0
   

Larry Elder on Sen. Kerry

 
 
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2004 07:54 am
John Kerry to Vietnam: 'Send Me'?
Larry Elder

"During the Vietnam War," said former President Bill Clinton at the Democratic National Convention, "many young men -- including the current president, the vice president and me -- could have gone to Vietnam but didn't. John Kerry came from a privileged background and could have avoided it too. Instead he said, 'Send me.' When they sent those swift-boats up the river in Vietnam, and told them their job was to draw hostile fire -- to show the American flag and bait the enemy to come out and fight -- John Kerry said, 'Send me.'"

From the beginning, the Kerry campaign said to voters: Vote for me because I volunteered to go to Vietnam, faced hostile fire and came back a decorated war hero.

John O'Neill, who took over Kerry's swift-boat after Kerry left Vietnam, and co-author of the new book, "Unfit for Command," questions whether Kerry's attitude toward Vietnam was, indeed, "Send me":

John Kerry has often implied that he volunteered for the military right after college. But Kerry petitioned his draft board for a student deferment. At Yale, Kerry's antiwar political views were well known. He . . . used his commencement address in 1966 to criticize the foreign policy of President Lyndon Johnson, especially with regard to Vietnam. 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. . . . The top choice was the Navy Reserves where the duty commitment was shorter and a larger proportion of the period could be served stateside on inactive duty.

John Kerry's service record indicates that on February 18, 1966, he enlisted in the United States Naval Reserves, status 'inactive,' not in the U.S. Navy. These details are conveniently left out of all pro-Kerry biographies. Douglas Brinkley records that Kerry entered Officer Candidate School in Newport, Rhode Island; however, again he fails to note that Kerry was seeking to be an officer of the U.S. Naval Reserves.


The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth -- consisting of some 250 Democrats and Republicans -- now run ads attacking Kerry's record. They accuse Kerry, among other things, of lying repeatedly about being in Cambodia on Christmas 1968. Kerry said, "I have that memory which is seared -- seared -- in me." In 1979, Kerry wrote,

I remember spending Christmas Eve of 1968 five miles across the Cambodian border being shot at by our South Vietnamese allies who were drunk and celebrating Christmas. The absurdity of almost being killed by our own allies in a country in which president Nixon claimed there were no American troops was very real.]

Steve Gardner, who served as Kerry's gunnery mate for most of Kerry's four-month stint in Vietnam, says that Kerry was never in Cambodia, and was over 50 miles away on that Christmas. The Kerry campaign now acknowledges that, no, on Christmas 1968, Nixon was not president. And, no, Kerry actually went to Cambodia in January 1969. But, no, Special Operations sent Kerry to Cambodia on a "top secret" mission, for which no paperwork exists to corroborate Kerry's presence. Convenient.

The Democrats' new-found affection for a commander-in-chief with military experience simply boggles the mind. In 1992, Bill Clinton -- who, let's say, finessed his way out of the draft after receiving his draft notice -- ran against George Herbert Walker Bush. President Bush-41 received a Distinguished Flying Cross for heroism and extraordinary achievement in aerial flight as pilot of a torpedo plane, who, although his plane was hit and set afire, continued his plunge toward the target and scored damaging bomb hits before bailing out of the plane. At 19, Bush was the youngest Navy pilot, at that time, during WWII. In 1996, President Clinton then ran against Bob Dole, who nearly lost his life from wounds he sustained during the 1944 invasion of Italy. Dole received two Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star.

Where were the we-need-a-president-with-military-experience Democrats then?

Former presidential contender Bob Dole said,

I respect (Kerry's) record, but three Purple Hearts -- he never bled that I know of. They were all superficial wounds. As far as I know, he never spent one day in the hospital, I don't think he draws any disability pay. He doesn't have any disability. And he's boasting about three Purple Hearts, when you think of some of the people who really got shot up in Vietnam. . . . Maybe he should apologize to all the other two-and-a-half million veterans who served. He wasn't the only one who was in Vietnam. I think Senator Kerry needs to talk about his Senate record, which is pretty thin. That's probably why he's talking about his war record, which is pretty confused.

"I'm John Kerry, and I'm reporting for duty," said Kerry, during his speech at the Democratic National Convention. Again, from the very beginning, Kerry made his service in Vietnam the centerpiece of his campaign. And to this, the Swift Boat Veterans now say, "Bring it on."

link
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 2,717 • Replies: 68
No top replies

 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2004 08:10 am
Jeez, McG, why don't you let this die. There's really nothing to this piece except another biased opinion about John Kerry from someone who obviously supports Bush.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2004 09:52 am
Repeatedly lying about something, such as spending Christmas in Cambodia, might be relevant information relating to the character of someone seeking to become president.

