Kerry's War record

[Shamrock]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/21/...ooks/index.html

 

 

Kerry's war record may backfire on critics

Those slamming Vietnam hitch may be shooting themselves in the foot

Thursday, April 22, 2004 Posted: 8:55 AM EDT (1255 GMT)

 

 

 

Questions about Kerry's military record offer the candidate a chance to tout his war experience and stengthen credibility among veterans and voters who favor a strong defense.

 

 

This week in "The Inside Edge," I look at how the dispute over Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry's military record could help him.

 

I also weigh an ex-football player's chances to be Kerry's running mate; describe an unusual take on politics from some NBA players and fans, and look at how political bestsellers are playing in the polls.

 

Veteran's benefits

The dustup over Kerry's military records could be just the opportuntity he needs to kickstart his general election campaign.

 

During the Democratic primary, nothing impressed voters as much as stories of Kerry's war heroism.

 

For nonprimary voters still getting to know Kerry, few things could burnish his image as much as a conversation about how a young man from Yale chose to fight in Vietnam and ended up winning three Purple Hearts, one Silver Star and a Bronze Medal.

 

A discussion about Kerry's military service would also persuade many voters to take Kerry's military policy more seriously. Indeed, in pointing out that he personally understands what it means to fight and defend the country -- and even to kill -- Kerry could ease any doubt that he would be soft on terrorism or enemies.

 

During the primaries, Kerry and his veterans' brigade opened the possibility of a veterans' voting bloc for the first time in more than 40 years.

 

Further discussion of his record, contrasted with the National Guard records of President George Bush and the military deferments of Vice President Dick Cheney, Karl Rove and others, might make the emergence of such a voting bloc that much more likely and give Kerry just the political gift he's looking for.

 

Bush borrows from Clinton

George W. Bush has once again taken a page out of Bill Clinton's handbook.

 

At his news conference last week, the president vowed to stay the course on Iraq and the war on terror. He said he stood by the June 30 deadline to hand over sovereignty to Iraqis. Despite this rhetoric of resolve, the president signaled shifts in his policies on Iraq and terrorism.

 

On the war in Iraq, the president said he would be open to adding 20,000 more troops and to seeking help from the United Nations to form a new post-June 30th interim government -- both suggestions he had previously rejected.

 

As for the war on terror, the president, who once opposed even the formation of a 9/11 Commission, embraced one of the commission's major implicit suggestions thus far -- the appointment of an intelligence czar.

 

By co-opting these once-Democratic positions, the president has not only improved his policy position, but has stolen political thunder from the opposition. In doing so, he is following in the tradition of Bill Clinton, who famously co-opted Republican positions on crime, welfare and the importance of a balanced budget -- once a GOP concern -- to become the first Democrat elected to two terms since FDR.

 

This summer and fall, don't be surprised, despite the tough language, to see a return to "compassionate conservative" positions from a president who very much wants to win re-election. This past week revealed the effort on international issues. Now prepare for co-option efforts on the domestic front -- Medicare, education and, perhaps to the horror of some Democrats, even the environment.

 

Political page turners

Forget TV, radio and the Internet, the campaigns are looking to bookstores this spring for votes.

 

Along with Richard Clarke's "Against All Enemies" and Paul O'Neill's "The Price of Loyalty," Bob Woodward's new book "Plan of Attack" is the third nonfiction bestseller in the last six months alone to rattle the polls.

 

Most of the books have had a negative impact on the president's effort, perhaps even lowering his approval and favorable ratings by 2 to 4 points per book

 

"Ten Minutes from Normal," a positive portrait of the president as told by Bush campaign adviser Karen Hughes, has not tilted polls either way. But with six months to go, the Republicans still have time to draw even.

 

Former U.S. Ambassador Joe Wilson and President Clinton are both set to publish books by November with insights, for better or worse, on current and previous administrations.

 

Along with paperbacks from Mary Higgins Clark and Jackie Collins, don't be surprised to see a few political potboilers in beach bags this summer.

