Share This Page:
Kerry's Military Record
Who says this guy is not paid by Kerry? I'm not against Kerry or for Bush, but I don't believe everything I read either.
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover.”
Mark Twain
Mark Twain
Every single crew member on the boats Kerry commanded has publicly supported Kerry's version of the events that led to his combat decorations. None of the "Swift Boat Vets for Truth," the group that has attacked Kerry's record, served on any of Kerry's boats.
[i]To think of the future and wait was merely another way of saying one was a coward; any idea of moderation was just another attempt to disguise one's unmanly character; ability to understand the question from all sides meant that one was totally unfitted for action; fanatical enthusiasm was the mark of a real man -- Thucydides[/i]
It's still an election year, and that means there's a lot of crap out there. Either way, that is not the kind of information I would base my vote on.
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover.”
Mark Twain
Mark Twain
We agree on that.Seven wrote:It's still an election year, and that means there's a lot of crap out there.
[i]To think of the future and wait was merely another way of saying one was a coward; any idea of moderation was just another attempt to disguise one's unmanly character; ability to understand the question from all sides meant that one was totally unfitted for action; fanatical enthusiasm was the mark of a real man -- Thucydides[/i]
Finally, at long last, Kerry has come out swinging against this Swift Boat Veterans for Truth smear campaign. The Bush campaign is going to regret the day they decided to trash Kerry's military record. They are about to find out just how tough Kerry is. This is going to be fun!
p.s.: I understand that next week the SBVT will claim to have seen Kerry having drinks with Elvis, Lee Harvey Oswald and the space alien who landed in Rowell, New Mexico.
Candidate Defends War Record Amid Criticism
Excerpt:
John F. Kerry for the first time Thursday personally lashed out at critics who have waged unrelenting and increasingly shrill attacks on his military record, calling them a "front for the Bush campaign" and asserting that President Bush "wants them to do his dirty work."
The Kerry campaign also Thursday launched a paid advertisement defending his Vietnam War record, and his valor, which has been the cornerstone of his political career. His actions in Vietnam have been questioned by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a newly formed advocacy group of Vietnam veterans who say that Kerry inflated his record. The ad will run in the same battleground states that Kerry's detractors have run their ad -- Wisconsin, West Virginia and Ohio.
Video clip of Kerry's response
The Washington Post requested the appropriate records of Kerry's principal accuser. Oddly enough, it turns out that the man lied about the whole thing.
Excerpt:
Newly obtained military records of one of Sen. John F. Kerry's most vocal critics, who has accused the Democratic presidential candidate of lying about his wartime record to win medals, contradict his own version of events.
In newspaper interviews and a best-selling book, Larry Thurlow, who commanded a Navy Swift boat alongside Kerry in Vietnam, has strongly disputed Kerry's claim that the Massachusetts Democrat's boat came under fire during a mission in Viet Cong-controlled territory on March 13, 1969. Kerry won a Bronze Star for his actions that day.
But Thurlow's military records, portions of which were released yesterday to The Washington Post under the Freedom of Information Act, contain several references to "enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire" directed at "all units" of the five-boat flotilla. Thurlow won his own Bronze Star that day, and the citation praises him for providing assistance to a damaged Swift boat "despite enemy bullets flying about him."
As one of five Swift boat skippers who led the raid up the Bay Hap River, Thurlow was a direct participant in the disputed events. He is also a leading member of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a public advocacy group of Vietnam veterans dismayed by Kerry's subsequent antiwar activities, which has aired a controversial television advertisement attacking his war record.
p.s.: I understand that next week the SBVT will claim to have seen Kerry having drinks with Elvis, Lee Harvey Oswald and the space alien who landed in Rowell, New Mexico.
Candidate Defends War Record Amid Criticism
Excerpt:
John F. Kerry for the first time Thursday personally lashed out at critics who have waged unrelenting and increasingly shrill attacks on his military record, calling them a "front for the Bush campaign" and asserting that President Bush "wants them to do his dirty work."
The Kerry campaign also Thursday launched a paid advertisement defending his Vietnam War record, and his valor, which has been the cornerstone of his political career. His actions in Vietnam have been questioned by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a newly formed advocacy group of Vietnam veterans who say that Kerry inflated his record. The ad will run in the same battleground states that Kerry's detractors have run their ad -- Wisconsin, West Virginia and Ohio.
Video clip of Kerry's response
The Washington Post requested the appropriate records of Kerry's principal accuser. Oddly enough, it turns out that the man lied about the whole thing.
