Hillary on Russert

[OnTheRocks]

Paraphrasing their conversation:

 

Russert asks Hillary if the SBV ads have had a negative effect on John Kerry's campaign.

 

She responds that what happened 30 years ago should have no effect on this election.

 

My question: Why is it then that everytime John Kerry opens his mouth, he brings up stuff that happened 30 years ago?

 

I for one believe that John Kerry served his country courageously. And I do not want to diminish what he did then....but why has he based his entire campaign on 4 + months of service 30 years ago?

 

I think that is what is what will really cost him.

[KD in CA]

I guess he hasn't done much in the last 19 years that would convince anyone to vote for him!

[Alaska Darin]

I guess he hasn't done much in the last 19 years that would convince anyone to vote for him!

11385[/snapback]

There is that.

[Peter]

One guy volunteered to go to Vietnam and for one of the most dangerous things that you could do there.

 

The other guy didn't, but finds it easy to send other people's kids to die.

 

It is relevant. The history of both these guys up until the election also is relevant.

[Benjamin Franklin]

First, Hillary's and Kerry's opinions on the value of what happened 30 years ago differ.

 

Second, he has not based his entire campaign on 4 + months of service 30 years ago. What he has done is contrast himself with Bush in that regard.

[IUBillsFan]

One guy volunteered to go to Vietnam and for one of the most dangerous things that you could do there.

 

The other guy didn't, but finds it easy to send other people's kids to die.

 

It is relevant. The history of both these guys up until the election also is relevant.

11416[/snapback]

 

Well if you want to be Accurate he volunteered for one of the safest duties at the time. The duty changed when he was there to a very dangerous one.

[BRH]

Well if you want to be Accurate  he volunteered for one of the safest duties at the time.  The duty changed when he was there to a very  dangerous one.

11642[/snapback]

Christ almighty.

 

I suppose he could have signed up for something really dangerous, like defending the skies over Lubbock.

[IUBillsFan]

Christ almighty.

 

I suppose he could have signed up for something really dangerous, like defending the skies over Lubbock.

11714[/snapback]

 

Well once again if you want to be accurate the casualty rate was higher for fighter pilot training than in a Swift boat. Would you want to fly over Lubbock those boys will shoot at anything.

 

I never said what Kerry did didn’t take balls I wouldn’t have wanted to do it but that is not what he volunteered for…Sorry if what I said was incorrect.

[KD in CA]

One guy volunteered to go to Vietnam and for one of the most dangerous things that you could do there.

 

The other guy didn't, but finds it easy to send other people's kids to die.

 

It is relevant. The history of both these guys up until the election also is relevant.

11416[/snapback]

 

 

 

And I'm sure that is exactly what you were saying in 1992 and 1996

 

 

You know what, it does have SOME importance....it does say something about the character of the men in question. However, it should be about tenth on the list of most important things, not first.

[BRH]

Well once again if you want to be accurate the casualty rate was higher for fighter pilot training than in a Swift boat.

11735[/snapback]

Can I get a link on that stat, because Google's not giving anything up. Sounds a bit fishy to me.

 

Would you want to fly over Lubbock those boys will shoot at anything/

[IUBillsFan]

Can I get a link on that stat, because Google's not giving anything up. Sounds a bit fishy to me.

 

 

I was hoping you wouldn't ask . I saw it about a month ago but I'll look for it again, but IIRC it was about 2.5% for pilots and 2.3% for Swift Boats. That was for the whole war and remember for the first part of the war the Swift boats were not in real danger.

[Peter]

And I'm sure that is exactly what you were saying in 1992 and 1996 

You know what, it does have SOME importance....it does say something about the character of the men in question.  However, it should be about tenth on the list of most important things, not first.

11901[/snapback]

 

 

Actually it was.

 

I am a Republican -- a Reagan paleoconservative Republican. I voted for Bush 41 and Dole. I did not like Clinton at all.

 

I will not vote for Bush 43 however. I do not trust him (and more importantly the people in his administration other than Powell) with another four years.

 

I am not that fired up about Kerry, but at least there would be a Republican congress that would force Kerry to moderate his policies just as Clinton was forced to moderate his.

[DC Tom]

Can I get a link on that stat, because Google's not giving anything up.  Sounds a bit fishy to me.

11928[/snapback]

 

Can't speak directly to the Vietnam Era, but typically training in combat jets is a very dangerous business. I'd always heard the attrition rate for such quoted pretty close to 3% or so.

 

Swift Boat service...I don't know. But it's almost certainly NOT the most dangerous combat job. The infantry always takes the highest casualty rate of any branch of the service.

[Pete]

And I'm sure that is exactly what you were saying in 1992 and 1996 

 

HAHA All of a sudden military service is deemed important by the left to be considered for President. Man does the left speak out of both sides of their mouth perpetually or what?

[BRH]

HAHA   All of a sudden military service is deemed important by the left to be considered for President.  Man does the left speak out of both sides of their mouth perpetually or what?

12065[/snapback]

Of course, Clinton is the only Democratic presidential candidate since 1968 -- a period covering eight presidential elections -- who did not serve in the military. Even Mondale and Dukakis served tours in the Army, Carter served in the Navy (and was a USNA grad), and George McGovern flew the maximum of 35 Liberator missions in WWII.

[BRH]

Can't speak directly to the Vietnam Era, but typically training in combat jets is a very dangerous business.  I'd always heard the attrition rate for such quoted pretty close to 3% or so. 

 

Swift Boat service...I don't know.  But it's almost certainly NOT the most dangerous combat job.  The infantry always takes the highest casualty rate of any branch of the service.

