Kerry Highly Praised in Military Records

[Sticky]

By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer
6 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Records of John Kerry (news - web sites)'s Vietnam War service released Wednesday show a highly praised naval officer who volunteered for a dangerous assignment and at one point was "unofficially credited with 20 enemy killed in action."

With conservative critics questioning his service, the Democratic presidential candidate posted more than 120 pages of military records on his campaign Web site. Several describe him as a gutsy commander and detail some of the actions that won him three Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star and a Silver Star.


Kerry's most harrowing experience came during the nearly five months when he commanded a swiftboat along Vietnam's Mekong Delta.
more...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&ncid=716&e=7&u=/ap/20040422/ap_on_el_pr/kerry_military_records

Don't forget to rate it!

[unblock]

1. kerry's played this one brilliantly

he withheld a little, baited a bit, and suckered the republicans into screaming for him to release his EXEMPLARY military records!

gotcha, karl!

[Sticky]

2. I hope CNN reports on it tomorrow....

they owe him one - BIG TIME!

[LiberalFighter]

14. So far CNN has this..

Kerry's war record may backfire on critics

[Sticky]

19. Maybe Aaron Brown didn't get the memo....

Segment - :39 minutes after the hour

Medal Meddling
John Kerry, taking heat over his Vietnam record. Could political wounds hurt his campaign?

-----

[jobycom]

32. Wow. This guy can write.

Carlos Watson. I've never noticed him before. Nice style. Even handed, for both sides. Good analysis. Thanks for the link.

Okay, I'm drawing a blank. Who is he talking about when he says that a former Republican could be Kerry's most electric running mate? Clark? Clarke? Who? Whitman didn't change parties, did she? I know she hates Bush.

[The Backlash Cometh]

3. Reeled 'em right in, didn't he?

Now THAT's American ingenuity. I'm getting excited about this coming election. Anyone else?

[liarliartieonfire]

4. Beautiful!

John Kerry is everything he says he is.

Proud to have served his country well during Vietnam.
Proudly serves his country in the Senate today.
A President we can be PROUD of.

Beautiful John!

[0rganism]

7. Yup, just what I figured he was doing

When he held back and the GOP thugs started raising a stink, I knew it was a burn situation.

Kerry's just that kind of politician. Every statement and campaign action is calculated well in advance, like a masters' chess game. I think he can win this election, if the voting machines aren't stacked against him.

[yelladawg]

54. It's called a plan

Something we don't have in Iraq. A plan.

[yardwork]

5. Where are Chimpy's records?

Let's compare them side-by-side. Let's insist on this!

[Politicub]

18. Side by side is the only way

We must be fair and balanced, now. We report, you decide and all that rot.

[Dirk39]

6. Hitler highy praised in killing communists, jews and gays....

Be proud of Kerry, at least he killed in person and did other people's dirty work, who were sitting on their desks.

According to the Nuremberg principles, this wouldn't save Kerry anyway. He belongs to prison. Why the hell doesn't he have the courage to kill himself?
Reminds me somehow of Germany in the seventies, when Willy Brandt, who was in the resistance against the fashists had to "defend" himself against the rightwingers for being unpatriotic, instead the other way round.
But Kerry wasn't "unpatriotic", he was a succesfull killer in a genocidal illegal war and he's still proud of it.


Hello from Germany,
Dirk

[0rganism]

8. Hitler did get an Iron Cross in WWI

I suppose that would be for killing the French?

[Dirk39]

10. Please forgive me,

forgive me please. How could I be so unfair to Hitler, not giving him the honour for his military record he deserves :-)
I beg your pardon,
Dirk

[mobuto]

9. Excuse me?

Kerry is one of the leading reasons we got out of Vietnam. Adolf Hitler is not one of the leading reasons Germany got out of the Second World War. Your comparisons are as offensive as your logic absurd.

