OT: The Swiftees

[pk500]

>>>But it's also not a pragmatic vote in that you basically cede the decision as to who will ACTUALLY win to others. If you truly think Kerry and Bush are one and the same as far as who will protect this nation, then you're doing the right thing. But I, for one, do not believe that Kerry will look for the best interests of this country, so I have to support Bush.<<<

I find my vote very pragmatic because I believe Michael Badnarik can do a better job than Bush or Kerry -- or any other candidate -- on all of the major issues facing America, including national security. Kerry's policy decisions rotate like revolving doors, and Bush's "It's my way or Trailways" foreign policy has isolated the U.S. in the world community and created even more fanatical hate against the U.S. in the Arab world, which is a very bad thing. It's also polarized Americans here at home more than at any time since Vietnam.

I also see more than a two-pronged choice in this election. I don't see this as "If Bush can't do the job, then Kerry is the automatic choice," or vice-versa.

Voting is not a popularity contest; it's not a bandwagon-hopping exercise. It's a matter of principle, duty and belief.

And as for your statement as for the decision who will win actually being ceded to others, that's mastery of the obvious. In theory, as you well know, people don't even elect the President. The Electoral College does. Al Gore earned more popular votes in 2000 than Bush but lost the election, so I think you could say that the millions who voted for Gore in 2000 also ceded their hand in the decision of who was elected, too.

Hopefully millions will vote this November for the candidate of their choice, looking at all options instead of just toeing the two-party line.

You honestly think your vote for Bush means more and is more pragmatic than my vote for Badnarik? Why? That's pretty arrogant, if you ask me. It's one vote, like yours, and has the same amount of influence as your vote.

For those who choose Republican or Democrat in this election, I applaud them. They're in the booth, pulling the lever, and that's what matters most. But your sentiments reek of the pompous "wasted vote" theory that plagues all third parties.

Let's say either Kerry or Bush loses by a very narrow margin, in a hypothetical situation. You think those who voted for a third-party candidate ceded their role in the decision of who ACTUALLY would win when they pulled the lever for someone other than Bush or Kerry? Hardly. Their vote for one of the two major-party candidates instead of a third-party candidate could have swung the election either way.

Do the votes for Nader in 2000 and their effect on Gore's chances for victory ring any bells? If Nader wasn't running in 2000, you don't think a good chunk of those votes would have swung toward Gore and possibly tilted the election in his favor?

That said, I'm glad people voted their conscience and voted for Nader even though he had no chance of ACTUALLY winning, in a pragmatic sense.

Your sentiments seem to infer that a third-party vote is almost a protest vote, a better alternative to skipping the process. Hardly, in my eyes.

I think Michael Badnarik is the best candidate for President of the United States, and I'm voting for him. Will he win? Of course not. But does that deter me from voting for him and espousing Libertarian principles? No.

And do I care if Badnarik isn't the pragmatic choice in some people's eyes? No. Should I? Of course not.

Take care,
PK

[Brando70]

Randy,

I think you misunderstood me. After 9/11, we had more pro-American sentiment abroad than at any time since the end of WWII. I'm not dillusional about nations acting in their self interest, but the point is, after 9/11, I think international opion swayed in our favor and would have supported strong, direct measures to protect ourselves (and, in many respects, other areas of the world) from terror. The world could clearly see the danger of Al Queda, bin Laden, and of having a government host like the Taliban.

The problem arose with Iraq. I am sure the self-interest of France and Germany played a role in their opposition. However, we really did a poor job connecting Iraq to the war on terror. Most of that hinged on WMD which, no pun intended, has blown up in our face. You can certainly make the humanitarian argument about removing Hussein, but there are probably at least half a dozen other places that you could also make that argument. We went back to the old Cold War policies of doing whatever we wanted without giving a damn what other nations think. When you do that, you naturally piss a lot of those nations off. And when it comes to the daunting task of nation building, you need that international support, and not just empty pats on the back.

Bush also seriously damaged his (and our country's credibility) by dismissing the importance of bin Laden and emphasizing Hussein. That feeds into a lot of preconceived notions (many of them off-base) about American foreign policy.

[Brando70]

"If it's repeated long and loud enough, people will believe it."

FatPitcher, after 17 pages, we finally agree on something, although for totallty different reasons.

