Her majesty is having problems with the html fairies.

The link she's trying to get you to is:

Here.

I hate when I do that!

Disorder in the court!

Fails the consistency test. Kerry, remember, had at least strong doubts about the war before he volunteered to serve. Once he was in country he came to oppose the war, and still honorably, indeed, valiantly, served. That he took advantage of the "3 hearts" to leave the service is not to his discredit.

One presumes that john aaargh's father was not opposed to the actions the military was taking during his term of service. Not comparable.

Bush *supported* the war--as long as others had to do the fighting.

JHD,

That is a good point, the Kerry part not the Bush slam. I'm not sure I agree with it, but it's a good point.

John's point is that Kerry volunteered to be a leader, not regular enlisted. If he had doubts before he volunteered, then he shouldn't have gone in as an officer. He was an officer and his cutting out early and ditching his men becomes a character issue.

Summary:

"John Kerry is not as good a man as my father."

Who knows? It might be true.

I'm not sure that's an accurate summary. For normal people anyway...

:-)

For anyone who intensely dislikes Kerry, of course it is a "reasoned" piece.

Trying to find valor or honor in the midst of that most dishonest of wars isn't easy.

Maybe Kerry was conflicted about the war and service. Damn well he should have been, for it was one of Amnerica's ugliest chapters and vilest times. If Kerry had spent much of his time in Vietnam on drugs, I'm not sure it would matter to me. How can one be honest when all the rules are dishonest, all the purposes evil?

I don't intensely dislike Kerry. I know it sounds crazy but just because I'm of the Republican persuasion, doesn't mean I intensely dislike Democrats.

I like plenty of Democrats. I've voted for Democrats. It's not all or nothing for most of us.

I think hearing what military people think about a possible future CINC, is important. Don't you?

I don't think anything John said was unreasonable. What do you find so objectionable about John's feelings regarding Kerry?

Alright, not bad. I learned something from John of Argghhh, about the other John. And I get it, it's an honor thing. I think, however, he reaches too far to rationalize a legitimate beef some have with Kerry leaving the war to protest the war. I see this as merely a more specific analysis of what many have always felt about him in a general way. You don't feel Kerry is honorable, but he's got (or used to have) those medals, those darn medals.

That has always been a point of contention with Kerry since the '70's, both admired and despised for what he did, how he did it, and why, which defined who we think he is. Now John of Argghhh added the "when" to the equation.

Either you admire Kerry's principled stand to protest the war, or you feel he's a turncoat. If you feel either way, that's fine, go with it, you're allowed. What I find specious is the continued re-examination of the minutia of the events in order to sway others who weren't convinced to turn their backs on him already. "Maybe This will convince you, it did me!" All I see here is either an attempt to justify opinions already formed, or piling on.

McCauliff did it with the TANG, when it was enough for many that "W" simply avoided combat by going into the guard, equating it with running to Canada. Frankly it was enough for me to simply disagree with so many of his policies not to support him. The TANG stuff was just interesting biography info, as was the shady corporate dealings afterwards.

In 1990 I found W's lack of experience and/or educational qualifications for the job my chief concern. Now that his on-the-job training is complete, I have come to loath the arrogance and can point to my troubles 4 years ago with his credentials as being the reason for (what I see as) his lack of critical thinking skills.

But certainly I would have found something wrong with W, because his name doesn't end in "(D)". (I just didn't realize that I was capable actually despising the guy, and that every day he would do things or I could find even more things about him that pissed me off.)

From what I understand, Kerry became completely disillusioned while "over there." John of Argghhh fails to mention that point . I think it changes the entire argument. I have no crystal ball, but I always assumed that Kerry went to war, left the war, and protested the war, all as a matter of conscience. Am I to admire Bush as a man of conscience and take it on faith that he is, but simultaneously chastise Kerry for displaying his conscience in a way I actually can see and therefore choose to appreciate or not. Seeing the thought process earned Kerry the "Flipper" label, I find it merely honest but obviously not politic. I see Bush dishonestly refusing to admit ambivalence because showing that might be perceived as weak and that wouldn't be prudent.

The point is actually a question. If you were one of Kerry's men, the warriors he abandoned, to use John of Argghhh's phrasing, how would you feel if your Lt.(jg) wasn't completely committed to the job at hand? How would such men perform under a commanding officer whose moral was completely wrecked? If John of Argghhh can argue that "perhaps" Bush and Cheney spared men from being fired by leaving voluntarily, "perhaps" Kerry spared men from being killed.

Please don't tell me that he should have just "sucked it up" unless you want to call Kerry a coward to boot. That dog won't hunt. To my mind, abandonment is akin to desertion. Tell me we aren't going for a skinny version of Michael Moore here. There is subtlety to John of Argghhh's argument that I'm uncomfortable with. I think you guys want to call Kerry a traitor, a deserter etc., but you're stuck with Bush's damn record. Must be giving you fits. If George Jr (43) were running on the military record George Sr. (41) earned, Kerry wouldn't stand a chance. But I truly believe that if the elder Bush was in charge, Saddam would be gone, Osama would be dead, and the World and even most democrats would have supported the endeavor in Iraq. 41 knew how to lead.

