Captain’s Quarters notes a piece in the Houston Chronicle excoriating the press for their silence on Kerry’s Vietnam war fictions when the media was all too eager to accept whatever DNC talking points memo on Bush’s supposed gaps in his service records. As the story notes:
The same news media that demanded George W. Bush release his National Guard records — and went over them with a microscope — have shown an appalling lack of interest in John Kerry’s military service. And as it turns out, there are far more legitimate questions about the latter than the former. Kerry has made his four months and 11 days in Vietnam the central theme of his presidential campaign. This is entirely understandable given his 20 years as the Senate’s leading dove. He needs the cover that Vietnam can give him. …
As to the truth of this tale, there is only Kerry’s word, which the press seems quite willing to take, to the extent of not reporting on the controversy at all. It is not a trivial matter. Kerry has pimped the story repeatedly in an effort to paint himself as a stand-up eyewitness to events that were both illegal and, in his view, immoral.
Of course the media won’t ask the tough questions because it isn’t in their nature. Kerry is their boy, and they’re not willing to hear anything that challenges their preconceptions. The only mention of the Swift Boat charges in most major papers has been a curt dismissal of those making the charges as being RNC operatives without ever examining the substance of the claims being made.
What little credibility the media had left is shattered. Now, while a potentially explosive story is developing all around them, the media continues to stick their fingers in their ears and close their eyes. No wonder the readership of major newspapers and viewership of television news is going down the toilet – the media doesn’t want to actually involve themselves in journalism, but rather partisan cheerleading.
A free republic requires a free press… not a press that has their heads so far up John Kerry’s rectum that they could French-kiss his appendix.
Let’s just be absolutely plain about what you’re asking people to believe, Jay:
That Kerry, even though he’s a war veteran decorated with three Purple Hearts and a Silver Star for bravery; even though he volunteered for service in the most brutal and mismanaged campaign of the 20th century; even though a man testifies that Kerry saved his life under fire; even though he was consistently praised by his commanding officers; even though none of his current detractors saw fit to voice objections until they were funded by the GOP; we’re supposed to believe that Kerry’s Vietnam record isn’t the record of a distinguished and awarded soldier?
And, conversely, even though Bush leapfrogged a hundred more qualified applicants for a highly desirable Air National Guard position, presumably through family influence; even though a number of people have consistently voiced concerns about inconsistencies in his service record; even though his record contains nothing to distinguish him; even though he specifically did not volunteer for duty in Vietnam; even though inaccuracies in his service record have still not been cleared up, despite several controversies surrounding documents that were “missing”… and then not; even though he missed a crucial flight physical on the eve of the institution of drug testing in the Armed Service (an absence that grounded a pilot on whom millions of dollars were spent to train); even though he never reported for duty at the post he asked to be assigned to in Alabama; we’re supposed to believe this is the record of a stalwart defender of our nation?
Let me ask – when you guys are thinking about this stuff, does it even occur to you how dammed dumb it sounds, or does your hatred of Kerry just render you that oblivious?
Maybe you guys should take a cue from O’Reilly, the latest Bush supporter to call dirty pool on attacking Kerry’s Vietnam record:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/story/222652p-191113c.html
“That Kerry, even though he’s a war veteran decorated with three Purple Hearts and a Silver Star for bravery”
Which he repudiated, whether he threw away his own medals, someone else’s medals, or just the ribbons associated with them.
“even though he volunteered for service in the most brutal and mismanaged campaign of the 20th century”
Where, by his own testimony, he committed shocking and brutal atrocities on a regular basis.
“even though none of his current detractors saw fit to voice objections until they were funded by the GOP”
And DU and MoveOn did not see fit to organize until they were funded by the Democrats (at the same distance as Republicans are from the SBVT).
“we’re supposed to believe that Kerry’s Vietnam record isn’t the record of a distinguished and awarded soldier?”
Had Benedict Arnold been killed in the failed attempt to storm Quebec, or been killed at Saratoga, we would rightfully honor him as one of the military heroes of the Revolution. Had Marius fallen at Aquae Sextiae, historians would justly laud him as a second Camillus. Those things didn’t happen; Arnold did his best to betray his nascent republic, whilst Marius politicized the Roman army and militarized Roman politics, leading to the downfall of his republic.
Only if we believe that their distinguished military careers gave them license to be as evil and corrupt as they wished later on, may we do the same with Kerry. Is that what you’re asking us to believe?
Let’s also put to rest this myth that Kerry volunteered to fight in Vietnam:
From the Harvard Crimson:
When he approached his draft board for permission to study for a year in Paris, the draft board refused and Kerry decided to enlist in the Navy.
