There has been a lot of praising Kerry's war record at the convention but according to some groups there is a different side to the story of John Kerry's war record. Led by Vietnam Veterans against John Kerry some conservative groups have been raising questions about the Kerry war record. This group, led by a man who previously claimed Senator John McCain was a KGB spy, claims that John Kerry didn't earn any of his medals and he served dishonorably during Vietnam.

Do you think there is any validity to the claims that John Kerry's vietnam record isn't what it may seem?

Will bringing up this issue be beneficial to the Bush camp or will it backfire?

I think their claim holds no water considering they called John McCain a KGB spy. I think they probably feel threatened because Kerry doesn't hold all their views so they attack anyone who is not like Bush, like John McCain.

I think the Republicans should avoid embracing these guys and shouldn't bring up questions regarding this group. Bob Novak did and he got chewed out on Crossfire because he was just asking a plain stupid question. The burden of proof isn't on John Kerry to prove he's anything. This is different from George W. Bush where you had people and documentation citing that Bush missed duty and he was AWOL. Kerry has a whole crew of people that vouch for him so no matter what they want to say, I think they'll just fade into the headlines. This is just more dirty politics at work.

Even so, I didn't consider George W. Bush's war record to be important. He was a little dishonest by ducking service, and then acting as if his National Guard was tantamount to fighting overseas, but I think you can look at his presidency and you don't need to look back into the decades of his career to find something wrong.

I mean, of course the rhetoric used in the convention has been amped up to make him seem like G.I. Joe, and yes, it is true that he volunteered for swift boat duty not knowing he'd have to patrol the Mekong Delta. But c'mon - the guy's a war hero. You can't really mess with it. And the linked website has that peculiar air of right-wing nuttiness about it - Hanoi Jane?



If Bush even once voluntarily mentions Kerry's war record I'll eat my hat.

Do you think there is any validity to the claims that John Kerry's vietnam record isn't what it may seem? Personally I think there is absolutely no evidence. From what I've read the facts favor Kerry. I see no reason the Navy would give Kerry medals if he didn't earn them. Plus everyone on his boat seems to support him 100%.

Will bringing up this issue be beneficial to the Bush camp or will it backfire? I think it depends how they use it. If they don't say anything about John Kerry's war record and at the same time use the ultra-right to spread rumors they will probably benefit. As Karl Rove showed in the South Carolina primary in 2000 spreading rumors can work very well. Of course George Bush didn't go out and accuse John McCain of fathering an illegetimate black child but he did benefit from his campaign spreading the rumor using a push poll. The same tactics could be used this time to his benefit. If Bush on the other hand tries to raise questions himself it could call attention to his own Vietnam record which wouldn't help his campaign.

Do you think there is any validity to the claims that John Kerry's vietnam record isn't what it may seem?

I am not intimately familiar with his record so I can't exactly comment on it's validity. However, I can comment on whether or not the medals were "deserved" or not.

Specifically we know that Kerry has won three purple hearts. Now, when people say that he didn't deserve these medals (especially those that never served in a day of combat like Bush and many of the Republicans attacking him) it makes me very angry. It doesn't matter if you got the medal because you were wounded with shrapnel or because you lost your leg to a land mine. The point is, you were over there risking your life for the interests of the country and you shed blood to do that - a sacrifice that many in this country haven't and are unwilling to make.

So, Kerry got wounded by some shrapnel and got a purple heart, did he try and use it as a ticket home? No, he didn't. He got patched up and went back out into the battle field.

These veterans that are trying to denigrate Kerry because he didn't "deserve" his medals should be deeply ashamed of themselves because they are really only doing themselves a disservice and tarnishing their experience as well. What if someone says to them someday that they didn't "deserve" their honors and their sacrifice didn't mean anything?

Will bringing up this issue be beneficial to the Bush camp or will it backfire?
No, it won't it will definitely backfire. If Bush was smart (and I'm not sure he is), he would leave this issue alone completely knowing full well that he doesn't even come close to measuring up to Kerry when it comes to military service. Medals or not, the path that they took was very different.

Both men came from families with some wealth, and during Vietnam children of those families in many cases did everything they could to avoid the war -- the poor and uneducated did our fighting for us. Kerry took the road of listening to the call of duty, and headed to Vietnam. Bush on the other hand avoided service in a pretty classical manner by signing up for the coast guard. Now I'm not knocking the coast guard, but if anyone thinks that joining the coast guard during the vietnam war knowing full well they'd never see combat is honorable you really need to examine your thinking.

Finally, Bush has some skeletons of his own in the closet. It is still unclear as to whether Bush went AWOL or not during a portion of his duty with the Coast Guard. There is still the issue of the Pentagon Destroying Military Records which coincidently would have proven or disproven the theories here. So while it isn't anything conclusive necessarily, it is very suggestive and suspicious.

John Kerry's record in Vietnam is an issue because he's made it an issue. He can't seem to go five minutes without reminding people "I served in Vietnam". He and his supporters seem to think that should insulate him from any examination of his voting record on defense and intelligence issues for the years he's spent in the US Senate.

