Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Part of the definition of a terrorist is someone who attacks non-military targets to terrorize the public. The attacks by our enemies in Iraq are against the American military and contractors, not against the uninvolved American citizens.

Therefore, it is inaccurate to refer to our opponents in Iraq as terrorists.

This is not political correctness. This is the english language.

What you advocate is closer to political correctness because it’s changing the meaning of a word to affect the political impression of an event.

This was yet another “mistake” the President made in his press conference. It annoyed me, but not enough to write about it. Thanks for pushing me to it, Dustin.

To clarify, I’m using parts of the following definitions of terrorism:

the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear - Princeton’s WordNet
Acts of murder and destruction deliberately directed against civilians or military in non-military situations. - Jewish Agency for Israel

Of course, there are many other definitions, including “Any act of resistance by the Palestinians”.

Oh my, it’s that liberal media at it again. What’s the matter, they’re not cheering on the war anymore? But “terrorist” is indeed a loaded word to use when the attacks are both aimed at an occupying power and located in the country they invaded. Did I just say invaded? I meant liberated. Nobody by the way called the bombings in Madrid “insurgent attacks,” even though the occupation likely had something to do with that. It was called terrorism, period.
But yes, innocent people are getting killed in Iraq by these attacks, something that of course never happens in a proper war action, where civilians who are killed can take much comfort in only being the victims of “collateral damage.”

I have to disagree on the use of the word terrorists in this situation. The Iraqis are defending their own land against outside invaders and while they are attacking, in some cases “civilians” in the literal sense that they are not enlisted or commissioned military, they are still acting at the behest of the U.S. government as it’s contractors.

Well isn’t this a topic that harkens back to 1776 (literally).

What’s the difference between a terrorist, a freedom fighter, a traitor and a revolutionary?
If King Georges troops (the British one, not he current W version) had caught Mr. Washington he would have been hung as a traitor.

What do you call a bunch of guys who dress up as up as Indians then attack a civilian target (like a ship full of tea)?

Weren’t the redcoats the first army to deal with snipers who would blend back into the civilian population? Why the cheeky little minutemen even deliberately shot at officers.

I am NOT supporting what the insurgents/terrorist/revolutionaries are doing in Iraq, but lets not pretend we are the first army to be shot at by civilians.

“The attacks by our enemies in Iraq are against the American military and contractors, not against the uninvolved American citizens. Therefore, it is inaccurate to refer to our opponents in Iraq as terrorists.”

Hundreds upon hundreds of Iraqi civilians have been killed by these “freedom fighters”—mosques, schools, police-stations and public offices have
been targets. In a single attack a few months ago over a hundred of civilians were killed. Not terrorists?

It’s typical, though, for Democrats to not really count Iraqi civilians in these equations. Over 300,000 of these civilians have been uncovered (so far) in Saddam’s mass graves. But oh yeah, we haven’t found WMD’s (so far) so that’s perfectly okay with us.

Interesting point, Martin.

You are right that Iraqi civilians have been killed. You are right that I forgot about them in my comment above. You are wrong to turn that into an unwarranted smear against the party you oppose. However, I’m not surprised you resort to such attacks; I’ve seen it many times from you.

In some cases, the terrorist label is warranted in Iraq. However, the President uses the term for people who are actually fighting the US Military, and the examples in the original post are examples of an attack which is probably insurgency, not terrorism.

I don’t care what you liberals want to call them, they are still rag-heads and homosexuals to me.

Thanks for fighting to keep them liberals at the ABC (Athiest Broadcasting Channel) from trying to change these heathen terrorists into humans. Lord knows, I pray each and every day that our brave soldiers kill more terrorists (even the little ones, before they can get big).

God Bless us in this struggle.

How do you just “forget” that hundreds upon hundreds of Iraqi civilians have been killed unless you’re looking for some reason to call a terrorist a freedom fighter? Oops, slipped my mind—nothing to see here? That is not a simple oversight. It’s a matter of filtering (as usual) all facts so only those which confirm a preconcieved political agenda are allowed to even be considered. This becomes a vicious cycle—a worldview based on filtered information creates ever new definitions and “facts” (like the idea that Bush didn’t bend over backward last year to involve the UN, or that the war was all about oil or WMDs). The end result of this frightening syndrome could very well culminate someday in pulling a lever for John Kerry—a fate to be avoided at all costs!

Don’t blame me for “smearing” anybody—unless pointing out gross inconstencies in somoneone’s own words is a “smear.” Considering the level of invective from the left (even on this blog Bush is routinely called a moron and liar), it’s pretty
rich for Democrats to call foul when somebody reminds them of their own words.

“What’s the difference between a terrorist, a freedom fighter, a traitor and a revolutionary?”

The difference, in my book, is the cause they are fighting. If they are fighting for freedom from oppression and for equal rights for all people, then they are freedom fighters. If they are fighting to reinsitute a regime that will rule based on fear, death and murder, with no hint at individual rights or liberties or democracy, then they are thugs and should be treated as such. The questions to ask are (1) are their goals noble? (2) are their means appropriate. In our revolutionary war, our goals were establishing a representative government and breaking away from a monarchy. In the case of most of these Iraqis the goal is to either re-establish a totalitarian regime in Iraq either under a somewhat secular model of Saddam or a religious totalitarian regime. You are not a freedom fighter if you are trying to fight against freedom. I doubt very very seriously that any of the people attacking our troops in Iraq are commited to producing a regime that respects the rights of all Iraqis, therefor I will call them the terrorist thugs that they are.

Boy, I sure do notice a lot of concern here all of a sudden for Iraqui civilians. I wonder how many civilians have been killed by US military action - but do you?

When oh when are the hawks going to learn that indiscriminately slapping people with the “terrorist” label doesn’t advance their cause? Pretty soon the word will lose all of its rhetorical sting, and a new word will have to be coined to convey how bad our enemies are. “They aren’t terrorists, they’re horrifierists! They aren’t homicide bombers, they’re premeditated-first-degree-murder bombers”

Hundreds upon hundreds of Iraqi civilians have been killed by these “freedom fighters”—mosques, schools, police-stations and public offices have been targets. In a single attack a few months ago over a hundred of civilians were killed. Not terrorists?

US forces killed Iraqi civilians, too, but no one in their right mind calls them terrorists.

I freely admit that I was wrong to imply that all lethal actions by Islamists and other forces in Iraq are guerilla actions and acts of insurgency. Murders of Iraqi police and translators who have assisted us are terrorism. The bombing of the mosque in Najaf in August that killed 75 people was terrorism.

However, attacks by those forces on our military are not terrorist actions by definition. They are insurgent guerilla actions. This distinction does not condone those actions, but it accurately describes them.

President Bush and others ignore this distinction in their public remarks.

That I only thought of some of the bloodshed in my initial response was a simple oversight on my part, not an intentional deception. To extend my honest mistake to an indictment on all Democrats for “filtering (as usual) all facts so only those which confirm a preconcieved political agenda are allowed to even be considered” as part of a habitual tendency is a smear. Both sides of all debates often fall into such traps, but usually not intentionally.

