News The Grand Deception: 'Kerry, War Hero,' Is a Myth

[kat]

What kind of double standard are you pushing? All that is required is to serve. Isn't that the standard that is applied to the current men in the service? Why is it different for the Vietnam vet?

All that is required is to serve? I don't think that is accurate but it is irrelevent. The fact is that the term "lying swift boat vets" has been tossed around quite a bit on this forum. Yet, here we are heading into a third page and nobody has supported the "lying swift boat vets" statements. They either need to support their "swift boat vets are liars" accusations or they need to stop making the claim.

 

[russ_watters]

What kind of double standard are you pushing? All that is required is to serve. Isn't that the standard that is applied to the current men in the service? Why is it different for the Vietnam vet?

Kerry is a Vietnam era vet therefore he is a hero. The fact that he has medals is frosting. You can cast aspersions all you want, but the basic facts cannot be changed.

My own personal opinion is:

His service: good.
His medals: mixed, but I don't care all that much.
His conduct after the war: dishonorable.

Its not the protesting against the war that I don't like, its the way he did it.

 

[ray b]

My own personal opinion is:

His service: good.
His medals: mixed, but I don't care all that much.
His conduct after the war: dishonorable.

Its not the protesting against the war that I don't like, its the way he did it.

kerry reported to THE United States Congress
{when asked by them}
what HIS'S group [the winter solders] said to HIM
AND ONLY WHAT HIS GROUP SAID
he didnot report on the actions of others EXCEPT the LEADERSHIP
read the report and DONOT FALL FOR THE BIG LIES that
the NEO-CONs use to twist the truth
Kerry never said anything about vets not in his group
or the actions of non group members
WHAT IS DISHONORABLE about reporting to OUR CONGRESS
exactly what you were told to say by other vets

hero's speakout about injustice
cowards fear to speak

 

[Integral]

All that is required is to serve? I don't think that is accurate but it is irrelevent.

What happened to the "support our troops" idea? Isn't that what this is all about? Why is it that that same support can not be offered to Vietnam vets.

When I returned from a 10month deployment in 1972, there was no TV on the pier, there was no national coverage, no one cared. It is clear, by your attitude, that you consider Vietnam vets as 2nd class citizens who can do nothing right.

Why not turn you microscope on someone else? Afraid of what you might see? Supporter of Bush need to avoid any discussion of this era. Even if Kerry made mistakes at least he was involved, where was Georgie boy?

 

[kat]

What happened to the "support our troops" idea? Isn't that what this is all about? Why is it that that same support can not be offered to Vietnam vets.

When I returned from a 10month deployment in 1972, there was no TV on the pier, there was no national coverage, no one cared. It is clear, by your attitude, that you consider Vietnam vets as 2nd class citizens who can do nothing right.

Why not turn you microscope on someone else? Afraid of what you might see? Supporter of Bush need to avoid any discussion of this era. Even if Kerry made mistakes at least he was involved, where was Georgie boy?

I'm going to assume by your post that you also realize that you are not able to support the claim that the Swift Boats Vets are liars. If you have some notable information that can shed light on Kerry's conflicting reports/stories/medals feel free to contribute.

 

[Mercator]

Excuse me for asking, but, in the US, do you ever consider discussing the political agendas when comparing various candidates , or do you just concentrate on personal details?

 

[Integral]

I'm going to assume by your post that you also realize that you are not able to support the claim that the Swift Boats Vets are liars. If you have some notable information that can shed light on Kerry's conflicting reports/stories/medals feel free to contribute.

Where, and when, have I ever mentioned the swift boat vets?

My claim is that Kerry is a Vietnam era vet. End of story.

What else do we or should we need? He served his country in a time of need, recognized the war for what is was and came home.

I have never been influenced by, nor will I give any credence to, paid political commercials for either side. Notice that my point is not about what was presented in some commercial, but is about the content of public record. Do you dispute the fact that he is a Vietnam era vet? I do not understand the hullabaloo about one of his medals. He did not award them to himself, they were awarded by the Navy and the existing system. If you have issues with that perhaps you need to address the system that awards medals.

 

[plover]

Excuse me for asking, but, in the US, do you ever consider discussing the political agendas when comparing various candidates , or do you just concentrate on personal details?

We tried discussing political agendas, but unfortunately that sometimes led to competent people getting elected, so we decided it was best to stop...

 

[Mercator]

My claim is that Kerry is a Vietnam era vet. End of story.



