Kerry's full war record

[jravnsbo]

Vietnam stance irks veterans

By TERRY GARLOCK
 
Terry L. Garlock of Peachtree City was a Cobra helicopter pilot in Vietnam.

John Kerry, who headed a veterans' group opposed to the Vietnam War, receives support from a gallery of peace demonstrators and tourists as he testifies before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971.

Now that U.S. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) is claiming the veteran vote based on his war record, both sides of that story should be told.

To appreciate the dark side of Kerry's war record, you should know a few things about Vietnam veterans.

The public and the press make a mistake when they divide us into decorated veterans like Kerry and then all the others.

We like to think of ourselves as brothers -- those who fought the enemy directly in combat and those who provided vital support in protected areas that were in many cases exposed to attack.

Even today, when two Vietnam veterans meet for the first time, they might say, "Welcome home, brother!" because many were never welcomed home. They met the cold shoulder of an ungrateful nation on their return.

Those of us whose job was combat feel an even deeper sense of brotherhood. We learned to trust our brothers on the ground, on the water and in the air to do the right things to protect one another, a bond that cannot be fully explained in words.

We quietly feared dying in battle, but there was something we feared even more. We knew if we should panic under fire and fail to do our job, we might lose our brothers' trust or we might lose their lives, and this we feared more than anything.

Like Kerry, I have a couple of medals, but who has what medal among combat veterans doesn't make a dime's worth of difference between us. What matters is that we are, for the rest of our life, brothers who kept faith with one another in a miserable war.

A young Kerry, however, broke faith with his brothers when he returned to the United States. With the financial aid of Jane Fonda, he led highly visible protests against the war. He wrote a book that many considered to be pro-Hanoi, titled "The New Soldier."

The cover photo of his book depicted veterans in a mismatch of military uniforms mocking the legendary image of Marines raising the American flag atop Mount Suribachi in the 1945 battle for Iwo Jima, holding the American flag upside down.

Kerry publicly supported Hanoi's position to use our POWs as a bargaining chip in negotiations for a peace agreement. Kerry threw what appeared to be his medals over a fence in front of the Capitol building in protest, on camera of course, but was caught in his lie years later when his medals turned up displayed on his office wall.

Many good and decent people opposed the Vietnam War. Many of us who fought it hated it, too. I know I did.

But like Fonda's infamous visit to Hanoi in 1972, Kerry's public actions encouraged our enemy at a time they were killing America's sons. Decades after the war was done, interviews with our former enemy's leaders confirmed that public protests in the United States, like Kerry's, played a significant role in their strategy.

Many of us wonder which of our brothers who died young would be alive today had people like Jane Fonda and Kerry objected to the war in a more suitable way.

Now that it serves his ambition to be president, Kerry reminds the public of his war record daily. But the dark side of that record is not being told. Many Vietnam veterans have taken notice, and many of us will vigorously oppose Kerry's election to any office.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

His Jane Fonda connections will be the focus.  She is still very hated for what she did.

[jravnsbo]

she should be tried for treason.

His Jane Fonda connections will be the focus.  She is still very hated for what she did.

[jravnsbo]

By Max Boot, Max Boot, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign
Relations, writes a weekly column for The LA Times.

John Kerry has done well so far because he's not Howard Dean: He
doesn't have steam coming out of his ears every time he opens his
mouth, and he does have national security experience. But now that
he's the frontrunner, he will be subjected to the same kind of
withering scrutiny that caused Dr. Dean to turn into Mr. Hyde.

Kerry's military record is one of his strongest selling points for
Democrats hungry for a credible candidate. Kerry, as he himself never
tires of pointing out, is a decorated veteran. But so were Bob Dole
and John McCain. Heroism in wartime doesn't necessarily earn you the
Oval Office.

From the standpoint of presidential qualifications, the 18 years that
Kerry spent on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is more
relevant. He's been a leader in fighting international crime and
reestablishing relations with Vietnam. Although he voted against the
Persian Gulf War in 1991, he's cultivated a reputation as a moderate
on national security — an image buttressed by his selection of Rand
Beers as his campaign coordinator for these issues.

Beers is a career civil servant who worked on counter-terrorism for
presidents of both parties. He resigned from the National Security
Council last year because he thought Iraq would take resources away
from other parts of the war on terrorism. I disagree, but it's a
reasonable critique, and Beers is known as a solid professional.

So what kind of foreign policy have Kerry and Beers crafted? Kerry
gave his biggest foreign policy address to date at the Council on
Foreign Relations on Dec. 3. He made some excellent points about the
need to improve homeland security, combat money laundering, do more
in Afghanistan and hold the Saudis accountable for their support of
terrorism. And he was right on the money in criticizing the current
administration for not sending its senior officials overseas to sell
Washington's case.

But a lot of Kerry's speech was pure partisan windbaggery. "The Bush
administration," he claimed, "has pursued the most arrogant, inept,
reckless and ideological foreign policy in modern history." Really?
More inept than Jimmy Carter's, Lyndon Johnson's or Woodrow Wilson's?
Kerry also rapped Bush for failing to achieve peace between Israel
and its neighbors. He pledged to appoint as "presidential ambassador
to the peace process" someone like Bill Clinton. Why Clinton would
have more success brokering a settlement as an ex-president than when
he was president remains a mystery.