I never called those responsible for such attacks “freedom fighters”. That implied a moral justification I’m not willing to claim.

We’re fighting militias that draw their membership from among Iraqis. Citizens of a nation fighting in resistance of an occupation are by definition insurgents. The line can get muddy, admittedly, but I think calling these people terrorists would just be a way to avoid facing up to our shortcomings in this occupation.

See, if they’re terrorists, then we can portray innocent Iraqis as accepting the Occupation, while these fanatics and foreigners prey upon them. If they’re insurgents, then it’s an problem of occupation.

An Insurgency requires different approaches than a terrorist threat. If you go willy-nilly redefining insurgents as terrorists, you could very well end up defining yourself out of a productive solution.

Fix the problem, not the wording.

Oh, and additionally: “Homicide Bomber” is the most ridiculous piece of B.S. I’ve ever heard. Anybody whose bomb kills somebody else could be called a Homicide Bomber. Ted Kaczynski was a homicide bomber. He’s still alive, serving his prison term. The Pan Am 103 bombers didn’t stick around for things. The term applies to them.

Only somebody who intentionally destroys themselves in carrying out a bombing fits the description “suicide bomber” It’s plain english. A bomber who kills himself. The phrase garners little sympathy, especially in the light of the carnage it usually creates. Nobody’s saying “he listened to too much Emo, the poor thing.”

Well, I’ll agree about “homicide bombers.” That and “freedom fries” are pretty embarrassing even to some of us right wing-whackos. It would be nice, though, to have a similar gesture from the other side and not insist on referring to those foreign elements fighting in Iraq as “insurgents.”

They’re killing Iraqis in greater numbers than they’re killing Americans. When they kill civilians, they do it deliberately (often at the behest at the Iranians and other Islamicists who want nothing more than a totalitarian state in which they can terrorize their own citizens). Hopefully a democratically elected Iraqi government will deal with them same way we do. Terrorists, insurgents, guerrillas—whatever. Let Allah sort them out.

Lawnboy, Stephen,

Part of the definition of a terrorist is someone who attacks non-military targets to terrorize the public. The attacks by our enemies in Iraq are against the American military and contractors, not against the uninvolved American citizens.

Therefore, it is inaccurate to refer to our opponents in Iraq as terrorists.

…We’re fighting militias that draw their membership from among Iraqis. Citizens of a nation fighting in resistance of an occupation are by definition insurgents.

This is precisely why Kerry is going to lose in November. I don’t think the average American thinks that those who kill our troops are insurgents, or freedom fighters, or revolutionaries, the average American, and our soldiers there in Iraq, call them ‘the enemy’.

These ‘revolutionary fighters’ are really coming from several different groups. You have former regime remnants, the baathists, you have Al Sadr’s brigade of Shia thugs, and you have foreign fighters coming in from both Syria and Iran including bona fide Al Qaeda led by guys like Zarkawi.

Our troops are secondary targets. Iraqi police seem to be target number one. This is not a semantic issue which Kerry would be able to overcome through nuance. This is why Kerry is “wrong on defense,” and wrong on Iraq.

See, this is why conservatives get such a mixed reaction: The Iraqis killing people in Iraq are either insurgents or terrorists.

How about both? There are factions in Iraq who see US troops as an oppressive occupation force. There are others who are just trying to murder as many Western “crusaders” as possible.

The situation is not black and white, which tends to make conservative rhetoric sound simplistic and sometimes just wrong, and makes liberals sound wishy-washy but more accurate.

And Dustin, thank you for using the phrase, “war on terrorism”, rather than “war on terror”. That just drives me nuts. Like we’re trying to find a cure for claustrophobia, or something.

if the war on terror goes anything like the war on drugs….we are all in deep trouble.

Precisely why Kerry is going to lose in November? Where’d that come from? If you think keeping your idea of who your enemy is vague and undeveloped is going to win any wars, you’re mistaken.

our troops and our generals should have a better, more nuanced idea of who the enemy is than the American public. If they are unclear about that, we’re in trouble. Knowing your enemy means you know their pressure points, you know what their purpose is, and what you can do to rob them of their purpose. If we can rob these people, in each faction, of the notion that what they are doing is right, we can win this war. Otherwise we will be fighting a war of attrition we don’t have the soldiers to win.

As for Kerry, he’s not focusing on the Iraqi police because their plight is not all that big of a story back home. Most voters are more concerned about the soldiers who are their fellow countrymen and women, than the Iraqi police, who however brave or dutiful do not represent a homefront for American politicians. Last I’ve recalled, though, your candidate has not said much about the Iraqi police, so I strain to see why you bring it up as political issue.

As for being wrong on defense and wrong on Iraq as your campaign ad quote goes, I seem to remember Kerry voting to authorize force in Iraq and Afghanistan. I also seem to remember that the beginning of this thread has its roots in just such a semantic issue. So if Kerry is wrong on Defense, wrong on Iraq, then so are you and all your compatriots, because he pretty much took the administrations line until recently.

People who are worked up about what to call the “insurgents”, or “terrorists”, or what have you should keep something in mind: What the American media calls them doesn’t make a darned bit of difference.

What really matters is what the Iraqis think of them. If the proverbial man on the Iraqi street thinks that they are “terrorists”, then they are probably not going to get enough support to keep fighting. If, on the other hand, they are seen as “freedom fighters” then we are in for a nasty fight (unless we just pick up and leave).

Stephen, I meant that the terrorist’s were targeting Iraqi police. I haven’t heard word one from Kerry about Iraqi police.

Kerry’s vote to authorize the President to use force as he sees fit is the issue here. As well as Kerry’s seeming retraction of that vote right after he made it.

His NO vote on the $87 billion dollars of additional funding for the troops is characteristic of Kerry’s ‘nuance’. He ‘voted for it before he voted against it.’ He’s a vietnam war hero who claims he committed war atrocities and implicates others as well. He claims to be the multilateralist, that Bush has offended the world by his words and actions, yet what will Kerry do with a Republican House and Senate after calling conservatives the worst liars and cheaters he’s ever seen? These contradictions as well as the hazy, fuzzy, ambiguity is what is disconcerting about Kerry because you can’t predict exactly what, if any, principles he actually uses to make decisions.

Why won’t Kerry just come out and say he opposed the invasion of Iraq? He can’t. He is opposed to “the way we went to war”. Well, he’s nuanced himself into both sides of the issue. Number one, he voted for it. But he opposes it. He can’t repudiate it without having to explain why he voted for it. Therefore he had to find another way to exaplin his present position. Hence, it’s not the invasion that is the mistake, it’s the manner of the invasion.

Men who kill Iraqi civilians, police officers and US troops: are they ‘freedom fighters’ or terrorists? “Well, I don’t oppose terrorism, I just oppose the manner in which it’s carried out.”

It’s called liberal moral relativity.

Woody Mena,

What really matters is what the Iraqis think of them.

You are 100% correct. Do you think that having a vocal minority in the US taking the position that they are freedom fighters helps the average Iraqi citizen to decide that they are terrorists? or freedom fighters?

Kerry will lose because he has taken both sides of the Iraq issue. He can’t take a strong position. What will he do if he inherits the problem? Will he pullout? Will he push forward?