BTW, how is "hate America" defined? Is it questioning your country's policies? Your leadership? There are certainly some left-wing loonies out there, but most people (including the Democratic nominee) are simply disagreeing with the direction this country is headed. They want to make changes they think will help, not hinder, this country in the long run. They may be misguided or flat out stupid in your opinion, but they don't hate this country any more than John Ashcroft does.

[RandyM]

[quote="pk500]
I find my vote very pragmatic because I believe Michael Badnarik can do a better job than Bush or Kerry -- or any other candidate -- on all of the
major issues facing America, including national security. [/quote]

It might help if we define: "pragmatic". As the dictionary puts it, it means: "more concerned with practical results than with theories and principles"

Consider this when you look at what you wrote:
"Voting is not a popularity contest; it's not a bandwagon-hopping exercise. It's a matter of principle, duty and belief."

Please notice your emphasis on principle of practical results - that's what I mean by pragmatic.

[quote="pk500]
You honestly think your vote for Bush means more and is more pragmatic than my vote for Badnarik? Why? That's pretty arrogant, if you ask me. [/quote]

PK, I'm making every effort to have a polite debate with you. As such, I'm NOT being arrogant. If you look at the meaning of the word pragmatic it is not intended as an insult. I do not look down on your taking a principled stand on your vote. I'm merely saying that by conceding that it's a vote on principle, AND writing the following:

"I think Michael Badnarik is the best candidate for President of the United States, and I'm voting for him. Will he win? Of course not. But does that deter me from voting for him and espousing Libertarian principles? No."

that you are in effect conceding that a Badnarik vote is done with the full knowledge that he will not win, and yet you are still voting for him because of your principles. Again, according to the Encarta dictionary that comes up from within MS Word, the meaning of the word pragmatic is: "more concerned with practical results than with theories and principles".

Everything you've said indicates that you're more concerned with the latter than the former, and so the word applies to your vote. There's no arrogance there. It's not a superior/inferior thing. As I said, if, KNOWING the outcome will not be in accordance with your vote, you STILL vote on your principle, you are also conceding the very real possibility that John Kerry will be president, but you are willing to accept that outcome rather than compromise your principles. Maybe you are superior to me, since I am just too cowardly and fearing for my own safety to take that risk, whereas you are braver for being willing to face the music should Kerry win.

Please stop reading pragmatic as an insult. By it's very definition, my term was accurately describing the differences between my reasons for my vote and your reasons for yours.

>> It's also polarized Americans here at home more than at any time since Vietnam.>>

The left has been polarized against Bush because of the 2000 election. No matter what happened, the seeds for this were sown in the 2000 Florida recount. They were screaming that the election was illegitimate, saying he wasn't really the President, etc. The fact that 9/11 shushed them for several months, I think, really caused them to just stew inside until enough time passed for them to let off the steam. I think they are truly angry that 9/11 came along and made what might have been a ho-hum Presidency a very historical presidency, and they couldn't so easily dismiss Bush as an "empty suit" who "stole" an election. This hatred has nothing to do with Iraq. Iraq was just another brick in the wall.

>>And do I care if Badnarik isn't the pragmatic choice in some people's eyes? No. Should I? Of course not.>>

It isn't the pragmatic choice even if your own eyes, if the english language is to have any meaning. But that's okay. It's your right to vote on principle, and my right to vote on outcome. Neither vote is superior, and both reflect our different priorities.

Good seeing you race last night, and I'm glad your mom is doing okay.

Randy

[RandyM]

Randy,
I think you misunderstood me. After 9/11, we had more pro-American sentiment abroad than at any time since the end of WWII. I'm not dillusional about nations acting in their self interest, but the point is, after 9/11, I think international opion swayed in our favor and would have supported strong, direct measures to protect ourselves (and, in many respects, other areas of the world) from terror. The world could clearly see the danger of Al Queda, bin Laden, and of having a government host like the Taliban.

I agree to an extent with what you're saying. But remember even right after Sept 11 there were articles out in Australia blaming US for it, saying we had it coming. Some on the Arab street were dancing in the streets and throwing candy. Again, I think the pro-American sentiment was mainly because everyone loves a victim, and on 9/11, we became a victim. As long as we stayed victims, we'd be alright in the world's eyes. But when we gained the upper hand, we became "Imperialists" and the hated Americans again. I don't think there was any avoiding it.

