| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| CT•Ranger |
Posted - July 30 2004 : 09:25:42 AM
Here's what some of Jungle John's band of brothers think of him:
"I do not believe John Kerry is fit to be Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces of the United States. This is not a political issue. It is a matter of his judgment, truthfulness, reliability, loyalty and trust -- all absolute tenets of command. His biography, 'Tour of Duty,' by Douglas Brinkley, is replete with gross exaggerations, distortions of fact, contradictions and slanderous lies. His contempt for the military and authority is evident by even a most casual review of this biography. He arrived in-country with a strong anti-Vietnam War bias and a self-serving determination to build a foundation for his political future. He was aggressive, but vain and prone to impulsive judgment, often with disregard for specific tactical assignments. He was a 'loose cannon.' In an abbreviated tour of four months and 12 days, and with his specious medals secure, Lt.(jg) Kerry bugged out and began his infamous betrayal of all United States forces in the Vietnam War. That included our soldiers, our marines, our sailors, our coast guardsmen, our airmen, and our POWs. His leadership within the so-called Vietnam Veterans Against the War and testimony before Congress in 1971 charging us with unspeakable atrocities remain an undocumented but nevertheless meticulous stain on the men and women who honorably stayed the course. Senator Kerry is not fit for command."
– Rear Admiral Roy Hoffman, USN (retired), chairman, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth
"We resent very deeply the false war crimes charges he made coming back from Vietnam in 1971 and repeated in the book "Tour of Duty." We think those cast an aspersion on all those living and dead, from our unit and other units in Vietnam. We think that he knew he was lying when he made the charges, and we think that they're unsupportable. We intend to bring the truth about that to the American people.
We believe, based on our experience with him, that he is totally unfit to be the Commander-in-Chief."
– John O'Neill, spokesman, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth
"During Lt.(jg) Kerry's tour, he was under my command for two or three specific operations, before his rapid exit. Trust, loyalty and judgment are the key, operative words. His turncoat performance in 1971 in his grubby shirt and his medal-tossing escapade, coupled with his slanderous lines in the recent book portraying us that served, including all POWs and MIAs, as murderous war criminals, I believe, will have a lasting effect on all military veterans and their families.
Kerry would be described as devious, self-absorbing, manipulative, disdain for authority, disruptive, but the most common phrase that you'd hear is 'requires constant supervision.'"
– Captain Charles Plumly, USN (retired)
"While in Cam Rahn Bay, he trained on several 24-hour indoctrination missions, and one special skimmer operation with my most senior and trusted Lieutenant. The briefing from some members of that crew the morning after revealed that they had not received any enemy fire, and yet Lt.(jg) Kerry informed me of a wound -- he showed me a scratch on his arm and a piece of shrapnel in his hand that appeared to be from one of our own M-79s. It was later reported to me that Lt.(jg) Kerry had fired an M-79, and it had exploded off the adjacent shoreline. I do not recall being advised of any medical treatment, and probably said something like 'Forget it.' He later received a Purple Heart for that scratch, and I have no information as to how or whom.
Lt.(jg) Kerry was allowed to return to the good old USA after 4 months and a few days in-country, and then he proceeded to betray his former shipmates, calling them criminals who were committing atrocities. Today we are here to tell you that just the opposite is true. Our rules of engagement were quite strict, and the officers and men of Swift often did not even return fire when they were under fire if there was a possibility that |
| 25 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| SgtMunro |
Posted - August 01 2004 : 12:08:42 PM
A true leader would have let those Marines finish eating their chow in peace....
|
| CT•Ranger |
Posted - July 31 2004 : 11:24:00 PM
I've read that he got his silver star for ordering his swift boat to be beached during an ambush in a canal, then he jumped out and chased and shot a wounded viet-cong who was trying to fire an rpg at the boat. I don't know of anyone who was awarded a silver star for killing one wounded enemy soldier.
Anyway, something kinda funny happened the other day when Kerry ran into some Marines:
"Earlier, their bus convoy pulled over at a Wendy's fast food restaurant for a photo opportunity lunch that provided an awkward moment.
Spotting a group of US Marines, Kerry, who has made his Vietnam War service a cornerstone of his campaign, went over to chat. The Marines, who all turned out to be staunch Bush supporters, were not impressed.
