0
   

You can't handle the truth!

 
 
Reply Fri 13 Aug, 2004 09:45 am
Sorting out the truth in fog of war

John Kerry's military service record has become a major topic of debate in recent weeks, and both sides are trying to spin it to their advantage.

Many Democrats have attempted to make it appear that their presidential candidate knowingly volunteered for especially risky duty in Vietnam. For instance, during his acceptance speech at the Democratic convention, vice presidential nominee John Edwards said that Kerry "volunteered to go to Vietnam and to captain a swift boat, one of the most dangerous duties you could have."

But as Chris Suellentrop pointed out on Slate.com, Kerry volunteered for swift boat duty before it became so dangerous. In a multipart series on Kerry's life, the Boston Globe recounted that the swift boats "were still considered relatively safe" when Kerry made his decision. It then quotes Kerry saying 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." However, the boats' mission changed after Kerry made his decision, and they were tasked with more dangerous river patrols.

Democrats are glossing over this important distinction, implying Kerry volunteered knowing that the mission was extremely risky. Kerry's biography on his campaign Web site states: "In 1968, John Kerry began his second tour of duty, and volunteered to serve on a swift boat, one of the most dangerous assignments of the war." And in his convention speech, former President Bill Clinton stated: "When they sent those swift boats up the river in Vietnam and they told them their job was to draw hostile fire, to wave the American flag, and bait the enemy to come out and fight, John Kerry said: 'Send me.' "

Some journalists have also gotten the facts wrong. For instance, Bennett Roth of the Houston Chronicle wrote that Kerry "requested to command a swift boat, one of the more dangerous assignments during the war."

While Democrats are misrepresenting Kerry's decision to command a swift boat in Vietnam, some conservatives are also making unsupported claims about his time there.

A new ad by an independent group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth repeatedly accuses Kerry of lying. But while its Web site provides supporting materials, the charges in the ad often boil down to disputed accounts to which there is no definitive resolution.

For example, the commercial features one veteran, Louis Letson, who states: "I know John Kerry is lying about his first Purple Heart because I treated him for that injury." In backup documentation on the Web site, Letson, a former military doctor, describes the treatment he gave Kerry: removing a small piece of shrapnel from his arm and applying a bandage. But the Navy's criteria for Purple Heart eligibility say the extent of the injury does not matter, only that it was incurred from enemy fire.

Letson speculated that the wound could have been caused by shrapnel from a grenade fired by Kerry himself, but he was not present during the firefight and bases his accusation on the contested accounts of others.

Letson is not the only one to do so. George Elliott, Kerry's former commanding officer who recommended him for a Silver Star, said in an affidavit, "Had I known the facts, I would not have recommended Kerry for the Silver Star for simply pursuing and dispatching a single, wounded, fleeing Viet Cong." But Elliott also admits that his contention is based upon reading other versions of events, not first-hand knowledge.

(Elliott appeared to retract his claims in a Boston Globe article last week, but he later issued a statement reaffirming them.)

Though none of the veterans filmed in the ad were in either of the swift boats Kerry commanded in the war, the group's technically true claim that the men "served with" Kerry is leading some pundits and journalists to exaggerate their relationship to him. As the liberal group Media Matters pointed out, Fox News Channel's Sean Hannity and Pat Halpin both claimed that the men were "some of [Kerry's] crewmates" on Aug. 4, and Fox's Catherine Herridge introduced the ad as "featuring some of John Kerry's Vietnam crewmates" on Aug. 6.

As Democrats glamorize John Kerry's service in Vietnam and conservatives pillory it, citizens are once again left to fend for themselves in sorting out the truth.

link
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 2,380 • Replies: 54
No top replies

 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Aug, 2004 09:54 am
becoame a mercenary would ya and get this I'm a tough guy chip off your shoulder.....
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Aug, 2004 09:58 am
Didn't even bother reading it, did you?
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Aug, 2004 09:59 am
of course I did.......
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Aug, 2004 10:00 am
Then what's with the attitude?
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Aug, 2004 10:01 am
I screwed up....communicated directly with you ....sorry......
0 Replies
 
Harper
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Aug, 2004 10:10 am
No matter how any rational person looks at it, Kerry's War Record v. Bush's AWOL record. Kerry wins bigtime. Keep bringing it on.
0 Replies
 
JustanObserver
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Aug, 2004 02:55 pm
I LOVE IT!

Keep the article coming. Yes, I read it. Bush still looks like a pussy in comparison.
You seem to be in some sort of denial over the most important points, McG: Bush didn't go to 'Nam, and because of a connection, no less! Not to mention how Bush checked the box on the form saying he didn't want to go over either. How BRAVE!

