Kerry “caused” veterans to* join* him in an organized way, they were called the Viet Nam Veterans Against the War.
I am someone that Kerry needed to convince to vote for him. He failed.
Too bad they were not all truthful veterans of the actual war in Vietnam.
Too bad he poorly chose his words at times.
Too bad he never repudated some of his foolish statements made at the time.
Too bad he tired to to play two cards: of honorable war hero alongside war protester, without realizing that his entire record would be reviewed.
Too bad he never released his complete military record.
Kerry fucked up in so many ways, and he STILL has not come completely clean on this one.
“He coulda been a contender”
And those guys in the Hanoi Hilton who were so damn pissed off - who are you to demand that their anger at Kerry is misplaced?
That’s the problem with asserting that someone has “absolute moral authority” on a particular issue - there’s always someone with similar authority on the other side of the aisle.
Kerry is a politician - as such has to explain lots of things others of us are spared from disclosing. I’m on record as deploring this to an extent - I’ve stated that the disclosure of military records shouldn’t be expected. But as to the rest of it - he always has the option of retirement, putting lis law degree to work, or going pro with the windsurfing.
Or he can answer questions as they come up.
I honestly do not know. Since this thread has devolved into Kerry Swiftboat (instead of the McCain POWMIA attack), I tried to do a search to see if there was anything new.
Pickens has told Kerry to release his complete military records (not the redacted ones he has partially released), and to provide the complete video (not just the still shots from the NT article).
If Kerry REALLY has nothing to hide, he can release it all. In politics, after all, you are guilty until proven innocent.
{please note that I did NOT vote for Bush either. This is not partisan sniping}
Not as they come up. As you repubs conjure them up. There is no natural progression from being in Nam and having to explain daily where he was. Did Bush answer any questions. ? Did his paperwork conveniently disappear. Total crap.
Just like trials, if you have enough money you can pay an expert to say anything you want. They got people to diminish McCains service to the country. They got people to diminish Kerrys service. Why,because Bush could not compete in that arena. So you slander your opponent and make him spend time and money defending bullshit positions. I repeat ,he owes you nothing and ignoring people like you is as kind as it can get.
(sigh)
I really don’t know how to make this any clearer.
These charges against Kerry were longstanding ones - they cropped up against him from some very outspoken critics and fellow veterans. Typical of this in its anger was a charge levied by General George S. Patton III, son of the more famous George Patton. And mind you, he said this during Kerry’s 1984 senate campaign:
From his obituary in the Boston Globe, 2004.
Now, we can dismiss this as an extreme statement by a crank - except that Patton wasn’t exactly a crank. He headed the 7th Army at one time, was a combat veteran of both Korea and Vietnam, and the fruit salad on his chest included a Purple Heart and two Distinguished Service Crosses. That would be two awards of the second highest award for bravery.
This compares rather favorably with Kerry’s service record on the face of it. So your method of assessing these charges based on who was “over there” and who wasn’t won’t quite work here. When a Patton goes against a Kerry, how do you tell who is lying? Do you count the medals?
No - you have to do other things, like assess the evidence and the character of the men in question. Doing so might lead you to ask them questions. None of that should be particularly surprising.
For the record, I think Patton wildly overstated the case against Kerry. But that doesn’t mean he didn’t have the right to criticize him in the first place.
You know, if I remember right, my cousin Clay served under him. Says he rims chihuahuas. Now, I think those charges are wildly exaggerated, and by bringing them to your attention I am, in no wise, associating myself with those remarks.
There are a lot of cranks who get high up in the service, I can and do dismiss anyone who deemed Kerrys service to be lacking and Bushies acceptable. Do you not know how convoluted your thinking is. ?
I do not know how to make it clearer. Bush used connections to avoid Nam. Kerry and McCain went and served. Case fucking closed. Difference clear.
Kerry came back and fought against the war, Good. It was a stupid wrong war ,like Iraq. I was marching in peace demonstrations. When we got the war ended we SAVED lives. If Kerrynwas part of that he saved lives he did not cost lives. Military leaders who always want fights to justify their training and lives,cost lives.
http://www.modernconservative.com/the_metablog/1422_John_McCain_has_been_slurred_in_the_most_scurrilous_fashion_.html
Heres an article in the lefty rag The Conservative refuting swiftboaters of McCain. You dirty pricks will eat your own to get power.
Really, I think yours is the thinking that is convoluted. After all, if the notion here is judging an argument based on who had “acceptable” service, how can you reject out of hand criticism from someone who won two Distinguished Service Crosses?
One of the guys who appeared in the final Swift Boat ad was Col. Bud Day, the most decorated service member since WWII. He’s a former POW, a recipient of both the Air Force Cross and the Medal of Honor. Was his service not acceptable?
So faced with this, we have to weigh the claims and arguments these men make on their individual strength. Their prior service doesn’t have much impact here - and I’m firmly on record on these boards in arguing that veterans’ status doesn’t insulate someone much in politics - nor should it.
