Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kerry's war record positive...unlike Bush

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Kerry's war record positive...unlike Bush

    geez, we don't even know where Bush was during the war!


    courtesy of the NY TIMES


    Navy Records Show Positive Marks for Kerry
    By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE

    Published: April 22, 2004


    WASHINGTON, April 21 — After days of being pressed by Republicans, Senator John Kerry on Wednesday released his military records, which showed uniformly positive evaluations from his commanders in Vietnam.

    After balking Monday on a promise to release his full Navy record, Mr. Kerry posted more than 140 pages of documents on his campaign Web site, www.johnkerry.com, in a move that largely silenced critics on a part of his life that has been central to his presidential hopes.

    The records depict many instances of bravery in the face of enemy fire and describe a young officer who is smart, articulate and decisive. For example, George M. Elliot, his commander in early 1969, wrote, "In a combat environment often requiring independent, decisive action, Lt. j.g. Kerry was unsurpassed."

    Mr. Elliot added, "His bearing and appearance are above reproach."

    Even a commander who, 36 years after the fact, questioned a Purple Heart awarded to Mr. Kerry in 1968, recorded no reservations at the time. The officer, Grant W. Hibbard, a lieutenant commander during Mr. Kerry's five-month tour in Vietnam, told The Boston Globe last week that the wound for which Mr. Kerry won his first Purple Heart was no more than a small scratch.

    But there was nothing negative about Mr. Kerry in an evaluation that Mr. Hibbard wrote two weeks after that incident.

    For the most part, Mr. Hibbard wrote, Mr. Kerry was under his command for too short a time to evaluate him fully. Of 16 categories for rating, including professional knowledge, moral courage and loyalty, Mr. Hibbard checked "not observed" in 12. Mr. Hibbard gave Mr. Kerry the highest rating of "one of the top few" in three categories — initiative, cooperation and personal behavior. He gave Mr. Kerry the second-best rating, "above the majority," in military bearing. Reached Wednesday at his retirement home in Florida, Mr. Hibbard said he had no comment.

    Mr. Kerry became a lightning rod for a number of Vietnam veterans after he became a prominent critic of the war and said American soldiers, including himself, had committed atrocities.

    The military records offered no hint of atrocities, but repeatedly cited Mr. Kerry's initiative in battle and patrician manner.

    When Mr. Kerry was an ensign on the Gridley on his first Vietnam tour in 1967, his commander described him as "intelligent, mature and rich in educational background and experience," as well as "polished, tactful and outgoing" and "a brilliant conversationalist."

    "He uses the English language expertly, both orally and in writing," the commander wrote.

    A few months later, another commander was similarly impressed.

    "His division's morale is one of the best on the ship due to his dynamic leadership," the officer wrote. "He is a polished diplomat at ease in distinguished company" and "is impressive in appearance and always immaculate."

    Months later, Mr. Kerry's bearing struck another reviewer. "He presents a very neat appearance and meets people well," that captain wrote. "For his age and experience, he writes and speaks exceedingly well."

    The records include citations for medals like the Silver Star, the Bronze Star and the Purple Hearts.

    By Wednesday afternoon, accounts of Mr. Kerry's valor in combat were all over television.

    Terry Holt, a spokesman for President Bush's campaign, said the issue was never Mr. Kerry's military service but what he said was Mr. Kerry's hypocrisy in calling for full disclosure of various aspects of Mr. Bush's presidency while Mr. Kerry had not released his own military records or the tax returns of his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry.

    "What this reinforces is something very basic about John Kerry — that he only responds to political pressure," Mr. Holt said. "We're going to hold him accountable. But that doesn't mean that it's one of the main themes of the campaign."

    A senior adviser to Mr. Kerry, Michael Meehan, said that much of the information had been released earlier to newspapers. Still unreleased are Mr. Kerry's medical records, which Mr. Meehan said the campaign was collecting. Asked whether the campaign intended to release those records, Mr. Meehan said: "You can't release what you don't have. Let us continue to collect the information from 35 to 40 years ago."