[Dirk39]

13. Absurd...

It's absurd that Kerry was involved in killing between 2 and 4 million people, and the only reason he was involved in going out of Vietnam was, that too many young american killers died there.
It's as if the Germans would have stopped the holocaust, 'cause too many Germans were suffering there, due to the hard work they're doing. It's hard to be that cynical.
Dirk

[mobuto]

39. Oh really?

Go and reread Kerry's 1971 Senate testimony and tell me he didn't care about the Vietnamese.


Maybe you're thinking about some other Kerry?

[Warpy]

11. Hitler didn't start a campaign to end the war

...after he was gassed and named unfit for duty.

Kerry saw what a mess Vietnam was, and how the country had been lied into it and how the country was being lied to about how it was going and he cofounded Vietnam Veterans Agaainst the War.

Be proud of your Hitler if you wish. I'm voting for Kerry to defeat ours.

[Dirk39]

15. Kerry saw what a mess Vietnam was

and decades later, he's advertising how many vietnamese people he slaughered?
How absurd is this?
Vietnam was a mess for Kerry 'cause to many killers like him did die.
And all of us know that 1 american is worth more than 1000 human beings, esp. if he has killed enough people, who don't belong to the master-race.
Dirk

[Spazito]

17. As you seem to have an interest in Hitler and his actions...

I have a question for you: Do you see any similarities between what bush and his cabal is doing and what Hitler and his gang of thugs did?

[Dirk39]

23. It's like sitting in Germany during the 30's....

arguing about, if what Hitler might do is as worse as what Nero did or even worse, or a little bit less evil?
This comparison in general doesn't make sense to me, except for comparing single actions or statements. Being interested in history, it's worth it and it might produce insights...

It doesn't help us,it doesn't change anything, it just makes us feel good. In a way, it's just masturbation - nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't change anything.
The people, suffering or dying in the world we live in today, might not care about if WE think, what is happening to them is as worse as or not as worse as anything. They just die, we just talk.
But at least Kerry has the character of someone, who's advertising himself by appealing to Hitler's voters with the number of jews, communists and gays he have killed.
And this is as low as a human being can get.
Dirk

[Spazito]

24. Ahhh, I believe I will file that under a nonanswer answer...

not unlike the answers bush gives.

[Dirk39]

25. My english might be as good as Bush's....

I admit it, but my answers are better, much better.
In a world, where Saddam is worse than Stalin and Hitler, Germany did initiate a war against former Yugoslavia to prevent a new Ausschwitz and the Iraqis, who resist the occupation, are small group of terrorists, I resist to say Bush is worse than Hitler, Stalin and Saddam.
At least Bush and Kerry are worse than their former comrade Osama Bin Ladden.
Dirk

[Politicub]

21. So what's your alternative?

Bush? It's a binary choice, my friend. Bush* or Kerry.

As for me, there will never be a perfect candidate that shares all of my views. But I know that Kerry would be far better than Bush.

Do I wish he was more anti-war? Of course I do. But, a candidate has to be able to carry some pretty conservative states to get enough electoral college votes.

There is no utopia, but Kerry will be a president who won't try to end reproductive freedom, champion a marriage amendment, or engage our country in preemptive wars.

Once Kerry is elected, hold his feet to the fire. Raise hell. Get involved in local politics and cause change to happen in your community. It will be easier to challenge the system from within instead of licking up crumbs that may drop from Bush's table.

[Dirk39]

30. The alternative?

You talk about a guy, who is proud of killing 20 people in an illegal war that massmurdered 2-4 million people. And for you, this just means, "there will never be a perfect candidate". If there would have been a party in Germany then, offering to kill just about 1 million people, your reply would have been: o.k. noone is perfect?
What's missing is not an "alternative" like Kerry - and we face about the same problems now in Europe. We have to find a language to talk to the majority of people, who don't care anymore, who don't vote anymore.
That's the alternative.
Not another corrupt corporation whore of the same old elite.
Kerry is just the opposite of Willy Brandt here in Germany, who didn't care about the media, who didn't care about the brainwashed Germans full of resentments. I want Kerry to go to Vietnam, fall on his knees and beg for forgivness for what he and the Americans have done, calling the crimes he commited crimes and not advertising them to be electable for American racists and fashists.


