ExiledInIllinois Posted August 28, 2004 Posted August 28, 2004 Disregard all the attacks. Read the original post, and the ones following that actually address it. to simplify: FACT. A tour of Viet Nam was 12-13 months. FACT. JK completed one third of his assigned tour. FACT. None of the injuries resulting in a purple heart were severe enough to miss any work. FACT. Kerry was the only guy out of four in a twelve foot boat to get wounded on his FIRST MISSION. He received a scratch on his arm. Not disputed by anyone. how he got the scratch is in dispoute. Fact is, it was a scratch. I've been hurt worse mowing the lawn. At least it needed stitches. Probable FACT (have not been able to fully research yet) JK was likely the only Naval Officer in VN to pull the three PH thing, leaving in an upright position. FACT. Kerry returned from VN and went into high profile anti-war mode, while making a bid for a House seat from a very democratic Mass. What timing. Would he have been in a position to run for Congress had he finished his tour? FACT (Deny it all you want) Kerry made this honorable service (he actually uses the phrase) a big issue at the DNC. "Reporting for Duty" He continues to do so. I was listening to excerpts from one of his speeches on NPR (that bastion of right wing reporting) and the subject was the economy. Before his statement was over he managed to work in "still carrying the shrapnel in his leg from VN." Well, stevestojan...you and about a hundred thousand other people. I'm asking if anyone can see a possible agenda here. And if not, why? There's obviously something wrong here. This is about as non-typical a tour of duty that can be imagined. Your responses come back as "But Bush" or "If he were a Republican". I want you, to tell me...why none of what I'm pointing out matters. We're talking about John Kerry. Not GW Bush, not Max Cleland, not John McCain. Kerry. 10003[/snapback] Because God ordained him to be prez. someday. Why would he run the risk of killing him off earlier in his life. He had bigger plans for him.
_BiB_ Posted August 28, 2004 Author Posted August 28, 2004 I think I knew that BIB was a veteran. The oath you took was to defend your country. Not to become a "lemming" for your government. Taking a stand isn't taking a "piss on my brothers". Sorry you couldn't hack it as a lifer, bit I don't think you had it in you to begin with. You took a stand, no need to be ashamed. 8603[/snapback] "I think I knew that BIB was a veteran." Then why did you attack me? Do I need to post my resume to have an opinion? as to the answers to your questions: I was 19 at the end of the Viet Nam "Conflict". Yes, I have worn the uniform. As an Army cavalry scout, a tank commander and as a Nuclear, Biological and Chemical warfare specialist. I've worn it on every continent of the planet, except for Antarctica. I continue to work in defense as a civilian contractor. I feel, my opinion, that I have served honorably. Yes, I have considered the rights and wrongs and morality of the VN war. Where is this any issue with my question? Yes, I have "put myself in Kerry's shoes" Why do you think I started the thread? I don't appreciate you calling me a lemming because I have questions. The lemmings are the ones who don't ask any.
DC Tom Posted August 28, 2004 Posted August 28, 2004 FACT. None of the injuries resulting in a purple heart were severe enough to miss any work. [...] "still carrying the shrapnel in his leg from VN." 10003[/snapback] The apparent contradiction between these two items just hit me. Don't know how real the contradiction is...but now I'm very interested in knowing where and how he picked up said shrapnel...
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 28, 2004 Posted August 28, 2004 "I think I knew that BIB was a veteran." Then why did you attack me? Do I need to post my resume to have an opinion? as to the answers to your questions: I was 19 at the end of the Viet Nam "Conflict". Yes, I have worn the uniform. As an Army cavalry scout, a tank commander and as a Nuclear, Biological and Chemical warfare specialist. I've worn it on every continent of the planet, except for Antarctica. I continue to work in defense as a civilian contractor. I feel, my opinion, that I have served honorably. Yes, I have considered the rights and wrongs and morality of the VN war. Where is this any issue with my question? Yes, I have "put myself in Kerry's shoes" Why do you think I started the thread? I don't appreciate you calling me a lemming because I have questions. The lemmings are the ones who don't ask any. 10039[/snapback] I like to ask questions. Does that not make me a lemming? Yes, I am voting for Kerry. All this stuff you bring to light is noted. Of course he was a man of influence, which politician isn't? I am also a realist. There is only going to be one winner, Bush or Kerry. I can see that you would want Bush, you are a defense contractor. You want defense contracts, it keeps you working. You can see that I want Kerry, I am a DoD employee that doesn't want my job done by a contractor. I guess that leaves the things open for another debate.
