News Formal Complaint Filed Over Senator’s Vietnam Awards, Post-Service Activities

[wasteofo2]

The key to the paradox of Vietnam is that people like Kerry went over believing that the war was just. We were fighting the spread of the [later dubbed by Reagan] evil empire of the Soviet Union which sought to destroy us - as was announced in the UN - and the spread of communism generally through the "domino effect". Vietnam was our battlefield. After seeing what was happening in 'nam, many soldiers came away feeling bitter and betrayed. Like Kerry they saw the injustices, and patriotism and all of the “right reasons” for fighting the war were turned to vapor. Men of conscience, like Kerry, then took action to stop the terrible injustice to not only our own soldiers and their families, but also the Vietnamese people. To turn this all against Kerry is to betray a shallow, dishonest, or at least an uninformed point of view.

While this is true, you're ignoring the part about Kerry admitting to participating in the burning of a village.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I have never talked with a seasoned foot soldier from 'nam who didn't participate in these activities. Do you think any war is fought without burning villages? Consider Dresdon in WWII, or the bombing of Hanoi for that matter. This is war. What made Vietnam particularly terrible is that the people that we protected mostly hated us, you couldn't tell who the enemy was - it was everyone - and we never tried to win because of the ever present Soviet threat. It was a constant game of cat and mouse with a terrible price for all concerned. Also, the basis for the war was a lie. Communism would not spread like a great plague, and the cold war [the real reason for Vietnam] was won though economic warfare, not military warfare. The crime of Vietnam was the bill of good sold to the US public and the tens of thousands of dead Americans, and hundreds of thousands of dead Vietnamese. It was all for nothing. It was a big lie. That was the crime.

 

[Gokul43201]

Yes, it does - but it also requires an armed fighter plane in range of said airliner. The decision to launch these planes comes from much lower and happens (or is supposed to happen) much faster).

This is a phony argument ! Okay, say, it takes 30 minutes to scramble a jet to some particular location, and say there was a hijacked planed about to crash into some big building 33 minutes after GW first heard. His 7 minutes of inaction hurt.

In any case, I don't see how you can explain that sitting about for 7 minutes was the best thing to do, in the national interest ?

Sure - if he's in the oval office and the NSC is just down the hall.

You're kidding ! He just has to get into his car to get reports from people in the know and be in communication with heads of FBI, CIA, NSA, etc.

No, it didn't look presidential. I'll agree with that. But really - what specifically could he have done that would have changed anything?

This is NOT about looking Presidential. Anyone would want to know what the hell is going on, if they hear about what just happened. You and I were glued to our TV sets. This is the President. He can do more than just get the news from CNN - but apparently, he wasn't even interested in that !

The way the government/military handles a crisis is via pre-programmed responses - and rightly so. There is virtually nothing anyone can do to make off-the-cuff decisions. Things just happen too fast and information is too disjointed. In this situation, the pre-programmed responses failed (or rather, were inadequate to the task) and nothing he or anyone else could have reasonably done (once the attack was underway) could have changed the outcome.

One screw up doesn't excuse another.

Okay, simply put : "What would you have done, if you were President ? Would you sit about reading, or would you try and find out, as soon as possible, what the hell is happening, and what needs to be done" ?

 

[selfAdjoint]

The Swift Boat Smear

Back on the thread topic, see this article in today's NYT. Connections of the swift boat funders to Bush and Rove, and inconsistencies and lies of the swift boat partisans are richly documented.

 

[russ_watters]

Um, wasteofo2, I didn't mention Kerry in my post. What are you arguing against?

This is a phony argument ! Okay, say, it takes 30 minutes to scramble a jet to some particular location, and say there was a hijacked planed about to crash into some big building 33 minutes after GW first heard. His 7 minutes of inaction hurt.

Only if you assume he's the one who is supposed to scramble the jets. Like I said, he isn't.

In any case, I don't see how you can explain that sitting about for 7 minutes was the best thing to do, in the national interest ?

I didn't say "best thing to do" I said nothing he could have done in those 7 minutes would have mattered. If you disagree, please tell me what you think he could have done and what difference it would have made (I already asked before).

You're kidding ! He just has to get into his car to get reports from people in the know and be in communication with heads of FBI, CIA, NSA, etc.

The word used was "convening." You can't "convene" if the people you need to sit down with are 1,000 miles away. As for getting reports: that's exactly what the Secret Service guy did - he gave Bush a report. And again, what do you think the FBI, CIA, and NSA heads could have told him in those 7 minutes that would have mattered?

Anyone would want to know what the hell is going on, if they hear about what just happened. You and I were glued to our TV sets. This is the President. He can do more than just get the news from CNN - but apparently, he wasn't even interested in that !

As president, he probably knew that the information given to him was the only information available. The government is not this all-knowing entity people think it is. And again, what, specifically could he have learned that would have changed anything?

One screw up doesn't excuse another.

Unless you can show me that his inaction in those 7 minutes mattered, you can't call it a screw-up.