If the only answer is victory, who would you rather have in charge? Someone who is passionate and resolute? or someone who may or may not want to pullout depending on how the wind blows?

The choice for voters is going to Bush or Kerry. Which will carry through on what must be done?

Eric, I’m surprised we haven’t heard more in the media about the Kerry as war hero who committed atrocities thing.

I’ve long been suspicious of how Kerry managed to get wounded three times in four months and get sent home so quickly (especially since his wounds werescrapes and scratches and wouldn’t have interfered in the least with his ability to remain). Even his doctors are on record as remembering it was very strange that Kerry wanted documentation for wounds that didn’t even require hospitilization—but can you imagine the firestorm if a Republican candidate was on the record saying he’d committed atrocities and war crimes? There’d be nothing in the headlines—but of course, if you’re a democrat it’s okay to have committed war crimes. It’s just not okay to be a Republican.

First, Eric, he never retracted the authorization of force, and its quite obvious that a great many people wanted UN involvement, wanted there not to be a rush into war, and if we did have to do these things, they wanted proof positive it was the right decision.

If you failed to meet those conditions, or it turns out you did, then people like Kerry, who insisted upon certain measures, have a right to withdraw support. Now Kerry helped pass the first budget supplement. Did you know that? It was the ninety million dollar budget supplemental that came after that that had him advocating that Bush stop inflating the deficit and start asking the American people directly for the money, instead of taking out more debt.

Kerry was merely holding this president to his word with his vote. And as for any deficiencies there were in troop supplies, the question is begged: why didn’t Bush ask for the appropriations he needed when he started out? Why didn’t he ask for the body armor for the troops, or the armor for the vehicles? Bush waited the better part of the year to start buying these things for our troops. Why aren’t you criticizing Bush for that, instead of criticizing a man who simply was trying to get Bush to live up to his promises on the UN and the Budget?

There seems to be a pretty consistent principle working throughout Kerry’s votes on policy: Pre-emptive wars should only be waged based on airtight evidence, and the American government should not spend out of proportion to what it takes in. Kerry may be a tax and spend Democrat, but at least he’s not a borrow and spend Republican like Bush. We are better off paying less for this war now, by paying with taxes, than we are paying more for it later, by taking out treasury bonds that will require full repayment plus interest.

And Martin:
Your candidate didn’t even put himself at risk.

In one incident where his boat hit a mine, Kerry got contusions on his arm, a shrapnel wound, and despite all that yanked another soldier out of the water when he fell in, despite enemy fire coming his way. Contusions, by the way, are severe bruises, so he was feeling it.

The difference between insurgents and terrorists is when they do not care who they target. The suicide bombers in Basra just today killed 16 schoolchildren—while they may not have targeted them, they sure as hell didnt give a damn that the school was right next to their target.

Contrast that with the US forces who take great pains NOT to kill civilians, even though it puts our soldiers at greater risk. Do civilians still die—-yes, and that is tragic. Yet it is not done with intent, nor is it done with callous disregard. To even remotely compare our boys with those who use suicide bombs indiscriminately, regardless of who gets in the way, is simply horribly wrong.

Steven: I can’t tell if you are being facetious when you say that “Contusions, by the way, are severe bruises, so he (Kerry) was feeling it.” While I do not denigrate his service to his country, I also don’t consider bruising to be worthy of a Purple Heart. I do think Kerry used the system to his advantage—he got wounded, albeit minimally, which gave him the legitimate opportunity to take an administrative aide position in the US. While its within the rules of the game, I don’t see it as the bravest course of action for a true hero. I do see it as the chance to get the hell out of country alive, and one which many of us brave “chat heros” would also have taken advantage of.

Pre-emptive wars should only be waged based on airtight evidence, and the American government should not spend out of proportion to what it takes in. Kerry may be a tax and spend Democrat, but at least he’s not a borrow and spend Republican like Bush.

I cannot think of any other country with the exact evidence and history of using WMD against it’s own citizens, animosity towards the US, a repeatedly broken ceasefire, and a psychotic and megolomaniacal dictator bent on having WMD to aggrandize himself and terrorize his neighbors as Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. What other country have we had sanctions on for 10-12 years, no-fly zones over two thirds of his country to protect his own citizens, a regime of weapons inspections, which were thwarted at every attempt to catalog and remove WMD. There isn’t any other country with which we have had this much evidence over this period of time. The question you should be asking is where are the WMD we know should be there? Not why did Bush lie.

…You’re right Martin. It does seem odd. Another thing I noticed is that the attacks on Bush as an elitist, rich, silver-spoon-fed Harvard Blue blood have been silenced. I wonder why that is? Very little, ‘man of the people’ stuff from the democrats lately, don’t you think?

Since it’s clear that the election is pretty much going to come down to an up or down vote on Bush, I can’t understand why the Democrats aren’t nominating somebody a bit more innocuous who doesn’t have so potential major negatives (like Edwards, that affable Rorschach blot of a man).

I agree that Kerry shouldn’t be faulted for using his nicks and bruises as a way to get out of Vietnam—gaming the system is a time-honored practice even among seasoned soldiers. It’s when he tries to pose as some big hero who should be deffered to in all military matters, and tries to use his war record to insulate himself from all criticism, that he opens the door to a closer look at his actual record. That he admits to participating in war crimes and atrocities (and the media shows itself more interested in poring over Bush’s dental records) demonstrates the media’s incredible double-standard here. But even they won’t be able to keep the lid on this forever.

Since Kerry’s war record is the major reason for the perception of his “electability,” I suspect that it’s going to get some real scrutiny and soon. These questions need to be asked: (1) did Kerry exaggerate his record and campaign for his medals as his colleagues are saying, and more importantly (2) what war-crimes, since he admits commiting them, is he responsible for? If he didn’t commit any, then why did he say he did? To smear and demean soldiers serving in Vietnam? I see know way for him to wiggle out of this because there is none, and it’s potentially damning.

The Democrats have showed us how to do this with the whole (now largely put to rest) Bush/AWOL flap. Just get the questions out there to put the candidate on the defensive, keep asking them, don’t be satisfied with any answer and let the whole thing effect the public perception of the candidate. Even if he successfuly puts it all to rest, the damage will have been done.

> I don’t see it as the bravest course of action
> for a true hero. I do see it as the chance to
> get the hell out of country alive, and one
> which many of us brave “chat heros” would also
> have taken advantage of.

Good Lord, Joe. I know you’re not claiming to be a braver man than John Kerry, but you are clearly questioning his bravery and heroism.

First, I doubt even Rambo would have passed up the opportunity to be transferred out of Vietnam after three wounds. I can’t imagine that any soldiers (except maybe those with mild retardation or strong suicidal tendencies) would have chosen to stay in Vietnam after three injuries.

But okay, let’s pretend you and your Republican friends are right and Kerry didn’t deserve those Purple Hearts for his sissy wimpy wounds - what about the goddamned Silver Star and the Bronze Star? Kerry was risking his life saving his fellow American soldiers from enemy fire while Bush was still a cheerleader at Yale and a drunkard in training.