RCow Posted August 28, 2004 Posted August 28, 2004 Disregard all the attacks. Read the original post, and the ones following that actually address it. to simplify: FACT. A tour of Viet Nam was 12-13 months. FACT. JK completed one third of his assigned tour. FACT. None of the injuries resulting in a purple heart were severe enough to miss any work. FACT. Kerry was the only guy out of four in a twelve foot boat to get wounded on his FIRST MISSION. He received a scratch on his arm. Not disputed by anyone. how he got the scratch is in dispoute. Fact is, it was a scratch. I've been hurt worse mowing the lawn. At least it needed stitches. Probable FACT (have not been able to fully research yet) JK was likely the only Naval Officer in VN to pull the three PH thing, leaving in an upright position. FACT. Kerry returned from VN and went into high profile anti-war mode, while making a bid for a House seat from a very democratic Mass. What timing. Would he have been in a position to run for Congress had he finished his tour? FACT (Deny it all you want) Kerry made this honorable service (he actually uses the phrase) a big issue at the DNC. "Reporting for Duty" He continues to do so. I was listening to excerpts from one of his speeches on NPR (that bastion of right wing reporting) and the subject was the economy. Before his statement was over he managed to work in "still carrying the shrapnel in his leg from VN." Well, stevestojan...you and about a hundred thousand other people. I'm asking if anyone can see a possible agenda here. And if not, why? There's obviously something wrong here. This is about as non-typical a tour of duty that can be imagined. Your responses come back as "But Bush" or "If he were a Republican". I want you, to tell me...why none of what I'm pointing out matters. We're talking about John Kerry. Not GW Bush, not Max Cleland, not John McCain. Kerry. 10003[/snapback] I see a few questions, but correct me if I'm wrong, you have limited the breath of the response, though I'll give it a try. Yes, Kerry did indeed make honorable service a big issue at the DNC and so far there is no HARD evidence he did not serve honorably. Take all the so called testimony by those who want to destroy John Kerry. Isn't it fair to examine the accusers motives and take a critical look at this so-called damning stories? Fact: He could have exercised any number of options if he did not want to go to Vietnam. Listen to all the "yeah, buts" -- but he did go. Honorable service. Fact: He did indeed take what was considered a very dangerous assignment. Again, listen to all the "yeah, buts" -- but did take the job. Again, isn't that honorable service? Fact: His OWN crew believed he was a great leader and Captain. Smart, good instincts, fearless and did his duty. Listen to all the "yeah buts" from "other" soliders who DID NOT serve on his boat and often say him only a day or two (30 years ago) -- but those who knew him best said he served honorably. Fact: The very men on his boat recount the story of the Rassman rescue, they have never changed their story, however, there is an incredible amount of evidence that his detractors are not nearly so accurate and have demonstrated clear POLITICAL motives to smear Kerry. Again, his mates and those who were closest to Kerry's actions that day say he served honorably. FACT: the soldiers and officers supported the crew's version of events that day AND recommended a commondation at the time have now changed their story. It's not hard to see they did it for POLITICAL reasons and they have little or no credibility. They had very little reason to lie and give Kerry kudos for bravery and recommend a medal then but have ample reason to change their story now. Again, the men who served by him then say he served honorably. FACT: he WAS wounded. It makes no difference in the severity. You get one for a scratch and you get one for losing three limbs. Kerry didn't make the rules and he got the PH like everyone else. One of four in a boat of twelve? It's that 33%casualties on one boat? Sounds like a nice little skirmish. There is no doubt he honorably conducted himself in the first action. Oh, and he was wounded twice more. That's at least TWO more firefights. The PH and the wounds are no less honorable because they weren't severe. FACT: the scratch is NOT indispute by those who served closest to him. Why so quick to believe his political detractors? For God sakes the guy has scrapnel in his leg and he can't say it? How is this a bad thing? Should you ask yourself why this bothers you so much? May you're the one with the issues? FACT: there is zip, zero credible evidence that John Kerry in any way dishonorably requested special treatment that allowed him to leave the field after 4 months. It makes no difference if the tour was 12-13 months, if he had the option to leave Vietnam there is no reason why he should not take it. The only people who suggest this wasn't honorable are those who do not want him president for ideological and partisan reasons. One point that is missed is that to call Kerry a liar is to call his crewmates liars. To call Rassman and those who served with him day after day embellishers, stooges and dishonorable soldiers. It's a question of who you believe: the men who served with him or people with a clear political agenda? If the commanders and fellow officers who recommended him conduct, gave him PHs and offered him a chance to leave Vietnam thought he was a fine soldier and served honorably then NOW say they lied why should we believe them NOW? What is THEIR motivation for changing their story (hint, hint there's a presidential election maybe?) Do you REALLY want to debate PROBABLE facts? Seems like a pretty loaded accusation for not having evidence at the ready. There is nothing approaching "possible" when it comes to his detractors and those who did not serve on his boat yet you so easily believe them. As for the suggestion he manuevered his way out of Vietnam to run office: there is none. If anyone wants to believe such a lie then there is no stopping his enemies but their is nothing in the record or even someone credibily familiar with his life 30 years ago to back it up. Did he want to run for office: sure he did and no matter what you want to believe that is not akin to planning a crime, it's a career choice. Moreover, his anti-war actions are another issue altogether. If you want to discuss it separately we can but it's even more steep in political agendas and motivations. The only agenda lies with Kerry's political enemies and those who don't want to see a Democratic president. There is still no hard evidence to say that Kerry did not serve honorably in Vietnam. Try as you might to find a reason to hate him you have to ask yourself why you won't give a man who served the benefit of the doubt while so eager to essentially call his crewmates liars.
