A letter to Kerry

[DKW 86 7,726]

Link

A Letter From A Reader

Bob Parks, 04/22/04

Author biography and archives - Printer friendly version

I just thought I’d share this one and the writer asks if this can be passed around. Sounds good to me….

Dear Senator Kerry:

Since it has become clear that you will probably be the Democratic nominee for President, I have spent a great deal of time researching your war record and your record as a professional politician. The reason is simple; you aspire to be the Commander in Chief who would lead my sons and their fellow soldiers in time of war. I simply wanted to know if you possess the necessary qualifications to be trusted in that respect.

You see, I belong to a family of proud U.S. veterans. I was a Captain in the Army Reserve, my father was a decorated Lieutenant in World War II; and I have four sons who have either served, or are currently serving in the military. The oldest is an Army lieutenant still on active duty in Afghanistan after already being honored for his service in Iraq.

The youngest is an E-4 with the military police. His National Guard unit just finished their second tour of active duty, including six months in Guantanamo Bay. My two other sons have served in the National Guard and the navy.

In looking at your record I found myself comparing it not only to that of my father and my sons, but to the people they served with. My father served with the 87th Chemical Mortar Battalion in Europe. They Ianded on Utah Beach and fought for 317 straight days including the Cherbourg Peninsula, Aachen, the Hurtgen Forest, and the Battle of the Bulge.

You earned a Silver Star in Vietnam for chasing down and finishing off a wounded and retreating enemy soldier. My father won a Bronze Star for single handedly charging and knocking out a German machine gun nest that had his men pinned down. You received three purple hearts for what appears to be, three minor scratches. In fact you only missed a combined total of two days of duty for these wounds. The men of my father's unit, the 87th, had to be admonished by their commanding officer because: "It has been brought to our attention that some men are covering up wounds and refusing medical attention for fear of being evacuated and permanently separated from this organization..." It was also a common problem for seriously wounded soldiers to go AWOL from hospitals in order to rejoin their units. You used your three purple hearts to leave Vietnam early.

My oldest boy came home from Iraq with numerous commendations and then proceeded to volunteer to go to Afghanistan and from there back to Iraq again. My sons and father have never had anything but the highest regard and respect for their fellow soldiers. Yet, you came home to publicly charge your fellow fighting men with being war criminals and to urge their defeat by the enemy. You even wrote a book that had a cover which mocked the heroism of the U.S. Marines who raised the flag on Iwo Jima.

Our current crop of soldiers has a philosophy that no one gets left behind; and they have practiced that from Somalia to the battlefields of the Middle East. Yet as chairman of a Senate committee looking into allegations that many of your fellow servicemen had been left behind as prisoners in Vietnam, you chose to defend the brutal Vietnamese regime.

You even went so far as to refer to the families of the POWs and MIAs as Professional malcontents, conspiracy mongers, con artists, and dime store Rambos.

As a Senator you voted against the 1991 Gulf War, and have repeatedly voted against funds to supply our troops with the best equipment, and against money to improve our intelligence capability. I find this particularly ironic since as a Presidential candidate you are highly critical of our pre-war intelligence in Iraq. However, you did vote to authorize the President to go to war, but have since proceeded to do everything you can to undermine the efforts of our government and our troops to win. Is this what our fighting men and women can expect of you if you are their Commander in Chief? Will you gladly send them to war, only to then aid the enemy by undermining the morale of our troops and cutting off the weapons they need to win?

Our country is at war Senator, and as has been the case in every war since the American Revolution, a member of my family is serving their country during the war. Now you want me to trust you to lead my sons in this fight. Sorry Senator, but when I compare your record to those who have fought and died for this nation, and are currently fighting and dying, the answer is not just no, but Hell No!

Sincerely,

Michael Connelly

February 14, 2004

Dallas, Texas

[Tiger Al 0]

I wonder if Mr. Connelly wrote a letter to Dubya asking him why he ducked out of Vietnam so he could patrol the friendly skies of Texas when he wasn't campaigning in Alabama?

[rexbo 104]

... so he could patrol the friendly skies of Texas when he wasn't campaigning in Alabama?

Well, if you remember any history at all, the skies of Texas nor anywhere else were very friendly over the US, the USSR (remember them? Reagan ended their reign of terror) had hundreds of bombers and thousands of nuclear tipped missles pointing our way. Are you implying the tens of thousands of soldiers, airmen, and national guardsmen that patrolled our skies and borders (and many of which died) during the 50 year Cold War did not provide service to their country?

[Tiger Al 0]

... so he could patrol the friendly skies of Texas when he wasn't campaigning in Alabama?

