John Kerry’s time in Vietnam: 4 months
George W. Bush’s time in Alabama: unverifiable

And the “Vietnam Veterans Against Kerry” site is using images of Mr. Kerry later proven to be Photoshop fakes, no?

Posted by: Shem at April 26, 2004 07:22 AM

Nope, that is a real picture. The fake has Kerry on stage with Hanoi Jane.

Posted by: Brian at April 26, 2004 07:40 AM

Association via photograph, then?

Ah well, Mr. Rumsfeld in 1983 after we knew Saddam possessed chemical weapons.

Anyhow, I’m just confused as to why someone would link a (questionable-looking) “Veterans Against Kerry” site, but ignore the sites of his countless veteran supporters. If we’re to read about Kerry’s war record, let’s read about that. If we’re to read about veterans’ opinions of Mr. Kerry, let’s get a list comprehensive as the Washington Post detail on Kerry’s war record.

Not that anyone’s obliged to be “Fair and Balanced” here, that is.

Posted by: Shem at April 26, 2004 08:30 AM

Shem, I posted that link because it was in the WaPo article. If the WaPo article had linked to a supporter site, I’d have linked to it. We work hard to keep what we post here “fair and balanced,” even if our commentors are not.

Thanks.

Posted by: Alan at April 26, 2004 09:08 AM

That’s nice Shem, but the issue isn’t GWB or Don Rumsfeld. The issue here is Kerry’s actions regarding his medals and the duplicity involved. He either lied then or is lying now. If he lied then, he was contributing to the demoralization of his brothers in arms in Southeast Asia. If he’s lying now, then he picked up his veterans’ cross only when it was politically useful.

Posted by: Tim at April 26, 2004 09:09 AM

Tim How about BOTH? He only does or says something if it is politically useful.

How about the plot to assassinate Congressman?

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at April 26, 2004 11:13 AM

Slight question on the ‘66 - ‘70 dates, though. As I understand it, he was Active Duty Navy those dates and served in the Reserves until ‘78. Tom Maguire raises some good points concerning exactly what his military status was during the high point of his anti-war activities. These subtleties in status, however, either seem to escape much main stream media or have been purposefully ignored.

Posted by: submandave at April 26, 2004 11:59 AM

Cap’n Doc.

Which Congresspeople was he including in that plot? Their names (?????), or was it a general thing at that time.

Recent publicity of the Florida Democrat threatening to kill Secretary Rumsfeld makes me think the Demons have some “real sick psychos” in their ranks? I know that a lot of radicals talked about that. I did not know Hanoi John was that radical of a person, but I suppose I should expect it. It seems a typical rant of his ANSWER buddies.

Posted by: leaddog2 at April 26, 2004 12:06 PM

leaddog2, I think it was Thurmond, Tower, Stennis, and some others — Senators, not (just) Reps.

Posted by: DrSteve at April 26, 2004 01:19 PM

Shem -

Bush’s service status is only unverified in the minds of people who have turned their hatred of him into a religion.

Posted by: eric at April 26, 2004 01:33 PM

Shem -

Bush’s service status is only unverified in the minds of people who have turned their hatred of him into a religion.

Posted by: eric at April 26, 2004 01:34 PM

leaddog2 It has been awhile… As I remember it, it was a total of 7 SPECIFIC Congressman whose names were discussed at a meeting at which Kerry was present. I haven’t kept track of all that because I don’t belong to any organization that is opposing Kerry. I have opposed him for over thirty years for what he said about my brothers. I think the group liked the NVA flag more than they liked their own, but that’s neither here not there.

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at April 26, 2004 04:51 PM

Pre-emption not allowed, eh?

Very well, we can afford the pro-spin crew the first sally.

Then what?

Weapons free?

Let the authorities handle it?

Big can of worms open up either way. Been here and done that.

Suggest high capacity mail server.

Intent here is friendly advice, and will refrain from dabbling or instigating.

Dean didn’t require assistance, Kerry doesn’t either. Per Isaac, “Objects in motion…” etc…etc…

More fun to whale on terrorists anyway.

Ciao.

