. He has been critical of Democrats and Republicans alike and he has no political ax to grind. But what he is more than willing to do is point out the things that are wrong in the military and the issue of miltary awards is one that he knows a great deal about.
motherjones.com: Yeah, that is a real credible source. They have no agenda whatsoever...
It cracks me up when you consistently claim that any Republican who says anything negative about John Kerry has no credibility and thus is automatically lying. But you cite some internet magazine that just so happens by coincidence to be liberal's wet dream and we must all automatically accept that it is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? You ought to do stand-up comedy my friend because you are priceless...
And the fact of the matter is there are a frightening number of military awards that have been undeserved over the years. Your assertion that there is no chance that a Silver Star or Bronze Star could be awarded under questionable circumstances is quite simply a lie and you do not know what you are talking about. Feel free to check out what Col. David Hackworth, America's most decorated living soldier, has to say about military awards. I think you will be embarrassed by what you don't know about this issue. Of course I am sure you will dismiss him as some right wing lunatic when in fact he is fair and balanced in the columns he writes. He has been critical of Democrats and Republicans alike and he has no political ax to grind. But what he is more than willing to do is point out the things that are wrong in the military and the issue of miltary awards is one that he knows a great deal about.
Nice diversion. Heaven forbid you address the topic. Did Kerry deserve the medals? Yes, buy all accounts he met the criteria of the purple hearts. The only naysayers are a former commander who did not deny the chit(s) Kerry dropped for the Purple Heart(s).
Remember this?
Quote:
There are always two sides to every issue and since neither of us were actually there you have to look at who is more credible on the issue. Your view is that anybody who questions Kerry on this has political motivations and that is fine if that is what you choose to believe. While former CNO Admiral Zumwalt pinned the Silver Star on Kerry he is also quoted to have said that Kerry had created "great problems" for him and other Navy brass "by killing so many non-combatant civilians and going after other non-military targets" and that the admiral reported added that "we had to virtually straitjacket him to keep him under control..." If you choose to question Zumwalt's credibility keep in mind that he was one of the greatest and most popular leaders the Navy has ever seen. He was the youngest man to ever serve as CNO and he is credited with fighting the hardest to seek justice for the victims of Agent Orange which culminated in the adding of Agent Orange-related diseases to the eligibility list for medical benefits from the Department of Veteran Affairs. Are you questioning his credibility and patriotism sir?
I find this funny because you claim how honorable and noble and upright Zumwalt was, yet out of the other side of your mouth you question Zumwalt integrity. How can that be. Zumwalt himself stood by Kerrys side when there were alligatins of war crimes. Zumwalt himself approved the stars. So which is killer? Is Zumwalt honorable or a scoundrel?
Another question. If Zumwalt did say those things about Kerry why were they not brought up when Kerry was accused of war crimes? Why did WST wait until Zumwalt was no longer with us to step forward?
As far as MJ goes, your absolutly right it is a Left wing pub. I'm not disputing that. I posted it because (if you had taken the time to look at it) it is a side-by-side comparison of the coward-in-cheif vs Kerry from 66 to 73. I used the MJ article because a) if you do this http://www.google.com/search?q=kerry...UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 google search its the top entry. b) I was too lazy to find a publication to suit your needs. c) like it or not the comparison of the two side by side is well liad out and telling.
Next, I questioned the motives of two men: WST and Hibbard. Thompson had ample opportunity to come forward with what he had to say yet he decided to wait 30 years. Moreover, there was a more appropriate time (when there were questions about Kerrys war crimes) for the information to brought forward yet WST said nothing. Then during an election year when the shrub is struggling wham WST finally comes forward (after Zumwalt had passed on). Hmmm sounds pretty partisan to me. That's when I threw in the "Yup he's a former Reagan aid republican." I didn't say Hibbard was a repub, I just questioned his timing. Why didn't Hibbard deny the chits? Why did Hibbard wait 30 years to come forward?
Again, when are you going to start using links to back your claims? You've posted the straw men a couple of times yet no links. The few names you have posted I've refuted. Zumwalt probably didn't say what WST claims he did. Zumwalt defended Kerry in 96.
The reason this stuff is comming up is the GOP has a real problem with honest to goodness war heros. Maybe because the GOP only has one and even then they did their best to discredit McCain in 2000 using his record against him. These questions about Kerry's war record are red Herring arguments designed to divert attention from all of Bush's failed policies and put Kerry on the defensive. You say you've seen your fair share of evidence against Kerry; well then killer share it with us. Link us to these articles or statements to support your claims.
This is the kind of utter idiotic stupidity that gets passed around!!!
Unbelievable!