My advice is to relax. Call him a stinking Vichy French Collaborator whose wife is only fit to be a condiment on his les frits. (I think that's how you say french fries in France.) Then take the hit about Bush's lost time at the TANG. In the end, we're left with only party affiliation, gut feelings, and policy to argue. No minds are going to be changed either way if the discussion is 30 years old.

Have you ever noticed how certain people whose patriotism is never questioned-- John Kerry and Max Cleland both come to mind--are often the first to shriek "don't question my patriotism?"

Gotta wonder about that.

Mind you, I do question some people's patriotism. You know, the people who immediately call the CIC in wartime a "liar" when the word "wrong" would suffice, or who kneejerk criticize everything that happens without ever offering substantive demands for what they think should be done instead. After all, that's sowing disunity in a time when troops are in the field for no apparent purposes except selfish partisan ones.

But I've never levelled that charge at any politician, nor do I recall any time any serious observer--obscure wingnuts don't dount--who has done so either. Then again, I don't pay attention to what dipshits like Rush Limbaugh and the cranks over at WorldNet Daily do, so maybe I've missed something important.

The piece portrays Kerry as a totally self-serving and gutless coward, without principle or honor, verging on being a traitor to his men. So, I'm not going to accept the piece as well-reasoned.

Joel,

I disagree with that. I don't come away thinking Kerry was a gutless coward. And I'm the type of person that would REALLY be looking. I'm wondering why you are so "up in arms" about John's op-ed...

My first question to you is this: Have YOU EVER called Bush AWOL or suggested that he was a deserter?

Second, have YOU ever been or are you currently in the military?

Third, how would YOU define abandoning your men or wussing out of your service?

Well, interesting points. How come none of you bothered to make 'em over there?

"John Kerry is not as good a man as my father."

Obviously, I simple can't write, if that's what you came away with. Sorry I didn't use a strawman, but named something concrete and real. I didn't realize I had a daddy fixation. My bad.

"Fails the consistency test." Okay. I made the comment that I knew of no contemporaneous accounts of Kerry's stated opposition to the war before he went over to serve. If he in fact chose to serve to 'find out about it' and to further refine his feelings on the subject... It's an interesting approach, to go kill people to see how you feel about killing people in this particular cause. I find that bit of judgement a little odd, myself, but I can live with it. So, he goes to Vietnam as a divisional officer in a blue-water ship, and that isn't close enough, so he volunteers again to go to the brown water Navy so he can get in some real war. So he gets involved and finds out, "Nope, don't like it." and then uses the system to pull out, taking a path others don't have available to them. So, he's volunteered 3 times. Join the Navy, be an officer, go to PBRs. Finds out he doesn't like it (and I don't accuse him of cowardice, I don't accuse him of anything other than being a quitter, essentially). Yes, as a combat leader, I have problems with how Kerry chose to disengage once he, on his volition, got himself inserted. Yes, JHD (pointless aside, it feels weird typing that - I'm JHD, too) to me, it is to his discredit. All part of the "Band of Brother's" thing, I find it discreditable for a combat officer to leave his post before his regular time is due. I suspect we have such a disconnect on the basic value set at work here we're never going to agree - which is not a condemnation of you or your values, they spring from different acculturations.) I would find it honorable if Kerry had simply stood up, said "This is wrong, and, like Chief Joeseph, "I will fight no more forever."" He didn't. He took an easy way out. It would have been a far more powerful image for him as well, in his subsequent endeavors. But yes, he volunteered to be a combat leader, and then he got himself out of it early.

I don't know my father's views on Vietnam. He doesn't talk about his combat experiences, Korea or Vietnam. I do know my father's view on the responsiblities of combat leaders - which is part of the acculturation piece I was talking about. The bottom line, JHD is this: I wouldn't have written the post, and I would even defend Kerry - if he'd stayed with it to the end of his scheduled tour. It's just one of those differences between enlisted and officer. I hold officers to a different, call it harsher, standard in that regard. You don't just get to quit in the middle of the shit because you suddenly decide you don't like it - unless you are going to do so formally, openly, and face the consequences of the decision.

"Bush *supported* the war--as long as others had to do the fighting." This is pretty much Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc construct. It's also just bullshit. So, everyone who supports a war, for whatever reason, must now volunteer for service, and ensure that they are sent to combat? Like, they all have to go infantry, fly close support, etc? And, if you ever support a war and did not join, then you must forever stand mute on the subject of war? How very Starship Troopers, Heinlein scores again! Apparently my discussion of how it's perfectly possible to volunteer and not get sent was insufficient. And all those people who joined for two-year tours during that era, and went to Korea, or Germany, and never went to Vietnam - their service is pointless, and they too, must stand mute on the issue of war. All those guys who were in the National Guard, unless they were in the two brigades that got sent to Vietnam, must stand mute. Except, one wonders for those who were in the Guard because they were willing to defend the US but not willing to participate in Vietnam (yes, those guys exist - do they get a pass?). People who joined the active duty services but never got sent to a combat zone (more of those than you might realize - especially in the Cold War force structure) are not now allowed an opinion on issues of war. Huh.

Anyway, I don't think I'm inconsistent so much as we just look at this from irreconcilable viewpoints.

Joel - I have never questioned Kerry's valor. I accept his medals at face value. As for valor - I can find valor in every small unit engagement that occured in that war. Been there, done that, though elsewhere.

