Why are people caring about this, Kerry whether you like it or not is a war hero, his medals indicate that. You are not going to turn back the clock 35 years to find out the real truth because the Vietnam war was a disgrace in every way. The real truth will never come out about that war, soldiers killed entire villages of people. There was no real leadership command anyway because they were fighting in thick jungle. Bush's real records will never be confirmed and the public will never know. I give Kerry at least some sympathy because what those soldiers went thru in that war was disgusting and the things that they saw will last a lifetime. He spoke about how bad the war was and the people needed to know that. I think both sides should stfu about the war records because you have skeptics on both sides and they should debate the real issues that affect Americans.

ya i agree its time to move on

I don't understand how Bush's National Guard records were and continue to be a huge deal for Bush's opponents, yet when it comes to Kerry's service records dealing with Vietnam and the validity of medals he recieved there we are to "move on."

This picture sums it up all too well. It was taken during a speech in which Kerry demanded that questions about his service in Vietnam be "taken off the table" when it comes to presidential campaigning.






Double standard, anyone?

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono I'm sorry if it seems I've mixed these two up. To me it really does not matter which one is in question, only if it is deserved. Right now there is enough "word of mouth" from both sides to make a case either way, so I'm going to reserve judgement until I can make a more informed decision. That said, do you know where I might find the medical records for his injuries that led to medals? I'd be interested in reading them.

There is most certainly enough "word of mouth" from both sides, however, the word of mouth from one side is laughable at best. The ONLY person who has any credibility or legitimacy at all to make the claims that he is making is Gardner. Not even Hoffman has any leftover credibility since his statements today directly contradict his actions in 1968 when he had no political motivation whatsoever to lie. Business Week summarized the situation quite succinctly:

quote:

REPUBLICAN RECOMMENDATION. Nine of the ten Swift-boat comrades who served on Kerry's boat have showed up at his side to campaign for him and defend him. They're the ones with the most direct knowledge of what happened and they confirm that Kerry deserved the Bronze Star for his leadership during a skirmish on March 13, 1969. So does Jim Rassmann, the retired Los Angeles County cop who introduced Kerry at the Democratic Convention. Rassmann is a Republican, for gosh sakes. He came forward on his own and offered to campaign for Kerry, whom he credits with saving his life that day. Rassman also recommended Kerry for the Silver Star, one of the nation's highest honors for bravery under fire and the highest medal Kerry won. Crewmen on the three Swift boats involved in an attack Kerry led on Feb. 28, 1969, also support Kerry's version of events. That's the day Kerry won the Silver Star, one of the nation's highest honors for bravery under fire and the highest medal Kerry was awarded. The latest to come forward is Willam R. Rood, a Chicago Tribune editor who commanded one of the other boats, broke a 35-year silence when he published a first-person account on Aug. 22 supporting Kerry's version. "What matters most to me," Rood wrote, "is that this is hurting crewmen who are not public figures and who deserved to be honored for what they did." http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily..._6115_db045.htm

Show me one source outside of Gardner who has as any credibility whatsoever to refute the bi-partisan claims of any of the people above who were intimately closer to have the legitimacy to make the claims that they are making.

As for saying that there is a double standard with respects to what these 527s are doing, while I disapproved of the whole fuss about Bush's missing 6 months and the use of his political connections to avoid vietnam, there is a clear distinction:

quote:

NO EQUIVALENCY. The critics know that if they can just manufacture the appearance of controversy, most reporters -- in the name of "balancing" their stories -- will play along. Attacks on Bush, such as an ad funded by the liberal advocacy group MoveOn.org that questioned Bush's military record, have been given equal weight with the vets' attack ads in some stories. The Bush campaign and editorial writers are calling on Kerry to distance himself from the MoveOn ads in the same breath that the Kerry campaign and editorialists are asking Bush to renounce the Swift-boat vets' ads. Kerry has repudiated the MoveOn ad (after some prodding from McCain). But sorry, my fellow journalists, there's no equivalency here. MoveOn is an avowedly partisan group that openly opposes Bush. The Swift-boat vets tried to cover their political tracks while claiming inside knowledge about Kerry most of them clearly don't have. And several of them have flip-flopped from publicly praising Kerry to attacking him. http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily..._6115_db045.htm

