Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
To know him is to loathe him?
Published on July 29, 2004 By Draginol In Democrat

John Kerry and his supporters have made a lot of noise of his 4 months in Vietnam on a Swift boat. But what do the men who actually served with him think? http://www.swiftvets.com/

Overwhelmingly, they reject him. Described variously as a glory hound, he apparently took a home movie camera with him in which he reinacted various events in front of the camera in an effort to glorify what he did.

I don't know enough on this to know how much of it is usual political propaganda or not.  However, I think it is very telling that so few people who served with him have any respect for him. That is very counter to the normal way of things between men who served together in combat.

Even his Purple Hearts have some dispute about them:

(USA Today)
Criticism Of Kerry’s Purple Heart Is Just

…”I was the commanding officer to whom Kerry reported his injury on December 3, 1968. I had confirmed that there was no hostile fire that night – and that Kerry had simply wounded himself with an M-79 grenade round that he’d fired too close.
He wanted a Purple Heart – and I refused**. Louis Letson, the base physician, saw Kerry – and used tweezers to remove the tiny piece of shrapnel, about 1 centimeter in length and 2 millimeters in diameter. Letson also confirmed that the scratch was inflicted with our M-79.” …

“Kerry orchestrated his way out of Vietnam – and then testified under oath before Congress that we, his comrades, had committed horrible war crimes.
This testimony was a lie – and slandered honorable men. We who were actually there believe he is unfit to command our sons and daughters. “

Grant Hibbard, retired commander U.S. Navy, Gulf Breeze, Fla.

Which wouldn't matter one bit to me except that Kerry has made such a stink about his Vietnam service. For all the sewage they've poured onto Bush for "only" flying aircraft in the states for the guard and unsubstantiated postfacto claims of "desertion", Kerry seem to have been living in a glass house all this time.

And that is what is so odd about this.  Kerry has made his Vietnam service such a center point of his campaign.  And yet, at the end of the day, what actually was that service? 4 months in Vietnam with a crew that almost universally despises him as a liar and show boat.  He takes advantage of the fact that most people think of Purple Hearts as being medals for serious wounds when, in his case, 1 of them may have been self-inflicted and the other 2 were for minor injuries.

That isn't to say that he has anything to be ashamed of. But given the war records of Bush Sr. and Bob Dole, neither of whom made anywhere near as much noise about their military career, it is rather stunning that all the valor noise coming from Kerry and his supporters is based on so little.


Comments (Page 2)
on Jul 30, 2004
"If someone wants to question one of kerry's purple hearts, then how do they explain away the other ones or the medals he received for bravery."


He got them in his short stint of commiting "atrocities"...

"There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals." -John Kerry on NBC's "Meet the Press" April 18, 1971


Now, of course, atrocities are something he seems to want to build a campaign on...
on Jul 30, 2004
Problem is: Too many people confuse John K. with Senator Bob Kerrey who was multi-decorated in 'Nam.
on Jul 30, 2004
Anything that foul shows this man has no charachter, for the simple reason that he is such a glory hound that he had the balls to ask for a purple heart after wounding himself with a rocket grenade.
on Jul 30, 2004
Read This

WHAT THE F&@# ARE YOU HIDING KARRY? I certantly dont want someone who has ANYTHING to hide RELATED to the United States Army and any of its branches, to COMMAND the army and make ANY decisions, so will he come out?!
on Jul 31, 2004
draginol, you tore into fahrenheit 9/11 for misleading statements, but now you feature an article full of misleading statements.

the link you posted to snopes shows he won a bronze and medal star for major heroism in combat like puling a guy out of the water while bleeding and in great pain* yet you have to post stuff like "what service" and that the valor noise is based on so little.

citation:
"Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry directed his gunners to provide suppressing fire, while from an exposed position on the bow, his arm bleeding and in pain and with disregard for his personal safety, he pulled the man aboard. Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry then directed his boat to return to and assist the other damaged boat to safety. Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry's calmness, professionalism and great personal courage under fire were in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service."

* that citation was signed by admiral zumwalt, whose son signed the anti-kerry letter in his dad's name.


here's another snopes.com link that was posted on the day after you posted your article.

snopes.com on this very issue:
---------------------------
"Although the men quoted above are often identified as "John Kerry's shipmates," only one of them, Steven Gardner, actually served under Lt. Kerry's command on a Swift boat. The other men who served under Kerry's command continue to speak positively of him:"
---------------------------

several examples on their site

---------------------------
"Many of Kerry's Vietnam commanders and fellow officers also continue to speak positively of him:"
---------------------------

several examples blah blah

----------------------------
"How well all of these men knew John Kerry is questionable, and discrepancies between how some of them described Kerry thirty-five years ago and how they describe him today suggest that their opinions are largely based upon political differences rather than objective assessments of Kerry's military record. For example, Rear Admiral Roy Hoffman is quoted above, yet the Los Angeles Times reported: "

. . . Hoffman and Kerry had few direct dealings in Vietnam. A Los Angeles Times examination of Navy archives found that Hoffman praised Kerry's performance in cabled messages after several river skirmishes.
---------------------------------------




foxnews:
here's a story on bush. kerry, even leaving vietnam on the "wounded three times and you can request to leave" rule, still kicks bush's ass.

