This Swift boat attack is a predictable Karl Rove smear. Here's what I want Kerry to say, not that anyone asked:
At long last, we have to ask: Mr. President, have you no shame?
You said you looked forward to a campaign on the issues, one based on mutual respect. And yet some of your largest supporters are sponsoring an unrelenting campaign of mudslinging, attacking my record in the service. The connections between your campaign and these outrageous attacks are close and documented. So, stop your flip-flopping. Don't say you want a clean campaign and then turn your back as mud is thrown in your name.
The other day, a man at one of your carefully controlled town hall events said, "We've got a candidate for President out here with two self-inflicted scratches, and I take that as an insult. " And how did you reply? Did you do the decent thing? Did you try to quiet the applause? Did you tell him that you'd have no part in such accusations against a man who put on a uniform and put himself in harm's way to serve his country, like millions of other veterans? No, here's what you said: "Well, I appreciate that. Thank you. " Thank you? Mr. President, where is your common decency?
These trumped up, false attacks on my war record and my character are distractions from the real issues that face America. You did this to my friend and great patriot, Max Cleland, who left three limbs in Vietnam. Now you are doing it to me. Your pattern is clear: You can't campaign on the issues so you attack veterans, people who when they were needed showed up and did their duty. In the name of respect for those of us who did our service and in the name of the American people who face issues that will shape our destiny, I call on you to make good on your word and denounce these attacks.
I've been in the military for the past 12 years, and I was in Iraq and Kuwait much of the past 2 years, so I thought I'd use my sometimes-useful knowledge and experience to help you Kerry supporters to understand what those "darned swift boat guys" are talking about. You want so badly to believe Kerry's lies, but the truth is slapping you in the face with the harsh hand of reality. You trumpet half-hearted denials in the form of "The NY Times refuted their claims!" I'm sorry- the NY Times (as well as the rest of the liberal media) refuted NOTHING. They simply stated (and let me be clear about this) that the SBVFT guys were funded in part by (are you ready for this? It's gonna shock you) BUSH-SUPPORTERS and (gasp!) REPUBLICANS!!!!! Oh my, I can't believe it!!! You mean to tell me that pro-Kerry people didn't fund ANY of those ads from the SBVFT??? I simply never would have imagined! Yes, that's about the best they could do in their unbelievably weak attempt to "refute" the claims. Read any article out there and tell me where it says anything about the validity of the actual SBVFT claims. There's nothing. But if anyone's curious about where the funds are coming from, then I assure you- all your questions will be answered!
How about this guy in Chicago, William Rood- is he really "refuting" anything of substance? ABSOLUTELY NOT! He simply claims that Kerry made the right call- that his counter-ambush tactics were heroic and successful. OK, good point. Well worth a debate. Some would say it was foolish, some would say it was valorous. I happen to be impartial on this one, because I don't do river counter-ambush operations. Rood DID NOT discount the REAL issue at stake here- that John Kerry shot a wounded VC teenager in the back as he was fleeing. Rood claims it wasn't a teenager, but actually appeared to be a full-grown man. To that, I say "SO WHAT???" In my world, people can be court-marshaled for shooting wounded folks in the back when they're fleeing! Debate this all you want- it's just not the mark of a brave warrior. I've never heard anyone say, "I'm so brave, I shot a guy in the back while he was running away!"
So what about his Bronze Star? Well, here's a quick breakdown of how it works:
1) Soldier does something heroic.
2) Witness (fellow soldier, supervisor, subordinate, anyone present) says "Hey, that was heroic! That man deserves a medal!!"
3) Witness ensures that the officer submitting the after-action report includes the act of bravery and any other supporting information (hostile fire, nearby explosions, etc).
4) Commander reviews the after action report and determines "this is deserving of a medal!"
5) Commander drafts a citation recounting the incident. The citation is usually just a jazzed-up version of the after-action report, which, as I mentioned previously, was submitted by an officer who was at the scene. (example "With little regard for his own safety and taking heavy enemy fire, LT Schmoe charged the hill and killed 238 VC, saving all his men in the process.")
6) Citation gets passed up the chain of command without being scrutinized (trust is everything and officers are busy), and eventually gets to some high-ranking bigwig, who promptly signs it without even looking at it. Trust me when I tell you that if every top General or government official had to scrutinize every award recommendation, there wouldn't be time for anything else. That's why, when we military folks hear people say "it was signed by the SECRETARY OF THE NAVY himself!" we just laugh and laugh. As if that means ANYTHING! The only question of significance is "who submitted the recommendation?" If it turns out that one who recommends it is also the recipient of the award, then...well...it just doesn't look so good (remember this part).
