I have always said that I only question his service because you folks question GWs. Since it is impossible to prove otherwise, I would give either the benefit of doubt since their government seemed satisfied with their service. I believe he was there and received the medals he claims. However as the ranking officer on the crew, he wrote the reports that resulted in his receiving the awards as well as his performance ratings. I do think it odd that he has posted “after action reports” for all but the one purple heart that is in question. the one his commander refused to sign that was supposedly submitted later. I am also surprised that his crew did not receive the same medals as he, since they were all exposed to the same dangers. I suspect he would have received the Medal of Honor if that did not require witnesses.

I also see no evidence that Kerry joined the navy because it was more dangerous than being a “safe” fighter pilot as liberals here previously stated. As a general rule, the Navy is the safest place to be when fighting an enemy without one. It certainly was when Kerry entered the service to serve on a guided missile frigate.

My problems with Kerry have nothing to do with his military service. It is what he did after he came home that concerns me.

Geeze Len, tagging Kerry as a self-serving opportunist. :eek:

oh, wait.. .nevermind. that is correct. :cool:


Hey is Kerry down in the polls? I saw him the other day and couldn't help but wonder, why the long face. :D

Not to mock his appearance but he is one politician where one doesn't have to go out of their way to create a caricature.

I don't have time to read through this right now, and I will later, but I am going to give you a very strong opinion I have. Most of you know I have been involved in public-sector stuff for quite a while. Right now I am a consultant, but previously I was a government employee. Governmetn offices are sitting ducks for information requests. It is frustrating to be on the hot seat to satisfy requests for information. Any citizen with a sheet of paper, an envelope, a stamp and fifteen minutes of time can get hours of professional research done by government employees who are already quite busy. Frustrating, yes. So, you might think I would forgive public servants for not stepping up to this responsibility.

Not so. I vigorously, vehemently support the public's right to know and I place this very serious responsibility on anyone who makes a decision to enter the public sector. Sure, there are exceptions. But they should be exceedingly narrow. If the president or vice president of my country has a meeting, I absolutely, positively, have a non-negotiable right to know who he's talking to. This is so fundamental, there is not not much more to say about it. These people are running our country, and they think they can keep secrets from us. It is beyond me how ANY of you can agree with that. As a matter of fact, an argument could be made that, except for a few "top secret" security discussions, the president and vice president should be on webcam except when sleeping. Or in bed, shall we say.

Recently Kerry lumped together "join the Guard, go to Canada, be a conscientious objector, or go AWOL" as if they were similar. Some on this thread seemed to agree.

I just came across an interesting related fact. 140 Medal of Honor recipients were in the National Guard. 6,077 members of the National Guard or Reserves died in Vietnam. As I said before..the Guard and Reserve are some bada*sed soldiers!

reminds me of a joke....
A horse walks into a bar. Bartender looks up and asks "Why the long face?"

"Though I am against the war, I'm going to enlist so I will have war history on my record which is good for any politician, then once I get there I will see to it that I get every possible medal availible to me so I can get the hell out and fast"

The bravery to enlist, and face death, for political success. The resourcefulness to get out quickly. Uh huh. :rolleyes: You guys are pathetic, attacking him like this.

Bush was somewhat brave for enlisting in the National Guard, who the hell cares why. Kerry was braver (or possibly stupider) for enlisting in the Navy, who the hell can even begin to construe why.

Why is this statement so hard to live with? How can you assign motives to something someone did nearly 30 years ago?

Cam,

Look, the man says he is against the war then enlists????? You tell me. I NEVER said he wasn't brave. I believe you can be brave and self-serving at the same time. I really gotta find that quote where Kerry said something like "I would have went to Canada, but I knew it would ruin my career". How wrong was he:)

If you are only discussing why they entered the service, I can agree that they both probably did so for political reasons...and both picked what seemed relatively safe routes.

As far as joining the Navy being more dangerous....that simply was not the case when they signed up. North Vietnam had no navy and no one even contemplated using water taxis for river combat duty (Operation Sealords) until after Kerry volunteered to command one and had returned from training in the US.

Neither's duty was of significant rank, length, nor recent enough to be of much value as a President.

OK, so lets say he did that (I have seen nothing about it).

He is now braver than Bush, but self-serving (being a politician, this is a trait he shares with 100% of his colleagues).

He also rose to the occasion of battle apparently. Then came back and vigorously spread his beliefs.

I cannot see how this all can be, even at the worst case scenario, turned around and made "bad". At worst it is neutral (like Bush and his equally unsubstantiated AWOLness).

Maybe I'm overthinking this and giving too much "credit"? to an 18-19 year old. Perhaps his motivations were not that sinister, but I don't doubt they were. I would disagree though in that if I'm right, he should never be the most powerful man in the world, the issue is not neutral to me. What I mean is IF IF IF my theory is right you have a guy that enlisted in a war he felt unjust and killed people he believed undeserving or innocent all for his career advancement???? This is neutral to you? Not cool, and definitely not neutral to me.

Give me a man who acts in accord with his convictions (whether I agree with them or not) over an opportunist anyday.

Lendaddy
An article regarding his run for congress in the February 18, 1970 edition of the Harvard Crimson noted that he had early political aspirations. He had worked in politics as early as prep school for the Kennedy campaign. This was written as a positive article (consider the time).

This is basically what I'm hearing from some of you.