I suppose the DNC headquarters having the president's face put on a door mat that they can then wipe their feet on while walking into the building is not "idiotic stupidity?"
I suppose the DNC headquarters having the president's face put on a door mat that they can then wipe their feet on while walking into the building is not "idiotic stupidity?"
So what you are saying is that Kerry didn't come back and speak against the war?
You claim it is more appropriate. How so?
Nick
Hardly. You can't make the case that being anti-war is being pro-enemy. It's just a shameless attempt to equate the two and a great distortion of Kerry's position to boot. On the other hand, a doormat of "Give Bush the Boot" merely suggests the Democrats' intention- literally. Yeah, it's kind of lame, but it's an appropriate metaphor. Can you really substantiate that John Kerry supports the Viet Cong? No. Can you really substantiate that Democrats want to "Give Bush the Boot." Yes- literally.
Kerry spoke his conscience: he stood up for what he thought was right . . . he did not lie to the American people . . . he may have used strong words . . .allthogh I am not so sure about that, it is probably more expedient to say that in some cases the words were a 'bit harsh'.
Calling Kerry 'Hanoi John' because he took a political position that is not popular with the standing Government is Slander . . . it is saying that JFKerry was willfully propagandizing in order to hurt US army efforts and to turn the tide of combat in the favor of NVietnam.
If this had been the case, He would have pulled some strings and kept his talent for military leadership at home in a National Guard camp . . .or better would have somehow managed to get Bush sent to Vietnam.
This slander of a three time Purple Heart winner is the lowest most obvious partisan bullshiit . . . you should be ashamed of yourselves . . . take a look at how idiotic it is, how absolutley BIASED . . .
BTW, don't know if it has been quoted yet, but:
Quote:
Houston attorney John E. O'Neill, the Navy veteran who has emerged recently as a harsh and ubiquitous critic of John Kerry's military service, tells reporters that he has never really been interested in politics and isn't motivated by partisan interests. In the media, O'Neill is often described simply as a Vietnam vet still enraged by the antiwar speeches Kerry delivered more than 30 years ago. That was when O'Neill first came to public attention as a clean-cut, pro-war protégé of the Nixon White House's highest-ranking dirty trickster (aside from the late president himself), Charles Colson.
Colson, who went to prison for Watergate crimes, saw O'Neill as a perfect foil to Kerry, whom Nixon and his aides feared as a decorated, articulate and reasonable opponent of the war and their regime. Indeed, O'Neill was perfect -- a crewcut officer who had served on the same Navy swift boat that Kerry had commanded, although their stints in the Mekong Delta didn't overlap. In June 1971, Colson brought O'Neill up to Washington for an Oval Office audience with Nixon. His impressions live on in a memo filed later:
"O'Neill went out charging like a tiger, has agreed that he will appear anytime, anywhere that we program him and was last seen walking up West Executive Avenue mumbling to himself that he had just been with the most magnificent man he had ever met in his life."
Now O'Neill has emerged from those decades of silence, roaring denunciations of the man who will become the Democratic nominee for president this summer. "I saw some war heroes," he told CNN's Wolf Blitzer on Tuesday. "John Kerry is not a war hero."
To establish his nonpartisan credentials, O'Neill assured the CNN anchor that he was "never contacted" by the Bush-Cheney campaign. What he didn't mention, however, is that his law firm boasts long-standing and powerful connections with the Bush White House.
With an oil and litigation practice focused on the defense of major energy and industrial firms, the dozen partners in Clements, O'Neill, Pierce, Wilson & Fulkerson have clout that exceeds their firm's small size. Their corporate clients include Exxon Mobil, General Electric, Reliant Energy, Koch Industries and Eastman Kodak. More important, among the name partners is Margaret Wilson, the former general counsel to George W. Bush during his second term as Texas governor. (She succeeded Alberto Gonzales, who currently serves as White House counsel.)
In 2001, Wilson went to Washington with the new president, who appointed her deputy general counsel in the Department of Commerce. During her tenure as Bush's counsel in Austin, she was implicated in the Service Corporation International funeral home scandal. State government whistle-blower Eliza May accused Wilson of participating in an effort to "intimidate" her from pursuing an investigation of SCI, a major Bush campaign donor.
mong the firm's partners with close ties to Bush was "Tex" Lezar, who ran for lieutenant governor on the Republican ticket with him in 1994, when Bush won and Lezar lost. An indefatigable conservative activist and lawyer sympathetic to the most extreme elements in Southern GOP circles, Lezar died last January at the age of 55. Before joining the Clements firm, Lezar served in the Reagan Justice Department, where he befriended Kenneth Starr, whom he often defended to the press when Starr was pursuing the Clintons as Whitewater independent counsel. In later years, Lezar held important positions in the Federalist Society, Empower America, the Texas Public Policy Foundation and various other right-wing organizations.
