Forgive me if I just reject that “source” right out of hand. I don’t ever stride into these boards citing National Review, much as I like reading it. I’d be a damn laughingstock.
Please extend to me the same courtesy.
Flesh out a citation from some newspaper, somewhere, and we can talk.
Besides which, Bush’s service record does include paperwork from Dannelly Air Base. That and LtCol. Calhoun’s account indicate Bush was there.
You are entirely welcome to cite whatever you choose, Mr. M. Especially as the source given includes links to primary sources…newspaper accounts, and the like. Which is to say, the credibility of the referenced cite is dependent upon other sources, which are correctly stated and linked, as in, “*Washington Post * said this, Boston Globe said that”, so on and so forth.
You see the difference, right? So we need not belabor the obvious?
Bush was never seen at the local bar with his buddy jet pilots. Think about *that * for a second - in conjunction with the fact that only one person can be found who remembers him, and that story is full of holes (despite your protests about the source).
Having had some experience with those young officers I can say that it is my considered opinion that the fewer jet pilots in bars the better. Fighter jocks are bad enough. Fighter jocks with a bellyful of booze are beyond obnoxious.
Of all the things I’m concerned about wrt Kerry, the details of his service in Vietnam are WAY down on the list-- maybe not even on the list at all. It was over 30 years ago, and the guy was very young. So, who really cares about all this except the rabidly partisan folks on the republican side of things?
By the way, why was he transferred to this unit if this was the case?
It was a courtesy routinely granted to Guard members at the time, and still is today. It allows them to continue to serve even if they are transferred out of state with their civilian jobs.
You’re absolutely right. It was 30 years ago so who cares? The only person to bring up his service record, repeatedly, on a daily basis, as part of his campaign, in every speech,… is Senator Kerry. So he must care about it enough to share it with use.
His constant reminder of his service draws attention to himself. If he was a career soldier nobody would have given it a second thought. His 5 months of combat duty is proof of his service but it lacks the flair of his PT boat hero (the reason for his choice of service). His medical records would silence those critics.
And yes, there are veterans with long memories who didn’t like to be labeled as monsters for political gain. It could be said that it is bad form to wear your war status on your sleeve while berating those around you. Depends on which side of the fence you sit on I suppose. Don’t know.
What are we even arguing about here? Kerry deserves credit for fighting in the war, and even more credit for fighting against it after he got home. How could anybody seriously argue the contrary in this day and age, now that we’ve had 30 years to look back on that war?
Al Qaeda! 911! Terrorists! World Trade Center! Jihad! Terrorists! Afghanistan! Iraq! Axis of Evil! Terrorists! Traitors! Freedom Fries! Terrorists!
Sorry…I was possessed by the Republican zeitgeist…
He’s given credit for his service. I probably have more wounds from playing soccer or trying to break up the occasional bar fight but I still give him credit. I also support his right of free speech and commend his convictions to protest the war, even if he used it to launch his political career.
However, his past treatment of fellow vets was poor form. It would stay in the background if not for his incessant reminder to everyone of his military status. It gets old fast and it made him look foolish when he tried to glad-hand the Marines during his recent Wendy’s stopover.
I’ve come across this odd notion before, that Kerry’s anti-war stance and activism was, fundamentally, the move of a political opportunist. Astonishing. I remember the time as if it were only thirty-five years ago. Please rest assured, the anti-war movement was by no means a wildly popular endeavor when Kerry first arrived on the scene.
I have no doubt that Kerry is cut from the same cloth as Clinton: political animals, the both of them, and they share the faults and failings common to the breed. Clinton, you will recall, was very mindful of his draft status and possible induction, and did everything he could to stay out of the way, so long as he didn’t actually commit to something that would haunt him later.
Consider Kerrys options: he could adopt a stance not that much at variance with the “normal”, the mainstream, with some vague and generalized allussions that would permit an anti-war person to accept him, without necessarily endorsing him. With a war-hero record, education, connections, he was a natural shoo-in for a politician.
But a strong, even radical, anti-war position was not remotely a popular stance, in terms of a political career, it was the equivalent of shoving a grenade up your butt and pulling the pin. Even people who eventually came to accept his position never forgave him for it. Being right isn’t good enough for some people, he should have been more polite about it.
So I think Kerry did what he felt he had to do relative to his war experience, as did many of his returning comrades in arms. He was gifted to be articulate and even, in an Opie way, somewhat charismatic. He lent those gifts to a cause he believed in while having every reason to suspect he was shutting himself out from his lifelong goal: politics. Kerry wasn’t active in the anti-war movement because he sought to launch his political career, he would have had that anyway. A radical and public anti-war stance was a threat to his political career. John Kerry the man was doing no favors for John Kerry the politician.
By this I assume you mean his testimony as regards crimes committed by American servicemen in Viet Nam. I also understand that this is a point of extreme contention amongst some vets, who feel betrayed. Their sense of betrayal is misplaced, they were betrayed by the brutal men who committed the crimes, and the craven men who covered them up.
Mr. Kerry spoke truth to power, and history shows that to be true. Dishonor belongs to the men who committed those crimes, disdain for those who tried to deny it happened. Not on the truthful.
**Their sense of betrayal is not without substance. Senator Kerry spoke in vague terms about events he did not witness or participate in.
Regardless of our differences of opinion over his career launch, I still hold that Senator Kerry spent all his veteran chips early in the campaign. I could be wrong. **
Let me ride in here on Elucidator’s coat tails. In the fall of 1972 I resigned my commission and left the army after five years active service. I had delayed my civilian career long enough, I wasn’t about to raise a family doing one and three year duty tours, my wife wanted to go home, and I was about to be promoted into a permanent desk job that I was not sure I could stand for fifteen more years. All during that time the subject of Vietnam as a political question was strenuously avoided. It was not good form for a junior officer to have political opinions. You did not want to do anything that might discourage the troops– how would they react if their own officers thought the war was an immense mistake. On top of all that the most vocal anti-war types were not very nice people, Jane Fonda, for example.
When John Kerry and the Veterans Against the War people started talking some of us just about had apoplexy but for some it was a liberation. Here was one of our own standing up on his hind legs speaking things that every one of us knew or thought were true. The war was hopeless, our people were doing unspeakable things, it was policy to hide the truth of the war, that the Vietnamese didn’t much care who was running their country as long as they were left alone and their sons were not conscripted and the Vietnamese government and army were incredibility corrupt. When Kerry spoke out it was license for us to speak and to tell the truth about those things as we knew them. Kerry gave us, maybe just me, permission to seriously consider my views of the war and the duty of the individual citizen and the proper function of government that until then had been kept at bay by the simple fact that it was my duty as a soldier to keep my mouth shut.
What Kerry did required considerable courage, certainly more than I had, and at the time looked as if it marked the road to obscurity – no rational man could then think that coming out against the war in the way Kerry did was a politically smart, let alone opportunist, thing to do.
If you didn’t already know, a spirited discussion on this topic is also taking place in the Pit. It was there noted that Drudge has linked to a TV ad created and paid for by the above mentioned Swift Boat guys who hate Kerry.
http://humaneventsonline.com.edgesuite.net/unfit_video_wmv.html
Looks like this is going to a whole 'nother level, 'cause that TV ad is raw meat. “Inflammatory” is about the right word. This could very, very ugly.
This is one mean ad, and its slippery as well. It contains several actual accusations of falsifying his actions and acheivements, specific charges that might be proven or disproven. But the bulk of it is men intoning suggestive statements about Kerry’s “character”, his “betrayal”, etc. When you first hear it, it sounds like a damning list of crimes, but when you examine it, it is primarily a list of insinuations and opinions.
Anybody at all interested where the money is coming from?
All I can say is that they’d better have some damned good evidence for those accusations. Because if they’re just working on their own say-so, then they are way, way over the line. Like elucidator said, that ad is harsh.
And Bush had better hope that A) he had absolutely nothing to do with that ad, or B) those charges will be backed up with solid documentary evidence.
Because if the people decide that this is just political dirty tricks, and they can trace the origin back to the Bush campaign, the blowback will be severe.
No matter what they put in the ads, it won’t help Bush. Because when they meet to debate, Kerry can look him straight in the eye and ask/demand:
I fought in Vietnam. Why didn’t you?
I protested against the Vietnam War. Why didn’t you?
You’re not as callousedly cynical as some people I know.
Kerry’s record of service in Vietnam stands on its own irrespective of the opinions of anyone. As does his record of opposing the way the war was conducted after he got out.
All this crap about who among his fellow service members are for him or against him is just that - crap.
Everyone has supporters and detractors. For example, if you read Gen. Omar Brandley’s book A General’s Story the message is clear that he didn’t like George Patton who he considered a glory grabber and thought him weak on logistics for someone in his command position. Nevertheless, Patton should be judged on his accomplishments which were considerable and downgraded for his weaknesses as a commander based on his record and not what Bradley thought.
Likewise with Kerry.
No chance on A, the money/connection trail leads to Republican political operatives in Texas (Lord, why is it always Texas? Arkansas got assholes, Connecticut got assholes…) Who are connected to Bush, but not connected to Bush.
As for solid evidence, well, that’s the beauty part, ey? There’s damned little to prove! Think now! What did the ad say that could be proved or disproved! Nothing! The doctors says he didn’t deserve the purple heart, he know because he treated the wound. Yet we have testimony that as far as the purple heart was concerned, a wound was a wound was a wound. Its his opinion!
Another guy mentions the “Bronze Star” action, saying something like “it didn’t happen that way”. That his recollection. He’s not suggesting anything proveable or fasifiable! Its not like he says “JK said he was Fuk Luk on Jan 20 1969, but I have this hotel reciept for a Singapore whorehouse…”
None of the charges made in the ad are subject to proof, some of our more elementary weasel-thinkers would slither out in two seconds flat.
Listen to the ad a couple times, I think you’ll see what I mean. It appears “bigger” than it is because it is padded with entirely subjective viewpoints. Note also that some, but not all, of the testimony is from men who claim direct personal knowledge of Kerry.
From your lips to the ears. But this backstabbing was done by experts. GeeDubya can bail on this shit anytime he gets the feeling it may be expensive. Deny knowledge (plausible), feign dismay (laughable), and assert a sincere desire for civil behavior (certifiable).