Man, you chickenhawk-loving Republicans are really sinking pretty darn low these days. Are you folks implying that the thousands of other American soldiers who over the years were reassigned after three injuries (some even after two) are not heroes? How bad does an injury need to be, exactly, for a soldier to be a hero?

And, secondly: since when has being a certifiable war hero been a criteria for the Presidency?

You Republicans have some gall questioning Kerry’s injuries and war record at all. Your man dodged the whole damn war, for crying out loud. President Bush can’t even steel himself to testify in front of the 9/11 commission by himself.

If there is one character flaw that President Bush has displayed over and over again, especially when it counts, it is plain old everyday cowardice. Name one extraordinarily “brave” thing Bush has ever done that couldn’t easily be explained away as either stubbornness or callousness.

-Cf

> That he admits to participating in war crimes
> and atrocities (and the media shows itself
> more interested in poring over Bush’s dental
> records) demonstrates the media’s incredible
> double-standard here.

How utterly disingenuous of you. The media are not fools, we who are supporting Kerry are not fools, and you are not a fool. Nobody with a brain seriously believes that John Kerry is a bloodthirsty war criminal.

But since you insist on inflammatory rhetoric like “he admits to participating in war crimes”, then I insist on condecendingly explaining the truth that you are perfectly aware of already.

There were lots of war crimes committed by American troops in Vietnam, a small few acting as individuals but a great many acting out official US military policies. The “free fire zone” policy, for example, was clearly in violation of the Geneva convention. John Kerry followed those orders just like thousands of other young men serving with him. He later realized the wrongness of that policy, and in explaining the wrongness of the policy to his commanders and eventually to the Congress he pointed out that he and his comrades were being ordered, in fact, to commit war crimes.

So to get back to your question as to why the media isn’t holding John Kerry to task for his admitted war crimes… They are not making a big deal out of it because everyone knows that American soldiers were forced to do terrible things in Vietnam, and if they crucify John Kerry for the actual things he’s admitted to then they’d have to crucify tens of thousands of other veterans for the same things. You are of course perfectly aware of this, and were only raising the question in the first place so that you could type “Kerry” and “atrocity” in the same sentence.

-Cf

“Since when has being a certifiable war hero been a criteria for the Presidency?”

Since never, but it’s Kerry who is offering it as a main rationale for his candidacy. And it’s his fellow veterans who are questioning the validity of his awards (the Republicans haven’t even touched this story). One doctor who examined Kerry said that he’d seen pricks from roses more severe than Kerry’s wounds. It’s not impossible to get together a couple of buddies to embellish a story and win medals—it happens all the time. Perhaps there’s nothing to it, but it’s worth at least as much scrutiny as Bush’s military records received. Already gaps have been found in the records Kerry’s released—four periods of time where his whereabouts are unaccounted for. By the standard of logic Democrats have showed us, he must have been AWOL four times! Considering Kerry and his allies’ willingness to jump on board every unsubstantiated smear of Bush, he may just be about to get a taste of his own medicine.

Also, Bush was still in college while Kerry was in Vietnam because he was several years younger. And since when does serving in the National Guard not count as military service? Bush flew an airplane, the F-102, which was dangerous and obsolete (several others who trained in it were killed in training), part of the reason his unit wasn’t called up in the last phases of the war. But chickenhawk? Hardly. Flying combat aircraft, whether in combat or not, is inherently risky.

And another thing, Christopher, the “I was just following orders” defense went out of vogue during the Nuremberg trials. Kerry has admitted to committing war crimes and other acts in violation of the Geneva Convention. I’m not saying he belongs in jail—just that he doesn’t belong in the White House. This isn’t Serbia. We don’t elect war criminals here.

So when isn’t a Silver or Bronze Star really a Silver or Bronze Star? Perhaps in the 2004 presidential campaign, when an honorable discharge isn’t really an honorable discharge. I don’t remember Democrats jumping to defend Bush with the argument that if the military ratified it, it must have been true. What actually happened is a lot of loose talk about whether strings were pulled for Bush because of his priviliged background. So what strings were pulled for old silver-spoon Kerry to win him a pile of medals in four short months and a coveted ticket home?

This is a game, my Democratic friends, that you’ve taught us to play.

Eric and Martin, you are my kind of folk! I never did understand how guys like McCain, Cleland, and Kerry thought that serving in Vietnam made them special. It’s time for them to stop whining about how tough they had it there. Scrapes and bruises, a few missing limbs, some time in stir. Chumps, I say.

Everybody knows you had to be a chump to actually serve in Vietnam, what with all the deferments to choose from and the willing help from your influential family friends. Haha! I was sittin’ around in the States snortin’ coke with their girlfriends while they were out “saving the world”, or some such nonsense.

I think the last few years have proved that the American people don’t give a flat toad on a Texas road for Vietnam “heroes”. They lost the war, for God’s sake! How does that make them heroes? Losers, more like.

Martin and Eric I like the cut of your jib. Did you ever serve in a war? Don’t bother telling me which one, I wouldn’t know what you’re talking about. But my “people” tell me I need some vets for props at my next speech to give me “an air of legitimacy”, or something. I don’t know why I listen to those guys. Seems like a bunch of nonsense to me. Nobody cares about those chumps anyhow.

I’m with Chris on this. I’m astounded at what I read off those files. True, he didn’t lose an arm and a leg to get the purple hearts, but he did some damn impressive things besides that, and his fitness reports are out of this world.

First of all, The guy gets excellent marks throughout his career. They could have damned him with faint prais if they wanted to, but they didn’t have to mention things like him actually learning Vietnamese and training them, him planning operations among other things.

Second of all the bronze star incident where he saved the other soldier was not so simple as the media portrays it. First, he had to turn the boat back to get the guy. Second, the man was under fire from snipers. Third, Kerry was in great pain when he risked his own life to yank the man out of the water.

The silver star commendation reads like something you’d cheer if you saw it in a movie. Ambushed two or three times, Kerry not only kicks the Vietcong’s asses, but he does so without any casualties on his side.

Now what does Bush have to show for himself? Dental records and proof that he showed up. I mean, case closed. If you want to elect a president based on a military record, Bush is a lousy choice. Bush doesn’t know what it’s like to be under rocket fire, Kerry does. Bush has never had a shot fired at him with anger, nor has he killed, much less shot at somebody in combat. Kerry has. Unofficially, you can rack about 20 kills to him, according to his fitness reports. Bush? Oh, he got to fly a jet. Not exactly safe, but he didn’t exactly fly it in territory where he stood the chance of having a SAM get shot up his tail.

Kerry’s military career shows initiative, planning, popularity with his crew and a willingness to get his own hands dirty. Bush’s shows here was there. No really. He was. At least until Alabama. Then nobody can really confirm much of anything.

I don’t know what precisely we are debating here, if Kerry done all those things.

And what about his confessed war crimes? Bob Kerrey ought to be John Kerry’s running mate—I’m now convinced of the wisdom of such a ticket. Are we in a docket at the Hague? No, the White House!

A match made in heaven.

> One doctor who examined Kerry said that he’d
> seen pricks from roses more severe than Kerry’s
> wounds.