John Kerry spent 4 MONTHS in Vietnam, 4 MONTHS and came back only to falsely accuse the soldiers still there of being war criminals in front of the US Senate, under oath. From that he was able to launch a political career and end up where he is today. Well, most of those soldiers eventually came home after a lot longer time than 4 months in country and thanks in part to people like John Kerry and Jane Fonda, they didn't get the yellow ribbons and the parades. Instead, they were met with angry mobs of people spitting at them and calling them "Baby-killers". Thanks to people like Kerry telling lies about what really happened, you couldn't go into a bar as a Nam vet and have them buy you a beer. If you went in at all chances are you'd get one thrown in your face. Fun times. It's the only time I've ever been down on this country and that's the part that probably hurt the most. Most nam vets would prefer to forget that time, move ahead and look for better times, but no, along comes this dude from Massachusetts with movies of his "heroic" exploits in Nam, can you believe he actually took a movie camera along to record it all? Sheesh! What's with that? And, here he comes, thinking his silver star is a key to the Oval Office and he re-opens all those old wounds all over again. So yeah, there's some guys out there that are pretty ticked off at him. He got a free pass back in the 70's because we were too tired to fight back and just wanted to move on. Well, guess what? That pass has expired and we're not about to sit back and let John Kerry move up on the political ladder on our backs again. That's not going to happen.

From this website......



John Kerry has raised this as an issue in this campaign, it was his choice to take us back to those dark days. This time, there'll be a price to pay for it.

Actually that's incorrect. He used an obscure Naval regulation after being wounded three times to petition to be sent back stateside. I don't necessarily want to paint that as denigrating, as I was not in Vietnam, so maybe I would have too (but probably not). I would call this 'using it as a ticket home'.
The sheer numbers of Swift boat veterans and his former commanders who are speaking out against Kerry raises some questions in my mind. Surely they all can't be part of the vast right wing conspiracy.
The Purple Heart, like any decoration, can be awarded when it's not really warranted. You simply need someone to verify the act, or wound and write the citation. A soldier was awarded the Purple Heart for action in Panama (Op Just Cause) for being stricken with heat stroke during battle. Not exactly a battlefield injury in my book.


Don't call that nuttiness to a Vietnam vet, you might have to duck quickly afterwards if you do.

FYI, Bush was in the Air National Guard. Which as part of SAC did have the ongoing Cold War mission of patrolling US airspace, just as it does now.

First, 4 months is still 4 months more combat than George W. Bush saw.

Secondly, I don't think you or anyone else has the right to "judge" Kerry on the amount of time he spent in Vietnam. For the 4 months that he was there he slept in the same jungle, dealt with the same heat, faced the same dangers to his life, witnessed the same horrors, and watched friends die the same as anyone else.

Finally, you can hardly deny that there were some heinous things that went on during the Vietnam war. Things that no one here should be proud of or even try to defend, if you want to play that game take it to the Defending the indefensible thread.


I also think it is completely unfair for you to hang the treatment of vietnam vets on Kerry's shoulders. Do you have any evidence that he personally did any of those things, or are you just making blanket generalizations? I'm inclined to believe the latter, but if you do have some proof by all means please submit it and prove me wrong.

Could it be that he was just acting in the best interests of the people over there, when the government should have been doing that Aquilla?


I stand correct DTOM, and apologize for the error. However, my point about it being an escapist assignment with no real possibility of danger still stands.

FYI, Bush went AWOL from the TANG. Surely you're not comparing Bush and Kerry's service records. Oh right, Kerry "only" spent 4 months in country and "only" got wounded three times. Give me a break.

Count Rockula

John Kerry's own words make up much of the argument for VVAJK, especially the voice clip. http://www.streamload.com/jmstein77/Kerry2.mp3

In this voice clip John Kerry readily admits to committing war crimes, the same war crimes committed by his fellow Brothers-In-Arms, of which he called baby Killers. (http://www.streamload.com/jmstein77/KerryAd3.wmv)

He is a baby-killer, and no, that is not according to the right wing spin machine, not according to the media, it is his OWN WORDS.

Their next argument was that the first purple heart John Kerry earned, was very suspicious. The first purple heart "...not a serious wound at all..." according to William Schachte, the man who oversaw the mission.

Another criticism was John Kerry's tight relationship with Jane Fonda, who is explained in proceeding article with picture to validate the claims.

I am just arguing with what I know.

Don't have a soundcard on my computer, so I can't listen to the clip...

Yes, he admits to having accidentally gunned down civilians in Viet Nam, in a free-fire zone, which was one of the American policies he later come out against. Not sure what your argument is here - perhaps that having a conscience is a bad thing, or that a Bushian "never-ever-admit-you're-wrong-under-any-circumstances" position would be better?
The argument that Kerry is responsible for the mistreatment of veterans seems ludicrous to me. He took a principled stand against a war that I think history has proven to be one of the most ill-considered and pointless in history at a time when the anti-war movement was already going full-tilt.
As to the severity of his wounds/level of courage displayed issue, I'd direct you to the Snopes link provided by Rancid Uncle.
I'm just arguing what I think.