 

Can he carry the ball for Kerry?

An average student in high school, John Edwards headed to college with one thing in mind -- playing football for the Clemson Tigers.

 

A little slow and a little small, he didn't make it. But he did become the first person in his family to graduate from college and later became a successful lawyer and senator from North Carolina. Despite a losing bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, Edwards is now perhaps the early frontrunner for Kerry's running mate .

 

Edwards, who was a finalist in 2000 to be Al Gore's running mate, is seen as smart, articulate and compelling. Many Democrats believe Kerry could adopt Edwards' " Two Americas" theme as a powerful message of economic hope and opportunity.

 

Supporters also believe that Edwards, an ace trial attorney, would be an effective voice for a Kerry presidency and an able critic of the Bush administration. Indeed, a debate between Edwards and Vice President Cheney would offer perhaps the most stark contrast in veep candidates in almost 20 years.

 

But can Edwards help Kerry win? Many Democrats don't think Edwards can even carry his home state of North Carolina, which Bush won by double digits in 2000. Edwards' supporters point to his appeal among independents in Wisconsin and South Carolina.

 

Will he be chosen? He'll definitely be a top finalist, and if the economy emerges again as the central campaign issue, he's my odds-on choice.

 

Next week, I'll tell you about a former Republican who would be Kerry's most electric choice of all.

 

American Pulse: Taking the Heat

In talking with players for the Miami Heat basketball team and their fans for my American Pulse series on CNN, one thing I took away -- from this admittedly small and unscientific sample -- is how far Kerry is from winning the votes of those wavering on Bush.

 

Even as some voters expressed doubts about the president, they were still unwilling to shift allegiance to Kerry. Indeed, if these voters are to join the Kerry crowd, the Democratic candidate must offer specific and believable plans on the war in Iraq, terrorism and the economy.

 

Interesting, the issue of gay marriage did not resonate with the athletes and fans I interviewed.

 

Miami Heat forward, Samaki Walker, who supports a more inclusive gay rights policy, had this to say: "I think we as a people have become so small-minded ... it kind of scares me that here are the same people that we are electing to lead our country and they are small-minded to such subjects. Then at a broader picture, you know, how can they actually help me?"

 

Such comments and polls, which show Floridians tend to be more liberal on the issue, leads me to wonder if gay marriage and other social issues will be potent in the true Southern and Bible Belt states, like South Carolina, Alabama and Oklahoma, than Sunbelt states like Arizona, Florida and New Mexico.

 

If this is true and Kerry can convince voters to trust him on terrorism, Iraq and the economy, he may actually be able to turn a disadvantage in Southern and Bible states into an advantage in critical Sunbelt states.

[Fish Fillet]

Your article fails to mention that Kerry's "million dollar wound" that got him out of Vietnam was, and I quote, "the equivilant of a fingernail scratch." According to another seaman on his boat.

[Fish Fillet]

Part of his medical records were realeased and this is what a "nail scratch" wound is:

Ummmm. No.

 

 

Excerpted from CNN

 

Conservatives, talk radio hosts and some newspaper editorials have questioned the seriousness of his injuries and whether the Massachusetts senator was deserving of the three Purple Hearts, which resulted in his reassignment out of Vietnam.

 

Kerry's former commanding officer, Lt. Cmdr. Grant Hibbard, told the Boston Globe last week that Kerry's first Purple Heart came from minor wound, resembling a fingernail scrape...

 

Do not believe everything the GOP machine tells you.

 

You are right. Instead I should troll for objective news on a liberal New England candidate in Boston newspapers.

[Flying_Mollusk]

Do not believe everything the GOP machine tells you.

Is there even a question of this?

 

Fish fillet, take a good look at how you substantiate your claim. Its called hearsay my friend.

 

You are right. Instead I should troll for objective news on a liberal New England candidate in Boston newspapers.

 

No, try being a little moderate and not listening to all the idiocy of that drug addict Rush Limbaugh and his compatriots.

