For the record, a first-hand account of Kerry’s protest is on the Boston Globe web page (probably among other places):
As I predicted, as soon as Republicans decided that their line of attack on Kerry would b flip-flopper, all the good hacks took out their dunce caps and head scratching fingers and started duitifuly to act like everything Kerry said confused them mightily. This is no different.
I don’t see how that’s having it both ways. He took half of something, used it as a symbol to get the attention of the government, and kept the other half for himself, as record of who he was and what he had done (not all of which he was proud of). If I’m supposed to be seeing a controversy here, maybe I’m not trying hard enough to create one.
Only if I were determined to interpret the act in a particular way in order to engage in some messageboard theater would I pick the interpretation which not only runs counter to what the person in question says but allows for the maximun of negativity and profession of confusion about that individual.
Isn’t that supposed to prevent Global warming?
Not to gloat, but it was 90+ deg in Silcon Valley yesterday. Same forecast for today. Maybe Bush has focused the global warming effects on CA as revenge for the '00 election…
Apos, I really think there’s a cultural disconnect involved here preventing a lot of people from seeing how a lot of veterans view John Kerry’s actions.
I used an example back on Page 3 to try to make it clearer to people who didn’t seem to get it.
I have said all along that all I’m after from John Kerry is an explanation. This thread lay dormant for months. I only bumped it because of recent events. And that interview with Charlie Gibson didn’t come close to clarifying matters.
What you haven’t explained is what would you do with the explanation, if it were given?
- Would that change your view of him?
- Would that make you vote for him?
Of course not. Then what is the point?
It doesn’t seem like you want an “explanation” but just a chance to bring this issue up.
BTW, if you are so interested in “explanations”, are you also demanding an explanation of what GWB did during the Vietnam war, why he did not go to Vietnam to fight, and why he didn’t even show up for National Guard duty? I think those would be very interesting “explanations”.
Except that Kerry didn’t totally rennounce his medals that I can tell. He used them as his coin in a political protest, saying, in effect, that here I am as someone to whom you gave a medal in this war, calling you to account for this war. He’s perfectly reasonable to both use part of the tokens of his honor and service in protest and also be proud of the fact that he did what was required to earn them and carry another part around as a recognition of that.
I’m an Eagle scout who does not support the BSA’s stance on homosexuality. But I did what was needed to become an Eagle scout, and nothing I can do changes that acheivement. It is something I am both proud of and an opportunity to reject the organization that in my mind demeaned the honor. To this day I’m really nto sure whether “Eagle Scout” belongs on my resume. But you know what? Whether I choose to put it there or not, I’d have nothing but scorn for a person who tries to parse a niddling “contradiction” out of whatever I’ve done just to smear me over something that is so complex and pretty much emotionally unresolvable.
So I don’t think there is a cultural disconnect. Just a partisan one. Or maybe something much deeper than that. Maybe you just don’t really appreciate the situation at all the way you claim to. Being a vet doesn’t mean you appreciate everything every vet might have to deal with.
For instance, it’s sounding more and more possible that some of the missions our soldiers carried out during the Afghanistan and Iraq campaigns basically amounted not to fighting any relevant enemy, but settling old scores on behalf of local warlords or Ahmed Chalibibibibibibibi who had lied to us in order to trick us into doing their mostly petty bidding. And yet those missions were carried out by brave soldiers, some of whom undoubtedly lost friends and won medals in the course of their actions to basically kill random tribes of people who had nothing to do with anything because their leaders were too lazy to examine intelligence or question a cash cow that was helping them out politically and telling them what they wanted to hear. If true, what should those soldiers feel? Think you have a good answer for them? I hope you don’t think you do, because neither do I.
Polerius, I have honest political differences with John Kerry that would prevent me from voting for him in any case, so that’s a non issue. However, a straightforward, honest explanation of the medal issue would certainly change my view of him. He would earn more of my respect than he currently has.
I would be happy to discuss Bush’s service with you. However, there are plenty of other threads in which we can conduct such a discussion. I will say, though, that Bush’s answers concerning his Guard service have been far more direct than Kerry’s answers on the medal controversy. Whether the answers are satisfactory to you is, of course, a judgement call.
