 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Kerry's War Record...
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Kerry's War Record... From: tar_heel Date: 20 Feb 04 - 12:05 PM From: nc_tarheel For your perusal...you decide if this information rings true or not...I do know the dates and time of service are correct...hmmmmm.... Interesting info..... Those of you are closely aligned with the military will probably understand more than I do. Something's fishy. The Essex Soapbox ^ | February 17, 2004 | Mike Morrison I've long thought that John Kerry's war record was phoney. We talked about it when you were here. It's mainly been instinct because, as you know, nobody who claims to have seen the action he does would so shamelessly flaunt it for political gain. .... I hope that somebody from CTF-115 shows up with some documented facts challenging Kerry's Vietnam record. I know in my gut it's wildly inflated. And fishy. This e-mail was written by Mike Morrison, who won a bronze star in Vietnam and who is now retired, but wrote speeches for Lee Iacocca for many years. It was sent to his brother Ed, who sent it to one of our readers who follows such matters. -Ed.-
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Record... From: CarolC Date: 20 Feb 04 - 12:19 PM Wow, tar_heel. You must really see Kerry as a very big threat to your man Bush, to be working as hard on him as you are. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Record... From: tar_heel Date: 20 Feb 04 - 12:21 PM yes,CAROL C... i not only see him as a threat to bush,but to our whole country!...i took all i could stand of the clinton years of FAGS,DRAGS and HAGS! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Record... From: CarolC Date: 20 Feb 04 - 12:28 PM Wow, tar_heel. I must say, based on your 20 Feb 04 - 12:21 PM post, of all the people you could have picked for president, you certainly have picked the right one to help you spread your particular brand of hatred. |
|
Subject: BS: John'FLAPJACK' Kerry From: tar_heel Date: 20 Feb 04 - 12:31 PM Posted: February 13, 2004 1:00 a.m. Eastern © 2004 WorldNetDaily.com John Kerry wishes you to believe that he is the new coming of JFK. He has tried to sound a populist tone in the spirit of the former president. But unfortunately for Kerry, the initials are where the similarities end.
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Record... From: Wesley S Date: 20 Feb 04 - 01:27 PM Carol - I see TarHeel has been making a lot of posts in the BS section. It's a shame that none of them are original ideas. Just cutting and pasteing the ideas of others. He's a bigot - and most bigots don't have the mental capacity to come up with ideas of their own. I bet if we ignore him he'll go away. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Record... From: Jack the Sailor Date: 20 Feb 04 - 02:02 PM Tar_Heel, Why don't you post this garbage somewhere where people might care about Kerry's war record. When you were a top news photographer, didn't anyone tell you to know who your audience is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Record... From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 20 Feb 04 - 02:04 PM What's are DRAGS? I don't really want to know, but I'm mildly curious. I'd have thought SHAGS might have been more apposite in the context. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Record... From: CarolC Date: 20 Feb 04 - 02:30 PM You could be right, Wesley. Although tar_heel has been here for longer than me (or at least about as long as me). I think he's not a troll, but a true believer who is on a mission to get Bush re-elected. Personally, I think he's doing Bush more harm than good with the tactics he's using. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Record... From: Wesley S Date: 20 Feb 04 - 04:57 PM Exactly. I support his right to be pro-Bush. I support his right to be a bigot. We are allowed to be idiots in this country if we want to be. But he should realize that the bigotted statements hurt his own cause. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Record... From: Rapparee Date: 20 Feb 04 - 05:14 PM Geez, folks tear down Clinton cause he didn't go to Nam and now they take off on Kerry, who not only went to Nam but won the Silver Star. I'm a tad confused, I guess. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Record... From: GUEST,Martin Gibson Date: 20 Feb 04 - 05:24 PM I don't think he's bigoted. Are fags a race or just a stupid lifestyle that up until a few years ago no one wanted their sons to end up being? Guess what? I would wager that most people still don't. I'm not as pro Bush as Mr Tar Heel but right now I would have to say he is the candidate with the most experience in the job. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Record... From: Rapparee Date: 20 Feb 04 - 05:38 PM So, I decided to see what they say about themselves. Officially. Kerry. Bush. That's the official words on them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Record... From: Wesley S Date: 20 Feb 04 - 05:38 PM Hilary was in the White House longer than George W. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Record... From: GUEST,Martin Gibson Date: 20 Feb 04 - 05:45 PM I would vote for Hilary. I'll bet she's a good cook. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Record... From: artbrooks Date: 20 Feb 04 - 10:14 PM When I was in Vietnam, if I had been wounded three times, no matter how seriously, and somebody told me there was a regulation that would have let me go home, nobody had better have gotten between me and that airplane. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Record... From: Walking Eagle Date: 20 Feb 04 - 10:17 PM Hey Folks! I just Googled The Essex Soapbox. Some very interesting reading. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Record... From: Stilly River Sage Date: 20 Feb 04 - 11:42 PM That jumble of stuff that started the thread is barely legible to dyslexics like me. Good thing the rest of the remarks from others are concise and to the point. I keep my fingers crossed that bigots don't jump on the confused but public war record of Bob Kerrey, who admitted to war atrocities. He's the one missing a limb from his war service, and is the one who dated Debra Winger for a time. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Record... From: Bobert Date: 20 Feb 04 - 11:59 PM Well, I am less concerned about Kerry's war record than I am his firm membership in the "Establishment". He even looks tired. Just like the "Establishment".... tired, same old same old... Boy, I 'd sure rather work for Edwards who, at least, has a pulse... But, dangit, I'll pound doors fir the guy. Atleast he was right in returning from Nam to denouce it... BObert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Record... From: Strick Date: 21 Feb 04 - 09:28 AM "Geez, folks tear down Clinton cause he didn't go to Nam and now they take off on Kerry, who not only went to Nam but won the Silver Star. I'm a tad confused, I guess." We're confused, too, Raptaire. First some excuse Clinton's outrageous use of influence and misdirection to avoid the draft see here and then they play up Kerry's justified war hero status. It's just that Clinton's election seemed to a lot of people like a truce. He didn't serve (avoided service most ignobly instead - see below if you don't want to read the link), but that was a fact of life in our generation. Put that war behind us and forgive what people did to avoid it once it was clear it was the wrong war. This issue seems to say the truce broken. That's the problem with Kerry's war record. It shouldn't be ignored, he should be proud of serving. Still, Kerry entered the service in 1966. At the time the country was sharply divided, many, many people still supported the war. Where I was raised, you could be beat bloody for even suggesting it was wrong. It would have been odd for someone with ties to the establishment like Kerry not to support the war. By the time Bush and Gore went into the National Guard only a couple of years later the mood of the country had started to turn. It would have been odd if anyone who had an out hadn't taken it. A year or two difference in age produced staggering differences in attitude and how most people conducted themselves in those years. I remember that era well. Look at how the times changed other things as the war went on. As late as 1968 football coaches in the football worshiping South were suspending star players who let their hair grow long. By 1973, the coaches had let their own hair grow long. The drug culture took a similar turn only a little later. Marijuana smoking was unheard of among high school students, the kids getting drafted, in many small communities as late as 1971. Merle Haggard said so. By 1973, it was almost required. Before long some of the best stuff in Oklahoma was grown in Muskogee. I remember that era well, too. Are you surprised nobody was taking their National Guard duty all that seriously by 1973? In a recent article in the Wastington Post Bush's commanding officer in Alabama who didn't remember him, the major argument that Bush did not fulfill his service requirement for that period, admits he wasn't on base enough to know if Bush made his monthly meetings. The Guard as a whole was not exactly on top of those things after all. It was full of people avoiding the war who were well past the chance that they might get called up. Hell, I voluntarily took a physical in Arkansas in 1973 and you should have seen how laid back and willing to ignore the rules the regular Air Force was. The war was almost over and they were just going through the motions. Would anyone be surprised