Okay, simply put : "What would you have done, if you were President ? Would you sit about reading, or would you try and find out, as soon as possible, what the hell is happening, and what needs to be done" ?

I probably would have excused myself and left, hoping it would matter, but knowing it would not. Now you answer my question: what could he have done in those 7 minutes that could have mattered?

 

[russ_watters]

Back on the thread topic, see this article in today's NYT. Connections of the swift boat funders to Bush and Rove, and inconsistencies and lies of the swift boat partisans are richly documented.

From the article:

How the group came into existence is a story of how veterans with longstanding anger about Mr. Kerry's antiwar statements in the early 1970's allied themselves with Texas Republicans.

I can certainly understand their hostility. IMO, Kerry rolled the dice here and lost: he's trying to play both sides on this one (as he often does) and he should have seen the backlash coming. He should not have made this issue the centerpiece of his campaign.

 

[BobG]

They have every right to present their opinion of Kerry's anti-war activities.

Instead, they have made false accusations on another subject entirely.

This is as cheap a trick as Vance's in the article Ivan posted (edit: the US Global Empire post).

 

[BobG]

In fact, the more I read about things like this, the more I'm reminded of Richard Nixon's 'dirty tricks' teams in his campaigns.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

In fact, the more I read about things like this, the more I'm reminded of Richard Nixon's 'dirty tricks' teams in his campaigns.

That's exactly what I was thinking. I heard last night about the "Swift Boat" funding by rich Republicans. This is typical of nearly anything close to the Bush dynasty.

 

[JohnDubYa]

John Kerry by his own admission considered his part in burning villages an "atrocity." How can we now try to justify them as anything short of that? If the village was uninhabited, why would he call it an atrocity? He had to have known the implication of the phrase "burning a village" when he spoke it. If someone says "I have to admit an atrocity, I shot a man," it is ridiculous to think that later he could change his story to "... with a bb gun."

Here is what most likely happened, if I was a betting man:

John Kerry, in his attempt to discredit our country, crafted some stories about atrocities that he supposedly saw committed by fellow troops. He admitted to to his own atrocities to try and lend credence to his stories. (How could anyone think that he would make up something like that?) At the time, he didn't think that he would later be judged on those actions.

Kerry has a lot of problems with the truth. In my opinion, he simply was willing to say anything --- and to admit to anything --- to stop the war, just like Hanoi Jane was willing to stoop to the lowest levels to do the same.

 

[JohnDubYa]

This is war.

In an effort to protect John Kerry's image, Democrats have turned into George S. Patton.

 

[BobG]

One of the reasons people wanted the war to end centered around atrocities committed by our troops that Kerry apparently took part in. And why did he do it? What prevented him from simply refusing? And how does your answer to this question reflect his bravery?

You're goading, John, just to see Democrats squirm.

Contrary to today's popular culture, supreme individualism isn't what makes a culture run - or a company or an office. Even if the group is heading in a direction you don't care for, you do your best to make it work (and I have to admit to sometimes feeling some personal ire knowing I worked twice as hard to make a dumb decision work as I would have to make a smart decision work only to have the guy who made the decision say the success proved he was right.)

I think that's especially true in the military. Even though I don't think we should have invaded Iraq, if I knew we'd do it less than 6 months after I retired, I would have stayed in a couple more years. It's not agreeing to everything you have to do. It's doing your best to make sure things work out in the end.

Here is what most likely happened, if I was a betting man:

John Kerry, in his attempt to discredit our country, crafted some stories about atrocities that he supposedly saw committed by fellow troops. He admitted to to his own atrocities to try and lend credence to his stories. (How could anyone think that he would make up something like that?) At the time, he didn't think that he would later be judged on those actions.

Kerry has a lot of problems with the truth. In my opinion, he simply was willing to say anything --- and to admit to anything --- to stop the war, just like Hanoi Jane was willing to stoop to the lowest levels to do the same.

At least you're attacking him for something he did do, and you did it yourself, at that. That takes a little more honesty and courage than finding an 'independent' group to make the dirty attacks Bush doesn't have the courage to make himself.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Even if the group is heading in a direction you don't care for, you do your best to make it work.

And that would include taking part in atrocities. Hmmm?

Do you defend the perpetrators in the My Lai attack in the same manner?

 

[JohnDubYa]

That takes a little more honesty and courage than finding an 'independent' group to make the dirty attacks Bush doesn't have the courage to make himself.

So Bush is criticized for not taking part in the attacks.

 

[BobG]

And that would include taking part in atrocities. Hmmm?

Do you defend the perpetrators in the My Lai attack in the same manner?

No, I felt your bet was pretty close to being on target towards one of Kerry's low points. Not in his opposing the war, which he had every right to do, but in some of the ways he opposed the war.

Nor, would I have felt it unfair of the swift boat vets or the Bush supporters who funded the ads if they had only attacked Kerry's anti-war activities.

