254 Swift Boat Vets

‘Trying to acquire Purple Hearts’
By Martin L. Fackler

John Kerry has presented his Vietnam record as his major qualification to be president of the United States. It is, therefore, the duty of the American public to scrutinize that record carefully. And it is the duty of candidate John Kerry to facilitate that scrutiny. If all the senator’s claims about his four months in Vietnam are factual, it would be to his great advantage to facilitate such scrutiny.
Before we get to his record in Vietnam, however, we should examine the widespread misconception about how he got to Vietnam. The oft-repeated claim that Mr. Kerry volunteered to go to Vietnam misleads: He apparently volunteered only after the draft deferment he had applied for was turned down ? thus allowing him to choose service in the Navy to avoid being drafted into the Army.

I served as a combat surgeon in DaNang, (U.S. Naval Support Hospital) from Dec. 10, 1967, through Dec. 11, 1968. While there, I evaluated and treated hundreds of severely wounded combatants.

During my year in DaNang, a few combatants urged me to verify small abrasions as "wounds" so they could get a Purple Heart. Each freely admitted trying to acquire Purple Hearts as rapidly as possible to take advantage of the policy allowing those with three Purple Hearts to apply to leave Vietnam early. I refused them. But some went shopping for another opinion. Unfortunately, we had some antiwar physicians in Vietnam who were happy to become accomplices in these frauds. Most with valid Purple Hearts didn't need to apply to leave Vietnam: The seriousness of their wounds demanded it. 

Lt. John Kerry's collecting three Purple Hearts within 100 days ? all for wounds too minor to require hospitalization ? recalls the distasteful memories of having to deal with those few miscreants in DaNang. More disturbing is the revelation that crewmen on Mr. Kerry's boat denied they had received any gunfire from shore at the time when Lt. Kerry claimed such gunfire had caused his wound. The doctor who disapproved Lt. Kerry's application for his first Purple Heart for that wound agreed that the tiny metal splinter sticking in the skin of his arm was inconsistent with enemy gunfire from shore. His crewmates claimed that Lt. Kerry, himself, had fired a grenade launcher from the boat striking a rock on the nearby shore ? and his wound was from a metal splinter from the grenade that ricocheted back, striking him in the arm. 

Is there any way we can determine who was telling the truth about this first Purple Heart? Yes, there is. The type of wound can reveal much about the weapon that caused it. The tiny sliver of metal and its very superficial penetration is typical of fragments from explosive devices ? like grenades. It would not have resulted from the most likely gunfire from shore ? small arms rifle fire. The AK 47 rifle, used by the enemy, fires a 30-caliber bullet, which is 50 times or more as heavy as the sliver of metal sticking in Lt. Kerry's skin. Such a bullet would have passed through any part of his body it struck, and certainly no part of it would have remained sticking in his skin. 

In the absence of the medical records that Mr. Kerry apparently declines to make public, the only details we have about his second and third Purple Hearts are that he also based them on wounds too minor to require hospitalization. My reason for refusing to verify insignificant wounds as the basis for a Purple Heart was the regulation covering Purple Heart awards. In Part B, Paragraph 2, of the Army Purple Heart Regulation (600-8-22 of 25 February 1995), we find "the wound for which the award is made must have required treatment by a medical officer." 

Dr. Louis Letson was entirely correct in turning down Lt. Kerry's first Purple Heart ? even if the wound had been the result of enemy action. Can there be any doubt that the tiny metal sliver could have been removed easily, and safely, by a Navy corpsman? It certainly did not "require" treatment by a medical officer (an MD). 

Purple Hearts are not supposed to be awarded for self-inflicted wounds, nor for wounds too minor to require treatment by a physician. So where and how did Lt. Kerry eventually obtain a Purple Heart for his first wound? Nobody seems to know. Only his medical records will tell ? and the American public needs that information to evaluate candidate Kerry's qualifications and candor. 