So that's the process. In the case of Kerry's Bronze Star- the ones who were there with him started asking a very reasonable question. "Who recommended us for this? There wasn't any 'enemy fire'! It was a mine blast- pure and simple!" Sorry guys, but there's only one possible explanation for this- it's simple math really. The officers submitted their after-action reports. Kerry's report was the ONLY one that claimed there was enemy fire at the scene. The report that was approved and forwarded up the chain of command clearly stated that there was enemy fire. Therefore, the report HAD to be Kerry's! That's right, folks! Your candidate simply pushed a bogus report right on up the chain. Even the guys who received Bronze Stars for this incident insist that the citation is erroneous. Kerry's big downfall here was that his report inadvertently led to OTHER sailors getting awards, which tipped them off that something wasn't quite right.
So what about Jim Rassmann, the man that Kerry pulled out of the water, and his claim that he heard gunfire? Well, I'm certain he did. It was the guys on the patrol boats laying down suppression fire immediately following the mine blast, a common procedure still used today. ALL who were present verify that, yes, there WAS friendly suppression fire. 99% of those present insist there was NO enemy fire, and they all agree that Kerry HAD to be the one who lied and said there was. So what do you do when everyone begins to suspect you're a self-serving medal-chasing liar? Easy! Round up three quick purple hearts, and head on home! Oh, that reminds me, I should probably cover a common procedure that medal-chasers use for getting purple hearts:
Kerry: "Hey Doc, can you sign this please? It just says that I got hurt yesterday- you see I'm collecting purple hearts so I can go home!"
Doc: "But, John, you're only missing a fingernail. What about all those guys who lost their limbs, their eyes, even their lives? Do you really want to dishonor them by getting their same medal when all you have is a boo-boo?"
Kerry: "If it gets me home pronto, the answer is 'YES SIR!!!!'"
If you don't believe this is possible, ask anyone who's been to combat. It sickens me to see medal-chasers in action, but they exist- and they've existed for quite a while.
Do we even need to get into the whole Cambodia thing? I mean, that was just a flat-out, no-gettin'-outta-this-one, damn-I-wish-I-hadn't-said-that LIE. One of many it seems....
Okay, enough about dubious medals and obvious lies- let's get to the issue that's really steaming people up. John Kerry served more than most and should therefore be honored, right? WRONG! How about our "heroic soldiers" who abused the prisoners in Iraq and took photos for all the world to see? THEY served more than most people. Should THEY be honored? To make a blanket statement along the lines of "anyone who served should be honored" is just plain ignorant. There are bad apples in every bunch, and the sad truth is that there is a small minority of soldiers in every American war that did more to hurt the cause than to help. John Kerry is one of those bad apples. "Why" you ask? Well, it has nothing to do with the fact that he lied to get medals. You see, as a leader/officer in wartime, you MUST ensure that soldiers know one thing above all else- that their leaders are looking out for them. The soldiers must believe that the ones in charge will devote EVERY LAST BREATH, DROP OF BLOOD, BEAD OF SWEAT to ensure the soldiers' safety during the course of the mission. John Kerry did no such thing. He got 3 band-aid wounds, and promptly headed home. Remember- 3 purple hearts gave one the CHOICE to leave- it was not obligatory. What kind of message did that send to his sailors and all the other enlisted sailors in his unit? I'll tell you what message it sent- "officers look out for themselves." Officers will get rattled and say "OK good luck guys! I'm outta here!!" Apparently a handful (maybe 12 out of about 300?) of the sailors he served with have forgiven him. Understandable, given the fact that he delivered those troops a national cheering audience that was more than 30 years overdue (at the DNC). But I'll tell you who will NEVER forgive him for what he did- the officers who served with him. He complicated their efforts, he hurt their unit's morale, he put their lives in danger, and he quickly rubbed salt in their wounds by coming home and bashing the ones who were brave enough to stay behind and do their duty. Reprehensible in every sense of the word. Say what you want about whether or not he deserved his medals- I could care less. What is NOT debatable is the fact that he got 3 "minor wounds" and promptly abandoned the ones he was sworn to protect. As a leader in the US Military, that's the worst insult. He would have served his country much better by never having gone to Vietnam.
