perfidy

His unit was never deployed to Vietnam. They flew F-102s, and the Air Force never considered using them in Vietnam, where regular units were flying F-4s, a more advanced fighter.

Flying fighter planes, even in the reserves, is not draft dodging. Courage is not the issue - I think we can safely say that both of them have it. The question is judgment on national security now.

John Kerry earned the right to say whatever he wants about Viet Nam. Any soldier who sees combat gets that right.

The rest of us can just shut the hell up and listen.

Unless you've earned the right to talk about it too, having been there.

Exactly _who_ says all this is discredited? You are saying that no American soldier raped a Vietnamese? I find that hard to believe; there were a lot of solderis there, and in any sufficiently big community you're going to find some bad apples. I find it quite likely that at least _some_ torture was performed by American soldiers, at some point. In a war that big, how could it not? Every war has its crimes. This one was no different.

You might want to source "all discredited".

Wrong. He earned the right to say whatever he wants by being an American citizen. And we all (and you too, Ross - even though you're Canadian. That's like being an honorary American anyway.) share that right.

But more to the point, I've read - and I'll dig up the links - that the testimony was seriously discredited. Some of the testimony given was not given by actual vets, but rather by antiwar activists taking their names. Further, none of the specific allegations was ever found to have any grounding in reality.

What Kerry believed thirty years ago is not as relevant as what he thinks now. I disagree with many things I thought as recently as breakfast. But for a potential president, he needs to clarify where exactly he differs from the views he espoused back then. And from reading his foriegn policy paper on his website, it isn't that much of a difference.

I, too, will be happy to find and post documentation, if Buckethead doesn't beat me to it. As an aside, I'm certain that there were rapes and other mayhem that occurred. Mr. Kerry, on the other hand, claimed that it was a daily occurrence, known about at the highest levels of command.

Aside from documenting that he was telling tales, I'd propose the following:

There are many actions one can take that give one the right to speak one's mind. These same actions might even lend credibility to your assertion that not only should one be able to talk, others should listen.

Up to this point, we're in agreement. Here's where you go off the rails, sir:

There is no action that anyone can have taken that requires me to to "shut up", and even less to believe everything they say thereafter.

I, for one, take no issue with anything he said or did 30+ years ago. People change, and young people change the most. I am not even the least bit concerned about personal things he does or may have done more recently.

I have a problem with the fact that he's gotten a free pass on his past actions which damaged his country's efforts in time of war, from you and others.

At a minimum, some clarification of his present stance is due.

I'd encourage you to be specific about "past actions". Was there something objectionable in his congressional testimony? Were there particular actions you disagree with?

You and I must agree that simply being vocally negative about war policy cannot constitute "damage" to a country.

As far as his present stance goes...Kerry is overdue for delivering a precise platform of action vis-a-vis current military deployments. He needs to put the issue to rest by indicating what his intentions are.

His "past actions" I find objectionable are those involving exaggeration, lie, and the unfortunate association with a group of people who, as I said earlier, ensured the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people after they forced the US out of the war.

While looking for a link in support of the fact that Kerry's statements were incorrect, I ran across this nugget:

[url=http://lists.village.virginia.edu/lists_archive/sixties-l/3221.html]htt…]

One pertinent excerpt, during the interview with Tim Russert regarding his congressional testimony about widespread atrocities:

"MR. RUSSERT: Thirty years later, you stand by that?

SEN. KERRY: I don't stand by the genocide. I think those were the words of
an angry young man. We did not try to do that. But I do stand by the
description-I don't even believe there is a purpose served in the word "war
criminal." I really don't. But I stand by the rest of what happened over
there, Tim."

My response to Mr. Kerry would look something like this:

Sorry, but I figure if you're going to claim genocide that didn't occur, and you're NOW going to not stand by your earlier statement, then you've got some 'splainin to do, Ricky. I frankly don't care how "angry" you were as a young man: You allowed yourself to be used as a set piece by a bunch of people who hated their country, and you made claims that were of the most foul sort.

Well Ross of course no one takes issue with Kerry's 1st Amendment rughts. It's just that the 1st Amendment guarantees you won't go to jail for saying what's on your mind, not guarantee that people have to take it!

Personally, I find Kerry a distasteful figure because in my eyes he is clearly an opportunist of the worst kind. As someone on another board said, he came home, found out that war heroes weren't selling, and repackaged himself. If, in the strange bedfellowing of politics, you end up in a 4-way with Ho Chi Minh, Vo Nguyen Giap, and Jane Fonda you're doing something wrong.

I also find it shockingly poor form that every time Kerry has anything to say about any topic, it somehow has to do with him and his patrol boat. I don't care about his boat. I care more about why in all his time as a MA Senator, which roughly coincides with my lifetime, the western half of MA is the same craphole it's always been.

