Vets who served with Kerry cry foul

BTW, before any right-wingers start emailing me anti-Kerry stuff, please be sure to read the Snopes accounts on these:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/service.asp

The problem is he also has a lot of vets he served with in his camp who laud his heroism.

I think this is going to be one of those taboo subjects, not unlike questioning someone's "patriotism" and the minefield that becomes. If anything, it has to be a grass-roots effort to get at the truth, because if anyone on the Bush side utters a word about military service the floodgates open about his own.

I think it is pretty obvious, though, that Kerry's experiences in Vietnam weren't traditional. All the "I'm the next JFK" stuff is creepy. But with his medical records off-limits, and Bush in no position to throw stones, I think this sleeping dog will have to lie...

I don't know enough on this to know how much of it is usual political propaganda or not.

considering how well and thoroughly you vet other groups and how emphatically you castigate those who are seemingly stuck in 'attack for the sake of attack' mode, im surprised by your nonchalance regarding swiftboats for truth.   

cbs evening news' (5/13/04)  take on the so-called swift boats for truth group is representative of professional journalists who've researched the organization and its honorary chairman, ret adm roy hoffman--whose evaluations of kerry while they were both in vietnam were very favorable.  (hoffman was the ranking commander in charge of the swiftboat campaign while kerry was in vietnam.):

"But if you think this just a group of concerned veterans, think again. Some of the organizers have a track record of going after Democrats and Republican opponents of President Bush.

"We believe, based on our experience with him, that he is totally unfit to be the commander in chief," said veteran, John O'Neill.

That's the same John O'Neill who debated Kerry about Vietnam on "The Dick Cavett Show" in 1971. Back then he was handpicked by the Nixon administration to discredit Kerry.

The press conference was set up by the same people who tried to discredit John McCain when McCain faced George W. Bush for the Republican nomination in 2000.

It's the same strategy used to go after Georgia Sen. Max Cleland, who lost three limbs in Vietnam.

"That sticks in my craw, and it ought to stick in yours, because if you don't go to war, don't throw rocks at those who did," said Cleland."

one cant help but wonder about swiftboats for truth a disturbing record of attacking their brothers in arms to support a candidate who kept himself out of harm's way by playing the system and his running mate who, when asked about his 5 deferments, said "I had other priorities in the '60s." [McGrory, Washington Post, 7/27/00; Geyer, Chicago Tribune, 2/6/04; Arizona Republic, 1/22/04].   regrettably the group behind that site seems so motivated by rabid political partisanship they're willing to trash the reputations and service records of three men who served--and suffered as a consequence--their country honorably in time of war.

Afrter a cursory glance through the site, I didn't see any evidence that "overwhelmingly, they reject him," merely that the members of this particular organization reject him. What in particular were you thinking of when you said that?

From what I've read, of the people that served under him in his swift boat, all but one thought highly of him. That last one disliked him intensely. I don't know what his fellow officers thought.

 

However, I think it is very telling that so few people who served with him have any respect for him.

if by 'who served with him' you mean the entire set of vietnam era military personnel, you'd be correct in that statement. if you mean men who actually were under his command and personally saw action with him, you're mistaken.

the surviving members of his crews will be on stage with kerry tonight.   here's what one of them, fred short, had to say yesterday about kerry after a firefight: "I had to sit on my hands, I was shaking so hard…. He went to every man on that boat and put his arm around them and asked them how they're doing. I've never had an officer do that before or since. That's the mettle of the man, John Kerry."

today's la times reported:

Jim Wasser, the radar man on one of the Swift boats Kerry commanded, offered perhaps the most vivid testimonial when he hushed a raucous veterans' caucus this week by saying: "If John Kerry would come up to us today and said that he had one more Swift boat mission, and we were going to hell, he would have a full crew."

Brad,

I appreciate this article, but I personally think you lose a little punch at the end when you compare his service to Bob Dole and Bush senior (both of whom were true war heroes), given the fact that neither of those two men are running.