12014[/snapback]

Well and good. But certainly, given the panoply of options available to a Yale graduate in 1966 (or 1968, as the case may be), volunteering for Swift Boat duty had to be pretty high on the dangerousness list. I've seen estimates that the casualty rate for Swift Boats in riverine operations was around 75%. One link

 

Prior to taking the Navy's top post, Zumwalt spent two years in command of the "brown water Navy" in Vietnam. This was made up of small, fast, lightly armed craft, called swift boats, that plied rivers and remote waterways used as supply routes by the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese.

 

To reduce American losses, he ordered the use of the herbicide Agent Orange to defoliate the riverbanks from which the enemy often attacked. U.S. officials assured him that the chemical was harmless to humans.

 

The tactic worked. Before Agent Orange, sailors assigned to the river patrols stood a 75 percent chance of being killed or wounded in the course of a normal year's tour of duty. After Agent Orange, the casualty rate dropped to less than one-sixth of what it had been.

Of course, the point above was that Kerry didn't exactly volunteer for riverine ops; the plan changed after he volunteered. But if George Bush can deflect criticism of his Guard service by saying "If my unit had been called, I would have gone," then certainly John Kerry can take credit for the danger he faced in Vietnam, whether or not he initially expected that danger.

[DC Tom]

Well and good.  But certainly, given the panoply of options available to a Yale graduate in 1966 (or 1968, as the case may be), volunteering for Swift Boat duty had to be pretty high on the dangerousness list.  I've seen estimates that the casualty rate for Swift Boats in riverine operations was around 75%.  One link

Of course, the point above was that Kerry didn't exactly volunteer for riverine ops; the plan changed after he volunteered.  But if George Bush can deflect criticism of his Guard service by saying "If my unit had been called, I would have gone," then certainly John Kerry can take credit for the danger he faced in Vietnam, whether or not he initially expected that danger.

12191[/snapback]

 

I've seen that estimate too. My gut feeling is that it's a load of horse stevestojan...but I can't prove it yet. There's a lot of ways to calculate that number, but most can be skewed either way to prove whatever you want. Still...I have to be honest and admit that 75% per annum works out to about 0.7% per mission (assuming a 200-mission year), which seems a reasonable ball-park estimate. I'd also guess that the per mission risk for a fighter pilot is very roughly similar (assuming that 200 missions works out to about 1000 flight hours...which is enough time for a pilot "flying in circles" to risk a pretty serious "oopsie" even without the risk of bullets.) The per annum risk, though, is vastly different, as it may take an ANG pilot years to accumulate 1000 flight hours.

 

But that just demonstrates one way of massaging the statistics (per mission vs. per annum estimates.) I can think of others (e.g. divide total casualties in a year by total Swift Boat crew slots - the latter works out to maybe 4500 slots, but you might have 9000 men rotate through in a given year. Thus, 900 casualties looks like a 20% casualty rate because only 4500 men served at any given time, even though 9000 served overall.) 75% is awfully high, though, considering how many ways the numbers can be manipulated.

 

If you find any reasonable numbers (absolute, not casualty rates), let me know. I'm really curious about investigating this subject now.

[DC Tom]

I've seen that estimate too.  My gut feeling is that it's a load of horse stevestojan...but I can't prove it yet.  There's a lot of ways to calculate that number, but most can be skewed either way to prove whatever you want.  Still...I have to be honest and admit that 75% per annum works out to about 0.7% per mission (assuming a 200-mission year), which seems a reasonable ball-park estimate.  I'd also guess that the per mission risk for a fighter pilot is very roughly similar (assuming that 200 missions works out to about 1000 flight hours...which is enough time for a pilot "flying in circles" to risk a pretty serious "oopsie" even without the risk of bullets.)  The per annum risk, though, is vastly different, as it may take an ANG pilot years to accumulate 1000 flight hours. 

 

But that just demonstrates one way of massaging the statistics (per mission vs. per annum estimates.)  I can think of others (e.g. divide total casualties in a year by total Swift Boat crew slots - the latter works out to maybe 4500 slots, but you might have 9000 men rotate through in a given year.  Thus, 900 casualties looks like a 20% casualty rate because only 4500 men served at any given time, even though 9000 served overall.)  75% is awfully high, though, considering how many ways the numbers can be manipulated.

 

If you find any reasonable numbers (absolute, not casualty rates), let me know.  I'm really curious about investigating this subject now.

12258[/snapback]

 

Looks like I stand corrected. I just found some combats reports for a Swift Boat squadron, and crunched the numbers. About 20 boats on a total of 200 sorties in the first quarter of '69 suffered 35 casualties. Annualize that, and you get about 50-60% attrition annually. Still not 75%...but pretty damned high.

[IUBillsFan]

Well and good.  But certainly, given the panoply of options available to a Yale graduate in 1966 (or 1968, as the case may be), volunteering for Swift Boat duty had to be pretty high on the dangerousness list.  I've seen estimates that the casualty rate for Swift Boats in riverine operations was around 75%.  One link

Of course, the point above was that Kerry didn't exactly volunteer for riverine ops; the plan changed after he volunteered.  But if George Bush can deflect criticism of his Guard service by saying "If my unit had been called, I would have gone," then certainly John Kerry can take credit for the danger he faced in Vietnam, whether or not he initially expected that danger.

12191[/snapback]

 

My point above was part sarcastic...I do think JK had so pretty big balls go to Vietnam, I really do. I get tired of people saying GWB was a coward or went AWOL in the guard. I think it lacks any intelligent point of view since right now there are only about 6% of people that have served in a war zone. If someone questions kerry the only response is Bush was AWOL.

 

I have stated I don't think anyone knows what really happened it depends on who you were. I do think the SBVT do believe much of what they say and I don't think they are wrong either...the fog of war...

 

I wish we could hear more on the issues but that will come. For me the only reason I would vote for Kerry right now is that it would divide the the congress from the president and there would be MUCH less spending.