False. It was not a doctor who said this, it was Kerry’s commanding officer, a Republican, who said this. He said it only the other day in an interview with a conservative newspaper. He claims to remember Kerry’s supposedly-insignificant injury to this day. I guess it must have been a pretty uneventful war for him if he remembers a young lieutenant’s thorn pricks.

> Bush flew an airplane, the F-102, which was
> dangerous and obsolete

Yep, it was known to have been obsolete even before Bush signed up. He knew full well that being trained on the F-102 was a slam dunk way to make sure he would never see combat. He himself characterized his decision as one that would be “fun”. Bush is on the record many times explaining that he had every intention of avoiding serving in combat. Are you really trying to convince people that young George W. Bush was somehow a man of courage?

> I’m not saying he belongs in jail—just that
> he doesn’t belong in the White House.

Are you saying that no Vietnam veteran who served during the period when “free fire zones” were US policy should be eligible for the Presidency? Would you be willing to walk down to the VFW hall and say that?

> So what strings were pulled for old silver-
> spoon Kerry to win him a pile of medals in
> four short months

The same “strings” that were pulled for tens of thousands of other wounded veterans, heroes who were taken out of combat as reward for their valued service. This was and is standard policy. Do you think that this policy is wrong? How many veterans with similar war experience do you think you are trashing with the same broad brush you are using to paint Kerry as a cheat? Hundreds? Thousands? Did you even care? Or is trashing Kerry so important that it’s okay to also trash so many other veterans who also received the bittersweet gift of being sent home after a third injury?

-Cf

Oooh. Lets not bring up crimes, Martin. I still get pestered with questions about my multiple arrest record.

Sure, drunk driving, burglery, and drunk and disorderly aren’t as bad as war crimes, but it makes Karl nervous when it comes up. Someone might find out about the other problems I had before I got that new drivers license.

Fight the good fight, pardner! BTW, I don’t see your name on my Pioneer list. If you’re going to talk the talk, you need to walk the walk, good buddy.

Christopher:

“let’s pretend you and your Republican friends are right and Kerry didn’t deserve those Purple Hearts for his sissy wimpy wounds”

You’ll note upon actually reading my post that I did NOT in any way disparage Kerry, though I did question Stephen’s assessment of his contusions. IFFF all he had were contusions, that’s truly not much of an injury. Yet you take my post and try to reword it so that it works for YOUR argument. I’ve not questioned Kerry’s military service; rather, I’ve acknowledged it and praised it. I simply called a spade a spade when I pointed out that he used the rules of the game to get out.

“since when has being a certifiable war hero been a criteria for the Presidency?”

Since Kerry has made this a huge plank in his platform, thats when!!! Kerry has made himself out to be a war hero—-wait, that should be read as WAAAAAARRRR HEEEERO!!! And all I have said is that I dont see him measuring up to his rhetoric. Dang, not even Audie Murphy would live up to Kerry’s rhetoric.

Let’s be real: Iffff the only thing to vote on were war service, we’d all have to vote for Kerry, but then again, we would have had President Bob Dole as well. Kerry served honorably, as did Bush, though Kerry saw combat where Bush did not. But lets not overplay Kerry’s record. He did work to use the system to get out early, so he could have an administrative aide position back in the states. This does NOT diminish his service, but it also does not fit in with the WARRRRR HEEEERRRO rhetoric.

Lastly, I dont see that a 4-6 month experience 30 years ago gives Kerry much of a viewpoint on war today. I would have given Wes Clark the edge on knowledge of war both then and today, but not Kerry. For Pete’s sake, I worked at a pizza place for 18 months back in high school—-it dont make me Papa John, Tom Monaghan (Domino’s) or Mike Ilitch (Lil Caesar’s), nor does it qualify me as a four star French chef. If just makes me someone who worked in a pizza shop many years ago.

> You’ll note upon actually reading my post
> that I did NOT in any way disparage Kerry…

You were saying he was less than brave, when clearly his Bronze and Silver Stars say something different. Your statement that we bloggers may not be shining examples of bravery hardly justifies your obvious attempt to make Kerry seem like just a regular, not-so-courageous guy when in fact he performed above and beyond what a regular guy would have done. But I apologize for characterizing your remarks with such vigor: I might have been confusing your remarks with Martin’s remarks (who said that Kerry was trying to “pose as some big hero”).

> Since Kerry has made this a huge plank in his
> platform, thats when!!! Kerry has made himself > out to be a war hero—-wait, that should be
> read as WAAAAAARRRR HEEEERO!!! And all I have
> said is that I dont see him measuring up to
> his rhetoric. Dang, not even Audie Murphy
> would live up to Kerry’s rhetoric.

Okay, exactly what rhetoric is that? Can you give examples of where Kerry has used his war record in a way that you think is out of proportion to the truth of his record? Kerry has long had a reputation, like many veterans, of not saying much about his war record at all.

> Kerry served honorably, as did Bush…
> though Kerry saw combat where Bush did not

“I’m saying to myself, ‘What do I want to do?’ I think I don’t want to be an infantry guy as a private in Vietnam. What I do decide to want to do is learn to fly.”
- Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, 1989

“I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes.”
- Dallas Morning News, Feb. 25, 1990

“I don’t want to play like I was somebody out there marching when I wasn’t. It was either Canada or the service. … Somebody said the Guard was looking for pilots. All I know is, there weren’t that many people trying to be pilots.”
- Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Nov. 29, 1998

Kerry, meanwhile, volunteered for the Navy. He requested service on a swiftboat instead of remaining relatively safe on a ship. It wasn’t just some kind of coincidence that John Kerry saw combat - he conscientiously put himself in grave danger over and over again to complete his missions and to save the lives of his compatriots.

Yep, Kerry and Bush’s Vietnam service seem just about equivalent to me. I can’t see any difference between their attitudes and their obvious displays of courage.

-Cf

The inconsistencies in Kerry’s war record are staggering, and it’s time we learned just how much of it is pure fiction.

When he got his first Purple Heart, it was for an engagement which others say never even happened. They don’t remember even being under fire, but then Kerry shows up HOLDING a piece of shrapnel in his palm, shows a small scratch which he demands others fill out paperwork to certify, and presto—war hero!

In his citation for the Bronze Star it says his arm was “bleeding and in pain” during the engangement for which he got it, but the casuality report for the same engagment—the basis for him receiving a third Purple Heart (his ticket out of Vietnam) says he suffered shrapnel wounds in his left buttocks and bruises on his right forearm. No bleeding wounds on his arm—a pretty serious inconsistency. So his Bronze Star citation cites wounds that Kerry never recieved, and it’s doubtful he’d have received a Bronze Star for the “heroism” of performing with a bruised arm. To underscore this, Kerry didn’t even miss A SINGLE DAY of service for any of his wounds. There’s not even a record of him getting a tetanus shot, which medics who’ve reviewed the records are befuddled by, since a tetanus shot is routine for somebody wounded by as much shrapnel as Kerry claims to have been.

