Also Fox News is taking on this anti-Kerry group:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200405050004
I’m not sure how effective this group would eventually be. It could be counterproductive, leading more people from Kerry’s Vietnam past, pro-people, to step forward.
So, Apos is above the fray. He will hold himself to a higher standard, only citing from strictly neutral sources, nary a slanted source to be found.
Oh, wait. The first line from the ‘About us’ page from Washington Monthly:
Well, so much for that. :rolleyes:
So long as Kerry keeps harping about his Vietnam service, it is a issue. Humorously enough, it is an issue that is not exactly helping him.
The scary thing, Fear, is that the pole report says that 52% of the people polled say that they approve of the President’s handling of the war against terrorism. Whether that includes the invasion and occupation of Iraq is hard to tell but if so it means that a lot of people are not paying attention or have bought the line that invading and occupying Iraq has something to do with preventing another 9/11.
This is really weak. There are places to attack Kerry, but attacking his war record is a sure-fire backfire for Bush-backers.
Unclebeer, I agree that it’s lame to rebut attacks against Bush with attacks against Clinton: Clinton and Bush were never in a race against one another. But right now, we’re being asked to decide between two candidates, and the question that faces us is which candidate is better. It is completely appropriate to compare the two. If someone brings up Kerry’s support for the Patriot Act, it is totally appropriate for me to counter with Bush’s proposal of the act, because we’re comparing the two candidates.
Inasmuch as that’s true, in the last cycle, it was entirely appropriate for you to respond to attacks against Bush with similar attacks against Gore.
Daniel
I have generally been fair to John Kerry in these boards regarding his military service. I regard his service as honorable and heroic.
However, any servicemember or veteran knows you can’t judge a man’s true character by what’s written on his service evaluation or fitness report.
When those things are written, pure office politics and favoritism come into play in the rankings. Also, the faults of officers and enlisted personnel are often suppressed in order to provide an incentive for retention. This leads to a lot of “paper heroes”.
Anyone who chooses to use these fitreps to assess John Kerry’s character should understand this aspect of military, and especially naval, culture.
All this, understand, is not a slam on John Kerry. It is just a warning that the fitreps won’t tell the full story.
Mr. Moto, are you suggesting that their statements of recent days, when they have been organized together by political agents, in the context of a presidential race, should be given more credence than what they wrote at the time? That “pure office politics and favoritism” were more influential on what they wrote back then than pure politics and favoritism are on what they are saying today?
I guess one man’s (or group of “men”) flip flop is another man’s honor and duty.
It’s not surprising that most of the people involved are Republicans - Republicans are heavily over-represented in the military. But aren’t there ANY Democrats on this list? What would it take for a Democrat to sign a letter stating that the Democratic leader is unfit to be CinC?
As for records… Kerry has only released a partial transcript. This group’s main purpose is to get Kerry to authorize that Navy to release all his official records. Methinks they know something that’s in there.
And they aren’t just mad about his anti-war activities at home. One of the charges against Kerry is that his purple hearts (at least one of them, anyway) are undeserved. They think Kerry scammed his way out of Vietnam, collecting three Purple Hearts as quickly as he could so he could bug out. And he did leave after four months. Myself, I have no way of evaluating any of that, and I would tend to give someone with a Silver Star the benefit of the doubt. But these guys seem awfully adament, and they are using some pretty strong language. And there are officers of every grade here all the way up to Admiral.
I don’t think this can be spun away as nothing more than Republican smear tactics. These guys mean it. They can still be wrong, but they believe in their cause.
As for O’Neill, it’s easy to spin him as a Republican shill, but the facts are a little different. For instance, much is made of his use by the Nixon White House in 1971, but the fact is that in 1971 O’Neill was a Democrat who had voted for Humphrey in 1968, and the Nixon administration only latched on to him after he had already made a name for himself opposing Kerry’s antics.
It doesn’t matter. He left the service well-respected by all accounts and well decorated. Soldiers under his command and his superiors have come out many times in the past 30 years to say that he was a good leader and a good soldier. He showed bravery and was concerned about those in his command. This is all well-documented.
The thing that apparently gets their goat is that he was a vocal critic of the Nixon White House and the war at the time. Many of these same guys have come out and defended Kerry’s war actions. Only one guy, Gardner, is claiming that Kerry did something improper in the field of battle – Gardner was wounded and Gardner claims that Kerry retreated under fire to seek medical attention for him. This is disputed on a number of fronts, and some of these same guys have spoken against Gardner.
Nobody here is crticizing Kerry’s actual service; the criticism all stems from what he did after the war. So I ask again, anybody: Does protesting a war automatically make you unfit for office? Because as near as I can tell, this is what these guys are trying to say.
It seems they are saying he was a whistle blower and therefore he can’t be “decent” ? That is what it seems… plus some wierd shrapnel giving him a purple heart. Seems pretty sketchy at best.
Gotcha. Don’t trust the documents written at the time. Go with the documents written 30 years after the fact which often contradict what was written at the time. (See Alien’s post about an unusually feisty Alan Colmes). Go with the documents of… well, let’s just say “questionable” political motives.
Thanks for the advice!!
[sub]On preview: Yeah, what Hentor the Barbarian said…[/sub]
I’m saying a Navy fitness report or evaluation isn’t an accurate reflection of a man’s character. I’ve known some total backstabbing assholes who, on paper, looked like the Second Coming. I’ve also known some fine sailors who, because they were unpopular within their particular chain of command, were screwed by their paperwork specifically with the intention of forcing them out.
Any veteran can tell you similar stories.