As for O'Neill, his Republican loyalties may well have been cemented in 1974. Three years after Colson first brought him to the White House to meet with Nixon, who encouraged the young O'Neill to "get" Kerry and the protesters in Vietnam Veterans Against the War, he launched his legal career with a coveted clerkship in the United States Supreme Court. No doubt it was mere coincidence that O'Neill clerked with William Rehnquist, the controversial conservative who was Nixon's favorite justice and who went on to be appointed chief justice by President Reagan.
Nixon is gone, but his political heirs possess the White House -- and no doubt the disgraced politician would be pleased and proud that they are harassing Kerry with the same zeal that first brought Karl Rove to the attention of Watergate investigators. The young veteran he once showcased is now 58 years old, but O'Neill seems just as eager to battle Nixon's old enemies as he was back then.
The credibility of Vietnam veterans like O'Neill is crucial to Republican efforts to denigrate Kerry's war record. Those efforts suffered a setback yesterday when, after angry demands for disclosure from GOP chairman Ed Gillespie, the Democrat posted hundreds of pages documenting his service and decorations on his campaign Web site. Those pages from his Navy records show that Kerry's superiors consistently rated him as an outstanding and unusually talented officer. Those pages show that he volunteered for service in Vietnam and earned a Bronze and a Silver Star for valorous conduct under fire.
So far, at least, the attempts to smear Kerry have backfired. Looking over the citations and reports, and particularly those incidents when Kerry risked his life to protect his comrades, it is natural to contrast his experience with the National Guard career of George W. Bush -- and to wonder why veterans like O'Neill are not troubled by the difference.
Comments
Originally posted by faust9
First, Kerry requested swift boat duty. http://www.johnkerry.com/about/Reque...tboat_Duty.pdf
Next, this looks trumped up now doesn't it: http://www.johnkerry.com/about/Silver_Star.pdf
This must be a farse too: http://www.johnkerry.com/about/Bronze_Star.pdf
As far as a JG telling a seasoned Corpsmen what to do, not gonna happen. You're grasping at straws if you think someone could simply demand a Purple Heart. Medals were handed out a little more freely in Vietnam I.E. CIB's for Army officers. A lot of Army officers were on three month tours just so they could get their CIB's
this is from a salon article: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20.../kerry_purple/
Sounds like more than a scratch to me. It appears that someone of a higher rank actually removed the metal from Kerry's arm--Doctors enter the military as O-3 or O-4 I can't recall off the top of my head. Kerry was an O-1, a LTJG.
Another tid bit
If you read the criteria Kerry deserved the medal. There are no if ands or buts. He was wounded in action. He had a piece of shrapnel in his arm. It was later removed by a ranking officer.
As far as my views on Clinton-- I never voted for him. No self respecting serviceman would vote for Clinton. I voted for the Shrub but I find his policies disgusting now. I'll save my rants about the loser-in-cheif for other threads though.
To address your other issues all I have to say is Linky-Linky. Show me who is bashing Kerry's service record so I can present real proof (records and the like) to refute. You're probably quoting Lt. Cmdr. Grant Hibbard who wasn't on the swift boat at the time of the conflict. He wasn't there. He's playing party politics because Kerry's comments before congress ticked him off. Hibbard has contended that the little piece of shrapnel didn't warrant the purple heart but according to the criteria (note there is no size, shape, or location stipulation within the criteria) kerry did. Why didn't Hibbard say something 35 years ago? Why didn't Hibbard recommend denial of the award. I recommend my fair share of denials or award downgrades while I served. Hibbard could have done the same. Kerry was eligible for the award. Case closed. You can build all of the "other vets" straw men you want but the truth is still the truth.
My sensitivity boils down to the feeling of disgust I get when people question a man who was wounded in battle. Sure he didn't lose an arm. Sure he wasn't killed. You can't deny though he was wounded. He had shrapnel in his arm. It was removed by a doctor. By questioning this PH your questioning Kerry's service to this country. I find it truly distasteful to question the courage or patriotism of a man who was wounded in battle-- A man twice decorated for valor.
Finally, Adm Boorda's situation involved more than two V's. Boorda was under quite a bit of stress over issues such as tailhook, don't ask don't tell, allowing women on warships, and a few other insinuations. Oh, and Boorda wasn't actually awarded the V's which probably led to his suicide--he simply wore them. Kerry was awarded the purple hearts.