    Lanny J. Davis, a Washington lawyer who worked on damage control for the Clinton White House and who supports Mr. Kerry, said the senator had no choice but to release the records.

    "The public and the political process today will not countenance privacy issues, and that includes all aspects of your biography," said Mr. Davis, who wrote "Truth To Tell: Tell It Early, Tell It All, Tell It Yourself."

    Mr. Davis said the question of Mrs. Heinz Kerry's tax returns was a "gray area" that the couple would have to decide for themselves.

    Mr. Davis faulted Mr. Bush's campaign for criticizing Mr. Kerry, saying the move backfired because it led to obvious comparisons between Mr. Kerry's enlisting in the military while Mr. Bush was in the National Guard and avoided combat.

    When Democrats accused Mr. Bush this year of being AWOL for part of his tour of duty, he released guard records. But the documents did not make clear how often Mr. Bush reported for duty.
    All your ACG posts are belong to us!

  • #2
    Discrepancies noted in Kerry's record
    Ex-skipper says website wrong
    By Michael Kranish, Globe Staff | April 23, 2004

    WASHINGTON -- Vietnam combat records posted on John F. Kerry's campaign website for the month of January 1969 as evidence of his service aboard swift boat No. 94 describe action that occurred before Kerry was skipper of that craft, according to the officer who said he commanded the boat at the time.

    On the site, the Massachusetts senator is described as the skipper of Navy boat No. 94 during several actions in late January 1969.

    However, Edward Peck, who was the skipper of the 94 before Kerry took over, said combat reports posted by the campaign for January 1969 involve action when he was the skipper, not Kerry. Peck, who was seriously wounded in fighting that took place on Jan. 29, 1969, said he believes Kerry campaign aides made a mistake in claiming Kerry as skipper of the 94 at that time.

    On the Kerry website, the report of the combat on that day on the 94 boat is posted as occurring during Kerry's time as skipper of the boat. Peck said Kerry replaced him after the Jan. 29, 1969, event.

    "Those are definitely mine," Peck said, referring to the combat reports that the Kerry campaign posted as representing Kerry's action. "There is no doubt about it."

    A Kerry campaign spokesman, Michael Meehan, said in an e-mail that the campaign had obtained the combat reports for the 94 from the Navy. He did not directly address the question of why the campaign describes Kerry being skipper of the 94 at a time when Peck says he commanded the boat.

    The reports at issue are in a 20-page batch representing Kerry's combat in January 1969. The reports include references to some dramatic action, including an ambush of Patrol Craft Fast, or PCF, 94. In addition to posting the information online, the campaign sent out an e-mail yesterday afternoon repeating the claim that Kerry was the skipper of the 94 boat throughout January and describing action the campaign said Kerry experienced while commanding the craft.

    For example, in a summary of action that occurred Jan. 26, 1969, the campaign says Kerry served on boat No. 94 alongside another boat, No. 66. "PCFs 94 and 66 escorted troops up the Ong Doc River early in the morning when they were ambushed by gun and rocket fire from approximately 40 men on both sides of the river," the campaign summary says. "Two B-40 rounds hit close to Kerry's boat, while PCF 66 received 2 B-40 rocket hits. Three men on PCF66 were wounded. A junk containing South Vietnamese troops was also sunk, killing 11 South Vietnamese troops. Intelligence reports after the mission indicated that the Viet Cong troops may have planned the ambush in advance."

    Peck said he was the skipper of the 94 at this time and that Kerry was not on the craft. While combat reports show several boats traveling with the 94, the campaign website says only that Kerry was the skipper of the 94 and does not try to place him on the other boats.

    In another report, the campaign summarizes action that took place on Jan. 29, 1969, this way: "While Kerry's boat and another [PCF72] were probing a canal along the river, Kerry's boat came under heavy fire and was hit by a B-40 rocket in the cabin area. One member of Kerry's crew -- Forward Gunner David Alston -- suffered shrapnel wounds in his head. His injuries were not considered serious and he was sent to the 29th Evac Hospital at Binh Thuy."

    Peck said he was the skipper on this day as well. Peck was also injured in the ambush and was hospitalized.

