# Ghosts of Viet Nam: Bush, Kerry, and The War **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 3, 2004, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghosts-of-viet-nam-bush-kerry-and-the-war/227374 "2004-02-03T21:20:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Tedster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/4491bb/32.png) [@Tedster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tedster)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2004, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghosts-of-viet-nam-bush-kerry-and-the-war/227374/41 "2004-02-05T02:18:50Z")
The logic in the OP is schizophrenic. Those on the left who presumably were against the Vietnam war should commend the President for what they are accusing him of - avoiding service in Vietnam. What’s the problem again? Sen. Kerry will ultimately regret bringing up Vietnam, though to be fair it will resonate well with the true believers. Unfortunately, Sen. Kerry’s actions as part of the “anti-war” movement will clearly be problematic. Many of his colleagues were outed in the book “Stolen Valor”, a good read to get a handle on real Vietnam veterans, not wannabes. Hollywood and our “liberal” friends have successfully painted Vietnam veterans as psychotic, drug abusers, wife beaters, unable to hold a job, &c. &c. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2004, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghosts-of-viet-nam-bush-kerry-and-the-war/227374/42 "2004-02-05T02:35:44Z")
Some interesting stuff to throw in the mix (after I congratulate myself for kicking off a thread so energetic yet relatively light on snide…cool beans, **e.** …) I frequently check the _Daily Howler_ site, for news on chicanery, lies, and media skullduggery… [http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh020404.shtml](http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh020404.shtml) Usually has something interesting to say, and they weigh in pretty hard on this issue, and they have over the last several days managed to make the murky utterly obscure. For instance, the following from yesterdays: "On November 3, 2000, George Lardner did a story in the Post about the re-emerging flap. Like Robinson and Thomas, Lardner cited Bartlett as a principal source, and referred to documents Bartlett had shown him. But Lardner’s report differed vastly from Thomas’. Lardner said nothing about Bush performing any duty before leaving Alabama. More specifically, Lardner didn’t mention the pair of documents Thomas described—the documents showing that Bush had served. Or did he? Midway through his Post report, Lardner described an odd document: LARDNER (11/3/00): The Bush campaign points to a torn piece of paper in his Guard records, a statement of points Bush apparently earned in 1972-73, _although most of the dates and Bush’s name except for the “W” have been torn off…_" (emphasis gleefully added) Today entry goes on at length about the “torn document”, and you wouldn’t have a clue unless you backtrack. (Not so great, _Howler_ guys, a lot of us are dumb…) Second, my whitey Josh Marshall, of the esteemed _Talking Points Memo_ is also on the case. My money’s on him, but there are some genuine journalistic honchos on this one, so we’re gonna see the pundit fur fly! Anybody want a chunk of media whoreskin? I don’t really alter my position. If GeeDubya were to say “I was young and callow” I’d probably be willing to write him a pass on it. We already got oodles of ammo, this is some small beer. But the struggle, the gotchas! between pundits, “journalists” and journalists make a damned _interesting_ public Pit Thread, don’t you think? “There is great confusion under Heaven, and the situation is excellent!” - Mao ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2004, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghosts-of-viet-nam-bush-kerry-and-the-war/227374/43 "2004-02-05T02:58:00Z")
Interesting submission, **Tedster**. Googling on _Stolen Valor_ I immediately find entusiastic endorsement from _Newsmax_ and _Weekly Standard_. You one of those guys who sincerely believe that hippies used to walk up to returning vets in airports and spit on them? That we would have won the war if the pansy liberals hadn’t tied the hands of our brave men? And just what, exactly, do you mean that Kerry’s Viet Nam protest days are “problematic”. To whom? And finally, this… > [@](#): > > ,our “liberal” friends have successfully painted Vietnam veterans as psychotic, drug abusers, wife beaters, unable to hold a job, &c. &c. Stunning. Perfectly stunning. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2004, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghosts-of-viet-nam-bush-kerry-and-the-war/227374/44 "2004-02-05T03:06:55Z")
Oh, not all this again… Let’s clear up a couple of things right off the bat: **Bush was removed from flight status due to failure to report for a required medical exam** Anyone who is a pilot can explain this to you. The way you bush-bashers like to phrase this makes it sound sinister. Like he broke a rule, ducked a medical, and was removed from flight status as punishment or something. In actuality, here’s how it works: If you are not currently assigned to active flight operations, you can maintain your ‘flight status’ and extra pay by A) flying a certain minimum number of hours, and B) keeping your medical current. Bush was not actively flying at the time, so he didn’t bother to take the flight medical. Once his current medical expired, he was automatically removed from flight status. _This is a common occurance_. In fact, I personally have been ‘removed from flight status’ by the government for failing to report for a medical. All I have to do is go and take my medical again when I’m ready to go flying, and the ‘suspension’ will end. **Bush scored low on his pilot aptitude exams.** On ONE of them. A test with 5 questions on spatial relationships. On his more comprehensive officer candidate exam, Bush scored in the top 5% of all applicants. Bear in mind that this is the top 5% of people applying to be officers, already a self-selected group of high achievers. I imagine that it was this high score that gave Bush a shot at flight training. And even if someone used connections to get him into flight training I GUARANTEE that he had to perform as well as anyone else. No one gets put in the seat of a jet fighter unless they earn it. And from what I’ve found, Bush’s squadron mates at the time say he was one of the best pilots in the unit. Funny how all the sites that mention Bush’s ‘low scores’ never mention that outstanding score on the OCS exam, huh? **Bush joined the guard because he was a coward.** Two answers to this. First, when Bush joined the Texas Air National Guard, _it was entirely possible to be sent to Vietnam_. TANG units were serving overseas in air refueling duties, and air intercept flights. Bush served in the 111th Fighter Intercept squadron, part of the 147th Fighter Wing. At the time Bush joined up, pilots from the 147th were flying in Southeast Asia. In fact, Bush himself volunteered for a Vietnam rotation and was turned down because he did not have enough flight hours at that time. Second, Bush volunteered to fly F-102s, which were very dangerous aircraft to fly. I have posted on this before, including cites to accident statistics. Bush was in far more danger of being killed than he would have been had he volunteered for Vietnam duty in the army. In fact, 2 members of his squadron were killed in accidents. **Bush was AWOL, and/or never finished his commitment to the guard** I believe this confusion comes from people thinking of the regular military, and not the Guard. The Guard is a PART-TIME job. In many positions, as long as you put in your minimum time each quarter, you could come and go as you please. The fact is, Bush put in FAR MORE time than was required by his enlistment, as did most fighter pilots. There’s a lot of training, and when you’re done that and you do an active rotation with a squadron, you put in a lot of hours. The [New York Times](http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70817FD3D5D0C708CDDA80994D8404482), not exactly a conservative stronghold, did an in-depth analysis of Bush’s record, and concluded that he had done NOTHING wrong. > [@](#): > > Two Democratic senators today called on Gov. George W. Bush to release his full military record to resolve doubts raised by a newspaper about whether he reported for required drills when he was in the Air National Guard in 1972 and 1973. But a review of records by The New York Times indicated that some of those concerns may be unfounded. The Times examined the record in response to a previous Boston Globe story. > > Documents reviewed by The Times showed that Mr. Bush served in at least 9 of the 17 months in question… On Sept. 5, 1972, Mr. Bush asked his Texas Air National Guard superiors for assignment to the 187th Tactical Recon Group in Montgomery “for the months of September, October and November.” Capt. Kenneth K. Lott, chief of the personnel branch of the 187th Tactical Recon Group, told the Texas commanders that training in September had already occurred but that more training was scheduled for Oct. 7 and 8 and Nov. 4 and 5. But Mr. Bartlett said Mr. Bush did not serve on those dates because he was involved in the Senate campaign, but he made up those dates later. > > Colonel Turnipseed, who retired as a general, said in an interview that regulations allowed Guard members to miss duty as long as it was made up within the same quarter. Mr. Bartlett pointed to a document in Mr. Bush’s military records that showed credit for four days of duty ending Nov. 29 and for eight days ending Dec. 14, 1972, and, after he moved back to Houston, on dates in January, April and May. The