The problem arose with Iraq. I am sure the self-interest of France and Germany played a role in their opposition. However, we really did a poor job connecting Iraq to the war on terror. Most of that hinged on WMD which, no pun intended, has blown up in our face.

All the evidence we do have indicates that Bush fully believed that the stockpiles of WMD were there to be discovered. One doesn't play the kind of shell game the Iraqis played unless there's actually something under one of the shells. My personal belief is that all the talking we did for nearly a year before we actually invading Iraq gave Saddam ample time to hide the small stuff and ship out the large stuff, and I think right now those WMD stockpiles we were hoping to find are sitting in Syria, and nobody right now has the political courage to confront Syria about it given the fact that WMD's are now considered a wild-goose-chase. There were images of convoys of trucks crossing the border into Syria, and the Jordanians caught a bunch of al-Qaeda members plotting to blow up a chemical-filled truck near our embassy in Amman. They were crossing the border from Syria. So yes, I believe there is some reason to believe from evidence and common sense that Hussein had ample time to get the WMD's under wraps. The final chapter on that has not been written.

Nonetheless, we HAD to wait as long as we did on Iraq to avoid being accused of a "rush to war". Whether Bush knew war was inevitable or not, he still had to go through the procedures of dealing with the UN and our allies to try to rally them to our cause. Most of the people accusing of us "going it alone" I think forget the repeated visits to the UN, the lobbying done by Colin Powell and Bush himself. I think Bush badly wanted it to be as international as the Afghan effort was, but that was not to be, largely due to illicit connections to Hussein on the part of high ranking French, German and Russian officials. We were NEVER going to get their approval to go in no matter what WMD evidence there was. It really wouldn't have mattered if half of al-Qaeda was training in Saddam's palaces - the French would have opposed us going in there. The Taliban mistake was not building strong enough alliances with OUR allies. There's a lot of hate & blame being thrown onto Bush here. I remember thinking during that year long debate "I wonder what Hussein is doing during this time when we're all blowing hot air".

>> You can certainly make the humanitarian argument about removing Hussein, but there are probably at least half a dozen other places that you could also make that argument. >>

Including Bosnia, which I don't remember the liberal wing of this country opposing, even though Bosnia was never a security threat to us.

>>We went back to the old Cold War policies of doing whatever we wanted without giving a damn what other nations think. >>

Again, are you deliberately forgetting a full year of attempting to persuade, bribe and cajole our allies to work with us? If Bush truly didn't "give a damn" about what they thought, he would not have wasted any time messign around with them. He would have just gone in, and I believe we would have our WMD stockpiles. "He who hesitates is lost". I WISH that George Bush had not given a damn about what the other nations thought, because the end plan of attack was the same, but we gave Hussein too much time to remove damning evidence of WMD's. This is all my opinion, of course...but I think unless you assume Hussein was a blithering idiot, you merely have to put yourself in his shoes to think that hiding/exporting WMD's and playing games with the inspectors to buy time until the US "cooled off", while being assured by the French that they'd block us at every turn, would work. He was hoping to ride out the storm and he miscalculated our resolve.

>>When you do that, you naturally piss a lot of those nations off. And when it comes to the daunting task of nation building, you need that international support, and not just empty pats on the back.>>

There's no doubt we paid a price for going in anyway. But to me, the alternative: spending a year trying to persuade the French, then packing up our stuff and going home when the French said no, was even MORE unthinkable, as it would have sent a message of weakness to Qaddafi, Kim Jong Il, the Iranian Regime and Saddam himself. Instead, Kaddafi has turned states evidence and GIVEN us his WMD's and rejoined the world community, Hussein is in jail awaiting trial, and N. Korea and Iran know that we mean business. They are desparately hoping that Kerry wins so that things can get back to the day they were when they never worried about anything more substantial than a few cruise missiles to score political points.


By the way, notice how French appeasement backfired. They just had two hostages grabbed by Muslims demanding that the ban on Muslim headscarves be lifted in public schools. e.g. The terrorists learn their lesson from France quite well. If you want to make the French do something, engage in terror against them and they will fold. Appeasement of terror begats more terror.

