The point is that he did volunteer for two tours. There’s no way around that. Who cares where he spent the first tour. He requested Vietnam, they put him on the Gridley. He requested a second tour and requested one of the most dangerous duties available.
And it is disingenuous for those who would belittle the “four and half months” not to mention that it was his second Tour of duty.
With the benefit of hindsight.
What is this even supposed to mean? The question was whether Kerry had volunteered for two Tours of Duty. It turns out that he did. Now you want to play semantic games and redefine what a Tour of Duty is.
You misunderstand what I’m saying. I’m saying that I don’t think this is a legitimate issue. Kerry served two tours. It doesn’t matter where it was.
What I’m saying is that it would be wrong for someone to imply that Kerry only spent 4 1/2 months in the military, but it wouldl also be wrong to imply that Kerry served two tours IN Vietnam. The facts are what they are, and there’s nothing wrong with it. Neiither side should try to spin it.
If it helps any, does anyone know what time of year Tet is? It’s just after Christmas, isn’t it? The whole thing about celebrating it with the locals makes me think Kerry may have conflated Tet with Christmas… it’s easy to lose a couple weeks here and there in situations of isolation.
What a CIA Agent was doing in Cambodia? I don’t know, but it sounds like the same sort of thing they were doing in Afghanistan recently, and the sort of thing I know they were doing elsewhere in Vietnam. Being ‘advisors’. Training the locals to fight, and use dirty tricks, and that sort of thing. If it was Tet, everyone getting wasted… I’m just surprised Kerry doesn’t have the CIA agent’s pants.
Tet is in January, most of the month I believe. The reason a CIA opperative might want to be in Cambodia would relate to why the US was trying to sneek over the border. The Viet Cong were supplied via the Ho Chi Mihn trail, which ran through Cambodia and Laos. The supplies were pretty much free flowing, which kind of puts paid to the idea of a secure border. It is kind of military planning 101 to cut the supply line, illegal or not.
Again, I don’t see any contradiction here. It’s not like he was disavowing his service way back when. Kerry was an effective and prominent opponent of the war after he returned from Vietnam precisely because he was a decorated war hero. That gave him a personal credibility that bolstered his anti-war arguments, just as his war hero status bolsters his credibility on national defense and leadership issues today.
Minty Green said:
Of course he was disavowing his service. Remember him throwing his medals back? Wouldn’t you call that disavowing your service? He said that he engaged in war crimes.
Now today the war crimes are forgotten, the thrown medals are displayed prominently in his office, and he’s proud of his service and proud of the men he served with. You know, the ones who he claimed he personally observed committing war crimes.
Which would help explain why he resigned his commission the next summer.
Despite my love of Civil War history, I am, thanks to that link, tempted to read my first autobiography of one of its participants. I never before knew Grant as such an intelligent and introspective man, nor did I know he was that good a writer. I had always assumed his memoirs were slapdash, thrown together quickly before he died, and then cleaned up by Twain, but that selection does not look slapped together, nor does it smack at all of Twain’s style. I had recently heard that Twain was amazed at the quality of Grant’s prose and I now know why. Thank you.
Just plain stinks, Sam. I would call that “political theater” or I might call it “propaganda”. What I definitely would call it was goddamn effective! That particular bit of activism hit the collective American conciousness like a ton of bricks! It worked, Sam. It made people think, Sam
Drivel. Utter drivel. What he said was that such things as rendering whole sections of Viet Nam into “free fire zones” were war crimes, since such declarations made the killings of innocent civilians entirely certain. I imagine most of us would describe a policy of targeting civilians as a “war crime”.
Unless, of course, you have a cite wherein Kerry explicitly confesses to a paticular heinous act of murder and rapine? But you haven’t any such thing, have you? Once again, by the arts of inference and innuendo, you seek to inflate a Japanese condom into a dirigible.
Aren’t you ever embarassed by the some of the crap you try to get away with? And haven’t you noticed that you never do get away with it? I would have thought by now you would have caught on.
Same crap, different paragraph. Do you blush when you post these turd blossoms?
Oh, heck. Thought we were in the Pit. Revered Mods, if that was over the top I apologize. I won’t try and pretend I don’t mean it, I damn sure do mean it, but maybe the wrong place?
elucidator and minty green:
I don’t want to lose the thread of my comments regarding the Swift Boat vets accusations, and my rebuttal of Sam’s arguments concerning them, but I have to pause here to agree with Sam on this particular point.
