What about Kerry's thrown medals?

[Cocoa]

We've been welcoming back the Skull and Bones nonsense, but that nonsense was traditionally accompanied by nonsense about how the medals he threw at a protest weren't his, or some scandal like that.

So, my question is, why has the medals part of the story been dropped?

Did research show that the medals story is not as effective in smearing Kerry?

Is the medals story being saved for a strategically more damaging time for Kerry?

What's the scoop, Skull and Boners?

[boxster]

1. It's ineffective because most people agree that Vietnam was a bad thing.

Therefore, Kerry protesting the war was a good thing, especially considering that he experienced it first-hand and understood what he was protesting against.

[dreissig]

39. Totally Wrong Answer

The Vietnam War was an unworthy cause, but soldiers still feel loyal to our country. Throwing back medals is extremely radical. The question Kerry is: Did you throw your medals back or not?

Military honor is a big deal, a very big deal to a lot of people. Kerry ought to answer the question.

[creativelcro]

2. Finally, all the people I know laugh when they hear about medals

Like in "Do you want a medal?"...

[dreissig]

3. The Medals Story

Throwing back medals is a very grand gesture, and any soldier would know what it means. Kerry threw back his medals, only to change his mind about it later on. (Does anybody detect a pattern?)

His explanation was completely lame. He said later on that the medals he threw back weren't his, y'see. They belonged to a friend of his, a friend who wanted to throw back his medals but couldn't make it to the demonstration. This does not sound plausible.

When you throw back your medals, that's it! You renounce them, you're done with them. Kerry's medals, the ones that he supposedly threw back, are on the wall in his office. (Don't hector the man, there's a perfectly reasonable explanation) ...

[Raven]

4. The medal thing was thoroughly vetted

during the Weld/Kerry senate campaign. The Republicans were desperate for Bill Weld to beat Kerry and they sent all of their nastiest tricksters to MA to dig the dirt on Kerry. The medal thing was about all they could come up with and it just didn't resonate with the voters. I think a lot of people decided that Kerry throwing the medals was a symbolic jesture and just wasn't a big deal. I hope Bush raises this kind of thing during the campaign because it just allows Kerry to tout his heroic service in Vietnam while Georgie sat it out in bars and never even showed for home duty. As Kerry said...BRING IT ON!

[dreissig]

5. Empty Gesture

The medals thing was an empty gesture. If it doesn't resonate with voters, the reason is that people don't understand medals or their significance to people who receive them. If you get the Silver Star, you don't throw it back! You don't even pretend to throw it back, because it's disrespectful of the other people who've received that award.

Take the example of Chaplain Liteky, awarded the Medal of Honor during Vietnam. Later in his life he threw the medal back by leaving it on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, and he declined the tax-free stipend that comes with it. He did not disrespect other Medal of Honor winners by changing his mind afterwards, as Kerry apparently did. Liteky also never wore it again, and has completely disassociated himself from it.

As it turns out, Kerry didn't really throw back his medals, he says. He gets a mulligan because after all, he's a Senator, y'see . . .

[Raven]

8. You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

MY post was not intended to defend what he did. My post was intended to point out that this issue has already been vetted and didn't go anywhere. You imply that he insulted all medal winners by doing what he did. Perhaps he insulted some but he certainly seems to have support from a great many other vets. So the bottom line to me is that John Kerry is a decent man who has given 30+ years of service to this country. IMO he is the only candidate who can beat Bush and this country will be in good hands with him as president. The medal thing will go nowhere and will be an invitation to discuss Bush's military record.

[sandnsea]

11. He threw his ribbons, he didn't have his medals

If you look at some of the pictures around DU of the time, you'll see Kerry wore his ribbons but not his medals. He threw his ribbons back because that's what he had. It's a really simple thing that was distorted by the right wing. Not surprised some are willing to run with it.

[dreissig]

19. You're Making It Worse

Ribbons and medals are generally considered one and the same. If Kerry wants to distort the ordinary language by saying he threw back only his ribbons, he must be referring to things like unit citations. In that case, his participation in a ritual of throwing back medals is even more deceptive.