Got any more? I'm dying to read it. Your insistence on trying to cut down Kerry's war record has become absolutely comical.
0 Replies
 
Rick d Israeli
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Aug, 2004 03:01 pm
Why is it so important what an US president did when he was in the military? How come that I can't recall ONE Dutch prime minister - all who went into military service, as part of the draft - who used his military records in the elections? Since when is there some sort of junta going on in the US? Yes, I know I am overreacting, but I just think it's ridiculous both Republicans as Democrats are making such a fuss about the military records of respectively John Kerry and George W. Bush. Yes, I know Dutch politics is not the same as American politics, but Dutch politics do show that your military records are not a PRE to winning the elections.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Aug, 2004 03:51 pm
Harper wrote:
No matter how any rational person looks at it, Kerry's War Record v. Bush's AWOL record. Kerry wins bigtime. Keep bringing it on.

I am sure that you meant to provide evidence that the president was AWOL from his National Guard service. You don't strike me as the kind of person who just throws a lot of mud hoping that some will stick.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Aug, 2004 04:02 pm
The facts remain that Bush has an honorable discharge and to this day his commanders at the time say he had an honorable discharge. The facts also remain that Bush hasn't used his military service as a center piece for his re-election. Kerry has thus the reason it is commented on. I happen to beleive 60 people over 9 people any day.

The biggest issue I have with Kerry comes from his post war record and sondeming the war and calling his fellow brothers and sisters at arms war criminals and then 30 years later wanting glory for being in the war. I don't get it and wouldn't support someone who would do it 30 years from now for someone that was in the Iraq war. It shows a lack of leadership in a person and in military service leadership is everything.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Aug, 2004 04:45 pm
Kerry is, at best, mediocre, which makes him a major improvement over Bush. I may end up voting democratic this time.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Aug, 2004 05:44 pm
Ths time? You sound like someone who votes along that line every time not just this one time.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Aug, 2004 07:49 pm
for all I know you sound like a frog but I don't accuse you of eating flies. btw I am not a democrat and have not voted for a democrat presidential canditate since Jimmy Carter. just a bit presumptious are we?
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Aug, 2004 01:56 pm
I know I was judging a book by it's cover but at times when listening to the left wing it helps to judge. Don't be offended because I get judged all the time and I don't worry about it.
0 Replies
 
Harper
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Aug, 2004 02:51 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
Harper wrote:
No matter how any rational person looks at it, Kerry's War Record v. Bush's AWOL record. Kerry wins bigtime. Keep bringing it on.

I am sure that you meant to provide evidence that the president was AWOL from his National Guard service. You don't strike me as the kind of person who just throws a lot of mud hoping that some will stick.


There is tons of evidence that Bush went AWOL, to deny that there is simply indicates a lack of intellectual honesty.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Aug, 2004 02:55 pm
If there is evidence why hasn't he ever been called on it? Why do his former comanders still to this day support him? Why do we not see the level of disagreement on his record with vets as we do with Kerry?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Aug, 2004 02:55 pm
Harper wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Harper wrote:
No matter how any rational person looks at it, Kerry's War Record v. Bush's AWOL record. Kerry wins bigtime. Keep bringing it on.

I am sure that you meant to provide evidence that the president was AWOL from his National Guard service. You don't strike me as the kind of person who just throws a lot of mud hoping that some will stick.


There is tons of evidence that Bush went AWOL, to deny that there is simply indicates a lack of intellectual honesty.

Great! Well if there is tons, then it should be easy for you to just cut and paste an example of it in here. And when you do, please offer something on the level of proof or near proof, and not just innuendo.
0 Replies
 
Harper
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Aug, 2004 09:06 pm
It is not my responsibilty to keep you informed as to current events. Do your own research. All of this is common knowledge. Try keeping up.
0 Replies
 
Lordregent52
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Aug, 2004 09:30 pm
I agree with Rick - what makes either candidate's prior military service relevant? What does it matter how brave Kerry is, or how cowardly? The President of the United States is a desk job. What should really matter are the issues. What does Kerry think of education? What's Bush's stance on abortion or gay marriage? Was the war a mistake? Was it Bush's mistake or somone at some alphabet-soup intelligence acency? These are the issues, and these are relevant. Whether Kerry deserved a purple heart is not. The only way I can think of any kind of military history being relevant were if there were evidence that one of the candidates were unecessarily cruel, bloodthirsty, traitorous, etc. Note that cowardly is a far cry from traitorous.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » You can't handle the truth!
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/01/2024 at 07:09:20