This Vet's Views On Kerry's Medals

[Luke T.]

Hey, I know this subject has been beaten to death, but please hear me out. Screw the Swift Boat Vets.

I think the deal with Kerry and his medals is a reflection of America as a whole about Viet Nam. Particularly the disenchantment.

I believe Kerry volunteered for Viet Nam. He was not drafted. I've heard, but can't confirm, that many of Kerry's Harvard classmates volunteered, and that two years later, hardly anyone from Bush's class did. That may reflect the change in national ardor over Viet Nam.

Kerry was in Viet Nam for four months and received three purple hearts and a silver star. He deserves a lot of respect for that.

When he went home, Kerry apparently tossed his medals onto the White House lawn. This may also be a reflection of the change in national ardor over Viet Nam. He may have felt guilt for participating in the killing of little yellow men in a place we didn't belong. He certainly expressed it very vocally at the time.

I turned down a couple medals over principles when I was in the Navy. And that probably cost me a promotion. Both times were because I felt subordinates under me deserved the same medals and were not getting them. I turned mine down in protest and made it clear in no uncertain terms I would publicly embarrass my Commanding Officer if he tried to pin them on me.

Kerry seems to have been acting on personal principles. And if those principles were flip-flopping all over the place, well hell, so was all of America. I say give the man a freaking break!

[Ed]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Kerry seems to have been acting on personal principles. And if those principles were flip-flopping all over the place, well hell, so was all of America. I say give the man a freaking break!

I think that it is difficult to explain to someone who was not part of it how wierd those times were. Of all the things one might fault either Kerry or Bush on, service to their country is not on the list IMO.

[DavidJames]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Hey, I know this subject has been beaten to death, but please hear me out. Screw the Swift Boat Vets.

I think the deal with Kerry and his medals is a reflection of America as a whole about Viet Nam. Particularly the disenchantment.

I believe Kerry volunteered for Viet Nam. He was not drafted. I've heard, but can't confirm, that many of Kerry's Harvard classmates volunteered, and that two years later, hardly anyone from Bush's class did. That may reflect the change in national ardor over Viet Nam.

Kerry was in Viet Nam for four months and received three purple hearts and a silver star. He deserves a lot of respect for that.

When he went home, Kerry apparently tossed his medals onto the White House lawn. This may also be a reflection of the change in national ardor over Viet Nam. He may have felt guilt for participating in the killing of little yellow men in a place we didn't belong. He certainly expressed it very vocally at the time.

I turned down a couple medals over principles when I was in the Navy. And that probably cost me a promotion. Both times were because I felt subordinates under me deserved the same medals and were not getting them. I turned mine down in protest and made it clear in no uncertain terms I would publicly embarrass my Commanding Officer if he tried to pin them on me.

Kerry seems to have been acting on personal principles. And if those principles were flip-flopping all over the place, well hell, so was all of America. I say give the man a freaking break! Real nice commentary Luke. I missed the draft by one year and didn't volunteer. The nation was very divided and it seems the divisions have held strong since. It seems we have a very hard time judging anything related to Vietnam without dredging up our old bias.

[daenku32]

My uncle pulled a Bush by joining the national guard. Except that he actually served it properly.

[crimresearch]

Really? I couldn't find any record of anyone in the Guard who remembers serving with a 'M.Y. Uncle'...

I demand he release all of his service records now!!!

:p

[Gary Gordon]

This whole thread seems to be designed to make Luke T. look good. :rolleyes:

[Silicon]

Originally posted by Gary Gordon
This whole thread seems to be designed to make Luke T. look good.


MAN, that should be my new .sig.

[headscratcher4]

Clearly, you've not been around very long...Luke needs to do very little around here to look good.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Hey, I know this subject has been beaten to death, but please hear me out.

Damn you and your reasonable positions and your thoughtful posts. Damn you, Luke T.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
Clearly, you've not been around very long...Luke needs to do very little around here to look good. Agreed, as far as it goes. Because regarding Gary, I smell sock.

[Snide]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
Clearly, you've not been around very long...Luke needs to do very little around here to look good.
HEAR HEAR!

[Charles Livingston]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
Clearly, you've not been around very long...Luke needs to do very little around here to look good.

As a lurker who only occasionally posts, I would like to reiterate Headscratcher's sentiments. There isnt any regular poster on this board who I have more respect for than Luke. From the little I know of him from this board, I would say he is a person of honesty and integrity. And hell, he's got a lot of intersting things to say too!

Sometimes when a person writes or talks about themself and/or an event in their life, it can be for gloating/bragging reasons, but it can also just as often be just for the purpose of sharing a bit of oneself or experiences with others. When you are on here a little longer (I am assuming you havent been lurking long if you are indeed not a sock puppet) you will notice that Luke often shares stories and other things about his life and family. It's certainly possible, but I have never once felt he was gloating/bragging. He isnt shy to share things that are obviously painful experiences and/or things I would think (or that he explicity states) he isnt proud of. In short, he shares the good with the bad, its hard not to respect that.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Luke T.
I believe Kerry volunteered for Viet Nam. He was not drafted. I've heard, but can't confirm, that many of Kerry's Harvard classmates volunteered, and that two years later, hardly anyone from Bush's class did. That may reflect the change in national ardor over Viet Nam.

I think you're basically right about this.