    As a result, Kerry then took over the crew, Peck said. The Navy combat report posted by the Kerry campaign states that Peck and Alston were injured in the same event. There is no mention of Kerry in that report.

    Kerry's commanding officer, George Elliott, said in a telephone interview that he vividly recalls Peck's injury and hospitalization and Kerry's replacement of Peck. "I think somebody made a mistake who doesn't know" the timing of Kerry's service, Elliott said. Kerry was skipper of boat No. 44 in December and January before taking over command of the 94, he said.

    Michael Kranish can be reached by e-mail at [email protected].
    Rumors of my demise have been greatly exaggerated... again...

    Comment


    • #3
      haha

      so one bloke questions his war record...unlike Bush who's commanding officers can't even recall his serving (stateside mind you! ha ha).

      What you should be looking at is Kerry's anti-war movement following his tour! bah! gotta tell my daft fellow repubs how to smear a candidate! too funny
      All your ACG posts are belong to us!

      Comment


      • #4
        Well, when the "bloke" doing the questioning is the guy that Kerry essentially replaced - I'd say he's got about as much credibility as anyone.
        Rumors of my demise have been greatly exaggerated... again...

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by sickpup
          Well, when the "bloke" doing the questioning is the guy that Kerry essentially replaced - I'd say he's got about as much credibility as anyone.
          haha! stay focused!!

          One bloke makes a comment on Kerry and you treat it as the holy scripture. Many blokes make comments about Bush's participation (or i should say "lack of participation") in the military (and it was stateside! sheesh) and you want to ignore that?

          Bush lost on this one. Time to move on to the anti-war aspects of Kerry's campaign...but then again, the war service (or lack of service in Bush's case) may be an important factor to some folks.
          All your ACG posts are belong to us!

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Patrocles
            haha! stay focused!!
            How am I not staying focused? This is your thread and it is about Kerry’s war records. That’s exactly what I’m talking about. Seems pretty focused to me...

            Originally posted by Patrocles
            One bloke makes a comment on Kerry and you treat it as the holy scripture.
            You seem to forget that it was, initially, one "bloke" that made a comment about Bush before it was picked up by the media. This could be the same situation, although I certainly doubt the media will be half as aggressive as they were when it was Bush in the crosshairs. Additionally, the number of people making an accusation has little to do with whether the accusation is true or not. It's not as if there is some magical number of like-minded people that is required before something becomes true.

            Originally posted by Patrocles
            Many blokes make comments about Bush's participation (or i should say "lack of participation") in the military (and it was stateside! sheesh) and you want to ignore that?
            Can you point to the line in my previous posts that stated I was trying to ignore the information about Bush?

            Originally posted by Patrocles
            Bush lost on this one. Time to move on to the anti-war aspects of Kerry's campaign...but then again, the war service (or lack of service in Bush's case) may be an important factor to some folks.
            I’m willing to bet Kerry’s constant waffling and flip-flopping on issues will be a bigger factor.
            Rumors of my demise have been greatly exaggerated... again...

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by sickpup
              How am I not staying focused? This is your thread and it is about Kerry’s war records. That’s exactly what I’m talking about. Seems pretty focused to me...

              Can you point to the line in my previous posts that stated I was trying to ignore the information about Bush?

              I’m willing to bet Kerry’s constant waffling and flip-flopping on issues will be a bigger factor.
              Relax. Here's a homebrew (or some ginger beer if you do not consume alcohol).

              You merely post a letter by one bloke against Kerry but do not address the issue from the original post (contrasting Kerry and Bush's war (or lack of..) record)

              Yes, one bloke started the Bush debate. But you forget that no one has stepped up to defend Bush. Unlike Kerry where numerous veterans (Who served with Kerry whilst in Vietnam) stepped forward to defend Kerry.

              As of April 20 we still have had access to all of Bush's military service records regarding the allegations of his grounding and going AWOL. We need to see those records.

              yeah, Kerry is a flip-flopper! sheesh...look at him using the war record to get votes and his anti-war efforts to (guess what?) get votes!! (swear word deleted) hypocrite!