As I had said before, I have no direct feelings on this issue, I am just arguing the facts...and the fact is the war crimes he committed, he later criticized his fellow soldiers for committing.

Is it a fact? Or are you painting with a broad brush here to make a point that's hard to defend? Did he commit a "war crime"? Were you there to see what it was like? Were you alive then to understand how the country was behaving and the context for his words?

Or is this all just a distraction to keep people from looking to closely at other things?

After listening to this nivekelly, I am still unsure what your argument here is, so perhaps you can clarify.

If you listen to that clip, he admits he committed what he considers to be war crimes. You'll also hear that this is what he was ordered to do by his superiors. Rather than disobey orders he finished his time in the war and when he came home he started protesting to change the policy.

I personally do not see anything wrong with that, but if I am somehow misunderstanding your argument please correct me.

I have listened to the clip as well, multiple times, and have heard his confessions about what you are speaking of, yet the people he was calling "baby-killers" who many of which were following orders as he was.

What grounds do you have to say that Kerry told "lies" about what was happening in Vietnam? As far as we know, Mai Lai massacre was just an event that got the most publicity... as for angry mobs, as far as I know the public's support for Lt. Culley during his Mai Lai trial was overwhelming and at the end he was the only one who was convicted for killing of 22 civilians (although close to 500 were killed). By the way, Nixon promptly pardoned Culley....
Public opinion was overwhelmingly in support of Lt. Culley even though it was PROVEN that he personally killed dozens. If general public would be more indignant regarding events that were going on maybe we would get out of there sooner.... but it's a topic for a different thread. Kudos to Kerry for doing an unpopular thing at the time and following his concience.
There's no need to deny that some terrible things were comitted by U.S. soldiers in Viet Nam - denying that insults the memory of innocents who died there.

Darn right I have the "right to judge" Kerry, just as every American has the right to judge him for his actions in the war and following the war. Who are you to tell me I don't have that "right"? This guy wants to be President of the United States, the people have a right to know the truth about him.



Tell me all about it, Cube Jockey. I bet there's been some pretty nasty stuff happen up in the Bay Area recently - bodies getting dumped in the bay, stuff like that. You figure I should go and testify under oath before Congress and tell them that everyone in the bay area, including you are a bunch of wanton criminals and body-dumpers? After all, I've spent more than 4 months in the bay area so I must know pretty much everything that's going on there......




I never said Kerry did anything like that personally. As usual, he let others do the heavy lifting while he "took the glory" and testified before Congress. John Kerry was doing what John Kerry always has done and acted in what was the best interest for John Kerry and the hell with anyone else. He didn't care that what he was saying was a lie, it picked up some votes for him.

From Aquilla's website:




I see two statements - one by Kerry, which describes IN GREAT DETAIL how an American presense in the village was established; then, there's another statement which calls it a lie but provides no description whatsoever of events in question. Very vague "our consistent policy was to take every precaution to avoid harming civilians" reminds me of earlier conferences of Rumsfeld BEFORE Abu Graib photos came to light.

Kerry didn't even graduate from law school until 1976. Votes from whom, for what? Or are these figurative votes?



Boy, that's a pretty specious argument. Did CJ kill someone?
Besides, you don't think four months is long enough to get a feel for what's going on around you? Or is your assertion that no atrocities were committed in Vietnam? Either way, not a very credible argument.

If I may:

6-year old shot in front of her mother

"Tiger Force" atrocities


If not enough, I'll dig up more...

Unless you personally are a Vietnam Vet, I don't think you are qualified to say whether 4 months in Vietnam was a long amount of time or not. The way you wrote it in your post, you suggested that he was only in Vietnam for 4 months implying he doesn't deserve to talk about his time there nor could he have possibly made a valuable contribution nor could he possibly understand what was going on. I feel that is a very disrespectful statement not just to Kerry, but to all veterans of war in general.


That would also be a pretty ridiculous assertion, and I'm sure you realize that what went on in Vietnam is completely different than the example you just provided.


But it is clear you are holding him responsible for the actions of all protestors, even in this post. Such a statement is rather absurd. That would be similar to me saying that President Bush was responsible for all shootings by anti-abortion groups. He supports banning abortions and so do militant anti-abortion groups -- I suppose Bush is just being president while others do the heavy lifting.

Unless you can back up your statements with something Kerry personally did in this area, then trying to hang the entire protest movement on him is not only unfounded but unfair.

You really don't want to go there, CJ and neither do I so I'll send you a PM about things. The website I linked to is a website from the Riverine guys, the people who were on the Swift Boats. Read what they have to say about things and compare that to what Kerry claimed before the US Senate.

Do you think there is any validity to the claims that John Kerry's vietnam record isn't what it may seem?

Yep. These links should provide insight into the events that Kerry recieved his commendations for as well as his actions after the war.

http://www.kerrylied.com/
WinterSoldier.com
http://www.greenberet.net/kerry/

Swift Vets for Truth

The last link is really good. I encourage all to visit it. See how many of Kerry's "band of brothers" really stand.

Will bringing up this issue be beneficial to the Bush camp or will it backfire?