I think it goes like this. People want to make Kerry seem Unamerican. A lot of people are still cheezed that he spent so much time after his discharge challenging the war. However, they realize that they're in the minority, because after an extremely tumultuous period, the majority opinion is that Viet Nam wasn't such a hot idea. So going after that directly wouldn't work. The medals are a proxy for this resentment.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Luke T.
I think the deal with Kerry and his medals is a reflection of America as a whole about Viet Nam. Particularly the disenchantment.


I agree 100%

There are some things about Kerry I don't like, but this isn't one of them. In my opinion, he deserves respect for both serving his country, and then protesting what his country was doing.

Especially when you compare him to someone who dodged the war with connections, and then didn't even serve his national guard duty properly.

[jj]

Originally posted by Mycroft
I agree 100%

There are some things about Kerry I don't like, but this isn't one of them. In my opinion, he deserves respect for both serving his country, and then protesting what his country was doing.

Especially when you compare him to someone who dodged the war with connections, and then didn't even serve his national guard duty properly.

Well, Mycroft, I seem to disagree with you on a lot of things, but this isn't one.

The difference seems so, so very obvious. What disturbs me even more about the Bush campaign and the swifties is how they are determined to try to make the one who met his obligations look bad, and sweep their own draft-dodging under the rug.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Gary Gordon
This whole thread seems to be designed to make Luke T. look good. :rolleyes:

My, my...we seem to have a new Ignoramus in our midst....

Incidentally, Luke looks like s**t. But he does have his points...

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Mycroft
I agree 100%

There are some things about Kerry I don't like, but this isn't one of them. In my opinion, he deserves respect for both serving his country, and then protesting what his country was doing.

Especially when you compare him to someone who dodged the war with connections, and then didn't even serve his national guard duty properly.

I think everyone (especially Kerry) would be better off to just respond to these shots at his record with something like, "I volunteered to serve in the military during wartime and did my duty as a soldier, and I will say that it was an important experience for me. After experiencing firsthand the terrible reality of war, I know too well why it is something that no one wants. However, sometimes circumstances will require us to make that decision for the security of our country and our freedom, but we always need to be sure that our mission is clear and that our actions help us to successfully accomplish that mission."


The advantage of this is that it covers his protests of the Vietnam war (would anyone dispute that that Vietnam lacked a clear mission?) despite serving, while at the same time not really criticizing those like Bush who got out of going (something no one wants). Moreover, the attrocities that others told him about are actions that do not progress the mission. Moreover, it leaves the wiggle room on Iraq, depending on whether one thinks that it serves the security of our country and our freedom.

[RandFan]

Good post Luke.

I'm kind of torn. I have questions on both sides. I think that there are Veterans who were hurt by Kerry's remarks and think it wrong now for him to campaign on his war record after having turned his back on them, the Veterans (as some of them see it).

In any event you make a very compelling argument. I have said from the start that I find the whole notion of questioning the medals to be distasteful.

Thank you for the post. I know that it is sincere and heartfelt and I respect you for it. It has given me reason to pause and consider this whole affair.

[csense]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
My, my...we seem to have a new Ignoramus in our midst....

Incidentally, Luke looks like s**t. But he does have his points...

Care to explain the second sentence....or is it a test of observation :)

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by RandFan
Good post Luke.

I'm kind of torn. I have questions on both sides. I think that there are Veterans who were hurt by Kerry's remarks and think it wrong now for him to campaign on his war record after having turned his back on them, the Veterans (as some of them see it).

Well, America has wobbled quite a bit in its treatment and respect for Viet Nam vets, too. From "baby killers" to heroes.

In any event you make a very compelling argument. I have said from the start that I find the whole notion of questioning the medals to be distasteful.

Thank you for the post. I know that it is sincere and heartfelt and I respect you for it. It has given me reason to pause and consider this whole affair.

Thanks.

[American]

Originally posted by Gary Gordon
This whole thread seems to be designed to make Luke T. look good. :rolleyes:

How are you retired? You look younger than me!

[Gary Gordon]

Originally posted by American
How are you retired? You look younger than me!

That picture is from the early 90s.

As far as this thread goes, I read the original post and felt that is was quite obviously self-serving.

Funny how the "groupthink" I have detected on this forum prevents others from acknowledging when a thread like this is clearly written to be self-serving. Where is honesty in the world? I thought I could find it at a skeptic board, but so far....

[Gary Gordon]

Originally posted by Luke T.

I turned down a couple medals over principles when I was in the Navy. And that probably cost me a promotion. Both times were because I felt subordinates under me deserved the same medals and were not getting them. I turned mine down in protest and made it clear in no uncertain terms I would publicly embarrass my Commanding Officer if he tried to pin them on me.

If this isn't an attempt at self-aggrandizing, I don't know what is.

Whether the statement is even true is in question. Most war heroes I know don't brag about themselves or what they have done, especially on internet forums.

[Regnad Kcin]

Unless you are a sock, GG, by your post count you are evidently new to this community. Luke, however, is not. And in the two-plus years I've been contributing here I've found his thoughts to be intelligent, reasoned, and worthwhile, even though at times I might disagree.

Yep, opposing views give any discussion vitality and provide interest. Comic contrarians like American can add a little fun. And then there are those whose posts are just so much noise.

Disagree with the premise of the original poster if you like. But if things get personal, I'll side with him.

[Gary Gordon]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
Unless you are a sock, GG, by your post count you are evidently new to this community. Luke, however, is not. And in the two-plus years I've been contributing here I've found his thoughts to be intelligent, reasoned, and worthwhile, even though at times I might disagree.