"Maybe Kerry was conflicted about the war and service. Damn well he should have been, for it was one of Amnerica's ugliest chapters and vilest times. If Kerry had spent much of his time in Vietnam on drugs, I'm not sure it would matter to me. How can one be honest when all the rules are dishonest, all the purposes evil?"

If you are conflicted about the war and service, working out your conflicts as a combat leader ain't the place to be doing that. And once you start on it - you should finish it. As I said before - if Kerry had taken a principled stand I would have more respect for him on this issue. I could defend him, even if I think he's wrong. If Kerry was a draftee or disllusioned enlisted sailor, the fact that he (notionally - your construct) spent his time strung out would bother me only in how much his doing that endangered his shipmates - an issue of personal responsibility. While Kerry never served on aircraft carriers - the flight deck of a carrier during flight ops is about the most dangerous space in the world that isn't the middle of a firefight. If he'd done it as an officer - my contempt would be boundless. Again, that harsher standard thing. Lastly, even in Vietnam, I don't buy the line "all rules dishonest, all purposes evil".

I gotta take some time to read over Mark's response, so I'll come back to that one.

But if this thread grows and grows - please dont' expect me to rebut (or agree) with 'em all!

Oops. Missed this one (still thinking over yours, Mark).

"The piece portrays Kerry as a totally self-serving and gutless coward, without principle or honor, verging on being a traitor to his men. So, I'm not going to accept the piece as well-reasoned."

Um, I don't call him a coward. I said I accept his medals. I offer up several reasons for why he could have chosen to leave, one of them cowardice, or, more accurately, losing his nerve, which really is a different thing and I explained how that can be, too. Unfortunately, as I stated above - absent the principled approach of openly stating why he wanted out, and taking any lumps and fighting for his point, he chose not to do that - leaving open his actions to interpretation in any of the other models I offered up. He instead gets brave about his principles when it's safe to do so. Traitor to his men, well, yeah, pretty close. That is in fact my major gripe on this issue. Self-serving? Yep. Got me there. But, most politicians if they don't start out that way end up that way, trying to keep their jobs or move up - so that kinda ends up being a wash, overall, party-wise.

One should pay attention to Rush Limbaugh since Rush does hold a place as an influential leader and does mold the philosophies of those who support Bush and despise Kerry. Know your friends at least as well as you know your enemies, because maybe your enemies are so outraged by the guy sdanding next to you that their aim might be off and they'll hit you instead.

And John: Keep thinking, that was the whole idea.

Not enough coffee yet, sdanding=standing

Okay - to make this easy (Rose - send me a bill for the bandwidth) I've copied Mark's comments and interspersed my responses among his.

Alright, not bad. I learned something from John of Argghhh, about the other John. And I get it, it's an honor thing. I think, however, he reaches too far to rationalize a legitimate beef some have with Kerry leaving the war to protest the war. I see this as merely a more specific analysis of what many have always felt about him in a general way. You don't feel Kerry is honorable, but he's got (or used to have) those medals, those darn medals.

First point – I addressed it because I was asked to by readers. It wasn’t really intended as a piling on to the already voluminous verbiage on the subject. I can find examples of brave men without honor throughout history. My point is – well, you actually take my point, you’re just tired of hearing about it, I think, whether you fully buy into it or not. Fair enough.

That has always been a point of contention with Kerry since the '70's, both admired and despised for what he did, how he did it, and why, which defined who we think he is. Now John of Argghhh added the "when" to the equation.
Either you admire Kerry's principled stand to protest the war, or you feel he's a turncoat. If you feel either way, that's fine, go with it, you're allowed. What I find specious is the continued re-examination of the minutia of the events in order to sway others who weren't convinced to turn their backs on him already. "Maybe This will convince you, it did me!" All I see here is either an attempt to justify opinions already formed, or piling on.

The last part I answered up above, I wrote it for my readers because I was asked to, and Kerry has put forth his actions there as a basis for judging his quals. I don’t feel he’s a turncoat (at that point in his life, at least, I just have a distaste for how he chose to depart from his responsibilities. It’s perfectly possible to have been principled in your opposition to the war, and to have come to that position while fighting it. I just flat don’t care for how he chose to go about it, am not yet convinced that was his motivation at the time. And in his actions there I see the pattern of being whatever to whomever to get what he wants, for whatever reason he wants it. As for the very last line – well, that’s both the boon and bane with the blogosphere, there’s a lot of bandwidth, much of it repetitive. Yep.

McCauliff did it with the TANG, when it was enough for many that "W" simply avoided combat by going into the guard, equating it with running to Canada. Frankly it was enough for me to simply disagree with so many of his policies not to support him. The TANG stuff was just interesting biography info, as was the shady corporate dealings afterwards.

I’m with ya here, too. As I said in the piece, I don’t need this to make my judgement about Kerry, it simply a tie-breaker, not a deal breaker (mostly discussed in the comments to the original post).

In 1990 I found W's lack of experience and/or educational qualifications for the job my chief concern. Now that his on-the-job training is complete, I have come to loath the arrogance and can point to my troubles 4 years ago with his credentials as being the reason for (what I see as) his lack of critical thinking skills.