Granted, Kerry has used his military career as his ace in the hole, but so have many other presidents through history (Kennedy, Eisenhower, U.S. Grant, Andrew Jackson, to name but a few). That is simply the nature of politics.

Granted, Kerry has used his military career as his ace in the hole, but so have many other presidents through history (Kennedy, Eisenhower, U.S. Grant, Andrew Jackson, to name but a few). That is simply the nature of politics.

Maybe so, but this is more like his pair of threes in the hole, whereas Kennedy et al. were sitting on at least pocket Jacks and in some cases a flush or a full house.

The telling bit is that he wanted a purple heart for a self-inflicted wound. This guy was laying political groundwork even then. When he came back to the US he immediately began to parley all of this into political capital anyway he could. To the hawkshe was "a 3 purple heart awardee" to the anti-war crowd he said he "committed atrocities" and "threw away his medals" (or others medals depending on which interview he was in). This guy is 90 faced puke.

May be I am missing something here, so please help me get to the bottom of why this makes a differences. After three and half years in and out of Viet Nam (1966-1969) and a full year in country (Dec 18, 1968 to Dec 17, 1969) all I came home to was a nation who wanted nothing to do with this war. A nation that was looking for a way out regardless of how bad we looked. At the time it was truely depressing to most of us who volunteer to serve for something we (not all) thought at the time was the right thing to do. Some of us learned as the years rolled by that this was a war that should not have been. That doesn't mean we are sorry for serving only that this war was something that should not have been fought by U.S. Military personnel.

So please expleain by a war that was without a doubt totally wrong and unpopular should, or can mean so much during an election that is taking place almost thirty years after it ended. Also, didn't we just have a president that served not time in the military, "William Jefferson Clinton.?"

Lee

That doesn't mean we are sorry for serving only that this war was something that should not have been fought by U.S. Military personnel.

absolutely no need for apologies on your parts.  those who should have done it never would and never will i guess.

im not sure bout the relevance of that war to this election because there arent many direct similarities with these exceptions: its been driven by the same sort of stubborn hubris and inability to see the world in anything other than black or white.

I appreciate this article, but I personally think you lose a little punch at the end when you compare his service to Bob Dole and Bush senior

I think Dole and Bush Sr. are relevent because many of the same people who are arguing that Kerry is a superior candidate because of his war record are the same people who said that Clinton's lack of military service shouldn't be used as an issue when he was running against Bush Sr. and Dole. (John Kerry was one of those people.)

If someone wants to question one of kerry's purple hearts, then how do they explain away the other ones or the medals he received for bravery. For that matter, how did he get any kind of shrapnel wound without being in harms way. Besides, isn't it true that he still walks around with shrapnel in his leg to this day.

Kerry has a history of not telling the complete truth. read this..... http://slate.msn.com/id/2079783/
This ios what Jihn Kerry is all about, take from a citizen of the Peoples Republic of Massachusetts

Kerry has a history of not telling the complete truth. read this..... http://slate.msn.com/id/2079783/
This is what John Kerry is all about, take from a citizen of the Peoples Republic of Massachusetts

"If someone wants to question one of kerry's purple hearts, then how do they explain away the other ones or the medals he received for bravery."

He got them in his short stint of commiting "atrocities"...

"There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals." -John Kerry on NBC's "Meet the Press" April 18, 1971

Now, of course, atrocities are something he seems to want to build a campaign on...

Problem is: Too many people confuse John K. with Senator Bob Kerrey who was multi-decorated in 'Nam.

Anything that foul shows this man has no charachter, for the simple reason that he is such a glory hound that he had the balls to ask for a purple heart after wounding himself with a rocket grenade.