Indirectly, I think so... that is, if it gets any attention. I don't think the Bush Administration should directly go after this. It is a double-edged sword. The best way to go about this would be to get these groups and servicemen the exposure they need.

Aside from that, I can really only let the links answer the questions. I aslo would like to echo Aquilla's and DTOM's words. I believe it is our right to question the actions of a man who claims the war her status he might not (and looks not to) deserve. Awards have been granted, as DTOM pointed out, for things that do not warrant them. I believe that this is the case with Kerry.

Should he be respected for going to Nam? Of course?

But is he a war hero? I don't think so.

Ah come on! I'll dig up dozens "Bush lie soldiers die" sites on the net, I can't believe you take them seriously. I also wonder if Aquilla and Titus can explain the close friendship between John McCain and John Kerry - is McCain on the side of Vietnamese communists, too, as "Winter soldier" site suggests? Does he also think that Kerry is a lier and a traitor of veteran's causes? Their close friendship is well-documented...

So as the first bit of proof you are submitting a bunch of links which appear to me to be very slanted and unsupported. The title of your first link says a lot about the content of the link.

Let me ask you this Titus -- or anyone else for that matter. If I submitted within a thread a link from some partisan democrat site, or some personal web page as proof that Bush lied to the country about the war in Iraq -- how quick would everyone jump to discredit that? How long would the laughter last? I would think that we are all above using bogus and completely unobjective sources like this as proof of anything.

As to the Swift Boat Vets link -- why would any of these people have good things to say about Kerry if he accused them of war crimes? Does that make any sense to anyone that he would accuse them and then 30 years later they'd be best friends? It sure doesn't to me. Again I don't see this as objective proof of anything, other than the former members of his unit are a little ticked off at him.

But you know what, sometimes you have to stand alone to fight for what you believe in. That is called integrity folks. It takes a lot of courage and integrity to be the whistleblower that speaks out. It takes a lot of courage and integrity to admit that you are wrong and you are ashamed of your actions (Something our current president is incapable of doing I might point out).

I honestly have to say that I am highly disappointed in the way some people are approaching this issue. Thus far I have seen things that wouldn't even come close to flying in other threads.

John McCain has supported and campaigned for President Bush and indeed continues to do so.

(Sorry about the one line response, but it was a clarification and hopefully this makes it more than one line and I won't get into too much trouble)

Here is the Washington Post quote which indicates the McCain openly supported Kerry and defended him against unjust attacks by the Bush administration. Do you think he would do that if he didn't think highly of Kerry's character?

P.S. Here's another quote on the same subject.

Does campaigning for the president redeem McCain's friendship with Kerry in your eyes or did I read this wrong?

Well, dang CJ, why would the Swift boat vets who were on stage with Kerry last night support him? If he broad brushed everybody, then it includes them too. Why are 8 swifties given more credence by the left than the 220 swifties and all but one of his commanding officers?
I agree with Aquilla here, I too have the right to judge Kerry, if he wants to become my commander in chief. I respect him for volunteering for service and seeing combat. I won't take anything away from that. But what is starting to gall me is this whole 'Saving Ensign Kerry' routine, with supposed combat film footage, and the CONSTANT drumbeat of his service in Vietnam. He spent 1/3 of the time in country that most vets put in. And he lived better than many. Swift boat duty wasn't exactly comparable to humping in the boonies under a ruck, battling VC, animals, terrain and the elements.
And then there is the quote from General Giap his 1985 memoirs about how the war was won with the help of the anti war movement on the home front. Who was a prominent ringleader of that movement? Oh yes, it was Lt John Kerry 'reporting for duty'.


FYI, since we have a lengthy thread on that subject, it seems clear that the jury is still out on the subject. You stating it as fact does not make it so.

I want to make something clear. I do not agree with Sampley from VVAK or the idea that McCain is a communist sympathizer. All I know is that the links, a. shed light on Kerry's actions in and after Nam and, b. that the majority of vietnam vets are not behind him.

edited to add...

The greenberet.net site has articles from, UPI, NewsMax and Time. are they "bogus" as well?

What it boils down to for me is this:

The treatment a lot of Vietnam vets received upon return from duty was shameful and an unfortunate testament to how polarized and poisoned the political environment of the era was. That said, blaming Kerry's Congressional testimony and mea culpas on the treatment other vets received is at best a mistake and at worst a disingenuous attempt to discredit a decorated vet on the part of Republicans whose candidate couldn't summon the wherewithal to show up for part of his (not very hazardous) duty.



FYI, you participating in a lengthy thread on that subject does not mean the jury is out - it means 25 people on AD argued for a while about something.

PPSFYI, using the abbreviation FYI is irritating and condescending.

I'm not sure I understand your question, Lesly. I am sure that John McCain and John Kerry are friends, there seems to be a lot of friendship across party lines in the US Senate. I've even heard that Orin Hatch and Ted Kennedy are actually quite good friends after hours, go figure on that one!

But, the fact of the matter is that John McCain is a strong supporter of President Bush for his re-election. He has appeared at campaign rallies for Bush and has repeatedly responded to questions about it that he supports Bush's re-election.