Here we come to a matter of taste. I find Kerry to be arrogant and condescending. Probably mostly because he doesn’t agree with me on much that I consider important, and the TV-driven nature of things allows for no subtlety and nuance of expression. Ditto Bush to you. I don’t find Bush to be the brightest guy to occupy the office – but my experience with really bright people is they don’t make good executive decision makers – great on analysis and policy formulation, bad on being decisive. Les Aspin – great legislator, crappy executive as SecDef comes to mind. Numerous very bright officers who were excellent staffer and just abysmal commanders come to mind. I look for consistency, judgement, and decisiveness in the executive – and the ability to acknowledge mistakes. Most politicians and senior officers end up failing that last test. I find that Kerry is consistent if you look at his voting record – and that record fails my judgement test. He’s anywhere he needs to be when it comes to telling people whatever he thinks they need to hear. I don’t think his decisiveness has been tested, and I find that a mixed bag - and his actions in Vietnam don’t help there.
Bush is reasonably decisive and generally consistent. I am more a conservative than I am a Republican (the two are not templates of each other) and there are things Bush does that I don’t think are good choices. But I don’t see Kerry as a good replacement.

But certainly I would have found something wrong with W, because his name doesn't end in "(D)". (I just didn't realize that I was capable actually despising the guy, and that every day he would do things or I could find even more things about him that pissed me off.)

Ditto me with Kerry.

From what I understand, Kerry became completely disillusioned while "over there." John of Argghhh fails to mention that point . I think it changes the entire argument. I have no crystal ball, but I always assumed that Kerry went to war, left the war, and protested the war, all as a matter of conscience. Am I to admire Bush as a man of conscience and take it on faith that he is, but simultaneously chastise Kerry for displaying his conscience in a way I actually can see and therefore choose to appreciate or not. Seeing the thought process earned Kerry the "Flipper" label, I find it merely honest but obviously not politic. I see Bush dishonestly refusing to admit ambivalence because showing that might be perceived as weak and that wouldn't be prudent.

I did mention it – where I said I know of no contemporaneous expression of his disillusionment down in the comments.
“I could cut Kerry some slack if he could produce evidence that he was deeply disturbed by the war, his actions in it, etc - that are contemporaneous to the time. But the record seems to indicate he came to that after he left - after he took the job as Aide (which is a careerist move, not the act of someone full of rage at the system and the war). However sincere he may have held his budding anti-war beliefs, that is not the reason he gave for leaving. Anyway I parse it - he couldn't take the heat or didn't want to (the dilettante factor - which if true, is actually worse) and he cut bait and walked away. Yes, to me - as a combat leader - that is one serious character flaw. And that's what I was addressing.” That's in the comment stream.

I haven’t seen contemporaneous evidence – I don’t deny it exists, either. This gets back to my problem with seeking and accepting responsibility – combat leadership, and then, for whatever reason, not seeing it through – but not doing it in an open fashion. You find that honest but impolitic. As a combat soldier, I don’t find it honest. Basic difference in outlook I don’t think we’re going to talk each other out of. If you could show Bush had done that same thing – I would not be a Bush supporter on that issue, either.

The point is actually a question. If you were one of Kerry's men, the warriors he abandoned, to use John of Argghhh's phrasing, how would you feel if your Lt.(jg) wasn't completely committed to the job at hand? How would such men perform under a commanding officer whose moral was completely wrecked? If John of Argghhh can argue that "perhaps" Bush and Cheney spared men from being fired by leaving voluntarily, "perhaps" Kerry spared men from being killed.

How? How does Kerry’s departure from his postion save anyone from getting killed – except perhaps the enemy, since he’s a war hero? Again – perspective – from my perspective, seeking combat leadership isn’t something you do if you aren’t committed – and once there, you stick it out until your obligation is up – and officers have higher obligations. From what you just suggested, I could construe a case where you could argue it would have been honorable for Kerry to actually stay with his men, and protect them from further harm by sandbagging missions. I suspect you are really saying that by leaving and joining the protest movement, Kerry shortened the war? And I haven’t seen anything that indicated Kerry’s morale was completely wrecked. If it was, there were other ways, less expedient, but other ways, to get out.

Please don't tell me that he should have just "sucked it up" unless you want to call Kerry a coward to boot. That dog won't hunt. To my mind, abandonment is akin to desertion. Tell me we aren't going for a skinny version of Michael Moore here. There is subtlety to John of Argghhh's argument that I'm uncomfortable with. I think you guys want to call Kerry a traitor, a deserter etc., but you're stuck with Bush's damn record. Must be giving you fits. If George Jr (43) were running on the military record George Sr. (41) earned, Kerry wouldn't stand a chance. But I truly believe that if the elder Bush was in charge, Saddam would be gone, Osama would be dead, and the World and even most democrats would have supported the endeavor in Iraq. 41 knew how to lead.

Sorry about your dog. Pretty much all I’ve been saying all along is that yes, I feel he should have ‘sucked it up’ and soldiered on. Or taken a stand then and there. And then taken to the streets to protest. I don’t care that he took an early out of his overall service obligation. I care that he took the early out from the combat leadership position that he sought. He should have asked for relief, not snuck out. That is a character issue. I make the point all along that Kerry’s physical bravery isn’t in question with me, it’s his moral courage. Standing up and protesting the war after you leave the service is fine – but the stronger moral stand would have been to say - I can’t do this anymore. And I won’t do this anymore.” Take the consequences of that, and then go crusade for what you believe. He didn’t do that.