May dates correlated with orders sent to Mr. Bush at his Houston apartment on April 23, 1973, in which Sgt. Billy B. Lamar told Mr. Bush to report for active duty on May 1-3 and May 8-10. Another document showed that Mr. Bush served at various times from May 29, 1973, through July 30, 1973, a period of time questioned by The Globe. Then we have this from the Boston Globe (story no longer online): > [@](#): > > Those who trained and flew with Bush, until he gave up flying in April 1972, said he was among the best pilots in the 111th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron. In the 22-month period between the end of his flight training and his move to Alabama, Bush logged numerous hours of duty, well above the minimum requirements for so-called ‘‘weekend warriors.’’ > > Indeed, in the first four years of his six-year commitment, Bush spent the equivalent of 21 months on active duty, including 18 months in flight school. His Democratic opponent, Vice President Al Gore, who enlisted in the Army for two years and spent five months in Vietnam, logged only about a month more active service, since he won an early release from service. Here is a [pretty good post](http://baldilocks.typepad.com/baldilocks/2003/11/i_try_to_keep_m.html) from an active Guard reservist explaining how the system works: > [@](#): > > AWOL stands for Absent Without Leave. You know what that means, right? Apparently, some don’t, so let me define it in–obviously necessary–a more plain English: it means that you are gone from your place of military duty without official permission. Who gives that official permission? Why, the commander of your unit, natch. > > This works differently in Guard and Reserve Units than it does in Active Duty units. Since AD personnel belong to the military 24/7/365, you must have a darn good reason to be gone for longer than your accrued leave time (30 days per year; at least the last time I checked). > > Since Guard personnel and Reservists are only required to be on duty for two days a month and only required to serve a minimum of two weeks of active duty per year, they don’t accrue leave. They also have more leeway when it comes to periods of absence. (This last depends on many things: job, manning level, mission, etc.) > > Additionally, if the Guardsman/Reservist attends a service school–such as pilot training–during a given year, part of the time in school can serve as his/her two weeks of active duty or part of it can be used as the two days of duty for a given month. > > Also, if a member has served enough time to retire and has applied to do so—six months between application and bye-bye date–he/she doesn’t have to come back to his/her unit at all after that (though I did). > > And, on top of that, if the member wants to take an extended period of absence from his/her duty for any reason—family, school, work in a political campaign, or just because he/she needs a break—he/she can do it with the unit commander’s permission. That’s it. That’s all that’s required. Not a flocking act of Congress, not some monetary exchange in a back room somewhere. Because of Bush’s flight training and active fighter ops period, he had racked up a large number of ‘points’ - more than enough to meet his enlistment requirement. You guys just amaze me. This board is supposed to be about fighting ignorance, but when it comes to Bush you’ll ignore the fact that he has an honorable discharge, and that by all accounts he was a good pilot flying a dangerous aircraft, and instead resort to repeating unproven allegations and outright lies. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2004, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghosts-of-viet-nam-bush-kerry-and-the-war/227374/45 "2004-02-05T03:40:32Z")
> [@Tedster](#): > > Those on the left who presumably were against the Vietnam war should commend the President for what they are accusing him of - avoiding service in Vietnam. What’s the problem again? That every young man who found a way out was replaced with another young man with fewer advantages who had to go instead. Clear now? ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2004, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghosts-of-viet-nam-bush-kerry-and-the-war/227374/46 "2004-02-05T03:45:03Z")