You must be misinterpreting what Kerry said, because it makes him sound like a complete sneak. I see him as a guy who cuts corners and likes to get away with things, but not a total scumbag. If he made the evasive distinction you're saying he did, that makes him the sort who'll weasel out of anything.

[Valjean]

37. Kerry had a chance

Kerry had a chance to clear up the story and any misunderstandings. I've heard about three versions so far. I would have liked for him to state EXACTLY what happened.

Was it his ribbons, was it other peoples medals. Yeah, the other schpeel is good and I think what he did was right. But answer the question straight.

[dreissig]

38. Don't Hold Your Breath

Don't hold your breath waiting for John Kerry to give a straight answer here. He wants it both ways, and he seems to be getting away with it.

The way to stop this is to put the question in his face anywhere and everywhere. Don't let him get away with not answering it! John, did you throw your medals back or not?

[NewYorkerfromMass]

6. "This administration forced us to return OUR medals"

I learned something new yesterday. Kerry spoke in the first person plural when he said this. It's a fine line- but can be seen as Kerry speaking for the group. Kerry never said he personally threw his but it is certainly implied. I am sure there are quite a few vets bothered by the fact that Kerry didn't actually throw his.

"In 1984, the Wall Street Journal revealed that -- despite a speech Kerry gave in which he angrily claimed that "This administration forced us to return our medals ... These leaders denied us the integrity those symbols supposedly gave our lives" -- Kerry had actually kept his medals. The medals he threw that day belonged to others, it turned out. It was an example, the media alleged, of Kerry the phony.

From Kerry's perspective, of course, it was all pretty complicated and he never really understood what the brouhaha was all about. The medals were, after all, a highly personal matter. He'd ultimately decided to throw his also-important ribbons, and the medals he tossed were on behalf of some disabled vets. He never claimed to have thrown his own medals, and certainly the more important matter was that he had enlisted and fought bravely in the war, and had then come back to protest the atrocities he had participated in. And, it should be noted, in the "60 Minutes" interview with Kerry, which ran a mere four weeks after the 1971 demonstration on the Mall, Kerry refers to the "the emotion in the faces of those men who threw their medals back ... if you watch their faces, there was agony in them as they threw those things back," and so on, continuously referring to the medal-throwers in the third person, never including himself...."

http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/08/10/kerry/print.html

[dreissig]

15. Clever Guy

Ya gotta admit, what Kerry did was really clever. Faked everybody out! He identified himself with guys who threw back their medals, but it turns out, the medals he threw weren't his own. He threw medals, but they were awarded to somebody else, get it? Ha ha ha, what a clever guy.

[sandnsea]

16. See post #11

As with other posts, ignoring reality doesn't make reality disappear.

[salinen]

9. Shows to go you

that their reaching.

[Raven]

12. A dangerous reach for Bush,

don't you think? But I keep thinking of what those b***ards did to John McCain in the last primary. I think what hurt McCain about that was that voters get really spooked when mental health issues are raised about a candidate. I don't think they can do the same thing to Kerry. The medal thing won't stick and will open a door Bush does not want to open. They will have to find something else. I wonder what it will be.

[dreissig]

17. A Reach for Bush

The medals issue may not be a reason to vote for Bush, but some people will take it as a reason to vote against Kerry. As Kerry himself acknowledges, the meaning of medals is very personal. In families that have lost a son in combat, all they may have left of him is his Silver Star. They certainly know the meaning of throwing it back . . . it's a deep insult to the government.

Kerry's supporters can allow him to weasel out of it, but Kerry's artful language makes him even more of a trickster.

[Raven]

18. A deep insult to the government???

The Vietnam War and this war is a deep insult to our government. You are beating a dead horse.

[dreissig]

22. Insulting the Government

There's no way around it - when you throw back your medals it's an insult to the government. That's probably why Kerry is dancing away from it. He figures that people may forgive a war hero, but they won't forgive a public figure who has actually insulted the government.

Calling the Vietnam War an "insult" is rhetorical. Did Kerry throw back his medals or not? He participated in a ceremony in which medals were thrown back. Now he's turning Clintonesque in denying the obvious. He's stuck either way.

Oh, did I mention this? I'm not planning on voting for him.

[Raven]

27. Yeah, I figured.

I'll wager you're voting for a boy idiot and there aren't any of them on the democratic ticket.

[dreissig]

35. I Haven't Decided

I haven't decided who I'm going to vote for, but I know it won't be for Kerry or Edwards or Lieberman. In case the convention deadlocks and picks Hillary, I won't vote for her either.

I'm looking forward to purging non-Democrats from the party. This is going to happen with our first significant victory as the pendulum swings back to the Left. For example, I was cheered by Gephardt's tears. It's already starting!

[sandnsea]

21. See post #11, #16

It's been explained. People who were with him that day have said the exact same thing. I'm not saying he even would have thrown his medals back, but that day he threw his ribbons. People threw all kinds of things. His remarks focused on the word medals because they meant something to those WWII Congressman who were in office in 1971. Make it something more than it is if you will, but as far as I'm concerned, you only disgrace yourself.

[dreissig]

24. An Arbitrary Distinction

In making a distinction between medals and ribbons, saying that Kerry threw back his ribbons and not his medals, you sound like you are under the impression that these are different things.

Military people don't wear their medals, they wear the ribbons associated with the medals. If you throw the ribbons back, it's the same as throwing the medals back, there's no difference. The only time they wear the actual medal is the day it's awarded, and not at any other time.

If Kerry is saying that he threw back his ribbons not his medals, he's making a distinction that sounds plausible to civilians but means nothing to military people. He's lying.

[sandnsea]

25. Then you've exactly made the case

He was wearing his ribbons that day and threw them back. He didn't have his medals. He was speaking for all vets when he spoke of throwing back medals. I don't even know what in the hell this is all about if medals and ribbons are the same damn thing. I didn't know that. Thanks for the clarification. This is the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

[dreissig]

29. The Point Is ...

The point is that you've been swindled into believing something that is not true. There is no distinction between ribbons and medals, they are one and the same. If Kerry threw back his ribbons, they should not be hanging on the wall in his office.

Ribbons and medals are not the same physical objects but they are identical in meaning. Kerry's statement that he threw back only his ribbons is more than misleading, it's a complete falsehood.

Whether Kerry threw back his medals or not is entirely up to him. But if he threw the medals back he has to explain why he still displays them.

Alternatively, if he did not throw them back, what kind of a sneak trick was he involved in, making a grand gesture of seeming to do just that? Kerry won't answer basic questions about his attitude toward the American government: Did you or did you not throw back your medals?

He has to answer that question. There are too many veterans that want to know his understanding of military honor.

[Don Claybrook]

44. Pardon, but who gives a fuck if the government feels insulted?

They work for me, or at least they're supposed to. And yet, I feel deeply insulted by my government every damned day. Why should I give a tinker's damn if the government is offended?

[bushisanidiot]

31. Exactly! The Retort Question To Pres. AWOL: How many medals did you get

for your brave service in vietnam? what's that? no medals? but what about all those flights you made across vietnam with the enemy shooting at you? what's that? you didn't actually FLY anywhere outside of Texas? oh.. well then.

at least Kerry saved lives while serving his country. All AWOL did was party hardy at the kegger, snort coke and hide in the National Guard flying planes that were guaranteed to never see combat!

[CWebster]

14. that might change

in a race that is about who is the bigger war hero.

[mb7588a]

7. If you ask me,

if the man had the drive to throw medals, regardless of whose they were, that's an angry man who wants change. Remember, he also got ARRESTED for his protesting...

[NewHampster]

10. Angry man? We Can't have an angry man running this country!

where have I heard that before?

[sandnsea]

13. Constructive anger

Anger that gets things done. That's why I'm for Kerry.

[CWebster]

20. hahaha

gotcha!

:hi:

[seventhson]

45. Arrested??? I don't think so. He QUIT the VVAW right after his tv speech

No civil disobedience that I know of....

H e said they threw their medals away and then he walked away from the movement because IMHO he had his thingie for his antiwar resume.

[Adjoran]

23. The medals Kerry threw

were sent to him by a disabled vet who could not attend the protest.

It was a symbolic protest, and an effective one.

Kerry was a young man at the time, just back from the war. I doubt seriously he thought at all about the possibility that the media would assume the medals he tossed were his.

I'm uncommitted, and don't mind a hard fight. Criticism of our candidates should have some reasonable basis, though.

[dreissig]

26. Medals That Weren't His?

You'll have to tell me why the media would not assume that the medals he threw back were his own. When ex-servicemen make a display of their disgust with government policy by throwing back their medals, there's no meaning to the gesture if the medals aren't their own. How could there be any significance to throwing back someone else's medals? It's only meaningful when you throw back your own medals.

This argument is entirely lame. I urge you to avoid making it to anyone who's been in the military. We're hearing one lie after another. "He didn't really throw the medals back," says one. "The medals weren't really his," says another. Get real. Kerry has to start owning up to his actions.

[sandnsea]

28. He was unknown

Who cared. He threw his ribbons which you already said were medals. And he threw somebody elses actual medals. He was nobody. If he would have differentiated every single thing every person threw, nobody would have reported it anyway. This is really stupid.

[dreissig]

30. Military Honor

Military honor is such a big part of the presidential campaign that I'd hesitate to use words like "stupid" to describe controversies that arise in discussing the candidates' personal histories. Kerry's a fence straddler, but he'll have to say whose medals he threw back at the government. If it turns out they weren't his own, it suggests that he's a guy who plays to the crowd with cheap gestures. If they were his own, he really ought to take them down from the wall in his office. We're talking here about military honor.

[Raven]

32. What's your war record?

I'd like to know from whence you speak.

[dreissig]

34. Military Record

I don't talk about my military record because I don't believe it gives me any special authority to comment on the war, etc. Right wingers love to slam non-veterans with that. However, to respond to your question, I do indeed have a military background.

Did you really need to find this out? Do you now feel more confident that there's no difference between ribbons and medals? You didn't need me to tell you this - you could have looked it up.

[John_H]

33. If you had won those medals, wouldn't you have thrown them too?

I sure would have.

[dreissig]

36. The Medals Story

The medals story takes a lot of explaining, because civilians have no concept of what it means to throw medals back. It's a bigger deal than it appears. Kerry's efforts to evade this issue make him look like a sneak.

[styersc]

40. If Kerry did not throw his medal "for real" and instead participated in a

effective metaphorical protest- then I think that we should say to hell to his lifetime of service to this country, our party and progressive causes including civil rights, reproductive rights, humane foreign policy, environment, ethics (including his work to investigate Iran-gate and BCCI) etc.

Can't we just elect Bush and then self-righteously whine to each other about how horrible life is.

[Cocoa]

41. my original question was about the packaging

you may be able to answer it.

Why was the medals propaganda paired with the Skull and Bones propaganda. Seems to be two very unrelated stories, but they usually appeared together.

Now, the Skull and Bones stuff is back, but in this new round, the medals story isn't part of it. I'm just curious about the change in tactics.

[styersc]

43. The reason that the two stories are no longer linked is because Rove

and the GOP machine is gearing up to cast Kerry as a commie loving, America hating leftist who has been posing as a moderate progressive. They want to steer clear of the fact that Kerry earned those medals and then they want to promote the idea that he is anti-veteran.

The idea may be far fetched but there are plenty at DU who are willing to give Rove all the help he wants in re-electing Bush.

[seventhson]

47. I can answer your question, Cocoa, as the CHIEF proponent

of the two stories and their linkage.

Kerry looked like the prime opponent to Gore when I first came to this board . Gore was bashed here unmercifully in favor of Kerry.

I had been on the Bush-Bones-Hitler crusade since before the last election Kerry never looked like a contender until I came here and it was sport for Kerry supporters to bash Gore IMHPO.

I discovered about that time that Kerry was a bonesman (which was not relevent to me because he was not in a real contender position).

In my searching for sources on the skull story I came across the medals story (in a now-scrubbed Boston Globe article from 1996). The more research I did the more the story got more interesting and it looked to me like even the medals were not awarded in the usual manner and there were numerous inconsistencies in the story.