Besides all that I find his decorations highly suspect, and are related to his earliest efforts to market himself.

Haven't found the thing I read on Kerry, but here is a good [url=http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200402180840.asp]summary[/url] of the lack of a case in regards to the Bush=AWOL charges.

Buckethead,
You needn't have bothered. The Prez has an honorable discharge. That's all the evidence anyone should need about whether or not he was a shirker, AWOL, a deserter, or whatever.

It doesn't mean he was Alvin York, Audie Murphy, Chuck Yeager, or Nick Fury. That discharge means he did what was expected of him. It's really not more comlicated than that.

GL, some are not so easily convinced.

But that's what I don't understand. It shouldn't TAKE convincing. If the man has an honorable discharge, which is what I understand to be the case, what the fuck is there to convince anyone of?

It's not a claim of heroism, or combat decorations with "V" devices, or claiming to be something he's not. I have an honorable discharge from the Army. Did I ever do anything special? Fuck no. I did what I was supposed to, stayed out of the stockade, and didn't get anyone killed due to my mediocrity. That, friends, is honorable service.

It's like there have to be double-extra-honorable discharges to eliminate future doubt about whether someone served honorably or not.

I'm not a big Bush fan either, BTW. I just wish the ranting classes would latch onto a more substantive issue to rant about than this.

Here's what Patton is referring to:

(Audiotape, April 18, 1971):

MR. CROSBY NOYES (Washington Evening Star): Mr. Kerry, you said at one time or
another that you think our policies in Vietnam are tantamount to genocide
and that the responsibility lies at all chains of command over there. Do
you consider that you personally as a Naval officer committed atrocities in
Vietnam or crimes punishable by law in this country?

KERRY: There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that,
yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other
soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire
zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre
machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only
weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the
burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of
this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a
matter of written established policy by the government of the United States
from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men
who designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed
off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law,
the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals.

(End audiotape)

MR. RUSSERT: Thirty years later, you stand by that?

SEN. KERRY: I don't stand by the genocide. I think those were the words of
an angry young man. We did not try to do that. But I do stand by the
description-I don't even believe there is a purpose served in the word "war
criminal." I really don't. But I stand by the rest of what happened over
there, Tim.

You just hit the target though. No matter what evidence you show, it will never be enough.

In this particular quote, Crosby is the one who uses the word "genocide". Note that Kerry clearly separates himself from what appears to be his prior use of the word, and describes that use as "the words of an angry young man".

Exactly how hard is it to read the plain english of what Kerry's said, here? He describes activities he took part in, as a soldier. Are you saying these activities did not take place, that Kerry is lying about it?

From my perspective, you go straight off the rails when you start ranting about "used as a set piece by a bunch of people who hated their country, and you made claims that were of the most foul sort", without backing up any of that crap. Used by whom? And how do we know they _hate_ their country? Which "foul" claims are the ones that are not true?

Here's how it comes across to me: The people who emit "that guy hates his country" venom will say it about just about anybody they disagree with. That's the odor your comments give off: If you criticize, you hate the country. If you disagree with us, you are not a Patriot.

Strong systems of culture and government can handle criticism, period. I get pissed at people who claim that any critical discourse on war activities is tantamount to aid and comfort. Do not insult this nation's military by demanding that we treat as children the intelligent citizens who are its members.

GeekLethal,

I am curious why you are willing to accept the honorability of Bush jr's service without reservation yet find the validity of Kerry's distinction's doubtful? Even if they were part of an overall effort on the part of Leuitenant Kerry to legitimize himself, is not heroism in battle itself a legitimate means of self-promotion? Has not service in combat always been a means of validating claims to leadership, going all the way back to the Greek urban republics, and should we dare to untangle the connections between heroism and leadership?

Ross:

I most certainly don't claim that Kerry hates his country. He was used by people who did, and I not only defend his right to have been used in the past, I defend his right to have hated his country, if that's what he did. I just don't have to shut up and agree with him, then or now. Regardless of his actions in Vietnam.

This doesn't preclude me agreeing with him, mind you, I just think it's a bit much to claim that I, or anyone, should look at anything he says (or you say, or I say) without any critical thought at all.

Let me be more clear because I may be leading you into apples vs orange terrain, and neither of us wants to run an orchard. Or something.

To have an honorable discharge means that the soldier, by which I mean a member of all service branches, met the standards of his term of service and is therefore released from duty. Bush has one, I have one, Kerry I expect has one, and so do millions of others, whether they served in combat or not, whether they were cooks or mechanics or whatever. No "level", for lack of a better term, of heroism should be inferred by possessing an honorable discharge, but you sure don't go "AWOL" and get one.