Those minor problems paled, however, next to Kerry's positions on
Iraq. To his credit, he was one of the Democrats who voted Oct. 11,
2002, for the resolution giving President Bush the authority "to use
the armed forces of the United States as he determines to be
necessary and appropriate" in Iraq. This has caused Kerry a lot of
grief among Deaniac Democrats, and he's twisted himself into a
pretzel to explain away this vote.

He claims that "I voted for the resolution to get the inspectors in
there, period," and that he had no idea that Bush would use the
authority granted to him to actually go to war. If you believe this,
Kerry is too naive to be president. A likelier explanation is that
he's trying to be pro-war and antiwar at the same time.

That impression was reinforced in his speech to the Council on
Foreign Relations. He said that "we had to hold Saddam Hussein
accountable," but only if we had united "the international
community." He was asked: "Do you think you really could have brought
the Germans, the French along in a commitment to use force?" Kerry
brazenly answered "yes" but offered no credible explanation of how,
beyond saying that he would have shown a lot of "patience and
maturity." As if Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair hadn't
spent six months dickering at the United Nations. Does Kerry also
think that he could have gotten U.N. approval for military action in
Kosovo — something that Clinton failed to achieve in 1999?

Then Kerry had the nerve to criticize the Bush administration for
a "cut and run strategy" in Iraq. That's pretty rich coming from
someone who voted against the $87-billion aid package that's
essential to our nation-building efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Kerry's inconsistency is stunning: He (like Sen. John Edwards)
supported the war — kind of — but then refused to give our troops the
resources necessary to finish the job.

Kerry's waffling reminds me of someone. Asked about the Gulf War
resolution in 1991, this candidate said: "I guess I would have voted
with the majority if it was a close vote. But I agree with the
arguments the minority made." Taking both sides on Iraq worked for
Bill Clinton. Now it seems to be working for Kerry.

[jravnsbo]

another article about Kerry's foreign policy credentials.  It tells us what he is for but then shows us how nieve he is and not decisive.

[M]

Kerry is considerably stronger than Dean or Clark. But he's still ridiculously weak for a national ticket. His appearance of strength now merely goes to show how incredibly bad candidates Dean and Clark were.

[Wakie]

I think Kerry's strength or weakness as a candidate really has yet to be determined.  Realistically though this election will have little to do with whomever the Democrats run and will mostly be a referendum on the Bush administration.  That's how most elections involving a sitting President go.

[jravnsbo]

I agree Wakie, and Bush continues to have approval ratings over 50%, despite the constant barrage of attacks fro all the dems.

But politics is also a comparison of candidates Bush v Kerry.

I think Kerry's strength or weakness as a candidate really has yet to be determined.  Realistically though this election will have little to do with whomever the Democrats run and will mostly be a referendum on the Bush administration.  That's how most elections involving a sitting President go.

[jravnsbo]

Honestly Clark is stronger on DEfense and foreign policy than Kerry.  He has worked at th highest levels of the military and with european leaders.

Kerry has constantly voed against the defense budget.  I guess the Boston globe ran a story recently ( which I'm going to look for) that he voted against a number of key weapons that we absolutely must have in battle today, such as the abrahams tank.

Kerry is considerably stronger than Dean or Clark. But he's still ridiculously weak for a national ticket. His appearance of strength now merely goes to show how incredibly bad candidates Dean and Clark were.

[jravnsbo]

John Kerry voted against:

The Bradley fighting vehicle

The Tomahawk Missle

the Abrahams tank


I can't even imagine fighting a war without these pieces in our arsenal.

[Gustaf]

John Kerry voted against:

The Bradley fighting vehicle

The Tomahawk Missle

the Abrahams tank


I can't even imagine fighting a war without these pieces in our arsenal.

Not today, but maybe it could be done at the time. It is often unfair to condemn people for making mistakes, if they were acting with the nkowledge they had at the time. It's commendable to have made the right call, but it's always easy with hindsight.

[Gustaf]

By Max Boot, Max Boot, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign
Relations, writes a weekly column for The LA Times.

John Kerry has done well so far because he's not Howard Dean: He
doesn't have steam coming out of his ears every time he opens his
mouth, and he does have national security experience. But now that
he's the frontrunner, he will be subjected to the same kind of
withering scrutiny that caused Dr. Dean to turn into Mr. Hyde.

Kerry's military record is one of his strongest selling points for
Democrats hungry for a credible candidate. Kerry, as he himself never
tires of pointing out, is a decorated veteran. But so were Bob Dole
and John McCain. Heroism in wartime doesn't necessarily earn you the
Oval Office.

From the standpoint of presidential qualifications, the 18 years that
Kerry spent on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is more
relevant. He's been a leader in fighting international crime and
reestablishing relations with Vietnam. Although he voted against the
Persian Gulf War in 1991, he's cultivated a reputation as a moderate
on national security — an image buttressed by his selection of Rand
Beers as his campaign coordinator for these issues.

Beers is a career civil servant who worked on counter-terrorism for
presidents of both parties. He resigned from the National Security
Council last year because he thought Iraq would take resources away
from other parts of the war on terrorism. I disagree, but it's a
reasonable critique, and Beers is known as a solid professional.

So what kind of foreign policy have Kerry and Beers crafted? Kerry
gave his biggest foreign policy address to date at the Council on
Foreign Relations on Dec. 3. He made some excellent points about the
need to improve homeland security, combat money laundering, do more
in Afghanistan and hold the Saudis accountable for their support of
terrorism. And he was right on the money in criticizing the current
administration for not sending its senior officials overseas to sell
Washington's case.

