Drudge-Wow!

[Reilly]

Kerry admits (how he got his Silver Star) shooting and killing an already injured enemy soldier. It is against the Geneva Convention to kill an injured enemy combatant if he is no longer posing a threat to you. It was said by all the witnesses there that day that they "enemy" was shot in the back while trying to flee.

Yeah, JK - OUR AMERICAN HERO!

Apparently, not all the witnesses -

The man was still running down a path when they got to the bank. Kerry, Belodeau and Michael McDarris, in hot pursuit, saw the Vietcong soldier. Short recalled: "The guy was getting ready to stand up with a rocket on his shoulder, coming up. And Mr. Kerry took him out … he would have been about a 30-yard shot. Which, we were dead in the water up on the bank, point blank. If he missed us, he would have to, you know — there's no way he could miss us. He could've thrown a rock and taken me out."

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Nightline/Politics/kerry_medal_040624-3.html

So says Fred Short, Kerry's crewmate who was there that day.

 

[freeandfun1]

Apparently, not all the witnesses -

The man was still running down a path when they got to the bank. Kerry, Belodeau and Michael McDarris, in hot pursuit, saw the Vietcong soldier. Short recalled: "The guy was getting ready to stand up with a rocket on his shoulder, coming up. And Mr. Kerry took him out … he would have been about a 30-yard shot. Which, we were dead in the water up on the bank, point blank. If he missed us, he would have to, you know — there's no way he could miss us. He could've thrown a rock and taken me out."

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Nightline/Politics/kerry_medal_040624-3.html

So says Fred Short, Kerry's crewmate who was there that day.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1133600/posts

Here ya go. Plenty of quotes from witnesses that were there.

Again, if Kerry's actions were so heroic, why did he have to put himself in for an award? I can't even fathom somebody putting themself in for a Medal and I spent 8 years in the Army and saw combat myself. Very strange indeed.

 

[Reilly]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1133600/posts

Here ya go. Plenty of quotes from witnesses that were there.

Again, if Kerry's actions were so heroic, why did he have to put himself in for an award? I can't even fathom somebody putting themself in for a Medal and I spent 8 years in the Army and saw combat myself. Very strange indeed.

This is complete crap. A man is trying to reconstruct an event 35 years ago based upon varied quotations by the participants over the last 3 decades. He actually thinks it is important based on all these statements whether or not the VC was behind a hooch? He suggests that all of the soldiers are merely fabricating a story to "protect a 30 year old secret and themselves." What the hell does this mean? Has he analyzed the JFK shooting? I am sure he could come up with some interesting theories there, as well.

While the quotes differ on what exactly happened, all are clear on one thing - Short, Medeiros, Sandusky, and Belodeau, all soldiers who served admirably and were there when the incident took place, agree that Kerry acted heroically and that they were under danger of fire from the VC when Kerry shot him.

This conversation is boring and repetitive. We will just have to agree to disagree on Kerry's actions in Vietnam.

 

[freeandfun1]

you just need to admit you don't want to accept the truth.

As stated, why won't Kerry sign a form 180 so all his records will be released? he is only releasing what he wants to release.

 

[dilloduck]

This is complete crap. A man is trying to reconstruct an event 35 years ago based upon varied quotations by the participants over the last 3 decades. He actually thinks it is important based on all these statements whether or not the VC was behind a hooch? He suggests that all of the soldiers are merely fabricating a story to "protect a 30 year old secret and themselves." What the hell does this mean? Has he analyzed the JFK shooting? I am sure he could come up with some interesting theories there, as well.

While the quotes differ on what exactly happened, all are clear on one thing - Short, Medeiros, Sandusky, and Belodeau, all soldiers who served admirably and were there when the incident took place, agree that Kerry acted heroically and that they were under danger of fire from the VC when Kerry shot him.

This conversation is boring and repetitive. We will just have to agree to disagree on Kerry's actions in Vietnam.

Good idea---both candidates would be wise to run on something other than how bad thier opponents military record was. Unfotunately this is all Kerry has to "prove" he has leadership abilities.

 

[smirkinjesus]

Good idea---both candidates would be wise to run on something other than how bad thier opponents military record was. Unfotunately this is all Kerry has to "prove" he has leadership abilities.