Yep, opposing views give any discussion vitality and provide interest. Comic contrarians like American can add a little fun. And then there are those whose posts are just so much noise.

Disagree with the premise of the original poster if you like. But if things get personal, I'll side with him.

Side with who want. I spoke the truth. I don't care if his other 4,046 posts here were about feeding the poor, this post is clearly self-serving. I call em like I see em.

[varwoche]

Originally posted by Gary Gordon
Side with who want. I spoke the truth. I don't care if his other 4,046 posts here were about feeding the poor, this post is clearly self-serving. I call em like I see em.
And so even if you're right, which I have little reason to believe, your contribution to this discourse is what, to debunk Luke? Like that's something of general importance, worthy of focusing your (self-)impressive, finely tuned skeptical skills?

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Gary Gordon
If this isn't an attempt at self-aggrandizing, I don't know what is.

Whether the statement is even true is in question. Most war heroes I know don't brag about themselves or what they have done, especially on internet forums.

I didn't read anything about Luke calling himself a war hero, or even participating in a war. Believe it or not, one can win medals in the military during peace time.

I do greatly respect Luke T alot more after his anecdote because I was in the military as well.. and I've seen several people get medals for things me and my crew had done. It seems that whoever is "in charge" is always the one that gets awarded in the military, not the person who came up with the idea or made it happen.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by Gary Gordon
I spoke the truth.Ah. Of course.

[Patrick]

He may have felt guilt for participating in the killing of little yellow men in a place we didn't belong.

What does this mean - armed very skilled soldiers should get a pass from being killed because they are little and yellow? And please justify your statement that we "didn't belong" in vietnam.

I believe Kerry volunteered for Viet Nam. He was not drafted. I've heard, but can't confirm, that many of Kerry's Harvard classmates volunteered, and that two years later, hardly anyone from Bush's class did.

This bears on the inconsistency of liberals - they always said that the those who went to canada or otherwise didn't serve in the war were "heroes" and the ones who did were "baby killers". Doesn't that make Bush a hero and Kerry a baby killer?

[varwoche]

Originally posted by Gary Gordon
Where is honesty in the world? I thought I could find it at a skeptic board, but so far....
I'm sorry, I've been browsing other threads and felt compelled to come back. You're here crowing about skepticism, when most of your posts can be reduced to "My partisan juices are flowing" with precious little lost in translation? Rich.

[Gary Gordon]

I too have been in the service, and I can't imagine anyone turning down medals and insisting they be given to others then coming onto an internet forum and trying to take credit for it.

Why take credit? People who do things like these don't brag about them on the internet.

[thaiboxerken]

I too have been in the service, and I can't imagine anyone turning down medals and insisting they be given to others then coming onto an internet forum and trying to take credit for it.

I would hardly say that he's trying to take credit, he's just telling a story of what happened in his life.


Why take credit? People who do things like these don't brag about them on the internet.

Who's bragging? Telling a personal anecdote is hardly bragging.

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by Gary Gordon
If this isn't an attempt at self-aggrandizing, I don't know what is.

Whether the statement is even true is in question. Most war heroes I know don't brag about themselves or what they have done, especially on internet forums.

.

The events that Luke describes didn't say anything about being a war hero, and didn't even vaguely resemble bragging.

Self aggrandizing posts would be more along the lines of 'I'm retired military and no one here can post anything about their service without my scrutiny'....

[Gary Gordon]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


Who's bragging? Telling a personal anecdote is hardly bragging.

What do you think "bragging" is? Telling stories about yourself, to make yourself look good. Clever braggers, with time to plan it out, frame "contexts" like this OP within which to brag about themselves. This aint sandbox bragging, it's more subtle and complex. But make no mistake, it comes down to the same damn thing: bragging.

[peptoabysmal]

I think the Swift Boat Vets have at least an equal right to have their opinion heard. Frankly, I think that is most of what the SBV have is just opinions.

To me the medals are not an issue, nor is Kerry's service. The issue I have with Kerry is what he did after his service.

If there is anything that we should worry about in Kerry's record, it is that "Christmas in Cambodia" debacle. Remember? - The one that was "burned" into his memory and gave his arguments to the Senate a lot more bang for the buck.

Don't forget that it is Kerry who chose to make Vietnam an issue in this election and he deserves every bit of questioning about his record that he gets for making us all re-live that time.

I don't think the issue of the Vietnam War for good or bad was ever really settled. We got the heck out of there, the liberals claimed victory and we didn't discuss it anymore.

[varwoche]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
I think the Swift Boat Vets have at least an equal right to have their opinion heard. Frankly, I think that is most of what the SBV have is just opinions.

To me the medals are not an issue, nor is Kerry's service. The issue I have with Kerry is what he did after his service.
I may debate the particulars, but I have no problem with paragraph #2. Both paragraphs together, however, frame the problem (as I see it) perfectly.

What is scandalous about the SBVs is that lesser, arguably legitimate allegations have been stirred together with the incendiary (discredited) allegations of medal-scamming. The result is one big pot of stew that reeks of character assasination.

And no, there are more than "just opinions". A number of SBVs have signed affidavits stating thet they have first-hand knowledge that Kerry lied about his medals, yet when pressed, admit they don't have first-hand knowledge. (And then there are the SBVs who were added to the list without permission.)