Dirk

[Politicub]

31. Once you start calling everyone

a nazi, you've already lost the argument.

[Dirk39]

33. Whom did I call a Nazi?

I just claimed that Vietnam was a crime against humanity and that Kerry was involved in it and that he's still proud of it.
Willy Brandt did go down on his knees in Warzawa asking for forgivness, but he wasn't involved. He escaped from the Nazis and did fight against them during his immigration times. Just later, when he was the president of Germany and travel to Warzwawa, he did this.
I just wish, the Democrats would have a candidate, who deserted from the army during the Vietnam-war, who did fight against the government, responisible for this. And who would be proud of trying to kill the criminals, who were responsible for that war instead of being proud to have murdered vietnamese people. Kerry has turned everything about human dignity and morals upside down with a statement like this. He should be ashamed of the crimes, he commited. When he was twenty, he might have been stupid, but now, he's just a cynical criminal, in bed with his corporate masters.
Dirk

[Stephanie]

46. This is not a statement made by Kerry. These are his official records

His official military records. Kerry released them at the DEMAND of the rightwing. You are attributing an attitude to Kerry just because you see it exhibited by some posters in this thread. But that's not the only way to interpret these records. Kerry did not publicize them. Kerry did not hide them. He made them partially available for a long time, and only today made them fully available. This is not someone who is boasting about killing people. He was a soldier in a war. He didn't learn the truth about that war until after he was in it.

I understand your point on the Vietnam war, but you are putting far too much responsibility for it on Kerry, and you are accusing him of boasting about killing when he has done no such thing.

[daleo]

26. I don't think he is advertising or bragging, but revealing the facts

I very much doubt Kerry is proud of any of these events, at least in the sense of being proud of "killing the enemy". The fact that this has only been revealed now would support the notion that Kerry does not feel like it is an activity to boast about.

Viet Nam seems pretty black and white now, but it took a fairly long time for most people to come to the conclusion that it was wrong. Many people thought "stopping communism" was essential above all else, much as many people feel that "stopping terrorism" is essential above all else now. Most people now agree that was a mistake, and Kerry helped in bringing people to that conclusion.

I just hope that the Kerry that was against the Viet Nam mistake will come out against the Iraq mistake when the time comes.

[markses]

22. Hitler was an exemplary soldier

It's a sad fact, but Hitler was noted for his bravery in combat on the Western Front, and took positions (like runner) that others wouldn't. Of course, all this proves is that being a damn fine soldier in combat doesn't necessarily translate into good politics, or even good conduct, but I think most of us already knew that.

As for your nonsenses about Vietnam, they're all besides my point.

[Dirk39]

28. Can't resist:

Kerry was noted for his bravery in combat and took positions (like runner) that Bush wouldn't?
If Kerry would have turned his gun the other way round and killed twenty of those, who were responsible for the genocide against the people in Vietnam, I would respect him.
Dirk

[jo35042]

36. What is your problem?

[Bridget Burke]

55. It must be troubling to be so judgmental--living where you do.

Every old person you see is, no doubt, responsible for genocide. Evil was committed in Southeast Asia, but your own country won the genocide championship of the 20th century.

And what of your parents & grandparents? Is the guilt getting to you?

[Philestine]

49. erm

That is not actually correct. Hitler was hardly remembered as a soldier. He seems to have passed a relatively inconspicuous war.

[Redleg]

27. Give it a rest- Kerry repented of his part in Vietnam.

Although I think our actions in Vietnam were wrong-headed, I suppose if I had been there I would have killed some VC to keep from being killed.

[Dirk39]

29. But that's different:

the questions is, would you be proud of killing these people in an illegal war?
Would you use it as a tool to promote yourself? Would you want to support or defend a country, whose brainwashed citizens are still proud of their crimes against humanity?
This is the question,
Dirk

[pinto]

34. Heard your points. What's your suggestion for our election, today?

Thanks for the posts.