Well, if you remember any history at all, the skies of Texas nor anywhere else were very friendly over the US, the USSR (remember them? Reagan ended their reign of terror) had hundreds of bombers and thousands of nuclear tipped missles pointing our way. Are you implying the tens of thousands of soldiers, airmen, and national guardsmen that patrolled our skies and borders (and many of which died) during the 50 year Cold War did not provide service to their country?

rexbo, they weren't called "Weekend Warriors" for nothing. I've been in both active duty and national guard and you're comparing apples to oranges. You're still comparing apples to oranges if you try to compare national guard service in the 21st century to that of 1971. And, you're dipping even further into the realm of fantasy when you try to compare GWB's national guard service in 1971 to the national guard service the other 99% of guardsmen did. They didn't get to decide which rules applied to them and which ones didn't and you shouldn't stain their service by lumping Dubya in with them. :headshake:

[rexbo 104]

GWB served 2 years of active duty and risked his life for 2 years flying supersonic interceptor jets, jets designed and built in the late 50's and early 60's, not commercial airliners not even F-15s; regardless of what you think, he was not in a country club. I am proud of his service and everyone else that did their part to keep America stronger and safer during the Cold War, even those sitting behind a desk on weekends.

Bush and the National Guard: Case Closed

Bush joined in May 1968. He went through six weeks of basic training — a full-time job — at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Tex. Then he underwent 53 weeks of flight training — again, full time — at Moody Air Force Base in Valdosta, Ga. Then he underwent 21 weeks of fighter interceptor training — full time — at Ellington Air Force Base in Houston. Counting other, shorter, postings in between, by the end of his training period Bush had served two years on active duty.

Certified to fly the F-102 fighter plane, Bush then began a period of frequent — usually weekly — flying. The F-102 was designed to shoot down other fighter planes, and the missions Bush flew were training flights, mostly over the Gulf of Mexico and often at night, in which pilots took turns being the predator and the prey."If you're going to practice how to shoot down another airplane, then you have to have another airplane up there to work on," recalls retired Col. William Campenni, who flew with Bush in 1970 and 1971. "He'd be the target for the first half of the mission, and then we'd switch."

During that period Bush's superiors gave him consistently high ratings as a pilot. "Lt. Bush is an exceptional fighter interceptor pilot and officer," wrote one in a 1972 evaluation. Another evaluation, in 1971, called Bush "an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot" who "continually flies intercept missions with the unit to increase his proficiency even further." And a third rating, in 1970, said Bush "clearly stands out as a top notch fighter interceptor pilot" and was also "a natural leader whom his contemporaries look to for leadership."

[Tiger Al 0]

GWB served 2 years of active duty and risked his life for 2 years flying supersonic interceptor jets, jets designed and built in the late 50's and early 60's, not commercial airliners not even F-15s; regardless of what you think, he was not in a country club.  I am proud of his service and everyone else that did their part to keep America stronger and safer during the Cold War, even those sitting behind a desk on weekends.

Bush and the National Guard: Case Closed

Bush joined in May 1968. He went through six weeks of basic training — a full-time job — at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Tex. Then he underwent 53 weeks of flight training — again, full time — at Moody Air Force Base in Valdosta, Ga. Then he underwent 21 weeks of fighter interceptor training — full time — at Ellington Air Force Base in Houston. Counting other, shorter, postings in between, by the end of his training period Bush had served two years on active duty.

Certified to fly the F-102 fighter plane, Bush then began a period of frequent — usually weekly — flying. The F-102 was designed to shoot down other fighter planes, and the missions Bush flew were training flights, mostly over the Gulf of Mexico and often at night, in which pilots took turns being the predator and the prey."If you're going to practice how to shoot down another airplane, then you have to have another airplane up there to work on," recalls retired Col. William Campenni, who flew with Bush in 1970 and 1971. "He'd be the target for the first half of the mission, and then we'd switch."

During that period Bush's superiors gave him consistently high ratings as a pilot. "Lt. Bush is an exceptional fighter interceptor pilot and officer," wrote one in a 1972 evaluation. Another evaluation, in 1971, called Bush "an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot" who "continually flies intercept missions with the unit to increase his proficiency even further." And a third rating, in 1970, said Bush "clearly stands out as a top notch fighter interceptor pilot" and was also "a natural leader whom his contemporaries look to for leadership."

Please, you're making me dizzy. He was a sub-par student in college who barely passed the pilot's exam but yet was vaulted to the front of the line after daddy pulled some strings. He then "served" with other elites in TANG's "Champagne Squadron". Oh yeah, he was a leader, alright, he knew where all the good bars were and he led the way to them as often as possible.