What I find a tad suspicious about Kerry is his awards, which are historically awarded for valor or gallantry (not sure of the difference). He was in the combat zone for a fairly short amount of time, yet garnered an awful lot of major awards, more I suspect than any given infantryman in the same period, 3-4 months. He also has 3 Purple Hearts, yet has no infirmity. You get lucky once, maybe twice, but three times sounds a little like Frank Burns from "MASH" getting a Purple Heart for a "shell fragment" in his eye, without elaborating that it was an eggshell.

So I think that in toto, Kerry's awards and deocrations smell a little fishy, but I really don't care that much about what he did then, either.

And I agree that heroism is a legitimate means of self-promotion, perhaps the ultimate one. I guess it's the odor of disingenuosness that comes from Kerry that I don't care for. I think it's the difference between, "I am going to accomplish this mission", and being recognized for it, vs "I am going to accomplish this mission in the most dashing, memorable way I can devise so I can talk about it later when I run for office".

But again, I'm no Bush fan, and I dislike Kerry for other reasons besides what he did or didn't do 30-odd years ago.

GL - There is living proof in the form of a man who is still alive for Kerry's heroism... Granted, the guy hasn't seen Kerry in years until he started getting trotted out by the Kerry campaign. Maybe it doesn't warrant three Purple Hearts, but it's better than accusations of paying for a girlfriend's abortion and not showing up for a mandatory physical.

GeekLethal,

Wouldn't Kerry, and officer and son of patricians, be recognized more often for his deeds than would a footsoldier? I am not saying that an infantryman is undeserving of recognition, but it is typical of how awards were given out thirty years ago.

Mapgirl,
I don't compare Kerry's record with Bush's, because I feel they are both equally distant from today and, indeed, what I want for tomorrow. I don't doubt that Kerry was an effective combat leader, but I do have some doubts about the precise circumstances of his awards. But again, I don't care that much about it to let it sway my opinion of him. I dislike him plenty already.

NDR- yeah, that's probably a point; the Brahmin would get the highest decoration possible for his efforts. It wouldn't necessarily mean he didn't earn them, of course, but it also creates some doubt. But like I've said before, I don't care that much about it.

GL - Write an entry on your problems with Kerry!

Patton - The problem I have with what you're saying is that you define some nefarious "country hater" people and then fail to identify them. You then claim that people you disagree with politically are being "controlled" somehow by these "country haters". Seems a little paranoid to me... ;) ... So back it up with something!

Ross:

Mr. Kerry, after returning from the war, exercised what I consider to be his absolute right to speak out against the war.

It may have been youthful idealism, it may have been a demonic plot, or it may have been the people with whom he associated (I believe it was the first and third of these), but something caused him to flat make things up. Among the things he made up were the stories of command sanctioned genocide, as well as his claim to have participated in such actions. He's retracted his assertions in these areas, and written it off to his youth.

Just so we're clear here: I absolutely defend his right to the opinion he had in the 1970s. I also absolutely defend his right to have a different story now. I willingly overlook the association with VVAW and, by proxy, SDS and the other antiwar groups who caused the US to lose a war that in fact it was winning. The Tet offensive, for example, was a near-complete victory for the US. Oddly, however, it was reported in the US as a loss, due to the tireless work of VVAW and other antiwar groups. It was the beginning of the end for the US's involvement in Vietnam, as they'd had public opinion turned against them in America.

This lack of support in the US may have cost the lives of US troops still in Vietnam, and definitely cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese after the North swarmed in and took over the South. It also made life hellish for many of the returned veterans of the war.

My point, and I do have one, is that Kerry's entitled to whatever opinions he holds, and can express them whenever and however he wants. What started this entire chain of commentary was your assertion that solely because of one small part of Kerry's history, we should all shut up, listen, and believe. That's something I refuse to do so.

On a side note: I was too young to have served in Vietnam. I understand completely how it is that people would have had opinions in opposition to the war, and I could easily be convinced that the US had no business fighting a proxy war against the USSR in the home country of the Vietnamese. I'm simply less willing that most, perhaps including you, Ross, to believe that the US is, was, or ever will be inherently evil.

I have yet to see a situation in which I blame my country before looking at all other actors. On this point alone, I'd tend to have disagreed with the way that VVAW and others made their points.

NONE of this has any impact on my present day assessment of Mr. Kerry, by the way. I give him no credit in the presidential race for having served 4 months in Vietnam. It has nothing to do with any credentials for the presidency 33 years later. I subtract no credit from him in the presidential race for having argued against the war. It, too, has nothing to do with credentials for the presidency all these years later. I simply wish that, for his own sake, he'd resolve the contrast between then and now. I'm frankly tired of hearing about it.