that the Alabama National Guard didn't keep good records? Really? Is it possible that Bush's National Guard service wasn't that different from, say Al Gore's after all? So this isn't about Clinton or Bush or even Kerry at all. Every Presidential candidate we'll see for the next twelve years could have served in Viet Nam (even Hillary). Isn't exploring what that war was like reasonable if you're going to consider service an issue? Isn't this key difference in timing worth considering as well? Clinton and Viet Nam The snopes.com article on Clinton's a little long but here are my favorites from it: "That Bill Clinton went to great lengths to avoid the Vietnam-era draft, that he used political connections to obtain special favors, and that he made promises and commitments which he later failed to honor, are all beyond dispute." "Although what he did may not have been against the law, Clinton's broken promises and contradictory statements about his efforts to avoid the draft were prime examples of the kind of self-serving doublespeak that later earned him the sobriquet 'Slick Willie.'" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Record... From: Strick Date: 21 Feb 04 - 09:29 AM Dang, that post was long. Sorry. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Record... From: Stilly River Sage Date: 21 Feb 04 - 12:52 PM I have a friend who took a college class on how to survive prison life as a man who refused to go to war. He didn't want to go to Canada, he was willing to go to prison after the college deferrments stopped working for him. He wanted to live the rest of his life in the U.S. Lucky for him Nixon gave some of them a break at literally the last minute. There are a lot of us who still hate the idea of that war in Vietnam and who don't appreciate the sudden memory lapse in those who suddenly are conveniently pro-Vietnam War. Pro Vietnam sentiments are macho and serve as a springboard to equally unjustified actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. These are men who think that to admit that they fought against the war or joining in is a dishonorable thing in the rampant militarism of this day. I can understand why Bush didn't want to go, I can understand why Clinton didn't want to go. I dislike seeing Bush hamming it up like some kind of military war hero today when evidently he wasn't opposed to the Vietnam war, he just didn't want to go where it was dangerous. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Record... From: Frankham Date: 21 Feb 04 - 12:55 PM To those who believe that Kerry is not a war hero, I'll quote him. "Bring it on!" I have this gut feeling that we are being trolled. Frank |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Record... From: Strick Date: 21 Feb 04 - 02:59 PM Someone's else's anger driven posts always look more like the work of a troll when you disagree with their case. There are some minor things that look really odd in Kerry's record (he received a Purple Heart leg wound 8 days before he "leapt" out of his boat to chase Charley to get a grenade launcher?), but short of some serious proof it's all a fraud, it's hard to see why you would challenge his war record. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Record... From: artbrooks Date: 21 Feb 04 - 03:36 PM SRS: not being ashamed to have served in Vietnam is really not the same thing as being pro-Vietnam War. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Record... From: Greg F. Date: 21 Feb 04 - 06:39 PM "That Bill Clinton went to great lengths to avoid the Vietnam-era draft, that he used political connections to obtain special favors, and that he made promises and commitments which he later failed to honor, are all beyond dispute." Seems that the facts would support replacing "Bill Clinton" in the above statement with "George W. Bush", and all the while the White House Propaganda Machine has been feverishly attempting to deny it. Why not "Slick Georgie?" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Record... From: Strick Date: 21 Feb 04 - 07:48 PM "Why not 'Slick Georgie?'" Well, it's sorta off the mark. At worst Bush didn't show up at a time when the National Guard didn't give a damn where he was. Even that's not proven. A central argument in Clinton's case was that he deliberately lied to Col. Eugene Holmes about his intention to enter the ROTC just so he could avoid the draft. You may have seen Col. Holmes affidavit (click here). Some have questioned Holmes motive for issuing this affidavit when he did, but that sort of begs the question. Holmes's military record is essentially John Kerry's and John McCain's combined, a highly decorated former prisoner of war with 33 years military service. If he just wanted to slam Clinton all he needed to do was issue a statement. I don't see that kind of man lying under oath when it wasn't necessary. Since since it's basically Holmes's word against Clinton's you'll have to decide for yourself who to believe. War hero Holmes or Clinton who received a heavy fine and lost his license to practice law when he perjured himself during the Paula Jones Sexual Harassment trial. "Slick Willie" spent a lot of years earning his nickname. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Record... From: Greg F. Date: 21 Feb 04 - 11:18 PM Sorry, but ya missed my point, Strick- or perhaps I was a bit obscure in the point I was trying to make. BOTH of 'em used whatever means they could (or in one case whatever influence their rich Daddy could bring to bear) to avoid ending up in Viet Nam. If one's 'guilty', then so's the other- neither has the moral upper hand. As usual, the rich are treated more equally than the rest of us. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Record... From: GUEST,Claymore Date: 22 Feb 04 - 12:25 AM Well as I noted in another post, I was out to examine Kerrys purported war record, and I don't like what I see. He got a Silver Star and a Bronze, for actions that were considered every day common in the Marine Corps. But maybe it was truely inspiring to a brown-water squid. In any case, as I pointed out earlier, both Kerry and Oliver North have the same medals, but I heard no reverence from the Democrats during North's troubles in '87. (Can't you hear North on his talk show telling Kerry, "Listen you Bastard, I got the same medals as you, but then you went on to kill my buddies with your pal, Hanoi Jane. And when I tried to stop the communists from taking over South America, you went after me".) North will be in his element simply reading the names of the Senators who supported the Boland Amendment. How could you trust your country to those idiots? I suspect that Kerry is DOA in the South, and that Edwards won't be that much help. Gore was from Tennessee, and he lost the South (including his own state). Southerners don't like lawyers, as they often get in the way of a good hanging, so I don't believe Edwards makes up the difference. And if he gets in a debate with Cheney (who in my opinion, is only a step below Blair as the most articulate spokesman of the decade); they don't have word for what happens next... And finally, I suspect that the final days of the campaign will focus on Kerrys record in the Senate, which is atrocious, if he attempts to hold the "Vital Center" of American politics. I have every belief that the fighter pilot leaves the Swift boat skipper on the beach, when this is over. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Record... From: Big Mick Date: 22 Feb 04 - 12:42 AM Clay, sometimes you really piss me off. First off, those brown water sailors saved my fucking bacon more than once. You ever ran up the fucking Delta. Those folks caught more shit just pulling out than a lot of folks went through in the whole year they were there. And Ollie North, I am surprised you even bring him up. Apparently duty, and honor, only apply to those rules he chooses to follow. I will never in my life forget the day this hypocrite had to stand in front of Dan Inouye (a hero of the first order) and take a dressing down. At least he had the good sense not to question the Senators patriotism. That is the trouble with you folks that wear your patriotism on your sleeve. You figure that anyone who doesn't buy into your view of what patriotism is, is non patriotic. I find it hard to figure out how a guy who commits felonies, and who directly disobeys the law of the land is a patriot. On the other hand, it seems to me that a man who served honorably, was wounded, was decorated, and who then worked to end an unjust war AFTER serving honorably, is anything other than a patriot. While I have not heard you say it, others of your views will question Kerry's service, but act outraged when anyone asks the questions about Bush's joining the Air National Guard and then disappearing. While I do not want to disrespect anyone's military service, you and I both know (because we are veterans of the same conflict) exactly why rich kids ended up in the Air National Guard. Especially ones who got in when others couldn't and didn't attend half of their drills. If Bush's Honorable Discharge should hold him above reproach, then why not Kerry's. And you are dead wrong on the election. In the end, this won't have much to do with the war record. It will not have much to do (despite the Republicans best efforts to shift the premise to) gay marriages/union. It will come down to job loss, the economy for the middle class, and foreign policy. And your boy is in trouble in all those arena's. Will Kerry win? I wouldn't bet on it yet, but the signs are out there that Bush is in trouble. Mick who also served honorably and is disgusted by Bush's trying to play the Patriot Game. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Record... From: Nerd Date: 22 Feb 04 - 12:58 AM I'm not a big Kerry fan, as many of you will know. But I just don't think his war record is all that relevant. I know Vietnam vets might care about the specifics, but for most people it's just "oh, he was heroic in Vietnam, that's pretty cool." Contrary to what Claymore suggests, I don't think many Democrats revere Kerry for his war service, and they didn't revile Oliver North for his. Democrats disliked North because what he was doing in Iran-Contra was against their values. Republicans mostly liked him because it was consonant with their values. His war service was basically irrelevant. Right now, people feel someone with wartime experience is reassuring because of our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. But only the media and Kerry himself are fixated on it. Remember, Gore's service in Viet Nam didn't get him elected, Clinton's failure to serve didn't prevent him from being elected, and neither Dole nor Bush I could parlay their WWII heroism into a victory over Clinton. When it's time to vote, people will vote on values, issues, and image, not on who has the best wartime service record. The winner will be the one more Americans trust. If Kerry gets the nomination, I'll be pulling for him. As for "southerners don't like Lawyers," they liked Clinton pretty well. We'll have to see if Edwards resonates or not; I'll bet he does resonate pretty well, but it may not be enough to win many southern states. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Record... From: Stilly River Sage Date: 22 Feb 04 - 01:32 AM Artbrooks, I don't think I said that. But in the last 5-10 years I've seen a sort of nostalgic brotherhood forming in which men who opposed the Vietnam war are now writing like old veterans instead of old protestors. I can't begin to explain the evolution. It is disturbing when viewed in this period of Bush's immoral assaults Afghanistan and Iraq. One hopes that nostalgia is fading fast. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Record... From: Greg F. Date: 22 Feb 04 - 10:27 AM Democrats disliked North because what he was doing in Iran-Contra was against their values. Sorry nerd, but No. Not so. This was not a "value judgement", or a partisan disagreement. What North, et.al., did was against the law and against the Constitution of the United States. He was convicted in a court of law. Plenty of non-Democrats were disgusted at his criminal activities. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Record... From: Frankham Date: 22 Feb 04 - 10:56 AM Mick, Some call the "patriot's game" by Bush and company "chicken hawks" because they never had to fight the wars they advocate. They held the coats. Frank |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Record... From: Amos Date: 22 Feb 04 - 11:01 AM BTW, MSN has a picture of Kerry relaxing on the camapign trail by playing a guitar, Now that is something I can support. See slide show offered here. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Record... From: Charley Noble Date: 22 Feb 04 - 12:04 PM Amos- Yes, but he's still playing it safe, nice easy chords. Now if he'd been taped playing a banjo or a concertina I'd be more impressed. However, I doubt if Bush could even play a kazoo, let alone blow his nose on pitch. Cheerily, Charley Noble |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Record... From: Nerd Date: 23 Feb 04 - 01:58 AM Greg F. what you say is true, to a point. But I still say it's about values. North argued that he broke the law because fighting the spread of communism, etc., etc., was more important than the law he broke. Most Democrats (and, as you say, many others) did not buy it. Many Republicans, and especially the right wing, did buy it. The split was, however, on values. Whether adherence to the law is more important than certain political ends is a value judgement. It's the same value judgement made by people who break the law in peaceful protest, for example. By the way, Howard Dean is quite a decent blues guitarist, and jammed with Cephas and Wiggins at a DC appearance. Naturally, the media ignored that, too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Record... From: alanabit Date: 23 Feb 04 - 04:42 AM Ah well, it's some relief that he doesn't play sax - or should that be sexophone - like Bill Clinton... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Record... From: Greg F. Date: 23 Feb 04 - 08:07 AM Well, Nerd, when North's felony conviction was overturned on a technicality, the right-wing loonies that supported his illegal activities cheered and raised him up as a hero. I don't think I'll hear them cheering next time a rapist's or child molester's (or poor, Black drug addict's) conviction is overturned on a technicality. That's not "values". That's situational ethics. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Record... From: Nerd Date: 23 Feb 04 - 12:50 PM Greg, I respectfully disagree. Their value position, once again, was that what North accomplished was more important than the law he broke. They do not think the same thing about the rapist, child molestor or poor black drug addict. So certainly it's situational, but the situation involved was what he did, and the political values associated with it, not his race or anything like that. If North had been black, or grown up poor, or whatever, if he had obviously been on a mission from Reagan to help fight communists, I think most right wingers would have supported him. Whether they are right or not is a different question. I think you and I both agree that they were wrong, and that North should have stayed in jail. But I don't think it's accurate to say the decision was not based on values. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Record... From: Strick Date: 23 Feb 04 - 01:31 PM "Sorry, but ya missed my point, Strick- or perhaps I was a bit obscure in the point I was trying to make." No, I understood you. What I said was that except for playing hookie (if that) from the National Guard when it was over crowded and too relieved by the certain knowledge that the US involvement in the war was nearly over and they weren't going to be called up, Bush's service was the same as Gore's and thousands of others. Clinton is called "Slick Willie" for the lies he told to avoid any service and the way he's conducted himself from the beginning. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Record... From: Rapparee Date: 23 Feb 04 - 01:53 PM 1. Not all of the Guardsmen, even in the '70s, were as painted by the media and others. I know many who were not. Unfortunately, I know some than were. I respect the first group and can't get enthusiastic about about the second. Moreover, we're talking officers here. The EM have always gotten shafted -- all they do is take the crap that trickles down from above. I was an NG EM (NCO, actually); we did our jobs and fulfilled the obligations we agreed to. I can also speak to some extent for the officers I knew and know. What other officers -- and especially pilots in the Air Guard -- did is beyond the scope of my immediate knowledge (although I've heard stories). 2. The best friends my NG company had in 'Nam were the Marines at the Chu Lai Waterpoint, and vice versa. We provided them with ammo and steaks (beyond what was supplied to them by the USMC) and they provided nearly unlimited water. Mutually beneficial, and the NGs and the Leathernecks got along far better than the NGs and the regular Army. 3. Some of my friends and cousins served in the Delta, in the Infantry. I've never heard them say a bad word about the riverine or fast boat forces. 4. As for Kerry -- I was disturbed at first by his post-VN anti-war actions (FWIW, I wasn't all that gung-ho about the war myself). Upon consideration, he was out of the service and acting on his own conscience when he did that. And I tend to respect those who change their mind after due consideration far more than those who storm ahead unthinkingly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Record... From: Greg F. Date: 23 Feb 04 - 07:13 PM Well, maybe I'm not getting YOUR point, Strick. Clinton presumably lied to avoid service, and Bush's rich daddy bought him a way to avoid service. I don't see much of a difference. The rest of his administration- Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz,Rove, the whole damn bunch(with the exception of Colin Powell) managed to weasel their way out of serving by one means or another. Why pick on Clinton? And sure as hell, how can these people pick on Kerry without blushing? Powell before the 2000 selection was quite outspoken about the injustice during the Viet Nam era of rich folks buying their way out of the draft leaving Blacks and the poor to do the fighting.I thought I'd archived one of his statements on this topic but can't locate it at the moment. He hasn't had much to say on this topic since his appointment; he's taken to licking the rear end of one of the rich folks that bought his way out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Record... From: Strick Date: 24 Feb 04 - 09:18 AM My point's pretty simple. By the time Bush and Gore went into the Guard to avoid Viet Nam, the country's attitude toward the war had started to change. Nearly anyone outside the "my country right or wrong" regions of the South who could avoid service, did. Kerry entered the service before that change in attitude. Heck, Kerry's attitude toward the war on leaving the service was part of that change in attitude. I'd argue the real difference between Kerry and Gore or Bush was timing. For instance, would Kerry have gone in if he had graduated in 1970 for instance? We'll never know, but I bet if you check you'll find that most men in public life who could have served from 1968 on didn't. I have no particular quarrel with Kerry's war record outside of curiousity over his leg wound and his ability to jump out of a boat a week later. I'm surprised anyone else does. Clinton's attempts to avoid the draft don't bother me per se, although I find his reputation as an anti-war activist tanished since he didn't start protesting the war until after he was declared 1-A. It's that the way he chose to avoid it was fairly dishonorable and appears to be part of a pattern that reveals his character. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Record... From: GUEST Date: 24 Feb 04 - 11:14 AM So, nearly everyone who could avoid did, but you have a problem with the way Clinton did. Does everyone else get a pass on their tactics? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Record... From: Strick Date: 24 Feb 04 - 11:46 AM I don't know, it depends. In all honesty, Clinton already got a pass on his tactics. That's the reason so many of us thought the nation was going to put what people did about Viet Nam behind us. If what Clinton did was OK, surely simply joining the National Guard would be a no brainer. What about about people who refused to serve and were jailed (Cassius Clay/Mohamed Ali) or even those who went to Canada? I have to say I admire what they did more than what Clinton did. They were true to their principles. I'd probably be happy to support them if they ran, too. Regardless, I think timing is important. John McCain was certainly right to serve when he did and his record deserves admiration. The same with John Kerry and most others (I'll withhold comment on Bob Kerry's self-confessed war crimes). I'm just not going to get bent out of shape to learn that some candidate who became eligible from 1968 or so on was 4-F or found some way to stay out of Viet Nam. If anything what annoys me is the perception that someone's record during Viet Nam only matters when it's to the advantage of the person you support and the disadvantage of someone you don't. If it's on principle that one thing. When it's just pure politics like that, that's another. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Record... From: Nerd Date: 24 Feb 04 - 01:19 PM Strick, I don't know whether you've read Tim O'Brien's The Things they Carried. It's a good story collection about his experiences in Viet Nam. He makes the same point you make above, in a slightly different way. He recounts a moment when he could have fled to Canada, then thought about the reaction from his father and his community, and didn't do it. He concludes by saying "I was a coward. I went to the war." It's a good book if you're interested in folklore and in the Viet Nam war. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Record... From: Nerd Date: 24 Feb 04 - 01:22 PM Of course, Strick, neither I nor O'Brien was intending to suggest that those who went to the war were cowards. Only that, depending on one's convictions, cowardice leading to service was a possible outcome, just as bravery leadng to service, cowardice leading to avoidance, or bravery leading to avoidance were all possible. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Record... From: GUEST Date: 24 Feb 04 - 01:59 PM So how do we know whether Clinton did what he did out of bravery or cowardice? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Record... From: Strick Date: 24 Feb 04 - 02:23 PM "So how do we know whether Clinton did what he did out of bravery or cowardice?" I can't call what Clinton did bravery for a fairly simple reason. Clinton didn't start protesting the war until AFTER he became 1-A. There's a reason they didn't let anyone declare themselves conscientious objectors unless they could prove they were fully against war before they faced having to go to it. The presumption was that your reasons for wanting to be a CO were entirely suspect by that point. Why did Clinton declare against the war when he did, only after he realized he might have to go? Tough call. Likewise, Clinton didn't face his situation head on. He said he wrote a letter to his draft board but never mailed it. At best he arranged for his draft board to postpone taking him and broke his commitment when it became clear he was no longer in danger of being drafted. Doesn't sound like a very noble stand to me. On the other hand, I can't call him a coward either. I turned 18 in 1973, the last year they held the lottery. As it turned out they didn't take anyone that year and my number was 326 anyway. Would you be surprised to learn I didn't volunteer? Since I wasn't don't really know what I would have done and I certainly don't know what Clinton was thinking, I don't think I'm in a position to call anyone a coward on this evidence alone. |