There are always two sides to every issue and since neither of us were actually there you have to look at who is more credible on the issue. Your view is that anybody who questions Kerry on this has political motivations and that is fine if that is what you choose to believe. While former CNO Admiral Zumwalt pinned the Silver Star on Kerry he is also quoted to have said that Kerry had created "great problems" for him and other Navy brass "by killing so many non-combatant civilians and going after other non-military targets" and that the admiral reported added that "we had to virtually straitjacket him to keep him under control..." If you choose to question Zumwalt's credibility keep in mind that he was one of the greatest and most popular leaders the Navy has ever seen. He was the youngest man to ever serve as CNO and he is credited with fighting the hardest to seek justice for the victims of Agent Orange which culminated in the adding of Agent Orange-related diseases to the eligibility list for medical benefits from the Department of Veteran Affairs. Are you questioning his credibility and patriotism sir?
There are just far too many questions and far too many people who have questioned Kerry's record and some of these people were in a better position than you or I to know what actually happened. I don't think you can refute them all by claiming that these are all crazy right-wing conservatives. Some of these quotes from Zumwalt may well go a long way why Kerry's mission in Vietnam was shortened. He may have been too great a liability to keep him on active duty. It may well have been decided to give him his awards and ship him home ASAP.
Originally posted by 7E7
There are always two sides to every issue...
Most of us flatly reject "black and white" worldviews such as your own, allowing the possibility of multiple angles for every issue. This adversarial "us vs them" logic seriously limits your understanding of the issue.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Most of us flatly reject "black and white" worldviews such as your own, allowing the possibility of multiple angles for every issue. This adversarial "us vs them" logic seriously limits your understanding of the issue.
I never said that the world is only "black and white" and that there aren't gray areas anywhere. I have no problem understanding the issues involved here. You guys on the left are no less adversarial than those of us on the right - listen to liberal talk radio shows and I am sure you will admit that I am correct on this point. In fact, I have found from listening to these people that they are less likely to engage in a real discussion of the issues of the day when the people they are talking to don't agree with them. Quite often they interrupt them and will even hang up on them. At least on shows like Sean Hannity's the left is given the chance to make their case before they get blown out of the water...
So spare me your condescending tone.
Originally posted by 7E7
I never said that the world is only "black and white" and that there aren't gray areas anywhere. I have no problem understanding the issues involved here. You guys on the left are no less adversarial than those of us on the right - listen to liberal talk radio shows and I am sure you will admit that I am correct on this point. In fact, I have found from listening to these people that they are less likely to engage in a real discussion of the issues of the day when the people they are talking to don't agree with them. Quite often they interrupt them and will even hang up on them. At least on shows like Sean Hannity's the left is given the chance to make their case before they get blown out of the water...
So spare me your condescending tone.
Well, if you want to talk about talk radio then you're talking about Rush and Laura and Savage. Who make a game of belittling and cutting off anyone who disagrees with them at all, much less are of the left.
Now if you want to compare left versus right on television panel shows... oh right, there aren't any left leaning television panel shows...
Originally posted by 7E7
I never said that the world is only "black and white" and that there aren't gray areas anywhere. I have no problem understanding the issues involved here. You guys on the left are no less adversarial than those of us on the right - listen to liberal talk radio shows and I am sure you will admit that I am correct on this point. In fact, I have found from listening to these people that they are less likely to engage in a real discussion of the issues of the day when the people they are talking to don't agree with them. Quite often they interrupt them and will even hang up on them. At least on shows like Sean Hannity's the left is given the chance to make their case before they get blown out of the water...
So spare me your condescending tone.
I clearly criticized a certain way of viewing the world-- one that I thought you articulated by saying "there are always two sides to every issue." Now that's wrong-- there are multiple angles for every issue, not just two sides- or one side against another. That's a very limiting way of looking at the world. Assuming bad faith on the other "side" by setting that side in opposition creates a "black and white" adversarial relationship- which is why I called such logic that. (The rest of your post about talk-radio is clearly off-topic and not related to my post.)
Hell, this quote from Zumwalt wouldn't even be admissible in court.
--
The thing that I think is sooooo funny about this is that after 8 years of trashing Clinton for avoiding service in Vietnam, the Republicans have managed to elect someone with a positively Clintonian service record...problematic, questionable, even Bush's own quotes about not wanting to go to Vietnam sink him on this. And THEN, when the Democrats find a front-runner who both fought in the war and opposed it. And so what to the right-wing attack dogs do? Call into question a decorated veteran.
Shameful. The next thing you know, someone will be attacking Max Cleland's record. Oh, wait.