Maybe I can phrase the question better. What does McCain's support for the president's reelection and Kerry's support for his own campaign have to do with the veracity of the links Titus provided?

Just out of curiosity.

So many have said here that people don't have a right to Judge Kerry's Vietnam service or his claims about that service if they were not there.

Yet so many seem willing to pass judgement in regards to Iraq. Why the double standard?

If you should not pass judgement on the men, women, and units that served in Vietnam if you were not there then you should follow that same standard in regards to men, women and units serving in Iraq.

As someone who has served there, I have found myself and my service judged by others who don't even know what unit I was in or where I served. Though this is in no way to the level that the Vietnam Vets were subjected to.

I'll try to answer this, I guess.

I don't think that anyone has attacked the soldiers who have served in Iraq here on AD, at least not that I have been aware of. There have been plenty of people, myself included, that feel the war was wrong. However I don't think anyone who holds that view blames the soldiers over there fighting, they are doing their job -- we blame the Bush administration. That is a big difference.

Even in the case of Abu Gharib, most people have said those responsible deserve to be punished, but people have gone on to say they believe it could very well be a policy of the United States we are seeing here. Those people don't blame the army in general or the people fighting in Iraq for Abu Gharib.

I wasn't even born until Vietnam was over with, but based on my understanding of history and stories from my father (who did serve) was that in a lot of cases the people protesting at the time blamed the soldiers who were fighting in Vietnam and not the President or the Government. That is the difference.

I'd like to "de-bogey-fy" my links for those of you who think that they are not credible.

First of... www.swiftvets.com is one of the most factual I've seen, and if you read beyond the home page, you might find that with all of them.

www.wintersoldier.com shows that, for all the 'heroism' Kerry engaged in, he turned around (in hindsight thats not susprising) and LIED about what was going on in Vietnam. This lying was detrimental to the persona and moral of troops, feeding the "baby killer" frenzie. Sounds like a real hero to me.

Here are some key points brough to light by the site..

WinterSoldier Points

www.greenberet.net/kerry provides all sorts of pieces - from credible sources- about Veterans that do not support Kerry. Here are a few...


London Daily Telegraph: Kerry tried going AWOL?....

The Village Voice: Kerry and the MIA's

ATL Journal-Constitution: Why many Vets are opposed to Kerry

Natl Review on Kerry

A quote from this link...


Those links can be found at the www.greenberet.net/Kerry site I listed.

These are accounts from both Left and Right wing sources. Maybe before you claim links as bogus or slanted (I mean, its the Village Voice, how further left can you get) could read the links. You might find that there is more worth reading. I have more links for other groups if anyone is interested.

Kerry's record is at the center of this debate. These links provide contradictions to said record and show why many vets, far many than you've heard, oppose Kerry.

Titus, there are two issues here. What John Kerry did in Vietnam and what he did after. The problem with your sources is they can't separate the two. They feel disrespected by things Kerry said about Vietnam so they attack what Kerry did there. They are working backwards from hatred for Kerry. That isn't credible. The swiftboat veterans against Kerry for example weren't on John Kerry's swift boat. They might have known him but they didn't attack Kerry winning the Silver Star when he did. They aren't attacking the Navy's judgement in giving Kerry a purple heart or a bronze star, they are attacking Kerry for earning them in the first place. That leads me to the conclusion they are trying to hurt Kerry politically, not defend veterans. The very same people who are doing this to Kerry now said in 2000 that John McCain was a KGB spy.
Sure, you can get 200 swift boat vets who didn't serve with Kerry to condemn him but what grounds do they have to do so. I think this organization is totally political and completely untruthful. First off, let's look at motivation. Their chief representative, Merrie Spaeth, gave the Bush campaign $2000 and worked for Ronald Reagan. The substance of their charges too is less than adequate. The swift boat vets site says that John Kerry's first purple heart wound was self-inflicted and he therefore doesn't deserve his purple heart. Here’s an article that I feel really debunks the idea that Kerry didn’t deserve his first purple heart. Remember again, NONE of the people connected with that website served with Kerry so they are in no position to make charges. For example it would make no sense for my cousin who's in the military to attack your military record Titus, would it? So why does it make sense for people who didn't serve with Kerry to attack his record? So why does it make sense for people with no evidence and no connection to Mr. Kerry to attack him?

First off, that article give's Kerry's account of what happend. What we need is solid corroboratory evidence. Evidence that even this article can't provide.



The writer then goes on to try to manipulate the criteria for the award.



The VC smugglers did not fire Kerry's weapon for him. He did. When you think of "enemy action", you think of an enemy firing a gun, the bullet from said gun wounding a soldier. You don't think of scattering to fire at an enemy and recieving ricochet fragmentation. And if you don't think that's possible, lemme quote two pieces...




From RU's article...



So we have scores of swiftboat officers who set up Kerry's character and a dissenting member of the swiftboat crew Kerry was with when he recieved these awards.

