One result of this whole Swift Boat mess is the revelations we have had about the inherent lack of integrity in the Navy’s methods and practices regarding record keeping, judging and honoring service members. A layperson like myself probably tends to extend this to all branches of the service, but perhaps that is just me. Prior to this, I wouldn’t have known about the huge numbers of purple hearts given out, nor the inflation in citations of valor. Both of those things illustrate how little regard I should have for them. I wouldn’t have known to look so dubiously upon official records, and that one person could write an entire set of reports and get himself medals. I wouldn’t have known that I should discount the opinions of a man held by those who served most closely with him. I wouldn’t have known that a positive evaluation by his superiors probably was damnation by faint praise. I wouldn’t have known to be as suspicious about a man’s service record as I probably should be. Thanks Swift Vets and supporters - it’s been an eye opening experience.
That’s a mighty curious construction, there, Shayna. Let’s see if I can paraphrase:
Shayna: “John Kerry had glowing fitreps!”
Mr. Moto: “I’m a Navy veteran, and have some experience with these things. These fitreps have some major problems.”
Shayna: “I don’t care!”
Sorry, Shayna, but you were the one who brought it up.
Personally, I don’t think this whole Vietnam business matters one way or the other. It’s certainly no qualification for office. If it were, as I said before, we’d be voting for Bush I, Dole, or Clark and barring others from running.
I don’t know if there is an accepted term for what I’m talking about here, so I’ll just make one up (I’m officially designated as “creative” by a retired English teacher, I get to do stuff like that…)
“Combat envy”
Its creepy to think about, creepy to talk about, but it exists.
Anyone with the remotest familiarity with things military will verify that service in combat is the desiderata of any officer candidate, or at least any such with career aspirations. I remember this being discussed relative to Viet Nam, how so many young junior officers were clamoring to get where they could have “their ticket punched”, it contributed to the lack of experienced officers.
It may be the root of the entirely creepy phenomenon of men so eager to be taken as combat veterans, they create entirely seperate personas. One famous instance appeared on 60 Minutes just one eon ago, about this fellow who was going around giving lachrymose patriotic speeches and heart-rending episodes from a war he never saw, in a place he’d never been.
Witness the story recounted earlier, how Lyndon Johnson connived with Gen. McArthur to get some utterly unearned combat certification.
If you read mystery stories and stuff like that, you may have noticed it there as well. How many of the more recent “private eye” types, cop types, colorful rogue types…are getting well on in years, considerably older than the type used to be portrayed as. Because in order for the author to sketch in an underpinning of gravitas without dragging the reader through too much backstory, they make him a combat vet. Which meant Viet Nam. (Though I suppose we’ll be introduced some day to a hard-boiled dick who’s seen too much on the beaches of Grenada…)
So now we’re talking about men well into the Yusta Years ("…stairs didn’t yusta be this steep, didn’t yusta prefer a nap to a beer…")
A particularly sardonic friend of mine once remarked that he thought the reason so few Viet Nam vets talked about thier experiences was that they preferred to let your imagination run wild than tell you the prosaic truth of specializing in the front-loaded, manually operated Type 36-A filing cabinet.
I have watched Kerry for some time, not obsessively, but paying attention as he went along. I remember being mildly impressed and pleased that he didn’t play the card much, perhaps for good reason. And I was a bit disappointed when he began to bring it so much to the fore. I think “combat envy” is a particularly morbid kind of romanticism, I’d prefer a man who will not exploit it.
But it works. Wish it didn’t, but it does. And we won’t beat these people playing nice. Not that the Republicans won’t play nice, they will, so longs they ain’t losin’.
The result, of course, is that the top layers of our power structure tend to represent combat veterans in a way that does not reflect the culture at large. I’m not at all sure this is a good thing, but that is too big a question to take a bite out of, and then walk away.
Elvis - I find it hard to believe you don’t know how politics works. It’s a GOOD thing to be on a politician’s good side, to give him visible, public support, in case you want something from him/her later.
Also, there is the small fact that partisans support their brethren, unless they’re running against them in a primary…
One needs to be as skeptical of “Honest Politicians” as one is skeptical of “UFOs.” So far there’s no hard evidence for either.