But a lot of Kerry's speech was pure partisan windbaggery. "The Bush
administration," he claimed, "has pursued the most arrogant, inept,
reckless and ideological foreign policy in modern history." Really?
More inept than Jimmy Carter's, Lyndon Johnson's or Woodrow Wilson's?
Kerry also rapped Bush for failing to achieve peace between Israel
and its neighbors. He pledged to appoint as "presidential ambassador
to the peace process" someone like Bill Clinton. Why Clinton would
have more success brokering a settlement as an ex-president than when
he was president remains a mystery.

Those minor problems paled, however, next to Kerry's positions on
Iraq. To his credit, he was one of the Democrats who voted Oct. 11,
2002, for the resolution giving President Bush the authority "to use
the armed forces of the United States as he determines to be
necessary and appropriate" in Iraq. This has caused Kerry a lot of
grief among Deaniac Democrats, and he's twisted himself into a
pretzel to explain away this vote.

He claims that "I voted for the resolution to get the inspectors in
there, period," and that he had no idea that Bush would use the
authority granted to him to actually go to war. If you believe this,
Kerry is too naive to be president. A likelier explanation is that
he's trying to be pro-war and antiwar at the same time.

That impression was reinforced in his speech to the Council on
Foreign Relations. He said that "we had to hold Saddam Hussein
accountable," but only if we had united "the international
community." He was asked: "Do you think you really could have brought
the Germans, the French along in a commitment to use force?" Kerry
brazenly answered "yes" but offered no credible explanation of how,
beyond saying that he would have shown a lot of "patience and
maturity." As if Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair hadn't
spent six months dickering at the United Nations. Does Kerry also
think that he could have gotten U.N. approval for military action in
Kosovo — something that Clinton failed to achieve in 1999?

Then Kerry had the nerve to criticize the Bush administration for
a "cut and run strategy" in Iraq. That's pretty rich coming from
someone who voted against the $87-billion aid package that's
essential to our nation-building efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Kerry's inconsistency is stunning: He (like Sen. John Edwards)
supported the war — kind of — but then refused to give our troops the
resources necessary to finish the job.

Kerry's waffling reminds me of someone. Asked about the Gulf War
resolution in 1991, this candidate said: "I guess I would have voted
with the majority if it was a close vote. But I agree with the
arguments the minority made." Taking both sides on Iraq worked for
Bill Clinton. Now it seems to be working for Kerry.

Another war hero was McGovern...

I think being a war hero might be used b/c the war-loving Republicans haven't seen real action. It's always easy to send other people away to die when you never had to experience it yourself, and never will. Kerry's gonna use that, and I think it might well be a strong assessment.

[jravnsbo]

each individual vote is not a important but when you put them together with a NO vote ont he first gulf war ( HELLO!! a country was invaded) and his votes to cut the CIAs budget on intelligence gathering the pattern of soft on defense is easily made.

John Kerry voted against:

The Bradley fighting vehicle

The Tomahawk Missle

the Abrahams tank


I can't even imagine fighting a war without these pieces in our arsenal.

Not today, but maybe it could be done at the time. It is often unfair to condemn people for making mistakes, if they were acting with the nkowledge they had at the time. It's commendable to have made the right call, but it's always easy with hindsight.

[jravnsbo]

Kerry is a lesser extent of Bob Dole on that front.  Old Senate warhorse that had veteran experience, and had put in his dues for the nominationa dn so got and it and loses to apopular President.

By Max Boot, Max Boot, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign
Relations, writes a weekly column for The LA Times.

John Kerry has done well so far because he's not Howard Dean: He
doesn't have steam coming out of his ears every time he opens his
mouth, and he does have national security experience. But now that
he's the frontrunner, he will be subjected to the same kind of
withering scrutiny that caused Dr. Dean to turn into Mr. Hyde.

Kerry's military record is one of his strongest selling points for
Democrats hungry for a credible candidate. Kerry, as he himself never
tires of pointing out, is a decorated veteran. But so were Bob Dole
and John McCain. Heroism in wartime doesn't necessarily earn you the
Oval Office.

From the standpoint of presidential qualifications, the 18 years that
Kerry spent on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is more
relevant. He's been a leader in fighting international crime and
reestablishing relations with Vietnam. Although he voted against the
Persian Gulf War in 1991, he's cultivated a reputation as a moderate
on national security — an image buttressed by his selection of Rand
Beers as his campaign coordinator for these issues.

Beers is a career civil servant who worked on counter-terrorism for
presidents of both parties. He resigned from the National Security
Council last year because he thought Iraq would take resources away
from other parts of the war on terrorism. I disagree, but it's a
reasonable critique, and Beers is known as a solid professional.

So what kind of foreign policy have Kerry and Beers crafted? Kerry
gave his biggest foreign policy address to date at the Council on
Foreign Relations on Dec. 3. He made some excellent points about the
need to improve homeland security, combat money laundering, do more
in Afghanistan and hold the Saudis accountable for their support of
terrorism. And he was right on the money in criticizing the current
administration for not sending its senior officials overseas to sell
Washington's case.