              I'm a republican. I voted for W in the last election. Not sure who to vote for which is why I'm having fun stirring up these conversations! Let keep this democracy going!
              All your ACG posts are belong to us!

              Comment


              • #8
                Gee, wonder where a Naval Officer writing a performance evaluation on the very well connection Mister Kerry would have ended up had he used anything other than glowing lanquage to describe Daddy's little boy?

                Can you say "Thule, Greenland?"
                Click here to visit
                The Mad Dog Drive Thru; Open all night

                Comment


                • #9
                  Oh, and what's so dishonorable about entirely volunteer service in the Texas Air National Guard?

                  Unlike Clinton, Dubya's number didn't come up in the draft. He didn't have to serve in the Armed Forces at all.
                  Click here to visit
                  The Mad Dog Drive Thru; Open all night

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I think the word we are looking for is "credibility".

                    Kerry can't make up his mind, and Bush can't prove anything: regarding their military service.

                    Draft, volunteer, dodging,... so what.

                    I was a volunteer in 1975. Except during wartime, can you think of a worse time to be in the US military? You dodge, get caught, you pay the penalty. Done. You are drafted, you volunteer -- you do your duty. Thank you. You're an anti-war protestor? So what, what laws are you breaking?

                    Kerry fought, apparently with some distinction. After personally experiencing the horrors of war, I think he has the right to protest or not. He certainly had a better right than me, though I was not a protestor.

                    Bush served in the Air National Guard? So did a lot of people. I don't hear anyone picking on them, except maybe those who were sent to Vietnam.

                    We have laws and loopholes in those laws that allow choice. It is the American way. I can't defend some of the bonehead things our leaders have done to and for us, but we do have a system that allows us to vote them out of office if we do not agree with what they have done. Don't or didn't vote? Shut up. You voted, but lost, tough boogers. It is our system. Don't like it, leave.

                    We have a forum thread going here that is a good example of what makes this country so great (Pardons to our non-American posters and readers).

                    Personally, I can't use something someone did 30 or 40 years ago to help me make a decision. What I can use is how they handle any issues concerning those events 30 or 40 years later. You have to allow people the right to make mistakes and learn by them.

                    Kerry is "waffling" on his history, I can't stand that. Bush can't answer a straight forward question with a straight answer, hate that. Clinton couldn't admit to "inhaling", get real. Stupid, all.

                    When you get to the polls, vote for the candidate that best suits your needs and wants. Can't find one? Vote against the one you wouldn't want in the White House. Be thankful you have a choice to make, and right to make it. Be grateful to those who have served your country, who protected those rights, even if you don't like the manner in which those rights were defended.

                    Like I said, I served, I volunteered. I don't look for thanks. I don't look for gratitude. What I do want, is to have those who I defended, not take their liberties for granted. Make your politicians accountable. Vote your beliefs. Othewise, someone else will do it for you.
                    Retreat hell, we just got here. Every Marine, a rifleman.

                    Never let the facts get in the way of the truth.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Iron Mike USMC
                      I think the word we are looking for is "credibility".

                      Kerry can't make up his mind, and Bush can't prove anything: regarding their military service.

                      Draft, volunteer, dodging,... so what.

                      I was a volunteer in 1975. Except during wartime, can you think of a worse time to be in the US military? You dodge, get caught, you pay the penalty. Done. You are drafted, you volunteer -- you do your duty. Thank you. You're an anti-war protestor? So what, what laws are you breaking?

                      Kerry fought, apparently with some distinction. After personally experiencing the horrors of war, I think he has the right to protest or not. He certainly had a better right than me, though I was not a protestor.

                      Bush served in the Air National Guard? So did a lot of people. I don't hear anyone picking on them, except maybe those who were sent to Vietnam.

                      We have laws and loopholes in those laws that allow choice. It is the American way. I can't defend some of the bonehead things our leaders have done to and for us, but we do have a system that allows us to vote them out of office if we do not agree with what they have done. Don't or didn't vote? Shut up. You voted, but lost, tough boogers. It is our system. Don't like it, leave.

                      We have a forum thread going here that is a good example of what makes this country so great (Pardons to our non-American posters and readers).