Senator Kerry was recently quoted as saying "...this is a different kind of war from any kind of war we've fought before, and it's because in the last months they have seen me climbing in America's understanding that I know how to fight a smarter and more effective war, that's why they are trying to attack." What America is understanding, I would gladly retort, is that he fled Vietnam in disgrace after receiving 3 band-aids and widespread recognition for looking out for number one. I wouldn't say that's indicative of someone who's going to fight a "smarter and more effective war," but that's just my opinion. In any case, John Kerry (one man) did his 4 months in Vietnam and spoke volumes to the American public about the war during the years that followed. Much of what he said has been shamefully discredited. Now he opines that 200+ veterans shouldn't have the right to present THEIR view of what happened over there? How dare he.
George Bush is no war hero. Nobody (including W himself) is trying to pretend that he is.
John Kerry is the opposite of a hero, and no one claims him to be a hero more than he himself. Ladies and Gentleman, that is just plain disgusting....
Posted by $lick on August 23, 2004 04:44 AM | Permalink to Comment
1.0
I've been in the military for the past 12 years, and I was in Iraq and Kuwait much of the past 2 years, so I thought I'd use my sometimes-useful knowledge and experience to help you Kerry supporters to understand what those "darned swift boat guys" are talking about. You want so badly to believe Kerry's lies, but the truth is slapping you in the face with the harsh hand of reality. You trumpet half-hearted denials in the form of "The NY Times refuted their claims!" I'm sorry- the NY Times (as well as the rest of the liberal media) refuted NOTHING. They simply stated (and let me be clear about this) that the SBVFT guys were funded in part by (are you ready for this? It's gonna shock you) BUSH-SUPPORTERS and (gasp!) REPUBLICANS!!!!! Oh my, I can't believe it!!! You mean to tell me that pro-Kerry people didn't fund ANY of those ads from the SBVFT??? I simply never would have imagined! Yes, that's about the best they could do in their unbelievably weak attempt to "refute" the claims. Read any article out there and tell me where it says anything about the validity of the actual SBVFT claims. There's nothing. But if anyone's curious about where the funds are coming from, then I assure you- all your questions will be answered!
How about this guy in Chicago, William Rood- is he really "refuting" anything of substance? ABSOLUTELY NOT! He simply claims that Kerry made the right call- that his counter-ambush tactics were heroic and successful. OK, good point. Well worth a debate. Some would say it was foolish, some would say it was valorous. I happen to be impartial on this one, because I don't do river counter-ambush operations. Rood DID NOT discount the REAL issue at stake here- that John Kerry shot a wounded VC teenager in the back as he was fleeing. Rood claims it wasn't a teenager, but actually appeared to be a full-grown man. To that, I say "SO WHAT???" In my world, people can be court-marshaled for shooting wounded folks in the back when they're fleeing! Debate this all you want- it's just not the mark of a brave warrior. I've never heard anyone say, "I'm so brave, I shot a guy in the back while he was running away!"
So what about his Bronze Star? Well, here's a quick breakdown of how it works:
1) Soldier does something heroic.
2) Witness (fellow soldier, supervisor, subordinate, anyone present) says "Hey, that was heroic! That man deserves a medal!!"
3) Witness ensures that the officer submitting the after-action report includes the act of bravery and any other supporting information (hostile fire, nearby explosions, etc).
4) Commander reviews the after action report and determines "this is deserving of a medal!"
5) Commander drafts a citation recounting the incident. The citation is usually just a jazzed-up version of the after-action report, which, as I mentioned previously, was submitted by an officer who was at the scene. (example "With little regard for his own safety and taking heavy enemy fire, LT Schmoe charged the hill and killed 238 VC, saving all his men in the process.")
6) Citation gets passed up the chain of command without being scrutinized (trust is everything and officers are busy), and eventually gets to some high-ranking bigwig, who promptly signs it without even looking at it. Trust me when I tell you that if every top General or government official had to scrutinize every award recommendation, there wouldn't be time for anything else. That's why, when we military folks hear people say "it was signed by the SECRETARY OF THE NAVY himself!" we just laugh and laugh. As if that means ANYTHING! The only question of significance is "who submitted the recommendation?" If it turns out that one who recommends it is also the recipient of the award, then...well...it just doesn't look so good (remember this part).
So that's the process. In the case of Kerry's Bronze Star- the ones who were there with him started asking a very reasonable question. "Who recommended us for this? There wasn't any 'enemy fire'! It was a mine blast- pure and simple!" Sorry guys, but there's only one possible explanation for this- it's simple math really. The officers submitted their after-action reports. Kerry's report was the ONLY one that claimed there was enemy fire at the scene. The report that was approved and forwarded up the chain of command clearly stated that there was enemy fire. Therefore, the report HAD to be Kerry's! That's right, folks! Your candidate simply pushed a bogus report right on up the chain. Even the guys who received Bronze Stars for this incident insist that the citation is erroneous. Kerry's big downfall here was that his report inadvertently led to OTHER sailors getting awards, which tipped them off that something wasn't quite right.