--------------------------------------
Another question is why he was allowed to end Guard duty about six months early to attend Harvard Business School. Bush said Sunday that he had "worked it out with the military. And I'm just telling you, I did my duty."
--------------------------------------
on Aug 01, 2004
I've been trying to read through this Swit Boat Veteran's For Truth, and I find the group interesting and informative (pretty good website, too). But I think most people feel to realize one thing when they criticize Kerry for "showing off" his Vietnam service. He's running for political office for pete's sake!!!

When you run for office, it is your job to present yourself in the best possible light. Everyone has their flaws, but when you run for office, of course you try to cover those up. You also naturally try to emphasize your qualities or experience that you think would appear favorable to potential voters. To a humble person, this can't be enjoyable, but it is a necessary part of your task to get elected, in order to achieve your objectives that can only be acheived once elected (for Kerry, I imagine his main objectives are protecting the environment, making the US respected around the world, managing national debt, advancing women's rights, based on what I read about him in the VERY beginning of his campaign.)

Kerry has said that he doesn't like talking about his Vietnam experience. He has also said many times that he personally decided a long time not to judge people based on the decisions they made 30+ years ago regarding Vietnam. In support of this, he has refrained from criticizing Bush for his choice to join the National Guard to avoid going to Vietnam. (Criticizing how he actually performed in the National Guard is another matter. Though he has NEVER, to my knowledge, called Bush a disserter or AWOL.)

Despite this dislike, Kerry (and especially his advisors) obviously realize that emphasizing it will greatly enhance his chances of getting elected. In fact, it proved to be ESSENTIAL and ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY for him to win the primary campaign.

When running for office, you often have to stretch the truth. Lying should not be excused, but sugar-coating, glossing over certain details, and even trying to prevent damaging information to get out are all understood and expected. I think its hard for people who have never run for politcal office to understand this and still respect someone when they realize the extent of it. I myself have never run for public office, but I know, for instance, what it is like to be an actor and have to repeatedly try out for a part. Your JOB in that case is to sell yourself as someone that you are not! People can also compare a political campaign to any experiences they've had applying for a job. Considering yourself sitting in that office interviewing with a perspective employer. If you are weak in some areas, you might hope they don't probe too deeply their with questions in that area. If you know you have some skill that they like, you emphasize that. Some people might even exaggerate a little. Lying again is never tolerated. But "selling yourself" is expected and required.

So the fact that during the DNC a big deal was made about Kerry's Vietnam service does not surprise me. It was the same during the beginning of the primary campaign. I noticed, however, that near the end of the primaries, it played lesser of a role. Once the general campaign gets into the meat and potatoes of the issues, I think we'll hear less about it. After all, being a "war hero" won't alone get you elected president. But right now, the campaign is trying to get people in the general public to "get to know John Kerry," and from their perspective the best way this could go for them is if they know him as "a Vietnam war hero, turned tough prosecutor, with a long established record of public service in the Senate" ...and that's exactly how they played it! It's what they have to and should do to get him elected, and I don't blame them or disdain them one bit.

on Aug 01, 2004
RG: You make a fair answer, but do you really think that people won't notice that he spoke twice as long about the flag as 4 terms as a Senator? I don't think people are so simple as to let the kind of gloss you describe blind them. It is glaringly obvious that he KNOWS what will happen if the American people start dissecting his behavior during the seemingly unimportant thirty plus years after he got back from Vietnam.

In my opinion, this campaign hasn't even heated up yet, or Bush's campaign is incompetant. They've allowed him to get by on swiftboats and salutes so far, but I expect soon for there to be a plethora of items from his REAL resume to answer for, and he'll have to stand there and hold it, no matter how distasteful it is to him.
on Aug 01, 2004
You make a good point as well, but my answer is YES, many people won't notice that he talked longer about the flag than his tenure in the senate. people will just remember, "he said such nice things about the flag. he must be a great american." it is mainly only the pundits on fox news and CNN's crossfire (and the pundits on JU) who will dissect his speech and compare number of words said about this topic and that topic. and the number of people that actually tune in to shows like Bill Reilly and Crossfire is actually quite low compared to the entire voting population.