My advice is to relax. Call him a stinking Vichy French Collaborator whose wife is only fit to be a condiment on his les frits. (I think that's how you say french fries in France.) Then take the hit about Bush's lost time at the TANG. In the end, we're left with only party affiliation, gut feelings, and policy to argue. No minds are going to be changed either way if the discussion is 30 years old.

Actually I'm quite relaxed about it. Back to point one – I commented because I was asked to. I don’t pick on his wife. I find the explanations of Bush’s Guard time as provided by Baldilocks and others in Guard I know and work with to be sufficient and match with my knowledge of how the Guard works. Really – bottom line here Mark, is that I’m just too late with my comments and you’re tired of the subject, I had little to add to the story, and you don’t see it quite the same way I do, and let’s move on, right? Cool with me.

Rosemary - it's no fair! This stream should be at my place! Waaaaah!

John,
Sorry about that babe. But thanks for giving great responses. :-)

Mark,

It's Pommes de terre frites or shorter Pommes Frites.

Yes, I served in the military as a radar operator. No, I was never in combat. Never shot anyone; never got shot. Did get my right foot badly crushed and broken in a training accident.

As for anything I have written about Bush, I would call it passionate more than reasoned. Reasoned, to me, means objective. I'm too far over the line in disliking (but not hating) Bush to claim that I am objective about the man.

I think I used reason to come to the conclusion that Bush went to war on false pretenses and that invading Iraq was counter-productive and a terrible waste of life. However, having come to that conclusion about the war, then I am predisposed to not trusting Bush. I would not expect any reasonable person to believe that my attitude toward Bush is "fair" or "balanced."

I have no issue with not seeing combat, Joel. Voluntary service to our nation, with or without combat, I respect and admire.

I only ask because I like to see the whole picture. And, being military does give a perpsective that I am not able to. That's why I found John's piece so interesting and your valiant and unwavering defense of Kerry, a bit blind.

That was about as insincere an apology as anything that ever dropped from Clinton's lips, Rosemary!

8^D

Pommes de terre frites or shorter Pommes Frites
Dammit, I asked my son, who took French, if it was "Pommes Frites" and he said it couldn't be just Pommes Frites because that would be "fried apples." Freaking techno-boy. Now I'm exposed as only semi-literate in two languages. Next time, as always, google. Google knows everything. :^)

For the record, didn't serve. The air force JAG did intrigue me and expressed an interest, but at the time I was trying to groom myself as a wannabe state department wonk. Couldn't cut the foreign language requirement though with my three years of German One. (That was a joke folks ... is this thing on?) Damn, exposed as semi-literate in three languages in just one thread. :-(

Hell, by the time I got out of school I was 28 and the air force stopped calling. Until 9/11 the military seemed to be doing ok without me and vica versa. By then, this 40+ year old dog would have had real trouble fetching let alone learning to play dead or roll over.

John,

Jeez, was I that obvious? Really?

Mark,

Actually, your son is also correct - that is french slang. When I learned French a hundred years ago - les frites didn't exist.

I've heard my friend from Neurenberg say "pomme frits" too. I think you're there Mark.

And I made straight Cs. All three times I took German I.

auf veidergeschnitzel.

Sorry to have confused you, Arne.

I'll go back to school for remedial posting and commenting.

1. Dad. Two Purple Hearts in Korea, a bayonet wound to the upper arm and grenade fragments in his left side. 5 in Vietnam. Two minor shrapenl wounds. His third in Vietnam (for which he was brought unconcious into the aid station with a bullet that punched through his flak vest into a rib) he did not request relief because he had been wounded. He continued to do his job. Even after his fourth Purple Heart, a through-and-through of his leg, that passed between the tibia and fibula. Nor did he request relief after his 5th Purple Heart, a rocket fragment in his arm.

Does that satisfy you? Is that clear enough? Shall I have notarized copies of the certificates faxed to you? Need any witness statements? Hospital records? Bloodstained clothing?

2. I never called Kerry a coward. I do say that if you wish to, you can look at his departure from combat that way - but I also point out how men can be brave one day, and not the next. I say that I accept his medals at face value.

I say that I don't like the fact that he volunteered for combat, and left before his time was up, and that I find that unacceptable behavior in a leader who volunteered to get where he was at. I also suggest that volunteering to go kill people to find out if you support killing people in this particular cause is not an approach I think much of. You want to further nitpick, have a great time, dude.

I know a lot of people who are decisive on the easy stuff and not on the hard stuff. Who are paragons of CEO virtue until they have to make really, really, hard decisions. Then they fail. I don't like the way Kerry approaches things. You don't like Bush. Nothing you have said is going to change my mind. Just as nothing I have said is going to change yours.

It's obvious you think Kerry is fully fit to be CinC. I say I have reservations on that issue. I also say, if you bother to read, that that is only a tie-breaker, not a deal-breaker - and that I have plenty of other reasons that I will most likely not vote for Kerry.