Randy

[pk500]

>>>The left has been polarized against Bush because of the 2000 election. No matter what happened, the seeds for this were sown in the 2000 Florida recount.<<<

No question. But there's a pretty large number of people like me who had no problem with the results of the 2000 election and who also supported Bush in the immediate months after Sept. 11 who now can't stand the path he has taken the country with this folly of an Iraq War.

So not all of the polarization was created in Katherine Harris' playhouse in 2000. I think there's a pretty large group of people who supported Bush in the aftermath of Sept. 11 who now think he's a buffoon, like me. The polls support that, too.

Take care,
PK

[wco81]

As if criticizing a crappy economy, big budget deficits, bad environmental record, taking the country to an unnecessary war with changing pretexts aren't legitimate avenues of criticism.

Must be all motivated by hate right?

[pk500]

One disturbing aspect of the Republican Convention this week is just how one-dimensional the message is: It's all about terror, terror, terror, national security, national security, national security.

Sure, those are both huge issues. But the GOP is posturing this week as if it's the ONLY issue, and I think that's dangerous ground on which to tread. There are other issues out there that people care about, and I don't think the Republicans are giving many answers about those topics.

Bush really needs to deliver a wide-ranging speech tonight to start converting people on the fence in his direction. He better pay more than lip service to jobs, the economy, the environment and education tonight, or this convention will have been nothing more than a pep rally for the faithful.

Luckily for the Bush campaign, the Kerry campaign is losing steam and direction by the day. I still really don't know what John Kerry stands for on many issues. All I know is that some Swift Boat veterans are pissed at him, an indictment of poor message control by the Kerry campaign.

Bush wins in November, 53 percent to 47 percent, in the popular vote and wins the Electoral College. He wins not so much because he's a compelling candidate and superb leader but because the Kerry campaign won't hone its message in the next two months and because people will see Bush as "safe hands," letting him attempt to take his "War on Terror" to a conclusion because Kerry really hasn't provided a compelling alternative.

This election really will boil down to the "lesser of two evils" for many voters, in my eyes. Get set for another four years of war, partisan bickering, threats of terror attacks, huge budget deficits and further distancing of the U.S. from the international community, with zero solutions provided from the Democrats other than partisan whining. Apparently that's what a majority of Americans want, not that John Kerry really provides any viable alternatives.

I just think the Kerry campaign has done a really poor job of defining its candidate and differentiating him from Bush. This whole "I'm John Kerry, reporting for duty" schtick tells me ZERO about how the man plans to govern the world's lone superpower for the next four years.

The entire Democratic vibe now seems to be "vote for Kerry because he's not Bush." There's no indication as to why we should vote for Kerry other than he's the anti-Bush. That's not nearly enough to go on, in my opinion.

Take care,
PK

[dbdynsty25]

All politicians are dirty, lying, hypocritical, slander loving sons of bitches.

[Brando70]

Randy, you've hung Bush out to dry with your own logic. Did our President act like a man who cared about really building a coalition? He made it pretty clear by around fall 2002 that we were going to invade Iraq unless Saddam was somehow removed before a formal invasion. The "gathering of allies" was a bunch of window dressing designed to make it look like we cared about world opinion. What part of "with us or against us" is still unclear to you?

Given that, how is Bush different from poll watchin' flip floppin' Kerry? If Bush was so convinced that WMDs were there, if he was this man of resolve that he's been made out to be, why wait? He supposedly had the intel, he was convinced we were right, so why give Hussein time to hide stuff? Because he was afraid of what that would do to him politically. Because he was trying to be "sensitive" to world opinion. In many ways, the administration blew it on both fronts: making it clear that they felt Hussein was an immediate threat and had to go, then sitting back and waiting because they were afraid of seeming too hawkish. And now, if your assumptions about WMD are true and they were moved, Bush's manuevers on Iraq actually promoted the covert displacement of WMD out of Iraq and into Syria...and from there, who knows? How can that be considered good leadership?