[keoson7 28]

TA we know "Bush Lied, Bush knew" give us a break from your anti Bush rhetoric it is quite boring, like most of your posts. I guess in college you were presidents list? or were you subpar as well. You don't lead people to bars do ya? you are just a follower. keep following that liberal path Kerry welcomes you with open arms or hands open for your money.

[Tiger Al 0]

TA we know "Bush Lied, Bush knew" give us a break from your anti Bush rhetoric it is quite boring, like most of your posts.

Then when you see a post by "Tiger Al" skip over it and don't give it a second thought.

I guess in college you were presidents list? or were you subpar as well.

3.3 GPA-Whatever that makes me is what it makes me.

You don't lead people to bars do ya? you are just a follower.

As I work very hard and have a family to support, no, I don't go to bars. I drink at home and the six-pack I bought two weeks ago still has four left in it. Come over and enjoy one with me.

keep following that liberal path Kerry welcomes you with open arms or hands open for your money.

Yes, I will. Thanks.

[MDM4AU 337]

3.3 GPA

Wow, I had a 3.0. Congrats, Al.

[DKW 86 7,726]

Please lets not get into a GPA war here. If I have a 3.6+ in my degree feild, how does that compare to a 3.0 in your degree feild. This is just not a place to have a discussion this petty.

3.6 in HPR is a given, a 3.0 in Bio-Chem is something else.

Who cares. I will say this, I didnt go to Harvard or Yale. I doubt seriously anyone on this board did either. Does that mean I am therefore less of a human being than Kerry or Bush? Does that mean I can never be anything but just AU, cow college, public school, land grant trash?

I served in peace time, does that make me and all others I served with something less? Is being assigned into a Guard or Reserve Unit proof positive that you are a coward? How is that better than running out of the country like a coward. (Clinton) If you got a high draft number, does that mean you are a coward? I mean I want to know the final answer here!

So unless you have three PHs for paper cuts and near self inflicted wounds because you are so pathetic you cannot throw a handgrenade far enough so as to not get hit with your own frags, THAT IS HEROISM? Leaving the theatre, leaving your men, while others stayed and fought and died in your place, even after they had thre for real PHs, they are just trash to you because they dont agree with you?

Or is the greatest thing you have ever accomplished in your life summed up in three words....ABB!

[Tiger Al 0]

3.6 in HPR is a given, a 3.0 in Bio-Chem is something else.

Using against you your active duty/national guard argument you used against me, you're saying that the HPR graduate isn't as smart or didn't have to work as hard or is lazier than the Bio-Chem graduate. You're saying the HPR grad's diploma is worth less or isn't as good as the Bio-Chem grad's is. His drive, effort and ambition in school wasn't as meaningful as the bio-chem's was.

Is that what you really mean?

[DKW 86 7,726]

uuhhh yeah!

No, I am exagerating for effect and I hope you realize that. I certainly dont consider myself..."AU, cow college, public school, land grant trash" either.

[CCTAU 3,369]

I wonder if Mr. Connelly wrote a letter to Dubya asking him why he ducked out of Vietnam so he could patrol the friendly skies of Texas when he wasn't campaigning in Alabama?

Seeing as how this is about how sKerry pi$$ed on his fellow soldiers, I think we should leave Bush out. He didn't do anything negative towards the military. After all he had a father who was a prime example of how to serve. So this fellow probably didn't write that letter to Bush. There was no reason to. On the other hand, read the letter again. It is valid. And it deals with sKerry only.

Once again you drive the thread down the hate Bush highway.

[keoson7 28]

But Al skipping your posts would keep me from replying, then if everyone quit replying you might leave and go to some democrat love fest message board, and I couldn't keep a clear conscience knowing you were pushed away from all the AU faithful here. Even though you fight for the other team I still respect your twisted opinion if for no other reason than you are an AU man.

[mcgufcm 4,107]

actually, you're asking a president to lead your country, not just your military. i think one of kerry's weak points is that no one really knows where he stands on a number of issues; however, i don't think war or the military is one of them. subtract the pro-war votes after 9/11 (and he's gone on record saying he would've voted against iraq if he'd known we were going to leave the UN out), he's been consistently anti-war. if that's the most important issue for you and you disagree, don't vote for him.

i would argue that bush has done something negative to the military by politicizing the war. he started it by lying first. you may get tired of hearing that, but i get tired of hearing what an awful guy clinton was. ya know what? they were/are both liars... one lied about hummers in the oval office, one took us to war on a lie. both refuse to admit it. i guess lying just goes with the office.

