Kerry's fellow ex vets have their own stories to tell

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Nothing new in this article, at least, with the discussion in mind that was on Interference a few months ago. Some say they don't like Kerry, some say they do.
:shrug:

You can't please everyone.

C ya!

Marty
 
I especially like the last line:

?If you have any questions about what John Kerry is made of,? Edwards challenged, ?just spend three minutes with the men who served with him 30 years ago ...? Hoffmann snorted.

?I?ll give you three minutes anytime,? he muttered.

 
You're quite right Popmartjin. Nobody can please everyone all the time. Some vets like Kerry, some don't. That's par for the course. For goodness' sakes the guy is a political candidate. There are always going to be people who don't like a candidate no matter who it is. I have no trouble with this. In fact, what bothers me about politics is the "my opponent is a crud" mentality of so many in both campaigns. After all, some of my liberal buddies have really given me a pain in the ass, because they have this mentality. Two of these almost got into a freaking lawsuit! It was ridiculous!
 
0895260174.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg
 
How many of these swift boat vaterans actually served with Kerry?

I know several of them were in the same picture with him, the one he had been using in his ads. Some of them complained about the picture being used, saying it implied approval and support for Kerry, which they did not give. He has since stopped using it.
 
I guess the Republicans who pumped all that money into "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" are really happy with this book. I wonder if they asked Kerry's permission to use to photograph on the cover though (if he's on it).
 
Last edited:
The next question then would be, how is it possible for a person who's unfit to lead to get a commanding position, and a bronze and silver star?

I suspect this has got more to do with it than anything:

The men admit that they have been sore at Kerry for more than 30 years. Kerry came home from Vietnam with a chestful of medals ? including three Purple Hearts ? and joined the anti-war movement. In his 1971 testimony before a Senate panel , Kerry talked of American troops who had raped, pillaged, murdered and tortured locals with the knowledge, even blessing, of their commanders.

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth say they never witnessed such atrocities.

?He betrayed us,? said member Bill Collins, a Swiftee who serves as chairman of the board of supervisors of Sussex County. ?Labeled us all baby-killers.?

They might have a score to settle.
 
Most? Try half. And, as a wise man once said, those who are not against us are for us. ;)

I think what's most accurate about whether or not Kerry was fit for command are his fitness reports from Vietnam written by his commanding officers. You can look at them here.

Some highlights:
October 19, 1967, evaluation from Captain Allen W. Slifer:
A top notch officer in every measurable trait. Intelligent, mature, and rich in educational background and experience, ENS Kerry is one of the finest young officers I have ever met and without question one of the most promising.

September 3, 1968, evaluation from Captain E.W. Harper, Jr.:
LTJG KERRY is an intelligent and competent young naval officer who has performed his duties in an excellent to outstanding manner.

December 18, 1969, evaluation from LCDR George M. Elliott:
In a combat environment often requiring independent, decisive action LTJG Kerry was unsurpassed. He constantly reviewed tactics and lessons learned in river operations and applied his experience at every opportunity. On one occasion while in tactical command of a three boat operation his units were taken under fire from ambush. LTJG Kerry rapidly assessed the situation and ordered his units to turn directly into the ambush. This decision resulted in routing the attackers with several enemy KIA.
LTJG Kerry emerges as the acknowledged leader in his peer group. His bearing and appearance are above reproach. He has of his own volition learned the Vietnamese language and is instrumental in the successful Vietnamese training program.
During the period of this report LTJG Kerry has been awarded the Silver Star medal, the Bronze Star medal, the Purple Heart medal (2nd and 3rd awards).

Evaluation co-signed by Joseph Streuli and George M. Elliott on January 28, 1969, and March 17, 1969, respectively:
... exhibited all of the traits of an officer in a combat environment. He frequently exhibited a high sense of imagination and judgment in planning operations against the enemy in the Mekong Delta.

March 2, 1970 evaluation from Admiral Walter F. Schlech:
... one of the finest young officers with whom I have served in a long naval career.
 
Hmmm, decisions decisions...

Whose opinion should we value then? A few years worth of commanding officers incl. awarded medals, or a republican funded group who seem to be having an axe to grind with Kerry due to his post-war behaviour?

:hmm:
 
Given Bush's AWOL record, I'd be willing to bet that many of his former superiors and colleagues probably see him as unfit for command, too.
 
This is laughable. Those fellow crew members against Kerry have a gigantic chip on their shoulder and score to settle, plain and simple. Kerry spoke out against the war, and they feel guilty by association.