Bush wants it both ways. He wants to seem strong and bold yet also inclusive and sensitive to our allies. He acts like he is above politics yet does things with obvious nods toward his reelection. That's not really different than other pols, but that's the point. He talks a tough game then doesn't back it up. Even if I didn't agree with him on the issues, at least I could respect him for sticking to his guns. Instead, he half-asses everything then tries to say 50% + 25% = 100%

You're obviously going to vote Republican no matter what, and I'm going to vote against Bush no matter what. I felt he was the wrong man for the job in 2000, and the last four years, outside of a few months after 9/11, have simply reinforced that belief.

[JRod]

PK,

You forget what day it is. This is the last day of the RNC. Every election has this kind of swing. The dems do better around their convention and the reps do better around their own. This week has been bad for Kerry because the media has focused solely on the RNC. Much like they did for the DNC.

Bush will probably get a 5 to 6 point swing next week and then its on to the debates. There is one problem that the Bush administation is going to have they must keep up the constant threat of terrorism until election for their arguement to work. Because they can't run on the economy, health care, social security.

Bush's speech tonight will be the opening salvo for more PRIVATIZATION of social security, health care, and other government institution. This ownership thing is all about pritizaing certain parts of this government. Which is great for business but not so good for people.

Lastly, I think Kerry needs to take Bush on on national security. Am I the only one that thinks he vunurable. Kerry needs to talk about how Bush was silent for 7 minutes when the planes hit. If this was a WMD, I think the this country needs the President for those 7 minutes. Kerry needs to make the larger arguement, that Bush has done little to make the country safer. The reason is that terrorists are created out the mindset that America is evil. We have done a good job of killing these guys but thats only half the battle. You have to stop the culture for creating terrorism.

Much like the emphasis of Kerry's War Record that has wade him down. If the Democrats take Bush on in national security, he will have very little to run on. Problem is the Democrats are running a campaign like they did with Gore, let's try to win by offending the least amount of people. Rather than trying to win with good ideas and showing that the other guy is a complete idoit.

Anyway, I've said all along that this election will be won in the debates. This will not be a Bush/Gore debate that bores everyone. This is pure hatred for the other side and this election is as important as the '60 election of Kennedy/Nixon just with more hatred.

[pk500]

John:

Good points, but I've thought Kerry's campaign has been losing steam over the last three or four weeks, not just this week.

As for privatization, I'm all for it. The private sector can run something better than the government 95 times out of 100.

For example, I would much rather be able to take my Social Security deductions from my paycheck and invest them myself instead of relying on Uncle Sam. I would make a hell of a lot more money than the U.S. government will provide me, if Social Security is even solvent 30 years from now.

Again, it's about personal responsibility. I'd rather be responsible for my future instead of relying on government to do it.

Take care,
PK

[pk500]

I'm very curious to see how Kerry performs in the debates. He gives the impression of being too bogged down in policy to present a clear, easy-to-digest message to meat-and-potatoes Americans.

That was part of Clinton's brilliance as a politician: The Rhodes Scholar in him was a devout policy wonk who was enthralled with researching and discussing even the most minute aspects of policy, but the Arkansas hilljack in him could make that policy sound so clear and sensible to everyday Americans.

Don't take that endorsement as support for Clinton. I despise him as a person and President. But the man was/is a BRILLIANT politician.

I'm not so sure Kerry has the same deft touch.

As for Bush, we all know he's not a policy wonk. But he can be spoon-fed enough policy to sound like he's a quasi-wonk, and his folksy, plain-talk delivery plays well with the Gomers.

Take care,
PK

[wco81]

One of the constituencies pushing for SS privatization is Wall Street, which stands to gain billions in management fees of those privatized SS accounts.

Oh and unless the govt. reneges completely on current SS beneficiaries, it will have to borrow hundreds of billions to continue payments because when you divert billions to these private accounts, they have to find some other source of money to pay current retirees.

[pk500]

One of the constituencies pushing for SS privatization is Wall Street, which stands to gain billions in management fees of those privatized SS accounts.

Oh and unless the govt. reneges completely on current SS beneficiaries, it will have to borrow hundreds of billions to continue payments because when you divert billions to these private accounts, they have to find some other source of money to pay current retirees.

And what the hell is wrong with Wall Street earning management fees from privatized accounts? The last time I checked, investment firms are in business to make money for their clients and themselves.

Why do liberals see Wall Street as such an enemy? The growth of private investment by everyday Americans does nothing but bolster the economy.