Yes: it was effective because people at the time believed that Kerry, the war hero, was actually “disavowing” his service (if I understand the term correctly) and rejecting the honors bestowed upon him. I submit that had the public known the medals Kerry threw were not his own, then this particular act of “political theater” would not have been the least bit effective.
I understand that people change with time, but I simply cannot shake the feeling that it is fundamentally disingenuous of Kerry to pretend to throw away his medals in 1971, only to exploit them thirty years later in his bid for the presidency. To me it cheapens the courageous stance he took against the war back then, and shows him more for who he truly is: a political opportunist of the first order.
Kerry’s website has several pages dedicated to his military service: a brief but glowing description his tour of duty, a full “military timeline,” a full page of Official Naval Records, another with After Action Reports (and brief descriptions of every firefight Kerry was involved in), and a page with several pdf’s detailing Coastal Division 11’s “Command History.” Meanwhile, Kerry’s participation in Vietnam Veterans Against the War warrants but a single paragraph in his biography, as far as I can tell:
Funny, isn’t it, that this phase of his career, in which he really rose to national prominence, receives so little attention? Strange that the website fails to mention Kerry’s accusations of war crimes against the US military? Or that Kerry actually threw away those medals which he now displays so proudly (only not)? Perhaps an accidental oversight on their part?
Continuing, on the topic of Kerry having “engaged in war crimes:”
Well, yes, that’s right. Kerry argued, correctly in my opinion, that the free-fire zones were a violation of the Geneva Conventions. Since he participated in military actions in a free-fire zone, that would make him, technically, a war criminal. He admits this himself in his 1971 debate with O’Niell on the Dick Cavett show:
I take Kerry to mean that everyone who participated in a free-fire exercise violated the Geneva conventions, and is therefore a “war criminal” – not that they had much choice in the matter.
Is this interpretation wrong?
I am, as are many others here, happy to have Big Svin amongst us once again. (The Svinlesha family was participating in the annual reindeer rutting festival, gathering musk glands for that inimitable flavoring for thier much admired rot cuisine, and to perfume their sturdy, hirsute women. We all extend our happy “welcome back!”…)
We have no real argument here, save only for parsing the definition of “disavow”. Was Kerry indulging in theatrics to make a political point? You bet he was, and God bless 'em for it! When the VVAW arrived on the anti-war protest scene, it was like a squad of cavalry riding to the rescue. To anyone who wasn’t there, any truthful rendering of the impact would seem melodramatic, and I understand that. Everything about that time was melodramatic, and I would rather nail my pecker to a tree and set the tree on fire than see my country go through that again. It was awful!
Then, as now, slurs on patriotism and courage were the stock in trade of the Rightarded. But when you’re marching in protest with a guy who’s holding up his protest sign with the only arm he’s got, it made a difference. It shut them up right handily and it…made…people…think!
Is Kerry a politician, a baby-kissing, poll-watching, lying sumbitch? Hell, yes, they all are. No virgin gets selected Queen of the Whores. Is he pressing every advantage he has, up to and including exploiting his advantage over GeeDubya in terms of demonstrated service and courage? No doubt about it, and I say “Give 'em both barrells, John-boy! Both at once, not one at a time! Reload, shove it up his Nixon and pull the trigger again!”
Kerry is here to kick ass and take names, and he’s already got the name. Darth Rove has already shown how he intends to play, down and dirty all the way. I want a politician on our team, I want a guy who can give as good as he gets, I want somebody who is in the game to win, not someone who’s there to show off what a great guy he is, how sportsmanlike, how above-it-all he can be.
Hit 'em high, hit 'em low, and hit 'em hard. They had a chance to keep the game on the up and up, they passed. So be it.
Tet 1969 was on February 17.
Sam:
Continuing…
Why?
Why not?
Neither you nor I are really in a position to make this judgement in terms of anything other than an act of faith. However, even if they are themselves sincere in their hatred of Kerry, this sincerity does not exclude the possibility of them being exploited for political purposes. That they have received the bulk of their financial support from a prominent Republican contributor serves to pretty much confirm this suspicion.
In 1971 Kerry testified that free-fire zones and other features of the SOP of military units in Vietnam were in violation of the Geneva Conventions, and thus war crimes. This is an eminently reasonable interpretation of the Conventions. If he would stick to it, he would have my respect; as I wrote earlier, if they were war crimes in 1969, then they are war crimes in 2004.