Originally posted by 7E7
There are always two sides to every issue and since neither of us were actually there you have to look at who is more credible on the issue. Your view is that anybody who questions Kerry on this has political motivations and that is fine if that is what you choose to believe. While former CNO Admiral Zumwalt pinned the Silver Star on Kerry he is also quoted to have said that Kerry had created "great problems" for him and other Navy brass "by killing so many non-combatant civilians and going after other non-military targets" and that the admiral reported added that "we had to virtually straitjacket him to keep him under control..." If you choose to question Zumwalt's credibility keep in mind that he was one of the greatest and most popular leaders the Navy has ever seen. He was the youngest man to ever serve as CNO and he is credited with fighting the hardest to seek justice for the victims of Agent Orange which culminated in the adding of Agent Orange-related diseases to the eligibility list for medical benefits from the Department of Veteran Affairs. Are you questioning his credibility and patriotism sir?
There are just far too many questions and far too many people who have questioned Kerry's record and some of these people were in a better position than you or I to know what actually happened. I don't think you can refute them all by claiming that these are all crazy right-wing conservatives. Some of these quotes from Zumwalt may well go a long way why Kerry's mission in Vietnam was shortened. He may have been too great a liability to keep him on active duty. It may well have been decided to give him his awards and ship him home ASAP.
Again, links. You can make allegations all you want but your not backing anything with links. I've backed my statements with facts. Kerry was awarded the stars for Valor. If you think a silver or bronze star would be awarded under questionable circumstances then chances are your wrong. I find it hilarious that you claim to seek both sides of the situation and thus immediately discount Kerry's rightfully awarded commendations while in the same breath not questioning the sources. You blindly accept the statement of one W. Scott Thompson (unsubstantiated BTW) as the gods honest truth while discounting the written record or the fact that the medals were awarded for valid reasons. You automatically buy into the conspiracy theories while discounting the actual facts... Weird.
Oh, I wonder who this W. Scott Thompson is... Wait a minute: Thompson - a former assistant to the secretary of defense in the Reagan administration. Wow, imagine that-- Thompson is a republican. I wonder if that has anything to do with this. I find it equally odd that Thompsons statements are just now coming to light after sitting in the closet for 30+ years.
Hmmm I wonder if there's still more to the story... Wait there is, remember in '96 when Kerry was being accused of war crimes? Who came to his defense?
From: http://www.s-t.com/daily/10-96/10-28-96/a03sr015.htm
Sen. Kerry's staff arranged a news conference at the Courageous Sailing Center in the Charlestown Navy Yard. It also flew in several people who attested to Sen. Kerry's character and his version of events.
They were retired Admiral E.R. Zumwalt Jr., who commanded U.S. naval forces in Vietnam; retired Capt. George Elliott, Kerry's commander at the time of the shooting; retired Cmdr. Adrian Longsdale, who commanded shoreline operations at the time; and Mr. Belodeau, an electrician who is currently working in Michigan.
Also participating by phone from San Francisco was Michael Medeiros, who was the rear gunner on the Swift boat. Tom Vallely, a former Marine and Sen. Kerry's close friend, introduced each speaker.
Mr. Zumwalt, with two Navy ships and the USS Constitution anchored over his shoulder, said he remembered only two such incidents from Vietnam and one of them was Sen. Kerry's.
Mr. Zumwalt also said he wanted to recommend Sen. Kerry for an even higher medal, the Navy Cross, but approval would have taken too long. Instead, he personally approved a Silver Star and sped along the award to improve morale at a time his sailors were taking heavy casualties.
"To me it was such a terrible insult, such an absolutely outrageous misinterpretation of the facts, that I felt it was important to be here," Mr. Zumwalt said. "A wartime commander has a lifetime responsibility to look out for the guys under him."
Again turn Rush off and do some fact checking yourself. You'll be surprised how quickly the stories fall apart.
Finally, for all you guys bashing Kerry's record you should do so with a grain of salt. Remember, by bringing Kerry's alleged failings to light you are also bringing the fortunate sons record to light also. If you want to compare the two feel free but I dare say Kerry's record is of a much higher caliber.
http://www.motherjones.com/news/upda...02/02_400.html
Enjoy.
Originally posted by midwinter
Shameful. The next thing you know, someone will be attacking Max Cleland's record. Oh, wait.
Well, at least they only smear Democrats--- Oh wait a minute...http://www.usvetdsp.com/mccainpg.htm
Originally posted by faust9
Well, at least they only smear Democrats--- Oh wait a minute...http://www.usvetdsp.com/mccainpg.htm
Well, considering the service record of most of the Republicans in Congress (at least the 106th), McCain is just about the only one with a military record to smear at all.
Okay.
Originally posted by msantti
motherjones.com
Okay.
Yeah, I know motherjones is left wing, but the comparison is displayed very well.
This is the kind of utter idiotic stupidity that gets passed around!!!
Unbelievable!