Earning a silver star and three purple hearts is "bad service"? The best thing Bush supporters could do is acknowledges Kerry's brave service especially considering Kerry served in combat while Bush did not. It's assinine to attack Kerry on his service in Vietnam, it will cost Bush votes.

 

[freeandfun1]

Earning a silver star and three purple hearts is "bad service"? The best thing Bush supporters could do is acknowledges Kerry's brave service especially considering Kerry served in combat while Bush did not. It's assinine to attack Kerry on his service in Vietnam, it will cost Bush votes.

Well, I am willing to bet it is going to cost Kerry. I am a vet and I am a combat vet, and I believe that Kerry "created" his "heroism".

Answer these for me:

1) Why was the required investigation for his Silver Star not conducted?
2) Why were two witness statements, as required, not submitted?
3) If Kerry was heroic, why did he have to put himself in for the Siver Star?
4) Why did his commander NOT approve his first Purple Heart?
5) Why won't Kerry sign a form 180 releasing ALL his military records?

To get a Silver Star, one must conduct actions that warrent their being NOMINATED for the Silver Star. That nomination is then supposed to be submitted with a minimum of two witness statements. Then, an investigation is supposed to take place to verify the warranting of the nonimation.

In this case, which is HIGHLY unusual, Kerry nominated himself. What does that tell you about the man?

 

[dilloduck]

Earning a silver star and three purple hearts is "bad service"? The best thing Bush supporters could do is acknowledges Kerry's brave service especially considering Kerry served in combat while Bush did not. It's assinine to attack Kerry on his service in Vietnam, it will cost Bush votes.

Cmon Smirk, The MANNER IN WHICH THEY WERE RECIEVED is what's in question here. You have no basis for saying it will cost Bush votes. It's an unknown factor. Perhaps the Dems shouldn't have attacked Bushs' military service if they didn't want Kerrys' to be scrutinized. Oh wait! Democrats can attack but the Republicans can't do THE VERY SAME THING? The Dems battle cry should be "MAKING THE WORLD SAFE FOR HYPOCRISY!"

 

[smirkinjesus]

http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/service.asp

Its a smear camapaign, clear as day. You do no service to Bush's cause by attacking Kerry's distinguished military record. All you really do is diminish the sacred tradition by which we honor the heroism and valor of our bravest fighting men. The man could easily be a name on the wall in D.C. Democratic Presidential candidate or not, its best for Bush's cause not to degrade Kerry's service. Americans aren't going to buy it, they will just be offended by it, and rightfully so.

 

[freeandfun1]

http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/service.asp

Its a smear camapaign, clear as day. You do no service to Bush's cause by attacking Kerry's distinguished military record. All you really do is diminish the sacred tradition by which we honor the heroism and valor of our bravest fighting men. The man could easily be a name on the wall in D.C. Democratic Presidential candidate or not, its best for Bush's cause not to degrade Kerry's service. Americans aren't going to buy it, they will just be offended by it, and rightfully so.

You are not an intellectually honest person are you?

1) Kerry is the one that first brought up the discussion of military service and the actions of the candidate while in service.
2) I am not diminishing the service of those that EARNED their awards. A matter-of-fact, I am STANDING UP for those men and women as Kerry's being awarded the Silver Star for his "actions" is a disgrace to those that actually earned it under much more trying conditions.
3) Bush is not degrading Kerry's service. The ad is from a 527 organization that is comprised of soldiers that served in Kerry's unit. Kerry used them first and now they are standing up and saying, "hey, wait a minute, this guy is full of shit". That is their right. They were there and they served with him.

 

[dilloduck]

http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/service.asp

Its a smear camapaign, clear as day. You do no service to Bush's cause by attacking Kerry's distinguished military record. All you really do is diminish the sacred tradition by which we honor the heroism and valor of our bravest fighting men. The man could easily be a name on the wall in D.C. Democratic Presidential candidate or not, its best for Bush's cause not to degrade Kerry's service. Americans aren't going to buy it, they will just be offended by it, and rightfully so.

Then I assume that the attack on Bush will be seen for the smear campaign that it is also and it will be a wash out.