On the other hand, sticking to that particular interpretation of the Conventions would be political suicide for Kerry, so I understand that he has to tone his rhetoric down in order to get elected and I have some sympathy for that dilemma.
I don’t think the “Swiftees” are justified in hating Kerry for simply calling a spade a spade. Nor are the justified in lying about, or otherwise demeaning, his service record. I do think, however, that they are justified in pointing out that Kerry’s exploitation of his military service now, after his earlier “disavowal” of it, is hypocritical in the extreme (as far as I can tell, at least, unless elucidator or minty convince me otherwise).
Now we get down to the crux of the matter, though.
I understand that you don’t believe Kerry on this point, but thus far you’ve failed to produce any solid evidence that Kerry has lied about being in Cambodia whatsoever. It certainly appears as if you decided he was lying first and went looking for evidence afterwards. Let us pause for a second and review some of the claims you’ve made to support your assertion:[ul][li]You’ve argued that the first incursions into Cambodia occurred in 1970, after Kerry’s tour of duty. This claim has proven to be one that you were making up as you went along.[/li][li]You’ve argued that it would be impossible for Kerry to make it into Cambodia because the border between Cambodia and Vietnam was an impenetrable barrier of concrete pylons, concertina wire, and guard posts. This claim has also proven to be one that you were making up as you went along.[/li][li]You’ve claimed that a Swift Boat, basically an ocean-going vessel, never traveled among the inland canals of the Mekong. This claim has also also proven to be one that you were making up as you went along.[/li][li]You’ve claimed that only small boats could make it up the Mekong, which is otherwise choked with weeds, muck, and underwater plant growth. Alas, once again, this claim has also also also proven to be one that you were making up as you went along.[/ul][/li]
All of these arguments have been set up and knocked downed like a bunch of weak-assed bowling pins. We are left only with your gut feeling that Kerry is lying. Okay, your gut feeling might be right – it wouldn’t surprise me – but it in no way constitutes proof such that would allow you draw the following conclusions:
You’ve convinced yourself at this point, without proof, that Kerry is lying about being in Cambodia at all, and since you apparently know this to be the case – despite a lack of proof – you now feel justified in flatly asserting it to be a “major slam on his credibility.” In other words, you are once again making it up as you go along. Accuser, jury, judge, and executioner, all rolled up into one.
You then continue:
I wish you could tell me, exactly, what that difference is. You appear to be admitting now, freely, that Bush “over-stated” evidence about which reasonable people could disagree. I’ll concede, for the sake of the discussion, that some of the evidence presented could be the source of reasonable disagreement. But by definition, it would seem, if there exists room for reasonable disagreement over the evidence, then one cannot claim that there is “no doubt” about Iraq’s possession of “WMDs.” Because there is doubt, doubt in the form of reasonable disagreement, as you point out yourself.
Less than a month after Bush flatly stated that could exist “no doubt” about Iraq’s possession of “WMDs,” administration officials had executed a sharp volte-face and begun insisting that intelligence gathering is by its very nature a “murky business” in which very few things are known with certainty. I’ll tell you, intelligence gathering did not suddenly become a “murky business” two weeks after the invasion of Iraq: it was also a murky business the day before, and the day after, Bush asserted that Iraq “undoubtedly” possessed “WMDs.” It was in fact public knowledge that a large portion of the intelligence community dissented from one or another of the administration’s claims; you know this yourself, as we both went over the NIE with a fine-toothed comb. How could he possibly stand there, knowing full well of this dispute, and make the statement that he made? How can you defend it as anything other than a bald-faced lie, while simultaneously attacking Kerry mercilessly about his service military – service which was at the very least, in every possible way, superior to his opponent’s?
You would have us believe that Kerry’s probable exaggerations about his exploits in Cambodia are “a major slam on his credibility,” while Bush’s “overstatement” regarding Iraq’s “WMDs” has no bearing whatsoever on his credibility. I cannot understand this line of reasoning at all. In fact, if we were to apply standard by which you judge Kerry to Bush, then we would have long ago concluded Bush was a liar on the basis of spurious assertions and gut feeling – regardless of proof.
I submit that to be consistent in your application of standards of honesty, you must conclude either one of two things:
or
Gee, thanks…uh… I think!