This guy Kerry joins the military to build a successful resume for his future political career. Okay so far? A lot of folks have done this. Nothing special here. Then, in wartime VN, this person risks his life to save the lives of others, to make his resume look better (in case people decide to vote for him in the future). Have I got that right so far? And he does all this bullet-dodging for political leverage.

Wow. This guy's a savant, a forward-looking thinker if I ever saw one. Does that sound plausible? Kerry risks taking an end-of-life round from an AK47 to be more popular. Never mind he may not even get to see the next day. That's quite a stretch (to me, that is).

What I find more plausible is to do what I did; join the military (the reserves to avoid direct confrontation with guys who want to kill you), get yourself stationed stateside and bide your time until the war is over. End of comparison starting here. If you're not thinking at all about a future political career, are arrogant or stupid enough, you do your time, maybe take an extended leave of absence to do some outside work for a few months, then after discharge, quietly return to civilian life to suck on mint julips, play polo with the fellows (both conjecture), start a business and buy a sports team (both fact). For a man of means, that scenario sounds more plausible. Whether it's true or not really depends on your point of view.... I guess.

So do you choose your President on what they did 30 years ago? I think most of us would say, partially. Maybe more weight should be based on their overall record in political service to our country. In that regard, Bush is at a distinct disadvantage because he's had to make many more decisions the last 3.5 years. That should make the job somewhat easier for voters the next time around.

Unfortunately, the same folks who sell us soda, nachos and the Survivor also sell us a version, their truth. Somehow, it's up to us to decide whether it's valid or not and sometimes it's not that easy to do. I won't try to sway those who see it differently from me because more eloquent folks here have not been successful at it. I don't see much hope for the American people and America unless we're willing to see ourselves, not as the center of the world, but as some of the people who share this small planet with others, whether we want to or not. That and care about whether our government is truly representing the electorate or leading it down some self-serving path. Someone phrased it "their" government in an earlier post. Interesting, but probably a typo.

Sherwood

or maybe he didn't want to go, but thought the Navy was the "safest" way to go. Then he signed up for swift boats to be like his idol (JFK). Then he was in over his head, but some element of strength of character rose to the challenge and he performed his duty under fire. No matter why he went there, he was tested, and responded.

Pity the other guy never showed up for the exam...

True, again I say it appears he was an excellent soldier. He is to be commended for that. No doubt.
FWIW, my little theory has bugged me for days, believe it or not I feel "dirty" for lack of a better word for even thinking it. I did not seek it out though, it popped into my head after reading up on Kerry's life. The guy just reeks of vile opportunism, I cannot imagine you guys don't see that, even if you would still prefer him over Bush.

like I said...he signed up for swift boats to be more like JFK. I don't know that is "vile", but it could be considered opportunism. People do lots of things to further their career, political or otherwise. Does that make us all "vile opportunitsts"?

What I would consider "vile opportunism" was if he joined up, went over there, did nothing, hid out, then came back and claimed that he had "served his country." Maybe that was his plan, but it appears that it didn't quite work out that way.

Look, I don't really like Kerry. I don't think he has new ideas, or will make a great (or maybe even good) president. I just think he'll do less damage than Bush. My opinion...

I agree a good deal with Nostatic
During the early part of the Vietnam war, it was indeed thought by many, that a failure to serve would ruin one's future opportunities in politics. Even Bill Clinton agonized over serving. I think both GW and Kerry were politically motivated...I tried to join the Marines myself, but was too young. Later, I played the peacenik role a bit...cause that was the way to get the hot babes (at least the wilder ones). Seemed to me that all you needed was a faded army jacket and to flash the piece sign to get lucky. We are all opportunists to some extent.
I also agree that Kerry volunteered for the Swift boats to emulate his hero, JFK who captained a PT boat (he says so in later interviews)...but only because a Swift boat was still a very safe job...they were only used for water taxies then. Later when they started using swift boats for combat, I imagine Kerry regreted his decision...but apparently he served well. I do believe that he managed to get medals for actions that most folks would not have because he was a very smart guy and the only thing his superior knew of his patrols is what the ship's captain reported. He was, of course, the captain.
As I have posted before...both he and GW met their govt's definition for honorable service. that is enough for me. My problem with Kerry lies more with what he did after his military service.

For those of you still reading the mainstream press, theres a pretty thorough article on Kerry's anti-war activities in today's NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/24/politics/campaign/24VET.html?pagewanted=1&hp

We still read the main stream press...only problem is that it is about a week behind my posts and sugarcoated.

It certainly appears that Kerry served honorably in Viet Nam. Should be the end of that. And Len, I somewhat agree that Kerry is a political opportunist, (what a shock), :eek: , his biggest character flaw is probably his seeming lack of true conviction in certain areas. Still, we could do a lot worse. And I think that Kerry would have more real concern for our deployed troops, ie. giving them the number that they need to do the job and get the hell out of hell. For Bush, Iraq is just part of a grand political theme that he has tried to link to 9/11, I don't have to tell you (again) what I think of that.

Bush supporters always point to his "man of action"/doesn't waver/immune to liberal criticism qualities as though these are positive attributes, we on the other side see a guy who takes advice from his *born again Christian* God and a small but extremely influential group of "neo-conservatives". I don't believe that he truly represents many Americans, including most of his supporters. Kerry will put us back to alright w/ our allies and the world, this is what we desparately need right now. I also happen to believe that terrorism, while awful, is far from the biggest problem that we face at the moment. :cool: