PDA

View Full Version : A Vietnam veterans view of Kerry...


Nie Trink Wasser
10th February 2004, 07:54 AM
Vietnam stance irks veterans

By TERRY GARLOCK

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/0104/29garlock.html

Now that U.S. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) is claiming the veteran vote based on his war record, both sides of that story should be told.

To appreciate the dark side of Kerry's war record, you should know a few things about Vietnam veterans.

The public and the press make a mistake when they divide us into decorated veterans like Kerry and then all the others.

We like to think of ourselves as brothers -- those who fought the enemy directly in combat and those who provided vital support in protected areas that were in many cases exposed to attack.

Even today, when two Vietnam veterans meet for the first time, they might say, "Welcome home, brother!" because many were never welcomed home. They met the cold shoulder of an ungrateful nation on their return.

Those of us whose job was combat feel an even deeper sense of brotherhood. We learned to trust our brothers on the ground, on the water and in the air to do the right things to protect one another, a bond that cannot be fully explained in words.

We quietly feared dying in battle, but there was something we feared even more. We knew if we should panic under fire and fail to do our job, we might lose our brothers' trust or we might lose their lives, and this we feared more than anything.

Like Kerry, I have a couple of medals, but who has what medal among combat veterans doesn't make a dime's worth of difference between us. What matters is that we are, for the rest of our life, brothers who kept faith with one another in a miserable war.

A young Kerry, however, broke faith with his brothers when he returned to the United States. With the financial aid of Jane Fonda, he led highly visible protests against the war. He wrote a book that many considered to be pro-Hanoi, titled "The New Soldier."

The cover photo of his book depicted veterans in a mismatch of military uniforms mocking the legendary image of Marines raising the American flag atop Mount Suribachi in the 1945 battle for Iwo Jima, holding the American flag upside down.

Kerry publicly supported Hanoi's position to use our POWs as a bargaining chip in negotiations for a peace agreement. Kerry threw what appeared to be his medals over a fence in front of the Capitol building in protest, on camera of course, but was caught in his lie years later when his medals turned up displayed on his office wall.

Many good and decent people opposed the Vietnam War. Many of us who fought it hated it, too. I know I did.

But like Fonda's infamous visit to Hanoi in 1972, Kerry's public actions encouraged our enemy at a time they were killing America's sons. Decades after the war was done, interviews with our former enemy's leaders confirmed that public protests in the United States, like Kerry's, played a significant role in their strategy.

Many of us wonder which of our brothers who died young would be alive today had people like Fonda and Kerry objected to the war in a more suitable way.

Now that it serves his ambition to be president, Kerry reminds the public of his war record daily. But the dark side of that record is not being told. Many Vietnam veterans have taken notice, and many of us will vigorously oppose Kerry's election to any office.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry L. Garlock of Peachtree City was a Cobra helicopter pilot in Vietnam. He received the Purple Heart, Bronze Star and Distinguished Flying Cross.

Peter Jenkins
10th February 2004, 08:14 AM
I guess the guy's entitled to his opinion.

My father fought in WWII in the North Africa campaign and was with Monty at El Alamein. He had medals. He made lifelong friends amongst his fellow soldiers.
He was also passionately against war, and very vocal in his dislike of 'patriotic scoundrels and politicians'

Now, forgive me if I'm oversimplifying, but isn't it the case that Dubya was a chickens**t national guard deserter, who used his mommy and daddy's influence to get out of trouble when he failed to show up for drugs testing.
And isn't it the case that Kerry actually served his country, even though he was against the war.
Hmmmm
Peter

Tmy
10th February 2004, 08:30 AM
How does one object to a war in a suitable way??


I really dont give a crap what Nam vets say, Unions say, Newspaper editorials say, Actors say, or what other politicans say. Im going to make my own damn decision.

I resent how everyone with an X backgroud or Y qualification comes across with their opinion as if its greater than anyone elses.

DavidJames
10th February 2004, 08:40 AM
I think the most important thing we, as Americans, can do to honor our troops when they are giving their lives to defend our freedoms abroad is to make that sacrifice completely meaningless by eliminating those freedoms back home.
:rolleyes:

Upchurch
10th February 2004, 08:45 AM
My paternal grandfather was a WWII vet (actually, both of my grandfathers were) and was actually in Japan when the Emperor declared the war (or, at least, their part in the war) was over.

My father was of the age that he could have easily gone to Vietnam except that he was waaaaay down on the draft list so it wasn't likely. But he said that, at the time, he would have gone had his number come up. Years later, he found out that my grandfather was fully prepared to send my father to Canada or some other place to avoid letting him go to Vietnam. It wasn't so much that he was worried about losing his son, although I'm sure he was, as much as he "knew what war was ...and that wasn't it."

If anyone has the right to protest war, it's a soldier who's fought in one. In my opinion, Kerry did it the right way, too. He didn't neglect his duty nor was he insubbordinate (sp?) while on duty. Once he was honorably discharged, then he voiced his opinion as a private citizen and a decorated war veteran.

corplinx
10th February 2004, 08:47 AM
Originally posted by Peter Jenkins

Now, forgive me if I'm oversimplifying, but isn't it the case that Dubya was a chickens**t national guard deserter, who used his mommy and daddy's influence to get out of trouble when he failed to show up for drugs testing.


No, that's just the meme being created. I expect the counter will be to bring up the old baseless accusations by a vietnamese man that Kerry and his squad torched an innocent village.

Tmy
10th February 2004, 09:00 AM
I think the issue is this: GW's big gun against the Dems is that they dont have the balls for the war on terror. Thats a tough sell when he goes up against Kerry. Heres a guy who had bullets flying past his head. How can you say hes not qualified to continue the war on terror. Kerry can get the pro war crowd cause hes "been there" and he can get the anti war crowd cause hes "been there and knows the horror" so he wont act needlessly.

corplinx
10th February 2004, 09:04 AM
Originally posted by Tmy
I think the issue is this: GW's big gun against the Dems is that they dont have the balls for the war on terror. Thats a tough sell when he goes up against Kerry. Heres a guy who had bullets flying past his head. How can you say hes not qualified to continue the war on terror.



I think Joe Six Pack knows the difference between a General and a grunt. And we have all met some veteran who wasn't qualified to be president.

I hope most americans aren't so shallow as to think being shot at qualifies you to be president and somehow magically builds character.

Tmy
10th February 2004, 09:18 AM
Originally posted by corplinx



I think Joe Six Pack knows the difference between a General and a grunt. And we have all met some veteran who wasn't qualified to be president.

I hope most americans aren't so shallow as to think being shot at qualifies you to be president and somehow magically builds character.

I think its a piece of what we generally look for in a president/ comander n cheif. Clinton got all sorts of greif cause he didnt serve.

If that doesnt count then what does? What quallifies a person to be president? Its seems that GW's only qualification is that he is currently the pres.

Lurker
10th February 2004, 09:24 AM
Originally posted by corplinx

I hope most americans aren't so shallow as to think being shot at qualifies you to be president and somehow magically builds character.

While I agree it does not automatically build character it does not hurt,, does it?

Further, remember Kerry acted heroically in Vietnam. He must have learned some character there, eh?

Meanwhile, Bush who supported the war, said he did not want to serve overseas when he enlisted in the Guard. Character there?

Yeah, right.

Lurker

Nie Trink Wasser
10th February 2004, 09:37 AM
kerry's purple heart wounds :

http://www.miamihost.net/ims/u/MrC/forum%20images/wound1 http://www.miamihost.net/ims/u/MrC/forum%20images/wound2 http://www.miamihost.net/ims/u/MrC/forum%20images/wound3

Luke T.
10th February 2004, 09:48 AM
Originally posted by Peter Jenkins
Now, forgive me if I'm oversimplifying, but isn't it the case that Dubya was a chickens**t national guard deserter, who used his mommy and daddy's influence to get out of trouble when he failed to show up for drugs testing.

And when would this "drugs testing" have occured, exactly?

c0rbin
10th February 2004, 09:49 AM
Nie Tink Wasser,

How can you sit behind a computer and dishonor any wounds wrought from war on any soldier?

You are a coward.

Luke T.
10th February 2004, 09:50 AM
Also, Peter Jenkins, was Bush a "chickens**t" because he was in the National Guard or because you think he was a deserter?

Luke T.
10th February 2004, 09:56 AM
Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser
kerry's purple heart wounds :



I don't think it is a good idea to trash the man's war record. He earned a Silver Star, a Bronze Star with Combat V, and a whole lot of other medals. Even though I oppose him, big-time, politically, I respect him as a warrior. And I really don't think we want to open the VietNam war atrocity can of worms, which is where this is all headed, now do we?

Sure, he flaunts his record quite a bit for political gain, but he earned that right. It would be nice if we could see the military records of all our Congressmen and Senators. I bet the only time 95% have ever been near a military base was after they were elected to national office and went on junket trips.

Upchurch
10th February 2004, 09:59 AM
Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser
kerry's purple heart wounds :
Or you could respect a war veteran. From here (http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/2004/02/02_400.html)
December 2, 1968:
Kerry gets his first taste of intense combat, and is wounded in the arm. He is awarded a Purple Heart.

{snip}

February 20, 1969:
Kerry is wounded again, taking shrapnel in the left thigh, after a gunboat battle. He is awarded a second Purple Heart.

{snip}

February 28, 1969:
Kerry and his boat crew, coming under attack while patroling in the Mekong Delta, decide to counterattack. In the middle of the ensuing firefight, Kerry leaves his boat, pursues a Viet Cong fighter into a small hut, kills him, and retreives a rocket launcher. He is awarded a Silver Star.

{snip}

March 13, 1969:
A mine detonates near Kerry's boat, wounding him in the right arm. He is awarded a third Purple Heart. He is also awarded a Bronze Star for pulling a crew member, who had fallen overboard, back on the boat amidst a firefight.That's low NTW, even for you. :nope:

Luke T.
10th February 2004, 10:02 AM
I have to say it offends me that Kerry's wounds aren't serious enough for some people. The fact he was in combat is enough. The fact he was close enough to shrapnel or bullets to receive even a mere scratch is enough. Don't go there, or risk looking like an ass.

Peter Jenkins
10th February 2004, 10:02 AM
Well, I guess someone had to recommend him for a purple heart?
or did he just stroll into base camp and say "lookey, I hurt my finger. Give me a sticking plaster and a medal"?

To address your original post, Wounded or not, Kerry, a combat veteran, has earned the right to protest against the war.

Perhaps, in the spirit of balance, you should post pictures of Terry L. Garlock's purple heart wounds. Perhaps, it doesn't matter a damn. Perhaps, the original post says more about Nie Trink than it says about Kerry, Terry L. Garlock or Dubya.
Peter

Kodiak
10th February 2004, 10:08 AM
Originally posted by Luke T.


I don't think it is a good idea to trash the man's war record. He earned a Silver Star, a Bronze Star with Combat V, and a whole lot of other medals. Even though I oppose him, big-time, politically, I respect him as a warrior. And I really don't think we want to open the VietNam war atrocity can of worms, which is where this is all headed, now do we?

Just a note, and Kerry may not be an example of this at all, but alot of the medals handed out in Vietnam were awarded for, at best, dubious, reasons.

The rest is spot on, IMO...

Peter Jenkins
10th February 2004, 10:12 AM
Originally posted by Luke T.
Also, Peter Jenkins, was Bush a "chickens**t" because he was in the National Guard or because you think he was a deserter?

Maybe I should not have used that expression.
I apologise.
I believe that Dubya used his connections to avoid combat duty and getting into the National Guard. Even though he had the 'Easy Option', He failed to honour his commitments to the National Guard, when many of his generation where giving their lives for their country. I believe that point is well established (even if the 'Drugs testing' legend is wrong).
Peter

Mr Manifesto
10th February 2004, 10:14 AM
Welcome back, Sinister Wanker. :roll:

Luke T.
10th February 2004, 10:46 AM
Originally posted by Peter Jenkins


Maybe I should not have used that expression.
I apologise.
I believe that Dubya used his connections to avoid combat duty and getting into the National Guard. Even though he had the 'Easy Option', He failed to honour his commitments to the National Guard, when many of his generation where giving their lives for their country. I believe that point is well established (even if the 'Drugs testing' legend is wrong).
Peter

If Bush wasn't drafted to serve on active duty, which no one has ever said he was, then that means he went into the National Guard voluntarily. It doesn't take "connections" to get in. You can get in. :D

I am sure many people joined the Guard to avoid being drafted into the Marines and sent to Viet Nam. Whether that was Bush's motive is anyone's guess.

As for the committments of the Guard, it is only one weekend a month. We on active duty used to call them "Weekend Warriors." However, we were entitled to do so because we were full time. ;)

Anyone who has not served who makes fun of someone for serving in the Nat'l Guard is slamming everyone who serves in the Guard. Uncool. And I believe there are more Reserves fighting in Iraq than full-timers. I believe that was the case in WWII, too. I don't know about Viet Nam.

