His military service has nothing to do with the issue anyway. He threw his ribbons as a civilian.
You can blame most of it on that. Here is a very interesting read. Obviously, the writer seems to be a Kerry supporter. However, the facts don’t lie. George W. Bush used similar tactics in 2000 to smear John McCain and his military service that he is now using against John Kerry. Don’t you find that at all disturbing? As a veteran, do you support what George Bush is doing now and did in the past to cast doubt on the military service of others that was inarguably more significant than George Bush’s service?
Here is a choice quote:
I agree with John McCain, obviously.
theR, if you read what I’ve posted in this thread, you will find that my only criticisms of Kerry are on the medals controversy. I have avoided discussing other political differences I have with Kerry, as they are not germane to this discussion. My references to Kerry’s military service have been respectful, as that service deserves nothing but respect.
I’m pretty right-wing, but I’m not part of any smear machine. I’ve been fair to John Kerry in this thread.
This is the problem Kerry is going to be facing on this issue, and probably others. Lots of fair-minded prople are going to be looking at his answers on this and other controversies, and they will see waffling and equivocation. At a time when our country is facing tremendous problems at home and abroad, and a decisive leader is needed, what they risk with Kerry is a man who straddles the fence.
elfkin477, try reading my post again a couple of times (out loud).
What fence?
Nobody cares about this, Moto. You don’t even care about it. You’ll vote for Bush no matter what. You’re just hoping you can create some sort of issue for swing voters.
I’d like to know why you’re not bothered that Bush’s “decisiveness” has killed 600+ American soldiers for no good reason.
Diogenes, as has been pointed out to you in the past, by posters more learned than I, just because your mind’s made up doesn’t mean you lose your right to debate.
If it did, you’d have to shut up about George W. Bush, right now.
The sad thing is that some people are so blinded by their adulation of Bush that they prefer decisiveness even if it involves lying, deception, incompetence, breaking international law, and getting American soldiers and Iraqi civilians killed.
On preview, what DtC said.
I really don’t get this entire thing. They are his medals, he earned them, he can do what he likes with them. Throwing away the ribbons he earned by his actions in protest is perfectly within his rights.
Protesting the source of those medals in no way invalidates the actions he did to earn them. Neither does it invalidate his right to regret doing it.
To me, it shows that he had the balls to not only earn the medals, but to stand up and say something he believed - unlike certain other presidential candidates who had daddy hide them from any action so he could start abusing drugs. Frankly, I don’t see a lot of room for Bush to be firing at Kerry here (if Bush had ever fired a gun at anything more agressive than a duck).
The apex of my awards are that I’m an Eagle Scout (with 3 Silver Palms to boot). I happen to strongly disapprove of certain political stances currently held by the BSA. In protest, I could damn well throw away my awards, and there isn’t much you can say about the practice - I disagree with them, so I may disabuse the awards I won from them in what manner I see fit. I earned them. I earned the right to disown them, if I want.
(For the record, I don’t see the need to go quite that far, but even if I did, I can still be proud of my accomplishments and community service record, which includes leading me to work for the Red Cross, and is still a helluva lot more to do with national defense than Bush ever did).
Isn’t that line from Magnolia or something? Hm, know what I’m gonna watch tonight.
WHAT? You’re GOD DAMN F*ING RIGHT you’ve said Bush was no war hero. Even making the rather loose correlation you did above that Bush did something noble by risking his life for whatever the Texas Air National Guard risks their lives for… ugh.
I would spit on your shoes if you were here. More people die in f*ing traffic accidents. You might as well say he served his country by risking his life flying aboard Air Force 1, since 747s crash sometimes. People lose their damn lives in CARNIVAL RIDES more threatening than what Bush was doing (which is to say, mostly wasting taxpayer’s money on the off chance that Mexico invaded Texas, and he even ditched his duty there).
I guess I’m stupid. I literally have absolutely no comprehension how you can condemn a man throwing away his ribbons he earned serving in Vietnam in protest compared to a drunken lout who ditched his pansy ass service in the Texas Air National Guard. It is a premise so abysmally vacant of comprehension that it makes my head hurt even writing about it. It is a black hole of stupidity. A vortex of absurdity.
You are clearly able to type in coherent sentences, so I can only assume that you have undergone some operation to shield your brain from the destructive powers of this black magic of logic and are using it as the weakest of weak political attacks. You know, it would be easier to just not talk about it, shuffle your feet, and walk away to another issue than keep going.
Seriously, this position makes as much sense as an unmedicated schizophrenic opiate addict on withdrawl chanting dark rituals while making love to a purple duck sprouting daisies instead of feathers.
Have I expressed yet my utter lack of understanding of this rape of reason? I don’t think I have the words. I’m going to go paint some modern art and see if that can do it.
I’m not talking about a right to debate or to bash the other side. I’m saying that I believe your expressed personal concern over this issue is insincere. In reality it has nothing to do with who you will vote for so your quest for an “explanation” is disingenuous. You don’t really care. No matter how perfect Kerry’s explanation you would still vote for Bush.