Clearly, you can’t, seeing as how you have misrepresented my argument entirely. I never once claimed, or characterized, John Kerry’s fitreps as being “glowing,” or any other grand adjective. If you’re going to attempt to recreate my argument, at least look back at my actual posts, instead of using your faulty memory.
Here, I’ll make it easy on you – here’s every post I’ve made on this particular issue:
Post #1
Post #2
Post #3
Post #4
Based on what I’ve actually expressed, the paraphrase would go like this:
Shayna: It was the SBVs bringing Kerry’s military record to light that caused me to come to like him, as opposed to just seeing him as merely an alternative to Bush.
Mr. Moto: “I’m a Navy veteran, and have some experience with these things. These fitreps are in secret code and really portray him as Merely Mediocre. There’s nothing Outstanding there.”
Shayna: “Mediocre is FINE BY ME. It’s a far fucking cry better than DIDN’T BOTHER TO SHOW UP!”
[/Paraphrase]
Personally, I don’t think this whole Vietnam business matters one way or the other, either. It’s certainly no qualification for office. Notice how I outlined all the ISSUES that would be causing me to actually CAST MY VOTE for John Kerry in the above-linked Post #1. I am NOT voting for him BECAUSE of his military accolades, in spite of the fact that they make me like and respect him more, and perhaps have a bit more confidence in him, than I did before I read them.
And that is at least the 3rd time I’ve said as much! So now can we move on, or are you going to beat Kerry’s mediocrity horse until it’s glue?
I’ve seen the exact opposite interpretation of Kerry’s fitreps from Mr Moto’s. A blogging vet went throught the various records and decided that, even after accounting for the Navy’s inflated language, Kerry’s records were still very good.
I don’t believe that this is the original one I read, but it covers fairly similar ground.
Is anyone arguing that some superiors didn’t try to cover up atrocities committed in Vietnam? Weren’t there examples of punitive measures taken against some of the vets who reported atrocities?
Is anyone saying that Kerry’s testimony before Congress was an insult to all vets?
Is anyone saying that all peace activists mistreated the vets when they returned from their tours of duty?
There were others who testified before Congress about atrocities. Did all of them have political motives?
I think that the Kerry campaign made his experiences in Vietnam an issue because a strong defense is a still larger issue. He had shown his willingness to put his life at risk in defense of this country. Is anyone arguing that his life was never at risk?
Why isn’t it an insult to vets to suggest that metals and “excellent” ratings don’t really mean all that much because they are easy to get?
I hope that was a whoosh. It’s a good thing to be on the *winner’s * good side, if you’re going to play the game at all, which these guys didn’t need to. Let’s see how that works here for, let’s say, Elliott:
A: Kerry wins. Elliott gets nothing but scorn from the winner.
B. Bush wins. Elliott is established as a liar. Bush doesn’t dare do shit for him, knowing how bad it looks. Not a win here, either.
Either way, nobody trusts him or does shit for him.
I asked how he could support Kerry in 1996 and oppose him now, if he (or any of the Swiftees who’ve endorsed him in past campaigns) the partisan you say? Did he change teams without moderating his partisanship?
Hentor, your objection to the Navy’s “lack of integrity” seems overblown. Certainly some individuals lack it, as the Swiftees’ example shows, but I’ve seen nothing to suggest that they had any less systematic integrity than the average large bureaucracy, and even more than most.
elucidator, that “combat envy” you mention is certainly real, as Dubya “Bring it on” Bush’s example shows. I’d like to expand it further to suggest that sometimes it’s “adulation envy” - veterans do have a special position in society even if they try to put it behind them. Parades, holidays, mundanities like civil service test points and college tuition, and even knowing that those who haven’t offered their own lives have some reverence for those who have. I do notice the occasional obituary for a man in his eighties that is 90% about his WW2 service, with maybe 2 sentences about the rest of his life, and compare that to obits that have to be filled with details about the man’s 40 years at the widget factory. I do think that that respect is what many of the sixtyish generation feel they’re missing about having avoided Vietnam, even if they’re in fact alive to feel it.
I know of a case of it developing late in life. My late grandfather was a WW1 vet and lifelong American Legion member. He simply refused to speak about the war itself after returning, ever, although he was free with stories about basic training and his buddies and the ship voyage to France. Perhaps he talked with his friends at regimental reunions, we don’t know, all we know is that he *once * let it slip that his fresh-from-the-States unit, full of naive teenage farm boys, arrived at the Marne just in time to be assigned to burial duty. Even as his mind started to disappear when he passed 100, his conversations would still be about his Army days and almost nothing else.