As for drug testing, that did not start until the 80s. I was active duty before and long after. Things changed overnight.

jj
10th February 2004, 11:14 AM
Nie Trink Wasser speaks.
Shameful treatment of 'nam vets
He calls attention.

In that he is right
'Nam vets got the short end, true.
But he exploits that.

Politicize it!
That's what he does, yes, indeed.
But points to Kerry.

Hypocritical
Nie Trink Wasser demonstrates
What he objects to!


Seriously, NTW, one thing we agree on is that 'Nam vets were hideously ill-treated when they came home. It wasn't the vets' fault, it was the people who ran the war.

Now, we have some of the same kind of people running the government. That does lead to a very interesting question, but I don't expect an answer of substance from you.

jj
10th February 2004, 11:17 AM
Originally posted by Peter Jenkins
Now, forgive me if I'm oversimplifying, but isn't it the case that Dubya was a chickens**t national guard deserter, who used his mommy and daddy's influence to get out of trouble when he failed to show up for drugs testing.
And isn't it the case that Kerry actually served his country, even though he was against the war.
Hmmmm
Peter

Yep, that is exactly the case. The fact that we don't see it poured all over the media very simply proves the case that the media in the USA has a horrid, over-reaching bias to the right.

That one point, and that point alone, fully refutes any claim of "leftist media bias" entirely and completely.

jj
10th February 2004, 11:19 AM
Originally posted by corplinx


I hope most americans aren't so shallow as to think being shot at qualifies you to be president

It does? It DOES? Hey! I get to be president! (well, err, hold on)

and somehow magically builds character.

But I really, REALLY don't want that job, thank you kindly.

What disturbes me about the job is that I think anyone who is actually well-suited to it should have the wisdom to want to stay far, far away from it.

(just so nobody makes a mistake, no, I have never been in the armed forces in any capacity)

jj
10th February 2004, 11:24 AM
Originally posted by c0rbin
Nie Tink Wasser,

How can you sit behind a computer and dishonor any wounds wrought from war on any soldier?

You are a coward.

Nie Trink Wasser speaks.
No stone left unturned, no sir,
In his quest to smear.

Respect? No matter!
Honor and pride do not count.
Ethics irrelevant.

Nie Trink Wasser speaks.
Anything to reach his goal.
All facts turned, he smears.

jj
10th February 2004, 11:28 AM
Originally posted by Peter Jenkins
Well, I guess someone had to recommend him for a purple heart?
or did he just stroll into base camp and say "lookey, I hurt my finger. Give me a sticking plaster and a medal"?

Um, any deep wound is a serious thing in a jungle environment. You can literally rot to death in 48 hours.

To address your original post, Wounded or not, Kerry, a combat veteran, has earned the right to protest against the war.

I think we all have a right to discuss or protest war, even those of us who haven't been sent into one. Don't forget, people get shot at and threatened when not in wars, too. Some number of people here have law-enforcement in their background (or as their job), don't forget.

Perhaps, the original post says more about Nie Trink than it says about Kerry, Terry L. Garlock or Dubya.
Peter

That is always the case.

None the less, look at how some folks are backing him up.

I will give some, however, the credit they deserve for directly calling him to task, too.

jj
10th February 2004, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by Luke T.

You can get in. :D


Actually, no, I can't.

Not only that, I couldn't "get in" when I was subject to draft for 'nam, either. The Guard was full, and you know what? It was all the rich kids who were in the guard.

If you want to know some more about how the "fair lottery" worked, drop me a PM.

Peter Jenkins
10th February 2004, 11:42 AM
Well, I guess someone had to recommend him for a purple heart?
or did he just stroll into base camp and say "lookey, I hurt my finger. Give me a sticking plaster and a medal"?

Um, any deep wound is a serious thing in a jungle environment. You can literally rot to death in 48 hours.
You put it more eloquently than my sarcasm could, but, yes, That was the general gist of my comment
To address your original post, Wounded or not, Kerry, a combat veteran, has earned the right to protest against the war.