[Dirk39]

38. Getting small...

I really doubt that the small difference between Kerry and Bush, if there is any differance, is significant. But I'm not an American, and I'm even not as intelligent as Noam Chomsky, who seems to think that there is a small differance, that counts.

My general attitude is: we have to find a way to talk to the people and engage the people, who don't talk anymore and who don't move or vote anymore.
Maybe even those people, who don't vote anymore, "know" more than we, wasting our energies, trying to convince ourselves that Kerry against Bush or Blair against Thatcher or Schroeder aganst Kohl is an alternative.

In a way, the former socialist or social-democratic parties in Europe, at least in Germany and Great Britain, are ahead of America this time: they are worse than the conservative parties were before and they are used to silence any kind of resistance. But we here in Europe still have unions and millions of people on the streets against them.

Just think of Iraq: an illegal occupation of a foreingn nation and the only difference between Killer-Kerry and Coward-Bush is that Kerry wants to send 40.000 soldiers more to Iraq. I just hope 40 years from now, the democrats in the USA don't have a candidate, who's claiming to have killed at least 40 Iraquis in 2005, while his republican counterpart was just sitting on his desk.

Dirk

[pinto]

41. Yes, when we define elections or policy in military terms, we lose.

[wickerwoman]

47. There's a lot more than one difference between Bush and Kerry.

So neither one will get us out of Iraq quickly enough for your tastes. Fair enough. But which one will move on to Syria and Iran and which one will concentrate on stabilizing the mess we're already in?

And you still haven't addressed the very valid point that Kerry is not bragging about his military record. The Repubs demanded to see them and he provided them. If he wanted to brag about it, don't you think we would have seen these records months ago?

[jo35042]

35. If you are going to say ridiculous things...

at least learn how to spell.

[Dirk39]

43. Sorry for not speaking 10 languages perfectly...

the way you and the American soldiers in Vietnam and Iraq might did/do. I already did admit that my english might resemble Bush's.
I'm convinced now about the ridiculousness...
And the logic of guns.

Dirk

[jobycom]

37. You know, I get what you're saying

I flinched when I saw the line commending him for his number of kills. It bothered me, and it will bother me if Kerry uses this to promote himself.

But Kerry was not only trying to save American soldiers. Kerry was trying to save the Viet Namese. He was a young soldier, full of ideals, sent to Viet Nam by authority figures who told him he was doing the right thing. He did what he was told, and did it well--sadly. And then he understood the lie. And he came home and tried to correct it.

Kerry is an opponent of the death penalty. He's an opponent of war. He does not like what is happening in this country. He wants to stop it, not to protect the American "killers," but because he understands that a life is a life.

But America is sick right now, and bloodthirsty, and shameless. People want blood. People, as you say, do not think of non-American lives as lives. It's horrible, and disgusting. But believe me, no matter how loud someone shouts at them that it is wrong, they will not listen. They will tune you out. I know. I've been doing it for quite some time. I have organized others to do it, and we are all ignored. Our media ignored protests before the invasion where millions marched on several cities in America. The media is part of the sickness. They are selling to the people that killing is good.

Kerry wants to stop that. But he has to speak the language that people will hear. When he says he is against the death penalty, he claims it is because life in prison is a worse punishment. But that's not it. His voting record proves that he hates killing. But the American people will not hear that message right now. And so if he uses that message, he will lose, and the killing will continue. You know Hitler got worse as time wore on, as he realized what he could get away with, that the German people would not stop him. Bush knows the same thing. Bush will be mor bloody if he wins reelection, and the American people will not stop him. He is already setting the stage to invade Syria, and the Iran.

Kerry is speaking the sick language of the American people to get their trust. When he has it, he will stop the slaughter. At least, that is what I hope. It's the only hope we have right now. We who hate war and killing are in a minority.

I understand your disgust with Kerry for allowing someone else to boast about how many people Kerry killed. It disgusts me, too. But he is not that killer anymore. And he was not the one who wanted that sick genocidal slaughter in Viet Nam. Once there, he did what he was told, until he grew up. Don't judge the adult by what the kid did. Give him a chance, because right now, he is the only chance.

[Dirk39]

42. Thanx a lot for your reply,

seems we're sitting in a trap: you look at Kerry as if he is one of "us", trying to reach the best that's possible under the given circumstances. I look at Kerry, supposing he's just one of "them", lipserving a bit to us, in order to keep the whole thing as it is, or make it even worse. Neither me nor you can look deep down into his soul.

But just a simple example: if Kerry, instead of hurting irrational feelings and the irrational stupid patriotism of american people, would start to REALLY offend U.S. corporations for what they're doing against the "average" american worker, if he would start to attack Nafta, the IMF and the Worldbank.
Do you think, this would lower his chances to get elected? Do you think, the average American would turn away from him?
If Kerry claims, he's pro Business, is he talking to the "average" American or is he selling himself to the elites, just like he did in Vietnam?

I clearly see the difference between people like you and people like me and I put it more simple as it is: you think, there are people within the system, who try to do the best, accepting things as they are. To use one discredited term: pragmatism. People like me prefer a look from outside and claim that people like Kerry are just lipservers, who serve the same system as Bush, but in a more eloquent way.
This is going off topic, but I would really like to hear from people like you: what makes you believe, that Kerry is the one, you trust in?
What really makes you believe that Kerry tries to reach the best possible under the given circumstances, instead of just lying to even get the support of people like you?


Dirk

[jobycom]

50. Whether he is or he isn't

Makes little difference. He is the only chance to beat Bush. The only one. I've seen his voting record, I've seen his answers to questions. I can read people, and what I read is that he is usually sincere. I could be wrong, but that's what I see.

I'd rather Gore, but we don't get Gore. I didn't like any of the other candidates, so none of them appeared better. Kerry's the only choice. If he's insincere, then he is.

BUT-- he's going to need us to win. Which means he has to pander to us the way Bush panders to the far right. That in itself means he will do less harm than Bush.

As for specifics, I'm strongly in favor of the principles behind NAFTA. I don't want to see it overturned, I want to see it fixed to work properly. I wouldn't support a candidate who was opposed to it in its entirety. I consider that opposition parochialism-- the desire for America to keep what it has stolen. As it stands, NAFTA, the IMF< et al, are in the hands of bad people, so they will yield bad results. In the right hands, they may reverse some of the iniequities caused by predatory corporatism-- which to my mind has been behind every war in America since WWII. So I don't see Kerry as an evil insider just because he supports NAFTA. He gives me hope because he does.

Likewise, I am not anti-corporation nor anti-business. Corporations are just tools, and they can be used either by decent people or bad people. The jobs and wealth and services they create have great potential for good. Right now they are being used for bad, but that's not the fault of corporations, that's the fault of our leaders.

Granted, corporations will always seek to screw the world to increase their own profits. That's their job. Our job as a democracy, as a government, is to stop them from screwing the world while allowing them to create jobs, to create useful products, to encourage them to donate money to make the world a better place.

The problem isn't the corporations. The problem is the government that doesn't control them. I'm not naive, I know it isn't that simple. But I don't want some naive idiot like Nader trying to, as he says, burn it all down so we can start over. That, to me, is the exact moral equivalent of what Bush is trying to do. That causes death, suffering, pain, loss. I want someone who will fight the corporations, who will keep them in check, but will allow them to do the good they can do. Someone like Teddy Roosevelt, or Abraham Lincoln, or FDR.

Regardless, though, of our view of corporations, no candidate will win without them. You think Kerry would gain support by attacking them. He wouldn't. Kucinich attacks them, Nader attacks them. The footnotes of our history books are full of people who attack them. Kerry wouldn't win, Kerry would be slaughtered for doing that. He would lose by double digits.

The difference between you and me isn't pragmatism versus idealism. I'm a strong idealist. It is believing that a little gain is better than a big loss. I don't see how any of my ideals will be reached by continuing to lose elections.