AND it is an insult to insinuate that bush's service was in line with most of his peers. anyone can see that he was given the benefit of the doubt (at the very least) during his service which automatically singles his service out. daddy had an impact and that soils it even if just a little.

off the main subject, i'm doubled majored with a 3.8 in graphic design and marketing. i got into harvard out of high school and turned it down. who cares? there are plenty of people on this board that know just as much as i do, and auburn's best can compete with any school anywhere in the nation. that whole thing is irrelevant.

[CarolinaTiger 0]

i would argue that bush has done something negative to the military by politicizing the war. he started it by lying first. you may get tired of hearing that, but i get tired of hearing what an awful guy clinton was. ya know what? they were/are both liars... one lied about hummers in the oval office, one took us to war on a lie. both refuse to admit it. i guess lying just goes with the office....i got into harvard out of high school and turned it down.

its very difficult to argue w/ this mindset....it is definitely harvard-worthy, though.

[rexbo 104]

they were/are both liars... one lied about hummers in the oval office, one took us to war on a lie.

Clinton lied about BJ's in the Oval Office AND about WMD's; he attacked Iraq because of WMD's in Dec 1998. Oh yeah, and he only did that to take attention away from his impending impeachment. Luckily, GWB wasn't distracted by interns and was able to remove the threat of Saddam's purely hypothetical WMD's from the world.

Funny, if Bush had gone after Osama before 9/11 and was somehow able to prevent that attack, we would be hearing from the Democrats how Bush lied about Osama's threat of terror attacks. Can you hear Kerry now? "Bush claimed Osama was about to fly airliners into the WTC's, what an outrageous claim just to scare the American people into supporting his pre-emptive war of aggression against Afghanistan, he just wanted to take over their poppy fields!"

[mcgufcm 4,107]

lemme ax you some questions. how long has saddam been in control of iraq? okay now keep that in mind when you answer this next one: how many times has he attacked american soil? none. never. zero. (sorry, couldn't resist helping with that answer). okay, given that information how could you argue that saddam (who was not stockpiling wmds; i'm sorry your boy W lied about that whether you admit it or not) presented the same danger to american soil as osama who took half to time to do infinitely more damage to american cities? if you're being logical, you can't. no right thinking person could argue that.

now, was saddam a threat in the middle east? that's open for debate b/c he's been fairly quiet in other people's neighborhoods since desert storm, but he's done it before so maybe. was saddam a danger to his people? yes. no questions asked. if you were going in as a human rights issue, no problem... but you took us to war on a lie. is removing saddam a good thing for american safety? MAYBE, at best. you see saddam was crazy but he was a crazy atheist. now, you may end up setting up a democracy (which isn't necessarily the best system for everyone regardless of what W thinks). that democracy has a right to elect whomever they want. now i think we can all agree that religion is one thing that can take crazy to a whole new level. so what happens when iraq elects a shi-ite muslim president that hates america much more than saddam ever did? what happens when the iraqi president openly campaigns on american hatred? are we safer than we were with saddam? better the devil you know than the devil you don't right?

so like i was saying, bush lied to start this and it may not work out like we hope. the fact is the white house seems to elicit lying from those that are supposed to lead. one lie (clinton's) sacrificed the character of the office. one lie (bush's) seems to have sacrificed the effectiveness of the office especially internationally. but they both did damage.

[DKW 86 7,726]

lemme ax you some questions. how long has saddam been in control of iraq? okay now keep that in mind when you answer this next one: how many times has he attacked american soil? none. never. zero. (sorry, couldn't resist helping with that answer). okay, given that information how could you argue that saddam (who was not stockpiling wmds; i'm sorry your boy W lied about that whether you admit it or not) presented the same danger to american soil as osama who took half to time to do infinitely more damage to american cities? if you're being logical, you can't. no right thinking person could argue that.

Yeah, and that ole Adolph Hitler guy never touched American soil either, we should have just left him and his war on the people of Europe alone...I say live and let live....He never had any WMDs either, we were the only country to use them in WWII...(tongue planted firmly in cheek...)

[mcgufcm 4,107]

once again, not really comparable is it? saddam showed a penchant for invasion during his regime, true. BUT since his only invasion attempt was quelled by a justified war over a decade ago, he has not shown any interest in repeating his mistake. so he's no hitler now is he? if he was, he'd have drugged himself after losing desert storm, and we wouldn't be talking about regime change right now.