The ad was a low blow, committed now - not in the past. It's a throwback to some of the dirtier campaign tactics from years ago.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Nor, would I have felt it unfair of the swift boat vets or the Bush supporters who funded the ads if they had only attacked Kerry's anti-war activities.

The swift boat vets are not taking issue with Kerry on the atrocity issue, so there is no reason for them to raise it.

The ad was a low blow, committed now - not in the past. It's a throwback to some of the dirtier campaign tactics from years ago.

Are you assuming that they are lying?

If they are telling the truth, what would you propose they do? Stay quiet? Do you apply the same reasoning to those that questin Bush's active service record?

By the way, I am not saying the swift boat vets' ads are acceptable. I haven't even seen them. But I see a double standard in the way some are treating Bush and Kerry's military service careers. One gets accused of going AWOL, the other for hyping his military record.

 

[selfAdjoint]

By the way, I am not saying the swift boat vets' ads are acceptable. I haven't even seen them. But I see a double standard in the way some are treating Bush and Kerry's military service careers. One gets accused of going AWOL, the other for hyping his military record.

Kerry's personal response to the Swift boat affair, "If Bush wants to compare service records, Bring it On!"

 

[kat]

Kerry's personal response to the Swift boat affair, "If Bush wants to compare service records, Bring it On!"

I don't think that Bush has been comparing service records, in fact I believe he's commended Kerry on his Vietnam service. If Bush were to respond to Kerry's attacks...I think his response should be simply "Senator Kerry just sign the Pentagon's Standard Form 180, I did!"

 

[JohnDubYa]

"If Bush wants to compare service records, Bring it On!"

Strong talk from someone who objects to those who criticize his military record.

What exactly is Form 180, and why hasn't Kerry signed it (if that is indeed the case)?

 

[Dissident Dan]

Haha, they're so watching judicial stuff...what exactly does Kerry's military service have to do with courts, again?

And why is the extent of his wounds such an issue, and why do people believe the phonies in the "Swift Boat Veterans For Truth" over the people who actually had personal contact with Kerry?

 

[kat]

Are you saying none of the swift boat vet's had personal contact with Kerry? lol



JD- the 180 is a release of ALL military records as opposed to the select records that Kerry has chosen to release.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Are you saying none of the swift boat vet's had personal contact with Kerry? lol

I'm saying that the people in the ads have no more than the most cursory experience with Kerry, and most, if not all, probably never even saw him. The people who were actually on his boat attest to his great performance.

Why is it that you take such a hard stance towards Kerry and demand all his military records be released and assume the worst of him, even though bush never even served overseas in the first place and didn't even show up for his national guard duty for months? No matter what, Kerry's service exceeds bush's, so why even make an issue of it?

 

[kat]

1. I'm not making an issue of it, Kerry is.
2. You need to learn a little bit more about the swift boat vets and how the swift boats operated or you would realize that swift boats do not operate singley and that these men bunked together on either a larger boat or on very small base.
3. Steve Gardner did serve on board Kerry's boat.
4. His records should be released because he's running on his records and there are a lot of questions along with proven inconsistency in Kerry's own book, Kerry authorized books, Kerry's media interviews as well as the senate hearing. I also think that Vet's who were maligned by Kerry's senate hearings, false statements in Kerry's authorized biography have a right to be heard and to be vindicated by having the record set straight. Releasing ALL his records would go a long way toward doing that.
5. The media called for Bush to sign his 180 repeatedly until he did, the media should be unbiased and treat each candidate with an even hand else start calling themselves 527's.
6. Bush didn't have to show up for national guard duty for months. The regulations for national guard duty were different at that time then they are now. Maybe you should inform yourself a little better.
7. Quite frankly, I might vote for nader or even write in Rice and until I make up my mind, or even IF I make up my mind I have a right to know everything there is to know about the character of the man that may be running my country. Kerry needs to sign the 180 and stop hiding behind Multi-Billionaire Foriegner Soro's attack dog 527's and our slanted biased media. AND you need to get off the DU forums and start getting information from a little more accurate sources.
blah blah blah!

 

[JohnDubYa]

I also think that Vet's who were maligned by Kerry's senate hearings, false statements in Kerry's authorized biography have a right to be heard and to be vindicated by having the record set straight. Releasing ALL his records would go a long way toward doing that.

Excellent point. Kerry opened himself up for attacks by Vietnam vets by this Senate testimony. It is hypocrisy to cry about such scrutiny.

 

[Dissident Dan]

OK, I was wrong to say that none of the SBVFT served with Kerry. One did. However, the score is still 9-1 in Kerry's favor.

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=12651105&BRD=9030&PAG=740&dept_id=226967&rfi=6

 

[kat]

OK, I was wrong to say that none of the SBVFT served with Kerry. One did. However, the score is still 9-1 in Kerry's favor.

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=12651105&BRD=9030&PAG=740&dept_id=226967&rfi=6

You're still neglecting to understand what "served with" means and the score is not 9-1 in Kerry's favor for that reason AND because over the years Kerry has made conflicting statements as well as damning statements. Rood's statements even conflict with Kerry's statements.