"He imposed on us and I disagree with him coming over here shaking our hands," one of them told reporters afterwards. "I'm 100 percent against" Kerry, he said. "We support our commander-in-chief 100 percent."
In his convention speech, Kerry had offered a biting critique of Bush's record in office, and presented himself as a battle-tested veteran who could be trusted to keep Americans safe.
"I will be a commander-in-chief who will never mislead us into war," Kerry said. "I defended this country as a young man and I will defend it as president."
 |
| securemann |
Posted - July 31 2004 : 11:17:44 PM
It's something how the Bronze Star can be given out so easy.My dad had to dig out a bunch of his buddies while the Germans were shelling the area for him to get his medal. |
| securemann |
Posted - July 31 2004 : 11:10:49 PM
Thanks Bill,Now I understand why my dad was proud of his Combat Infantry Badge. |
| Bill R |
Posted - July 31 2004 : 10:21:50 PM
I'm not sure what he did to get the Silver Star, but I can tell you that my last three months in country I performed as an awards clerk. You know, they got out of the field (WAY short after being there 20 months straight ;0) and they had me typing up the recommendations for awards and citations. Anyway, point is, it was standard procedure for ALL officers to get the Bronze Star just for being in theatre as long as they had not received an article 15 or other punishment, nor a completely terrible OER/Fitrep. So, I'd suspect, for his Bronze Star he did squat other than be there.
Now, as to differences between Officers and enlisted.....it was usual and customary for a given specific act of valor - if enlisted they got the Bronze Star. If an Officer, they got the Silver Star for the same act of valor. Just the way it worked. So when you see an enlisted guy with the Silver Star you can BET he did something pretty meaningful. Not so sure a bet on an Officer's blouse, at least if presented during Vietnam. And lest we forget - Dugout Doug (McArthur) wrote up his own recommendation for the Medal of Honor for having the "courage" to abandon his troops in the Philipines and hie off the Australia. And it was approved. How many of the troops remaining behind earned that medal?
There was a standard set of guidelines published as to what level of decoration matches specific acts of valor, but I've forgotten them. They were the same for both officer and enlisted - BUT in practice it normally was functionally NOT the same, nor as easy to get one approved for enlisted as for officers.
Anyway, its a fact that clerical and admin types routinely got the Army Commendation medal just for being over there, officers got the Bronze Star for just being over there, and the grunt got the shaft.
Which is why they are pretty darn proud of their Combat Infantryman's Badge. It was a miracle for troops to even be awarded the Good Conduct Medal - requires NO disciplinary actions against you on your record - and Article 15 non-judicial punishments were handed out like beads at Mardi Gras over there. Too much readiness to "lead" by punishment instead of leading by example. Well, that's a different topic.
Guaranteed though, whatever he got his Silver Star for, was done many times by grunts and troops on those boats and they never saw a medal out of it. My opinion.
|
| securemann |
Posted - July 31 2004 : 8:57:42 PM
What exactly did Kerry do to get the silver star? I know my uncle got one and had to do a bunch of heroics to get it. |
| SgtMunro |
Posted - July 31 2004 : 3:02:46 PM
quote:
Bill R reports: "A Vietnam vet group took a trip to Communist Hanoi to investigate a report that John Kerry was in the "Hanoi Hall of Fame." Yes, there is a museum in Hanoi with a section dedicated to foreign activists who help defeat the United States Military in Vietnam. Of course, you would expect Jane Fonda's picture to be there. But, alas, there is John Kerry's picture shaking the hand of a communist official. "
You know, Bill, I can't say that I am suprised. I just listened to an interview with a former GM3 of Kerry's old crew, on the Michael Savage Show last night. In the interview, this old warrior related pretty much the same testimony found on the Swift-Site that Fitz linked. Of course, you will never hear this man's testimony on NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC or Al Jazera...
quote:
Bill R also noted: And, the CPUSA (That's Communist Party of the USA) endorses Kerry.
Once again, I am not at all suprised...