[Ranger12 46]

once again, not really comparable is it? saddam showed a penchant for invasion during his regime, true. BUT since his only invasion attempt was quelled by a justified war over a decade ago, he has not shown any interest in repeating his mistake. so he's no hitler now is he? if he was, he'd have drugged himself after losing desert storm, and we wouldn't be talking about regime change right now.

So raping women and killing/torturing children is not like Hitler huh? You going to say that all is a lie. Again, were we supposed to wait for him to do something on American soil before we did something. Correct me if I am wrong, but is that not the same thing that Bush is being accused of right now, not being pre-emptive. C'mon which way do you guys want it? The "Bush lied" bs is old and does not work with the American people. The biased 9/11 commision tried to put blame on Bush, but instead all their questioning backfired and more and more shows that Bush was only guilty of was getting bad intelligence. Hussien has used WMDs before, so why would not anybody assume he still had them. When you go against your UN sanctions and act like you are hiding something, what else would one think he was up too. Do we need to revisit the post made a few weeks ago which had all those quotes from the democratic leadership, including Kerry, in which the all believe Hussien had WMDs and has ties to terrorism.

Quotes

[mcgufcm 4,107]

ranger this isn't a political campaign brother. i'm not campaigning for or against bush. we're having a discussion of the factors leading up to our occupation of iraq. i said a few posts back that if we'd stated that we were going into iraq for human rights then this discussion wouldn't be necessary.

i'll tell you what one of my REPUBLICAN friends told me the other day. saddam didn't pose a threat to america b/c all guys like him want is to rule his country. he's obsessed with running his country and he'd do anything to assure that he remained in control. he'd kill his brother if it would keep him at the seat of power. attack american soil is not going to keep him in power. cuba isn't threat to america. north korea isn't a threat to america. neither was iraq.

and that came from a guy who voted for dole and bush and is about to vote for bush again. and ranger, you do not ASSUME someone has something b/c the president of united states cannot ASSUME anything. you know. you're the most powerful man in the world, and as they say, assumption is mother of error. that kind of power, you can't be wrong on things like this. i'm not blaming 9/11 on bush. no one could've predicted that i don't care what anyone says. it's called "unprecedented" for a reason. i do blame bush for rushing into a war that we had no business starting on the grounds he stated.

[rexbo 104]

now, you may end up setting up a democracy (which isn't necessarily the best system for everyone regardless of what W thinks).

It is this condescending attitude that has kept millions of people in chains for most of human history. In the early 1800's people justified slavery by saying freedom was not necessarily the best system for everyone.

[Tiger Al 0]

Again, were we supposed to wait for him to do something on American soil before we did something.

Who are you talking about, Saddam or Hitler?

[CCTAU 3,369]

ranger this isn't a political campaign brother. i'm not campaigning for or against bush. we're having a discussion of the factors leading up to our occupation of iraq. i said a few posts back that if we'd stated that we were going into iraq for human rights then this discussion wouldn't be necessary.

i'll tell you what one of my REPUBLICAN friends told me the other day. saddam didn't pose a threat to america b/c all guys like him want is to rule his country. he's obsessed with running his country and he'd do anything to assure that he remained in control. he'd kill his brother if it would keep him at the seat of power. attack american soil is not going to keep him in power. cuba isn't threat to america. north korea isn't a threat to america. neither was iraq.

and that came from a guy who voted for dole and bush and is about to vote for bush again. and ranger, you do not ASSUME someone has something b/c the president of united states cannot ASSUME anything. you know. you're the most powerful man in the world, and as they say, assumption is mother of error. that kind of power, you can't be wrong on things like this. i'm not blaming 9/11 on bush. no one could've predicted that i don't care what anyone says. it's called "unprecedented" for a reason. i do blame bush for rushing into a war that we had no business starting on the grounds he stated.

You are out of your mind. Sadaam was funding hate and death as fast as he could. Death and hate to America was high on his list of to dos. He may not have personally attacked the US, but his support of terrorism sure would have led the way. Ask all those Israeli's if Sadaam was a factor in attacking foreign soil. Just because you don't mount up an army and attack, does not mean you are not involved in an attack. So anyone who thinks that Sadaam was not a threat to the US is lost n the clouds. And the sole reason for going to war was not JUST WMDs. It was the largest factor, but not the only factor. And if you tell somebody something that you believe to be true, its not exactly lying. Sometimes its just bad intelligence. And if GW attacked without being 100% sure and it stopped at least one possible attack on me and my family, I'm happy with it. Don't poke sticks at the big dog unless you want to get bit!!! Sadaam was taunting and poking sticks. He now has a very large portion of his a$$ missing. And those who were like him now see the light.