The highly unlikely occurrence of being wounded three times within 100 days, in the very beginning of a tour of duty, and all three wounds being so minor that none required hospitalization, would seem sufficient cause for further investigation. Adding the inconsistencies surrounding Lt. Kerry's first Purple Heart should make mandatory a thorough scrutiny of his medical records by someone highly qualified to interpret military medical records, and familiar with the regulations on the qualifications for the Purple Heart Medal, to determine if the wounds for which Lt. Kerry was awarded the Purple Heart Medal were serious enough to "require" treatment by a medical officer, as called for by the Purple Heart regulation. 

Mr. Kerry has made his Vietnam War record the centerpiece of his campaign. This demands a thorough objective evaluation of his medical records to determine if the three Purple Hearts that allowed him to leave Vietnam after only four months of duty were justified. This evaluation needs to be done before the election. 
 
Dr. Martin L. Fackler served as a combat surgeon in Vietman in 1968. A fellow of both the American College of Surgeons and the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, he also is an author, expert witness and lecturer on wound ballistics and surgery, and former director of the Wound Ballistics Laboratory at Presidio. 

Joe

[quote]danh wrote:
jeff… i see your point but this is no longer a 1st ammendment issue… campaign finance rules are in effect… i guess we’re gonna wait to see what the courts have to say about this.

btw… i am not a leftist loser or whatever people like to label kerry supporters. i am just fed up with this administration on so many levels.

presidential politics has sunk to a new low.[/quote]

Actually, this is still a 1st Amendment issue. Even under campaign finance laws (which, despite court rulings, many people still believe violate the 1st Amendment, but that’s another thread), 527 organizations are allowed to raise unlimited money for issue ads.

Even this Supreme Court, which seems to think virtual kiddie porn deserves more protection than core political speech, has not limited the right of citizens to purchase commercials to espouse their views on issues.

[quote]vroom wrote:
Then, he has the temerity to say, “You want to discuss military service? Bring it on!”

Yes, he was naively expecting people to discuss his service record, not make up politically motivated bullshit about his time in service…[/quote]

Are you sure you wanted to phrase it that way? I think we have a whole thread going on whether it’s proved the Swiftboat vets “ma[de] up politically motivated bullshit.”

After doing so much research on John Kerry his service in Vietnam, and what he did and did not do, I am reminded of in Gettysburg, there as a monument dedicated by this unit, and the main speaker for the Vets said at the dedication. Where we fought, where we stood our ground is right over there. Not here, where we dedicate this monument, and it is where that monument was erected first. And we were robbed. Or I do tours of the Battlefield of Gettysburg, and you say well Little Round Top wasn’t the main objective of the Battle of Gettysburg.
No sir you are wrong… Am I wrong???

I say the above because, John Kerry stated in those reports what “HE” wanted one to believe happened. To see what happened through his eyes, and in this article, now coming out:

Kerry, in 1971, Admitted Writing Combat Reports
By Marc Morano
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
August 26, 2004

(CNSNews.com) - Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry’s 1971 testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee reveals that the then anti-war activist admitted to writing many of the battle reports during his four months of combat in Vietnam.

According to the testimony , which is available in the Congressional Record, Sen. Symington asked Kerry, “Mr. Kerry, from your experience in Vietnam do you think it is possible for the President or Congress to get accurate and undistorted information through official military channels.[?]”

Kerry responded, "I had direct experience with that. Senator, I had direct experience with that and I can recall often sending in the spot reports which we made after each mission; and including the GDA, gunfire damage assessments, in which we would say, maybe 15 sampans sunk or whatever it was. And I often read about my own missions in the Stars and Stripes and the very mission we had been on had been doubled in figures and tripled in figures.

Kerry later added, “I also think men in the military, sir, as do men in many other things, have a tendency to report what they want to report and see what they want to see.”

The 34-year-old testimony could shed light on the present debate over who wrote key battlefield reports that critics of Kerry say allowed him to win awards.

B. G. Burkett, author of the book Stolen Valor and a military researcher, calls the 1971 testimony “significant.”

“What is significant about this is [Kerry] is readily admitting that he often submitted reports and he is implying that he himself exaggerated in those reports,” Burkett told CNSNews.com.