Originally posted by faust9
Again, links. You can make allegations all you want but your not backing anything with links. I've backed my statements with facts. Kerry was awarded the stars for Valor. If you think a silver or bronze star would be awarded under questionable circumstances then chances are your wrong. I find it hilarious that you claim to seek both sides of the situation and thus immediately discount Kerry's rightfully awarded commendations while in the same breath not questioning the sources. You blindly accept the statement of one W. Scott Thompson (unsubstantiated BTW) as the gods honest truth while discounting the written record or the fact that the medals were awarded for valid reasons. You automatically buy into the conspiracy theories while discounting the actual facts... Weird.
Oh, I wonder who this W. Scott Thompson is... Wait a minute: Thompson - a former assistant to the secretary of defense in the Reagan administration. Wow, imagine that-- Thompson is a republican. I wonder if that has anything to do with this. I find it equally odd that Thompsons statements are just now coming to light after sitting in the closet for 30+ years.
Hmmm I wonder if there's still more to the story... Wait there is, remember in '96 when Kerry was being accused of war crimes? Who came to his defense?
From: http://www.s-t.com/daily/10-96/10-28-96/a03sr015.htm
Again turn Rush off and do some fact checking yourself. You'll be surprised how quickly the stories fall apart.
Finally, for all you guys bashing Kerry's record you should do so with a grain of salt. Remember, by bringing Kerry's alleged failings to light you are also bringing the fortunate sons record to light also. If you want to compare the two feel free but I dare say Kerry's record is of a much higher caliber.
http://www.motherjones.com/news/upda...02/02_400.html
Enjoy.
motherjones.com: Yeah, that is a real credible source. They have no agenda whatsoever...
It cracks me up when you consistently claim that any Republican who says anything negative about John Kerry has no credibility and thus is automatically lying. But you cite some internet magazine that just so happens by coincidence to be liberal's wet dream and we must all automatically accept that it is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? You ought to do stand-up comedy my friend because you are priceless...
And the fact of the matter is there are a frightening number of military awards that have been undeserved over the years. Your assertion that there is no chance that a Silver Star or Bronze Star could be awarded under questionable circumstances is quite simply a lie and you do not know what you are talking about. Feel free to check out what Col. David Hackworth, America's most decorated living soldier, has to say about military awards. I think you will be embarrassed by what you don't know about this issue. Of course I am sure you will dismiss him as some right wing lunatic when in fact he is fair and balanced in the columns he writes. He has been critical of Democrats and Republicans alike and he has no political ax to grind. But what he is more than willing to do is point out the things that are wrong in the military and the issue of miltary awards is one that he knows a great deal about.
Originally posted by 7E7
motherjones.com: Yeah, that is a real credible source. They have no agenda whatsoever...
It cracks me up when you consistently claim that any Republican who says anything negative about John Kerry has no credibility and thus is automatically lying. But you cite some internet magazine that just so happens by coincidence to be liberal's wet dream and we must all automatically accept that it is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? You ought to do stand-up comedy my friend because you are priceless...
And the fact of the matter is there are a frightening number of military awards that have been undeserved over the years. Your assertion that there is no chance that a Silver Star or Bronze Star could be awarded under questionable circumstances is quite simply a lie and you do not know what you are talking about. Feel free to check out what Col. David Hackworth, America's most decorated living soldier, has to say about military awards. I think you will be embarrassed by what you don't know about this issue. Of course I am sure you will dismiss him as some right wing lunatic when in fact he is fair and balanced in the columns he writes. He has been critical of Democrats and Republicans alike and he has no political ax to grind. But what he is more than willing to do is point out the things that are wrong in the military and the issue of miltary awards is one that he knows a great deal about.
Nice diversion. Heaven forbid you address the topic. Did Kerry deserve the medals? Yes, buy all accounts he met the criteria of the purple hearts. The only naysayers are a former commander who did not deny the chit(s) Kerry dropped for the Purple Heart(s).
Remember this?
There are always two sides to every issue and since neither of us were actually there you have to look at who is more credible on the issue. Your view is that anybody who questions Kerry on this has political motivations and that is fine if that is what you choose to believe. While former CNO Admiral Zumwalt pinned the Silver Star on Kerry he is also quoted to have said that Kerry had created "great problems" for him and other Navy brass "by killing so many non-combatant civilians and going after other non-military targets" and that the admiral reported added that "we had to virtually straitjacket him to keep him under control..." If you choose to question Zumwalt's credibility keep in mind that he was one of the greatest and most popular leaders the Navy has ever seen. He was the youngest man to ever serve as CNO and he is credited with fighting the hardest to seek justice for the victims of Agent Orange which culminated in the adding of Agent Orange-related diseases to the eligibility list for medical benefits from the Department of Veteran Affairs. Are you questioning his credibility and patriotism sir?