                      Personally, I can't use something someone did 30 or 40 years ago to help me make a decision. What I can use is how they handle any issues concerning those events 30 or 40 years later. You have to allow people the right to make mistakes and learn by them.

                      Kerry is "waffling" on his history, I can't stand that. Bush can't answer a straight forward question with a straight answer, hate that. Clinton couldn't admit to "inhaling", get real. Stupid, all.

                      When you get to the polls, vote for the candidate that best suits your needs and wants. Can't find one? Vote against the one you wouldn't want in the White House. Be thankful you have a choice to make, and right to make it. Be grateful to those who have served your country, who protected those rights, even if you don't like the manner in which those rights were defended.

                      Like I said, I served, I volunteered. I don't look for thanks. I don't look for gratitude. What I do want, is to have those who I defended, not take their liberties for granted. Make your politicians accountable. Vote your beliefs. Othewise, someone else will do it for you.
                      ahhh! always someone around to make sense of the "big picture!" thanks for the eloquent post, Iron Mike
                      All your ACG posts are belong to us!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        More than one "bloke"

                        Originally posted by Patrocles
                        haha

                        so one bloke questions his war record...unlike Bush who's commanding officers can't even recall his serving (stateside mind you! ha ha).

                        What you should be looking at is Kerry's anti-war movement following his tour! bah! gotta tell my daft fellow repubs how to smear a candidate! too funny
                        Another cohort (may have been on the same PBR as Kerry) named John O'Neil who said he served with Kerry called into question the propriety of Kerry's service record the other day on CSPAN's Washington Journal.
                        I come here to discuss a piece of business with you and what are you gonna do? You're gonna tell me fairy tales? James Caan in the movie "Thief" ca 1981

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: More than one "bloke"

                          Originally posted by Tom DeFranco
                          Another cohort (may have been on the same PBR as Kerry) named John O'Neil who said he served with Kerry called into question the propriety of Kerry's service record the other day on CSPAN's Washington Journal.
                          You are close, Tom!

                          O'Neill is from a Navy family and was a skipper of another boat at teh same time as Kerry. IIRC O'neill came out with several medals! From what I have read O'Neill called into question (rightfully so!) the statements Kerry was making about atrocities in Vietnam by American soldiers. O'Neill saw that Kerry was making false statements in order to start a political career and he would not allow that (the false statements, that is)!

                          As far as I have read O'neill's has not made any disparaging comments about Kerry's combat service or ability to command.

                          That's why I keep telling everyone to check out Kerry's post-war record and Bush's war service record.
                          All your ACG posts are belong to us!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I have no issue at all with Kerry's war service.

                            He lost my vote when he threw someone else's medals over the White House fence (portraying them as his own) and called the military war criminals.

                            He's done nothing since then to get it back.

                            I wouldn't vote for him to catch rats.
                            Barcsi János ispán vezérőrnagy
                            Time Magazine's Person of the Year for 2003 & 2006


                            "Never pet a burning dog."

                            RECOMMENDED WEBSITES:
                            http://www.mormon.org
                            http://www.sca.org
                            http://www.scv.org/
                            http://www.scouting.org/

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Janos
                              I have no issue at all with Kerry's war service.

                              He lost my vote when he threw someone else's medals over the White House fence (portraying them as his own) and called the military war criminals.

                              He's done nothing since then to get it back.

                              I wouldn't vote for him to catch rats.
                              Yeah, I was reading about that! There are statements that he may or may not have tossed his medals when he joined the anti-war movement. At the moment Kerry said he would not show the medals fueling speculation he may not have them any longer...
                              confusing!!

                              Bush is no better and no worse. He dodged military service...went AWOL! How do military folks feel about that? just curious....
                              and VP Cheney obtained deferements to make money during the Vietnam war...sheesh.

                              Bush is doing not spectacular. All he did after 9/11 was point to Afghanistan and say, "Go get 'em!" I could have done that so this rubbish about someone being fit to run the country is laughable!!!

                              damn...these clowns serving makes me want to write in George Washington for President!
                              All your ACG posts are belong to us!

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X