 

It would be like me pointing out something Micheal Moore says and someone he found. And then when you say "cmon, thats Michael Moore...dont believe everything he says." Then I use the fish fillet logic of "well should I believe Rush Limbaugh?!...(pouts)" There is a middle ground.

 

 

 

Oh wait, now I remember. If a news source doesnt support the conservative cause in every facet then it has a liberal bias!

 

 

 

 

They are doing the same thing they did to John McCain. These conservative talk show hosts are frikkin cowards who will say anything to taint someone's reputation. In 2000, Bush engaged in a cheap campaign of questioning McCain's mental health because he was in a POW camp in Veitnam. This man gave a few years of his life and freedom from this country and Bush went too far. What about the guy who reunited with Kerry recently and said Kerry pulled him out of the water when their boat was attacked and Kerry was hit by shrapnel. What about the MEDICAL RECORDS that show Kerry took mahjor injuries? To fish fillet these dont count. Only what one guy said about Kerry's first purple heart. Besides, if you do believe that, arent you questioning the intergrity of the army's awards?

 

 

I also love that they can believe this stuff and attack eevrything Kerry has given for this country but then when people question Bush's duty in the national guard(despite there being little evidence he did), they got all huffy and puffy about disrespecting the national guard and being anti-Bush.

[Fish Fillet]

Sorry, I'd much rather beileive a soldier WHO WAS THERE and witnessed the extent of Kerry's injuries than chalking it all up to yet another vast, right-wing conspiracy.

 

Did he suffer two substantial wounds in Vietnam? Sounds like it. But the crux of the issue is hte fact that after 3 Purple Hearts you got ot go home. And one of his was a "fingernail scratch."

[Shamrock]

Sorry, I'd much rather beileive a soldier WHO WAS THERE and witnessed the extent of Kerry's injuries than chalking it all up to yet another vast, right-wing conspiracy.

 

Did he suffer two substantial wounds in Vietnam? Sounds like it. But the crux of the issue is hte fact that after 3 Purple Hearts you got ot go home. And one of his was a "fingernail scratch."

I don't think you need much of anything to make up your mind because it was already set in stone. The smallest negative report could validate your bias and solidify your stance.

[Fish Fillet]

You are right. I should completely ignore any information that runs counter to my beliefs and dismiss the info as part of a conspiracy.

[SorianoFanHFW]

hey, anyone who fought in that god forsaken war that was totally ridiculous have a greater love of country than any draft dodger.

[Shamrock]

You are right. I should completely ignore any information that runs counter to my beliefs and dismiss the info as part of a conspiracy.

Well, the fact that your able to brush off an incredible war record over one person's "word" shows me your lack of objectivity. Why does Bush get a free pass in this area for you?

[Flying_Mollusk]

Sorry, I'd much rather beileive a soldier WHO WAS THERE and witnessed the extent of Kerry's injuries than chalking it all up to yet another vast, right-wing conspiracy.

 

Did he suffer two substantial wounds in Vietnam? Sounds like it. But the crux of the issue is hte fact that after 3 Purple Hearts you got ot go home. And one of his was a "fingernail scratch."

 

 

No the crux of your issue is orginal claim you made:

 

Your article fails to mention that Kerry's "million dollar wound" that got him out of Vietnam was, and I quote, "the equivilant of a fingernail scratch." According to another seaman on his boat.

Look at that for a second. You essentially claim that the wound that got him out of Vietnam was a fingernail scratch. Im a little confused about this. You see your defense of this silly assertion is that someone said his first purple came from a fingernail scratch. Lets even assume that that has a basis. How can that first wound have gotten him out of Vietnam if HE KEPT FIGHTING AND GOT TWO MORE PURPLE HEARTS!?! Oh perhaps you just wanted to make a blind assertion and distort another accusation to back up your accusation.

 

Now lets move on the your hearsay evidence that doesnt even prove your baseless accusation.