The obvious and glaring problem with Kerry’s military citations is that all of them depended upon statements from those directly under his command. If a superior officer is trying to rack up medals (and Kerry seems to have had a bottomless appetite for them, winning five in three months) it’s a very simple thing to tell—no, order—your subordinates to sign this or corroborate that. I’m not saying this is what happened in Kerry’s case, but in the words of Howard Dean—hey, it’s a story that’s out there. Worth looking into.

So if Kerry’s commanding officer is a Republican, or others he served with are who come forward, we can just discount what they say because there might be political motives involved? Not really the standard of evidence we should use, but it also means we finally get to ignore Richard Clarke and those half-dozen “9-11 widows” who have trying to dominate our attention. After all, they’re all Democrats.

Ouch! Martin, you’re killin me, bud. At least Kerry’s records are complete. I told Bartlett people would be asking about the Guard records he cleaned, but he assured me that it was better the records go missing than get made public.

See, incomplete records mean I can make up whatever story I want. It doesn’t even have to be consistent cuz people misunderestimate me.

Even so, I’d like to sweep all the talk about military records under the rug and forget about it. You interested in a job?

Jeez, Martin, and I was always told that Republicans were consistent in their deferential respect for our troops. I’ve never ever heard of someone’s Purple Heart being questioned. Never ever have I heard such accusations. It seems to me that to question Kerry’s Purple Hearts is to question the Purple Hearts of every soldier who’s ever earned one. You’ve got some nerve.

Still, keep asking the questions. Bring it on. You only make your side look more and more disrespectful.

-Cf

> It seems to me that to question Kerry’s Purple Hearts is to question the Purple Hearts of every soldier who’s ever earned one.

Yes, indeed. If Kerry didn’t “earn” his Purple Hearts by some people’s standards, that isn’t his problem. The military decides what merits a Purple Heart, not a lieutenant.

It is indeed a rich irony that GOP flaks are spending so much of their time attacking veterans and 9/11 widows. (Yes, I realize that some of 9/11 family members are Democrats, so they don’t really count.) Maybe it is time for Bush to start a campaign to get people to stop eating fatty, carb-rich apple pie. Now that I think about it, there are a lot of bad, drug-addicted mothers out there too. Maybe time for the GOP to add a “Motherhood is overrated plank” to their platform.

“I’ve never ever heard of someone’s Purple Heart being questioned. Never ever have I heard such accusations.” Really? Have you also never heard of somebody’s honorable discharge being questioned?

Talk to those who served with Kerry if you have a problem with their questioning his medals. What they’re saying is that they find it damned fishy that Kerry got a medal every time he received a scratch or a bruise. At the very least, it’s obvious that he campaigned for his medals in a way that most of them had too much dignity to do themselves. The argument could be made, and many veterans are making it (just look at their websites) that questioning whether a scratch or bruise should qualify one for a Purple Heart is actually defending the integrity of the award for those who made the REAL sacrifices.

Kerry’s records ARE NOT complete. Far from it.

Kerry has explictly refused to release ANY files containing documentation of his supposed wounds (calling them “private medical files.”) If they make him look like such a hero, why is he stonewalling? The appearance of a cover-up is staring us in the faces—why doesn’t he just release those records?

Also, there no fitness reports for his period of service after 7/69. Why? And there are significant gaps of ten days (3/11/67 to 3/21/67), two months (4/15/67 to 6/7/68) and three months (7/21/68 to 11/8/68). As Democrats have taught us to believe, such ommissions prove that Kerry was AWOL four times!

It really is incredibly ironic to see Democrats seeming “shocked” when somebody’s military record is questioned. Bush is called a liar, a coward, a deserter every day, but somehow that’s okay because it’s the “truth.” Kerry’s military record, which from the very beginning HE has been the author of, deserves to get the same scrutiny that Bush’s has received. Especially since he admits to committing war-crimes and atrocities.

>…defending the integrity of the award for those who made the REAL sacrifices.

Hmm, so it isn’t enough to be decorated veteran to get respected from the GOP, you have to make “sacrifices”. Take someone like Max Cleland, for instance… Whoops, bad example!

Come on, Martin. Stop pretending that this is about integrity, sacrifices, etc. This is 100%partisan politics and you know it. If John Kerry was a Republican then you would be praising him to the skies.

Max Cleland is actually an excellent example of what we’re talking about. The guy wasn’t even injured in combat but Democrats are so desperate to have war heroes on their team that they make believe he is one. The guy blew himself up when he picked up a live grenade while on his way to drink beer with his buddies. Check the record. I’m not disparaging his service—he deserves respect (as does Kerry) for serving, but Cleland a war hero? The facts say otherwise.

You’re right, though—this is 100% partisan politics, the same thing motivating all of the allegations about Bush’s records. The fact remains that MANY veterans have a serious problem with somebody winning Purple Hearts for scratches and bruises during a mere three months of service—the length of a summer vacation (and actively campaigning for those medals the whole while) when many of them suffered far more signifcant wounds and got squat.

The previous comment is so full of factual and logical flaws that I don’t know where to begin. First of all, you are obviously getting your distorted “facts” from Ann Coulter. Second of all, I didn’t say that Cleland was a hero, I said that he made sacrifices (although he was in fact decorated for an incident totally unrelated to the grenade). Third of all- why I am bothering?Democratic candidates are obviously morally unfit by definition, so there is no point in bothering with facts and logic.

Martin:

Would the veterans complaining about purple hearts for scratches be the same veterans that would find it horribly offensive to compare three months in vietnam to the three months of a summer vacation? If so, you might want to think about how you sound to them.

“since when has being a certifiable war hero been a criteria for the Presidency?”

Since Kerry seems to mention his Vietnam service at every campaign speech.

Kerry said the eroding banks of MR-GO remind him of trips he took as a Navy commander along the Mekong River during the Vietnam War.

“Except nobody’s shooting at you here,” Campo said. -Nola

Martin, you’re grasping at straws, and what’s more, you’re playing the rhetorical equivalent of sleight of hand. In one hand you have Kerry’s magnificent war record. In the other, you have Kerry’s Purple Hearts not being the result of him coming off the battlefield with his limbs blown off or his entrails hanging out of his belly. Suddenly you make a gesture with that other hand, and poof, suddenly it doesn’t matter how distinguished his service was, because he didn’t get disembowelled or shot to pieces in order to get sent back home.

Off course Max Cleland, a Veteran of the Seige of Khe Sanh, one of the most hellacious battles of the war gets slimed by your people because he lost his limbs in some other way than combat. The story, as I understand it, is that he was leaving on a helicopter going out of the Khe Sanh base, when he decided he would rather stay and have a beer with his friends. Now, let’s consider that for a moment: He hadn’t had the beer yet. Then, having jumped several feet to the ground, he spots a grenade, which he thinks is his. Now, a good soldier doesn’t leave explosives like that lying around if it belongs to him. He didn’t know it wasn’t his, he didn’t know that this particular grenade had been fiddled with by a soldier who didn’t know better. So, When Max Reached for it…

He rejected the purple heart, which by definition could only be received for injuries sustained in combat. He never claimed his injuries were sustained by such means. He didn’t deserve the self-righteous idignation and derision Ann Coulter and her ilk poured on him.