Eisnehauer and Grant were generals and pretty poor presidents.
Military records don't mean squat as far as these 2 are concerned.

 

[smirkinjesus]

Cmon Smirk, The MANNER IN WHICH THEY WERE RECIEVED is what's in question here. You have no basis for saying it will cost Bush votes. It's an unknown factor. Perhaps the Dems shouldn't have attacked Bushs' military service if they didn't want Kerrys' to be scrutinized. Oh wait! Democrats can attack but the Republicans can't do THE VERY SAME THING? The Dems battle cry should be "MAKING THE WORLD SAFE FOR HYPOCRISY!"

That's true, it is hypocritical. When you compare the military records of the two candidates, however, one could have been killed in combat, the other couldn't have. Its kind of the bottom line here. Americans are so immune to all the mudslinging, I think the average joe doesn't believe Bush was really AWOL, but the average Joe could be deeply offended by the TV ads that are circulating now.

 

[freeandfun1]

That's true, it is hypocritical. When you compare the military records of the two candidates, however, one could have been killed in combat, the other couldn't have. Its kind of the bottom line here. Americans are so immune to all the mudslinging, I think the average joe doesn't believe Bush was really AWOL, but the average Joe could be deeply offended by the TV ads that are circulating now.

Kerry could have been killed in Combat, and Bush could have been killed crossing the street to report for duty. Either way, they both would have been dead and while in uniform.

 

[dilloduck]

That's true, it is hypocritical. When you compare the military records of the two candidates, however, one could have been killed in combat, the other couldn't have. Its kind of the bottom line here. Americans are so immune to all the mudslinging, I think the average joe doesn't believe Bush was really AWOL, but the average Joe could be deeply offended by the TV ads that are circulating now.

The media may try to spin it that way but the truth about this "Distinguished service" may repulse people who appreciate true military heros that didn't write thier OWN after action report and recieved wounds that required more than a band aid.

Being in action for 4 months does not make one more worthy of being president than guard service. What he did when he got back was treasonous!

 

[smirkinjesus]

I tend to believe the man that said Kerry pulled him from the water under fire. I'm sorry, but you don't say someone saved your life when they didn't. There's no documents to fake, no records to scrutinize, no payroll records to check, no bs. The man said Kerry pulled him from the water and saved his life. His crewmates witnessed it. There's no denying that. Bush can release all the altered documents he wants to try and prove he wasn't awol, but it will never compare with pulling that man from the water under fire. Sorry, but its a debate that you simply can't win. Its an undeniable fact.

 

[freeandfun1]

I tend to believe the man that said Kerry pulled him from the water under fire. I'm sorry, but you don't say someone saved your life when they didn't. There's no documents to fake, no records to scrutinize, no payroll records to check, no bs. The man said Kerry pulled him from the water and saved his life. His crewmates witnessed it. There's no denying that. Bush can release all the altered documents he wants to try and prove he wasn't awol, but it will never compare with pulling that man from the water under fire. Sorry, but its a debate that you simply can't win. Its an undeniable fact.

Dude, you just don't read do you?

First off, there are no records cuz Kerry won't sign a form 180 to release them. There are records to scrutinize.

Only ONE MAN that was there that day, Rass, claims they were under fire. All the other boats/crews say there was NO FIRE.

You are taking the word of ONE man (two if you count Kerry) that was there that day out of all the others. A man, by the way, that is partisan.

So you are the one that cannot win the debate. Read the facts and AFFIDAVIDTS.

 

[Annie]

It seems that this guy is a bit indecisive of where he was, then or now. In any case, whatever he said about Kerry's service, should be discounted. I believe it was Kerry who allowed this to become an issue, by wrapping himself up in the Vietnam War, but it's not ok to make things up:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/08/06/veteran_retracts_criticism_of_kerry?mode=PF

Veteran retracts criticism of Kerry
By Michael Kranish, Globe Staff | August 6, 2004

WASHINGTON -- A week after Senator John F. Kerry heralded his wartime experience by surrounding himself at the Democratic convention with his Vietnam ''Band of Brothers," a separate group of veterans has launched a television ad campaign and a book that questions the basis for some of Kerry's combat medals.

