posted on April 26, 2004 02:05:26 PM new
Lets see the ultimate flip flopper wiggle out of this one.
-----------------
ABC News seems to have caught John Kerry lying about his Vietnam record. At issue is the 1971 protest at which Kerry threw two medals belonging to other men, along with his own ribbons, over a fence around the U.S. Capitol. In a 1996 profile, the Boston Globe noted (the link is gone, but we quoted it herehttp://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110003430) that contemporaneous newspaper accounts had Kerry throwing his own medals over the fence; one quoted him as saying: "This administration forced us to return our medals."
But now Kerry has added a new twist to the story. He claims he never said he was throwing his own medals. "I never ever implied that I did it," Kerry told the Los Angeles Times last week, though he then argued in the alternative: "You know what? Medals and ribbons, there's almost no difference in distinction, fundamentally. They're symbols of the same thing. They are what they are." Kerry's official blog calls it a "rightwing fiction" that "Kerry lied about throwing his medals during a Vietnam War protest."
But ABC unearthed a 1971 television interview that gives the lie to this claim:
"I gave back, I can't remember, six, seven, eight, nine medals," Kerry said in an interview on a Washington, D.C., news program on WRC-TV called Viewpoints on Nov. 6, 1971, according to a tape obtained by ABCNews. . . .
Asked about the anti-war veterans who threw their medals away, Kerry said "they decided to give them back to their country."
Kerry was asked if he gave back the Bronze Star, Silver Star and three Purple Hearts he was awarded for combat duty as a Navy lieutenant in Vietnam. "Well, and above that, [I] gave back the others," he said.
The statement directly contradicts Kerry's most recent claims on the disputed subject to the Los Angeles Times last Friday.
"Good Morning America" http://www.drudgereport.com/flash5.htmaired the footage today, then brought Kerry on for an interview with Charlie Gibson, in which Kerry evaded the question of his comments in the "Viewpoints" interview. Kerry's defense seems to be a Clintonian one: that he did not claim at the medal-tossing event that he was throwing his own medals.
His other defense is that Republicans are wicked: "This is a controversy that the Republicans are pushing. The Republicans have spent $60 million in the last few weeks trying to attack me, and this comes from a president and a Republican Party that can't even answer whether or not he showed up for duty in the National Guard. I'm not going to stand for it."
Whenever anyone brings up President Bush's National Guard service, we yawn. So, we suspect, does most of America. Bush, who has a term as president under his belt, is not running on his National Guard service the way Kerry is running on his Vietnam service. The latter is selling his flattering war record as the proof of his character, leadership and patriotism. That it may be--but if so, why can't he seem to tell the truth about it? This is a crucial question in evaluating Kerry's candidacy, and it is why Medalgate could end up sinking it.
"The Secret Service has announced it is doubling its protection for John Kerry. You can understand why — with two positions on every issue, he has twice as many people mad at him." —Jay Leno
posted on April 26, 2004 02:46:51 PM new
Bear - the only people who find this relevant are the people who were never going to vote for him in the first place. This is a man that has been in public service for years and the only thing you can find to bithch about is a 33 year old protest action? Quite honestly it smacks of desperation and a slow news cycle.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
[ edited by fenix03 on Apr 26, 2004 02:48 PM ]
posted on April 26, 2004 03:08:59 PM new
Fenix, actually it's just the opposite. It is showing Kerry to be the liar he really is (again).
"The Secret Service has announced it is doubling its protection for John Kerry. You can understand why — with two positions on every issue, he has twice as many people mad at him." —Jay Leno
posted on April 26, 2004 09:03:27 PM new
This is not an issue. Compare Kerry's record to "The Cowardly Crawford Cretin" who hid from his NG unit using daddies influence to shield him from any harm.
posted on April 26, 2004 09:28:20 PM new
If Kerry fudged about what he did with his medals, I don't care. I'm not going to vote for medals, I'm voting against the President. I don't really see this as too much different, and certainly less important, than pretending you were piloting a helicopter out to sea to declare "mission accomplished". That was a fake deal if ever there was one.
___________________________________
When a dog howls at the moon, we call it religion. When he barks at strangers, we call it patriotism. - Edward Abbey
posted on April 26, 2004 09:29:57 PM new This is a devastating issue...
Yes, by all means, neocons...focus on the earth shattering distinction between a ribbon and a medal. Then and only then can you begin to determine if the various and sundry awards were tossed, lobbed or simply thrown away. The enormity of this challenge may confuse and confound you but don't give up. Tomorrow, you can begin again!
posted on April 26, 2004 09:41:47 PM new
And regarding medals versus ribbons: Dick and George have none. The only notable aspect of Geoges service was that he went missing in inaction.
Friends don't let friends vote Republican!
posted on April 27, 2004 06:00:17 AM new
Imo, this instance isn't a case of flip-flopping, it's a case out and out lying. He's been caught in a lie. No surprise.
posted on April 27, 2004 06:33:29 AM new
It's incredible how the neocons try to compare their candidate's embarrassing military service with that of a decorated Vienam veteran and then call him a liar over such a trivial remark when Bush has lied so much that he has lost credibility here and troughout the entire world. What a pathetic grasping effort to smear a good man.
posted on April 27, 2004 06:48:30 AM new
That's one part of the problem....how one individually judges what is meant by 'a good man'.
There are many American's that judge a man who sides with groups that are aligned with communist groups, during the Vietnam war, against his own country, as kerry did.
That's not what I consider 'a good man'. It's more like a traitor in my mind.
posted on April 27, 2004 06:52:57 AM new
One opinion that many American's support:
"Great men do not wait to respond to important events, they make them happen. They are not the servants of history but its drivers. They are not cowed by the unknown, they are grounded in certainties -- their faith, their fitness, and their commitment to the American ideal. This is the essential quality of leadership.
A leader defines objectives, assesses capabilities, weighs risks, and acts. Many of those who fail tests of leadership stall on the third step, endlessly debating, studying, considering, pondering, trying vainly to know the unknown in advance, until the moment passes and the opportunity is lost.
Competent leaders accept the fact that not everything can be known, and move forward. To say that we cannot go to war because we do not know for certain what will happen is not an argument -- it is at best an excuse.
Thankfully, we have a president more interested in shaping history than doing nothing and hoping everything will work out." --James S. Robbins
posted on April 27, 2004 06:56:32 AM new
Another one from a vet....and an internet search will give thousands of such comments about kerry's service:
"Regarding Kerry's military decorations -- strange, I did 14 Major multi unit Operations & over 350 Patrols, MedCaps, Listening Posts as a Marine 0311 in Line Companies during two full tours in Da Nang & Chu Lai TAORs & never heard of anyone getting as many awards (except one of the Recon guys) as John F. Kerry got in 4 months.
I assumed the 'F' was for 'French' but now I guess it is for 'fabrication'."
posted on April 27, 2004 07:12:41 AM new "There are many American's that judge a man who sides with groups that are aligned with communist groups, during the Vietnam war, against his own country, as kerry did."
I'll let that statement define you, linda... your integrity, your credibility and the level to which you are willing to descend.
posted on April 27, 2004 07:18:30 AM new
This isn't about Linda. This is about a man running for the Presidency of the U.S.
who worked right along side our enemies.
Even though you'd like this part kerry's backgroud to be ignored.... not up for discussion....it IS part of the man he is. A shameful part...and one that many of my generation remember quite vividly.
WASHINGTON
ON THE WAY to the fence where he threw some of his military decorations 33 years ago, I was 4 or 5 feet behind John Kerry.
As he neared the spot from which members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War were parting with a few of the trappings of their difficult past to help them face their future more squarely, I watched Kerry reach with his right hand into the breast pocket of his fatigue shirt. The hand emerged with several of the ribbons that most of the vets had been wearing that unique week of protest, much as they are worn on a uniform blouse.
There couldn't have been all that many decorations in his hand -- six or seven -- because he made a closed fist around his collection with ease as he waited his turn. I recall him getting stopped by one or two wounded vets in wheelchairs, clearly worried that they wouldn't be able to get their stuff over the looming fence, who gave him a few more decorations. Kerry says he doesn't remember this.