You've apparently decided that Bush is a venal coward, hiding behind the skirts of better men than he, that he is unfit for the job he holds and should probably be imprisoned for his actions as CinC or somesuch (I'm ranting now, so live with me stuffing words in your mouth). No amount of fact or persuasion is going to change your mind. Cool.

Arne - are you one of those who believe that if you didn't serve in combat, you aren't entitled to an opinion? If not, fine - if so, and if you haven't served in combat - then shut up. I base my opinions on Kerry's departure from the combat zone as a combat arms officer of 20+ years of service. I am sure you can hunt around and find officers who will not agree with me. Great.

But let's leave the snide personal crap out of it, simply because I didn't choose to give you a full recitation of my father's history. Get over it.

Arne - I don't know this news service, so this might all be flaky. But it might be fun, too - at least from my perspective.

Someone Else is Not Fonda Kerry

That's funny Arne, I got the impression from his military records that he's a capable leader that cuts and runs under pressure.

Just what America needs!

Hmmm. I know the last isn't addressed to me directly - but... I don't accuse Kerry of cutting in the face of danger. I've never questioned his 'physical courage', I know some have. I essentially am not happy with what amounts to his moral courage, on this issue, as I've explained ad nauseum. I know a fair number of people who are physically brave but moral worms, organized crime is full of them. Spare us the jokes about government as organized crime, please - and NO, I AM NOT LUMPING KERRY in that pile - it's an illustrative example of people who are brave, yet venal. Another example is Charles Lindbergh. Fine soldier, upstanding citizen, Nazi admirer. There are people who can easily translate that to Kerry thusly: Fine naval officer, upstanding citizen, commie sympathizer. Just as you can find Lindbergh unacceptable, if you feel about communism the same way people feel about facism, then you can make that same argument about Kerry. I don't think I'm an entry in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders for being able to draw that particular picture.

You have a point about we have no similar datum point for Bush on that subject. Nor did we regarding FDR. Or Johnson. Or Nixon, Or Carter, or Clinton. We had to use different yardsticks to take that measure. Just as we have to with Bush. We have a pretty good idea of Bush as a CinC. Because you find what he's doing to be not what you want, that satisfies you that he is not fit for the job and should get fired. I look at it, and prefer it to what I think Kerry will do - based on his post-Vietnam career, even before I factor in what I think of his untimely departure.

Kerry invites us to look at his record and judge. Here we see why juries are comprised of more than one person. You and I, because of the different lives we've led, draw different conclusions from the same dataset. But I don't think you need to imply mental illness because people don't see it your way.

That's just waaaay to, well, Soviet.

OK, let me see if I can follow this: Taking a “combat leadership” responsibility, serving with courage, decisiveness, and exemplary leadership and then leaving under Navy rules and the approval of command to take an unpopular stand on behalf of your brothers-in-arms suggests John Kerry is “deficient in traits” for Commander-in-Chief. But having Daddy pull strings to get you a safe assignment stateside and leaving an expensively trained non-combat position early, apparently in violation of the rules, is somehow better. Now I think I understand John of Argghhh!’s support of Bush: affinity for the pretzel.

BTW, compliments to your Dad and your choice of handle.

shep,

Your summary is abysmal.

Yours,
Wince

Yep, Shep (I love saying that). I think you summed up John's very rational, logically and morally consistent ,and "very well reasoned" opinion.

Taking three light wounds that could, in at least one case, have been self-inflicted in order to cut ones tour of duty short, having every living officer who served with you sign a petition declaring your unfitness for the role of Commander in Chief, and trying to pretend that two and a half decades of a piss-poor voting record are less significant then the heroic medals one nominated oneself for then threw away in a fit of anti-Americanism definitely qualifies someone as a superior candidate in the eyes of shep.

There is evidence for all of the previous statements. Shep has none for his assertions that G.H.W. Bush pulled strings to get W. anywhere, apparently does not know that flying a fighter plane IS NOT A F***KIN NON-COMBAT POSITION, and continues to believe the discredited meme that Bush left the service early, when he in fact accumulated more points than required for service. "Apparently in violation of the rules," from the viewpoint of shep, where "apparently" means "as obvious as that the Earth is flat."

I'm obviously wasting fingerprints here.

Yes, simply put, I find leaving combat early, after you volunteered for it, unacceptable. The whole premise was really about Kerry. No, I don't find what happened to Bush in the era it happened all that unusual.

I have this irrational thing about honor, as I see it. You guys don't get it. There are lots of rules on the books for things like that. That are technically applicable to all. Which officers, as a rule, don't take advantage of. Simply because they are officers. The 3 hearts rule is one of those. Kerry's taking the early out of his Navy committment doesn't bother me. I know you guys don't 'get it' and you don't think I get it, either.

Obviously, your mileage varies.

Mark - tell me again why I made your blogroll? As poster child for the illogical right, or what? Someone to send people to, and say "Look at the troglodytic neanderthal warrior has-been masquerading as a thinking being? Just curious.

Seeing as how we're at an impasse here, let's change it.

How would you feel if Kerry had simply refused to fight, rather than found a face-saving way out.

Just flat-out did a Chief Joeseph, "My Chiefs, My heart is heavy. From where the sun now stands, I will fight no more forever."