I think we all have a right to discuss or protest war, even those of us who haven't been sent into one. Don't forget, people get shot at and threatened when not in wars, too. Some number of people here have law-enforcement in their background (or as their job), don't forget.
I agree. I was taking exception to the quote from the article which stated "Many of us wonder which of our brothers who died young would be alive today had people like Fonda and Kerry objected to the war in a more suitable way.
Peter

pgwenthold
10th February 2004, 11:56 AM
Originally posted by jj

Not only that, I couldn't "get in" when I was subject to draft for 'nam, either. The Guard was full, and you know what? It was all the rich kids who were in the guard.


I think a lot of younger people don't understand how things worked back then. I remember when people were going off on Quayle (I think it was) for going into the National Guard during Vietnam. I asked, what's the big deal? He did his service, he just went to the guard instead. And then someone explained to me how going to the guard was a popular way to get out of combat. Well, at least for those who could get in because it was so popular, that they were pretty selective in who they took in. And yes, having connections helped.

Folks who were around during Vietnam, and were eligible to serve know very well the big deal about the National Guard. It was not just an alternate way to serve the country. It was a cushy, SAFE assignment.

Monketey Ghost
10th February 2004, 11:57 AM
Originally posted by Kodiak


Just a note, and Kerry may not be an example of this at all, but alot of the medals handed out in Vietnam were awarded for, at best, dubious, reasons.

The rest is spot on, IMO...

Pardon me for asking, but do you have 'alot' of evidence to back this up? Anecdotes, gut feelings?

Lurker
10th February 2004, 11:59 AM
Originally posted by Luke T.

As for drug testing, that did not start until the 80s. I was active duty before and long after. Things changed overnight.

Air Force Regulation 160-23, also known as the Medical Service Drug Abuse Testing Program, comes in. The new drug-testing effort was officially launched by the Air Force on April 21, 1972, following a Jan. 11, 1972, directive issued by the Department of Defense.

Yes, this was for active duty Air Force but it did prompt the National Guard to institute a random drug test policy in which Bush may have had to participate.

Lurker

Luke T.
10th February 2004, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by Lurker


Air Force Regulation 160-23, also known as the Medical Service Drug Abuse Testing Program, comes in. The new drug-testing effort was officially launched by the Air Force on April 21, 1972, following a Jan. 11, 1972, directive issued by the Department of Defense.

Yes, this was for active duty Air Force but it did prompt the National Guard to institute a random drug test policy in which Bush may have had to participate.

Lurker

The History of Drug Testing in the Military (http://www.wsftdtl.ftmeade.army.mil/history.htm)


April 4, 1974
Department of Defense (DOD) Instruction 1010.1 issued. This instruction established random testing of all eligible members of the Armed Forces on active duty for more than 30 days. Biochemical testing of urine samples is the acceptable screening method with tests sufficiently sensitive and specific to identify with a high degree of certainty those individuals who are excreting the drugs in question. Results of biochemical testing of urine samples conducted as part of the DOD drug testing program cannot be used for forensic purposes.

Just because there were words on paper saying that random drug testing would be done, doesn't mean it was. "Zero tolerance" wasn't even in the vocabulary in the 70s. It was more of a "don't ask, don't tell" kind of atmosphere.

When I joined the military in 1980, the vast majority of people were getting high. And urinalysis was well known to be unreliable. It wasn't until the 80s when urinalysis began to be 100% coverage and large numbers of people began to be discharged for drug abuse.

Just as an example, my brother was busted 5 times for drugs in the early 80s before he was finally tossed. Nowadays, you only have to be busted once, and you are history. Zero tolerance.

Luke T.
10th February 2004, 12:19 PM
Originally posted by jj


Actually, no, I can't.

Not only that, I couldn't "get in" when I was subject to draft for 'nam, either. The Guard was full, and you know what? It was all the rich kids who were in the guard.

If you want to know some more about how the "fair lottery" worked, drop me a PM.

One of Bobby Kennedy's stump speech elements was about how only rich kids could afford college and therefore get deferments, and so poor kids were going to war.

Bush and many others were well enough off to go to college. You can't be a pilot in the military without a college degree. So a rich kid could go to college, get a deferment, then when the deferment ran out, join the Guard as an officer. It might have helped to have connections, but no one has provided any evidence that W. used them.

That still leaves the enlisted ranks, which you don't have to be rich to get into.

And I still don't know what you guys are talking about with W. and drug tests.

jj
10th February 2004, 12:21 PM
Originally posted by pgwenthold

Folks who were around during Vietnam, and were eligible to serve know very well the big deal about the National Guard. It was not just an alternate way to serve the country. It was a cushy, SAFE assignment.