 

You would rather believe a soldier who was there over the people WHO ACTUALLY GAVE HIM the award. This is a purple heart and you imply that he didnt deserve it based on what? It seems to me that YOU are the conspiracy theorists. The Navy gave Kerry an award he didnt deserve. Why? For what reason? They knew he would run for president one day?

 

 

that after 3 Purple Hearts you got ot go home. And one of his was a "fingernail scratch."

 

Lol. You cant even prove anything on hte first one and so easily dismiss the second two as if they were just kind of there. These were serious affects. He paid his due and you try your damndest to dismiss it. What if someone said that about a soldier who came back from Iraq today? It would be foolish!

 

 

Instead I should troll for objective news on a liberal New England candidate in Boston newspapers.

HAHA. Funny, it just so happens that it was the Boston Globe that reported Hibbard's claims. :lol

 

I should completely ignore any information that runs counter to my beliefs and dismiss the info as part of a conspiracy.

 

Youre missing the point totally. Its called weight of the evidence. We know how you see your evidence.

[Fish Fillet]

hey, anyone who fought in that god forsaken war that was totally ridiculous have a greater love of country than any draft dodger.

That's a pretty broad statement to make, especially since thousands upon thousands dodged the draft. Your neigborhood, school and city are filled with these unpatriotic draft dodgers.

 

Look at that for a second. You essentially claim that the wound that got him out of Vietnam was a fingernail scratch. Im a little confused about this. You see your defense of this silly assertion is that someone said his first purple came from a fingernail scratch. Lets even assume that that has a basis. How can that first wound have gotten him out of Vietnam if HE KEPT FIGHTING AND GOT TWO MORE PURPLE HEARTS!?!

 

Because it took THREE wounds to get to go home. The scratch was one of them. Hence, the fingernail scratch contributed to his release and return home. No fingernail scratch Purple Heart, no trip back to the states.

 

You would rather believe a soldier who was there over the people WHO ACTUALLY GAVE HIM the award. This is a purple heart and you imply that he didnt deserve it based on what

 

He didn't deserve it because I suffered a more serious wound yesterday opening a soda bottle. That's why. And if you think that thousands of decorations weren't awarded without merit in Vietnam you've been living underneath a rock.

 

Now you want me to take the word of the Vietnam-era governemnt and military, the same one that you rally against and compare to Iraq as a worst case scenario.

[SorianoFanHFW]

That's a pretty broad statement to make, especially since thousands upon thousands dodged the draft. Your neigborhood, school and city are filled with these unpatriotic draft dodgers.

Now you're being a hypocrite. I doubt you gave clinton that sort of free pass.

 

People who dodged the draft were unpatriotic. As long as you take things from the government, the government can take you and throw you anywhere you want. Now unless they are ordering you to commit acts of genocide, you have to owe up to your responsibility as a citizen.

[Flying_Mollusk]

Its amazing how much tunnel vision you can have on your political views fish fillet. Some people just cant stop distorting and stretching things to implicate some greater concept. You flat out miss the forest for the trees. There has to be a medical officer who verifies he treated Kerry for the injury. Someone else has to approve the award. For you to claim George Bush and his failure in Iraq implies a plausibility that Kerry didnt earn a purple heart, then I dont know what it means for someone to be stretching.

 

You wanna cast a minute shadow of doubt that is about a millimeter thick on Kerry's service to this nation, why dont you look at all the other awards and occurences? Youre using a magnifying glass to point out a possible discrepency without using your own eyes.

 

Kerry went on to earn another two Purple Hearts and he led more than two dozen missions in which he often faced enemy fire. He won the Silver Star for an action in which he killed an enemy soldier who carried a loaded rocket launcher that could have destroyed Kerry's six-man patrol boat, and he won a Bronze Star for rescuing an Army lieutenant who was thrown overboard and under fire.

 

These chickenhawks need to back off. Theyre making themselves look even more blinded and partisan obsessive.