If I thought Kerry was a rat for saying what he said state-side, and/or for xmas in Cambodia, and I believed in fair play, I'd be very upset with the SBVs for the medal-scamming allegations -- for tainting the "legit" allegations.

A nitpick: Why do the SBVs have "at least" an equal right? What does that mean? Are you suggesting they might have a more than equal right? And equal to who or what?

[crackmonkey]

Which SBVT guys signed affadavits saying they were eyewitnesses but turned out to not be eyewitnesses?
In what way have SBVT allegations been discredited? The last I heard it was an impasse, with Kerry refusing to address the allegations or release the relevant documentation, and the SBVT guys not having any further proof at hand (at least until Kerry releases his records).
It does sound as if your mind is made up, but that's hardly a reason to consider the other side 'debunked'... and it doesn't even address the problems with Kerry's versions of events.

[American]

Originally posted by Gary Gordon
That picture is from the early 90s.

This is where I put on my Detective Columbo trench coat and try to annoy The Rich Guy, using innuendo and veiled accusation....

"....... I don't mean to suggest anything, sir, but... uhh... well you see... the black beret wasn't standard until June of 2001, l'anniversaire de l'armée américaine. With notable exceptions, I grant you...... the Army Rangers wore black, for example.....

I uhh. Oh shoot. You know something.... No. Never mind.... Thank you very much, Mr. Hertzbach. I think you answered all of my questions...."

[Skeptic]

Luke: I think you miss the point.

I don't think the criticism of Kerry is essentially that he "hasn't earned" his medals--even if he didn't, and indeed there was a serious "inflation" in medals, he would a). hardly be alone, and b). in any case he was awarded them, "earned" or not, and he hadn't invented this fact.

I don't think the criticism of Kerry's DD-241 as being inaccurate and his medal citations "puffing him up" is especially serious, either. Such government documents are notoriously inaccurate and if there are some discrepancies between what he said he earned and what is on his documents, there might very well be a reasonable explanation. And at worse--he "puffed up" his record a bit and said he earned four "stars" on his medal instead of two--it would not be too serious either. Lots of people do that.

I don't even think the criticism of Kerry is that he "flip-flopped" on Vietnam and threw (or didn't throw) his medals over the White House fence. Heck, that was the kind of stupid cr@p a lot of young people then, especially veterans, were doing.

No, the criticism of Kerry is that he lied to Congress and made up accusations of war crimes which never happened about the American Army.. I've read the transcript of his appearance before Congress. This is not just puffing himself up, or changing his mind and opposing the war. This is at the very least perjury, certainly also malicious libel, and could even be treason: the US was still at war at the time, and he, by inventing lies, was giving comfort to the enemy (althought it would not be treason legally, only morally, of course).

That is why Kerry is disliked by so many vets. Not his medals, not his Vietnam stories, not even his opposition to the war as such. He told Congress what, in effect, is a blood libel about the Army, to aggrendize his own political goals. When the Vietnam soldiers were coming home and getting dissed as "baby-killers" instead of a welcome, that was, to a significant degree, due to John Kerry.

Let me put it this way: suppose it turns out that the entire Abu Gharib bruahaha was made up by the soliders accusser, who fakes those pictures in order to make himself look good as "whistleblower"? What would that make you think about them? (Of course this is, at least, extremely unlikely--but that's not the point).

Now multiply that story by a factor of a few thousands, to compensate for the difference between Kerry's false accusations of routine mass murder and the Abu Gharib story of out-of-control sex orgies, and imagine what you would think of someone who falsely makes such claims.

As one vet put it, "a Kerry defeat would be the welcome-home parade we never had."

[varwoche]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Which SBVT guys signed affadavits saying they were eyewitnesses but turned out to not be eyewitnesses?
In what way have SBVT allegations been discredited? The last I heard it was an impasse, with Kerry refusing to address the allegations or release the relevant documentation, and the SBVT guys not having any further proof at hand (at least until Kerry releases his records).
It does sound as if your mind is made up, but that's hardly a reason to consider the other side 'debunked'... and it doesn't even address the problems with Kerry's versions of events.
George Elliott and Alfred French, to name two.

It's debunked every bit as much (far moreso, I contend) as the allegation that Bush willfully lied about WMDs.

But since this isn't a court of law, and since there is no official definition of "fair play", I suppose you're right -- nothing is debunked; anything and everything is possible; no topic is out of bounds; written evidence be damned; 35 yr retroactivity, no prob.

[crackmonkey]

Since I posted, I've heard about the French episode, and it seems as if he did fraudulently swear to something he didn't personally witness. When did Elliot contend that he witnessed Kerry's actions?
Your flippant attitude is noted; when inconsistencies are pointed out in the Kerry version of events, you toss out 'sure, anything's possible'. Okay - so I contend that Kerry's version is possible, as is the SBVT version. The only way to resolve this is to have Kerry address it and provide the documentation the SBVT guys say would prove their case.
Sounds pretty straightforward - why is this so hard for you to deal with? Why isn't it obvious that to find out what the story actually is - when both sides of this seem to have problems - the two sides need to talk and present whatever evidence they have?
The nonsequitur about Bush was pretty telling in regard to your personal biases, but irrelevant.