This isn’t to say that this is necessarily the case with John Kerry. But if most of John Kerry’s peers and superiors in Vietnam are against him now, their stories should be, at the very least, listened to and weighed. The fitreps aren’t, by themselves, sufficient defense against their charges.
Sam
The Purple Heart debate is inane. It wasn’t up to Kerry to decide whether he got a Purple Heart or not, he had a piece of shrapnel sticking out of his arm, and he got the doctor to remove it. They handed those medals out by the thousands in Vietnam, and as you mention, he got three other ones and the Silver Star.
http://www.swiftvets.com is a 527 group, a political action committee, which was strictly formed to mobilize against Kerry in this presidential race. We should make no presumptions that they are less biased or less politically motivated than other 527s like moveon.org. Their “entire chain of command” represents 5 people, including Hoffman who founded the group. They claim to have hundreds of signatures, but they have fewer than 10 names listed.
These guys force us to draw the comparison between Kerry and Bush. There is no front that Bush can come out favorably (service, valor, attendance, volunteering for duty, even free release of military records) except that Kerry spoke out against the war and Bush never did. Don’t doubt that this is what this group is about. They are still mad because 30 years ago, someone who had seen and tasted war came home to be a very powerful symbol of the anti-war movement.
Obviously, for there to (1) be one, and (2) for him to believe it to be true. Or are you simply upset that the people who knew him best there aren’t piling on the same GOP bandwagon that you’re saluting here?
Methinks you should know better how partisan politics works down here, friend, after witnessing the Get Clinton years. The purpose of this Republican group has nothing to do necessarily with finding facts, but with creating the *impression * that Kerry has something to hide. An impression that the gullible among the electorate will buy, and respond to with thoughts like “Methinks they know something that’s in there.” For pity’s sake, use a little skepticism once in a while.
And does any of them, any at all, have any better idea of the facts behind the 3 Purple Hearts than you or any of us do? No. They don’t. They weren’t there, they didn’t see the wounds, they weren’t in the actions involved. Ponder that for a moment, before using the “appeal to authority” fallacy any more. The rank of an person ignorant of the facts in no way makes him less ignorant, right?
There are partisan hacks who believe so devoutly in their cause, facts be damned, that they don’t recognize what other principles they’re violating, or that others who disagree deserve any respect at all. Surely you understand that about human nature as well.
Shit. How much different a person are *you * now than you were 33 years ago? Has anything changed for you? Have *you * learned anything? Why not allow the possibility that Kerry and O’Neill might be different now, too? Can people still nurse grudges over that long a period? Of course.
So what’s here, after scraping off the determined, even unconscious, partisan spin? The fact that not everyone Kerry has ever interacted with likes him. well, boo friggin’ hoo.
Do you mean you really don’t see the difference? I guess that makes a perfect GW supporter.
Clinton was a lame duck and irrelevant to the election campaign. Bush is an active candidate to continue with four more years of the sort of Pyrrhic success for which he is famous.
And as fighting, he-man, GW supporters like to say, the best defense is a good offense.
Learn to live with it.
Sam Stone:
Okay, I really don’t think it’s necessary to point out to you how asinine it is to bitch about release of anything. And I think that you know full well that there’s nothing whatsoever “in there”. Instead, you’re trying to do precisely what O’Neill and his crew are trying to do. And, if I may say so, all y’all are failing.
Yes, they most assuredly are mad about his anti-war activities. And I would hazard a guess that they are mad about nothing else at all. And accusing him of scamming his way out really only works if Kerry was involved in writing the rules that allowed one to leave early. Or do they (and by extension you) want to debate everyone who did the same thing?
And I’m sure that Nixon meant it when he made derogatory statements about Jews, and I have always firmly believed that Reagan meant it when he made reference to “welfare queens”. Hell, that Barbara Bush meant it when she called a certain someone a “bitch”. Meaning it means, well, nothing. And a lot of causes have been historically believed in that were crap. Supply side economics springs immediately to mind.
Waste
Here’s an interesting analysis of Kerry’s military evaluations (search for the string “Comparing the junior officer evals of Bush and Kerry”). The blogger in question has a military background and claims to be able to detect an evaluation that damns with faint praise.
He ends up sounding fairly impressed with Kerry’s evaluations – apparently they are considerably more enthusiastic than is required for the standard boilerplate evaluation.
As for the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, have they actually given concrete examples of their objections to Kerry? I went to their website yesterday, and except for their brief statement that they though Kerry was unfit, I didn’t find any supporting statements or specific examples of behavior. Do they have a specific complaint, or are they just miffed that Kerry went back to the U.S. and started being vocally anti-war?
But wait, you unequivocally said that there were Democrats in the group. What gives? Why did you say there were Democrats? Are there any Democrats among these “men?”
Oh man! Beautiful. This is so much like the “smile of David Kay” that you were so sure meant that he knew there were WMD in Iraq. That was you, wasn’t it? Were these guys smiling that same smile?
:dubious:
Well, as you point out, they would have a way of evaluating that. All they need do is demonstrate it. As I said to you before, “Bring it on.”
Is it their big smiles that make you so sure?
“One may smile and smile and be a villain.” - William Shakespeare
I sincerenly hope that Kerry wins this election. And i firmly believe that those Vets now slagging him off are doing so more for current political reasons than for anything to do with his actual service or command record.
That said, i do agree with the above-quoted comment by Sam. As someone who is fervently hoping that Bush gets kicked out on his lying, incompetent ass, i wish Kerry would get off his damn Vietnam War horse already and start talking about issues that really matter right now. If you start playing the “i’m more patriotic than you” game with Republicans, you’re nearly always in a no-win situation.
Exactly, and Kerry needs to realize that as much as anyone.