THAT would be consitent with the Bonesman MO (which is interestingly a key element in the film the Manchurian Candidate - the stealth assassin wins a silver star in Korea, but it is really just a fake set up for politicval purposes so his stepfather can get the presidency - a film banned after the JFK assassination for years): FAKE medals for FAKE war heroics, FAKE footage of his war exploits (reenactments which Kerry tried to pass off as the real deal), and then the FAKE tossing of the medals while appearing on National TV News (due to his connections) in testimony and a press conference as a Vet agasinst the war which he promptly left.

THIS, from my perspective as a political historian and investigator with a specialty in Naziism and theiur tactics of disinformation and blackops, LOOKED awfully fishy.

I linked them in my posts because they indicated exactly what Zi believe: Kerry is the candidate of the same folks who put Bush in office: the most wealthy corporate fascists who control the global economy. Folks LIKE Halliburton, Exxon, Stephens, Carlyle, etc.. THAT is his background. His backstory is the same backstory (Shrub was an exceptiuon because he was a total chickenshit, but he got a pass as a real legacy candidate. When Kerry was assigned the patrol boats they did NOIT engage in action - but the orders changed after he was assigned there; I think he was going to get the credentials but stay safe kinda like Gore, but ended up with bad luck) as many Skull and Bonesman. Bones historically desires the military heroism background for its political plants. Look at GHWBush, for example.

Skull plays for keeps and Wants warriors, but legacy boys like Bush and Kerry usually get safer and plusher assignments. according to many sources who have researched this like Tarpley and Sutton.

In recent months Kerry has been sinking and I left him alone. I thought he was finished. I have also been afraid to say boo with the new rules on this issue or many others. Last oen got locked

NOW he comes back and ALL these issues will get raised again.

If Howard goes down I am really hoping Edwards can bounce back in the south and beat Kerry and Clark,

A Kerry candidacy would be a disaster. A Clark presidency would be even worse.

[John_H]

50. "FAKE medals for FAKE war heroics..."

No. FAKE conspiracy thories promulgated by supporter of a FAKE outsider candidate is a far more accurate summary of your activities on DU than your silly attacks on legitimate heroic Democrats.

[seventhson]

42. Letter from a Vietnam Veteran on the medals and Kerry

http://www.counterpunch.org/willson1015.html

[seventhson]

46. THIS is going to HURT Kerry in the general election

it makes him look like a hypocritical asshole. Either he was for the war or against it. Eithe rhe is proud of his medals or embarrased by them.

Either he voted for the Iraq war or he opposed it.

He speaks out of both siudes of his mouth.

C'mon DU we CANNOT let this turd become our candidate.

PLEASE.


(General "Depleted-Uranium-is-safe" Clark either)

[styersc]

48. When Kerry's heroic war experience turned him against the Vietnam War

he actively worked to end it and he was successful. When Bush screwed us all and misused the tools we gave him to protect this country, Kerry stood up and is currently working to stop Bush and put us back on the right track. You can join us or whine- your call, but either way we have work to do, with or without you.

[seventhson]

49. Kerry just seems like a disingenuous fraud to me

It reeks of hypocrisy to say he "trusted" the Bushes after he supposedly dug the dirt on them in BCCI/Iran/Contra/CIA/Cocaine et al (when in fact the Bushes walked away unscvathed and unindicted)

HOW can we trust this man to mean what he SAYS?

I simply can't.


I also believe that he is going to flounder in the South and that Bush will probably beat his ass in the general election.

The medals thing is also a fiasco.

The skull thing will be more prominent than ever if he is the nominee.

If America WANTS a republican they will NOT vote for a republican lite like Kerry IMHO. Kerry and Bush. Skull vs. Skull. Yuck. Two peas in an elitist Yale secret order pod.

Kerry has voted with Bush down this horrific road time after time.

He deserves a bitch-slap in New Hampshire (forgive the mysogynist expression - but it seems the most apt) after his votes to give Bush this war and his inherent hypocrisy,