[varwoche]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
When did Elliot contend that he witnessed Kerry's actions? The tortured story is summarized here:
SC Thread (http://skepticalcommunity.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=2203)
Your flippant attitude is noted; when inconsistencies are pointed out in the Kerry version of events, you toss out 'sure, anything's possible'... why is this so hard for you to deal with? Simple. I give the benefit of the doubt to:
- the accused
- the written record
- the men best situated to assess Kerry - his crew

And discount the accusers due to:
- 35 yr retroactivity
- lack of written record
- documented lies (i.e. French, Elliott, misappropriated names)
- discredited star witness (Thurlow)
- hardly any of the 254 were really witnesses (the mysterious X&Y)
- blatant ulterior motives

You know this though. We've discussed it at length in the other thread. We have different definitions of fair play and I've agreed to disagree with you. Note whatever you want.
The nonsequitur about Bush was pretty telling in regard to your personal biases, but irrelevant. True, it was a nonsequitur. But that you find it "telling", seeing as I dismiss it for lack of evidence, is in itself telling. Are you asserting that Bush did willfully lie? Start a thread; I'm interested in your evidence.

[crackmonkey]

Not really interested in the 'Bush Lied' meme. It's pretty tired, and thoroughly debunked by the Intel Commission. You may, of course, believe what you wish.

So - you give more credence to Kerry's version of events. Which version would that be? Since the SBVT guys (according to you) are lying when they give a version of events that contradict Kerry - isn't Kerry therefore also lying when he gives mutually contradictory stories about the same event? Both he and his supporters have contradicted both themselves and each other. Many of the crew he employs in his campaign and you seem to have no problem the veracity of their recollections even though they're part of his campaign) weren't involved in the incidents, either.

Again, you may freely choose to believe what you wish. If you want to base your belief upon some kind of skeptical, logical process... you're not quite there yet.

[varwoche]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Not really interested in the 'Bush Lied' meme. It's pretty tired, and thoroughly debunked by the Intel Commission. You may, of course, believe what you wish.
Aaaaargh. Your disinterest is noted and even appreciated. Still, this is getting downright Kafka-esque.

I AGREE. I CONCUR. HOW TRUE. WE SEE EYE TO EYE. EXACTLY! I CATCH YOUR DRIFT. CHECK. DITTO. AMEN. RIGHT-ON! YUP! YOU GOT THAT. WHAT HE SAID.

Have I cleared things up?

[corplinx]

How was Thurlow discredited? Because he didn't try to correct his bronze star citation after he got it?

[varwoche]

Originally posted by corplinx
How was Thurlow discredited? Because he didn't try to correct his bronze star citation after he got it? Yes, but that skips over part of Thurlow's story.

1) Thurlow claims there was no enemy fire.
2) It is revealed that Thurlow earned a bronze star on the same day as Kerry.
3) The press asks Thurlow about his bronze star; he says he lost the citation.
4) The WA Post retrieves the info without Thurlow's help.
5) The citation synchs with Kerry -- says there was enemy fire.
6) Thurlow claims his own citation is bogus and that he never read it.
7) Thurlow claims that Kerry is reponsible for Thurlow's bogus citation, though Kerry wasn't Thurlow's superior.

And because it's Saturday, a final flourish...

8) Thurlow is a modern-day Job; God cast all of the written evidence against him, even Thurlow's own medal.

[crackmonkey]

I see a conflict between Thurlow and the official citation, certainly. This presupposes that the citation is correct - something that I'm assuming you haven't investigated.
So far, we've established that Thurlow's account differs from Kerry's, and the citation agrees with Kerry here. I can't see how this is the conclusive proof you seem to take it as...
and there are, of course, the niggling details of the many contradictions of the other side (that you haven't yet deigned to comment on...).
I'm afraid that your last post to me was puzzling, to say the least. I'm not sure what your fixation on capitalization and frenzied agreement are all about...

[varwoche]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
I'm afraid that your last post to me was puzzling, to say the least. I'm not sure what your fixation on capitalization and frenzied agreement are all about...
Here's my original Bush nonseq:
It's debunked every bit as much (far moreso, I contend) as the allegation that Bush willfully lied about WMDs.
This was intended to convey that I believe the allegation that Bush willfully lied about wmd is debunked. (Not very clear.)

You took issue.

I joked that maybe you think Bush lied.

You took issue.

I went into serial agreement mode.

You questioned serial agreement mode.

I wrote (am writing, that is) this post.

All in good spirit, crackmonkey.

But since we've had this little detour... The reason the WMD lie is debunked isn't because I know for a fact that Bush didn't lie. It's because the evidence is insufficient. I don't expect Bush to further prove that he didn't lie.

And finally, to clarify the nonseq: As a side point, while still maintaining that both allegations are debunked, I contend there is less evidence that Kerry scammed than that Bush lied. (i.e. we have Bush on tape saying untrue things.) I'm nervous this last paragraph may cause us to recurse however. ;)

[corplinx]

Originally posted by varwoche
Yes, but that skips over part of Thurlow's story.

3) The press asks Thurlow about his bronze star; he says he lost the citation.
4) The WA Post retrieves the info without Thurlow's help.
5) The citation synchs with Kerry -- says there was enemy fire.
6) Thurlow claims his own citation is bogus and that he never read it.
7) Thurlow claims that Kerry is reponsible for Thurlow's bogus citation, though Kerry wasn't Thurlow's superior.


3. The WP asked him to authorize release of his records, he refused. This is not proof that Lurry Thurlow's account is incorrect.

4. The WP filed for the records under the freedom of information act, and got them. This is not proof that Lurry Thurlow's account is incorrect.