I find this funny because you claim how honorable and noble and upright Zumwalt was, yet out of the other side of your mouth you question Zumwalt integrity. How can that be. Zumwalt himself stood by Kerrys side when there were alligatins of war crimes. Zumwalt himself approved the stars. So which is killer? Is Zumwalt honorable or a scoundrel?
Another question. If Zumwalt did say those things about Kerry why were they not brought up when Kerry was accused of war crimes? Why did WST wait until Zumwalt was no longer with us to step forward?
As far as MJ goes, your absolutly right it is a Left wing pub. I'm not disputing that. I posted it because (if you had taken the time to look at it) it is a side-by-side comparison of the coward-in-cheif vs Kerry from 66 to 73. I used the MJ article because a) if you do this http://www.google.com/search?q=kerry...UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 google search its the top entry. b) I was too lazy to find a publication to suit your needs. c) like it or not the comparison of the two side by side is well liad out and telling.
Next, I questioned the motives of two men: WST and Hibbard. Thompson had ample opportunity to come forward with what he had to say yet he decided to wait 30 years. Moreover, there was a more appropriate time (when there were questions about Kerrys war crimes) for the information to brought forward yet WST said nothing. Then during an election year when the shrub is struggling wham WST finally comes forward (after Zumwalt had passed on). Hmmm sounds pretty partisan to me. That's when I threw in the "Yup he's a former Reagan aid republican." I didn't say Hibbard was a repub, I just questioned his timing. Why didn't Hibbard deny the chits? Why did Hibbard wait 30 years to come forward?
Again, when are you going to start using links to back your claims? You've posted the straw men a couple of times yet no links. The few names you have posted I've refuted. Zumwalt probably didn't say what WST claims he did. Zumwalt defended Kerry in 96.
The reason this stuff is comming up is the GOP has a real problem with honest to goodness war heros. Maybe because the GOP only has one and even then they did their best to discredit McCain in 2000 using his record against him. These questions about Kerry's war record are red Herring arguments designed to divert attention from all of Bush's failed policies and put Kerry on the defensive. You say you've seen your fair share of evidence against Kerry; well then killer share it with us. Link us to these articles or statements to support your claims.
Originally posted by pfflam
Look at this:
This is the kind of utter idiotic stupidity that gets passed around!!!
Unbelievable!
I suppose the DNC headquarters having the president's face put on a door mat that they can then wipe their feet on while walking into the building is not "idiotic stupidity?"
Bush Boot
Save your false outrage.
Nick
Did Kerry deserve the medals? Yes, buy all accounts he met the criteria of the purple hearts.
Indeed he did.
Cut fingers qualfy for Purple Hearts.
End of issue I guess.
Originally posted by trumptman
I suppose the DNC headquarters having the president's face put on a door mat that they can then wipe their feet on while walking into the building is not "idiotic stupidity?"
Bush Boot
Save your false outrage.
Nick
You suppose correctly. "Give Bush the Boot" is pretty lame, but more than a few degrees more appropriate than "Hanoi John."
Originally posted by ShawnJ
You suppose correctly. "Give Bush the Boot" is pretty lame, but more than a few degrees more appropriate than "Hanoi John."
So what you are saying is that Kerry didn't come back and speak against the war?
You claim it is more appropriate. How so?
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
So what you are saying is that Kerry didn't come back and speak against the war?
You claim it is more appropriate. How so?
Nick
Hardly. You can't make the case that being anti-war is being pro-enemy. It's just a shameless attempt to equate the two and a great distortion of Kerry's position to boot. On the other hand, a doormat of "Give Bush the Boot" merely suggests the Democrats' intention- literally. Yeah, it's kind of lame, but it's an appropriate metaphor. Can you really substantiate that John Kerry supports the Viet Cong? No. Can you really substantiate that Democrats want to "Give Bush the Boot." Yes- literally.
Calling Kerry 'Hanoi John' because he took a political position that is not popular with the standing Government is Slander . . . it is saying that JFKerry was willfully propagandizing in order to hurt US army efforts and to turn the tide of combat in the favor of NVietnam.
If this had been the case, He would have pulled some strings and kept his talent for military leadership at home in a National Guard camp . . .or better would have somehow managed to get Bush sent to Vietnam.
This slander of a three time Purple Heart winner is the lowest most obvious partisan bullshiit . . . you should be ashamed of yourselves . . . take a look at how idiotic it is, how absolutley BIASED . . .