It is true that Kerry was one of the veterans group's "leaders," but in this eclectic, aggressively individualistic collection of people who had been through a pointless war, there were no privileges of rank. Kerry was in the middle of a line of perhaps 1,000 guys -- only a third or even less of the total who had assembled on the Washington Mall that astonishing week.
At the spot where the men were symbolically letting go of their participation in the war, the authorities had erected a wood and wire fence that prevented them from getting close to the front of the US Capitol, and Kerry paused for several seconds. We had been talking for days -- about the war, politics, the veterans' demonstration -- but I could tell Kerry was upset to the point of anguish, and I decided to leave him be; his head was down as he approached the fence quietly.
In a voice I doubt I would have heard had I not been so close to him, Kerry said, as I recall vividly, "There is no violent reason for this; I'm doing this for peace and justice and to try to help this country wake up once and for all."
With that, he didn't really throw his handful toward the statue of John Marshall, America's first chief justice. Nor did he drop the decorations. He sort of lobbed them, and then walked off the stage.
Some people have written secondhand accounts of that day stating that Kerry at that moment also threw "medals" that had been given to him by a couple of vets who were not there. I remember Kerry doing that later in the day after the event had broken up. He was in the company, for part of that time, of a small group of Gold Star Mothers (who had lost sons in the war). In addition to the events involving the military decorations, the veterans also held a tree-planting ceremony near the Capitol and attended congressional hearings on civilian casualties of the conflict.
From what I could observe firsthand about Friday, April 23, 1971, Kerry did not make even the slightest effort to pretend that he was throwing all of his military decorations over that fence. He did what he did in plain view, and in my case in the view of someone close enough to kick him in the shins.
It was clear to me that Kerry had arrived here with only the ribbons he wore on his shirt -- which, by the way, were referred to as "medals" by the late Stuart Symington of Missouri, one of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee members present for his famous antiwar statement.
While the idea of turning back decorations had been talked about prior to that week, there was no clear plan when the veterans arrived. The night before, the men had had a long, loud argument about whether to throw their stuff or simply place it on a long table in front of the Capitol. I watched Kerry argue for the less dramatic approach and lose.
It was clear from our conversations back then and ever since that Kerry made no distinction among his various decorations, though others have. Some in the military don't either. I remember once asking my father (who was awarded a Bronze Star in the Pacific during World War II), what he called the ribbon and lapel ornament he received in addition to the star; he said they were all the Bronze Star.
I have always found the political junk served up by Kerry's detractors to be undignified as well as largely inaccurate.
I write now because the political junk is much higher profile now, though no less misleading -- and not, by the way, because in her fourth job in the public arena, my daughter just joined Kerry's staff. I just happened to be there that long-ago day. I saw what happened and heard what Kerry said and know what he meant. The truth happens to be with him.
posted on April 27, 2004 09:15:57 AM new
Amazing how so called "patriots" will debase a decorated war veteran in favor of a lying draft dodging deserter like Bush and his chickenhawk side kick Dick Cheney.
When it comes to Vietnam service, Bush isn't even a patch on Kerry's pants.
posted on April 27, 2004 09:44:16 AM new Hey Bear, If someone typed Geo. Bush 33 years you would see a drunken coked up fool
And now when you do a google search on drunken coked up fool. the name "bigpeepa" is returned.
----------
The issue with Kerry is his credibility, especially among Viet vets, (Helen, jump in here anytime, your opinion as a Viet Veteran is appreciated).
And like Ebayguy stated and as Reamond should appreciate, in legalize, Kerry opened the door to this line of questioning when he approved the questioning of Pres Bush's military service.
In bibilical terms it's called "So as yea sow, so shall yea reap"
In practical terms, it is called "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen".
"The Secret Service has announced it is doubling its protection for John Kerry. You can understand why — with two positions on every issue, he has twice as many people mad at him." —Jay Leno
By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Tuesday, April 27, 2004; Page A21
Excerpt...
"Have you no sense of decency, sir?"
It was the classic question posed by Joseph Welch to Sen. Joseph McCarthy 50 years ago during the Red-hunter's hearings investigating the Army for alleged communist influence. With his query, Welch, the Army's special counsel, began the undoing of McCarthy.