5. The citation states theres was enemy fire. This is not proof that Lurry Thurlow's account is incorrect.

6. Thurlow claims his citation was incorrect concerning enemy fire. This is not proof that Lurry Thurlow's account in incorrect.

7. I would like to see your source for this. According to the WP, Lt. Cmdr. George M. Elliott signed the recommendations for the bronze stars for both Thurlow and Kerry. Rassman put Kerry in for his bronze star (for pulling him out of the water allegedly under enemy fire). From what I can find Kerry and someone named Lambert put Thurlow in for the bronze star. [Edited to add: the previous statement is unsubstantiated, the documentation was hard to read] Thurlow was the big hero of the day. He tried to help the boat that hit the mine while Kerry's boat left the scene.

Read Thurlow's Citation for Yourself (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/veterans_citation.pdf). It almost reads like a talltale with all the fire they were under.

Here is the recommendation, written partly by John Kerry. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/veterans_awardrecommendation.pdf) This is interesting since it is established (Kerry has conceded it) that Kerry's boat fled the scene and came back. So Kerry _couldn't_ be reliable witness.

Really varwoche, your attitude towards the whole SBVT is just to sweep the accusations under the rug as soon as you run into a small bit which you think discredits someone.

Did you even read these two documents Mr. Detective?

[corplinx]

Due the print on that old recommendation, I can't tell who actually wrote it. It may not have been Kerry. Kerry and Lambert were put down as receiving medals for the same incident (as best I can read the small print).

Someone named Lambert was put down as the witness.

[varwoche]

Yes, I've read the documents.

Yes, I realize Thurlow's medal inconsitency isn't 100% proof he is lying.

I give Kerry the benefit of the doubt for the same reason I give Bush/WMD the benefit: Insufficient evidence in totality and assumption of innocence.

On top of which is the 35 yr retroactivity.

Do you agree that retroactivity should raise the credibility bar, as a general principle?

[crackmonkey]

I tire of this tonight, but one last point; Elliot, from what I read on your site, never claimed to have witnessed any of Kerry's actions. He merely commented upon the reports and claims he saw and heard. He is no more 'debunked' now than he was then... his judgment of Kerry was based upon the observations of other men. His changed judgment of Kerry is now because of the observations of other witnesses. If you're going to consider someone to be 'not X' because they weren't a witness to Kerry's deeds, then I suppose Elliot should go into that bunch rather than the 'debunked' pile. His 'retraction' was questionable as well...
Incidentally, some of Kerry's crewmates - the 'Band of Brothers' he parades around with like some living campaign props, weren't witnesses, either. Others of them have changed their stories. Rassman can't seem to make his mind up what boat he was on, or how he fell overboard... good thing he's on Kerry's side, otherwise you'd 'debunk' him as a liar.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by varwoche
Yes, I've read the documents.

Yes, I realize Thurlow's medal inconsitency isn't 100% proof he is lying.

I give Kerry the benefit of the doubt for the same reason I give Bush/WMD the benefit: Insufficient evidence in totality and assumption of innocence.

On top of which is the 35 yr retroactivity.

Do you agree that retroactivity should raise the credibility bar, as a general principle?

I don't think a skeptic necessarily has to pick a side in this matter. Thurlow may or may not be lying or recollecting correctly. The other two boat captains who were there and claim there was no enemy fire may also be mistaken. The award recommendation could be "padded". John Kerry's recollection could be incorrect.

I think the skeptic has to look at this and see it as a case of he said/she said. Is Kerry right? Is Thurlow right? I think the skeptical answer is "one of them is right, but there is not enough evidence to back either".

[varwoche]

Originally posted by corplinx
Really varwoche, your attitude towards the whole SBVT is just to sweep the accusations under the rug as soon as you run into a small bit which you think discredits someone.
Heads-up Corp. There was someone using your account a few days ago who seemed to be in agremeent with me on this SBV business.

[varwoche]

Originally posted by corplinx
I don't think a skeptic necessarily has to pick a side in this matter. Thurlow may or may not be lying or recollecting correctly. The other two boat captains who were there and claim there was no enemy fire may also be mistaken. The award recommendation could be "padded". John Kerry's recollection could be incorrect.

I think the skeptic has to look at this and see it as a case of he said/she said. Is Kerry right? Is Thurlow right? I think the skeptical answer is "one of them is right, but there is not enough evidence to back either".
I don't substantially disagree.

I'm back in this fictitious court of fair play. The written evidence lines up with Kerry. That there are tortured explanations for the holes in the SBV evidence is tough luck. Your mileage may vary since there are no written laws in this court.

If that guy who stole your account comes back I'll hold him til the cops come.

My excuse for babbling is sleepiness.

[csense]

Originally posted by varwoche

On top of which is the 35 yr retroactivity.


All witnesses are testifying to conditions and events that existed or originated in the past....Including Kerry and his band of brothers.

The only hard evidence in this issue (or real time evidence as you put it in another thread) are original documents...which again, are lacking per order of John Kerry.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by varwoche
I don't substantially disagree.

I'm back in this fictitious court of fair play. The written evidence lines up with Kerry. That there are tortured explanations for the holes in the SBV evidence is tough luck. Your mileage may vary since there are no written laws in this court.

If that guy who stole your account comes back I'll hold him til the cops come.

My excuse for babbling is sleepiness.

I don't think there is anything too terribly tortured about a guy accepting a medal for heroic actions and not returning since he wasn't under fire. It's not like he knew that one day it would be used as ammo to discredit him.