“We have no way of knowing specifically which documents Kerry composed; and of the the ones he did compose – did he in fact exaggerate or outright lie in those reports? That is the issue here,” Burkett said.

http://25thaviation.org/johnkerry/

Now with that being said, you might think well then the Swift Boat vets, those vets against Kerry, or anyone with websites on this subject matter, against Kerry are wrong. Well, no they are not. Because all of them. Are saying the same thing. Not one of them, I go to or reivew, even the forum on the Swift Boat Vets, says anything different as to what has happened. Its just like on the one Vets website says:

“…If someone can pass me along something positive about John Kerry that he has done for vets, or the
military I will promptly post that also , So send it in, I am all ears.
Days with no positive John Kerry news=203…”

http://25thaviation.org/johnkerry/

The only one story who has changed so many times, is John Kerrys. And to make matters worse he is pleading the 5th on this. He is refusing to talk about his 4 months in Vietnam, what really happened. He is barring all he can his book he wrote in 1971, The New Soldier from coming out. A book which shows the real John Kerry. And all he stands for. When he phoned the one Swift Boat vet, asking why are you doing this to me? They asked him John just sign form 180, have all your navy documents released. He said I can’t.
Oh yes he released some of the documents. But he is supressing the ones he don’t want to come out. When John Stewart on the Daily Show, tried to get him to answer ques on Cambodia, he changed the subject. When the Vets are pleading with Kerry to come clean, please apologize, he won’t do it. ANd because he is, and refuses to do the above, he sends others out to do the speaking for him. And anyone who tries to speak the truth, he wants them surpressed. Mouths taped from talking. He doesn’t want the people to see who the real John Kerry is, was, and stands for. And what is happeneing is the stories get changed so many times, by John Kerry. You do not know what to believe he is saying. And like a rat in a trap, he is getting caught. Because the American people are realizing this man is not coming clean. This is why the book Unfit for Command is Number one on the best seller List. Why his poll numbers are falling. You go to the Swift Boat vets forum. just look at the number of people registered on it.

And all people are saying on it. Or to any of the websites, trying to expose the truth about Kerry. And the number of visits to them.

But unlike Gettysburg, there are no survivors still living who fought there. So it is much harder to get to the truth. ANd takes lots of investigating to finally do so. But with the Vietnam War, we do have Vets still living who can, before it is too late, and want to get the record straight. So the truth can come out. And they have been waiting for this day to come. And when John Kerry said I am a candidate for President of ther US, that is when many Vietnam Vets said, we can now spill our guts and tell the truths. And get the story correct once and for all. And expose all the lies, that John Kerry said. And about his 4 months in Vietnam. For in our eyes he is “Unfit for Command”. And nothing will stop us from getting this truth out to the American people. And do all we can to make sure he is not our next President. And these peopel will keep fighting right up till election day.

Joe

Plot thickens after checking records

August 27, 2004

BY THOMAS LIPSCOMB Advertisement

In the midst of the controversy between the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and Kerry campaign representatives about Kerry’s service in Vietnam, new questions have arisen.

The Kerry campaign has repeatedly stated that the official naval records prove the truth of Kerry’s assertions about his service.

But the official records on Kerry’s Web site only add to the confusion. The DD214 form, an official Defense Department document summarizing Kerry’s military career posted on johnkerry.com, includes a “Silver Star with combat V.”

But according to a U.S. Navy spokesman, “Kerry’s record is incorrect. The Navy has never issued a ‘combat V’ to anyone for a Silver Star.”

Naval regulations do not allow for the use of a “combat V” for the Silver Star, the third-highest decoration the Navy awards. None of the other services has ever granted a Silver Star “combat V,” either.

Fake claims not uncommon

B.G. Burkett, a Vietnam veteran himself, received the highest award the Army gives to a civilian, the Distinguished Civilian Service Award, for his book Stolen Valor. Burkett pored through thousands of military service records, uncovering phony claims of awards and fake claims of military service. “I’ve run across several claims for Silver Stars with combat V’s, but they were all in fake records,” he said.

Burkett recently filed a complaint that led last month to the sentencing of Navy Capt. Roger D. Edwards to 115 days in the brig for falsification of his records.