Yep. It was actually explained to me by the Guard recruiter that in fact the Guard was for the people who were going to be professional (um, I'm an EE, remember?) and who would be hurt by having their careers delayed.

For those who don't understand what this means:

"Sorry, son, but this isn't for you boys from the mill. This is for people who are worth something and who we don't want to die in 'nam. I mean, who cares about you, you're only going to work in the mill anyhow, and anybody can do that".

jj
10th February 2004, 12:25 PM
Originally posted by Luke T.
It might have helped to have connections, but no one has provided any evidence that W. used them.


The system was set up so that he didn't need any "connections". They were built into the system.

The only effect of getting rid of student deferements was to make sure that the poor kids who got into college on schollarships also got sent off to 'nam to die. They, again, didn't qualify for the guard, they weren't good enough.

Don't forget, it wasn't where you went to SCHOOL that decided, it was where you GREW UP.

Once from the mill, always from the mill.

"Son, you don't need trig in the mill, why don't you get out of the class and let somebody who needs it take it?" - Close to literal (i.e. meaning and explicitness fully preserved) quote of guidance councellor, circa 1970, to me.

Zero
10th February 2004, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by Luke T.


I don't think it is a good idea to trash the man's war record. He earned a Silver Star, a Bronze Star with Combat V, and a whole lot of other medals. Even though I oppose him, big-time, politically, I respect him as a warrior. And I really don't think we want to open the VietNam war atrocity can of worms, which is where this is all headed, now do we?

Sure, he flaunts his record quite a bit for political gain, but he earned that right. It would be nice if we could see the military records of all our Congressmen and Senators. I bet the only time 95% have ever been near a military base was after they were elected to national office and went on junket trips. Nice post...I don't believe that military service or lack of it should be a deciding factor politically. I do, however, think that a failure to honor a contract is a slightly bigger deal, and if Bush didn't fulfill his obligations in an above-board manner, then it should certainly be mentioned.

Lots of people joined the Guard to avoid overseas service, some people went to college, some went to Canada or to jail. To me, anything besides hiding in Canada is ok, if not exactly heroic. If Bush joined the Guard to avoid getting his butt shot off, that is a non-issue to me. And, hey, fighter pilot training isn't exactly a desk job. But, if he then skipped out of drills for awhile without official authorization before the fact, then that is something we should know.

Again, this is a minor issue, but if Bush insists on portraying himself as being a tough "war president", then his war record is up for grabs, isn't it?

Zero
10th February 2004, 12:28 PM
Originally posted by Luke T.


It might have helped to have connections, but no one has provided any evidence that W. used them.

That's not true...Poppy had strings pulled for him to hop to the front of the waiting list for the Texas Guard...him and Texas Coyboys players avoiding the draft.;)

Now, where is that evidence...It is in Molly Ivins' book Shrub, I think...darned books are all packed up!

Luke T.
10th February 2004, 12:30 PM
Originally posted by jj

Don't forget, it wasn't where you went to SCHOOL that decided, it was where you GREW UP.

Once from the mill, always from the mill.

"Son, you don't need trig in the mill, why don't you get out of the class and let somebody who needs it take it?" - Close to literal (i.e. meaning and explicitness fully preserved) quote of guidance councellor, circa 1970, to me.

Where, or if, you went to school decided if you were eligible to be an officer. It did not exlude anyone from the enlisted ranks.

An awful lot of unsubstantiated rancor in this topic from both directions.

Tmy
10th February 2004, 12:31 PM
This is great. THe Repubs killed Clinton about his draft dodgeing. Now they have to defend bush on service issues.!!

Truth is that GW and Clinton are one in the same. Only difference is that Clinton didnt have the connections.


BUSH WENT AWOL!!! GORE INVENTED THE INTERNET!

Zero
10th February 2004, 12:37 PM
Originally posted by Tmy
This is great. THe Repubs killed Clinton about his draft dodgeing. Now they have to defend bush on service issues.!!

Truth is that GW and Clinton are one in the same. Only difference is that Clinton didnt have the connections.


BUSH WENT AWOL!!! GORE INVENTED THE INTERNET! I wouldn't compare Bush and Clinton exactly...if Clinton had only claimed to be in college, but was actually in Morocco drinky fruity cocktails, I would go with you on this, or if Bush had actually attended all of his scheduled drills when he was supposed to have been there.