So what about Jim Rassmann, the man that Kerry pulled out of the water, and his claim that he heard gunfire? Well, I'm certain he did. It was the guys on the patrol boats laying down suppression fire immediately following the mine blast, a common procedure still used today. ALL who were present verify that, yes, there WAS friendly suppression fire. 99% of those present insist there was NO enemy fire, and they all agree that Kerry HAD to be the one who lied and said there was. So what do you do when everyone begins to suspect you're a self-serving medal-chasing liar? Easy! Round up three quick purple hearts, and head on home! Oh, that reminds me, I should probably cover a common procedure that medal-chasers use for getting purple hearts:
Kerry: "Hey Doc, can you sign this please? It just says that I got hurt yesterday- you see I'm collecting purple hearts so I can go home!"
Doc: "But, John, you're only missing a fingernail. What about all those guys who lost their limbs, their eyes, even their lives? Do you really want to dishonor them by getting their same medal when all you have is a boo-boo?"
Kerry: "If it gets me home pronto, the answer is 'YES SIR!!!!'"
If you don't believe this is possible, ask anyone who's been to combat. It sickens me to see medal-chasers in action, but they exist- and they've existed for quite a while.
Do we even need to get into the whole Cambodia thing? I mean, that was just a flat-out, no-gettin'-outta-this-one, damn-I-wish-I-hadn't-said-that LIE. One of many it seems....
Okay, enough about dubious medals and obvious lies- let's get to the issue that's really steaming people up. John Kerry served more than most and should therefore be honored, right? WRONG! How about our "heroic soldiers" who abused the prisoners in Iraq and took photos for all the world to see? THEY served more than most people. Should THEY be honored? To make a blanket statement along the lines of "anyone who served should be honored" is just plain ignorant. There are bad apples in every bunch, and the sad truth is that there is a small minority of soldiers in every American war that did more to hurt the cause than to help. John Kerry is one of those bad apples. "Why" you ask? Well, it has nothing to do with the fact that he lied to get medals. You see, as a leader/officer in wartime, you MUST ensure that soldiers know one thing above all else- that their leaders are looking out for them. The soldiers must believe that the ones in charge will devote EVERY LAST BREATH, DROP OF BLOOD, BEAD OF SWEAT to ensure the soldiers' safety during the course of the mission. John Kerry did no such thing. He got 3 band-aid wounds, and promptly headed home. Remember- 3 purple hearts gave one the CHOICE to leave- it was not obligatory. What kind of message did that send to his sailors and all the other enlisted sailors in his unit? I'll tell you what message it sent- "officers look out for themselves." Officers will get rattled and say "OK good luck guys! I'm outta here!!" Apparently a handful (maybe 12 out of about 300?) of the sailors he served with have forgiven him. Understandable, given the fact that he delivered those troops a national cheering audience that was more than 30 years overdue (at the DNC). But I'll tell you who will NEVER forgive him for what he did- the officers who served with him. He complicated their efforts, he hurt their unit's morale, he put their lives in danger, and he quickly rubbed salt in their wounds by coming home and bashing the ones who were brave enough to stay behind and do their duty. Reprehensible in every sense of the word. Say what you want about whether or not he deserved his medals- I could care less. What is NOT debatable is the fact that he got 3 "minor wounds" and promptly abandoned the ones he was sworn to protect. As a leader in the US Military, that's the worst insult. He would have served his country much better by never having gone to Vietnam.
Senator Kerry was recently quoted as saying "...this is a different kind of war from any kind of war we've fought before, and it's because in the last months they have seen me climbing in America's understanding that I know how to fight a smarter and more effective war, that's why they are trying to attack." What America is understanding, I would gladly retort, is that he fled Vietnam in disgrace after receiving 3 band-aids and widespread recognition for looking out for number one. I wouldn't say that's indicative of someone who's going to fight a "smarter and more effective war," but that's just my opinion. In any case, John Kerry (one man) did his 4 months in Vietnam and spoke volumes to the American public about the war during the years that followed. Much of what he said has been shamefully discredited. Now he opines that 200+ veterans shouldn't have the right to present THEIR view of what happened over there? How dare he.
George Bush is no war hero. Nobody (including W himself) is trying to pretend that he is.
John Kerry is the opposite of a hero, and no one claims him to be a hero more than he himself. Ladies and Gentleman, that is just plain disgusting....
Posted by $lick on August 23, 2004 04:44 AM | Permalink to Comment