Read This

WHAT THE F&@# ARE YOU HIDING KARRY? I certantly dont want someone who has ANYTHING to hide RELATED to the United States Army and any of its branches, to COMMAND the army and make ANY decisions, so will he come out?!

draginol, you tore into fahrenheit 9/11 for misleading statements, but now you feature an article full of misleading statements.

the link you posted to snopes shows he won a bronze and medal star for major heroism in combat like puling a guy out of the water while bleeding and in great pain* yet you have to post stuff like "what service" and that the valor noise is based on so little.

citation:
"Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry directed his gunners to provide suppressing fire, while from an exposed position on the bow, his arm bleeding and in pain and with disregard for his personal safety, he pulled the man aboard. Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry then directed his boat to return to and assist the other damaged boat to safety. Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry's calmness, professionalism and great personal courage under fire were in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service."

* that citation was signed by admiral zumwalt, whose son signed the anti-kerry letter in his dad's name.


here's another snopes.com link that was posted on the day after you posted your article.

snopes.com on this very issue:
---------------------------
"Although the men quoted above are often identified as "John Kerry's shipmates," only one of them, Steven Gardner, actually served under Lt. Kerry's command on a Swift boat. The other men who served under Kerry's command continue to speak positively of him:"
---------------------------

several examples on their site

---------------------------
"Many of Kerry's Vietnam commanders and fellow officers also continue to speak positively of him:"
---------------------------

several examples blah blah

----------------------------
"How well all of these men knew John Kerry is questionable, and discrepancies between how some of them described Kerry thirty-five years ago and how they describe him today suggest that their opinions are largely based upon political differences rather than objective assessments of Kerry's military record. For example, Rear Admiral Roy Hoffman is quoted above, yet the Los Angeles Times reported: "

. . . Hoffman and Kerry had few direct dealings in Vietnam. A Los Angeles Times examination of Navy archives found that Hoffman praised Kerry's performance in cabled messages after several river skirmishes.
---------------------------------------




foxnews:
here's a story on bush. kerry, even leaving vietnam on the "wounded three times and you can request to leave" rule, still kicks bush's ass.

--------------------------------------
Another question is why he was allowed to end Guard duty about six months early to attend Harvard Business School. Bush said Sunday that he had "worked it out with the military. And I'm just telling you, I did my duty."
--------------------------------------

I've been trying to read through this Swit Boat Veteran's For Truth, and I find the group interesting and informative (pretty good website, too). But I think most people feel to realize one thing when they criticize Kerry for "showing off" his Vietnam service. He's running for political office for pete's sake!!!

When you run for office, it is your job to present yourself in the best possible light. Everyone has their flaws, but when you run for office, of course you try to cover those up. You also naturally try to emphasize your qualities or experience that you think would appear favorable to potential voters. To a humble person, this can't be enjoyable, but it is a necessary part of your task to get elected, in order to achieve your objectives that can only be acheived once elected (for Kerry, I imagine his main objectives are protecting the environment, making the US respected around the world, managing national debt, advancing women's rights, based on what I read about him in the VERY beginning of his campaign.)

Kerry has said that he doesn't like talking about his Vietnam experience. He has also said many times that he personally decided a long time not to judge people based on the decisions they made 30+ years ago regarding Vietnam. In support of this, he has refrained from criticizing Bush for his choice to join the National Guard to avoid going to Vietnam. (Criticizing how he actually performed in the National Guard is another matter. Though he has NEVER, to my knowledge, called Bush a disserter or AWOL.)

Despite this dislike, Kerry (and especially his advisors) obviously realize that emphasizing it will greatly enhance his chances of getting elected. In fact, it proved to be ESSENTIAL and ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY for him to win the primary campaign.

When running for office, you often have to stretch the truth. Lying should not be excused, but sugar-coating, glossing over certain details, and even trying to prevent damaging information to get out are all understood and expected. I think its hard for people who have never run for politcal office to understand this and still respect someone when they realize the extent of it. I myself have never run for public office, but I know, for instance, what it is like to be an actor and have to repeatedly try out for a part. Your JOB in that case is to sell yourself as someone that you are not! People can also compare a political campaign to any experiences they've had applying for a job. Considering yourself sitting in that office interviewing with a perspective employer. If you are weak in some areas, you might hope they don't probe too deeply their with questions in that area. If you know you have some skill that they like, you emphasize that. Some people might even exaggerate a little. Lying again is never tolerated. But "selling yourself" is expected and required.