Your Most Humble Servant,
|
| Bill R |
Posted - July 31 2004 : 12:14:44 PM
"A Vietnam vet group took a trip to Communist Hanoi to investigate a report that John Kerry was in the "Hanoi Hall of Fame." Yes, there is a museum in Hanoi with a section dedicated to foreign activists who help defeat the United States Military in Vietnam. Of course, you would expect Jane Fonda's picture to be there. But, alas, there is John Kerry's picture shaking the hand of a communist official. "
-from an article entitled CPUSA Endorses Senator Kerry -
That should pretty much cover his "honorable" military service. They enemy he "fought" lauds his efforts on their behalf and puts him in their hall of fame.
And, the CPUSA (That's Communist Party of the USA) endorses Kerry.
Big surprise. Doubt it? Go to their website. Their ten point reasons for defeating Bush seem awfully identical to Kerry's ten points. Who copied whose playbook? That endorsement right there should be reason enough to not vote for the guy. Though, I'm sure, some would say that's a grand endorsement.
|
| Gadget Girl |
Posted - July 30 2004 : 7:50:35 PM
OOOOOpps |
| Gadget Girl |
Posted - July 30 2004 : 7:44:29 PM
EDITED!!! I deleted my own post (in case some of you read it) and in the spirit of not being petty - took to a PM instead.
GG |
| SgtMunro |
Posted - July 30 2004 : 5:54:00 PM
quote:
Doc M writes: Boys, boys, boys. We are NOT going to do this today, ok?
Life is short, and we are not only on opposite sides of the
political spectrum ... we are on opposite freaking PLANETS! Perhaps
I shouldn't have posted, but there is a group on this Board that
posts highly-charged political opinions as if they were God's Only
Truthtellers, and if you have the temerity to express another viewpoint you get trashed. Me, I could give a flying whatever, and
my hide is pretty damned thick, but it's the main reason I'm not
posting much anymore. It's not fun like it used to be.
Sorry you feel that way, Doc. But there are those of us who do not stand by while flipant remarks and unsubstansiated statements are posted as 'gospel'. One cannot simply toss a grenade into this room, and then shout "No rebutals, no rebutals!!!" as they 'two-step' on out the door. As for those who claim a fear of being 'flamed', that is a B.S. cop-out invented by those who practice the "No rebutals!" school of debate. The term 'flaming' or 'flame wars' was invented by the same mental midgets who believe in 'freedom of speech', so long as you do not disagree with them.
Hugs & Kisses,
The Sarge
quote:
Bill R reports:Did go to the website you linked. Swiftees. Read the fitrep summation. You and I both know how those work eh?
Right again, Brother Bill, that is one cool site that Fitz linked-up. Oh, and it is good to have you 'back at the front' again.
Your Most Humble Servant,
|
| Bill R |
Posted - July 30 2004 : 5:02:15 PM
Hey Fitz!
Did go to the website you linked. Swiftees. Read the fitrep summation. You and I both know how those work eh? Well, it's clear to ME that his commanders, right down the line, were basically telling the promotion board Kerry was NOT fit for promotion or command in more than one fitrep. Even in staff positions his evaluator dinged him in the critical areas of performance for those such positions. Not a good commander at the small unit level, not a good staff officer.........hmmmm. Tell my why again this guy thinks he's fit for the highest commanding position in the land? And why anybody else would think he is? |
| Bill R |
Posted - July 30 2004 : 4:16:35 PM
To Doc M,
 whack whack whack right back at you! Love taps, or course.
No I am not lumping you in with whatever. No, I do not object to rational and fact based protest - God love us it's one of our freedoms. I was not in favor of Iraq war at least until we had finished with Afghan and Pakistan terrorist nests....from whence the attacks on us came. I don't even really have a problem with the peace protestors per se even during the Vietnam era. What I DO object to is a man who took the oath I did, who was responsible to lead his troops, and then bails out on them as soon as he can fudge up enough purple hearts to do so. Not being satisfied with THAT, he then comes home and LIES and SLANDERS the men he was appointed over by saying they are all war criminals and he "witnessed" all these acts of atrocity. That's not protest. That's self-serving lying and a betrayal to both his country and his men. A betrayal NOT because he protested, but because he LIED and thus gave comfort to the enemies of our country. A man with that low and self-centered character will not change. And is NOT to be trusted in a position of responsibility for others, LET ALONE AS THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF.