How are they alike? Both voted for versions of national security legislation, but didn’t vote for the versions Bush wanted. It’s gotten to where people can be criticized for raising taxes because they don’t go as far in lowering them as Bush wants them to, even in the face of the current fiscal crisis. It’s gotten to where Democrats and dissident Republican are demonized as taking opposing positions only for taking positions the Bush Administration considers insufficient or ideologically distasteful.

I don’t don’t mind disagreement, but it seems the Bush administration is portraying division and disloyalties where none truly exist, and is trying to win arguments this way.

You would accuse us of the same, and perhaps some of us do the same. But I would rather be right because I’m close to the truth, rather than because I won the argument through a trick of words.

Oh, please, Stephen. Martin’s not even being tricky. His diatribe is the goofiest thing I’ve ever heard and I’m surprised anyone is bothering to respond to it rationally.

Let him babble on about this if he wants. The independent swing-voters can decide if they want to be associated with a wacko viewpoint like that.

I think this counts as “fair use”. Kevin Drum in Washington Monthly:

“George Bush, fresh out of Yale, uses family connections to join the Air National Guard in order to avoid serving in Vietnam. After serving four years of a six-year term, he decides to skip his annual physical, is grounded, and heads off to Alabama, where he blows off even the minimal annoyance of monthly drills for over six months.

“Conservative reaction: why are you impugning the patriotism of this brave man? He got an honorable discharge and that’s as much as anyone needs to know.

“John Kerry, fresh out of Yale, enlists in the Navy and subsequently requests duty in Vietnam. While there, according to the Boston Globe, he wins a Purple Heart, and then follows that up with more than two dozen missions in which he often faced enemy fire, a Silver Star for an action in which he killed an enemy soldier who carried a loaded rocket launcher that could have destroyed his six-man patrol boat, a Bronze Star for rescuing an Army lieutenant who was thrown overboard and under fire, and two more Purple Hearts.

“Conservative reaction: Hmmm, that first injury wasn’t very serious. This is something that deserves careful and drawn-out investigation, and it would certainly be unfair to impugn ‘craven or partisan motives’ to those doing the impugning.

“Are these guys a piece of work, or what?”

> “I’ve never ever heard of someone’s Purple
> Heart being questioned. Never ever have I heard
> such accusations.” Really? Have you also never
> heard of somebody’s honorable discharge being
> questioned?

No, I haven’t heard of that, either. That said, I can easily imagine that plenty of problematic soldiers have been discharged honorably because it would have been too difficult to discharge them dishonorably (for example, let’s say the son of a prominent politician neglects his duties - is it really worth the trouble to dishonorably discharge him?). I’ve never heard of a public scandal like this, but it seems probable that such shenanigans have occurred.

And I have indeed heard of people claiming to have Purple Hearts, Bronze Stars, even Medals of Honor, who did not actually earn them but rather ordered them from the internet.

But I cannot imagine that too many Purple Hearts have been taken away from soldiers because the military gave it to them undeservedly. I’ve never heard of such a thing until Republicans this month decided that they’d try to smear Kerry’s war record.

If you think that Kerry got a Purple Heart based on a false recommendation from his commanding officer, then you should take issue with that commanding officer (and that commanding officer’s commanding officer… and with the medic who treated Kerry), not with John Kerry.

If, however, you think that bruises and shrapnel scrapes should not justify the giving of a Purple Heart, then you should take a little walk down to your local VFW hall and ask how many of those guys want to give back their Purple Hearts.

I also wonder if you think that other soldiers who served only a few months in Vietnam felt like they were on vacation.

-Cf

The difference is that the entire reason for George Bush’s candidacy is not his personal war record.

When Terry Mcaullife initiated the round of attack’s on Bush’s military service, his reason was to make the public compare Bush’s service with Kerry’s—so are we not allowed to do that now? This was the Democrat’s idea, remember? Not a day goes by without Kerry trumpeting his war record—so we’re not allowed to actually look at it, especially when so many who served with him are raising questions about it? It’s not as easy as just sweeping this all under the rug just because it might cut your candidate’s legs out from under him. Democrats correctly realized that Bush’s greatest strength was the public’s impression of his response to 9-11, so they’ve made a virual cottage industry of launching smears and innuendos about it—but now they cry foul when even legitimate questions are raised about their candidates supposed greatest strength?

Kerry could easily put this all to rest by just opening all his military records—which he refuses to do. Why? Aren’t you even a little curious, or does it just make you tremble with fear to think about what damaging stuff might be in there? Here’s the latest:

Turns out the skipper of swift boat 94 (which Kerry was also skipper of at one time) is claiming that Kerry is taking credit for participating in actions he didn’t.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/kerry/articles/2004/04/23/discrepancies_noted_in_kerrys_record/

And then there’s this:

“[T]he fabled and distinguished chief of naval operations,Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, told me — 30 years ago when he was still CNO —that during his own command of U.S. naval forces in Vietnam, just prior to his anointment as CNO, young Kerry had created great problems for him and the other top brass,by killing so many non-combatant civilians and going after other non-military targets.‘We had virtually to straitjacket him to keep him under control,’ the admiral said. ‘Bud’ Zumwalt got it right when he assessed Kerry as having large ambitions — but promised that his career in Vietnam would haunt him if he were ever on the national stage.” And this statement was made despite the fact Zumwalt had personally pinned a Silver Star on Mr. Kerry. “

This is fair game, I believe, because Kerry has MADE it fair game. It’s not something hatched in Karl Rove’s evil laboratory. It’s what veterans, many of who served with Kerry, are saying.

And Christopher, let’s go down to the local VFW together. We’ll ask how many of them are in awe of John Kerry’s war record and think he deserves to be president based on it.

Maybe we’ll learn why so many of them stand up and turn their backs when he gives speeches.

Oh, please. Enough about what veterans think of Kerry. There are millions of veterans in this country, many of whom are Republicans, so it is no surprise that a number of them hate Kerry. The only way to find out what veterans think of of Kerry is to take a poll. And no matter what such a poll showed, the GOP would keep pounding at him. Which is probably just as well for Kerry, because “you only earned two of your three Purple Hearts” is a mighty stupid argument.

Martin, what you’re missing is that the majority of veterans (Dems and Reps) respect Kerry for his service in Vietnam and think prople who are trying to tear him down because of it are a&^ %$*$s.

And to set the record straight. The military records scrutiny didn’t start until Bush made himself a target by dressing up in a pilot costume and playing soldier. “Mission Accomplished” Oooh rah!

Not to quibble (which none of us want to do :)) but the attacks on Bush’s military records were first initiated by Anne Richards, former gov of Texas.

Right after he dressed up in a fighter pilot costume and made his military service a part of his campaign.

> And Christopher, let’s go down to the local VFW
> together. We’ll ask how many of them are in awe
> of John Kerry’s war record and think he deserves
> to be president based on it.

Oh, please. As Woody pointed out, nobody says that Veterans love Kerry. Veterans are like the rest of Americans politically, in that they come in many political colors (if anything, VFW halls attract those who tilt a little towards the right).

You, on the other hand, are directly insulting injured Veterans by suggesting that soldiers with certain types of injuries don’t deserve Purple Hearts. That’s why I rhetorically asked you to imagine saying the kind of things you’ve been saying to a room full of guys with Purple Hearts.