But I digress - even until his death, he was proud to put on his Legion cap and ride in the July 4th parades, saluting back on behalf of all his departed friends. But there was another man his age, who one day presented himself to the parade committee as also being a WW1 vet, in his nineties, and got the same treatment. We found out later that he had never served at all, just that his family was indulging his wish to have done something more with his life. We never did decide whether to feel anger or pity toward the old guy before he died.
The Swiftees had their own experiences similar to Kerry’s during the war, but they put it behind them afterward. Kerry embraced his experiences, strengthened his understanding, and used it toward a necessary end, ennobling himself in a way that they could not share. Their reaction might well be to try to remove that extra aura he has, out of the normal human hatred of feeling inferior in any way. They may just be jealous of him.
Sorry if it didn’t come through, but it was an intentionally overblown and largely sarcastic effort to make a point. The integrity I was referring to was the reliability of the system itself. Perhaps because I had to re-write it due to a failure to find the server at posting time…
Anyway, it was meant to illustrate the line that the Swift Vets and folks like Mr. Moto have to walk between savaging John Kerry’s record on the one hand, and calling into question virtually every aspect of Navy record keeping, evaluation, and recognition of valor on the other. I am sure that veterans do not wish to tarnish the service, but when every bit of Kerry’s record is called into question, at some point one begins to wonder what can be taken at face value about someone’s service history. These vets would have us believe that personal accounts are useless, official records cannot be trusted, medals may not reflect valor, opinions of colleagues can be dismissed, and the like, when it comes to John Kerry, but that it stops there. This becomes more and more tenuous as the line is played out.
I don’t envy their dilemma, but then again, they took it upon themselves.
For my part, I choose to believe that these things can be trusted, until there is compelling evidence to the contrary. I think I have mentioned in the past the Bronze Star my father won in Europe during WWII. He used to understate his heroism by telling us only that he won it for getting his pants caught in barbed wire. I choose to believe that he was in fact showing humility, and not telling the whole truth.
Are you listening to yourself?
Jiminiey whiz, the guy served honorably in the Navy and all of a sudden you’ve got him down as Siddhartha.
Just saying he’s a better person than Elliott or O’Neill. You disagree?
Hentor, got it, we agree.
Let’s be a little clear on definitions here.
I haave evaluated Kerry’s fitreps fairly, as I know what fitrep language means. However, I have never called John Kerry’s heroism or his medal citations into question here, because I know what that means, too.
Some of you might recall that I posted a series of threads in MPSIMS honoring Afghanistan and Iraq war heroes. Why would I have done so if I had contempt for military medals or record keeping?
I have a lot of respect for John Kerry. It’s just properly placed respect. It’s not so inflated that I think he has any business being president.
Misquote, Elvis, I was responding to your comment that people who, well, I’ll just quote the whole thing I responded to:
I explain the glowing endorsements by getting on a politicians good side: to wit:
[
OK, looks like we don’t get each other’s humor. I shouldn’t pick on your spelling given my ability to mistype. We’ll have to agree to survive our slings and arrows. However, I’m not sure of your coding complaint. I like separating by using bold. Seems easier for me to read, being a medium aged old timer.
Now we’re into personal opinion, which is fine. Hard to prove but worth discussing. My position is that he brought this on himself by not apologizing to Veterans when he had the chance. Remember that he made a big public apology a number of years ago for his war crimes. There was only one reason to do this and that was to empty his closet of skeletons. He was certainly planning on leaving the Senate for something bigger.
The problem is he left one skeleton behind. His Jane Fonda impression did not go unnoticed. As I’ve said before, even Doonsbury picked up on his self promotion: Doonsbury Think back to how angry the Vets were when Jane Fonda apologized. You cannot deny this anger exists. These guys were still angry at her after all those years. I don’t think Kerry wanted to use his Veteran’s status for this reason and ultimately will blame his campaign manager for the mistake.
There’s also an interesting paradox over how soldiers were treated. If you talk to the Vets who went in at the beginning of the war they were treated like heroes. On the return trip they are spit on. Whose face are you going to remember, the anonymous spitter or Jane Fonda’s? When it’s one of your comrades in front of the camera there’s another level of betrayal attached to it.