Do any liberals or Democrats own stock or participate in mutual funds? I guess not, considering so many see Wall Street and private investment as so evil.

Sure, Wall Street has its share of bad actors, just like any profession. But I'd much rather have a Wall Street pro handle my investment money than some government bureaucrat.

Social Security was a fine idea in the 1930s when private investment was the domain of the rich. But with the continued success of the stock market, fueled quite a bit by the rise of investment by everyday Americans, Social Security is looking more and more like an antiquated, broken form of welfare. In a nutshell, many of the people collecting Social Security now would have so much more money for retirement if the funds that went to SSI were allowed to be invested privately.

To me, that's more sad than any thought of losing Social Security.

I'm a middle-class American, and Social Security plays zero role in my planning for retirement. One, because who knows if it will even be there in 30 years. Two, I know my wife and I can provide a much greater return on investment than the U.S. government, so it's our responsibility to ensure that return is achieved.

Take care,
PK

[wco81]

Nobody is demonizing Wall Street, least of all the Democrats, who count several big Wall Street figures in their camp.

But Bush is often associated with big money interests, whether it's big energy or other big corporate benefactors. So you have to ask whether he believes in SS privatization because he really believes it's good public policy or because parties which stand to benefit may have successfully lobbied him. I remember an anecdote Paul O'Neil related when his book came out about meeting with all these investment bankers to discuss SS privatization. O'Neil gave the impression that they were circling like vultures, rubbing their hands at the prospect.

There may be merit to the idea but there are a lot of people whose 401k accounts haven't appreciated that much in the last few years. Regardless of what happens, performance-wise, the only ones guaranteed to get paid are those collecting management fees. Will be interesting to see how much contributions these bankers make to Bush's campaign.

And like I said, to implement privatization will likely require transition costs which will require more govt. borrowing or deficits.

[blueduke]

Blueduke,

Umm you can't be serious putting an article up by Benjamin Ginsberg. If this is the same man than he is a lawyer for the Swiftees and Bush legal advisor.

Well I'm sure you'll point us to where Gingsberg lied in his column. swiftees--bad Micheal Moore---good. Is that how it goes? Wake me up when Kerry requests for the 527's to cool it with their endless Bush bashing too.

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadAr ... p?ID=14898

I draw a direct comparison of General Benedict Arnold of the Revolutionary War, to Lieutenant John Kerry. Both went off to war, fought, and then turned against their country. General Arnold crossed over to the British for money and position. John Kerry crossed over to the Vietnamese with his assistance to the anti-war movement, and his direct liaison with the Vietnamese diplomats in Paris. His reward- Political gain. Senator…United States. His record as a Senator for twenty years has been pitiful. Conjure up, if you will, one major bill that he has sponsored.

John Kerry for President? Ridiculous. Unthinkable. Unbelievable. Outrageous.

[blueduke]

Plot thickens after checking records

August 27, 2004

BY THOMAS LIPSCOMB


http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cs ... ips27.html


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

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

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

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

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

Fake claims not uncommon



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

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

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

One award, three citations

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

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

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

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

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

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

94 pages of records unreleased?



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

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

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

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

[Jared]

The Silver Star with Combat V thing has already been posted twice in this thread. I respond to it here.

Secondly, this article seems to claim that it was impossible to get a Silver Star w/Combat V in Vietnam. So I did a quick Google search on this. Seems like others have gotten this as well:

http://home.att.net/~jimarmstrong/seabee/Seabee.htm
http://cap139.homestead.com/CAP139Yearbook1970.html

So it was either a fairly common mistake made on official records, or it WAS given during Vietnam, OR these people are lying. Which is it?

[blueduke]

So it was either a fairly common mistake made on official records, or it WAS given during Vietnam, OR these people are lying. Which is it?

Or maybe giving false information in order to obtain certain citations are a common practice? Coming back home from any war demonizing your fellow soldiers isn't though. I bet most of the Swiftees are more pissed at Kerry over this than anything else. Either way Kerry can blame no one but himself for this. He's the one that made his record as a soldier one of the central parts of his campaign.

[dougb]

Demonizing must have a new meaning now. I didn't realize that telling the truth about what people experienced and saw in Vietnam in an effort to end a war sooner rather than later is equivalent to 'demonizing'. Guess I'll have to file that changes to the meanings such words as honorable service, courage, enemy fire, compassion etc. etc.