That part where you tried to spin it as a question of “decisiveness” in a leader was really, really weak, btw. Just for the fun of it, here’s what one Kerry’s CO’s had to say about his decisiveness:
How does this compare to Bush’s demeanor under fire? Oh, wait, that’s right. He ran away from the fire. 
Zagadka, please understand, I have been very consistent here. I agree that John Kerry had the right to throw the medals in protest. There’s a part of me that, though I wouldn’t have chosen to do so, neverless admires this choice of Kerry’s. For it was, and it remains, a powerful political symbol.
However, when it became advantageous later for John Kerry to placate union leaders who were nervous over supporting a war protester, he assured them that he didn’t throw medals, he threw ribbons. He then showed them his own medals in a frame.
Now Kerry admits that the term ribbons and medals can be used interchangeably.
Today, Kerry is simultaneously proud of earning the medals, wearing the medals, displaying the medals, renouncing the medals, and throwing the medals in the mud. No explanation has been given that can reconcile all of these conflicting actions. And mere requests that kerry provide one drive him to fits of anger.
Attempting to have it all ways is the act of either a hypocrite or a complete sociopath, IMHO.
As to the issue of Bush’s service, I have conceded that he’s no war hero. You, however, went further than this and denigrated the Texas National Guard.
With about 4,000 of them serving in the Middle East and in Bosnia right now, are you sure this is a great political strategy for liberals to take? Especially if they want to be seen as credible on defense, and good for veterans?
Just a thought.
“Sociopath?”
The medals and ribbons are interchangeable from an official militray standpoint, but so what? Is Kerry not allowed to make a personal distinction even if the military doesn’t?
No explanation is required. I don’t blame him for being angry. Whatever physical objects he chose to retain from service are nobody else’s business.
And give it a rest with the “insulting the Texas ANG” thing, will you. We aren’t denigrating the ANG, we’re denigrating a guy who USED the ANG through family connections to avoid Vietnam and then didn’t deem it important enough to show up for physicals or finish his duty.
I agree, you are generally quite levelheaded, and my post was not so much directed at you as at the topic in general, though your statement about the TANG triggered part of my rant. 
As I think I said, I do see a distinction. Throwing away the ribbons was a symbolic act of denouncing the cause of what he had done - however, it in no way erases the fact of what he had done. If he had been a Nazi officer and thrown away his Nazi ribbons in 1946 to demonstrate his rejection of the party, he would still be tried for the actions he had done. Neither does Kerry’s actions erase his record. He can still be proud of serving his country and earning the medals, even though he disagreed with the politics behind the action - either after the fact or during it. It is more than possible for him to have committed the actions, and instantly felt disgusted with the reason behind them. It makes no difference - he did, in fact, serve effectively in the military earning distinction, and he also protested the war.
I don’t think it is fair to say that he has to choose between the two.
I’m not sure, I’m not a Democrat. I’m a Republican. In general, I dislike the Democrats slightly more than I dislike the Republicans, although not by much. I’m really more of a Libertarian. Or a Librarian. Or something. Maybe I’m a hip scenester all stuffed full of pride in not aligning with any political party and thinking that makes me a rebel. Or maybe I just take issues as I come to them based on my personal analysis.
While I may be quick to quip about the TANG (I love that acronym), I’m not going to say that they are any less brave and valiant warriors than the Coast Guard is (take that as you will, but I happen to really like the Coast Guard, thanks in large part to irrational fear of water). However, in Mr. Bush’s case, the deployment was hardly one of valor, and especially in his case, certainly not one of a shining record.
(Let me use myself as an example.)
After all, I don’t have much room to speak. I shirked joining Air Force ROTC when they only offered me half of my uni fees (I scored high on my ASVAB :-p). I guess that makes me a greedy mercenary, and in 20 years when I run for President, some journalist is going to dig up this post in some archive and launch a major expose on my lack of military duty. Frankly, in retrospect, deciding not to take that scholarship is the best decision I ever made, given my current strong opposition to our deployments and timing where I would have graduated in 2002 and be serving my military time right now. However, I will take liberty to be the first to point out that this is not due to cowardice on my part, whereas Mr. Bush’s registration with the TANG, in fact, was.
There is no distinction to be made because there is no distinction.
John Kerry on Good Morning America, admitting there is no distinction:
So your little theory about a personal distinction doesn’t hold water. It is certainly not Kerry’s current belief, and if we’re to take him at his word, it was never his belief.
As for your belief that it’s nobody else’s business, sorry, that’s not true. It was a public protest. The medals became a political issue back in 1971, for better or worse. Just because it’s a non-issue for you, doesn’t mean it’s not an issue, and a sign of Kerry’s character.
Hell, there are Doonesbury strips about the medal throwing, drawn way back in 1971. Are you going to say Garry Trudeau shouldn’t have drawn them back then? That this issue was off limits to the Kerry campaign when I was a toddler?
My position has been very consistent in this very long thread. Yours is a convoluted mess, all to defend your man. And all along, all I’ve been asking for is an honest explanation of Kerry’s change of heart, if he’s had one.