He betrayed his troops and his oath back then. Why should we risk allowing him to betray ALL the military now, and give comfort to our present enemies. If HE is the best "war hero" the Democrats can come up with, then that Party is in serious trouble. Why not call Jane Fonda a war hero also? She was in Vietnam too, ya know.
To Red: I'm as fed up with the two party system as you are. I am tired of the two choices: horrible or just a little less horrible. Bush has been no friend to the Consitution and seems to have allowed the Clintonian assaults on the Bill of Rights to continue on his watch also. Where does it say in the Consitution that there be only two parties? Yet, that's what we are stuck with, and they don't seem much different from one another in actual practice. Not these days. No question in my mind Kerry would be as horrible as Clinton was, and probably worse. He won't screw around on Heinz though, or she'd cut him off at the wallet. Otherwise, same or worse as Clinton. Just as much a liar, just as much a chameleon, just as much dishonest and just as much a radical far left liberal. Even more so according to Theresa Heinz's checkbook and contributions.
I do know the two parties do all they can to keep others off the ballot. They certainly do NOT want others in the game. The practical matter is that independents have no chance to get the same kind of massive political backing the two parties do, so all they can do is drain votes from one or the other candidates. What we need is to make it more possible for Independents and lesser parties to participate - the only way THAT is gonna happen is to limit the funding for the two main parties. It should NOT be allowed for massive amounts of capital be injected into a campaign by the Rich like Bush and Kerry - that ensures only the Rich will be able to play the game. It should NOT be okay for a mega-billionaire - one man, inject "his entire fortune if need be" to defeat a candidate.
ALL Candidates should be limited to the same funding level equally and maybe we'd hear real dialogue instead of costly sound bites. And maybe an honest, upstanding, trustworthy man would have a chance.
We live under the myth that "any man can become President". IF he has millions in his bank account and IF he has enough ties to big money and IF he has enough clout or money to cover up his pecadillos, and IF he is willing to say whatever it takes to get there knowing the media will cut and edit to his best advantage.
Ah. It's a mess.
But Kerry? He betrayed his oath, he betrayed his commanders and fellow officers and worst of all - the biggest sin in my book - he betrayed the troops who served under him with self-serving lies and self-inflicted wounds. That's all I need to |
| Doc M |
Posted - July 30 2004 : 4:00:27 PM
Boys, boys, boys. We are NOT going to do this today, ok?
Life is short, and we are not only on opposite sides of the
political spectrum ... we are on opposite freaking PLANETS! Perhaps
I shouldn't have posted, but there is a group on this Board that
posts highly-charged political opinions as if they were God's Only
Truthtellers, and if you have the temerity to express another viewpoint you get trashed. Me, I could give a flying whatever, and
my hide is pretty damned thick, but it's the main reason I'm not
posting much anymore. It's not fun like it used to be.
But occasionally something political in nature is posted that
is so jaw-droppingly WRONG (IN MY OPINION, OK???? MY OPINION!!)
that I respond. People tell me that they'd love to mix it up here
a little bit, but they're afraid of getting flamed, or being made
to feel like idiots -- one dissenter was memorably told a while ago
"Who gives a **** what you think?" I gave a response to a specific
post that I thought could use another point of view, I believe I
clearly stated my point and where I stood on this issue. I am not
going to be "coverted" to the Dark Side (just kidding) and you guys
are certainly not coming over to mine. So, for today, for me, this
thread ends here. However, fear not -- I'll be back to annoy you
with my bleeding heart pointy-headed liberal opinions before you
know it!
Doc M
|
| SgtMunro |
Posted - July 30 2004 : 3:41:05 PM
quote:
CT Ranger says:Number 1 and 3 of his purple hearts were for self-inflicted wounds!
Well Ranger, I can honestly say that I am not suprised. Nowadays, it is his wife who is shooting herself in the foot!
quote:
Chris notes:It is my understanding (and I'll be the first to admit I haven't followed voting records as closely as I should) that Kerry has consistently voted against military spending over his 20 some years in Congress. This doesn't sound like supporting the military to me.
My point exactly, Chris.
Your Most Humble Servant,
|
| Chris |
Posted - July 30 2004 : 3:30:11 PM
Leaving Viet Nam aside for the moment. It is my understanding (and I'll be the first to admit I haven't followed voting records as closely as I should) that Kerry has consistently voted against military spending over his 20 some years in Congress. This doesn't sound like supporting the military to me.