(BTW, and I know this is off the subject, but Gore never claimed to have invented the Internet,and it bugs me when people repeat that lie.)

headscratcher4
10th February 2004, 12:42 PM
Many of us wonder which of our brothers who died young would be alive today had people like Fonda and Kerry objected to the war in a more suitable way.

One wonders how many of those "brothers" might be alive today if people like Bush, Chaney, Wolfowitz, etc. had actually served in the war so that some poor SOB from Cleveland or Detroit or East LA didn't have to put their body on the line while sons of priveledge found ways to avoid the war. I note, whether this author appreciates it or not, Kerry went. Gore did to. Bush was lost in Alabama. He "supported" the boys on the ground, probably thought ol' Jane Fonda was a traitor, but he wasn't anywhere near where the shoot'n was when it was going down .. and he doesn't even have the excuse that he avoided it or joined the Natinal Gaurd because he opposed the war...he just didn't want the war to interfere with his life....

pgwenthold
10th February 2004, 01:12 PM
Originally posted by Tmy
This is great. THe Repubs killed Clinton about his draft dodgeing. Now they have to defend bush on service issues.!!



And if it were up to me, we'd drop the issue on any of them. But, as they say, when gooses live in glass houses, the gander shouldn't throw stones (or something like that)

epepke
10th February 2004, 01:17 PM
Originally posted by Luke T.


I don't think it is a good idea to trash the man's war record. He earned a Silver Star, a Bronze Star with Combat V, and a whole lot of other medals.

Is that trashing? The burn on the forearm looked pretty serious to me. What do people want, an artificial joint in the leg or something? Then the same people would be calling him "gimpy."

Tmy
10th February 2004, 01:19 PM
I know the Gore thing is bogus. But that line is part of the lexicon now, just like Bush AWOL.

What happened with the other 2 Bush boys?? Were they Nam aged? In the Nat'l Guard? One of the links said Bush scored in the 25th percentile on his pilots test. Was his military path match his test scores, or did he get a boost from the Bush Family Affirmative Action Plan.

jj
10th February 2004, 01:24 PM
Originally posted by Luke T.


Where, or if, you went to school decided if you were eligible to be an officer. It did not exlude anyone from the enlisted ranks.



IF you got into the particular branch of service you were trying to get into at all.

But if the recruiter won't even talk to you, off you go to some other branch of service.

Please understand I'm speaking from experience, not from third-hand rumours.


An awful lot of unsubstantiated rancor in this topic from both directions.

No, Luke, what I'm saying isn't unsubstantiated, unless you're calling me a liar.

Oh, edited to add:

I mean "where you were from" as it related to your draft board membership and where you got to talk to recruiters. It was your HOME, where they knew where your dad worked and "what that boy is really worth, oh, he's from the mill" draft board, and your HOME recruiter that got to decide what branch of service might or might not take you.

If you can't get into anything but the army, being a college student (even at a first-rate technical university) doens't do you squat all, if what the army needs is charlie-fodder.

Luke T.
10th February 2004, 01:25 PM
Originally posted by corplinx


No, that's just the meme being created. I expect the counter will be to bring up the old baseless accusations by a vietnamese man that Kerry and his squad torched an innocent village.

I have been waiting for this exact thing to happen. I hope it doesn't.

I suppose it can be argued that how Bush and Kerry behaved over 30 years ago is a demonstration of their characters, but its a real stretch.

What matters is what they can or cannot do for the country today. Both have done a lot more to demonstrate their characters in recent history, and that is more likely to reflect future behavior.

Zero
10th February 2004, 01:29 PM
Originally posted by Tmy
I know the Gore thing is bogus. But that line is part of the lexicon now, just like Bush AWOL.

What happened with the other 2 Bush boys?? Were they Nam aged? In the Nat'l Guard? One of the links said Bush scored in the 25th percentile on his pilots test. Was his military path match his test scores, or did he get a boost from the Bush Family Affirmative Action Plan. Obviously, he got a little help in his appointment, no question there. The real question in my mind is: "how did he get away with not attending drills, losing his flight status, and still claim that he served honorably?

Zero
10th February 2004, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by Luke T.


I have been waiting for this exact thing to happen. I hope it doesn't.

I suppose it can be argued that how Bush and Kerry behaved over 30 years ago is a demonstration of their characters, but its a real stretch.