The Tenth Brother

(Found in the www.greenberet.net/Kerry link)

By the same gentleman who wrote RU's link, Doug Brinkley explains how when writing his book John Kerry and the Vietnam War, he says in the article, he interviewed all but one crew member. When he finally caught up with him, this is some of what he had to say. (italicised)



Sounds to me Brinkley isn't all that objective, calling his explanation "bizzarely conspiratorial". I mean...you'd me mad too if someone was contradicting info that was used a book you wrote, and another on the way...

That said, donating to a campaign doesn't look so bad. And it shouldn't. And I think you fail to distinguish the words of Ted Sampley from the rest of the Vietnam Vets out there. It was Sampley that (wrongly) called McCain a "KGB spy". Not everyone else.

Other evidence for the controversey behing Kerry's Purple Hearts, the words of the doctor who treated his first "wound".

SwiftVets.com: Kerry's First Purple Heart





First off, I'm not claiming to be a war hero. If I did, then your cousin is free to make contradictions, seeing as how I went AWOL.

To answer your question, to make conclusions based off of what one has seen. I mean...who at this site was in the TANG (mmmm...TANG sandwich...anyone remember that? ) with GW Bush... yet people all the time criticise his record with no connections to the man.

And there's nothing wrong with that. If you want to question Bush's record, you should be able to. Same with Kerry's. Look for evidence and come to your own conclusions.

Im getting two different takes on Kerry's stint in Vietnam. One is saying he was a coward who filmed himself , didnt deserve his purple hearts and did it all for future politics and turned on his fellow soldiers by outing them later, the other that he was a bloodthirsty killer, looked for the toughest combat zones, massacred innocents with rage and had to be restrained from untold horrible acts, now you cant be both can you?
Choose. Vietnam was a nasty business. I wish he wouldnt keep bringing it up, it makes me dislike him all the more because I dont care what he did, its not even pertinent except to vets that were there, and they know. What? he didnt massacre women and children as was the norm so hes a coward, or he did so hes a murderer? He told the Feds that they were doing it, but only got a tiny piece of shrapnel because he was just standing around by by accident? No. Theres no win in this.

No matter what, the guy was there and accounts differ in the extreme, I have to give him that. I think, especially in this election to run through Vietnam is somewhat unreasonable, but Kerry brought it on himself to keep talking about it. I dont get it everytime he brings it up, as if people dont know that he testified against the war afterwards (not done, soldiers dont tell) .
Now, I was against the Vietnam war, as a lib I think, why keep touting the whole WAR serving thing when you protested it? Its absurd. Hes obviously proud, but Im not sure about what. I mean Clinton got away with, I was in Russia and I didnt inhale! Kerrys obsession with his service bothers me...but I also think its rude to question his service.

That's a bit untruthful RU. All of the petitioners from the organization served in the same unit as Kerry. Some concurrent with him and some after his 4 month tour. A Swift Boat has a crew of 5 enlisted and one officer. Kerry has been parading around with no less than 8 of his 'band of brothers. One of whom Rasmussen, not being part of his crew. So by your standard, did some of them also not serve with Kerry?
Kerry showcases a photograph in his biopics of he and his fellow Swift Boat commanders in his squadron, 19 in all. 11 are on record as opposing him, 2 are deceased and 2 have been part of Kerry's campaign from day one. Are the words of a few to outweigh the words of many? It doesn't seem to work that way in other debates we've had here at AD.
I'm not going to try and research your link about the funding for SBVFT, it is political in nature, of course. But just so nobody is unfairly duped, the link is from a partisan liberal website.

I normally don't think the parsing of ones service record, unless extreme circumstances warrant to investigate being fit for the presidency. But Kerry has made it a cornerstone, no, the keystone of his campaign. Following the rules of the political game, it has to be fair game. I have more time than Kerry in combat, but I wouldn't dream of making as big of an issue, should I run for office. Especially if I had follow-on careers as a prosecutor, LT. Governor and Senator.

Countrockula, FYI...oh, oops
I guess you're right, we could have saved ourselves a boatload of time had we just asked you if he was AWOL or not. Because surely there can't be any dissent or opposition.

DOTM, I have heard from friends that are VNV that they oppose Kerry because he turncoated on them to the Feds upon return. Could this be the reason so many are speaking against? I have watched many a vet site against Bush for other reasons.

In some accounts of Kerrys 'service', he was the naval part of Operation Phoenix.

Day after day, night after night, the Swift boats plied the waters, harassing and often killing villagers, fishermen and farmers. In this program, aimed at intimidating the peasants into submission, Kerry was notoriously zealous. One of his fellow lieutenants, James R. Wasser, described him admiringly in these words: 'Kerry was an extremely aggressive officer and so was I. I liked that he took the fight to the enemy, that he was tough and gutsy – not afraid to spill blood for his country.'

"On December 2, Kerry went on his first patrol up one of the canals. It was near midnight when the crew caught sight of a sampan. Rules of engagement required no challenge, no effort to see who was on board the sampan. Kerry sent up a flare, signal for his crew to start blazing away with the boat's two machineguns and M16 rifles. Kerry described the fishermen 'running away like gazelles.'"
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn07292004.html

There is more, ( Im reading off two sites) but I consider it normal combat for the time, but a few would not, like unloading machine gun fire and masacreing innocents, including women and children which Kerry notes in his diary as accidental atrocities.