Cite that Bush volunteered for an active tour, **Sam**? Bush got his wings in 1970, and the F-102 was not deployed in SE Asia after 1969, [(cite)](http://www.pe.net/~marfldmu/f102a.htm) so it’s not at all clear how he could have been turned down for having insufficient hours, as opposed to not being part of a unit that was flying an aircraft that was actually being used in Vietnam. Even if he’d been quick enough, the F-102’s in Vietnam saw essentially no combat: > [@](#): > > It was in the Pacific theatre that the F-102 was to achieve its only taste of combat. Aircraft from the 590th Fighter Interceptor Squadron were transferred to Tan Son Nhut AFB near Saigon in South Vietnam in March of 1962 to provide air defense against the unlikely event that North Vietnamese aircraft would attack the South. F-102As continued to be based there and in Thailand throughout much of the Vietnam war. F-102As stood alert at Bien Hoa and Da Nang in Sout Vietnam and at Udorn and Don Muang in Thailand. The F-102A was finally withdrawn from Southeast Asia in December of 1969. The F-102A established an excellent safety record in Vietnam. In almost ten years of flying air defense and a few combat air patrols for SAC B-52s, only 15 F-102As were lost. Although a few missions were flown over North Vietnam, the Southeast Asia-stationed F-102As are not thought to have actually engaged in air-to-air combat. However, one of my references has an F-102A of the 509th FIS being lost to an air-to-air missile fired by a MiG-21 while flying a CAP over Route Package IV on February 3, 1968. Two F-102As were lost to AAA/small arms fire and four were destroyed on the ground by the Viet Cong and eight were lost in operational accidents.[cite](http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f102_1.html) ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2004, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghosts-of-viet-nam-bush-kerry-and-the-war/227374/47 "2004-02-05T03:48:43Z")
Seems pretty simple to me. Kerry fulfilled his commitment with honor and distinction. He should be commended on it. He is not shy about pointing this out, either, nor, can I see why he need be. Bush fulfilled his commitment minimally. End of story. ---
**Author:** ![vanilla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f19dbf/32.png) [@vanilla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vanilla)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2004, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghosts-of-viet-nam-bush-kerry-and-the-war/227374/48 "2004-02-05T04:07:28Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > Seems pretty simple to me. > > Bush fulfilled his commitment minimally. > > End of story. Are you talking about the National Guard or the presidency? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2004, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghosts-of-viet-nam-bush-kerry-and-the-war/227374/49 "2004-02-05T04:23:38Z")
**Gorsnak:** I tried to find a cite for you, but most of the newspapers no longer have articles from 2000 online, at least that I can find. But Bush’s volunteering for a 3-month tour in Vietnam was widely reported back then. I believe it was around July of 1970, just after he had graduated from flight school. He had about 300 hours of flight time then, and the minimum requirement was 500 hours so they refused. It’s not a big deal, because you can spin that story any way you want. One spin might be that a gung-ho young Lieutenant was itching to test his piloting skills in combat. Another spin would be that Bush knew damned well that he’d be turned down, and volunteered as a cynical ploy to get that on his record for future use. There’s no evidence either way, so take it for what it’s worth. But there’s no disputing this: When Bush volunteered for the 147th, it was active in operation “Palace Watch” in Vietnam, and continued to be so for almost two years after Bush enlisted. Plenty of other guard units were flying in Vietnam. So Bush had every expectation that he might have to do a tour of Vietnam at the time he enlisted. ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2004, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghosts-of-viet-nam-bush-kerry-and-the-war/227374/50 "2004-02-05T04:34:59Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > But there’s no disputing this: When Bush volunteered for the 147th, it was active in operation “Palace Watch” in Vietnam, and continued to be so for almost two years after Bush enlisted. Plenty of other guard units were flying in Vietnam. So Bush had every expectation that he might have to do a tour of Vietnam at the time he enlisted. Not if, as you stated in your last post, he volunteered specifically for the 102, since he’d have known perfectly well it was being removed from active duty. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2004, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghosts-of-viet-nam-bush-kerry-and-the-war/227374/51 "2004-02-05T04:35:24Z")
**Gorsnak:** It’s true that the F-102 didn’t see combat, but George Bush had no way of knowing that in 1968. That’s my point. The F-102 had only been in service for 8 years at that point, and was to remain in service for another five or six years. No one knew how long the Vietnam war would last, or how big it would grow, or what requirements for fighters would be required years down the road. Bush claims that he joined the Guard simply because he wanted to be a pilot. His dad was a pilot, and he wanted to follow in his dad’s footsteps. This is at least a plausible reason. Speaking as a pilot, I can tell you that while I would never have volunteered to be a grunt in Vietnam, I would have volunteered in a second to fly fighter jets in that war. Bush may not have wanted to wind up in the infantry not because he was a coward, but because he didn’t want to slog through basic training and wind up sleeping in a tent for two years and humping his butt off in the mud every day. Certainly anyone willing to fly an F-102 is not a coward, especially someone who had a dad who was a military pilot and no doubt explained to him exactly what the risks were. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2004, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghosts-of-viet-nam-bush-kerry-and-the-war/227374/52 "2004-02-05T04:40:22Z")
Sam, I know the guard is lax, but I can’t believe that even in the guard you can basically just disappear for the time periods that have been reported about Bush. Thats the part that gets me…here was a guy that managed to swing a dream assignment (for then)…a stateside posting to a guard unit, as opposed to a combat assignment in Vietnam. Getting to fly jets TOO would just be icing on the cake IMO. And then he disappears for long periods of time (seemingly…most articles and Cecil seem to agree on this). It just seems so…irresponsible and even disrespectful…to me. It smacks of a rick kid taking advantage of the system. Admittedly I was never in the guard (I was in the regular Navy) nor did I go the active reserve route after my enlistment was up, so I can’t speak from experience here. Maybe if someone could show that this was the norm at the time in the guard or something, that would be different. ATM, from what I know, it looks pretty bad on his record…and his character, at least when he was a young man. As I’ve said before though, I seriously doubt it will make much of a difference either way though. After all, Clinton was elected against Bush I, and Bush I WAS a war hero. Clinton was ALSO re-elected…and his record is no better (and you could make a case it was worse) than GW’s as far as military service goes. It seems military service doesn’t count for much with the American people when it comes right down to voting anyway…it certainly isn’t a major factor when I vote. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2004, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghosts-of-viet-nam-bush-kerry-and-the-war/227374/53 "2004-02-05T04:51:26Z")
**Gorsnak:** You’re saying that Bush somehow knew in 1968 that the F-102 was going to be removed from service years down the road, and that there was no chance that he’d be sent to qualify in a different jet, and therefore this was his grand strategy to avoid combat? That’s a lot of very crafty analysis for a guy who’s supposed to be stupid, isn’t it? In fact, the F-102 in the 111th fighter wing remained on runway alert until 1970, and the squadron then continued to train other pilots in the F-102 for some years after. I think it’s ridiculous to suggest that 21 year old George Bush somehow knew exactly the Guard’s plan for this aircraft for years in the future and craftily worked his way into it. And by the way, you don’t join the Guard and ‘volunteer to fly the F-102’. You join the guard and apply to be a pilot. Depending on your scores in flight tests and written tests, you might make it to fighters. Or you might wind up flying a transport or other support aircraft. In 1966 the 147th earned an Air Force award as the most combat ready unit in the Air National Guard. Pilots from the unit were actively flying in Southeast Asia, and would continue to fly in SEA for years after Bush enlisted. He would have had every reason to believe there was a chance that he would wind up flying in Vietnam _at the time he joined_. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2004, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghosts-of-viet-nam-bush-kerry-and-the-war/227374/54 "2004-02-05T05:10:54Z")
**xtisme:** Did you read the stuff I posted? I have a quote from his commanding officer that says that Guard members were allowed wide lattitude in when they showed up for service as long as they met their quarterly requirements, which apparently Bush did. I quoted a current Guard member who says there’s nothing at all unusual about Bush’s actions. And yet another cite claims that the Guard gives people wide lattitude if they have already put in their required hours of service and are just ‘marking time’. And Bush put in far more than the minimum required hours of service. The bottom line is that Bush has the official discharge papers that show he was honorably discharged. The arguments on the other side are all innuendo and hearsay about events that happened 30 years ago. This dog won’t hunt. If Kerry keeps up this line of attack, I expect Bush’s side to come back with a powerful rejoinder: “Why are you slandering