TexasTiger 13,006 Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 Business WeekCOMMENTARY By Thane Peterson Flinging the Foul Mud of Vietnam John Kerry returned a hero. The smears his political enemies are now flinging mark them -- not him -- as beneath contempt The next time the nation gets into a war, why would any American with an interest in national service show up to fight? When did the U.S. come to blithely accept the tarring for political gain of honorably discharged combat veterans? Obviously, I'm talking about the attacks on John Kerry by a bunch of angry, Bush-backing Vietnam-war vets who claim the Democratic candidate doesn't deserve all of the medals, which include Bronze and Silver Stars and three Purple Hearts, that he won in combat in Vietnam. But I'm also talking about the attacks on Republican Senator and former prisoner of war John McCain -- a genuine hero by anyone's definition -- during his South Carolina primary battle against George W. Bush for the 2000 Presidential nomination. And the relentless assaults on the patriotism of Democrat Max Cleland by Republican Saxby Chambliss, who defeated Cleland for one of Georgia's Senate seats in 2002. If you want proof of Cleland's patriotism, all you need to know is that he lost three limbs in Vietnam. It's time for Bush in particular -- and Americans in general -- to get on the right side of this issue once and for all. No moral equivalency exists between Kerry and Bush on the issue of service in Vietnam. Kerry served in combat. He was shot at. Not Bush. If you don't think it's important for a President to have served in combat, fine, make your choice on other grounds. But if you do, Kerry is your man, at least on this one issue. REPUBLICAN RECOMMENDATION. All of the Swift-boat comrades who served on Kerry's boat have showed up at his side to campaign for him and defend him. They're the ones with the most direct knowledge of what happened and they confirm that Kerry deserved the Bronze Star for his leadership during a skirmish on March 13, 1969. So does Jim Rassmann, the retired Los Angeles County cop who introduced Kerry at the Democratic Convention. Rassmann is a Republican, for gosh sakes. He came forward on his own and offered to campaign for Kerry, whom he credits with saving his life that day. Rassman also recommended Kerry for the Silver Star, one of the nation's highest honors for bravery under fire and the highest medal Kerry won. Crewmen on the three Swift boats involved in an attack Kerry led on Feb. 28, 1969, also support Kerry's version of events. That's the day Kerry won the Silver Star, one of the nation's highest honors for bravery under fire and the highest medal Kerry was awarded. The latest to come forward is Willam R. Rood, a Chicago Tribune editor who commanded one of the other boats, broke a 35-year silence when he published a first-person account on Aug. 22 supporting Kerry's version. "What matters most to me," Rood wrote, "is that this is hurting crewmen who are not public figures and who deserved to be honored for what they did." "FOG OF WAR"? Contrast that with George Bush, who few witnesses can recall having seen during a long stretch of his National Guard duty during the Vietnam War. News organizatiosn have done plenty of digging into the past to determine whether Bush used personal influence to get himself into that National Guard assignment. It's hard to say for certain. But no poor people were in that unit. The only ones in it were people with pull. Why the so-called called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth -- none of whom served on the same vessel with Kerry -- have decided to attack their fellow vet is a bit hard to decipher, too. I suppose it could partly be an honest difference of opinion. Maybe the "fog of war" led vets to have different memories of the same events. But the critics' main motivation is clear from statements they themselves have repeatedly made: They remain angry that Kerry protested the war when he returned the U.S. and, specifically, that he accused his fellow soldiers of having committed atrocities in Vietnam. MUDDYING THE WATER. Unfortunately, soldiers -- including American soldiers -- commit atrocities in all wars. That was true even of the so-called Greatest Generation in World War II, it was true in Korea and Vietnam, and it's undoubtedly true in the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Denying that is to deny the reality of war. And failing to face the harsh realities of war is what makes it so easy for the U.S. to slide into nasty, unnecessary conflicts -- like Vietnam and the Iraq War now. Americans should never go to war except in the full knowledge that it's going to wreak terrible pain on the enemy, the civilian populations involved, and our own troops. That doesn't make the service of those who served honorably any less honorable. But anyone who denies that some American soldiers committed atrocities in Vietnam is kidding themselves. You can quibble over the exact words Kerry used and whether he should have said them when he did, but in broad terms he spoke the truth. The purpose of the attacks against Kerry, however, isn't to get at the truth. It's a media campaign, with