John Kerry's Military Record

[Aristotle]

I am glad to see some serious examination of John Kerry's actual military record finally taking place. John Kerry threw it in everyone's face every 2 seconds and it became this unquestioned groupthink that he must be a hero that is beyond reproach.

The facts are that he only served 4 months of a 12 month tour of duty. After 4 months he requested that he be shipped home and somehow it was granted (another example of the privileged getting privileged treatment?).

He did receive 3 purple hearts from flesh wounds- none of which took him out of the field of battle and 2 of the purple hearts he applied for himself (which is considered VERY tacky).

He received a silver and bronze star, both of which he supposedly threw over the White House fence as part of a protest. There is video and pictures showing that he did this. When those same medals later showed up on display in his office, he admitted that he threw SOMEONE ELSE's medals over the fence!

As reported in another thread here, he made wild accusations of war crimes committed by US troops but he never witnessed ANY himself and never reported anyone for war crimes when he was in the military. His dubious anti-war activities are also documented in that thread.

Now there is an article in the Village Voice (an exceptionally liberal publication) that details his efforts to cover up POW-MIA information thereby hindering the possible rescue of our POWs and MIAs.

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0408/schanberg.php

Senator John Kerry, a decorated battle veteran, was courageous as a navy lieutenant in the Vietnam War. But he was not so courageous more than two decades later, when he covered up voluminous evidence that a significant number of live American prisoners—perhaps hundreds—were never acknowledged or returned after the war-ending treaty was signed in January 1973.

The Massachusetts senator, now seeking the presidency, carried out this subterfuge a little over a decade ago— shredding documents, suppressing testimony, and sanitizing the committee's final report—when he was chairman of the Senate Select Committee on P.O.W./ M.I.A. Affairs.

...

The stated purpose of the special Senate committee—which convened in mid 1991 and concluded in January 1993—was to investigate the evidence about prisoners who were never returned and find out what happened to the missing men. Committee chair Kerry's larger and different goal, though never stated publicly, emerged over time: He wanted to clear a path to normalization of relations with Hanoi. In any other context, that would have been an honorable goal. But getting at the truth of the unaccounted for P.O.W.'s and M.I.A.'s (Missing In Action) was the main obstacle to normalization—and therefore in conflict with his real intent and plan of action.

The article is extremely damning to John Kerry. The fact that it shows up in such a liberal publication makes it all the more so.

[kestra]

What are your thoughts on Wesley Clark?

[Frobozz]

Brilliant man, lacking 'civilian type' common sense

[kestra]

If I were American, I'd have supported him.

[Mei]

Why are we talking about Clark?

[Gadiantor]

Originally posted by kestra
What are your thoughts on Wesley Clark?

I never had to work for Clark, but everyone I talk to who did has a less than favorable opinion of him. That to me speaks volumes about him as a leader. I have a lot of respect for LGen (ret) Short, and trust his opnion of Clark.

Taken from an article on national review online by Rich Lowry found here which talks about the bombing campaigne in the Balkans
Things turned out in the end, of course. But one million refugees later, and only because one of Gen. Clark's subordinates, Gen. Michael C. Short, did an end run around Clark to institute an increasingly aggressive bombing campaign against Belgrade. By the end, Bacevich writes, "Clark found his control over ongoing operations eroding. Rather than the theater commander, he became hardly more than a kibitzer."

Something to keep in mind the next time — and it will be soon — you hear about Wes Clark's prescience.

[Pyrosama]

Originally posted by Mei
Why are we talking about Clark?

Yes...I was thinking the same thing. Wasn't the question about Kerry's military record? I want to know what people think about Kerry's military record in light of these exposed tidbits. Was he a hero or was he tooting his own horn and now it has back-fired?

What's the deal?

[Aristotle]

It is easier to change the subject than face uncomfortable facts. That's why the subject got changed to Clark.

He is in fact someone who exaggerated his record, made WAY too big a stink of it, and it blew up in his face. It will continue to blow up in his face.

Furthermore, you have to worry about someone who answers totally unrelated questions with "But I served my country in Viet Nam!!!!!!!!" Yes, Senator, but do you want paper or plastic?

[kestra]

if you don't want the subject changed, don't post a reply. Ignore me.
I was asking a simple question. Some try to spin it as an attempt at redirection.