I have never been influenced by, nor will I give any credence to, paid political commercials for either side. Notice that my point is not about what was presented in some commercial, but is about the content of public record. Do you dispute the fact that he is a Vietnam era vet? I do not understand the hullabaloo about one of his medals. He did not award them to himself, they were awarded by the Navy and the existing system. If you have issues with that perhaps you need to address the system that awards medals.

Amen. Wish more people would avoid the UDT (Unimportant Detail Trap)

 

[JohnDubYa]

Amen. Wish more people would avoid the UDT (Unimportant Detail Trap)

Absolutley. So let's talk about Kerry's political career, especially his voting record in the Senate.

Oh, wait.

 

[Mercator]

Absolutley. So let's talk about Kerry's political career, especially his voting record in the Senate.

Oh, wait.

Why not? I think that is relevant. But Geniere had the flip flop topic already, no? Anyway I would like to be educated on the real political issues in the US.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Why not? I think that is relevant

Obviously, Kerry thinks so, too, which is why he doesn't want to talk about it.

 

[megashawn]

I gave you a link once before Kat. And to think I have sent people to this forum, referencing things you've posted.

But this is sad. I've given you a link, in a different thread about this same, exact subject. I will now copy and paste portions of this link, since it seems your clicking finger has a rather selective ability.

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

Note that the title of this page is "John Kerry's Vietnam War service medals were earned under "fishy" circumstances" and is deemed FALSE.

Snopes is, and has always been, about finding the truth.

And according to Douglas Brinkley's history of John Kerry and the Vietnam War:
As generally understood, the Purple Heart is given to any U.S. citizen wounded in wartime service to the nation. Giving out Purple Hearts increased as the United States started sending Swifts up rivers. Sailors — no longer safe on aircraft carriers or battleships in the Gulf of Tonkin — were starting to bleed, a lot.

Purple hearts were given out for injuries. It doesn't say "serious injuries", nor does it say life threatening.

We opened fire," he went on. "The light from the flares started to fade, the air was full of explosions. My M-16 jammed, and as I bent down in the boat to grab another gun, a stinging piece of heat socked into my arm and just seemed to burn like hell. By this time one of the sailors had started the engine and we ran by the beach, strafing it. Then it was quiet.

The "stinging piece of heat" Kerry felt in his arm had been caused by a piece of shrapnel, a wound for which he was awarded a Purple Heart. The injury was not serious — Brinkley notes that Kerry went on a regular Swift boat patrol the next day with a bandage on his arm, and the Boston Globe quoted William Schachte, who oversaw the mission and went on to become a rear admiral, as recalling that "It was not a very serious wound at all."

Kerrys comments about his first injury, and more of Brinkley's comments in the second paragraph.

So Kerry shot and killed the guerrilla. "I don't have a second's question about that, nor does anybody who was with me," he said. "He was running away with a live B-40, and, I thought, poised to turn around and fire it." Asked whether that meant Kerry shot the guerrilla in the back, Kerry said, "No, absolutely not. He was hurt, other guys were shooting from back, side, back. There is no, there is not a scintilla of question in any person's mind who was there [that] this guy was dangerous, he was a combatant, he had an armed weapon."

about another of his missions, which repugnicans claim he shot a innocent person in the back.
_______

About the swift vets, here is a good portion of their comments

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

also from that article.

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

So of all these people in the Swift Boat group, only steven gardner served with him.

Also, if you look through these opinions, the majority of them only speak about the way Kerry made them look bad in his report to Senate and his protest of the war. They do not mention his medals, and Steven, the only guy who served, and the only negative comment he really makes is about Kerry's moving of the boat.


So just what are the Swift Boat Liars saying? None of them but Steve served with Kerry. None accuse him of his medals being acquired under fishy circumstances. All they really do is offer up their opinion about why they don't like kerry because he told america how bad things were over their.

I don't need kerry, or anyone else, to tell me how atrocious war is. That is what war is, death, torture, loss of family. I know plenty of SICK individuals, whom join the army infantry, and would probably have been arrested for murder by now were it not for that.

__

But the really sad issue here, is that you make such a big stink about Kerry's war record. Look, its this simple. He served, he was injured, he was awarded justly for these injuries, and as the rule went, after 3 injuries was restationed, and then honorably discharged.

And not to make this about bush, but just what exactly did he do?

So before you respond with another of your "Do you have proof, links?" How about click on the links you've been given. This is not new information, and the fact that you have been exposed to it and still overlook it is pathetic.