Posted by: jeffers at April 27, 2004 12:01 AM

It seems the WMD issue isn’t going to favor the democrat position either, now that they are turning up in terrorists hands, due of course to the UN, the crooks from France, Germany, Russia, Annans son,the MEDIA, stalling action on Saddam while they filled their pockets in the Oil for palaces and greedy European scandal, which gave him ample time to squirrel them away.

It now seems that Bush never acted soon enough.

Yet, the democrats want to promote a LIAR, a COWARD, and greedy dishonest scandalous person to be their leader, yet again.
democrats have no credibility at all. They may as well dismantle the party, and rebuild it. The old boys club has hit rock bottom, there is nothing left of it but drunks and liars and racists.

Posted by: Al-Lat at April 27, 2004 09:43 AM

As I understand it, he was Active Duty Navy those dates and served in the Reserves until ‘78. Tom Maguire raises some good points concerning exactly what his military status was during the high point of his anti-war activities. These subtleties in status, however, either seem to escape much main stream media or have been purposefully ignored.
Posted by: submandave at April 26, 2004 11:59 AM

Upon leaving Viet Nam, he was still a commissioned officer. His transfer to the Standby Reserve in March of 1972 was as an officer holding a reserve commission. He retained his commission until February of 1978. This would make his activities with the Viet Nam Veterans Against the War/Winter Soldiers Organization giving aid and comfort to the enemy, the acts of a treasonous commissioned officer of the United States Military punishable under the articles of war and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Why wasn’t he brought up on treason charges? Maybe familly money, and ties to the kennedy’s had something to do with it? I think it deserves a closer look. These questions should be answered.

The Liberal press is obviously avoiding the issue.

Posted by: Al-Lat at April 27, 2004 11:31 AM

Al-Lat: I won’t go so far as to accuse Kerry of treason without clear facts, but there are lots of facts missing and I don’t see any “professional” journalists looking to find them. I don’t know how it was at that time, but I knew a lot of folks that left active duty and had to finish up a few years in the Reserves. For the most part they weren’t affiliated or drilling, they were just “on the rolls”, so to speak, and available to be called back, if needed. Perhaps he was in this status until ‘72. Also, UCMJ only applies to Reservists when they are serving on active duty. Again, I’m not claiming any smoking gun, just shining light on questions noone seems to be interested in.

Posted by: submandave at April 27, 2004 02:24 PM

Al-Lat, your calling Kerry a cowar onlymakes you a coward, nothing else.

I am a combat veteran (an old one…Korea).

The way I see Kerry’s situation, and I have done my reading and stayed away from the pundits, he served, he joined as a volunteer, he request combat and served with gallantry. Indeed, his records from his superiors say he was under almost “constant fire” for his four months in Vietnam, which is more combat than 99% of living veterans and 90% of living “combat” veterans can say regardless of their length of service or deployments.

Sure he got two of his three purple hearts for minor wounds, but if you know purple hearts, you DONT request them, they are given automatically. Don’t think purple hearts gop only to

During the time of Kerry’s Riverine service, those force casualties ran 70%. Contrary to claims of peopel who served later when it was safer, Kerry’s length in combat during that extreme danger was normal, not low at all.

Whoeve wrote aboe that that kerry didn’t deserve his silver and bronze stars has his head in his rear and hasn’t read anything about the engamenents for which he received those medals.

I am also not trroubled in the least by Kerry’s protests and invovlement in the anti-war movement after his service. Anyone who lived through that time knows that perfectly rational and patriotic Americans, many of whom initially supported the war, began to see the war as wrong and or wrongly prosecuted.

Posted by: oldman at April 27, 2004 08:40 PM

Oldman,

Your post by and large has the right tack. JK served, served well. End of that story.

Today his being an arrogant mean-spirited thin-skinned wishy-washy duplicitious self-dealing politico with more forehead than his modest cerebral endowment requires has nothing to do with his time in country then.

What is at issue is what JK himself said about his Vietnam service then and now, about what he himself said about his medal toss then and now, and all the various small stuff he feels obliged to finesse and re-finesse every waking day of his campaign.

BTW, thank you for your service to our country.