Im not sure which is worse in a Vietnam era, to be a coward or a hero. DTOM, we both know that this was a war of extreme atrocities, shall we talk operation phoenix and how 'good' american soldiers are?
So, do you really believe Kerry was a coward? Then, explain Bush, if talking man to man. I just have huge question marks.

It may seem that Kerry served combat duty in Vietnam. It may seem he was awarded three medals. It way seem that after his third injury (or however that works), he was sent back to the states.

The people crying foul on this may seem to have validity to those who are against Kerry in the first place. Due to prejudice, I don't take the fowl (pun intended) cries as valid. Nor do I think others will (see below).



It will backfire. I wouldn't be surprised to see or hear about ads that hammer Kerry as "Hanoi John" or some other silly thing, featuring all sorts of people decrying his war record. One thing the attack ad writers do is to go over the top so much that its effect can make people wonder how come. Why so strident? Why so aggressive? Is this a smoke screen to hide the obvious fact that our present President never served in a combat zone?

The argument of patroling the US skies doesn't hold water. Nobody was shooting at GWB. He also has no medals. His record is more questionable than Kerry's.

Another connected idea is that President Bush and his cabinet were very eager to send our troops into harm's way, yet the majority of this administration never served -- let alone in combat.

So hammering Kerry on the military service issue will simply serve to expose the weaknesses that Bush and his administration have. It would be a foolish move, but I would not be surprised if it's taken, either directly by the campaign or through some independent outfit.

There are only two more months until Election Day. Only two more months to tear into Kerry. Dang. I just don't see attack tactics working this time around, at least from the Repub side. And with the Demos almost singing "Happy Days Will Be Here Again," well, it's a tough campaign for the Repubs. I'm expecting more Cheneys as the pressure builds.

AM, it's not an argument, it's a statement of fact. Nobody here is claiming his service in the ANG to be a combat tour, nor is he. But to somehow claim it doesn't hold water is like saying we don't need a military during peacetime. Bush was serving in role to protect our airspace. To dismiss that because he doesn't have any wartime medals also dismisses the men and women who serve in that capacity today. Bush never made his ANG a component of his campaign, and rightly so, it's not much to brag about.
But Kerry did. And as he did, he must be prepared to face some level of scrutiny. Why have we not heard much about his detractors in the mainstream media, unlike Bush's supposed AWOL issue? That darn conservative media asleep at the wheel again.
But this thread isn't about Bush, it's about Kerry.

So is this what it's all about? It's not about whether the war was just or not, it's not whether our side commited atrocities or not, it's not about whether we had to be in Vietnam in the first place or not. Is it just bitterness that for once United States were not the winners? I listen to some and it seems to me that if they had the way the war would still be going on... or maybe we would have won, tens of thousands lives later.

The point is, Artemise, that wasn't the "norm". That was the lie that people like John Kerry sold to the American people. That was the broad brush that he used to paint everyone there with, and it wasn't true. The Winter Soldier Investigation was a fraud and has been solidly debunked by many of the sources cited earlier here by Titus. Did atrocities happen? Yes. Were they the "norm"? No. To claim it was a normal everyday occurance and that everyone was involved is completely untrue and I believe led to much of the abuse returning soldiers from Vietnam faced. John Kerry was a part of that lie and that's why there are so many nam vets that consider him unfit for the Presidency.

Now, if you want to read about an atrocity then read the story of My Lai. But, before one paints all the Americans there as war criminals you might want to read the story of Chief Warrant Officer Hugh Thompson Jr. He was there, and he was the one that stopped the slaughter at My Lai. From this account of the events at My Lai.....



That is an American hero Artemise. Before you start claiming that the only "heroes" in Vietnam were those who were running around killing women and children and burning down villages, you might want to read Hugh Thompson's story.

This what it's about. General Giap, the guy in charge of the North Vietnamese military campaign that finally drove the U.S. out of Vietnam, credited Kerry's Vietnam Veterans Against the War with helping him achieve victory. Giap wrote in his 1985 memoirs that he believes if it hadn't been for the propaganda perpetrated by groups such as Kerry's, Hanoi would have eventually surrendered to the South Vietnamese and the United States.

From Link:




Whether wittingly or not Kerry and his merry band of rogues just may have been complicit in the US defeat. Notice I don't lay the blame at his feet, but he certainly was an instrument that was used by the enemy in Vietnam. I can't help but wonder if more American, Vietnamese, Cambodian and Laotian lives were lost as a result of the anti-war movement, if Giap is indeed correct. Maybe none, maybe thousands or more.
That's part of his Vietnam legacy. Surprising that he didn't mention it much during his convention speech. Actions such as this call for at least some semblance of investigation, since he wants to be my commander in chief.

I understand the bitterness, but why was it so important for us to achieve victory in a very questionable war at any price (remember, North Vietnamese were on their territory and we were... well, this word has been used many times recently, but nonetheless... invaders). We were so scared by the "spread of Communism" that we were ready to sacrifice so much to stop it even though... it wasn't really worth it. So Vietnam went Communist. Does Communist Cuba really bothers you THAT much?