the National Guard, John Kerry? Are you saying there is something dishonorable about serving in the Guard? Would you like to explain that viewpoint to the current members of the Guard honorably serving in Iraq and elsewhere?” Or maybe they’ll just throw this quote back in his face: > [@](#): > > Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I also rise today–and I want to say that I rise reluctantly, but I rise feeling driven by personal reasons of necessity–to express my very deep disappointment over yesterday’s turn of events in the Democratic primary in Georgia. > > I am saddened by the fact that Vietnam has yet again been inserted into the campaign, and that it has been inserted in what I feel to be the worst possible way. By that I mean that yesterday, during this Presidential campaign, and even throughout recent times, Vietnam has been discussed and written about without an adequate statement of its full meaning. > > What is ignored is the way in which our experience during that period reflected in part a positive affirmation of American values and history, not simply the more obvious negatives of loss and confusion. > > What is missing is a recognition that there exists today a generation that has come into its own with powerful lessons learned, with a voice that has been grounded in experiences both of those who went to Vietnam and those who did not. > > What is missing and what cries out to be said is that neither one group nor the other from that difficult period of time has cornered the market on virtue or rectitude or love of country. > > What saddens me most is that Democrats, above all those who shared the agonies of that generation, should now be refighting the many conflicts of Vietnam in order to win the current political conflict of a Presidential primary. > > The race for the White House should be about leadership, and leadership requires that one help heal the wounds of Vietnam, not reopen them; that one help identify the positive things that we learned about ourselves and about our Nation, not play to the divisions and differences of that crucible of our generation. > > We do not need to divide America over who served and how. I have personally always believed that many served in many different ways. Someone who was deeply against the war in 1969 or 1970 may well have served their country with equal passion and patriotism by opposing the war as by fighting in it. Are we > > now, 20 years or 30 years later, to forget the difficulties of that time, of families that were literally torn apart, of brothers who ceased to talk to brothers, of fathers who disowned their sons, of people who felt compelled to leave the country and forget their own future and turn against the will of their own aspirations? > > Are we now to descend, like latter-day Spiro Agnews, and play, as he did, to the worst instincts of divisiveness and reaction that still haunt America? Are we now going to create a new scarlet letter in the context of Vietnam? > > Certainly, those who went to Vietnam suffered greatly. I have argued for years, since I returned myself in 1969, that they do deserve special affection and gratitude for service. And, indeed, I think everything I have tried to do since then has been to fight for their rights and recognition. > > But while those who served are owed special recognition, that recognition should not come at the expense of others; nor does it require that others be victimized or criticized or said to have settled for a lesser standard. To divide our party or our country over this issue today, in 1992, simply does not do justice to what all of us went through during that tragic and turbulent time. > > I would like to make a simple and straightforward appeal, an appeal from my heart, as well as from my head. To all those currently pursuing the Presidency in both parties, I would plead that they simply look at America. We are a nation crying out for leadership, for someone who will bring us together and raise our sights. We are a nation looking for someone who will lift our spirits and give us confidence that together we can grow out of this recession and conquer the myriad of social ills we have at home. > > We do not need more division. We certainly do not need something as complex and emotional as Vietnam reduced to simple campaign rhetoric. What has been said has been said, Mr. President, but I hope and pray we will put it behind us and go forward in a constructive spirit for the good of our party and the good of our country. > > I thank our distinguished manager of the bill and the Senator from Delaware. - **John Kerry** , 1992 ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2004, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghosts-of-viet-nam-bush-kerry-and-the-war/227374/55 "2004-02-05T05:15:30Z")
**Sam** , I have no idea how Bush got assigned to the 102. _You_ said he volunteered specifically for