Apos, I cannot judge whether Kerry totally renounced his medals, and neither can you. Nobody can interpret what went through his mind then, or what’s in his head now. All I know is that a reasonable person can conclude that Kerry did renounce them, because the fact is that he did throw them on the ground.
That is why John Kerry owes America a straightforward explanation for a change.
I guess we could start from the fact that he says he didn’t. Oh, wait… we’re done. On to how FRENCH he looks!
Did you even read my post? Or did you just decide to immediately repost a rephrase of your OP again as if 6 pages of thread had never happened?
Provided, of course, you first accept the most unfavorable interpretation and then call it “reasonable.”
…because everyone knows that whether or not you threw some ribbons or medals is the definitive test of one’s qualifications to be the President of the United States. :rolleyes:
sigh…
Again, I have never said that it was.
However, I will say that Kerry’s failure to adequately explain himself on this matter should trouble anyone, regardless of who they’re going to vote for.
I didn’t catch this at first, but perhaps now I have a much deeper insight into what you mean by “reasonable.” It should be obvious to anyone who’s followed the issue that Bush did not release "all the records as he promised and as he claimed to have done, but in fact has not released the very records that are at the heart of the admittedly pretty trivial dispute, nor has he been forthcoming about his whereabouts on key dates, nor has he acknowledged plain and established facts such as how he got in the guard in the first place. But no, a reasonable person would certainly find him very direct, right?
That’s a wonderful defense, saying the other side is worse.
John Kerry should be able to defend his character without saying that George Bush is a sleazeball. He wasn’t able to in the Charlie Gibson interview, and his partisans aren’t able to in this thread.
We’re getting a bit off-topic here, but, yes, in general, if you have two assholes running for office, you pick the lesser of the two assholes.
I would submit that this is one of Bush’s campaign slogans–“The other guy is worse”.
So far as I can tell we are only dealing with one ass hole and he is the Vice-President’s hand puppet.
For what it’s worth, my old Sergeant Major refused the Silver Star. He said he didn’t do anything to deserve it. All he did was wait to get on the chopper until all his people, the wounded and the dead had been loaded. What he did, he said, was no more than he was required by duty to do, whether or not he was under fire and the position was being over run.
Does the man who declines the decoration dishonor the decoration by refusing it? If not how does it do the decoration a dishonor by using it as a political symbol?
The only rational I can see for this (to be charitable) is that an utter literalist would not be able to understand that a decoration could both be returned and retained. Some literalist have trouble with the symbolic. The fact remains however that the decoration was awarded and the recipient is perfectly within his rights to do with it what ever he pleases. I suspect that the problem is not Senator Kerry and the award but is really Senator Kerry and The Veterans Against the War.
This suspicion is simply reinforced when I hear supporters of the current administration try to equate “supporting the troops” with support of this unnecessary war and ill-advised exercise in Nation building and / or colonialism. We are starting to get the same stuff about the Bradley Vehicle, the tallest personnel carrier in the known world, sort of a live your country—love the Bradley thing.
Do they award medals for so consistently and completely missing the point?
The point is about your estimation of what is reasonablea nd what is forthcoming. If you think that Bush has been forthcoming about his national guard service, then I think that certainly bears on how much weight someone should give to your estimation of what a reasonable interpretation of Kerry’s actions and words are.
There’s nothing to explain. It’s no one else’s business.
If he threw the medals away in 1971 and is now wearing them with pride…
how is that simultaneous?
Perhaps Mr Kerry and the world around him aren’t quite the same as they were 30+ years ago?
If true, it’s a matching bookend for Kerry’s “I’m not Bush”.
I have always allowed for that possibility.
If this is so, and I believe it probably is, then I think Senator Kerry should tell us how he’s changed and grown.
The reason he needs to do this is because many people, including many veterans like myself, are confused regarding his handling of this issue, and his seeming desire to have matters both ways. It’s the reason this story is still in the news, more than thirty years later.