Navy records for Kerry are posted on his website:

http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john...at_reports.html

http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john...ry_records.html

I also think the LA Times and Washington Post gained access to the records in order to discredit Letson. The chronology of missions Kerry went on is kinda interesting ... I think he's pcf 94:

http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmils..._chronology.pdf

It's certainly more impressive than Bush's time spent in the national guard ... which is only meaningful depending upon whether your party's nomination is a war hero/draft dodger during an election year. (Fondly thinks back to the early 90's when military service was important to Republicans and Dems didn't give a shit)

By the way, if you're against purple hearts being awarded for freindly fire incidents than I guess we should take away Pat Tillman's:

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/special/iraq/2599524

___________________
Retro ...

Last edited by occrider on Aug-26-2004 at 17:44

I don't know why people are wanting to open old wounds, the vietnam war was a disaster, I think anyone that fought in Vietnam and returned alive should get a medal. The war was evil and pathetic and what those people went through during that war, will remain in their nightmares till their death.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Show me one source outside of Gardner who has as any credibility whatsoever to refute the bi-partisan claims of any of the people above who were intimately closer to have the legitimacy to make the claims that they are making.

How about Rear Adm. William L. Schachte Jr.?

Admiral speaks out, disputes Kerry's account of 1st wound

(Paraphrasing)

quote:

NEW YORK -- Retired Rear Adm. William L. Schachte Jr. said Thursday in his first on-the-record interview about the swift boat veterans dispute that "I was absolutely in the skimmer" in the early morning on Dec. 2, 1968, when Lt. (j.g.) John Kerry was involved in an incident that led to his first Purple Heart. "Kerry nicked himself with a M-79 [grenade launcher]," Schachte said in a telephone interview from his home in Charleston, S.C. He said, "Kerry requested a Purple Heart." Patrick Runyon and William Zaladonis are the two enlisted men who said they were aboard the skimmer and did not know Schachte. However, two other former officers interviewed Thursday confirmed that Schachte was the originator of the technique and always was aboard the Boston whaler for these missions. Grant Hibbard, who as a lieutenant commander was Schachte's superior officer, confirmed that Schachte always went on these skimmer missions and said, "I don't think he [Kerry] was alone" on his first assignment. Hibbard said he had told Kerry to "forget it" when he asked for a Purple Heart. Ted Peck, another swift boat commander, said, "I remember Bill [Schachte] telling me it didn't happen" -- that is, Kerry getting an enemy-inflicted wound. He said it would be "impossible" for Kerry to have been in the skimmer without Schachte. "I was astonished by Kerry's version" [in his book Tour of Duty] of what happened Dec. 2, Schachte said Thursday. When asked to support the Kerry critics in the swift boat controversy, Schachte said, "I didn't want to get involved." But he said he gradually began to change his mind when he saw his own involvement and credibility challenged, starting with Davis on CNN's "Crossfire" on Aug. 12.

Also, I believe those "spot reports" have already been discounted as non-biased sources of information, as they were written for the most party by Kerry. Kerry still has the ability to release the official doctor's records, but chooses not to do so.

Furthermore...

Plot thickens after checking records

(Paraphrasing)

quote:

The Kerry campaign has repeatedly stated that the official naval records prove the truth of Kerry's assertions about his service. But the official records on Kerry's Web site only add to the confusion. The DD214 form, an official Defense Department document summarizing Kerry's military career posted on johnkerry.com, includes a "Silver Star with combat V." But according to a U.S. Navy spokesman, "Kerry's record is incorrect. The Navy has never issued a 'combat V' to anyone for a Silver Star." Naval regulations do not allow for the use of a "combat V" for the Silver Star, the third-highest decoration the Navy awards. None of the other services has ever granted a Silver Star "combat V," either. Kerry's Web site also lists two different citations for the Silver Star. One was issued by the commander in chief of the Pacific Command (CINCPAC), Adm. John Hyland. The other, issued by Secretary of the Navy John Lehman during the Reagan administration, contained some revisions and additional language. "By his brave actions, bold initiative, and unwavering devotion to duty, Lieutenant (j.g.) Kerry reflected great credit upon himself... ." But a third citation exists that appears to be the earliest. And it is not on the Kerry campaign Web site. It was issued by Vice Adm. Elmo Zumwalt, commander of U.S. naval forces in Vietnam. This citation lacks the language in the Hyland citation or that added by the Lehman version, but includes another 170 words in a detailed description of Kerry's attack on a Viet Cong ambush, his killing of an enemy soldier carrying a loaded rocket launcher, as well as military equipment captured and a body count of dead enemy. Maj. Anthony Milavic, a retired Marine Vietnam veteran, calls the issuance of three citations for the same medal "bizarre." Milavic hosts Milinet, an Internet forum popular with the military community that is intended "to provide a forum in military/political affairs." Normally in the case of a lost citation, Milavec points out, the awardee simply asked for a copy to be sent to him from his service personnel records office where it remains on file. "I have never heard of multi-citations from three different people for the same medal award," he said. Nor has Burkett: "It is even stranger to have three different descriptions of the awardee's conduct in the citations for the same award." So far, there are also two varying citations for Kerry's Bronze Star, one by Zumwalt and the other by Lehman as secretary of the Navy, both posted on johnkerry.com. Kerry's Web site also carries a DD215 form revising his DD214, issued March 12, 2001, which adds four bronze campaign stars to his Vietnam service medal. The campaign stars are issued for participation in any of the 17 Department of Defense named campaigns that extended from 1962 to the cease-fire in 1973. However, according to the Navy spokesman, Kerry should only have two campaign stars: one for "Counteroffensive, Phase VI," and one for "Tet69, Counteroffensive." Reporting by the Washington Post's Michael Dobbs points out that although the Kerry campaign insists that it has released Kerry's full military records, the Post was only able to get six pages of records under its Freedom of Information Act request out of the "at least a hundred pages" a Naval Personnel Office spokesman called the "full file." What could that more than 100 pages contain? Questions have been raised about President Bush's drill attendance in the reserves, but Bush received his honorable discharge on schedule. Kerry, who should have been discharged from the Navy about the same time -- July 1, 1972 -- wasn't given the discharge he has on his campaign Web site until July 13, 1978. What delayed the discharge for six years? This raises serious questions about Kerry's performance while in the reserves that are far more potentially damaging than those raised against Bush. Burkett, who has spent years working with the FBI, Department of Justice and all of the military services uncovering fraudulent files in the official records, is less charitable: "The multiple citations and variations in the official record are reason for suspicion in itself, even disregarding the current swift boat veterans' controversy."

Last edited by NeoPhono on Aug-28-2004 at 00:33

its been said long before this whole mess that ADM. Boorda killed himself for the reasons that Kerry's own published service records reflect on his website that he's is so proud of.

its a damn shame Kerry. He wasn't a fraction of the Navy man Boorda was.

Kerry must not be president.

FAAACK!

mods if your watching, i have no idea why i keep double posting

as I stated earlier, anyone that came back from Vietnam alive, should get a medal, what that war did to people was pathetic. Kerry should be able to talk about his war service, at least he served and did not disappear like bush.

quote:

Originally posted by torontotrance as I stated earlier, anyone that came back from Vietnam alive, should get a medal, what that war did to people was pathetic. Kerry should be able to talk about his war service, at least he served and did not disappear like bush.

of course your right but you have to consider the fact that after 35 years there are still wounds that have not healed nor IMO will they ever be healed. John Kerry was and still is a part of those wounds that many suffered from and those people will not sit idlely by while he makes his bid as the "Vietnam war hero nominee". i sure as hell wouldn't no matter who the incumbant is.

This whole swift boat thing has been another successful smear campaign by the conservatives. So what have we learned from all this?

The circumstances under which some of his metals can be questioned but, whose fault is this? Reminds me of the Paul Hamm controversy. Why should he be blamed for errors made by others? Same with Kerry he's not the one who decided whether his action merited an award. He did more than his duty in Vietnam and the number of medals he received is irrelevant. Compared to Bush's military service this is a joke.

Vietnam is still a sore issue. The reason these vets are coming forward against Kerry because they're Republicans and they didn't like his anti war stance after Vietnam. Now its payback time, the Republicans are more than happy to give them their platform.

If history has proven anyone right, it would be Kerry for speaking out against an unjust war. But like Michael Moore has shown there is high price to be paid for voicing an anti war opinion. One of the unsettling things that have come to light is the amount of people who still praise the Vietnam War.

___________________
GIGANTIC CUNT

Last edited by igottaknow on Aug-30-2004 at 02:03

but then should McCain be a warhero in your mind?

Yes it opens old wounds but 90% of the people fighting that war had no fucking clue why they were there or what they were going to suffer. That war did damage to the vietnam landscape, ruined villages, killed lots of people on both sides, pushed the anti vietnam war issue in the states. Frankly let Kerry go on about his service, he served his country and nearly got killed doing it, when lots of the people that he served with in vietnam came home in bodybags or did not come home at all. You can debate the merits of his medals all you want but Kerry had the balls to join the army and go over and fight for his country and lived to tell the story.