John, I am on your frequency.

So's this guy.

I watched the whole Cavette interview (c-span?) a couple of weeks ago. It was well worth the time.

Oh, damn, you're right Arne, Bush had to ask to leave the service . . . everyone else just waits for the expiration date, changes to civvies and walks off the base. Do you know a damn thing about the miltary at all, or are you continuing to speak with your head up your ass?

As for Kerry's medals, I'm giving Kerry the same benefit of the doubt you show Bush, fairs fair right?

I was incorrect about the petition by his fellow officers, of 23 officers TOTAL who served with him, 17 are signing the petition, so 6 either don't feel he is unfit to be CINC or have died since Nam.

My political motivations appear to be way beyond the comprehension of a troll such as yourself. I'm not particularly enthused about Bush as President, but he's the best option for the time. I noticed, however, you didnt even touch the point that Kerry's Senate record would have to improve to be abysmal. Maybe your head is far up HIS ass, so you havent even had the chance to check it out.

Arne - um, I don't wanna take the time to go back over what I said - but I don't think I've denied calling Kerry a commie sympathizer, did I? If so, I was getting confused. I do call him a North Vietnamese commie sympathizer. I think his record is pretty clear on that. I see that I didn't consider him a 'turncoat at the time' referring to the time he chose to leave his combat position and go home and angle to get out of the Navy. It's his actions *after* that which could be construed as turncoat. I don't accuse him of that, I accuse him of being a sympathizer with the enemy. As the government has chosen to not not pursue those people who did things like visit North Vietnam during the war, etc, the people, via governmental policy, has chosen to officially not term those people traitors, per se. And, given his continued re-election, so has Kerry's constituency, in aggregate. There are lots of people who disagree and do call him outright traitor. I accept the verdict that he is not, and do, in fact, call him a commie sympathizer, and for a long time ran a graphic on my site that showed John Kerry sitting in front of a NVA flag. So, no, in that regard I don't think I'm being inconsistent. But then you've diagnosed me as a psychotic, so why are we still arguing? Don't you know it's pointless to argue with crazy people?

I've never called into question his physical courage - only his moral courage when not in a 'safe' (in this case, fellow travelers, not the combat/non-combat thing) environment.

And where do you get the idea that "you" apply for a Purple Heart? The paperwork is done as part and parcel of the admittance paperwork in an aid station. Oh, wait - I see, yes, if your wound is such that you don't seek medical assistance for it, then yes, there is a procedure that allows you to apply for the Purple Heart. There is still supposed to be a medical follow-up or witness statement provided. I assume that was done with Kerry's PH's since there's all sorts of screaming about his never having been to an aid station. As I've said (and I realize your comment wasn't addressed to me in this instance) is that I take Kerry's medals at face value.

As for submitting yourself for a Silver Star, well, yeah, that can and did happen, and was, as far as I know, strictly an abuse by the officer corps. No one has shown me any evidence that Kerry did that, and I don't accuse him of that. I will note that standards of award for medals for heroism vary from time to time, unit to unit, commander to commander. The action that Kerry received his Silver Star for might well have been not deemed worthy of submission by ground combat units with lots of combat experience. At the same time, a new company commander seeing a lieutenant do that might well be impressed enough to submit an award. It's instructive in this regard to read heroism medal citations over the course of WWII. As the combat dragged on, and the experience of combat became more pervasive, you can find Silver Star citations for combat in the Battle of the Bulge or Okinawa that read like early war Medal of Honor citations. Standards evolve and change as experience and perception change. What was once seen as unbelieveably heroic comes to be seen as commonplace. None of this contests Kerry's SS, I'm just pointing out that one man's Silver Star is another man's Medal of Honor is another man's Bronze Star with V.

So, you be the judge:

February 28, 1969 – For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity in action while serving with Coastal Division ELEVEN engaged in armed conflict with Viet Cong insurgents in An Xuyen Province, Republic of Vietnam, on 28 February 1969. Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry was serving as Officer in Charge of Patrol Craft Fast 94 and Officer in Tactical Command of a three-boat mission. As the force approached the target area on the narrow Dong Cung River, all units came under intense automatic weapons and small arms fire from an entrenched enemy force less than fifty-feet away. Unhesitatingly, Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry ordered his boat to attack as all units opened fire and beached directly in front of the enemy ambushers. The daring and courageous tactic surprised the enemy and succeeded in routing a score of enemy soldiers. The PCF gunners captured many enemy weapons in the battle that followed. On a request from U.S. Army advisors ashore, Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry ordered PCFs 94 and 23 further up river to suppress enemy sniper fire. After proceeding approximately eight hundred yards, the boats again were taken under fire from a heavily foliated area and B-40 rocket exploded close aboard PCF-94; with utter disregard for his own safety and the enemy rockets, he again ordered a charge on the enemy, beached his boat only ten feet from the VC rocket position, and personally led a landing party ashore in pursuit of the enemy. Upon sweeping the area an immediate search uncovered an enemy rest and supply area which was destroyed. The extraordinary daring and personal courage of Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry in attacking a numerically superior force in the face of intense fire were responsible for the highly successful mission. His actions were in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service.