As for “dirty pricks eating your own” - well, politics can get dirty, and the folks in your party often aren’t your friend. Wheeler is being attacked in turn by every conservative blog I read - and rightly so. So I don’t know what you mean to prove by this.
I note with sadness that a supporter of one of the candidates in the Tennessee 9th Congressional District Democratic primary sent a flier to Democratic voters that was shocking in its hatred and vitriol, and the candidate in question hasn’t disavowed it yet:
If there was an “eating your own award”, this would win. Nothing else that could happen this year could possibly top this. So please don’t preach to me about that subject - politics is brutal, primaries are especially so, and if you can’t handle it, you could just stick to needlepoint or golf.
That’s not a ‘charge,’ that’s an opinion.
Everyone’s agreed on what Kerry said and did to protest the war, AFAIK.
And Patton Jr. was also apparently too dumb to realize that the Constitutional language runs “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.”
And since this is the Pit, the same apparently holds for you. Dissent in wartime isn’t treason, and you’re unAmerican, as well as being a complete idiot, for participating in the painting of it as such.
Hold on. I said that Patton overstated his case, didn’t I?
I mention him for two reasons. First, critics of Kerry’s activities cropped up relatively early in his political career, and thus he should have seen these attacks coming. He could have blunted them by more openness and candor than he displayed (like, say, that of Bob Kerry that I mentioned, or that of Jim Webb, who hasn’t drawn criticism along these lines.)
Secondly, I mention him because it is a mistake to treat Kerry with kid gloves because of his prior service but go after his critics all out - even though many of them shared that service. Better to have Kerry answer the same questions.
Well, no, I see no reason why Kerry should be treated with kid gloves. If baseless accusations of cowardice, lying and treason is being “treated with kid gloves”, I’m definitely against it.
They went after Kerry because he opposed the war, and led a bunch of vets with the same viewpoint. Which went against a cherished myth, that all our soldiers were solidly in favor of the war. And he didn’t have to. He could have just gone along, futhered his career and made mild anti-war noises without raising any kind of stink, and not engendered the kind of hatred and rage he did.
He chose otherwise, and good for him.
The difference is that Kerry and the critics of Kerry are not being attacked on the same grounds, for the same things, or in the same areas, so there’s no comparison.
No one is saying that General Patton III exaggerated his performance reviews to get promoted to command the 7th Army, or that his Purple Heart was self-inflicted. No one accused Col. Day of lying about the circumstances that led to his being awarded the Medal of Honor.
But all the attacks on Kerry focus not on his positions after the war, but on accusations that he exaggerated and lied about his military service and the events that led to his being decorated (you do remember all those “purple heart band aids” at the Republican Convention, don’t you?).
Had Kerry’s critics said “he may have served honorably, even heroically, but after the war he did things that we consider actively harmful to the men in uniform”, that’d be one thing. That would, in fact, be more equivalent to what those who “attack” those critics are saying (“General Patton III was a good and honorable soldier, but he was wrong to the point of bizarrity in his statements on Kerry”).
But that’s not what’s happening here, is it?
You found Bush and the neocons compelling. It was not about Kerry.
Sure. The RNC had to put the kibosh on that one fast. I thought that was a really stupid move.
Still, if you look at all of the criticisms of the Swift Vets, you’ll note that they indeed had opinions of Kerry’s antiwar activism - and this was sure fair game.
And you’ll note, this is what Patton was talking about, and Bud Day as well.
Dunno. That’s roughly my opinion, and I get raked across the coals for it here. So don’t assume much.
It was, and rightly so.
But that’s not what the Swift Vets (and the right-wing bloggers and commentators) focused on. There was a hell of a lot more talk about Kerry wounding himself, or killing an unarmed Vietnamese boy, than there was about his postwar activism.
I think maybe the problem is the association of the Swift Vets with those attacks on Kerry’s record, and not on his activism, so when you talk about the Swift Vets (whatever your intention), that’s the thing everyone focuses on. The Swift Vets poisoned the well to such a degree that it’s hard to use them as support for ANYTHING, because anything they say will be colored by what ELSE they’ve said.
Plus, an article (linked from here? I can’t remember right now, for some reason) about Kerry and the Swift Boat thing mentioned that he has now authorized the full release of his military records. The article also mentioned that there’s now evidence for things like his Cambodia mission, but it didn’t go into much detail, so I have no idea how strong that “evidence” is.
Eh. Same as before - he “released” them insofar as he let some others look at them - including his biographer and certain selected print outlets that he vetted first. It’s not as if he’ll let you or I look at all of them, and he refused requests of other newspapers (including the Washington Post) to have a looksee.
Again, I don’t care much about that - I’m not releasing my records to anybody, uncontroversial as they are. But again, this illustrates a point - Kerry indicated he’d release them, and then didn’t really release them.
Not much candor there. It would have been better had he flat out refused to release them and stood on the principle of that.
Ah, here we go. It was first linked by gonzomax in post 62 in this thread.
“Mr. Kerry has signed forms authorizing the Navy to release his record — something he resisted during the campaign”, the article says.