Your snappy comeback doesn’t faze me a bit.

-Cf

It’s too bad we can’t ask Adm. Elmo Zumwalt what he meant by that. He’s four years dead. What makes it worse is that it’s a decades old quote, recieved second hand from a man whose sympathies run towards the NeoCon. The article is by a man who is clearly biased towards the right.

If I were that much of a partisan, I’d disbelieve it right off the bat. As somebody with at least marginal awareness of journalistic standards, I’d be wary of a secondhand quote a couple decades after the fact made by a source who could very well be interested in the results of such an item’s release. The agenda that Lipscomb’s source, W. Scott Thompson, might have concerning Kerry would be an issue.

I would not be shocked if Kerry’s command had collateral casualties, or if a particularly horrible instance of this made Zumwalt and others feel like he need to be restrained. The question arise: Does Lipscomb’s source have the Admiral on record, recorded outside of his memory? Has the Admiral made any sort of corroborating statements elsewhere? What do other sources within Zumwalt and Kerry’s mutual chain of command have to say about such charges? How much of that statement reflects Zumwalt’s attitudes, how much of it reflects the facts. What were Kerry’s superiors ordering him to do, what pressures was he under to deliver results? Are people who are criticizing his tactics qualified to do so?

See, I am willing to acknowledge that maybe Kerry’s not the fellow we thought he was. Those things happen. But I don’t want to be jerked around, only to find out I’d been played a fool by a Karl Rove style exercise in slimepit politics.

You want to know what bugs me? When I can’t find a source with some degree of objectivity, or failing that, substantive facts backing them up. I really don’t want another helping of commentary, either conservative or liberal, when what I need are the facts to make up my mind for myself. I don’t want to be somebody’s fool, especially not the fool of somebody who thinks I’m subhuman for being sceptical of his side’s claims, and his party’s candidate. Find me articles from reliably neutral sources, then we’ll talk.

Why? Because if you haven’t noticed, our wars right now aren’t that clean, and to criticize Kerry for collateral casualties he’s incurred in combat is to forget that even now, the fears that our soldiers experience have lead them to do things that have had sorrowful effect. You would justify, and probably have justified to others that those soldiers were defending themselves in a hostile environment. The question is, was Kerry doing the same?

Also, I remember Kerry commenting that he wasn’t completely innocent of such things himself, relating times where he was part of US free-fire zones, which were illegal. So another question is, in the substantive part of your case, are you accusing Kerry of any things he has not already confessed publically about anyways?

I think you’re missing the point of what these veterans are saying.

If we went down to the VFW hall and started talking about Purple Hearts, we’d find out that soldiers who aren’t connected—-who aren’t blueblood brahmin with degrees from places like Yale and family pedigrees—DO NOT win Purple Hearts for nicks and bruises in the first place. If your average grunt show up holding a small scrap of shrapnel (from who knows where) and demands a medal, he’s told to shut up and get back into line. At the VFW (at least the one where I live) there are guys with missing limbs and steel plates in their skulls—have you actually talked to any of these guys or do you just hope they’d express the same admiration for Kerry’s bruises and scratches that Democrats have?

I’m not insulting veterans because I’m not the one putting words into their mouths (can you say the same?). I’m just listening to what a very vocal group of them are saying—something partisanship, apparently, doesn’t allow you to do. I’ve also heard some defend Kerry—which may bode well for him. Hopefully he is telling the truth. In any case, this needs to be fully aired, and Kerry needs to stop stonewalling on releasing his military records, which is creating a disturbing appearance of having something to hide.

Stephen, as far as war crimes go,I think it would be unfair to accuse Kerry of anything specific at this point—aside from he’s accused himself of.

All we know is that he’s said he was involved in war crimes, his superiors were apparently of the opinion that he was a bit of a loose cannon when it came to attacking civilians—but what’s the truth? Kerry needs to tell us, open his records, give specific details about what he meant when he said “war crimes” and if there are exonerating explanations, then we can weigh them and consider the man’s fitness for office. We have a right to this information.

You can’t just say, “Oh, I committed war crimes but I don’t want to talk about it because I’m running for president.” That just won’t wash. If we’re going to vote for somebody, we have a right to full disclosure about such an important matter.

>soldiers who aren’t connected—-who aren’t blueblood brahmin with degrees from places like Yale and family pedigrees

That’s not a very nice thing to say about our beloved President!!!

Oh, wait a minute… You mean Kerry? :>

> If your average grunt show up holding a
> small scrap of shrapnel (from who knows
> where) and demands a medal, he’s told
> to shut up and get back into line.

If he sees a medic for the wound, as Kerry did, he gets a Purple Heart. That’s the rules, that’s how it works. Everything else you’ve said is irrelevant.

> At the VFW (at least the one where I live)
> there are guys with missing limbs and
> steel plates in their skulls—have you
> actually talked to any of these guys

You mean like my departed grandpa with no hearing in one ear and a missing finger thanks to battles like Guadalcanal? Or my other grandpa with the shrapnel in his back and spine from Iwo Jima? Or my wheelchair-bound father-in-law with polio contracted from Soviet defectors in postwar Berlin? These are three of the greatest men in my life, and they were all physically mangled in the service of their country.

I’ll admit that one of my ongoing regrets about my life is not spending more time talking to my elders about their service in America’s wars, but I deeply resent your suggestion that my compassion and respect for these veterans is some kind of pose, something I have only recently acquired because of the candidacy of John Kerry.

Furthermore, I hope you realize that Democrats all over the country are in the same boat: Almost all Americans, of all political stripes, have loved ones who served our country: who fought, who were injured, and who died for our country. Most Americans with decent hearts know enough not to put these people’s histories under a microscope, and not to second guess the physical sacrifices many of them have made. You are apparently not like most Americans.

My grandpa with the missing finger? It was chopped off in a slamming tank door. His hearing loss was from standing next to firing artillery for twenty-five years and through two wars. According to the rules, neither injury warrants a Purple Heart. Nonetheless, there’s a Purple Heart up there in the attic. While I don’t even know what it was for (he didn’t have any other visible wounds nor did he ever talk about any), and while it may be for wounds which healed quickly, I have no doubt that he deserved it.

> or do you just hope they’d express the
> same admiration for Kerry’s bruises and
> scratches that Democrats have?

I didn’t care what they think of John Kerry and I never suggested that I did. I cared only about what they would think of your assertion that certain types of wounds don’t deserve Purple Hearts.

-Cf

My issue with the Zumwalt quotation is that it’s a secondhand quotation of a man who cannot answer to the circumstances of the conversation, much less affirm or deny whether he’s being quoted correctly.

That’s the only source I know of for the notion of excessive civilian casualties. We also know that the violations of international law that Kerry described himself committing where fairly standard in Vietnam. You will need to get more specific than that, and more reliable on the quotations (that is, go for people being directly quoted) before I will consider this an open issue.

Boy, the posts around here get weirder and weirder. On the other hand, maybe it would be nice to just put all this political stuff aside and retreat to a nice little condo in Las Vegas! :)