What matters is what they can or cannot do for the country today. Both have done a lot more to demonstrate their characters in recent history, and that is more likely to reflect future behavior. I think that if Bush had answered openly and honestly, it would be a non-issue. It is the evasion that is the real issue, and the real judge of character.

SRW
10th February 2004, 01:55 PM
Originally posted by Lurker


Air Force Regulation 160-23, also known as the Medical Service Drug Abuse Testing Program, comes in. The new drug-testing effort was officially launched by the Air Force on April 21, 1972, following a Jan. 11, 1972, directive issued by the Department of Defense.

Yes, this was for active duty Air Force but it did prompt the National Guard to institute a random drug test policy in which Bush may have had to participate.

Lurker

As a Vietnam "era" veteran (served but did not go to nam) I left the Army in 1978 and was never tested for drugs. In fact I was stationed at a joint services command and in the years I was there none of the branches had any testing.

John Kerry has every right to protest the war, however, there is a deep hatred among many Vietnam Vets for Jane Fonda. And I believe that any association with her could adversely effect Kerry.

Luke T.
10th February 2004, 02:09 PM
Originally posted by Zero
Obviously, he got a little help in his appointment, no question there.

Obviously? :eek:

Actually, I do question that assertion.

Luke T.
10th February 2004, 02:17 PM
Originally posted by SRW

John Kerry has every right to protest the war, however, there is a deep hatred among many Vietnam Vets for Jane Fonda.

Yes, there is.

And I believe that any association with her could adversely effect Kerry.

Uh oh!

headscratcher4
10th February 2004, 02:28 PM
Interesting picture...how big was the crowd? Also, I note, that all of those pictures of the likes of Cheney & Rummy shaking hands with Saddam didn't really seem to hurt too much....

SRW
10th February 2004, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by headscratcher4
Also, I note, that all of those pictures of the likes of Cheney & Rummy shaking hands with Saddam didn't really seem to hurt too much....

I was talking about Vietnam Vets and their hatred for Fonda, not the same as Madeline Albright Kissing Kim ll's hind quarters, or any other diplomat doing their job.

Luke T.
10th February 2004, 02:53 PM
Originally posted by headscratcher4
Interesting picture...how big was the crowd?

Don't know, don't care. I was just having fun. My way of showing how stupid this stuff can get.

Also, I note, that all of those pictures of the likes of Cheney & Rummy shaking hands with Saddam didn't really seem to hurt too much....

And like those photos, this one will serve to "confirm" the belief system of people who already don't like Kerry, and won't make a dent in the belief systems of people who do like him.

headscratcher4
10th February 2004, 02:55 PM
And like those photos, this one will serve to "confirm" the belief system of people who already don't like Kerry, and won't make a dent in the belief systems of people who do like him.

Exactly.

Luke T.
10th February 2004, 03:16 PM
Hey, if things get bad enough in the polls for Bush, I'll start swinging through the woo-woo forums and ask them if they have noticed the remarkable resemblance between the shape of Kerry's head and grey aliens. :D

Zero
11th February 2004, 12:48 AM
Originally posted by Luke T.


Obviously? :eek:

Actually, I do question that assertion. Question it all you like...that's what Google is for!!:D

Here's from the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/bush072899.htm) :

Staudt, the colonel who twice had himself photographed with Bush, said his status as a congressman's son "didn't cut any ice." But others say that it was not uncommon for well-connected Texans to obtain special consideration for Air Guard slots. In addition to Bush and Bentsen, many socially or politically prominent young men were admitted to the Air Guard, according to former officials; they included the son of then-Sen. John Tower and at least seven members of the Dallas Cowboys.

a_unique_person
11th February 2004, 01:00 AM
Originally posted by Luke T.


I have been waiting for this exact thing to happen. I hope it doesn't.

I suppose it can be argued that how Bush and Kerry behaved over 30 years ago is a demonstration of their characters, but its a real stretch.

What matters is what they can or cannot do for the country today. Both have done a lot more to demonstrate their characters in recent history, and that is more likely to reflect future behavior.

I look for people who, having made a mistake, can face up to it. It appears the first thing Kerry did when he got back was to tell people that the war was wrong, and that what they had to do over there was wrong. There are still numerous people out there who believe the war was right and the only thing that was done wrong was to lose it, although it wasn't really lost it appears.