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 29, 2004 Posted August 29, 2004 I see a few questions, but correct me if I'm wrong, you have limited the breath of the response, though I'll give it a try. Yes, Kerry did indeed make honorable service a big issue at the DNC and so far there is no HARD evidence he did not serve honorably. Take all the so called testimony by those who want to destroy John Kerry. Isn't it fair to examine the accusers motives and take a critical look at this so-called damning stories? Fact: He could have exercised any number of options if he did not want to go to Vietnam. Listen to all the "yeah, buts" -- but he did go. Honorable service. Fact: He did indeed take what was considered a very dangerous assignment. Again, listen to all the "yeah, buts" -- but did take the job. Again, isn't that honorable service? Fact: His OWN crew believed he was a great leader and Captain. Smart, good instincts, fearless and did his duty. Listen to all the "yeah buts" from "other" soliders who DID NOT serve on his boat and often say him only a day or two (30 years ago) -- but those who knew him best said he served honorably. Fact: The very men on his boat recount the story of the Rassman rescue, they have never changed their story, however, there is an incredible amount of evidence that his detractors are not nearly so accurate and have demonstrated clear POLITICAL motives to smear Kerry. Again, his mates and those who were closest to Kerry's actions that day say he served honorably. FACT: the soldiers and officers supported the crew's version of events that day AND recommended a commondation at the time have now changed their story. It's not hard to see they did it for POLITICAL reasons and they have little or no credibility. They had very little reason to lie and give Kerry kudos for bravery and recommend a medal then but have ample reason to change their story now. Again, the men who served by him then say he served honorably. FACT: he WAS wounded. It makes no difference in the severity. You get one for a scratch and you get one for losing three limbs. Kerry didn't make the rules and he got the PH like everyone else. One of four in a boat of twelve? It's that 33%casualties on one boat? Sounds like a nice little skirmish. There is no doubt he honorably conducted himself in the first action. Oh, and he was wounded twice more. That's at least TWO more firefights. The PH and the wounds are no less honorable because they weren't severe. FACT: the scratch is NOT indispute by those who served closest to him. Why so quick to believe his political detractors? For God sakes the guy has scrapnel in his leg and he can't say it? How is this a bad thing? Should you ask yourself why this bothers you so much? May you're the one with the issues? FACT: there is zip, zero credible evidence that John Kerry in any way dishonorably requested special treatment that allowed him to leave the field after 4 months. It makes no difference if the tour was 12-13 months, if he had the option to leave Vietnam there is no reason why he should not take it. The only people who suggest this wasn't honorable are those who do not want him president for ideological and partisan reasons. One point that is missed is that to call Kerry a liar is to call his crewmates liars. To call Rassman and those who served with him day after day embellishers, stooges and dishonorable soldiers. It's a question of who you believe: the men who served with him or people with a clear political agenda? If the commanders and fellow officers who recommended him conduct, gave him PHs and offered him a chance to leave Vietnam thought he was a fine soldier and served honorably then NOW say they lied why should we believe them NOW? What is THEIR motivation for changing their story (hint, hint there's a presidential election maybe?) Do you REALLY want to debate PROBABLE facts? Seems like a pretty loaded accusation for not having evidence at the ready. There is nothing approaching "possible" when it comes to his detractors and those who did not serve on his boat yet you so easily believe them. As for the suggestion he manuevered his way out of Vietnam to run office: there is none. If anyone wants to believe such a lie then there is no stopping his enemies but their is nothing in the record or even someone credibily familiar with his life 30 years ago to back it up. Did he want to run for office: sure he did and no matter what you want to believe that is not akin to planning a crime, it's a career choice. Moreover, his anti-war actions are another issue altogether. If you want to discuss it separately we can but it's even more steep in political agendas and motivations. The only agenda lies with Kerry's political enemies and those who don't want to see a Democratic president. There is still no hard evidence to say that Kerry did not serve honorably in Vietnam. Try as you might to find a reason to hate him you have to ask yourself why you won't give a man who served the benefit of the doubt while so eager to essentially call his crewmates liars. 10164[/snapback] Well said. It is VETERANS bickering over VETERANS that is all. My father would see it all the time at the VA. Except during his time it was the WWII vets bitching about how they fought in the "Big War", "Real War". Pure bullcrap!
Recommended Posts