Yes, the campaign will pick apart the details of people's records, particularly during the debates. Kerry will probably give long-winded goofy sounding explanations to back up his record, just like he did in the primaries. Bush will give simple answers and Kerry will probably ask Bush questions about things Bush doesn't know anything about, and he'll end up sounding Dumb. So basically it will come down to Goofy vs. the Dummy. Should be fun to watch! One of the debates will be at my university, so i'm excited to possibly be a part of it.

on Aug 01, 2004
RG: yeesh, you are just swimming with optimism...

No, I think you are mistaking the average American with the average voter. If that had been the case I don't think Bush would have been even close in 2000, because you could have made the same points then.

The average person will let those things gloss the rest over, but I think the average voter, the median of the 51.3% that showed up last time, at least watches the news to hear these things. So, if at least 26% or so are smart enough to see through the smoke and look at the facts, I think it will be hard for Kerry.
on Aug 01, 2004
I would not have made the same points for Al Gore that I did for John Kerry. In fact, I would make the same argument for the reason that Bush did win in 2000.

You'd be surprised how poorly informed the average voter is. Yes, they might watch the news, but they watch CBS Nightly news, local news, and other network programs. Do you know what the evening audience of O'Reilly factor is (which I believe is the most watched of those pundit shows)?

I think the highly educated will on a whole vote for Kerry. The moderately educated will mostly vote for Bush. And the poorly educated will probably be a near even split. I'm not trying to comment on who is better. It's just the way it is.
on Aug 01, 2004
"Kerry will probably give long-winded goofy sounding explanations to back up his record, just like he did in the primaries. Bush will give simple answers and Kerry will probably ask Bush questions about things Bush doesn't know anything about, and he'll end up sounding Dumb. "


Sounds like 2000 to me.

"I think the highly educated will on a whole vote for Kerry. "


I think if you run off a list of the most noteworthy Republicans and the most noteworthy Democrats in the last 40 years or so, you'll not find any preponderance of education on the Democratic side. If you apply that to non-politicians, the result would be even more grim for Democrats, I think.

In my experience, unless you are talking about complex sciences, advanced "study" relies a lot more on your ability to assimilate and regurgitate. If Republicans are "sheep" as everyone says, people who nod their way through a post-grad degree would be far more apt to vote Republican...

on Aug 01, 2004
In my experience, unless you are talking about complex sciences, advanced "study" relies a lot more on your ability to assimilate and regurgitate. If Republicans are "sheep" as everyone says, people who nod their way through a post-grad degree would be far more apt to vote Republican...


OK. You're starting to lose me. I was simply stating a fact. Highly educatd tend to vote democrat. Here is some evidence from 2000 exit poll results:

Percent of Total Vote Gore Bush Buchanan Nader
Post-Graduate Degree 18 % 52 % 44 % 0 % 3 %

"I think if you run off a list of the most noteworthy Republicans and the most noteworthy Democrats in the last 40 years or so, you'll not find any preponderance of education on the Democratic side. If you apply that to non-politicians, the result would be even more grim for Democrats, I think."

What is this list? I think you'd find most politicians of either party are highly educated. I doubt that Republican politicians are better educated than Democrats. Show me proof.
on Aug 01, 2004
Most politicians are lawyers, who have been through law school... making them all highly educated, and all at exactly the same level of education. Well over half of presidents were lawyers. Kerry has a law degree. Bush has an MBA which is about equivalent, or maybe slightliy less educated, than a law degree. I think a couple more presidents had master's degrees.
on Aug 01, 2004
Actually you didn't state a "fact"
You're starting to lose me. I was simply stating a fact. Highly educatd tend to vote democrat.


What the exit polls show is that those who get Phds tend to vote Democratic.

I "only" have a bachelor's degree in EE. But I think I'm pretty "highly" educated. I think the diminishing returns on education fall off pretty quickly after getting a college degree.

I'd argue that most people who have mere bachelor degrees are learning at least as much in the real world as people who are hanging out getting a PHD.

You also have to look at the types of PHds given out. How many doctorates are given out to Engineers versus say psychologists? Is a psychologist "more educated" than the typical college graduate in any areas that matter? Not bloody likely.
on Aug 02, 2004
"YES, many people won't notice that he talked longer about the flag than his tenure in the senate. people will just remember, "he said such nice things about the flag. he must be a great american."


I dunno... this is now the first time since 1972 that a nominee didn't get a convention bounce in the polls, and that was McGovern, who lost 49 states in the election...

re: phds, like I said above, such relies a lot more on your ability to assimilate and regurgitate. I know phds that I consider far, far less educated than people with bachelors.

Tight specialization in a given field doesn't say anything about your intelligence, it just says you decided to stay on, *cough* kiss advisor butt *cough*, and learn a lot more about a given subject. If that subject wasn't political science or economics, I doubt it matters much in terms of how people vote.
Meta
Views
» 3531
Comments
» 78
Category
Sponsored Links