Unfortunately, the question needs to be asked again. It needs to be posed to shamelessly partisan Republicans who can't stand the fact that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are facing off against a Democrat who fought and was wounded in Vietnam. Cheney said in 1989 that he didn't go to Vietnam because "I had other priorities in the '60s than military service." While Kerry risked his life, Bush got himself into the National Guard.
McCain recalled that he had worked with Kerry on "POW/MIA issues and the normalization of relations with Vietnam" and wanted to stand up for his war comrade because "you have to do what's right." Speaking of Kerry, McCain said: "He's my friend. He'll continue to be my friend. I know his service was honorable. If that hurts me politically or with my party, that's a very small price to pay."
Now that McCain has spoken, will Bush have the guts to endorse or condemn the attacks on Kerry's service? Or will he just sit by silently, hoping the assaults do their work while he evades responsibility? Once more, Welsh's words call out for an answer: "Have you no sense of decency, sir?"
posted on April 27, 2004 12:05:24 PM new
Something I have yet to hear anybody in the mainstream press bring up is that it doesn't matter if he threw his medals and or ribbons away. Do you realize how easy it would be to get replacements? I can walk into Fort Des Moines right this minute and get whatever ribbons I want.
posted on April 27, 2004 12:40:53 PM newThe issue with Kerry is his credibility, especially among Viet vets
Very much agreed.
(Helen, jump in here anytime, your opinion as a Viet Veteran is appreciated).
----------------
right reamond - but many here supported clinton - even when so far as to wish he could have been our president for another 4 years. He was an out-and-out-draft dodger....didn't seem to matter to them then that HE never served but rather avoided the service/draft altogether while this President was given an HONORABLE discharge.
posted on April 27, 2004 12:56:36 PM newHe was an out-and-out-draft dodger....
Clinton admitted he was against the war, didn't want to go, and used his student deferment WHICH IS THE THE SAME THING THAT DICK CHENEY DID. Bush used his draft dodging and desertion while in the NG as an endorsement for his military experience and "service to country". Bush was also quoted as saying while others shot off fingers or went to Canada, he got a slot in a NG unit that was already over capacity to stay out of the Vietnam War.
this President was given an HONORABLE discharge.
So what. Why is it so hard to believe that the son of a powerful rich politician that got into an over staffed NG Unit and could be AWOL for a year and still get an Honorable Discharge ?
Do you really think that the Texas NG would give the son of George HW Bush a dishonorable discharge ?
How can naive can you be ??? No wonder this country is in such a mess.
posted on April 27, 2004 01:59:20 PM new
This is going be a huge boost for kerry down the road. Everytime the bush people start this stuff, bush's military record comes up. Bush has many questions to answer about his military service.
posted on April 27, 2004 02:38:33 PM new
LOL...yea...right
--------
From the Village Voice
Mondo Washington
by James Ridgeway
John Kerry Must Go
Note to Democrats: it's not too late to draft someone—anyone—else
April 27th, 2004 11:45 AM
WASHINGTON, D.C.— With the air gushing out of John Kerry's balloon, it may be only a matter of time until political insiders in Washington face the dread reality that the junior senator from Massachusetts doesn't have what it takes to win and has got to go.
As arrogant and out of it as the Democratic political establishment is, even these pols know the party's got to have someone to run against George Bush. They can't exactly expect the president to self-destruct into thin air.
With growing issues over his wealth (which makes fellow plutocrat Bush seem a charity case by comparison), the miasma over his medals and ribbons (or ribbons and medals), his uninspiring record in the Senate (yes war, no war), and wishy-washy efforts to mimic Bill Clinton's triangulation gimmickry (the protractor factor), Kerry sinks day by day.
The pros all know that the candidate who starts each morning by having to explain himself is a goner.
What to do? Look for the Dem biggies, whoever they are these days, to sit down with the rich and arrogant presumptive nominee and try to persuade him to take a hike. Then they can return to business as usual—resurrecting John Edwards, who is still hanging around, or staging an open convention in Boston, or both.
If things proceed as they are, the dim-bulb Dem leaders are going to be very sorry they screwed Howard Dean.