Kerry’s Web site also lists two different citations for the Silver Star. One was issued by the commander in chief of the Pacific Command (CINCPAC), Adm. John Hyland. The other, issued by Secretary of the Navy John Lehman during the Reagan administration, contained some revisions and additional language. “By his brave actions, bold initiative, and unwavering devotion to duty, Lieutenant (j.g.) Kerry reflected great credit upon himself… .”

One award, three citations

But a third citation exists that appears to be the earliest. And it is not on the Kerry campaign Web site. It was issued by Vice Adm. Elmo Zumwalt, commander of U.S. naval forces in Vietnam. This citation lacks the language in the Hyland citation or that added by the Lehman version, but includes another 170 words in a detailed description of Kerry’s attack on a Viet Cong ambush, his killing of an enemy soldier carrying a loaded rocket launcher, as well as military equipment captured and a body count of dead enemy.

Maj. Anthony Milavic, a retired Marine Vietnam veteran, calls the issuance of three citations for the same medal “bizarre.” Milavic hosts Milinet, an Internet forum popular with the military community that is intended “to provide a forum in military/political affairs.”

Normally in the case of a lost citation, Milavec points out, the awardee simply asked for a copy to be sent to him from his service personnel records office where it remains on file. “I have never heard of multi-citations from three different people for the same medal award,” he said. Nor has Burkett: “It is even stranger to have three different descriptions of the awardee’s conduct in the citations for the same award.”

So far, there are also two varying citations for Kerry’s Bronze Star, one by Zumwalt and the other by Lehman as secretary of the Navy, both posted on johnkerry.com.

Kerry’s Web site also carries a DD215 form revising his DD214, issued March 12, 2001, which adds four bronze campaign stars to his Vietnam service medal. The campaign stars are issued for participation in any of the 17 Department of Defense named campaigns that extended from 1962 to the cease-fire in 1973.

However, according to the Navy spokesman, Kerry should only have two campaign stars: one for “Counteroffensive, Phase VI,” and one for “Tet69, Counteroffensive.”

94 pages of records unreleased?

Reporting by the Washington Post’s Michael Dobbs points out that although the Kerry campaign insists that it has released Kerry’s full military records, the Post was only able to get six pages of records under its Freedom of Information Act request out of the “at least a hundred pages” a Naval Personnel Office spokesman called the “full file.”

What could that more than 100 pages contain? Questions have been raised about President Bush’s drill attendance in the reserves, but Bush received his honorable discharge on schedule. Kerry, who should have been discharged from the Navy about the same time – July 1, 1972 – wasn’t given the discharge he has on his campaign Web site until July 13, 1978. What delayed the discharge for six years? This raises serious questions about Kerry’s performance while in the reserves that are far more potentially damaging than those raised against Bush.

Experts point out that even the official military records get screwed up. Milavic is trying to get mistakes in his own DD214 file corrected. In his opinion, “these entries are not prima facie evidence of lying or unethical behavior on the part of Kerry or anyone else with screwed-up DD214s.”

Burkett, who has spent years working with the FBI, Department of Justice and all of the military services uncovering fraudulent files in the official records, is less charitable: “The multiple citations and variations in the official record are reason for suspicion in itself, even disregarding the current swift boat veterans’ controversy.”

Thomas Lipscomb is chairman of the Center for the Digital Future in New York.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-lips27.html

Joe

PS Note to JeffR: You getting my private messages? If you are not email me… I don’t know how to go in and set for private messaging … Thanks!!!

[quote]vroom wrote:
Then, he has the temerity to say, “You want to discuss military service? Bring it on!”

Yes, he was naively expecting people to discuss his service record, not make up politically motivated bullshit about his time in service…[/quote]

Actually, it’s too bad Kerry decided to make his 4 and a half months of service in Viet Nam the centerpiece of his campaign, on the political calculation that it would help him and hurt Bush due to questions about Bush’s Air National Guard service. So he gets together with Douglas Brinkley to publish a book about his Viet Nam service during the primaries, and expends a lot of oxygen focusing on his Viet Nam service.

He should have listened to those who said we shouldn’t focus on Viet Nam, and should move forward…

In other words, he should have listened to himself, instead of performing a nuance waffle for what he thought would be political gain:

Lead, Don’t Divide
“I am saddened that Vietnam has yet again been inserted into the campaign.”

BY JOHN F. KERRY
Thursday, February 5, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST

(Editor’s note: Sen. Kerry delivered this speech on the Senate floor Feb. 27, 1992. The previous day, Sen. Bob Kerrey, a Vietnam veteran and candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, spoke in Atlanta, where he criticized fellow candidate Bill Clinton for his lack of military service during Vietnam.)

Mr. President, I also rise today–and I want to say that I rise reluctantly, but I rise feeling driven by personal reasons of necessity–to express my very deep disappointment over yesterday’s turn of events in the Democratic primary in Georgia.

I am saddened by the fact that Vietnam has yet again been inserted into the campaign, and that it has been inserted in what I feel to be the worst possible way. By that I mean that yesterday, during this presidential campaign, and even throughout recent times, Vietnam has been discussed and written about without an adequate statement of its full meaning.

What is ignored is the way in which our experience during that period reflected in part a positive affirmation of American values and history, not simply the more obvious negatives of loss and confusion.

What is missing is a recognition that there exists today a generation that has come into its own with powerful lessons learned, with a voice that has been grounded in experiences both of those who went to Vietnam and those who did not.

What is missing and what cries out to be said is that neither one group nor the other from that difficult period of time has cornered the market on virtue or rectitude or love of country.

What saddens me most is that Democrats, above all those who shared the agonies of that generation, should now be refighting the many conflicts of Vietnam in order to win the current political conflict of a presidential primary.

The race for the White House should be about leadership, and leadership requires that one help heal the wounds of Vietnam, not reopen them; that one help identify the positive things that we learned about ourselves and about our nation, not play to the divisions and differences of that crucible of our generation.

We do not need to divide America over who served and how. I have personally always believed that many served in many different ways. Someone who was deeply against the war in 1969 or 1970 may well have served their country with equal passion and patriotism by opposing the war as by fighting in it. Are we now, 20 years or 30 years later, to forget the difficulties of that time, of families that were literally torn apart, of brothers who ceased to talk to brothers, of fathers who disowned their sons, of people who felt compelled to leave the country and forget their own future and turn against the will of their own aspirations?

Are we now to descend, like latter-day Spiro Agnews, and play, as he did, to the worst instincts of divisiveness and reaction that still haunt America? Are we now going to create a new scarlet letter in the context of Vietnam?

Certainly, those who went to Vietnam suffered greatly. I have argued for years, since I returned myself in 1969, that they do deserve special affection and gratitude for service. And, indeed, I think everything I have tried to do since then has been to fight for their rights and recognition.

But while those who served are owed special recognition, that recognition should not come at the expense of others; nor does it require that others be victimized or criticized or said to have settled for a lesser standard. To divide our party or our country over this issue today, in 1992, simply does not do justice to what all of us went through during that tragic and turbulent time.

I would like to make a simple and straightforward appeal, an appeal from my heart, as well as from my head. To all those currently pursuing the presidency in both parties, I would plead that they simply look at America. We are a nation crying out for leadership, for someone who will bring us together and raise our sights. We are a nation looking for someone who will lift our spirits and give us confidence that together we can grow out of this recession and conquer the myriad of social ills we have at home.

We do not need more division. We certainly do not need something as complex and emotional as Vietnam reduced to simple campaign rhetoric. What has been said has been said, Mr. President, but I hope and pray we will put it behind us and go forward in a constructive spirit for the good of our party and the good of our country.

Mr. Kerry, who served as a Navy lieutenant in Vietnam, is a Massachusetts senator and candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination.


“John Kerry, reporting for duty.” – Indeed…

As combat veterans see it

August 27, 2004

I AM A Vietnam veteran who hasn’t voted since coming back from Vietnam (lost faith in our system and felt I could not make a difference). But what President Bush and the swift boat veterans have done makes me sick. Any Vietnam veteran knows that just being there – just like in Iraq – even walking down a street where there is no fighting you can get killed. Being on a swift boat makes the odds of getting killed even greater. I admire all who have served in combat and have nothing but shame for those who would question service in any way.