[rppper]

45. well said jobycom, well said.....

it's easy to be an armchair critic, but in a time of war, you follow orders. kerry did nothing that the vietmanese wouldn't have tried on him. it was a war-zone...people, both innocent or involved, die in war zones. no one who is sane likes killing. but when the choice is to kill or be killed, what other alternative are you left with?

if your so hot to blame someone for the death toll in vietnam, why not point your finger to colin powell, who, as a major, attempted to cover up signifigant parts of the infamous mai lei massacre. kerry repented for his sins there, i have never heard powell say i'm sorry. bush brought his war record into this...the war president, remember? kerry had to defend his actions to a fairly equally divided country both then and now.

dirk, if your going to start pointing fingers, then point it at anyone who has ever served in a war zone in the last 50 years who wore an american uniform. as your posts suggest, most conflicts we have been involved in were both illegal and immoral. you know, we agree on that, you and i, but i also helped load and fire tommahawk missiles in the first gulf war...i am fully aware they may have killed people. so that puts me in the same league as kerry by your standards. i don't feel very good about it, but i don't consider myself a murderer either. i will sort that issue out with god when the time comes.

kerry is certainly not the bloodthirsty, greedy piece of human garbage bush is. there is no comparison.

[jobycom]

51. Thanks. One minor quibble

You say Kerry did nothing the Vietnamese would not have done to him. Maybe true, but we invaded their home. There is a moral difference. They had the right to defend more than we had the right to be there.

Still, I don't blame Kerry, I blame our leaders at the time. And Kerry has proven his strength of character by what he did to stop the war.

[rppper]

56. i should have defined that better

blame it on second shifts....it was a war zone...moral or not, people kill and people die in them. the 60's were a different time indeed. kerry did what he was called upon to do, found himself to be wrong, and owned up to it. i feel his actions in and out of the war are honorable.

[powergirl]

12. The freepers bought it hook, line, and sinker

Ha

[Politicub]

16. When I read this headline

I thought I heard an angel choir singing...

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAA stupid Bush*

[jburton]

20. My faith in the Kerry Campaign has been restored 100%

The little "delay" in releasing the records got 'em all worked up and made it a huge story.

I fell for it too!

Sweet!

Once again the comparison is clear: Kerry the volunteer vs AWOL Bush

[InflateableLove]

40. Yes! He killed at leaset 20 enemy and we need to show this FACT!

We can't let him be dubbed a passive anti-war soldier when he helped defent us against the enemy!

[opihimoimoi]

44. This is the result of attacking Kerry the Vet.

Those Pubs are throwing everything they can at him but in the end, he stands tall, looks good, and shows tenacity/brains/and Courage.

Those Pubs are always going for the Neg, always picking on this or that in a neg way. Thats all they got, neg? Gimme a break

[jobycom]

52. I don't like that part, either

But I haven't heard Kerry bragging about it. It was part of his record, and so far I've only heard reporters bring it up.

But you know, the more I think about it, the more I kind of like that becoming part of the debate. I want to see how the Republicans react. Will they try to use that to condemn him, to paint him as a killer? If so, what will that say to the troops? Will people become uncomfortable with Kerry if they understand that number personally? Or will they begin to look on him as more serious than they thought? As someone who really does understand war in a way most of them don't?

If people start to feel repulsed by Kerry's kills, then part of the dialogue becomes "How do they feel about the kills of our soldiers now?" It may open up a dialogue on life, death, and war that is not out there now.

Americans wanted to invade Iraq and slaughter 100k people because they got tired of hearing about it on the news. What happens when tey are forced to acknowledge killing on a one to one level. Kerry personalizes it. The effects that will have on the national consciousness is hard to predict.

[DeepModem Mom]

48. NYT: Nothing negative from BG critic Hibbard at time of incident

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

Published: April 22, 2004


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

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

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

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

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

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


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/22/politics/campaign/22DISC.html

[Beetwasher]

53. The SUCKERS TOOK THE BAIT

BWahahahahahaaqhahahahahah!