I’ll also disagree with you on this. He was dating Kennedy’s, sailing with Kennedy’s nd he probably washed their dogs for all I know. I’ve read more than one article that say’s he was influenced by John F. Kennedy’s service when he changed over to Swiftboat duty. KERRY BIO And your logic that he didn’t want to spoil his love of aircraft just doesn’t fly with me. I know a lot of Airline Pilots who own their own planes just for the fun of it.
Slight hijack - The first, second and fourth apostrophes shouldn’t be there. You’re talking about more than one Kennedy, right? So you do the standard thing you do with all plurals, and just put an “s” on the end - “Kennedys”. Similarly, the third-person present form of a verb does not need an apostrophe either, so it should be “says”, eg “he does” or “she runs”.
This post brought to you by Anal Dopers for Grammatical Perfection.
Just as a point of order a pilot’s license has no expiration date.
I agree, that’s how I typed it the first time. The friggin software thought better. Shoulda, coulda, didna catch it. Anal Doper probing acknowledged and I am the humbler for it. I’m really bad at swapping out possessive pronouns ( “Their” for “They’re”).
URRRRR. Must… get… back…. on…topic. The Kerry bio is interesting to read. Kind of explains his personality.
Compassionate Og! So much bull-pucky, such a small shovel, all I have is the truth….
But first, an aside: I swear, the next time one of you guys tries to tie together Jane Fonda and John Kerry, I’m going to reach inside this monitor, all the way down the phone lines, grab your tongue and pull it out, wrap it around your neck and garrote you till your eyeballs stick out! Jane Fonda was an idiot! A pampered Hollywood moron who donned her radical commitments like putting on eye-liner. Its not that she was wrong, its that she was right for no good reason!
The reason she is thought to be a “leader” of the anti-war movement, even to this day, is that that’s what you were told! The anti-war movement was all drugged out hippies, Hollywood dipshits, and charter members of the Ho Chi Minh fan club. And we were all taking our marching orders from this odious dipshit who never missed a meal in her life. There was no Fox News at the time, it would have been redundant.
And when she went to N Viet Nam and posed for pictures in her oh-so-cunning little helmet: I coulda killed her, cheerfully. I could have explained it to Uncle Ghandi and he would have shrugged and said “Well, what could you do? Sure, non-violence, but you gotta be flexible…”
And I swear, next shit-for-brains who floats that crap about “spitting on returning vets”….I’ll find you. I’ll track you down.
It is a lie. It is an evil lie. I spent years in the anti-war movement, knew hundreds upon hundreds of people – even some of the Maoist morons described above. And none of them, not one, ever suggested for a moment that our soldiers were guilty of anything other than being misled, misused, and lied to. Just like we were. We knew them, they were our buddies, our brothers, our cousins, they weren’t heartless killers when they left here, when they left here they were strong, clean young men fresh from YMCA camp. What happened to them happened to them there. And it happened because the men who sent them there would not admit they fucked up! They let thousands die rather than admit the simple fact: they fucked it up. I saw that documentary about McNamara, and I thought: that man is either an atheist or very, very afraid to die.
So please….I know its tough for you guys these days, what with people waking up, and all. But could you just retire that one lie? You don’t need it anymore, you’ve got creative minds working overtime, coming up with brand new bright ‘n shiny lies. Retire that one, OK?
So are you to tell me that soldiers weren’t spit on at all, elucidator? I’d like a cite for that breathtaking claim.
Also, I thought it was pretty well understood that Jane Fonda was using her celebrity to help the antiwar cause. Speaking at rallies, raising money, all that jazz. If she wasn’t a leader, she was cooperating with them well, at least at the outset.
It’s pretty easy to see how someone could identify her with the cause, since she was such a public spokesperson for it.
EX-FUCKING-SCUSE ME???
Jane Fonda NEVER apologised.
She said that she ‘regretted her actions.’ This is not an apology.
This is not saying, “I’m wrong, I apologise.”
This is saying, “Shit, I fucked up my career, now what do I do?”
Why am I so reactive about this? Must be a pissed-off VietNam veteran who has no love for traitors who go unpunished because of their social status.
“were?” Shit. Still are.
FUGIT, don’t mean nuthin’.
Snake, '68, 4th Division
US 52723285