I can't in good conscience vote for either of these men. A write-in or third party candidate doesn't have a prayer. I may just do a lot of praying, and let God sort it out. Of course, living in Alaska means that my vote won't count anyway. The election will be decided long before our polls close.
Chris |
| CT•Ranger |
Posted - July 30 2004 : 3:12:35 PM
"Yeah, not to mention that my uncle, who did one tour there as a grunt in 2nd Marine; said that he could not think of any man who won three Purple Hearts in SEA, in as many months, who wasn't shipped home in a plastic bag."
Number 1 and 3 of his purple hearts were for self-inflicted wounds! |
| SgtMunro |
Posted - July 30 2004 : 3:03:32 PM
quote:
Bill R said:...To Vets, he's a lying traitor to everything military service means to them, and he's self serving. Like Clinton, he slandered his fellow soldiers, his commanders, and his subordinates with lies of "atrocities" to pander to the anti-war crowd with his eye to political office and national recognition. NOW that he has finally within sight of the highest office in the land, suddenly he loves the military, respects the troops, is firm on defense, and tries to deny his past. Bullcrap.
Amen to that Brother Bill, I couldn't have said it better myself.
quote:
Bill R also noted...do you really believe, that in his short 4 1/2 MONTHS he saw ANY of the MANY atrocities he claims in his book and his speeches to the leftist crowd?
Yeah, not to mention that my uncle, who did one tour there as a grunt in 2nd Marine; said that he could not think of any man who won three Purple Hearts in SEA, in as many months, who wasn't shipped home in a plastic bag.
quote:
Doc M states:...And if protesting a war, any war,
which you feel is unjust or wrong -- especially after you honorably served there!!! but even if you didn't -- is regarded in a so-called
democratic society as "betraying your country" I shudder to think
of what your definition of "character" is.
Doc, the act of protesting itself is not un-American (Unless you go to a Communist Country to do it, like Clinton did with his 'visit' to Leningrad in the late 1960's). Making false statements and accusations about your fellow soldiers to a Congessional Hearing is.
quote:
Doc M also said"Character, honesty, integrity." Yep, those are the big ones,
regardless of ideology. Maybe Kerry has them, maybe he doesn't. But
when good, honest people try to tell me with a straight face that
our current leadership possesses these virtues, it's then that I
begin to feel like I have really fallen down the old rabbit hole.
If you would, please list for me where the current administration is shortcoming. They a a major improvment over the Clinton Presidency. You remember, where Clinton said in 1992 that his would be 'the most ethical administration in our country's history'. Yeah; I guess if giving nuclear secrets to the ChiComs (Both W-88 Warhead and delivery system guidence technology), 'stovepiping' intelligence via Jamie Garelick (Who was also a part of the 9-11 Commision Board, so she couldn't be subpoenaed to testify... How convienent!!!) and treating terrorism is a law enforcement problem as opposed to a military one, refusing to take Bin Laden when the Sudaneese were willing to hand him over in 1997, placing the sailors of the USS Cole in harms way by insisting they use Yemen as a refueling point even when there was a replinshment ship in theater, I won't even go into Serbia (still looking for those mass graves, but you don't hear the media talk about that...), renting the Lincoln Bedroom out to just about any hack with cash (Including a certain Columbian Drug Kingpin!), and many others which I have listed in this forum before. I guess that those were Clintonian-Ethics... Please, tell me where the Bush administration compares to the 'Arkan-cide Mafia'.
|
| Christina |
Posted - July 30 2004 : 2:57:42 PM
Then there are those of us who would like to lead a write-in campaign for John McCain, who's the only politician right now I admire. (And before anybody goes off...I'm an Independent. I vote Republican, Democrat, etc. etc. depending on who the best guy is.) I personally think the best guy we've had in years who had a chance to lead our country is John McCain. But given the options this year, I'll chose Kerry. I think Fitz has a point here...I wish we could somehow dismantle this entrenched "two party" system that basically is getting us nowhere.