I believe Senator Kerry described the memory as being so vivid as to be "seared -- seared -- in me," in a 1986 Senate speech. If I'm not mistaken, the Kerry campaign ultimately admitted that he wasn't there.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2004 09:55 am
Quote:
Repeatedly lying about something, such as spending Christmas in Cambodia might be relevant information relating to the character of someone seeking to become president.


Oh, quit the smear job already and talk about policy...

This is ridiculous. The sad thing is, it's working; the longer the media continues to focus on Kerry's war record vs. his policies, the less time they focus on his actual issues....

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2004 09:55 am
Brandon, have you been reading the many threads on this? It's a chore, I admit. But both of your points have been disputed many times over.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2004 09:57 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
Repeatedly lying about something, such as spending Christmas in Cambodia might be relevant information relating to the character of someone seeking to become president.
Oh, quit the smear job alreadyCycloptichorn

It would only be correctly described as a "smear job" if both (1) it is false, and (2) I know it is false. Certainly not every accusation against Mr. Kerry is automatically a "smear job."
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2004 09:57 am
sozobe wrote:
Brandon, have you been reading the many threads on this? It's a chore, I admit. But both of your points have been disputed many times over.

Can you give me a link or two?
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2004 09:57 am
B9, I believe this has been talked to death and the gist of it is that the only people who firmly believe that this is more than trivial are people who are VERY partisan in the rightward direction.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2004 09:58 am
FreeDuck wrote:
B9, I believe this has been talked to death and the gist of it is that the only people who firmly believe that this is more than trivial are people who are VERY partisan in the rightward direction.

No, if the man lied repeatedly about his war record, I would not think that trivial.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2004 10:01 am
Quote:
Certainly not every accusation against Mr. Kerry is automatically a "smear job."


No, evey accusation against Kerry isn't a 'smear job.'

But while some accusations are relevant to policy formation, or to Kerry's record of voting, or his stance on issues, this one basically is accusing Kerry of something that cannot be conclusively proven or disproven.

ALL these accusations are based upon are the opinions of men (who, by the way, only had good things to say about Kerry just a few years ago) and the memories of men, which are subject to revision....

Let's talk about the issues, hey? Here's one for ya:

http://money.cnn.com/2004/08/26/news/economy/poverty_survey/index.htm?cnn=yes

Quote:
Survey: More Americans in poverty

Census Bureau report says 1.3 million slipped below benchmark; health care coverage also declines.
August 26, 2004: 11:04 AM EDT



WASHINGTON (CNN) - The number of Americans living in poverty jumped by 1.3 million last year as household incomes held steady, the Census Bureau said Wednesday.

The percentage of the U.S. population living in poverty rose to 12.5 percent from 12.1 percent -- as the poverty rate among children jumped to its highest level in 10 years. The rate for adults 18-to-64 and 65 and older remained steady.

The bureau also said that the share of aggregate income for the lowest 20 percent of Americans fell to 3.4 percent from 3.5 percent.

Health Care Jobs Throughout the USA
Over 50,000 healthcare job listings throughout the USA: allied health, nursing,...
www.healthjobsusa.com
The report indicated that children and blacks were worse off than most, Reuters reported, noting the report would almost certainly fuel Democratic criticism of President Bush.

The number of poor rose to 35.9 million, up 1.3 million from 2002.

Health care coverage also dropped last year and incomes were essentially stagnant, the Census Bureau said in its annual poverty report, seen by some as the most important score card on the nation's economy and Bush's first term in office.

The number of uninsured people rose to 45 million from 43.6 million in 2002, the bureau said.

According to the data, more people were covered by Medicare and Medicaid in 2003 than in 2002, while the percentage and number of people covered by their employers fell from 61.3 percent -- 175.3 million people -- to 60.4 percent -- 174 million people.

Medicaid, the federal health insurance program for the poor, saw an increase in people covered to 35.6 million from 33.2 million while those covered by Medicare, the federal health program for the elderly, rose to 39.5 million from 38.4 million people.