However, just for the record, I live in Sweden, man. Sweden. The women here are many things, but “sturdy” and “hirsute” are not two of them. Trust me on this.
With regard to the rest, it is verily as you have so aptly put in days gone by: only a whore makes it to the top of that Parliament of Whores, but our whore has fewer running sores than their whore.
Its just that I’m not the sort of person who would pretend a running sore is really a cute little freckle on Heidi’s bum, that’s all.
She’s there, isn’t she? No sweat, wink, wink, say no more…
Just so! Finally, after 30 years, the drugs take effect, and I am confused! Whatever was I thinking? Hirsute and sturdy, Bulgarian women. Here in Minnesota, we have only the genetic castoffs, the second stringers, not the mother lode of leggy, drop-dead gorgeous, and razor-witted goddesses that is Sweden!
Now, I really must be off, my Suicidal/Existential Despair Support Group has a Bergman Festival planned…
Svinlesha, you and I seem to be operating under slightly different definitions of the word “disavow.” I do not believe that Kerry disavowed his military service by throwing away his medals/ribbons/whatever it was, nor by labeling free fire zones as “war crimes.” Kerry never told anyone that they should ignore his service, or that it was irrelevant to what he had to say; to the contrary, his authority very much depended on it at the time of his anti-war protesting, and he referred to his experiences constantly as a source of authority for the substance of his arguments. I’m sure he would have made the point that his service was done for a bad cause, and it’s obvious that he took symbolically rejected that cause. But disavowing the cause is different from disavowing the service, and I just don’t see the latter with Kerry after his return from Vietnam. YMMV.
Incidentally, I don’t think it’s a reasonable interpretation of Kerry’s comments on free fire zones to mean that every soldier or sailor who served in such an area was a war criminal. You may have a war crime for the people responsible for designating such areas as free fire zones, and you certainly have a war crime for anyone who knowingly or intentionally fired on civilians in a free fire zone, but it’s not a war crime if a soldier serving in a free fire zone does not fire on civilians.
Svinlesha said:
You know, accusing someone of ‘making it up as they go along’ is pretty much the same thing as calling them a liar. Should have known the civility wouldn’t last.
I did not ‘make it up as I went along’. I was confusing the official start of actions against Cambodia with earlier possible incursions. I subsequently admitted that I was wrong on that point.
And as a matter of procedure, if you like having debates where people are willing to concede points when they were shown to have been wrong, you might consider not going for the “nyah nyah” moment, tempting as it might be.
I directly quoted Steve Gardiner, the gunner who served with Kerry longer than anyone else on that boat. He flat-out, categorically denies that Kerry was EVER in Cambodia, and one of his stated reason is that the border entries were heavily patrolled by Cambodians, and that they were also barricaded and protected by an LCU.
In fact, I just looked and I see that I cited that in this very thread. Does that mean I should start calling you a liar for accusing me of pulling it out of my ass?
Where did I claim that? What I said that it was more common to use a PBR for that duty, and also that a Swift seemed like a poor choice for a COVERT mission, because they were loud and big. I said it didn’t seem likely to me.
But of course you have a cite for me saying that a Swift boat never traveled in a canal, right? Because I wouldn’t want you to have to admit you pulled something out of your ass, or anything.
I didn’t say that only small boats COULD make it up a Canal. I said it didn’t make a lot of sense to send a SWIFT boat up a canal on a COVERT mission. Swifts did travel up Canals - in multi-boat convoys where they could protect each other if they were ambushed or stuck.
In any event, it’s always possible that covert missions were carried out in Swifts into Cambodia. I offered my opinion of the likelihood of that, based on what I had read. I even tempered my comments with statements like, “it just doesn’t seem logical”. For you to spin that into a categorical statement, drop the part about covert missions, and then basically accuse me of lying is pretty scummy.
I’m done with this topic. We’ll see what happens. In any event, all these topics are being covered in much more detail, by military people who seem to know what they are talking about, at the Swiftboat Veterans Message Board. If you really care to understand their side of this issue, go there and read what they have to say.
I just took a look at that Swiftee board. Now I have to wipe the slime off my monitor.
I’ll have to register there just to jeer when Kerry wins,
I think you are failing to appreciate the 57 varieties of irony the SwiftVets are ready to serve you for free. For your reading pleasure:
(letter to Washington Post)
Poor dears.