Now I'm going to retreat back into the ether while the rocks start flying... |
| Fitz Williams |
Posted - July 30 2004 : 2:44:20 PM
Kerry served 4 months and 12 days in Viet Nam. He got transferred home as a result of falsifying a wound to get a Purple Heart (first of 3 needed). The picture above is of 19 men who served with him. Two are dead. 4 would not express an opinion. 2 are for him. 11 are against him. The 11 include Democrats. For more detail see:
http://www.swiftvets.com/
No one says Bush is great. That's another story to be told. And there are more than two candidates. Why not vote for someone better qualified than either of the above mentioned two? If enough people did, maybe we would finally see some change. |
| Doc M |
Posted - July 30 2004 : 1:14:14 PM
Our affection for each other goes beyond these petty politics,
Billy! Here's a little head noogie for ya! *WHACK! WHACK! WHACK!!!*
There is one sentence I thoroughly agree with in your post...
"...there will be always those who ignore a man's character in favor
of his 'correct' ideology. Much to the detriment of our country."
However, if by that sentence you are lumping me in with the "those" --
you couldn't be more off-base. And if protesting a war, any war,
which you feel is unjust or wrong -- especially after you honorably served there!!! but even if you didn't -- is regarded in a so-called
democratic society as "betraying your country" I shudder to think
of what your definition of "character" is.
I'm proud to say I was a vehement Vietnam War protester...as well as being violently opposed to our unjustified action in Iraq. So many fine young men and woman and innocent civilians dead for..what?
But Kerry's past service in Vietnam, while certainly an issue, is
not the reason I will be voting for him. It does literally make the
veins in my widdle head pop, however, when I hear his opponents try to
trash his war record, while conveniently glossing over the sterling
record of our so-called Commander-in Chief. You can quibble over a
lot of things, guys, but you can't change history. Kerry was THERE. The only shots Bushie saw were at the bottom of a boilermaker.
"Character, honesty, integrity." Yep, those are the big ones,
regardless of ideology. Maybe Kerry has them, maybe he doesn't. But
when good, honest people try to tell me with a straight face that
our current leadership possesses these virtues, it's then that I
begin to feel like I have really fallen down the old rabbit hole.
Doc M
|
| Bill R |
Posted - July 30 2004 : 12:12:57 PM
Oh and Doc? I was over there two entire YEARS and out in the field for 75 or 80% of that time. In all that time, I NEVER saw a SINGLE incident of an atrocity, brutal behavior, and questionable conduct in combat. Ever. Are you trying to tell us, do you really believe, that in his short 4 1/2 MONTHS he saw ANY of the MANY atrocities he claims in his book and his speeches to the leftist crowd?
You REALLY gotta be an ideolgoue to believe a liar like that. More's the pity. |
| Bill R |
Posted - July 30 2004 : 11:59:42 AM
Doc, I have a special fondness for you, but it ain't about who was in Vietnam or who wasn't as to if he should be Commander In Chief.
It's about who has the character. Kerry is playing his Vet status to the hilt. To Vets, he's a lying traitor to everything military service means to them, and he's self serving. Like Clinton, he slandered his fellow soldiers, his commanders, and his subordinates with lies of "atrocities" to pander to the anti-war crowd with his eye to political office and national recognition. NOW that he has finally within sight of the highest office in the land, suddenly he loves the military, respects the troops, is firm on defense, and tries to deny his past. Bullcrap. Clinton never went to Vietnam. You voted for him, correct? Moreover, Clinton protested and betrayed his country too, but at least he did NOT betray those he actually served with.
As always, it's about character, honesty and integrity. Kerry has none. And he should NOT expect Vets to kiss his butt. He only found three out of the entire group he served with - and all the rest say he is a liar, coward and jerk. That tells logical, unbiased people something about the man. But I guess there will always be those who ignore a man's character in favor of his "correct" ideology. Much to the detriment of our country.
|
| Doc M |
Posted - July 30 2004 : 11:32:35 AM
Hey, Gadge! Yep, still alive, still scratchin', kickin' and
dedicated to afflicting the comfortable.
Kissys!
Doc |
| Gadget Girl |
Posted - July 30 2004 : 11:13:31 AM
HEY DOC - Glad to see your STILL kicking!! We've missed ya!
GG  |
|
![The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]](images/wwwboard.gif "The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]")