March 13, 1969 – For heroic achievement while serving with Coastal Division ELEVEN engaged in armed conflict with Viet Cong communist aggressors in An Xuyen Province, Republic of Vietnam, on 13 March 1969. Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry was serving as Officer in Charge of Patrol Craft Fast 94, one of five boats conducting a SEA Lords operation in the Bay Hap River. While exiting the river, a mine detonated under another Inshore Patrol Craft and almost simultaneously, another mine detonated wounding Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry in the right arm. In addition, all units began receiving small arms and automatic weapons fire from the river banks. When Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry discovered he had a man overboard, he returned upriver to assist. The man in the water was receiving sniper fire from both banks. 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 safety, he pulled the man aboard. Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry then directed his boat to return 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. Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry is authorized to wear the Combat “V”.

http://www.vietnamwar.com/JohnKerrySilverStar.htm

Cool. Fine by me. I never questioned them. I provided the discussion above for why people who haven't read the cites or, who have their own experiences with the decoration system, and not just during Vietnam, might not be so sanguine.

Nothing in that post refutes anything I have said - (that's assuming it was for my benefit...)

For your consideration.

Kerry's first Purple Heart, an alternative view. My opinion is it's a 'little heart' (the best kind). How he got it - that's the question, and I for one am not going to discount it as bogus based on the 30 years old recollection of the physician. If it is bogus (and only Kerry and the crew present know the truth) it is relevant - but I don't accept this single data point as conclusive, not that my thesis requires this.

On the issue of Kerry as turncoat. Another alternative view.

I'm sure on the first item, it will be discounted simply because of the source of the link. I'm sure for the second item, that's all over the media.

And here's another bit - regarding how different events are viewed differently by different services, people, and in the context of different wars.

Read this, about this young El Salvadoran enlisted soldier - note the similarities between his actions and those of Lt.(jg) Kerry.

Kerry gets a Silver Star. The troop has been recommended for a Bronze Star.

More raging psychotics and drunkards:

"Rear Admiral (Ret.) Roy Hoffman, the chairman of the group, bluntly stated that the John Kerry who served in his command is unfit to command himself. He states that after four months and 12 days, with his "specious medals secure," Kerry "bugged out of Vietnam." As far as the admiral is concerned, "the real band of brothers are those who honorably and reliably stayed the course."

Since their activities have hit the news, these Navy veterans are again taking incoming fire. Predictably, they are being accused of being partisan shills. In an ironic echo of the past, they're being dismissed as "bitter alcoholics." But, these men are determined to fight one more battle to salvage the reputations of the tens of thousands who served honorably. It's not about partisan politics they explain, it's a "veterans' issue." If the Democrats "had a fit choice for president we'd go home." They "do not want Senator Kerry to be commander-in-chief of our brave and honorable men."

Then ONeill is no more or less objective than Kerry, Arne.

You know, I think Kerry might be a long term buddy of the Democratic party.

Pretty much is a nice vague way of saying "not all".

And the point wasn't just Kerry's criticism Arne of the war, it was and is his claim that soldiers and sailors were committing mass atrocities. Making up stuff. You know, lies. How exactly does that make these veterans dishonest?

Dave,

You know as well as Kerry did that atrocities happened at the hands of American GIs. They may not have been as widespread as some feared and Kerry himself has said he regrets some of his rhetoric. But Kerry’s main point in his Vietnam protest wasn’t about Mi Lai type abuses. It was about basic military policies that were being implemented on the battlefield, e.g., free-fire zones and village razing. Those are not indictments of fellow soldiers but of policy being decided by Pentagon and civilian leadership.

Kerry was simply operating under the naïve and, by then, almost quaint notion that our military should not inflict casualties on civilian non-combatants. Of course that Rubicon between civilized and barbaric warfare had already been rendered moot by the invention of the machine gun and the submarine, no less high-altitude aerial bombardment. World War II finished any remaining pretense that noncombatants shouldn’t be military targets. However, some people have never accepted that the practical imperative of winning or, especially, minimizing our own losses, legitimizes the moral failure of killing the innocent. I believe that was the outrage that drove Kerry to protest Vietnam, as well as the outrage over horrible loses that his fellow soldiers were suffering, rather than any resentment of the actions of most of those fellow soldiers.

Kerry’s point in his own words (Meet the Press, 1971):
“"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 caliber 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."
Kerry was right. He was just about 30-40 years behind the times in what was considered acceptable conduct in war.

Then he should renounce his rhetoric. That is the point these veterans are making, and so am I.

I would suggest that the technology of warfare has significantly lowered the casualty rate of non-combatants, and our restraint in Fallujah and Nasiriya is only because we don't want to inflict the same.

He did, Dave. But then, I don't think you and some pro-Bush veterans are really listening to him.

To our credit, we don't try to kill noncombatants and our technology has indeed been a boon in limiting civilian. One the other hand, we also have killed thousands of them in Afghanistan and Iraq and normally avoid facing the fact that we have. Our media usually doesn't show pictures of them and we've coined a phrase to remove all mention of that fact that they are innocent human beings caught in our line of fire: "collateral damage".

Ok. I'll do some more looking to see what Kerry regrets having said.

I think we reached some common ground. Don't tell anybody, ok?

Check out his most Meet the Press interview - a couple of weeks ago.

I won't if you won't, Dave ;-)