I have no purple hearts or silver stars, but I cannot tell you how many times I was almost killed. This year, this veteran is going to vote.

HOWARD DEPETRILLO
Bradford

HAS THE WHOLE nation gone mad? Bob Dole included? I’m a Vietnam veteran – a helicopter pilot, for what little that’s worth now. My opinion: as a soldier, it takes nearly as much courage to speak against a war as it does to fight it. Kerry is the proof – he’s still paying the price. Purple Heart, two or three medals, who cares? He served in war and many didn’t. The contrast between Bush and Kerry is stark. One exercised his privilege, the other didn’t. Hate Kerry if you must, but I think all this latent anger toward him is misplaced. Maybe Dole, as a former senatorial leader, could explain how we slide into misguided wars. Now, that would be courageous. DENNIS KISTLER
Stow

WHEN YOU SERVE in the uniform and you take a hit, you get a Purple Heart. When you serve with courage and valor, you receive a Bronze Star. When you serve with gallantry, you receive a Silver Star. Your direct commander makes those recommendations and they flow up the chain for final approval. Cut the carnage and talk about the issues.

R.A. HASSETT
Boston

Boston, join before its too late, so you can get a perspective from both sides. There’s still plenty of action you support to get in on!

Oh come off it Elk –

Anecdotal evidence of how a couple veterans feel?

I’ll see your anecdotes (not from the Swiftboat Vets site, btw)(also note it’s the policy of the National Review Online to not publish the names of emailers unless they are specifically asked to do so):

http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/04_08_22_corner-archive.asp#038455

ANOTHER VET FOR TRUTH [Peter Robinson ]
From a Marine who served in Vietnam in 1967 and 1968:

Last night on a talk show?the Kerry spokesman said that the atrocities in Vietnam are well documented matters of record, and Kerry had every right to talk about them in 1972. My blood began to boil again.

As a military lawyer, I knew of the atrocities being committed by Marines in Vietnam. The atrocities were isolated incidents, and they were punished by every level of command at the time and before it became trendy for the media to sensationalize the crimes. They are matters of record because the perpetrators were court martialed, and you can read about them in the court martial reports.

Kerry's characterization of Vietnam atrocities as being widespread on a daily basis with the knowledge of all levels of command is a lie.

The Kerry machine?s sending spokesmen out to attest to widespread atrocities in Vietnam multiplies the insult. Not only should Kerry apologize, but every spokesman from the nameless man I saw last night to James Carville should apologize. Until they do, I will support the Swiftvets with my money and with my voice. 

http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/04_08_22_corner-archive.asp#038552

COMMANDERS-IN-CHIEF [Jonah Goldberg]

From a guy in uniform:

As an officer I'm to remain impartial and publicly neutral. One point, though:

When Bush came into that mess tent in Baghdad (first hand account from two
friends), that place spontaneously erupted. Dudes had tears welling up in
their eyes (along with the president) and that place was shaking with
applause. That was not a scripted moment. I was north in Tikrit at the
time and we applauded when we saw the news report on AFN (armed forces
network).

I'd bet a month's pay that Senator Kerry would not enjoy the same response
in the same situation.

The vast majority of service men and women don't give two s**** whether
their commander in chief served in the armed forces 30 years ago. We just
want to be assured that he's looking out for our interests (collective
American interests) and making wise choices today.

http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/04_08_22_corner-archive.asp#038554

RIGHTS, WRONGS ETC [Jonah Goldberg]

From a reader:

Sir, I enjoyed your logical and persuasive freedom of speech article. I served in the US Army for 21 years and in combat areas in both the Korean and Vietnam wars, and believe I have a right to comment on military matters JUST AS ANY OTHER AMERICAN CITIZEN HAS A RIGHT TO COMMENT ON MILITARY MATTERS, BY REASON OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. My rights do not exceed your rights so long as what we each say is true. I object to Kerry's lies about his Vietnam service. I know they are lies because of internal contradictions, because of the testimony of reasonable and valid observers, and because of Kerry's unfortunate tendency to lie about all things greaet and small. It matters particularly to me as a Vietnam veteran that, after becoming eligible for the draft and into the Army, Kerry applied for a one year extension so he could, as he put it, goof off in Paris. When it was refused, Kerry volunteered for the Navy, knowing the likelyhood of combat service there was much less than in the Army. He was also seeking to bolster his political future. Kerry volunteered for Swiftboats at a time when they were a coastal service, running up and down the coast, and shooting up unarmed sampans. He has said, "I didn't want any part of the war." When the duty changed, according to his fellow swiftboaters, Kerry, variously, acted like a maniac shooting up innocent people and burning villages. When actual combat happened, he fled the scene. After the way he maligned each of us who served in Vietnam for his own political advancement in -- God help them -- a state given over to liars and peacenicks like Ted Kennedy. He introduced the subject of Vietnam service into the campaign because he thought he could hammer Bush with it. Bush, incidently, served honorably in the Air National Guard, flying missions over the USA to keep out Russian bombers. Kerry, by his own admission, was a war criminal. So . . . you do have a right to speak about the war, about people's conduct in the war, and about anything else you damned well want to -- so long as you tell the truth (a condition which would keep you out of the Democrat party and the main line media, by the way). Thanks again, 

And then I’ll raise you a survey/poll - I’m not a big fan of polls, but this isn’t even close:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Veterans%20Vote.htm

Among Veterans: Bush 58% Kerry 35%

48% Have Family or Friends in Iraq or Afghanistan

Do you know anyone currently serving in Iraq or Afghanistan?
Yes 48%
No 51%

RasmussenReports.com

Thursday August 05, 2004–A Rasmussen Reports survey shows that military veterans prefer George W. Bush over John Kerry by a 58% to 35% margin. Those with no military service favor Kerry by ten percentage points, 51% to 41%.

The potential grassroots impact of the war issue is highlighted by the fact that 48% of Americans say they know someone who is currently serving in Iraq or Afghanistan. Among these voters, Bush currently has a ten-point advantage in the poll. Fifty-four percent (54%) of veterans know someone serving in these war zones.

When it comes to perceptions of the situation in Afghanistan and Iraq, it is likely that information from family and friends has a bigger impact than news coverage.

Overall, 47% of voters believe that Bush would make a better Commander-in-Chief than John Kerry. Forty-five percent (45%) take the opposite view and say Kerry would do a better job. This closely reflects the overall voter preference in the race for the White House (on the nights of this survey, Kerry attracted 48% of the total vote to 45% for Bush).

Veterans prefer Bush as Commander-in-Chief by a 60% to 33% margin. Fifty-four percent (54%) of veterans give the President good or excellent ratings for handling the situation in Iraq. Overall, just 43% of voters give the President such positive ratings on Iraq.

You come off it Boston! You’re no better then fat armchair hypocrites like Hannity, Oreilly, or Buchannon! Experts on military affairs never having been in the military! I commend your education level you definitely have smarts, a spine I’m not so sure of!

As far as atrocities go no one is saying every damned soldier in Vietnam committed them, but to say they did not happen in larger scale then in past wars is to stick your head in the sand! Read books like Everything We Had by Al Santoli or Nam by Mark Baker or a dozen others written back in the 70’s and 80’s which are accounts of veterans experiences in Vietnam.

They relate heroic acts as well as rapes, mutilations, civilian killings, by both sides, thats the nature of guerilla warfare dumb-asses! Those things will happen in Iraq as well if the war drags on! Thats just war! No right or wrong that is just the nature of the beast! The longer it goes on the higher the frustration and stress the more atrocities on both sides. You dumb-asses he wasn’t putting the soldiers down he was putting down the policy’s that instigated this!

Half of you armchair pussy’s that talk so much shit here like you BB, Zeb, Peartmath, happily spew your propaganda and lies with no regard for the truth. It is hard for me to imagine you as T-men!