In other words... I guess I still don't understand why winning at any price is so important to you even though it has nothing to do with your homeland (good ol' U.S. of A.) itself.

On my part I can't help by wonder how many lives Kerry and his "merry band of rogues" have saved by turning the public opinion against the war and ending it years sooner than it could have been.

From the excerpts of Giaps book that I have read, though he doesn't specify, I'm left with the impression that had Hanoi ended the war via treaty or cease fire, it would have happened sooner than when the fall of Saigon actually happened. But we'll never know, and he left it vague enough for us to debate for eons.


It's always important for us, IMO, to achieve or strive for victory when we commit our troops in harms way. We were assisting the South Vietnamese, we weren't invading the north. In fact, other than a few covert ops, we never went north of the DMZ, on the ground. As far as saved lives, not only American, but I would direct you to the history of re-education camps and purges that seem to be the hallmarks of the enlightnened communist regimes.

Now I actually doubt that Kerry knew that he, Fonda and others were acting as, to quote Lenin, 'useful idiots' on the homefront.
After he was released from the Hanoi Hilton in 1973, Sen. McCain publicly complained that testimony by Kerry and others before J. William Fullbright's Senate Foreign Relations Committee was "the most effective propaganda the North Vietnamese had to use against us."
I don't really want to disparage him for his point of view, either. I really think he thought he was doing the right thing, and I applaud anyone for standing up for what they believe in. But the fact remains that it is something that should be looked into by the national media, as they did the Bush AWOL allegations. So far they haven't.

I have read through many of the posts here and there are so many poor arguments against Kerry that it's unbelievable. Kerry got his medals and had corroboration for what happened. That why you get the medals. It doesn't matter if 200 swift boat captains, that were not present during the said events, don't think Kerry deserved his medals. If they were present (which it's obvious they were not), they didn't raise any questions to why he was being awarded the medals at the time, so to come back over 30 years later serves only one purpose, to be vindictive.

Kerry never said the butchering of women and children was a normal occurence. If you listened to the audio link elsewhere in this thread, he cites institutional norms in the military, like the outfitting of 0.50 caliber machine guns, engagement in free-fire zones, he said he considered these atrocities because they went against the Geneva Conventions. Those are the war crimes he's talking about. My Lai were among the more overt war crimes, but Kerry was talking about the institutional orders given soldiers that had a deletorious effect on the population. There are no links, books, or any number of soldiers opposed to Kerry that can refute his service unless they were present in his boat in the engagements that resulted in his medals. If they weren't there, then they can't realy talk. And because he has a group of people that will back him up, this will bolster his position.

I expect them to keep attacking Kerry's war record, Bob Novak does it on CNN quite often, but no one has the facts. The facts are on Kerry's side, no amount of questioning will cloud that since he has support from other politicians and fellow shipmates from the war. If Republicans want to attack Kerry, they're bound to lose, because they will be skirting issues like the economy and national security.

John Kerry brought up his service to illustrate two issues. It was a defining moment in his life in leadership so it would make him a strong president. It also gave people reassurance that if he sends the military into any country, there is legitimacy to hs actions because people will feel that he wouldn't send troops into a conflict without a plan or into unnecessary danger. Whether you agree with it or not, people feel that the current war in Iraq was a unnecessary burden on our troops.

Corroboration isn't the end all. Just because I say I did something, and my buddy tells you "Yeah he did, I was with him", that doesn't mean it's true. Why do think they have investigations for Medal of Honor nomineees.

As for why they've brought it up after thirty years, their reason isn't vindictiveness. Why didn't they bring it up thirty years ago? Because there is a certain unspoken rule that you don't go cryin to the CoC every time you think someone did or didn't do something. Now that he's claiming to be such a war hero and use that to make his case to voters for the presidency, all while he screwed other vets, of course they're a litlle upset.



Well, I have the transcripts from Kery's cogressional testimony to the Senate Commitee on Foreign Relations dated 22 April 1971.

Kerry's Testimony



"Day to day" doesn't constitute as a normal occurance?



Ok, so 200 swiftboat officers who served (albeit not on the same crew) with and knew Kerry that question his character, should not do so, yet the words of but a few politicians who weren't anywhere near Kerry should be taken in the highest regard? Doesn't that seem a tad bit on the side of the double-standard?

If the facts are so with Kerry, why is this contoversy even around? Why would so many people lie? The doctor that treated his first "wound". The lone crewmember on Kerry's swift. The 200 officers who knew him. Is there some conspiracy to tarnish Kerry's war record? No.

What there is possibly occuring is Kerry trying to cash in on his Nam experience to boost his chances to become president, when he should not be doing so. People always chime on about how we must always question our leaders. In fact, they say it is our duty. So when Kerry says, "I went to Nam, I was a war hero, and I have the medals to prove it... so vote for me!", I go ok, how did you earn those medals? What did you do? Why are there others that question the veracity of the events that led to said medals? Then people come out and say, no one should question this? Gimme a break.

If anyone wants to know the real reason Kerry "retained" Edwards as his running mate, it's because he needs a good lawyer to get him aquitted in the court of public opinion.