From the Boston Globe:
Kerry initially hoped to continue his service at a relatively safe distance from most fighting, securing an assignment as “swift boat” skipper. While the 50-foot swift boats cruised the Vietnamese coast a little closer to the action than the Gridley had come, they were still considered relatively safe.
“I didn’t really want to get involved in the war,” Kerry said in a little-noticed contribution to a book of Vietnam reminiscences published in 1986. “When I signed up for the swift boats, they had very little to do with the war. They were engaged in coastal patrolling and that’s what I thought I was going to be doing.”
But two weeks after he arrived in Vietnam, the swift boat mission changed — and Kerry went from having one of the safest assignments in the escalating conflict to one of the most dangerous.
–So Kerry wasn’t this gung ho warrior, he reluctantly signed up for Vietnam when he couldn’t get a deferment to study in Paris, and he signed up for the Swift Boats thinking that would enable him to avoid combat.
AT, you mean John Kerry was hoping to get an assignment in Vietnam where his odds of being killed were lower? That bastard!
It seems as though Kerry would have had a number of options other than Swift Boat missions in Vietnam is avoiding combat was his primary priority. The Air National Guard comes to mind, but then again, Kerry didn’t quite have as much prestige as the son of a U.S. Senator in 1968, so he actually have to had to obtain entry in the Air National Guard based on his (gasp!) qualifications rather than his family lineage. The horror!
Mark: I’m not questioning Kerry’s decision to try to get a non-combat assignment in Vietnam, only citing it as a refutation of the myth that this guy somehow volunteered for combat.
According to the Globe:
Kerry served two tours. For a relatively uneventful six months, from December 1967 to June 1968, he served in the electrical department aboard the USS Gridley, a guided-missile frigate that supported aircraft carriers in the Gulf of Tonkin and was far removed from combat.
So Kerry’s first assignment was far from combat.
Then, of course, he was assigned to the swift boats, hoping for a safe position.
The point is that Kerry ended up with a dangerous position when he really was angling for a safe assignment. Again, this is no disgrace, but it does explode the mythology of Kerry being this gungho guy rushing off to do battle.
And even this would not be such a big deal if Kerry didn’t make Vietnam the centerpiece of his campaign. If he tries to embellish his record and lie about it, then he deserves to be held accountable for that.
Let’s face it: Kerry has already been caught in a big lie with the Christmas in Cambodia story. There may be many more lies and misrepresentations regarding his military record.
And of course there is his disastrous record as antiwar protester, where he lied and slandered our troops…his so called band of brothers.
Kerry is one sick puppy…
Interesting how Kerry has Tom Harkin as one of his surrogates defending him, and it turns out Harkin has done some lyin’ of his own regarding his service record:
Harkin himself claimed to have battled Mig fighters over North Vietnam while a Navy pilot. He was a pilot, but never went to Vietnam.
So we have one liar defending another liar…how nice.
Also interesting to see the mixed reaction Kerry got before the VFW crowd…some turned their backs towards him, and others sat with arms folded. Boy, for such an undisputed war hero, Kerry sure has problems with vets…I wonder why?
I know someone who a colonel in Afghanistan and he reports that soldiers there have lost whatever shred of respect for Kerry they might have had and have invented a new term: the “Kerry heart”…an award for small, insignificant wounds like paper cuts, etc..
Kerry has become a joke to the military…he would be the most divisive and hated commander in chief in history.
Kerry promises to unite the country, and he cannot even unite a group of people that a real war hero should have no problems with: military personnel and veterans.
Another new nickname of Kerry: Zippo Man!
Which he repudiated, whether he threw away his own medals, someone else’s medals, or just the ribbons associated with them.
Outside the scope of the argument. He was awared these medals, correct?
Where, by his own testimony, he committed shocking and brutal atrocities on a regular basis.
Ah, how clever of Bush, then – so concerned was he that he might be ordered to commit atrocity that he avoided service in Vietnam altogether! What a humanitarian.
Again, outside the scope of the argument.
Again, this is no disgrace, but it does explode the mythology of Kerry being this gungho guy rushing off to do battle.
We’re not saying he was, of course.
What we are saying is that he’s a fair sight braver than the man who begged his daddy to pull the strings to bump him up to the top of a waiting list for a domestic aviation position.
Another Thought, the most recent poll I saw showed Kerry had broken even with Bush among vets. Ultimately, the same Republican smear machine that has denigrated past veterans such as Al Gore, Max Cleland and John McCain is starting to wear thin even with conservative ex-military types. It’s becoming clear that the GOP will use any means necessary to destroy anyone who stands in the way of the agenda of the party’s hard-right flank. As soon as the soldier leaves the uniform, he’s fair game for character assassination by the party that claims to have a monopoly on “patriotism.” The more veterans who get slandered by Republican political death squads, the better the Dems will fare among veterans come the first Tuesday in November of every even-numbered year.