Excerpt:
Newly obtained military records of one of Sen. John F. Kerry's most vocal critics, who has accused the Democratic presidential candidate of lying about his wartime record to win medals, contradict his own version of events.
In newspaper interviews and a best-selling book, Larry Thurlow, who commanded a Navy Swift boat alongside Kerry in Vietnam, has strongly disputed Kerry's claim that the Massachusetts Democrat's boat came under fire during a mission in Viet Cong-controlled territory on March 13, 1969. Kerry won a Bronze Star for his actions that day.
But Thurlow's military records, portions of which were released yesterday to The Washington Post under the Freedom of Information Act, contain several references to "enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire" directed at "all units" of the five-boat flotilla. Thurlow won his own Bronze Star that day, and the citation praises him for providing assistance to a damaged Swift boat "despite enemy bullets flying about him."
As one of five Swift boat skippers who led the raid up the Bay Hap River, Thurlow was a direct participant in the disputed events. He is also a leading member of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a public advocacy group of Vietnam veterans dismayed by Kerry's subsequent antiwar activities, which has aired a controversial television advertisement attacking his war record.
[i]To think of the future and wait was merely another way of saying one was a coward; any idea of moderation was just another attempt to disguise one's unmanly character; ability to understand the question from all sides meant that one was totally unfitted for action; fanatical enthusiasm was the mark of a real man -- Thucydides[/i]
-
Ex-URNU-Student
- Member
- Posts: 325
- Joined: Fri 18 Jul, 2003 12:12 am
- Location: UK
-
Wholley
- Guest
I don't quite get it that Kerry should "defend" his military record. The U.S. Navy awarded him two battle decorations and three Purple Hearts. That really ought to be enough. His opponent, George W. Bush, used family connections to enter a National Guard unit that he knew would never see combat. And even that was too much for young George W., who went AWOL. Additionally, while on duty George W. was grounded as a pilot for refusing to take a medical exam. Those exams included drug tests. Hmm.
[i]To think of the future and wait was merely another way of saying one was a coward; any idea of moderation was just another attempt to disguise one's unmanly character; ability to understand the question from all sides meant that one was totally unfitted for action; fanatical enthusiasm was the mark of a real man -- Thucydides[/i]
Let me put it this way: Presidential candidates are always a pig in a poke. We don't know how well they will do in office. It's impossible to say, and events outside of anyone's control will determine a lot. Therefore, voting is an exercise in decision-making under conditions of uncertainty.
This will be the eighth presidential election I've voted in. I feel better about Kerry than I did about any other presidential candidate in the August prior to the election. I'm a Democrat, so I share his political philosophy, but more importantly I think Kerry is:
- Intelligent
- Tough as nails
- Experienced in government
- Internationalist
On the negative side, I'd say he's not as good a communicator as Clinton or Reagan. He has a great deal of trouble breaking through the American sound-bite media and political culture. He's not as good a faker as Bush Jr., meaning the ability to project something that he isn't, i.e., a man of the people. Beyond that, he has no executive experience and that could be a problem. Jimmy Carter proved unable to rise from the muck of detail, and that could hurt Kerry too.
And then there's the issue of getting along with Congress. Kerry is going to enter office with a Republican House of Representatives and likely a Republican Senate. It's going to be a real challenge for him to get anything done. Add up the pluses and minuses, and I'd say he's a risk I'm willing to take. Remember, they are all risks, regardless of party affiliation or philosophy.
And one last thing. He's going to enter office with two terrible messes on his hands. One is Iraq, which Bush couldn't have screwed up worse if he had tried. The other is the U.S. economy, which I think is teetering on the brink of depression. The political strategist in me would almost prefer to have Bush elected (not "re-elected," because he wasn't elected the first time), because whoever takes office next January is going to face a very rocky road.
This will be the eighth presidential election I've voted in. I feel better about Kerry than I did about any other presidential candidate in the August prior to the election. I'm a Democrat, so I share his political philosophy, but more importantly I think Kerry is:
- Intelligent
- Tough as nails
- Experienced in government
- Internationalist
On the negative side, I'd say he's not as good a communicator as Clinton or Reagan. He has a great deal of trouble breaking through the American sound-bite media and political culture. He's not as good a faker as Bush Jr., meaning the ability to project something that he isn't, i.e., a man of the people. Beyond that, he has no executive experience and that could be a problem. Jimmy Carter proved unable to rise from the muck of detail, and that could hurt Kerry too.