I’ve already been berating their honor and character Elk, they don’t like it, but they dismiss it of course.

I thought conservatives were always trying to convince us that only they knew the difference between right and wrong.

Politically motivated attacks based on 30 year old anger built up on top of subtle statements converted to lies as they get commented upon by pundits and media. It’s shameful.

These jokers think the more lame ass quotes they post, and the longer they are, the more likely people will believe their bullshit. Sigh.

[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
You come off it Boston! You’re no better then fat armchair hypocrites like Hannity, Oreilly, or Buchannon! Experts on military affairs never having been in the military! I commend your education level you definitely have smarts, a spine I’m not so sure of!
[/quote]

Thanks for the compliment Elk. As to the ad hominem in the post I excerpted and the one below it, don’t get your panties in such a wad.

Are you implying that someone who hasn’t served is not entitled to have an opinion on issues related to the military? Is not qualified to apply logic and analyze claims related to things military?

For one thing, one of the things that separates this country from the dictatorships of the third world is the tradition of civilian control of the military. Part of the great thing about the 1st Amendment is that all citizens can have and express opinions on subjects, including the military.

For another thing, I don’t think you’d think so highly of this principle if it were applied in other contexts: Only business owners can have an opinion on regulations pertaining to business. Only those who’ve worked on a farm can have opinions on agricultural policy.

Now, does this mean I think military service does not add perspective? No, of course not. Nor does it mean I think as someone with no combat experience I should be given the benefit of any doubt if I don’t go out of my way to make sure of my logic and check my facts. But if I put forth facts and demonstrate logic and familiarity with the issues, you can’t summarily dismiss my opinion as that of just some “pussy” who won’t go off and fight in Iraq.

Well, I guess I shouldn’t say “can’t” - you most certainly can, but that would just make you look ignorant.

And, just what is the military, combat veteran position in this argument? From everything I’ve seen, you’re in the minority of military combat veteran opinion.

What does it mean about the idea that military veterans have a monopoly on insight related to military matters when there is not 100% consensus among military veterans on these subjects? What does it mean when, according to the survey/poll I posted above, that 60% of military veterans prefer Bush as commander in chief?

Finally, just how do you feel about attacks against the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, given that its 250+ members were combat veterans from Viet Nam, many of whom were POWs?

Boston, you should take up Olympic diving, you have the twisting down pat…

Elk,

“a spine I’m not so sure of!”

Do your friends know that you use your service record in order to silence thoughtful debate?

I’ll bet they don’t.

No one can legitimately claim that BostonBarrister is anything but thoughtful and thorough. He is far and away the best poster left or right.

Your puffed up attacks on him make you look less than noble. Your service gives you no right to try and lord it over others.

Attack me. I’m much more partisan and I love to rumble.

Thanks,

JeffR

At this point in my life I am thankful for many things. Not the least of which is that vroom is a Canadian and cannot vote in America!

(Hey come on laugh a little)

Jeff, perhaps you should look a little more closely before you impugn Elk. He has done no such thing.

Zeb, you afraid that the vote will be so close that if one more person was present the result would possibly be swayed? :wink:

Vroom:

While I am sure that the election is going to be a close one, that is not the reason for my previous statement.

I am simply thankful that someone filled with so much hate, as you are, is not an American! I wish you would simply tone it down some, and I would enjoy your posts, as I do Lumpy’s and RSU’s.

Have you ever noticed that much of the name calling on this part of the forum is from you?

Zeb, having a strong and/or dissenting opinion is not the same as name calling. Now, if I went and said “nickname here” is an asshole, that would be name calling.

Saying things like “painting everyone with the same brush is ignorant” and that people doing that are ignorant, is not.

So, I am disgusted by at a lot of the stuff I am seeing on here, and I am voicing it. Having the right to do so is what this is all about…

Zeb,

Ignore vroom. I am.

If he doesn’t change, then he will be talking to himself.

Answer ugliness with silence.

Have a good one!!!

JeffR

Oh no, it looks like the “coalition of those who can dish it out but can’t take it” are going to boycott me. Oh woe is me.