The sad thing here is that Thurlow was the big hero of that day and now he is a discredited liar according to some. He displayed true valor even if he wasn't under fire.

[varwoche]

Originally posted by corplinx
I don't think there is anything too terribly tortured about a guy accepting a medal for heroic actions and not returning since he wasn't under fire. It's not like he knew that one day it would be used as ammo to discredit him.

The sad thing here is that Thurlow was the big hero of that day and now he is a discredited liar according to some. He displayed true valor even if he wasn't under fire.
Claiming not to have read one's own bronze star citation strains credulity to the breaking point.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
Agreed, as far as it goes. Because regarding Gary, I smell sock.

Gary=Patrick=JK?

[crimresearch]

Quote Varwoche:
7) Thurlow claims that Kerry is reponsible for Thurlow's bogus citation, though Kerry wasn't Thurlow's superior

And your evidence that this is a requirement for being awarded a Bronze Star?

[varwoche]

Originally posted by csense
All witnesses are testifying to conditions and events that existed or originated in the past....Including Kerry and his band of brothers.
Benefit of the doubt to the accused.

And, either you overparsed or else I was unclear. I'm referring to retroactive allegations, not the word retoractive by itself or the fact we all have pasts. And no, I don't consider responding to retroactive allegations the same way as the actual retroactive allegations.

The only hard evidence in this issue (or real time evidence as you put it in another thread) are original documents...which again, are lacking per order of John Kerry.
Benefit of the doubt goes to the accused. I don't expect the accused to have to flay themselves open in the face of evidence that is sorely lacking. Likewise, I'm not demanding that Bush turn over his diary and tape recordings so that we can get to the bottom of the "WMD lie", even though the evidence against Bush is stronger than the evidence against Kerry imo.

Kerry has released volumes, just not enough for some. Whereas the SBVs entirely refuse to release their records.

[varwoche]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Quote Varwoche:
7) Thurlow claims that Kerry is reponsible for Thurlow's bogus citation, though Kerry wasn't Thurlow's superior

And your evidence that this is a requirement for being awarded a Bronze Star?
First, your evidence that I said it is a requirement.

Preemptively, if I've been unclear, I do not question if Thurlow rightfully earned his medal. Whatsoever.

[crimresearch]

It seems like you have constructed a chain of evidence that leads to the conclusion that Thurlow is a lying scumbag, and I'm questioning one of the links in that chain.

How is it significant at all that Kerry wasn't Thurlow's superior? Is that the way medals were awarded in Vietnam...no one could write up the paperwork for medals except the individual or their superior?

[varwoche]

Originally posted by crimresearch
How is it significant at all that Kerry wasn't Thurlow's superior? Is that the way medals were awarded in Vietnam...no one could write up the paperwork for medals except the individual or their superior?
Hmm, good question. I don't know.

edit to add: "Roll them up, get them out of the way - FZ" -- do I have that right?

[crackmonkey]

You still haven't addressed the fact that the accused has changed their story a number of times. By your definition, then, Kerry either is lying or did lie in the past. He certainly has lied about Cambodia, and his journals as reproduced in his biography contradict a number of other stories he's told.

As far as the documentation - he's released what he was comfortable releasing (some of which has given him some problems... ie fraudulent Silver Star with a V, and his apparent appropriation of another officer's memories aboard the Gridley). Unfortunately, what he was comfortable releasing was pretty irrelevant to this dicussion, and the documents he refuses to allow the Navy to release are crucial to determine the truth or falsehood of these claims.
Merely saying that Kerry's released a stack of documents is disingenuous... if a court compels you to provide, say, tax records and you respond by bringing thousands of pages of drawings, laundry lists, comic books and diary entries, the court will rule you haven't been responsive to their request. This is much the same. I guess, by your logic, when Bush was asked to provide documentation for his NG service, it would have been acceptable for him to release several thousand pages of doodlings and irrelevant minutae having nothing at all to do with his service, and that should be sufficient to shut his critics up...

[varwoche]

Crack, honest question here... Can you help me understand the nature of the documentation that Kerry has held back? I keep hearing it referred to something, I don't recall the terminology.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
Gary=Patrick=JK? Well, it's only a slight whiff, but he's got a bit of GP's aromatic perfume.

Then again, I've had my suspicions that you and American are one and the same.

;)

[crackmonkey]

I'm not entirely certain. I know that they're official Navy documentation, and at least some of them are in regard to health issues - medical records and such. All I really know about them is that the SBVT guys say that they're essential to prove some of their assertions, the Navy says that there are something like 100 pages of documents they can't release without a form signed by Kerry ( I think it's a SF-180).
I've ordered the SBVT book where their charges are detailed, and when I read it I supose I could make a more informed evaluation as to whether any documentation would help their case.

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by varwoche
<Snip>

"Roll them up, get them out of the way - FZ" -- do I have that right?


"HOY! HOY! HOY!
Wrap 'em up Roll 'em out Get 'em out of my way
Hein nya-nya-hein nya-nya-hein nya-nya-hein
HOY! HOY! HOY!"
From One Size Fits All
:D

Actually, it is the phrase:

"Pojama people are boring me to pieces
They make me feel like I am wasting my time
They all got flannel up 'n down 'em
A little trap-door back aroun' 'em
An' some cozy little footies on their mind..."

which inspires me to keep that sig file.