But yesterday, a key figure in the anti-Kerry campaign, Kerry's former commanding officer, backed off one of the key contentions. Lieutenant Commander George Elliott said in an interview that he had made a ''terrible mistake" in signing an affidavit that suggests Kerry did not deserve the Silver Star -- one of the main allegations in the book. The affidavit was given to The Boston Globe by the anti-Kerry group to justify assertions in their ad and book.

Elliott is quoted as saying that Kerry ''lied about what occurred in Vietnam . . . for example, in connection with his Silver Star, I was never informed that he had simply shot a wounded, fleeing Viet Cong in the back."

....Yesterday, reached at his home, Elliott said he regretted signing the affidavit and said he still thinks Kerry deserved the Silver Star.

''I still don't think he shot the guy in the back," Elliott said. ''It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words. I'm the one in trouble here."

Elliott said he was no under personal or political pressure to sign the statement, but he did feel ''time pressure" from those involved in the book. ''That's no excuse," Elliott said. ''I knew it was wrong . . . In a hurry I signed it and faxed it back. That was a mistake."

The affidavit also contradicted earlier statements by Elliott, who came to Boston during Kerry's 1996 Senate campaign to defend Kerry on similar charges, saying that Kerry acted properly and deserved the Silver Star.

The book, ''Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry," is to be published next week. Yesterday it reached number one on the bestseller list on Amazon.com, based on advance orders, in part because of publicity about it on the Drudge Report.

The book seeks to undermine one of the central claims of Kerry's campaign -- that his Vietnam War heroism would make him a good commander in chief.

While the Regnery Publishing yesterday declined to release an advance copy of the book, Drudge's website quotes it as saying, ''Elliott indicates that a Silver Star recommendation would not have been made by him had he been aware of the actual facts."

Meanwhile, a television advertising campaign began yesterday featuring many of the anti-Kerry veterans who are quoted in the book, including Elliott. In the ad, Elliott says, ''John Kerry has not been honest about what happened in Vietnam."

Asked to supply evidence to support that statement, the anti-Kerry group provided a copy of Elliott's affidavit. Elliott said the same affidavit had been used in the production of the book.

I guess this sums up my feelings on this pretty well:

http://www.rogerlsimon.com/mt-archives/2004/08/cambodia_mon_am.php#c4951

August 05, 2004: Cambodia, Mon Amour

I just finished reading the sample chapter from the current No. 1 hit on Amazon. I also read the transcript of the interchange between Judy Woodruff, Jim Rassman and Larry Thurlow linked by Instapundit. And of course I saw the now infamous ad.

The chapter, not surprisingly, is the most detailed and undoubtedly the most important substantively. (The CNN interchange was on the usual banal he said/she said level one gets on cable.) In our lives we have seen a lot of political nastiness from both sides of the aisle, most of it repellent and brainless. But this is different. The chapter touches on a great number of matters. A whole series of events revolving around Kerry's purple hearts and medals are reported upon. I have no idea how many of them are true--or if any of them are--but even a small percentage being accurate would constitute a damaging, if not devastating, portrait of the candidate and the man.

For some reason, among the many stories, a subchapter entitled "Christmas in 'Cambodia' - Vietnam, December 1968" struck a special chord with me. Apparently, on the floor of the US Senate in 1986, Kerry asserted he was ordered into Cambodia in Christmas 1968. As he later told the Boston Herald, "I remember spending Christmas of 1968 five miles across the Cambodian border being shot by our South Vietnamese allies who were drunk and celebrating Christmas. The absurdity of almost being killed by our own allies in a country which President Nixon claimed there were no American troops was very real."

Never mind that Nixon was not yet president at Christmas of 1968, a whole slew of people, quoted in the chapter say it was impossible for Kerry to have been within fifty miles of Cambodia. They also say where he was and what he did. (It wasn't pretty.) Are they lying? Well, consider this. Despite having been repeated by Kerry many times over the years, this story (according to the chapter) is curiously absent from the Senator's recent laudatory campaign bio Tour of Duty. Why, if it was so important to him, so meaningful?