Best wishes,

Doug

[blueduke]

Demonizing must have a new meaning now. I didn't realize that telling the truth about what people experienced and saw in Vietnam in an effort to end a war sooner rather than later is equivalent to 'demonizing'.Guess I'll have to file that changes to the meanings such words as honorable service, courage, enemy fire, compassion etc. etc.

There are more than a few POW's who beg to differ.

[dougb]

Blueduke,

I'm sure there are.

But here's an interesting point to ponder. If the war was ended earlier then those POW's would have been released earlier. After all, both parties had effectively agreed that the war was unwinnable in 1968, and that the only real decision was on how to end the war while maintaining American honor. And yet more Americans died after the Tet offensive than had died prior to that point.

To leave out the context of Kerry's remarks is really to leave out purpose and meaning of his testimony. Kerry and Vietnam Veteran Against the War were trying to end a pointless war and save American and Vietnames lives. His remarks and criticisms were clearly aimed not at the veterans but at the leadership of the war.

"We are also here to ask, and we are here to ask vehemently, where are the leaders of our country? Where is the leadership? We are here to ask where are McNamara, Rostow, Bundy, Gilpatric, and so many others. Where are they now that we, the men whom they sent off to war, have returned? These are commanders who have deserted their troops, and there is no more serious crime in the law of war. The Army says they never leave their wounded.

The Marines say they never leave even their dead. These men have left all the casualties and retreated behind a pious shield of public rectitude. They have left the real stuff of their reputations bleaching begin them in the sun in this country...."

Who wanted to be the last man to die in a war that years before had been declared unwinnable? And what war doesn't brutalize the people who are involved in it.

Best wishes,

Doug

[blueduke]

To leave out the context of Kerry's remarks is really to leave out purpose and meaning of his testimony. Kerry and Vietnam Veteran Against the War were trying to end a pointless war and save American and Vietnames lives. His remarks and criticisms were clearly aimed not at the veterans but at the leadership of the war.

"The major issue in the Swiftboat stories is, and always has been, what John Kerry did in 1971 after he returned from Vietnam. Kerry cast a long dark shadow over all Vietnam Veterans with his outright perjury before the Senate concerning atrocities in Vietnam. His stories to the Senate committee were absolute lies… fabrications… perjury… fantasies, with NO substance. That dark shadow has defamed the entire Vietnam War veteran population, and given "Aid and Comfort" to our enemies... the Vietnamese Communists. Kerry's stories were outright fabrications, and were intended for political gain with the radical left… McGovern, Teddy and Bobby Kennedy followers, Jane Fonda, Tom Hayden, and the radical left who fantasized that George McGovern was going to be elected in 1972. Little wonder that returning soldiers from Vietnam were spit upon and castigated as "baby killers".



A returned war hero said so. Kerry cut a dashing figure as a war hero, lots of medals, and returned home because of multiple war wounds… even a silver star. His Senate testimony confirmed what every hippie had been chanting on the streets..."Hey hey LBJ…How many kids did you kill today"????? He obviously was running for political office in 1971.



Until Lt. John O' Neil, himself a Swiftboat commander, spoke out before the 1972 elections against Kerry's outright deceptions, there was no one from the Swiftboat scene that could contradict Kerry's self serving lies"------Col. Geo. "Bud" Day, Vietnam POW from 1967- 1973

Again there are many who say Kerry was being a male version of Hanoi Jane. In any case Kerry made his service record center stage and poked fun at GW's. I find it curious Kerry fails to mention the fact he requested a deferment and was turned down before he joined the Naval Reserves (funny i was lead to beleive he joined the Navy. Now where did I get that impression?).

[Teal]

"Kerry needs to talk about how Bush was silent for 7 minutes when the planes hit. If this was a WMD, I think the this country needs the President for those 7 minutes."


He does that and he'll get his ass kicked- not that he won't anyway. Good thing you're not his advisor...good grief! Seven minutes?! OH, the horror!!! I was stunned in silence for an hour...seven minutes to gather your thoughts? How DARE he. What a stupid thing to focus on...of course, Kerry could do worse-oh, wait...he already is.
I hope he does take your idea and run with it...it'd be fun to watch...