Don't want to talk about this one, do ya?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2004 10:02 am
Lots surrounding this post:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=861975#861975
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2004 10:04 am
John Kerry is well known on Capitol Hill as the most vain, self-absorbed and Liberal member of the Senate. It also appears that he is either an habitual prevaricator or that he has come to believe the self aggrandizing myths that he has so assiduously cultivated about himself, and which he has so proominently put before the public in his campaign. His truly goofy salute and "Reporting for Duty" bit at the convention were way over the top.

In Vietnam, and in other theaters of military service most of us encountered a (fortunately) very few individuals who were much more interested in embellishing their actions and collecting their awards than they were in loyalty to their ship or squadron mates or the mission of their unit. They were as easily recognizable as they were loathesome. John Kerry is one of them.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2004 10:04 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
But while some accusations are relevant to policy formation, or to Kerry's record of voting, or his stance on issues, this one basically is accusing Kerry of something that cannot be conclusively proven or disproven....

I may be wrong, but it was my belief that it had be conclusively proven to such an extent that the Kerry campaign admitted he wasn't there.

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Let's talk about the issues, hey? Here's one for ya:
Don't want to talk about this one, do ya?

Cycloptichorn

Not in a case in which it is a transparent attempt to change the subject.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2004 10:05 am
Everyone except a few rubberneckers are becoming puke sick of this topic......I'm praying that bush will make it a centerpiece of the GOP convention and that will finally disgust the general public to the point where this goes away and people take a look at what's really happening in and has happened to the country on this dickheads watch......
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2004 10:06 am
sozobe wrote:

Thanks.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2004 10:07 am
Brandon9000, you might want to start listening to your own advice:

Quote:
au1929 wrote:
Turn about is fair play. If you as you can ask me to prove he was AWOL. Why is it improper for me to ask you to prove he wasn't? The evidence is inconclusive in either case. OH! I forgot you are a republican a paragon of truth and integrity. Bull Crap.

Because when you accuse someone of a crime, you have to present convincing evidence. The accused is not obligated to prove himself innocent. So present some real evidence that he did, not just that he might have.


http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=863458#863458

Kerry is, by your own admission, not obligated to prove himself innocent. Official Navy records back up Kerry's story all the way, so the burden is upon you to prove he is guilty.

30+ year old memories belonging to a group of people who are changing their story from 8 years ago do not count as conclusive evidence, and you know it!

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2004 10:07 am
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
Everyone except a few rubberneckers are becoming puke sick of this topic......I'm praying that bush will make it a centerpiece of the GOP convention and that will finally disgust the general public to the point where this goes away and people take a look at what's really happening in and has happened to the country on this dickheads watch......

Well, if he lied repeatedly about his service record, it's certainly relevant to his presidential bid. I can see why you would want discussion on it to stop, though.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2004 10:08 am
Quote:
I may be wrong, but it was my belief that it had be conclusively proven to such an extent that the Kerry campaign admitted he wasn't there.


I fully expect you to start treating Kerry as if he is innocent of these scurrilous allegations, then, and stop assuming he's guilty.

You are in a major error here; nothing more has been conclusively proven about this than Your Boy Bush's absence from duty.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2004 10:09 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Brandon9000, you might want to start listening to your own advice:

Quote:
au1929 wrote:
Turn about is fair play. If you as you can ask me to prove he was AWOL. Why is it improper for me to ask you to prove he wasn't? The evidence is inconclusive in either case. OH! I forgot you are a republican a paragon of truth and integrity. Bull Crap.

Because when you accuse someone of a crime, you have to present convincing evidence. The accused is not obligated to prove himself innocent. So present some real evidence that he did, not just that he might have.


http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=863458#863458

Kerry is, by your own admission, not obligated to prove himself innocent. Official Navy records back up Kerry's story all the way, so the burden is upon you to prove he is guilty.

30+ year old memories belonging to a group of people who are changing their story from 8 years ago do not count as conclusive evidence, and you know it!

Cycloptichorn

You're right, of course. But I was only talking about his repeated claim to have spent Christmas in Cambodia. I thought that the Kerry campaign ultimately had to admit that it was nonsense. However, I will post citations if you like.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2004 10:09 am
georgeob1 wrote:
John Kerry is well known on Capitol Hill as the most vain, self-absorbed and Liberal member of the Senate. {/quote]

Can we assume georgebob that you work on Capitol Hill, are a senator or perhaps a page or are in some position to back up this claim other than "quoting" other sources? Otherwise will someone refill my beer and pass the peanuts please and can we talk about something more interesting like American Idol or something?
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. » Larry Elder on Sen. Kerry
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 05/02/2024 at 06:54:12