Now why do I find this kind of petty prevarication so disturbing? Well, I don't like the idea of having a man who sounds like a pathetic barroom blowhard (and that's what he sounds like to me) becoming President of the United States in a time of war. People like this start to believe their own lies. Maybe the greater good of Kerry's "policies" outweigh this for some people. They'll have to explain that to me. But they'll also have to explain all the rest of this book... in detail.

UPDATE: A retraction has come in from one of the Swift Boat veterans. More of these will be good news for Kerry on this matter. I will now shut my mouth about this as I intended to do earlier and wait and see. On to contemporary matters.

 

[smirkinjesus]

Dude, you just don't read do you?

First off, there are no records cuz Kerry won't sign a form 180 to release them. There are records to scrutinize.

Only ONE MAN that was there that day, Rass, claims they were under fire. All the other boats/crews say there was NO FIRE.

You are taking the word of ONE man (two if you count Kerry) that was there that day out of all the others. A man, by the way, that is partisan.

So you are the one that cannot win the debate. Read the facts and AFFIDAVIDTS.

Kerry's Bronze Star citation (signed by Admiral Zumwalt):

Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry was serving as an Officer-in-Charge of Inshore Patrol Craft 94, one of five boats conducting a Sealords 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 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.

I mean, you really want there to be something "fishy" about his citations don't you? But wanting does not make it so. I don't know what a form 180 is, that's just about the stupidest thing I've heard. And he has released his military records, they're on his website:
http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_kerry/military_records.html

Why are we still discussing this? Links to BS documents and "sources" won't help. His crewmates were with him they witnessed the bravery that earned him a bronze and silver star. Some phony baloney link can't change that. He's a hero, everyone knows it, and there's nothing you can do to take that away no matter how bad you want Bush to win....sorry.

 

[freeandfun1]

Kerry's Bronze Star citation (signed by Admiral Zumwalt):

Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry was serving as an Officer-in-Charge of Inshore Patrol Craft 94, one of five boats conducting a Sealords 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 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.

I mean, you really want there to be something "fishy" about his citations don't you? But wanting does not make it so. I don't know what a form 180 is, that's just about the stupidest thing I've heard. And he has released his military records, they're on his website:
http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_kerry/military_records.html

Why are we still discussing this? Links to BS documents and "sources" won't help. His crewmates were with him they witnessed the bravery that earned him a bronze and silver star. Some phony baloney link can't change that. He's a hero, everyone knows it, and there's nothing you can do to take that away no matter how bad you want Bush to win....sorry.

Again, you avoid the topic. Nobody has questioned Kerry's Bronze Star. The Silver Star is the medal in question.

If there were witnesses for the Silver Star, where are the witness statements?

A form 180 is a form that is filed with Perscom that allows your military records to be released. Kerry has not signed one and has only released the records HE WANTS released.

Kath--- as for the retraction, the former Commander says he never retracted his statement and that the Boston Globe reporter that says he did, is lying. A matter-of-fact, the "reporter" is being paid by the Kerry campaign to write a book on Kerry and to cover the Kerry campaign. Can we say, "Conflict of Interest"?

 

[Annie]

Again, you avoid the topic. Nobody has questioned Kerry's Bronze Star. The Silver Star is the medal in question.

If there were witnesses for the Silver Star, where are the witness statements?

A form 180 is a form that is filed with Perscom that allows your military records to be released. Kerry has not signed one and has only released the records HE WANTS released.

Kath--- as for the retraction, the former Commander says he never retracted his statement and that the Boston Globe reporter that says he did, is lying. A matter-of-fact, the "reporter" is being paid by the Kerry campaign to write a book on Kerry and to cover the Kerry campaign. Can we say, "Conflict of Interest"?

That may well be and if so The Boston Globe will pay a heavy penalty. As I said before, I think Kerry was begging for this kind of inquiry and it's time to stop it. I know that with that one story, it's going to turn into 'Bush lied!' and 'the neo-cons are trying to do, whatever!' In any case, he still needs to explain the past twenty some years. Anyone interested in his 'growth over time' should read the transcipts of the debate between Kerry and O'Neill back on the Dick Cavette Show, it's illuminating. However, I recognize that most won't read, it's easier just to stay with the partisanship. I'm just blue today, and that article didn't help. If I could, I'd put me on ignore!