Regards,
DGB

Posted by: Damian Bennett at April 27, 2004 11:46 PM

Kerry wore his uniform both when he should have and when he shouldn’t have, threw ‘something’ over a fence (which was part of his ‘uniform’), and if the stories which he told were true (and indeed they were lies) then he should be called to task for dereliction of duty and behavior unbecoming of an officer. His words meant a great deal to me at the time, and his abandonment of POW/MIAs was despicable. Was he a traitor?

I know that the men whom I served with including those whose names are on the Wall and cannot speak for themselves are not guilty of the behavior which Kerry claimed occured on a ‘regular basis’.

Whether the war (VN) was wrong or wrongly prosecuted does not give any man including Kerry, the right to speak ill of the dead nor to lie about their behavior. He spoke and acted as he did for personal political gain. He is morally bankrupt.

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at April 29, 2004 04:35 PM

oldman, I think your figures are a bit off. I served out on the river in Vietnam the same time as Kerry. We had one PBR squadron that sustained 50% casualties in a few weeks, but that was considered very excessive. On the average, our casualty figures were much lower than you cite. The main point for me is that he is the only one that I know of who ditched part of his 12 month tour without being medivaced. I once received a minor injury that was similar to what Kerry supposedly received and had the opportunity to report it as a “wound,” but did not do so as I felt it would have been dishonorable. My brother, on the other hand WAS medivaced, received his three purple hearts the hard way and still stayed for the full duration of his tour.

Posted by: Bill at April 29, 2004 05:10 PM

You know what? It is patently absurd to debate the severity of someone’s wounds in Vietnam as a factor in his presidential nomination, while you are comparing him to someone who not only had an easy service plan set up for him (Alabama Air National Guard) by his family, but then didn’t bother to perform his duties for even this minor military obligation. A veteran has to be at the pinnacle of self-delusion to think that Bush has any qualifications to lead our well-trained and brave military men into an armed conflict. I am apalled that every veteran not busy in Iraq is not storming Washington, DC, to boot this phony out of office. Over 700 servicemen are dead because of Bush’s private agenda to avenge an assassination attempt on his “diddy” and get American and British oil companies back into old stomping grounds. Unless veterans unite to stand up against this facade, civilians and foreigners of all nationalities will simply view our vets as willing sheep ready to jump over a cliff while waving a flag in support of a man who has desecrated the office of the presidency.

Posted by: Bill at May 2, 2004 11:53 PM

Bill So apparently you agree with Senator Kerry that it’s okay to accuse the 58,000+ men and women whose names are on The Wall of committing atrocities on a regular basis? I guess it’s also probably okay with you that he discussed with a group of people (of which he was THE leader) the possible assassination of seven Congressmen?

Nah. I didn’t think that you’d be that naive.

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at May 3, 2004 09:23 AM

This is rediculous! The Military Career of John Kerry so far out distances that of George W. Bush that I think would Bush Supporters would hang their heads if shame. Bush supported the war in Vietnam as long as other men did the fighting and dying. Kerry opposed the war but put his own life on the line for his country.

Posted by: gerico at May 8, 2004 06:54 PM

Cap’n Doc from what I can tell no matter how much time JK served in country or how or when it wouldn’t be good enough for you. I served 8 years active and 7 Reserve on tin cans carriers and in the Seabees and I don’t know where you were but I can think of a lot of times that I felt as though the brass looked at us as nothing more than expendable produce. JK didn’t run to Alabama and play like he was a chip off the block . He went and served and bleed for this country and as far as I’m concerned a man that does tha has a right to question his leadership ,challenge it and condemn the attrocites that every true combat veteran knows happens in war. So quit whining about the dead some of them are guilty.

Posted by: Tin Can Sailor at June 30, 2004 06:16 PM

How come military service is so important now?
I remember a President elected by the leftist Party who not only did not serve he actually dishonored on his pledge to serve!!
And now these same lefties propose a candidate that flip flops his core beliefs with the prevailing political winds, who does not remember what he threw over the fence, voted for the war with Saddam’s Iraq, then denied the necessary money to support the troops in Iraq, does not want oil to be drilled in the USA and then accuses the sitting US President for the high price of oil !!

Posted by: Comcents at July 31, 2004 11:58 AM