[Fish Fillet]

For you to claim George Bush and his failure in Iraq implies a plausibility that Kerry didnt earn a purple heart, then I dont know what it means for someone to be stretching.

 

I never mentioned Bush, you did. Apparently everything must be compared in a positive light against Bush no matter what.

 

What I am saying is that for weeks people on this board have been making comparisons b/t Iraq and Vietnam and insinuating that this administration is making the same mistakes. And now you are saying that we should trust the word of that administration when it comes to giving Kerry medals...

 

Kerry brought his military service into play. Thus it's fair game to actually listen to those who have a different take on some of it.

 

All I was trying to say was that the original article was a little over the top and didn't mention the fact that one of his three PH's was for nothing. I wasn't trying to juxtapose it against Bush, or defend a big conspiracy, just pointing out a little one-sided journalism.

[Shamrock]

True enough.

 

I'm not sure who compared the Iraq situation to Vietnam, but we all know its far from that horrible, stinking mess of crap. I might of made that comparison awhile back, but its definitely incorrect.

 

 

I have no idea what this thread has devolved into. What are we arguing about again? :plain

[Fish Fillet]

I don't remember, but a safe guess would be the environment, CO2 gasses, trees or something like that. :lol

[Shamrock]

I don't remember, but a safe guess would be the environment, CO2 gasses, trees or something like that. :lol

lol

[Flying_Mollusk]

All I was trying to say was that the original article was a little over the top and didn't mention the fact that one of his three PH's was for nothing. I wasn't trying to juxtapose it against Bush, or defend a big conspiracy, just pointing out a little one-sided journalism.

 

It was an opinionated article on what effect might arise from these new accusations. He didnt need to mention the specific claims. He only needed to mention that there are doubts about his military record.

 

He is arguing that these doubts that conservatives are trying to shine on Kerry could end up backfiring. In Watson's view, conservatives should stay away from this. Its a risk reward situation. Its a small reward to try and put a tiny dent into a very strong military record that is nearly universally respected. But the risk is immense. For conservatives to try and battle on this ground just puts it in larger context and forces Bush to go up against it. Its a dying issue and now some of these guys are foolishly bringing it back. He thinks its a mistake and I agree.

 

It would be like pointing out that Kerry once said a sermon and that casts doubt on his seperation of church and state views. But that shadow of doubt pales in comparison to Bush. See his point?

 

Im not sure how you could take that as a one sided. Carlos Watson last week wrote something about how Kerry having no minorities on his head staff could cost him big time in the minority votes. Thats how he operates. He isnt a partisan writer. Just a political observer.

 

 

And no, it isnt open season. You cant try and distort a man's service to his country for political convenience. If you have a strong argument, thats fine. But if you have rumors and hearsay, then respect someones service. Imagine if I found a soldier who said Bush or Dole screwed up in WW2 a few times. Do I publish this outright and disrespect their service? That is my point. They did it to McCain and nothing irked me more than that. What John McCain went through should never have been disrespected the way it was. Its a terrible thing to do. Can you imagine if someone said Pat Tillman screwed up and caused his own death? It would be disrespectful. So unless something is totally substantiated to cast serious doubts about on a man's service, then we should respect the sacrifices they have made, all of them, including democrats.

[Fish Fillet]

Thanks for not letting this thread die, Molly.

 

First off, I'll criticize any damn thing I want about any damn candidate I want, ty very much. The minute they chose to seek public office they agre to open themselves up to scrutiny. But that's neither here nor there.

 

It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that the conservatives won't get any traction on Kerry's service record. But just b/c they don't vehemently attack it as an issue doesn't mean they should just let it go alltogether.

 

And no, it isnt open season. You cant try and distort a man's service to his country for political convenience.

The hell I can't. Have you been living on the moon for the past 40 years and never seen a presidential election?

 

Who are you to call into question the motivation behind scrutinizing military records? Didn't we spend about 2 weeks reviewing Bush's freakin' dental records to determine if he ever showed up in Alabama?