[csense]

Originally posted by varwoche
...either you overparsed or else I was unclear. I'm referring to retroactive allegations, not the word retoractive by itself or the fact we all have pasts. And no, I don't consider responding to retroactive allegations the same way as the actual retroactive allegations.


Actually I was allowing for poetic license on your behalf, after all, it is your argument, but given the above, I'm forced to submit to you that there is no such thing as retroactive allegations...and insomuch as all allegations speak of events that have already transpired, then by their very nature, and with a little poetic license of course, all allegations are retroactive. The term however, simply is not appropriate. You are not extending in scope an applied principle, temporally speaking.

A person who is charged with murder (or any crime for that matter) whether it be one day after the event, or thirty years...is not being charged retroactively. They are simply charges...period, regardless of time removed, and said temporal element says nothing of the integrity of the charges. One judges such integrity based solely on the merits of the evidence, not on time removed from the event.

But I really shouldn't be telling this to Sherlock Holmes since it is all quite elementary.

[varwoche]

Originally posted by csense
But I really shouldn't be telling this to Sherlock Holmes since it is all quite elementary.
OK. I guess I need to brush up on circular logic in order to sway you, csense.

[csense]

Originally posted by varwoche
OK. I guess I need to brush up on circular logic in order to sway you, csense.

You really should remove that magnifying glass from your eyes...it's clouding your vision, and your logic.

[American]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
Gary=Patrick=JK?

No, but

You=Jackass=Dipsh*t


If you bothered reading this thread carefully, I pointed out that Gary said his picture is from the early 90s, but the army's black beret didn't appear until 2001, except under certain special forces commands.

I think YOU belong in special programs as well, along with other retarded individuals.

Funny how you appeared with your own pink beret also in 2001, promoting stereotypes against gay people and making it hard for us to fully accept homosexuals as ordinary people, also prompting the gay members of this forum to ask: "Do I really want to be like THIS guy?"

[varwoche]

Originally posted by csense
Actually I was allowing for poetic license on your behalf, after all, it is your argument, but given the above, I'm forced to submit to you that there is no such thing as retroactive allegations...and insomuch as all allegations speak of events that have already transpired, then by their very nature, and with a little poetic license of course, all allegations are retroactive. The term however, simply is not appropriate. You are not extending in scope an applied principle, temporally speaking.

A person who is charged with murder (or any crime for that matter) whether it be one day after the event, or thirty years...is not being charged retroactively. They are simply charges...period, regardless of time removed, and said temporal element says nothing of the integrity of the charges. One judges such integrity based solely on the merits of the evidence, not on time removed from the event.

But I really shouldn't be telling this to Sherlock Holmes since it is all quite elementary.
csense, gee whiz, thanks for explaining what the word retroactive means. I suppose I should take it as a compliment that this inane degree of parsing is required in order for you to counter my arguments.

[csense]

Originally posted by varwoche
csense, gee whiz, thanks for explaining what the word retroactive means. I suppose I should take it as a compliment that this inane degree of parsing is required in order for you to counter my arguments.

Then by all means Varwoche, dismiss it out of hand with prejudice, it's your integrity.

[crackmonkey]

Not to be snide, but judging by the tenor of his advocacy for Kerry here, there's not much left to lose.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by varwoche

A nitpick: Why do the SBVs have "at least" an equal right? What does that mean? Are you suggesting they might have a more than equal right? And equal to who or what?

I was suggesting that the SBV's appeared to have less than an equal right to express their opinion since Kerry petitioned the FEC to prohibit the SBV's from airing the Swift Boat ads.

[Patrick]

That is why Kerry is disliked by so many vets. Not his medals, not his Vietnam stories, not even his opposition to the war as such. He told Congress what, in effect, is a blood libel about the Army, to aggrendize his own political goals. When the Vietnam soldiers were coming home and getting dissed as "baby-killers" instead of a welcome, that was, to a significant degree, due to John Kerry.

Exactly. And this is the part that there are no "ifs" about - it's all in the record, its all on film.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Gary Gordon
That picture is from the early 90s.

As far as this thread goes, I read the original post and felt that is was quite obviously self-serving.

Funny how the "groupthink" I have detected on this forum prevents others from acknowledging when a thread like this is clearly written to be self-serving. Where is honesty in the world? I thought I could find it at a skeptic board, but so far....

This topic has taken some interesting turns, most of which is in territory I don't know anything about, but I will address this early remark.

The reason I mentioned my personal experience is because it is pretty well known that I am anti-Kerry for President. During this election campaign, we have seen some pretty underhanded tactics used by both sides in attempts to dehumanize or even demonize the opposition. If you can't say anything good to get the people to vote for your own candidate, then try to get the people to vote against the other guy. Make the other guy look out of touch or "not one of us."

My personal experience regarding the military awards system and the personal struggles with principles is a tiny piece of commonality I can find with Kerry. And I recall well the inner turmoil our country experienced during that era.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by varwoche
Claiming not to have read one's own bronze star citation strains credulity to the breaking point.

I was thinking the exact same thing. And usually, the citation is read aloud during an award ceremony when presented to the recipient.

[csense]

Luke T.

Can't say that I agree with everything you proffered in your opening post, but I do have a lot of respect for you. It's good to see you again my friend.

Semper Fi

[American]

Originally posted by csense
Luke T.

Can't say that I agree with everything you proffered in your opening post, but I do have a lot of respect for you. It's good to see you again my friend.

Semper Fi

UGH.

Write the man a love letter, why don't you.