How about focus on some issues, not asking an irrellevant question that is the same answer regardless if you are right (Which you are not) or wrong. He served our country, honorably, and exposed the atrocities that were taking place. Is their really a question such atrocities took place? I've sure seen them depicted in several movies, heard stories that match what Kerry reported by people I personally know who served in Veitnam. Regardless of how he got his medals, he was a hero.

My questions for you Kat.

1) If Kerry had never received a single medal for his service and injuries, what would you have to pick on?
2) Do you honestly believe the atrocities Kerry (along with countless others) claims took place in veitnam did not happen? This is all that the Swift boat liars are saying, that Kerry went home and started talking trash about how bad they were.
3) I for one personally consider anyone who puts themselves in, or near, the line of a fire, a hero. Atleast brave. Without question, regardless of what you believe about Kerry, he was much closer to potential death and injury then your beloved Bush. How can you be so hard on Kerry, basing all your arguements on Debunked lies about kerry, when Bush hardly broke a sweat serving our country? If that.

 

[Hurkyl]

1) If Kerry had never received a single medal for his service and injuries, what would you have to pick on?

I imagine exactly the same thing as if Kerry hadn't made his service a central part of his campaign.

 

[JohnDubYa]

What Hurkly said. Kerry chose to go on and on about his war record, so his war record has become a central point of the debate. He only has himself to blame.

 

[plover]

I imagine exactly the same thing as if Kerry hadn't made his service a central part of his campaign.

This is a bit confusing. Are you saying that unfounded attacks on Kerry's service record are only to be expected given that Kerry himself raised the issue of his service, or just that there is enough to criticize Kerry on without these attacks? The motive behind this comment is obscure – though perhaps only because I'm unsure of your overall take on Kerry.

 

[Hurkyl]

I am saying that questioning Kerry's record is more than fair game, since he raised it himself; I think it was rather disingenious of Megashawn to criticize Kat for doing so.

I don't have a real opinion either way, though I think those defending Kerry have put forth arguments of lesser quality. (Though not necessarily less factual value)

 

[plover]

I am saying that questioning Kerry's record is more than fair game, since he raised it himself; I think it was rather disingenious of Megashawn to criticize Kat for doing so.

There seem to be two distinct issues here. Most of megashawn's post is criticising kat for bringing up specific issues that seem (to him) refutable, and for which megashawn had provided evidence before. This is separate from whether it is legitimate to raise questions about Kerry's record.

To say that the angle through which Kerry's record has been attacked is discredited, and thus allowing debate to continue in that vein accepts a partisan frame for the issue, is not the same thing as denying that Kerry's service record could be a legitimate issue.

So, whether or not one accepts megashawn's evidence, I have trouble seeing him as disingenuous.

Given that kat is willing to present evidence from sources far more partisan than those she rejects in others' arguments, I would think it easier to argue that kat is being disingenuous for continuing this line of debate.

 

[megashawn]

Thank you plover, very well put.

I by no means intend to criticize Kat personally. As I mentioned, I've reffered people to this site in the past, purely to read something of Kat's that had stuck with me at the time. She has corrected me on plenty of issues back in the old religion forum days, and I respect her.

But to see her stoop to the level of all these other right wingers, well, its just shocking. There is mounds of evidence against the Swift Boat Liars, and hence why so many people refer to them as such. I've linked to it several times in this politics forum, mentioned it and argued, as have others.

The problem, Kat presents an opinion article. The entire group of Swift Vets only presents opinions. The vast majority of them express there dislike for Kerry due to his testimony at the senate, and other anti-war protests. Only one person served with him, and, well, I'm not repeating this.

Frankly Hurkyl, if all you read from my post was me being mean to Kat, you need to reread my post, and instead of slinging big worded insults, trying proving or disproving its content.

 

[Hurkyl]

I only said what I had to say; my post was not intended to address Megashawn's post in its entirety.

 

[megashawn]

so you have nothing to add to the discussion
nothing to refute
no point to make
and no stance on the issue

Why comment at all?

 

[Hurkyl]

Why comment at all?

If the question was worth asking, then is it not worth answering?

 

[megashawn]

uhm, ok, that makes no sense.

All I'm trying to say is before you go around preaching the gospel, try to make sure you examined the whole story, not just the parts you agree with.

have a good night.

 

[kat]

I gave you a link once before Kat. And to think I have sent people to this forum, referencing things you've posted.

But this is sad. I've given you a link, in a different thread about this same, exact subject. I will now copy and paste portions of this link, since it seems your clicking finger has a rather selective ability.