it, saying how dangerous it was and how brave that made him. The 102 was first delivered in 1956, _twelve_ years prior to 1968. Check my second cite. It began being transferred wholesale to the ANG in 65. That means, for the clueless, that it was on its way out. It began being retired from the _Guard_ in 1969, the year _before_ Bush was assigned to it. Moreover, it was a straight up interceptor. It had no ground attack abilities, and bugger all for dogfighting abilities. It was designed to shoot down bombers, and that was all it was good at. There wasn’t any significant Viet Cong bomber wing. The 102 had next to no abilities in demand in Vietnam, which no doubt explains the very light service it saw there, as outlined in the link I provided. I certainly agree with you that there were no cowards in those century-series fighters, but there simply wasn’t any real chance of being deployed to Vietnam in Delta Dart in 1970 and years following. I should have thought that an aviation buff would know these sorts of things. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2004, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghosts-of-viet-nam-bush-kerry-and-the-war/227374/56 "2004-02-05T05:22:31Z")
Bush volunteered for the F-102 at some point in his training, no doubt. My point is that when he joined the guard itself, he would have had no way of knowing which type of aircraft he would have been qualified to fly, if any. He could easily have washed out of flight school and wound up having to do something completely different. Qualifying for fighter jets is not easy. There are about a million ways you can miss that particular job. And I guarantee you this - strapping your ass into one of those things was scary. Fun, but scary. Cowards need not apply. And you’re spinning when you start saying things like, “The F-102 began to be removed from service in 1969”. Yes, it did. But it remained in service until 1975. Again, Bush had no way of knowing any of this in 1968. For all he knew, the Chinese or Soviets could have entered the war and every intercepter available could have been shipped to Vietnam to stop the Tupolevs from bombing U.S. bases. ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2004, 5:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghosts-of-viet-nam-bush-kerry-and-the-war/227374/57 "2004-02-05T05:25:53Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > For all he knew, the Chinese or Soviets could have entered the war and every intercepter available could have been shipped to Vietnam to stop the Tupolevs from bombing U.S. bases. Yeah, sure, okay. Whatever you say. Just so long as you’re explicit in admitting it would have taken WWIII to warrant deploying Delta Darts to Vietnam. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2004, 5:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghosts-of-viet-nam-bush-kerry-and-the-war/227374/58 "2004-02-05T05:42:42Z")
> [@](#): > > Yeah, sure, okay. Whatever you say. Just so long as you’re explicit in admitting it would have taken WWIII to warrant deploying Delta Darts to Vietnam. Gee, I must have missed WWIII then, because the F-102 DID deploy to Vietnam. The 64th fighter-intercepter squadron flew them out of Da Nang. They were also flown by the 317th FIS, and other squadrons as well. In fact, at the time Bush joined up, the Colorado Air National Guard was flying F-102’s in Vietnam. The F-102 was very active in Vietnam from 1965 until 1969. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2004, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghosts-of-viet-nam-bush-kerry-and-the-war/227374/59 "2004-02-05T05:47:33Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Sam, I know the guard is lax… I don’t have anything to say in this thread except for this: What you said may have been true then, and you may not have intended to say what you said about the Guard now, but I assure you that currently the Air National Guard is NOT lax. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2004, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghosts-of-viet-nam-bush-kerry-and-the-war/227374/60 "2004-02-05T05:53:33Z")
As I said, Airman, I was never in the Guard so I have no idea. The implication of Sams arguements was that the Guard WAS lax (or at least operated under radically different rules than my own experiences in the military were), at least with reguards to regular service. Your name implies you are currently in service. What would the result be if you vanished for several weeks/months? I know what it would have been when I was in the Navy. Just to emphasize my position here: I was NOT putting down the Guard in any way. Not the Guard then, not the Guard now. -XT [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghosts-of-viet-nam-bush-kerry-and-the-war/227374.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghosts-of-viet-nam-bush-kerry-and-the-war/227374.md?page=4)