But a lot of Kerry's speech was pure partisan windbaggery. "The Bush
administration," he claimed, "has pursued the most arrogant, inept,
reckless and ideological foreign policy in modern history." Really?
More inept than Jimmy Carter's, Lyndon Johnson's or Woodrow Wilson's?
Kerry also rapped Bush for failing to achieve peace between Israel
and its neighbors. He pledged to appoint as "presidential ambassador
to the peace process" someone like Bill Clinton. Why Clinton would
have more success brokering a settlement as an ex-president than when
he was president remains a mystery.

Those minor problems paled, however, next to Kerry's positions on
Iraq. To his credit, he was one of the Democrats who voted Oct. 11,
2002, for the resolution giving President Bush the authority "to use
the armed forces of the United States as he determines to be
necessary and appropriate" in Iraq. This has caused Kerry a lot of
grief among Deaniac Democrats, and he's twisted himself into a
pretzel to explain away this vote.

He claims that "I voted for the resolution to get the inspectors in
there, period," and that he had no idea that Bush would use the
authority granted to him to actually go to war. If you believe this,
Kerry is too naive to be president. A likelier explanation is that
he's trying to be pro-war and antiwar at the same time.

That impression was reinforced in his speech to the Council on
Foreign Relations. He said that "we had to hold Saddam Hussein
accountable," but only if we had united "the international
community." He was asked: "Do you think you really could have brought
the Germans, the French along in a commitment to use force?" Kerry
brazenly answered "yes" but offered no credible explanation of how,
beyond saying that he would have shown a lot of "patience and
maturity." As if Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair hadn't
spent six months dickering at the United Nations. Does Kerry also
think that he could have gotten U.N. approval for military action in
Kosovo — something that Clinton failed to achieve in 1999?

Then Kerry had the nerve to criticize the Bush administration for
a "cut and run strategy" in Iraq. That's pretty rich coming from
someone who voted against the $87-billion aid package that's
essential to our nation-building efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Kerry's inconsistency is stunning: He (like Sen. John Edwards)
supported the war — kind of — but then refused to give our troops the
resources necessary to finish the job.

Kerry's waffling reminds me of someone. Asked about the Gulf War
resolution in 1991, this candidate said: "I guess I would have voted
with the majority if it was a close vote. But I agree with the
arguments the minority made." Taking both sides on Iraq worked for
Bill Clinton. Now it seems to be working for Kerry.

Another war hero was McGovern...

I think being a war hero might be used b/c the war-loving Republicans haven't seen real action. It's always easy to send other people away to die when you never had to experience it yourself, and never will. Kerry's gonna use that, and I think it might well be a strong assessment.

[Gustaf]

each individual vote is not a important but when you put them together with a NO vote ont he first gulf war ( HELLO!! a country was invaded) and his votes to cut the CIAs budget on intelligence gathering the pattern of soft on defense is easily made.

John Kerry voted against:

The Bradley fighting vehicle

The Tomahawk Missle

the Abrahams tank


I can't even imagine fighting a war without these pieces in our arsenal.

Not today, but maybe it could be done at the time. It is often unfair to condemn people for making mistakes, if they were acting with the nkowledge they had at the time. It's commendable to have made the right call, but it's always easy with hindsight.

It does seem stupid to vote against the Gulf War, can't see why anyone except US-hating loonies on the far left (i.e. most of the Swedish politicians, lol) would have opposed that.

[jravnsbo]

exactly.  It will be fun to watch him explain all these votes.  I can not imagine why then or now he did it.  I remember at the time thinking what has to happen to vot eto go to war if invading a country is not enough.

each individual vote is not a important but when you put them together with a NO vote ont he first gulf war ( HELLO!! a country was invaded) and his votes to cut the CIAs budget on intelligence gathering the pattern of soft on defense is easily made.

John Kerry voted against:

The Bradley fighting vehicle

The Tomahawk Missle

the Abrahams tank


I can't even imagine fighting a war without these pieces in our arsenal.

Not today, but maybe it could be done at the time. It is often unfair to condemn people for making mistakes, if they were acting with the nkowledge they had at the time. It's commendable to have made the right call, but it's always easy with hindsight.

It does seem stupid to vote against the Gulf War, can't see why anyone except US-hating loonies on the far left (i.e. most of the Swedish politicians, lol) would have opposed that.

[jravnsbo]

Kerry no hero in eyes of Vietnam-era veteran

By CHRISTOPHER WARD, Atlanta Journal Constitution

Growing up in the 1950s, I was frequently exposed to the late-night discussions of my father and his friends, all of whom had served in World War II.

One of these men, Ed Fitzpatrick, served in the U.S. Coast Guard and was a launch driver during D-Day, delivering squads of U.S. boys to the beaches in France.

Rob Helb served as an Army Air Corps gunner and lost an arm over the oil fields of Turkey. After crashing, he asked a crew member to retrieve his bloodied and severed arm so he could remove from its wrist the gold watch his father had given him.

My dad, at 17, joined the Navy and served in the Pacific. Enlisting in mid 1943, he arrived in the islands as the war was ending and served in the supply section for the duration, rather than as an aviation gunner's mate, for which he was trained.

I often sat at the bottom of the stairs to my attic room late at night, listening (which was against the rules) to their stories as they sat around the kitchen table, drank beer and laughed about a lot of things I was still too young to understand.

These men respected each other, and no matter the circumstances of their service, each was considered a brother veteran; each was a member of what is now sometimes called the "Greatest Generation."

In 1970, during the Vietnam War, I enlisted in the Navy to do my part, as I believed was my duty. I assumed I would someday sit late at night around a kitchen table, recalling my experiences with my veteran friends as had my father.

But Vietnam was not WWII, and the vets who served during the '60s and the '70s drew -- and still draw -- a distinction between those who saw combat in Vietnam and those who did service elsewhere. Ours was a band of brothers divided.

I spent four years in Europe as an enlisted man working in signals intelligence. Those who served with me, and thousands of others who never saw combat, almost always refer to themselves as "Vietnam-era veterans," rather than Vietnam vets.

We draw a distinction between those who actually saw combat and those who served in other roles, and unlike our fathers, who thought all vets equal, we believe the title "Vietnam veteran" belongs only to those who saw service in the war zone.

But all those who served during the Vietnam years hold clear that each of us did our job and had, for the most part, no control over what position we were given or where we were stationed. Each who did serve is special and a brother veteran.

For this reason I find it difficult to understand why Sen. John Kerry's campaign is attempting to belittle the service of President Bush during the Vietnam conflict.

We all know the differences. Bush was a pilot in the National Guard; Kerry was a combat veteran. The Boston Globe recently pointed out that Kerry, in less than two months of combat, received the Silver Star and three Purple Hearts, which made him a hero and allowed him to request early termination of his combat duty.

But what happened next bothers me. According to the Globe, Kerry became involved in the anti-war movement upon his return, and asked for and received an early discharge from the Navy so he could continue those efforts.

How could Kerry so easily abandon his comrades in Vietnam, and then, 30 years on, call on those same men and women to back his presidential ambition?

Kerry now holds himself up as a war hero and asks for my vote. Yet, 30 years ago he stood with Jane Fonda and gave aid and comfort to an enemy still killing our brother veterans by the hundreds.

Bush's honorable service in the National Guard bothers me less than Kerry's abandonment of his brothers, his switching sides and his active contribution to an enemy's efforts to kill Americans.

Time often softens the dark edges of military service, leaving grown men the ability to sit around a kitchen table late at night to laugh about the exploits that left them less than whole. But the dramatic difference between Hero Kerry and Hanoi Kerry leave me to wonder who he might next abandon, and at what cost to America.

[Gustaf]

Kerry no hero in eyes of Vietnam-era veteran

By CHRISTOPHER WARD, Atlanta Journal Constitution

Growing up in the 1950s, I was frequently exposed to the late-night discussions of my father and his friends, all of whom had served in World War II.

One of these men, Ed Fitzpatrick, served in the U.S. Coast Guard and was a launch driver during D-Day, delivering squads of U.S. boys to the beaches in France.

Rob Helb served as an Army Air Corps gunner and lost an arm over the oil fields of Turkey. After crashing, he asked a crew member to retrieve his bloodied and severed arm so he could remove from its wrist the gold watch his father had given him.

My dad, at 17, joined the Navy and served in the Pacific. Enlisting in mid 1943, he arrived in the islands as the war was ending and served in the supply section for the duration, rather than as an aviation gunner's mate, for which he was trained.

I often sat at the bottom of the stairs to my attic room late at night, listening (which was against the rules) to their stories as they sat around the kitchen table, drank beer and laughed about a lot of things I was still too young to understand.

These men respected each other, and no matter the circumstances of their service, each was considered a brother veteran; each was a member of what is now sometimes called the "Greatest Generation."

In 1970, during the Vietnam War, I enlisted in the Navy to do my part, as I believed was my duty. I assumed I would someday sit late at night around a kitchen table, recalling my experiences with my veteran friends as had my father.

But Vietnam was not WWII, and the vets who served during the '60s and the '70s drew -- and still draw -- a distinction between those who saw combat in Vietnam and those who did service elsewhere. Ours was a band of brothers divided.

I spent four years in Europe as an enlisted man working in signals intelligence. Those who served with me, and thousands of others who never saw combat, almost always refer to themselves as "Vietnam-era veterans," rather than Vietnam vets.

We draw a distinction between those who actually saw combat and those who served in other roles, and unlike our fathers, who thought all vets equal, we believe the title "Vietnam veteran" belongs only to those who saw service in the war zone.

But all those who served during the Vietnam years hold clear that each of us did our job and had, for the most part, no control over what position we were given or where we were stationed. Each who did serve is special and a brother veteran.

For this reason I find it difficult to understand why Sen. John Kerry's campaign is attempting to belittle the service of President Bush during the Vietnam conflict.

We all know the differences. Bush was a pilot in the National Guard; Kerry was a combat veteran. The Boston Globe recently pointed out that Kerry, in less than two months of combat, received the Silver Star and three Purple Hearts, which made him a hero and allowed him to request early termination of his combat duty.

But what happened next bothers me. According to the Globe, Kerry became involved in the anti-war movement upon his return, and asked for and received an early discharge from the Navy so he could continue those efforts.

How could Kerry so easily abandon his comrades in Vietnam, and then, 30 years on, call on those same men and women to back his presidential ambition?

Kerry now holds himself up as a war hero and asks for my vote. Yet, 30 years ago he stood with Jane Fonda and gave aid and comfort to an enemy still killing our brother veterans by the hundreds.

Bush's honorable service in the National Guard bothers me less than Kerry's abandonment of his brothers, his switching sides and his active contribution to an enemy's efforts to kill Americans.

Time often softens the dark edges of military service, leaving grown men the ability to sit around a kitchen table late at night to laugh about the exploits that left them less than whole. But the dramatic difference between Hero Kerry and Hanoi Kerry leave me to wonder who he might next abandon, and at what cost to America.

Do you really think that it should not be allowed to question a war? With that logic, as soon as you sent troops abroad everyone has to line up behind it. That gives the state a carte blanche on wars that I would be very unwilling to extend.

[NHPolitico]

Kerry no hero in eyes of Vietnam-era veteran

By CHRISTOPHER WARD, Atlanta Journal Constitution

Growing up in the 1950s, I was frequently exposed to the late-night discussions of my father and his friends, all of whom had served in World War II.

One of these men, Ed Fitzpatrick, served in the U.S. Coast Guard and was a launch driver during D-Day, delivering squads of U.S. boys to the beaches in France.

Rob Helb served as an Army Air Corps gunner and lost an arm over the oil fields of Turkey. After crashing, he asked a crew member to retrieve his bloodied and severed arm so he could remove from its wrist the gold watch his father had given him.

My dad, at 17, joined the Navy and served in the Pacific. Enlisting in mid 1943, he arrived in the islands as the war was ending and served in the supply section for the duration, rather than as an aviation gunner's mate, for which he was trained.

I often sat at the bottom of the stairs to my attic room late at night, listening (which was against the rules) to their stories as they sat around the kitchen table, drank beer and laughed about a lot of things I was still too young to understand.

These men respected each other, and no matter the circumstances of their service, each was considered a brother veteran; each was a member of what is now sometimes called the "Greatest Generation."

In 1970, during the Vietnam War, I enlisted in the Navy to do my part, as I believed was my duty. I assumed I would someday sit late at night around a kitchen table, recalling my experiences with my veteran friends as had my father.

But Vietnam was not WWII, and the vets who served during the '60s and the '70s drew -- and still draw -- a distinction between those who saw combat in Vietnam and those who did service elsewhere. Ours was a band of brothers divided.

I spent four years in Europe as an enlisted man working in signals intelligence. Those who served with me, and thousands of others who never saw combat, almost always refer to themselves as "Vietnam-era veterans," rather than Vietnam vets.

We draw a distinction between those who actually saw combat and those who served in other roles, and unlike our fathers, who thought all vets equal, we believe the title "Vietnam veteran" belongs only to those who saw service in the war zone.

But all those who served during the Vietnam years hold clear that each of us did our job and had, for the most part, no control over what position we were given or where we were stationed. Each who did serve is special and a brother veteran.

For this reason I find it difficult to understand why Sen. John Kerry's campaign is attempting to belittle the service of President Bush during the Vietnam conflict.

We all know the differences. Bush was a pilot in the National Guard; Kerry was a combat veteran. The Boston Globe recently pointed out that Kerry, in less than two months of combat, received the Silver Star and three Purple Hearts, which made him a hero and allowed him to request early termination of his combat duty.

But what happened next bothers me. According to the Globe, Kerry became involved in the anti-war movement upon his return, and asked for and received an early discharge from the Navy so he could continue those efforts.

How could Kerry so easily abandon his comrades in Vietnam, and then, 30 years on, call on those same men and women to back his presidential ambition?

Kerry now holds himself up as a war hero and asks for my vote. Yet, 30 years ago he stood with Jane Fonda and gave aid and comfort to an enemy still killing our brother veterans by the hundreds.

Bush's honorable service in the National Guard bothers me less than Kerry's abandonment of his brothers, his switching sides and his active contribution to an enemy's efforts to kill Americans.

Time often softens the dark edges of military service, leaving grown men the ability to sit around a kitchen table late at night to laugh about the exploits that left them less than whole. But the dramatic difference between Hero Kerry and Hanoi Kerry leave me to wonder who he might next abandon, and at what cost to America.

Do you really think that it should not be allowed to question a war? With that logic, as soon as you sent troops abroad everyone has to line up behind it. That gives the state a carte blanche on wars that I would be very unwilling to extend.

People like Kerry's VVAW troops extended the war and extended the stays of POWs. In fact, the VVAW marched under Viet Cong flags and supported all of the People's Peace Treaty which called for negotiations on POWs only after American withdrawal-- handing over our main tool to get our servicemen back home. He's a total piece of commie-loving crap, and only in Assachusetts could a killer (Kennedy) and a traitor (Kerry) serve as US senators in largely uncontested races.  This isn't about "questioning" a war. Congress cut off funding for Vietnam due to Kerry's VVAW activities just as General Giap told those in the N Vietnamese military that they were tiring of fighting us-- a dishonoring of those who died to fight communism over there.

[Gustaf]

Kerry no hero in eyes of Vietnam-era veteran

By CHRISTOPHER WARD, Atlanta Journal Constitution

Growing up in the 1950s, I was frequently exposed to the late-night discussions of my father and his friends, all of whom had served in World War II.

One of these men, Ed Fitzpatrick, served in the U.S. Coast Guard and was a launch driver during D-Day, delivering squads of U.S. boys to the beaches in France.

Rob Helb served as an Army Air Corps gunner and lost an arm over the oil fields of Turkey. After crashing, he asked a crew member to retrieve his bloodied and severed arm so he could remove from its wrist the gold watch his father had given him.

My dad, at 17, joined the Navy and served in the Pacific. Enlisting in mid 1943, he arrived in the islands as the war was ending and served in the supply section for the duration, rather than as an aviation gunner's mate, for which he was trained.

I often sat at the bottom of the stairs to my attic room late at night, listening (which was against the rules) to their stories as they sat around the kitchen table, drank beer and laughed about a lot of things I was still too young to understand.

These men respected each other, and no matter the circumstances of their service, each was considered a brother veteran; each was a member of what is now sometimes called the "Greatest Generation."

In 1970, during the Vietnam War, I enlisted in the Navy to do my part, as I believed was my duty. I assumed I would someday sit late at night around a kitchen table, recalling my experiences with my veteran friends as had my father.

But Vietnam was not WWII, and the vets who served during the '60s and the '70s drew -- and still draw -- a distinction between those who saw combat in Vietnam and those who did service elsewhere. Ours was a band of brothers divided.

I spent four years in Europe as an enlisted man working in signals intelligence. Those who served with me, and thousands of others who never saw combat, almost always refer to themselves as "Vietnam-era veterans," rather than Vietnam vets.

We draw a distinction between those who actually saw combat and those who served in other roles, and unlike our fathers, who thought all vets equal, we believe the title "Vietnam veteran" belongs only to those who saw service in the war zone.

But all those who served during the Vietnam years hold clear that each of us did our job and had, for the most part, no control over what position we were given or where we were stationed. Each who did serve is special and a brother veteran.

For this reason I find it difficult to understand why Sen. John Kerry's campaign is attempting to belittle the service of President Bush during the Vietnam conflict.

We all know the differences. Bush was a pilot in the National Guard; Kerry was a combat veteran. The Boston Globe recently pointed out that Kerry, in less than two months of combat, received the Silver Star and three Purple Hearts, which made him a hero and allowed him to request early termination of his combat duty.

But what happened next bothers me. According to the Globe, Kerry became involved in the anti-war movement upon his return, and asked for and received an early discharge from the Navy so he could continue those efforts.

How could Kerry so easily abandon his comrades in Vietnam, and then, 30 years on, call on those same men and women to back his presidential ambition?

Kerry now holds himself up as a war hero and asks for my vote. Yet, 30 years ago he stood with Jane Fonda and gave aid and comfort to an enemy still killing our brother veterans by the hundreds.

Bush's honorable service in the National Guard bothers me less than Kerry's abandonment of his brothers, his switching sides and his active contribution to an enemy's efforts to kill Americans.

Time often softens the dark edges of military service, leaving grown men the ability to sit around a kitchen table late at night to laugh about the exploits that left them less than whole. But the dramatic difference between Hero Kerry and Hanoi Kerry leave me to wonder who he might next abandon, and at what cost to America.

Do you really think that it should not be allowed to question a war? With that logic, as soon as you sent troops abroad everyone has to line up behind it. That gives the state a carte blanche on wars that I would be very unwilling to extend.

People like Kerry's VVAW troops extended the war and extended the stays of POWs. In fact, the VVAW marched under Viet Cong flags and supported all of the People's Peace Treaty which called for negotiations on POWs only after American withdrawal-- handing over our main tool to get our servicemen back home. He's a total piece of commie-loving crap, and only in Assachusetts could a killer (Kennedy) and a traitor (Kerry) serve as US senators in largely uncontested races.  This isn't about "questioning" a war. Congress cut off funding for Vietnam due to Kerry's VVAW activities just as General Giap told those in the N Vietnamese military that they were tiring of fighting us-- a dishonoring of those who died to fight communism over there.

You're saying that it's OK to start a war, send people off to die or get imprisoned, and then say that no one can criticize it b/c the country's at war. I agree that war-protests might have been hurtful, but maybe the war shouldn't have been started then? If there's a severe threat to the nation, I would agree, but not when it comes to an overseas war. And I'm not sure whether the Vietnam War was really about battling Communism, at least in any effective way.

Btw, I agree on Ted Kennedy, I think that incident was disgraceful. But the Kennedys were a little immoral with their private lives in general.

[NHPolitico]

Kerry no hero in eyes of Vietnam-era veteran

By CHRISTOPHER WARD, Atlanta Journal Constitution

Growing up in the 1950s, I was frequently exposed to the late-night discussions of my father and his friends, all of whom had served in World War II.

One of these men, Ed Fitzpatrick, served in the U.S. Coast Guard and was a launch driver during D-Day, delivering squads of U.S. boys to the beaches in France.

Rob Helb served as an Army Air Corps gunner and lost an arm over the oil fields of Turkey. After crashing, he asked a crew member to retrieve his bloodied and severed arm so he could remove from its wrist the gold watch his father had given him.

My dad, at 17, joined the Navy and served in the Pacific. Enlisting in mid 1943, he arrived in the islands as the war was ending and served in the supply section for the duration, rather than as an aviation gunner's mate, for which he was trained.

I often sat at the bottom of the stairs to my attic room late at night, listening (which was against the rules) to their stories as they sat around the kitchen table, drank beer and laughed about a lot of things I was still too young to understand.

These men respected each other, and no matter the circumstances of their service, each was considered a brother veteran; each was a member of what is now sometimes called the "Greatest Generation."

In 1970, during the Vietnam War, I enlisted in the Navy to do my part, as I believed was my duty. I assumed I would someday sit late at night around a kitchen table, recalling my experiences with my veteran friends as had my father.