I would think that past experience in debating issues with me (on the religious forum in particular) you would have at least realized that I try to educate myself thoroughly on any subject I'm interested in. I've also, numerous times stated that I am unsure of something I've posted If I didn't feel that I've researched enough to make an educated statement about it. So, I think you can save the uppity holier then though speachisms.
On your snopes link,... I had checked snopes in regards to this subject...BEFORE it was ever discussed on this forum and certainly before you posted your link. The first time I checked it I noticed it had not been updated since February, so I gave it the benefit of doubt. After you posted your link, I did return to Snopes again and noticed it had been updated but little content had been changed. It was still erroneous and misleading. It still had used only Kerry biased sources which are already known to have faulty/conflicting statements and information within them.
So, what's sad is that YOU have not done anywhere near the research I have on this subject (of this I am ABSOLUTELY sure unless you have spent hours pouring over records and Kerry's own ON THE RECORD statements, muddled through DU, KOS, along with right wing sites, Naval records, old newspaper articles etc. etc.).
As for the rest of your post, I will gladly go over it...line by line through the rest of the week. I cannot tonight as I'm up in less then 5 hours and have a long drive ahead of me.
So, in the meantime...maybe you should get your debate materials together...

 

[JohnDubYa]

megashawn, did John Kerry spend Christmas Eve in Cambodia? I want to see if he belongs on the list of Swift Boat Liars.

 

[plover]

1) If Kerry had never received a single medal for his service and injuries, what would you have to pick on?

I imagine exactly the same thing as if Kerry hadn't made his service a central part of his campaign.

I am saying that questioning Kerry's record is more than fair game, since he raised it himself; I think it was rather disingenious of Megashawn to criticize Kat for doing so.

I don't have a real opinion either way, though I think those defending Kerry have put forth arguments of lesser quality. (Though not necessarily less factual value)

I only said what I had to say; my post was not intended to address Megashawn's post in its entirety.

I'm still puzzled. By "not intended to address Megashawn's post in its entirety", are you saying that the original comment was only applicable to megashawn's question 1?

But you also maintain that the comment was intended to imply that megashawn was disingenuous, at least as regards his question 1. However, the question, as I read it, is intended to mean: Suppose Kerry had never received any medals, and therefore everything that the Swift Boat people are saying about them would not exist, how then would you attack Kerry's record? In other words, it would remain true that Kerry had volunteered for duty in Vietnam. How is this disingenuous in the sense you say?

My impression is that your comments are usually sensible, and that you usually take pains to remain more or less neutral. I asked about the original comment you made because I couldn't come up with a reading that seemed 'in character'. Your further comments have appeared inconsistent and confusing to me. My guess is the most likely reason for this is that we're talking past each other somehow. Or is there something else I'm missing here?

 

[Hurkyl]

Over the years, I seem to have acquired a knack for saying a lot less than people think.


I read Megashawn as asserting Kerry's war record isn't really a valid subject of debate, and one of his reasons for that assertion is that it is an "irrelevant question".

One of my bigger pet peeves is when one side raises a topic, the other side addresses the topic, and then the first side both holds their ground and suggests that the topic isn't worth addressing... that is what prompted me to respond rather than continue to lurk as I have been doing.

My rationale, of course, is that if the topic wasn't worth addressing, then the first side shouldn't have brought it up in the first place, and shouldn't continue arguing on the topic.


As for the quoted question, I had read it as an implication that Kat doesn't have anything "relevant" to say, because she's chasing this irrelevant topic. I had hoped my answer would both suggest why (I think) it's a valid topic, and that Kat's pursuit is not an indicator that there's nothing else for her to attack. (Of course, I don't mean to suggest there is something else for her to attack either)

 

[russ_watters]

That's my opinion as well, Hurkyl. I don't feel that strongy either way about Kerry's war record (what he did after is another story), but Kerry's the one who made it the centerpiece of his campaign. He gambled that it would help and he lost.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Right wingers keep saying that Kerry made his Viet Nam service the centerpiece of his campaign, but I honestly never saw him do it. He responded to the Swift Boats smear, but I never saw that he discussed his service before that. Of course various left wing bloggers were happy to contrast his service with whatever you want to call what Bush did in the same time frame. But none of that AFAICR came from the Kerry campaign.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Did you listen to his convention speech?

If it isn't about his war record, then what issue is he actually campaigning on? He won't even mention his Senate voting record. He can't make up his mind about the war in Iraq.

And what was "Operation Fortunate Son" all about?