 

So unless something is totally substantiated to cast serious doubts about on a man's service, then we should respect the sacrifices they have made, all of them, including democrats.

 

Puhleeze. You were probably humming the star spangled banner in the background as you wrote that one. Define totally substantiated? I'm guessing half the crap that is exposed in Washington isn't totally substantiated when it first breaks. Maybe you should go work for Pravda.

[Shamrock]

Should we resurface the Bush war record? :shifty

[nc marlin]

I could care less about someone's war record or military service. As long as they didn't dodge the draft that is. This is a trivial thing and will not influence the election at all I hope.

[Shamrock]

agreed. The voice of reason steps in and says...hey people its the issues.

[Flying_Mollusk]

Thanks for not letting this thread die, Molly.

 

First off, I'll criticize any damn thing I want about any damn candidate I want, ty very much. The minute they chose to seek public office they agre to open themselves up to scrutiny. But that's neither here nor there.

 

It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that the conservatives won't get any traction on Kerry's service record. But just b/c they don't vehemently attack it as an issue doesn't mean they should just let it go alltogether.

 

And no, it isnt open season. You cant try and distort a man's service to his country for political convenience.

 

The hell I can't. Have you been living on the moon for the past 40 years and never seen a presidential election?

 

Who are you to call into question the motivation behind scrutinizing military records? Didn't we spend about 2 weeks reviewing Bush's freakin' dental records to determine if he ever showed up in Alabama?

 

So unless something is totally substantiated to cast serious doubts about on a man's service, then we should respect the sacrifices they have made, all of them, including democrats.

Puhleeze. You were probably humming the star spangled banner in the background as you wrote that one. Define totally substantiated? I'm guessing half the crap that is exposed in Washington isn't totally substantiated when it first breaks. Maybe you should go work for Pravda.Of course you can say what you want. No need to go to the "I can say whatever want so there argument" or "what right do you have to critisize motives." But that doesnt make certain types of behavior ok or more ok. But your post boils down to a defense of mudslinging and smear campaigns. This kind of stuff convolutes the issues. Of course we can be nit picky and go after every little possibility where it doesnt exist. But they only thing it accomplished is to taint enough to have a negative effect without enough validity. It

 

Ive never defended the people who try and go after every little business relationship Bush has had in the past and try and vaguely link them to possible future motivations. The fact that he has had oil companies in the past does not lead to any valid conclusion so Im not going to critisize on that ground. Im not going to point out some suspect oil deal that doesnt lead to any stronger argument just to have the effect of tainting his image. CAN I? Of course! But what does this accomplish if it has no solid foundation or implication? NOTHING! It only tries to poke small holes where it isnt necessary. Its essentially what is wrong with politics.

Define totally substantiated? I'm guessing half the crap that is exposed in Washington isn't totally substantiated when it first breaks.

 

A defense of politics as usual? The biggest problem in this country is the politics as usual view.

 

To substantiate something is to have a valid basis for the assertion. In addition I would think that assertion is proof on an argument on the figure in question.

 

Whats ok and not mudslinging and politics as usual:

Bill Clinton lacks moral convictions---->substantiated by the Monica Lewinsky incedent---->has a logical connection to the argument that Bill Clinton's lack of moral conviction places questions on whether or not he is a good president.

 

What you are ALLOWED to do but boils down to basic political misrepresentation:

There is a doubt to John Kerry's service in Vietnam---->not substantiated by hearsay that hasnt proven anything---->not enough proof to bring Kerry's record in Vietnam into doubt especially in light.

 

 

 

Look, whatever views you have you have. But dont think that Im not gonna respond if I see your motives and feel the need to defend against them. If brought Bobe Dole's or John McCain's military record into doubt with hearsary and not much more, I would think you would do the same.

 

I think you equate everything the left says as one lump of views. I dont agree with half the tactics and views of Michael Moore or Al Franken. So dont just assume I do. But if you are gonna defend these pundits stuff, then youre gonna have to defend it.