But Vietnam was not WWII, and the vets who served during the '60s and the '70s drew -- and still draw -- a distinction between those who saw combat in Vietnam and those who did service elsewhere. Ours was a band of brothers divided.

I spent four years in Europe as an enlisted man working in signals intelligence. Those who served with me, and thousands of others who never saw combat, almost always refer to themselves as "Vietnam-era veterans," rather than Vietnam vets.

We draw a distinction between those who actually saw combat and those who served in other roles, and unlike our fathers, who thought all vets equal, we believe the title "Vietnam veteran" belongs only to those who saw service in the war zone.

But all those who served during the Vietnam years hold clear that each of us did our job and had, for the most part, no control over what position we were given or where we were stationed. Each who did serve is special and a brother veteran.

For this reason I find it difficult to understand why Sen. John Kerry's campaign is attempting to belittle the service of President Bush during the Vietnam conflict.

We all know the differences. Bush was a pilot in the National Guard; Kerry was a combat veteran. The Boston Globe recently pointed out that Kerry, in less than two months of combat, received the Silver Star and three Purple Hearts, which made him a hero and allowed him to request early termination of his combat duty.

But what happened next bothers me. According to the Globe, Kerry became involved in the anti-war movement upon his return, and asked for and received an early discharge from the Navy so he could continue those efforts.

How could Kerry so easily abandon his comrades in Vietnam, and then, 30 years on, call on those same men and women to back his presidential ambition?

Kerry now holds himself up as a war hero and asks for my vote. Yet, 30 years ago he stood with Jane Fonda and gave aid and comfort to an enemy still killing our brother veterans by the hundreds.

Bush's honorable service in the National Guard bothers me less than Kerry's abandonment of his brothers, his switching sides and his active contribution to an enemy's efforts to kill Americans.

Time often softens the dark edges of military service, leaving grown men the ability to sit around a kitchen table late at night to laugh about the exploits that left them less than whole. But the dramatic difference between Hero Kerry and Hanoi Kerry leave me to wonder who he might next abandon, and at what cost to America.

Do you really think that it should not be allowed to question a war? With that logic, as soon as you sent troops abroad everyone has to line up behind it. That gives the state a carte blanche on wars that I would be very unwilling to extend.

People like Kerry's VVAW troops extended the war and extended the stays of POWs. In fact, the VVAW marched under Viet Cong flags and supported all of the People's Peace Treaty which called for negotiations on POWs only after American withdrawal-- handing over our main tool to get our servicemen back home. He's a total piece of commie-loving crap, and only in Assachusetts could a killer (Kennedy) and a traitor (Kerry) serve as US senators in largely uncontested races.  This isn't about "questioning" a war. Congress cut off funding for Vietnam due to Kerry's VVAW activities just as General Giap told those in the N Vietnamese military that they were tiring of fighting us-- a dishonoring of those who died to fight communism over there.

You're saying that it's OK to start a war, send people off to die or get imprisoned, and then say that no one can criticize it b/c the country's at war. I agree that war-protests might have been hurtful, but maybe the war shouldn't have been started then? If there's a severe threat to the nation, I would agree, but not when it comes to an overseas war. And I'm not sure whether the Vietnam War was really about battling Communism, at least in any effective way.

Btw, I agree on Ted Kennedy, I think that incident was disgraceful. But the Kennedys were a little immoral with their private lives in general.

You can oppose a war; VVAW did more than that. They spread unsubstantiated horrible accusations about our soldiers.  They weren't content to oppose the mission.  They painted our soldiers as spiritual ancestors of the Saddam Fedayeen-- lawless savages who were unmatched in their brutality. The enemy knew they had a chance to outlast us as long as anti-war groups of the nature of the VVAW kept up the pressure to cut morale at home and abroad to win the war.  The enemy wouldn't come to the peace table and they wouldn't be more open to giving back our POWs as long as Kerry and the VVAW kept up the good fight here in the US.

[elcorazon]

I have no way of knowing (although I imagine you don't either) but what if the statements they made about the soldiers were true?  Would that make it still unpatriotic?  Or would it then be OK?

[NHPolitico]

I have no way of knowing (although I imagine you don't either) but what if the statements they made about the soldiers were true?  Would that make it still unpatriotic?  Or would it then be OK?

Kerry in his testimony to the Senate and the others in the VVAW on numerous occassions alleged that these war crimes were committed with the knowledge of the chain of command-- that the acts of random and sometimes calculated brutality were encouraged and advocated by official policy, unwritten as it may be.  If evidence can be brought to support those statements, I'd support a Nuremberg-style trial, because that would be the historical way to put forward such serious claims for resolution.  I suspect, though, that they were fabrications from Mark Lane's book "Conversations with Americans (1970)."  In fact, the Naval Investigative Service did look into Kerry's claims and discovered that interviewees couldn't provide details of the alleged war crimes and the testimony regarding the most heinous acts was given by non-military people who'd committed indentity theft by taking the IDs of actual soldiers.  Kerry was either gullible by spewing ridiculous slander about our troops or he was traitorous for spewing slander he knew to be slander for the purpose of harming our troops in their war effort. And, by the way, Hanoi Jane funded the VVAW and the Winter Soldier Investigation (which Kerry MC'ed and was the forum for airing these malicious statements to all the nutjob hippies in the midst).

[agcatter]

This is going to be one ugly, nasty campaign.  God help us all.

[Nym90]

Agreed on that count.