So the fact that during the DNC a big deal was made about Kerry's Vietnam service does not surprise me. It was the same during the beginning of the primary campaign. I noticed, however, that near the end of the primaries, it played lesser of a role. Once the general campaign gets into the meat and potatoes of the issues, I think we'll hear less about it. After all, being a "war hero" won't alone get you elected president. But right now, the campaign is trying to get people in the general public to "get to know John Kerry," and from their perspective the best way this could go for them is if they know him as "a Vietnam war hero, turned tough prosecutor, with a long established record of public service in the Senate" ...and that's exactly how they played it! It's what they have to and should do to get him elected, and I don't blame them or disdain them one bit.

RG: You make a fair answer, but do you really think that people won't notice that he spoke twice as long about the flag as 4 terms as a Senator? I don't think people are so simple as to let the kind of gloss you describe blind them. It is glaringly obvious that he KNOWS what will happen if the American people start dissecting his behavior during the seemingly unimportant thirty plus years after he got back from Vietnam.

In my opinion, this campaign hasn't even heated up yet, or Bush's campaign is incompetant. They've allowed him to get by on swiftboats and salutes so far, but I expect soon for there to be a plethora of items from his REAL resume to answer for, and he'll have to stand there and hold it, no matter how distasteful it is to him.

You make a good point as well, but my answer is YES, many people won't notice that he talked longer about the flag than his tenure in the senate. people will just remember, "he said such nice things about the flag. he must be a great american." it is mainly only the pundits on fox news and CNN's crossfire (and the pundits on JU) who will dissect his speech and compare number of words said about this topic and that topic. and the number of people that actually tune in to shows like Bill Reilly and Crossfire is actually quite low compared to the entire voting population.

Yes, the campaign will pick apart the details of people's records, particularly during the debates. Kerry will probably give long-winded goofy sounding explanations to back up his record, just like he did in the primaries. Bush will give simple answers and Kerry will probably ask Bush questions about things Bush doesn't know anything about, and he'll end up sounding Dumb. So basically it will come down to Goofy vs. the Dummy. Should be fun to watch! One of the debates will be at my university, so i'm excited to possibly be a part of it.

RG: yeesh, you are just swimming with optimism...

No, I think you are mistaking the average American with the average voter. If that had been the case I don't think Bush would have been even close in 2000, because you could have made the same points then.

The average person will let those things gloss the rest over, but I think the average voter, the median of the 51.3% that showed up last time, at least watches the news to hear these things. So, if at least 26% or so are smart enough to see through the smoke and look at the facts, I think it will be hard for Kerry.

I would not have made the same points for Al Gore that I did for John Kerry. In fact, I would make the same argument for the reason that Bush did win in 2000.

You'd be surprised how poorly informed the average voter is. Yes, they might watch the news, but they watch CBS Nightly news, local news, and other network programs. Do you know what the evening audience of O'Reilly factor is (which I believe is the most watched of those pundit shows)?

I think the highly educated will on a whole vote for Kerry. The moderately educated will mostly vote for Bush. And the poorly educated will probably be a near even split. I'm not trying to comment on who is better. It's just the way it is.

"Kerry will probably give long-winded goofy sounding explanations to back up his record, just like he did in the primaries. Bush will give simple answers and Kerry will probably ask Bush questions about things Bush doesn't know anything about, and he'll end up sounding Dumb. "

Sounds like 2000 to me.

"I think the highly educated will on a whole vote for Kerry. "

I think if you run off a list of the most noteworthy Republicans and the most noteworthy Democrats in the last 40 years or so, you'll not find any preponderance of education on the Democratic side. If you apply that to non-politicians, the result would be even more grim for Democrats, I think.

In my experience, unless you are talking about complex sciences, advanced "study" relies a lot more on your ability to assimilate and regurgitate. If Republicans are "sheep" as everyone says, people who nod their way through a post-grad degree would be far more apt to vote Republican...