Oh, come now, Moto, does it somehow denigrate the 7th Cav. to point out that George A. Custer was a blazing idiot?
Obviously it is his current belief because he still has the medals. Obviously they do mean something to him which the ribbons didn’t mean. Their official miltary significance is irrelevant, as any significance that you or I or anyone else but the man who earned them chooses to imbue them with.
His retention of his medals is nobody else’s business. You are allowed to form whatever opinion you want on his war protesting. That’s fair game politically. But what he keeps in a private desk drawer is not.
On the contrary, I’ve neen very consistent. I haven’t contradicted myself once. I also believe that you have been consistent but I don’t believe you’re sincere.
You don’t care about an honest explanation, just admit it. Your mind is already made up. You hope that this issue will hurt Kerry but getting an “honest explanation” will not affect your personal decision in November in any way.
ItI thought you were a working stiff.
[/QUOTE]
denigrates Guardsmen and reservists when they’re portrayed as draft dodgers.
I take particular offense to this, since my father served as an Army reservist during the Vietnam era.
He is, of course, an honorably discharged veteran. He performed the service his country asked him to do, for six years. His friends who served in Vietnam have never questioned his service. Yet people here who know nothing of my father or the circumstances of the time see fit to bait me with his reserve status.
[QUOTE=holmes]
Geez, Mr. Moto I didn’t realize your grandfather called in favors to keep your Dad out of combat and your father did the same for you…nothing wrong with that of course, I mean what’s the point of having power if you can’t use it…right?
I just let this go, of course. It didn’t merit a reply.
Again, though, you should all check other sites, blogs, and magazines. There are a lot of reservists and Guardsmen out there. More importantly, there are a lot of reservist and Guardsmen veterans. And they’re not happy, not happy at all with the way they’re being portrayed right now.
Especially when the Democratic candidate for President directly equates your service to draft-dodging, fleeing to Canada, or going to jail:
“I’ve never made any judgments about any choice somebody made about avoiding the draft, about going to Canada, going to jail, being a conscientious objector, going into the National Guard,’ Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran, told Fox News Channel. ‘Those are choices people make.” (L.A. Times, 2/4/04)
Kerry is desperately trying to mend fences with the Reserve and Guard community right now. He wouldn’t have had to do so if he hadn’t equated their service with prison time. The medals controversy, needless to say, is hurting his efforts here as well.
Wow, thanks for the time flash, Moto. I remember seeing those cartoons, and its pretty much true. John Kerry was a politician born. By a quirk of fate, I happened to know a lot of the young men in our local VVAW. Maybe even all 20 of them. Some were quite pissed at Kerry, because he had consistently urged statements that were sincere but not inflammatory. Some of the more radical elements thought that a cop-out, myself, I regarded it as shrewd tactics.
And there were also sentiments like those expressed in the cartoon, a young man who thinks far too highly of himself but also retains an endearing earnestness. I think Trudeau got him about right. I’d also bet that Kerry thinks the same. I also concur that he got Kerry right for personality, he was born to run, so to speak.
But I keep in mind…as much as Kerry craved a political life, by aligning himself with the anti-war movement publicly and theatricaly, he was making an irrevocable choice: there was, and remains, an element of the public who regards actions like Kerry’s as inherently “unpatriotic”. But he did it anyway. And I think he did it because he thought it right. Its hard to see expedience entering into it.
You see, he had exactly what he wanted. Educated, young, war hero, tall, handsome in a gnarled oak sort of way…can’t wait to run for office. He put that all at risk. He would have been entirely justified in believing such actions to be political suicide, since roughly 30% to 40% percent of the American voting public loathed the anti-war movement with every fiber of thier being. It wasn’t the smart move, and Kerry’s plenty smart.
I think he did it for his country.
Once more, with fixed coding:
It denigrates Guardsmen and reservists when they’re portrayed as draft dodgers.
I take particular offense to this, since my father served as an Army reservist during the Vietnam era.
He is, of course, an honorably discharged veteran. He performed the service his country asked him to do, for six years. His friends who served in Vietnam have never questioned his service. Yet people here who know nothing of my father or the circumstances of the time see fit to bait me with his reserve status.
I just let this go, of course. It didn’t merit a reply.
Again, though, you should all check other sites, blogs, and magazines. There are a lot of reservists and Guardsmen out there. More importantly, there are a lot of reservist and Guardsmen veterans. And they’re not happy, not happy at all with the way they’re being portrayed right now.
Especially when the Democratic candidate for President directly equates your service to draft-dodging, fleeing to Canada, or going to jail:
“I’ve never made any judgments about any choice somebody made about avoiding the draft, about going to Canada, going to jail, being a conscientious objector, going into the National Guard,’ Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran, told Fox News Channel. ‘Those are choices people make.” (L.A. Times, 2/4/04)
Kerry is desperately trying to mend fences with the Reserve and Guard community right now. He wouldn’t have had to do so if he hadn’t equated their service with prison time. The medals controversy, needless to say, is hurting his efforts here as well.
Diogenes, you’re not reading what Kerry said in the interview. He said that he regarded medals and ribbons as being the same thing.