BTW, don't know if it has been quoted yet, but:
Houston attorney John E. O'Neill, the Navy veteran who has emerged recently as a harsh and ubiquitous critic of John Kerry's military service, tells reporters that he has never really been interested in politics and isn't motivated by partisan interests. In the media, O'Neill is often described simply as a Vietnam vet still enraged by the antiwar speeches Kerry delivered more than 30 years ago. That was when O'Neill first came to public attention as a clean-cut, pro-war protégé of the Nixon White House's highest-ranking dirty trickster (aside from the late president himself), Charles Colson.
Colson, who went to prison for Watergate crimes, saw O'Neill as a perfect foil to Kerry, whom Nixon and his aides feared as a decorated, articulate and reasonable opponent of the war and their regime. Indeed, O'Neill was perfect -- a crewcut officer who had served on the same Navy swift boat that Kerry had commanded, although their stints in the Mekong Delta didn't overlap. In June 1971, Colson brought O'Neill up to Washington for an Oval Office audience with Nixon. His impressions live on in a memo filed later:
"O'Neill went out charging like a tiger, has agreed that he will appear anytime, anywhere that we program him and was last seen walking up West Executive Avenue mumbling to himself that he had just been with the most magnificent man he had ever met in his life."
Now O'Neill has emerged from those decades of silence, roaring denunciations of the man who will become the Democratic nominee for president this summer. "I saw some war heroes," he told CNN's Wolf Blitzer on Tuesday. "John Kerry is not a war hero."
To establish his nonpartisan credentials, O'Neill assured the CNN anchor that he was "never contacted" by the Bush-Cheney campaign. What he didn't mention, however, is that his law firm boasts long-standing and powerful connections with the Bush White House.
With an oil and litigation practice focused on the defense of major energy and industrial firms, the dozen partners in Clements, O'Neill, Pierce, Wilson & Fulkerson have clout that exceeds their firm's small size. Their corporate clients include Exxon Mobil, General Electric, Reliant Energy, Koch Industries and Eastman Kodak. More important, among the name partners is Margaret Wilson, the former general counsel to George W. Bush during his second term as Texas governor. (She succeeded Alberto Gonzales, who currently serves as White House counsel.)
In 2001, Wilson went to Washington with the new president, who appointed her deputy general counsel in the Department of Commerce. During her tenure as Bush's counsel in Austin, she was implicated in the Service Corporation International funeral home scandal. State government whistle-blower Eliza May accused Wilson of participating in an effort to "intimidate" her from pursuing an investigation of SCI, a major Bush campaign donor.
mong the firm's partners with close ties to Bush was "Tex" Lezar, who ran for lieutenant governor on the Republican ticket with him in 1994, when Bush won and Lezar lost. An indefatigable conservative activist and lawyer sympathetic to the most extreme elements in Southern GOP circles, Lezar died last January at the age of 55. Before joining the Clements firm, Lezar served in the Reagan Justice Department, where he befriended Kenneth Starr, whom he often defended to the press when Starr was pursuing the Clintons as Whitewater independent counsel. In later years, Lezar held important positions in the Federalist Society, Empower America, the Texas Public Policy Foundation and various other right-wing organizations.
As for O'Neill, his Republican loyalties may well have been cemented in 1974. Three years after Colson first brought him to the White House to meet with Nixon, who encouraged the young O'Neill to "get" Kerry and the protesters in Vietnam Veterans Against the War, he launched his legal career with a coveted clerkship in the United States Supreme Court. No doubt it was mere coincidence that O'Neill clerked with William Rehnquist, the controversial conservative who was Nixon's favorite justice and who went on to be appointed chief justice by President Reagan.
Nixon is gone, but his political heirs possess the White House -- and no doubt the disgraced politician would be pleased and proud that they are harassing Kerry with the same zeal that first brought Karl Rove to the attention of Watergate investigators. The young veteran he once showcased is now 58 years old, but O'Neill seems just as eager to battle Nixon's old enemies as he was back then.
The credibility of Vietnam veterans like O'Neill is crucial to Republican efforts to denigrate Kerry's war record. Those efforts suffered a setback yesterday when, after angry demands for disclosure from GOP chairman Ed Gillespie, the Democrat posted hundreds of pages documenting his service and decorations on his campaign Web site. Those pages from his Navy records show that Kerry's superiors consistently rated him as an outstanding and unusually talented officer. Those pages show that he volunteered for service in Vietnam and earned a Bronze and a Silver Star for valorous conduct under fire.
So far, at least, the attempts to smear Kerry have backfired. Looking over the citations and reports, and particularly those incidents when Kerry risked his life to protect his comrades, it is natural to contrast his experience with the National Guard career of George W. Bush -- and to wonder why veterans like O'Neill are not troubled by the difference.