Mark: the most recent poll I saw had Bush ahead with vets by a large margin…something like 58 to 35 percent…and this was after the DNC…
But regardless of our dueling polls, explain the mixed reaction Kerry got in front of the VFW today…Bush was much more warmly received. Why were there vets with backs turned towards Kerry when Kerry spoke…why did some sit with hands folded, refusing to applaud? This is very revealing…
AT, if you don’t care what Bush or Kerry did more than three decades ago, why are you breathlessly condemning Kerry’s “lie” about spending Christmas in Cambodia in 1968? And don’t give me the usual tripe about “Kerry’s using his Vietnam service as the centerpiece of his campaign.” Either the candidates’ conduct 30 years ago is an important issue to you or it isn’t. You can’t have it both ways, much as you’d like to gloss over Bush’s shiftless youth.
And we’re seeing different polls on the Vietnam vet advantage. Immediately after the DNC, the CBS News Poll showed Kerry and Bush even among vets. As the GOP smear machine continues its vicious efforts to disparage the service records of veterans, Kerry is likely to attain even higher support among vets when we get closer to November.
I haven’t seen footage of the VFW speeches and would like to before I trust your word that Kerry got a frosty reception. Where were the speeches held? That could tell quite a bit. Furthermore, many of the vets likely to be supporting Kerry would be less likely to have time to attend a VFW rally because they’re working. My dad and nearly every drafted veteran from my county fit this profile. Bush-supporting vets would be more inclined to be long-retired career military guys, who would have far more free time to show up at VFW rallies. Again…just speculation until I get more information.
Mark: It is Kerry trying to have it both ways…first smearing the vets, now trying to kiss up to them. Also, I believe the poll I referenced was from Rasmussen…
As for the cold reaction Kerry got, check < href = "http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/040818/480/ohdk10308181644">this out from the AP, not exactly a right wing outlet. You can wait all you want to perform your examination of the event…and your explanation as to why it might have happened is laughable…I guess for you every GOP vet is a rich fat cat who can attend conventions and meetings, and every Dem vet is some poor slouch who cannot…ha..ha…ha…deny the truth if you wish…
Correx from above: The < a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/040818/480/ohdk10308181644"> AP Story and photo is now linked…
Mark writes “And don’t give me the usual tripe about ‘Kerry’s using his Vietnam service as the centerpiece of his campaign.’ Either the candidates’ conduct 30 years ago is an important issue to you or it isn’t.”
Response: Of course I can examine his record more closely than I otherwise would be inclined to if he makes such an issue of it. That is only logical. If a candidate inflates the importance of an issue, it deserves examination.
And the issue is not necessarily Kerry’s Vietnam record per se, but his misrepresentation of it for all the years after his service ended. That is an issue of character and perhaps even mental stability, and extends into his more recent political career. So yet it does matter…
For instance, his Christmas in Cambodia story is supposedly one of the turning points of his entire life, and was “seared, seared” into his memory…if someone lies about what they represent to be such a significant event in their life, that says a whole lot about that person…
Response:
In other words “I don’t want to actually read or understand the arguments presented since they challenge by sycophancy with John Kerry, so I’m just going to call a group of over 200 decorated veterans a bunch of liars.”
If you don’t want to debate the issues, why bother commenting at all?
In other words “I don’t want to actually read or understand the arguments presented since they challenge by sycophancy with John Kerry, so I’m just going to call a group of over 200 decorated veterans a bunch of liars.â€
The ones making the statements are liars, though.
The rest of them are just men who think political expediency is more important than the truth. That’s slightly less bad, I guess.
http://www.eriposte.com/media/liars_inc/swiftboat.htm
The group has no credibility. Republicans aren’t even taking them seriously.
Moreover I find it highly dinsingenuous to play the “decorated veteran” card to substantiate the credibility of the SBV when you’ve consistently rejected that to substantiate Kerry’s credibility. As Mark says, vets are just convinient tools for you – vets are heroes when they’re on your side, but murderers and crazy people when they’re not.
Disgusting.
And a group of left-wing bloggers do?
The charges made by the Swift Boat veterans are made by those who were there. The Kerry campaign’s story changes every day. It is clear that the Cambodia story has completely fallen apart and that Kerry lied on the Senate floor.
Not that such things as facts will stop the left-wing hate fest.
The charges made by the Swift Boat veterans are made by those who were there.
Oh? Like the way John O’Neill was there?