But here's what I find laughable, if we were to judge fitness for command on past records, who would you rather go for:

Candidate A: Served in Vietnam War. Highly decorated, Extremely well-reviewed and regarded by his commanding officers. Spoke out against a highly controversial war when he got home. Went on to serve on foreign relations committee for several years.

Candidate B: Served in Coast Guard. Failed to report for medical examinations, irregular attendance at required functions, requested transfer to what essentially was a desk job. May or may not have been AWOL. No active duty in war. Went on into oil industry.

Well there you have it. They want to make it an issue of his past record, so here are their (very condensed) past records, at least with relevancy towards being fit to command. Based on that, who seems more unfit to command?

That's what I thought. :)
 
Other bizarro world Republican attacks on Kerry/Edwards:

But, Kerry and Edwards are filthy rich!
John Edwards doesn't have enough government experience!

And so on.
 
Hey I wonder ...what did Bush's Vietnam Comrades think about him?


Oh ...my bad.... he didn't go
 
Diemen said:
This is laughable. Those fellow crew members against Kerry have a gigantic chip on their shoulder and score to settle, plain and simple. Kerry spoke out against the war, and they feel guilty by association.

But here's what I find laughable, if we were to judge fitness for command on past records, who would you rather go for:

Candidate A: Served in Vietnam War. Highly decorated, Extremely well-reviewed and regarded by his commanding officers. Spoke out against a highly controversial war when he got home. Went on to serve on foreign relations committee for several years.

Candidate B: Served in Coast Guard. Failed to report for medical examinations, irregular attendance at required functions, requested transfer to what essentially was a desk job. May or may not have been AWOL. No active duty in war. Went on into oil industry.

Well there you have it. They want to make it an issue of his past record, so here are their (very condensed) past records, at least with relevancy towards being fit to command. Based on that, who seems more unfit to command?

That's what I thought. :)

:applaud:

Though I don't view Bush or Clinton negatively for wanting to avoid being sent to Vietnam, the fact that Kerry went is admirable.
 
ThatGuy said:
I didn't know Clinton was running for president.


Ah but when he was, against war hero George Bush I, and again against disabled veteran Bob Dole, nobody, especially not democrats, cared. Now all of a sudden military service in Viet Nam is an issue? :hmm: What I'm trying to say is, it's hypocrisy to only make an issue of it when it benefits YOUR candidate. If draft dodging is bad, if someone is unfit to lead if they did not serve, sorry, you have to consider that no one minded when it was Clinton, so why does it matter now???
 
Last edited:
To paraphrase BostonAnne upthread, I honestly don't hold it against Bush or Clinton for not serving. If it were me, I probably would have done my best to avoid service, too.

However, this Republican-backed group is trying to cut down Kerry by questioning his service. Is it not resonable to point out that their own guy (as you did with Clinton) was conspicuously absent from Vietnam? Kerry didn't have to go, but he chose to. That's admirable no matter what your political beliefs are.

To answer your questions about no one caring, people did. But it wasn't an issue. No one was questioning Bush I's or Dole's service. No one was claiming that Bob Dole's war injuries were self-inflicted. This is an issue in this because Kerry is being attacked.
 
Last edited:
ThatGuy said:
To paraphrase BostonAnne upthread, I honestly don't hold it against Bush or Clinton for not serving. If it were me, I probably would have done my best to avoid service, too.

However, this Republican-backed group is trying to cut down Kerry by questioning his service. Is it not resonable to point out that their own guy (as you did with Clinton) was conspicuously absent from Vietnam? Kerry didn't have to go, but he chose to. That's admirable no matter what your political beliefs are.

To answer your questions about no one caring, people did. But it wasn't an issue. No one was questioning Bush I's or Dole's service. No one was claiming that Bob Dole's war injuries were self-inflicted. This is an issue in this because Kerry is being attacked.

:up:.

Angela
 
I don't hold it against anyone for not serving either. If I were a guy in those days, I'd have dodged too. But that's not the point.

The point is, Bush's non service compared to Kerry's service is being made an issue, and I don't think that's fair since when it was Clinton vs. war veterans, it didn't matter, and it shouldn't be used now when it's convenient to the democrat. It's hypocritical.
 
You know how it wouldn't be an issue? Two ways:

1.) Partisan groups stopped attacking Kerry's service
2.) Bush wasn't so secretive about his service records. He could release all of them and say, "While I did not serve in Vietnam, I did serve my country honorably in a time of crisis." The fact that he hasn't released his guard records, unlike Kerry who has his Navy records posted on his website, shows that he may have something to hide.

How is this hypocritical?
 
Back
Top Bottom