And then there's the issue of getting along with Congress. Kerry is going to enter office with a Republican House of Representatives and likely a Republican Senate. It's going to be a real challenge for him to get anything done. Add up the pluses and minuses, and I'd say he's a risk I'm willing to take. Remember, they are all risks, regardless of party affiliation or philosophy.
And one last thing. He's going to enter office with two terrible messes on his hands. One is Iraq, which Bush couldn't have screwed up worse if he had tried. The other is the U.S. economy, which I think is teetering on the brink of depression. The political strategist in me would almost prefer to have Bush elected (not "re-elected," because he wasn't elected the first time), because whoever takes office next January is going to face a very rocky road.
Last edited by snyder on Fri 20 Aug, 2004 8:05 pm, edited 4 times in total.
[i]To think of the future and wait was merely another way of saying one was a coward; any idea of moderation was just another attempt to disguise one's unmanly character; ability to understand the question from all sides meant that one was totally unfitted for action; fanatical enthusiasm was the mark of a real man -- Thucydides[/i]
-
Wholley
- Guest
I reckon it's a damn shame Colin Powell's wife had so much influence in his decision making about running for office. He would probably make a better Presidential candidate next time round, as he knows the hoops and jumps, he is savvy and has learnt from his mistakes.
However I still don't think Mrs P will let him, pity.
However I still don't think Mrs P will let him, pity.
You should talk to somebody who gives a f**k.
[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v77/Robiz/movie_star_wars_yoda.gif[/img]
El Presidente
[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v77/Robiz/movie_star_wars_yoda.gif[/img]
El Presidente
Two years ago I would have agreed with you, but to me that's all negated by Powell's shameful performance at the United Nations in February 2003. The guy served as the mouthpiece to broadcast Bush's (well, Cheney's actually) lies about WMD and Saddam's terror connections. He should have displayed more integrity, and his maneuvering since then has struck me as a craven little dance. Sometimes the honorable thing to do is resign and tell the truth. Pity Colin Powell couldn't see that. He essentially ended his political career when he agreed to be a tool for the liars in the White House last year. Tragic, really.
[i]To think of the future and wait was merely another way of saying one was a coward; any idea of moderation was just another attempt to disguise one's unmanly character; ability to understand the question from all sides meant that one was totally unfitted for action; fanatical enthusiasm was the mark of a real man -- Thucydides[/i]
I was wondering how that played out in the US. Was he intimidated into that performance? Did he believe what he was saying? Has it hardened his resolve not to go for the seat?
To us it would appear that a military man with integrity would be an ideal candidate. Unfortunately integrity and politics are like oil and water.
To us it would appear that a military man with integrity would be an ideal candidate. Unfortunately integrity and politics are like oil and water.
You should talk to somebody who gives a f**k.
[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v77/Robiz/movie_star_wars_yoda.gif[/img]
El Presidente
[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v77/Robiz/movie_star_wars_yoda.gif[/img]
El Presidente
His appeal was based on the idea that a lot of Democrats would vote for him on account of his being black and relatively liberal for a Republican. After the UN fiasco that will no longer happen. He doesn't have any base of support within the Republican Party, so I'd be very surprised if he has any real political future insofar as the presidency is concerned.El Prez wrote:I was wondering how that played out in the US. Was he intimidated into that performance? Did he believe what he was saying? Has it hardened his resolve not to go for the seat?
The history of presidents with military backgrounds is that their records in office are decidedly mixed, and that it's rare for generals to get the presidency to begin with. To get there, they have to be almost god-like and apolitical by virtue of having won a big, vital war, i.e., Washington, Grant, Eisenhower. O.K., there was also Andrew Jackson (whose picture on the $20 bill looks remarkably like David Bowie), but it was a very long time ago. Anything less than that will brings the snipers out of the woodwork, and the Pentagon is nothing if not a sniper's nest.To us it would appear that a military man with integrity would be an ideal candidate. Unfortunately integrity and politics are like oil and water.
Wesley Clark is a good example. The guy was supreme NATO commander of a difficult but successful multinational operation in Kosovo, but he went nowhere in the presidential race. The minute he entered, his bureaucratic adversaries started shooting at him. Beyond that, I think the U.S. in general is wary of putting a military man in the presidency. It doesn't sit right with a lot of people, which I think is why it's a rare phenomenon reserved for generals who have somehow transcended politics.
Last edited by snyder on Fri 20 Aug, 2004 8:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
[i]To think of the future and wait was merely another way of saying one was a coward; any idea of moderation was just another attempt to disguise one's unmanly character; ability to understand the question from all sides meant that one was totally unfitted for action; fanatical enthusiasm was the mark of a real man -- Thucydides[/i]