TV ads intended to create a vague, negative impression where none existed. The people behind the ads know that by any realistic assessment of the facts, Kerry has a major advantage over Bush when it comes to their respective military records. They want to muddy the waters to reduce Kerry's advantage. It's amazing that such bald-faced tactics can gain any traction with voters. NO EQUIVALENCY. The critics know that if they can just manufacture the appearance of controversy, most reporters -- in the name of "balancing" their stories -- will play along. Attacks on Bush, such as an ad funded by the liberal advocacy group MoveOn.org that questioned Bush's military record, have been given equal weight with the vets' attack ads in some stories. The Bush campaign and editorial writers are calling on Kerry to distance himself from the MoveOn ads in the same breath that the Kerry campaign and editorialists are asking Bush to renounce the Swift-boat vets' ads. Kerry has repudiated the MoveOn ad (after some prodding from McCain). But sorry, my fellow journalists, there's no equivalency here. MoveOn is an avowedly partisan group that openly opposes Bush. The Swift-boat vets tried to cover their political tracks while claiming inside knowledge about Kerry most of them clearly don't have. And several of them have flip-flopped from publicly praising Kerry to attacking him. A nation has to honor its war veterans whatever their political party, while remaining realistic about the horrors of war. If some Americans do otherwise, all Americans are shamed. McCain has also called on Bush to denounce the attacks on Kerry and condemn that kind of low-life negative campaigning. It's time the President complied in no uncertain terms, and it's time he meant it. http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflas..._6115_db045.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlue72 0 Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 The Demoncrats started this whole issue with their ranting against GWB's National Guard service and holding up Kerry as the reincarnation of Audie Murphy. If you're going to make claims to further your political ambitions, you need to have your facts straight!!!! All that the SBVT group and many others are doing is examining Kerrys exaggerated claims and exposing them for what they are. I don't think that anyone is denying him what should be his honor for serving in Vietnam, but like Gore who invented the internet, Kerry is trying to invent the war hero and the American people aren't buying it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,510 Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 As soon as the NAACP apologizes for the James Byrd ad in 2000 and the DNC (and their surrogates) apologize for their stupid rantings on GWB's National Guard service, I'll call for the Swift Boat Vets to knock it off. Until then, what's good for the goose... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 13,006 Posted August 23, 2004 Author Share Posted August 23, 2004 The Demoncrats started this whole issue with their ranting against GWB's National Guard service and holding up Kerry as the reincarnation of Audie Murphy. If you're going to make claims to further your political ambitions, you need to have your facts straight!!!!All that the SBVT group and many others are doing is examining Kerrys exaggerated claims and exposing them for what they are. I don't think that anyone is denying him what should be his honor for serving in Vietnam, but like Gore who invented the internet, Kerry is trying to invent the war hero and the American people aren't buying it. Thanks for the Gore analogy. Gore never said he invented the internet, but your convinced he did, aren't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaGrad03 0 Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 Hey how bout this? As soon as Kerry starts talking about his political record and STOPS campaigning on 4 months of vietnam service...we drop the swift boat thing. He brought it on himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 13,006 Posted August 23, 2004 Author Share Posted August 23, 2004 Hey how bout this? As soon as Kerry starts talking about his political record and STOPS campaigning on 4 months of vietnam service...we drop the swift boat thing. He brought it on himself. Nice tactic. He brought lies and smears apon himself. Rethuglican rationalization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDM4AU 336 Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 As soon as the NAACP apologizes for the James Byrd ad in 2000 and the DNC (and their surrogates) apologize for their stupid rantings on GWB's National Guard service, I'll call for the Swift Boat Vets to knock it off. Until then, what's good for the goose... When Kerry speaks out against Michael Moore's movie that is in essence a "feature length ad" against the Bush Administration and is choked full of lies -one right after the other - then you pathetic little whinnig libs/dems will have some credibility when crying over the SBVT ads... :roll: I find it interesting that Kerry & Co. will lie and claim Bush is funding the SBVT "lies." Isn't Tereza basically funding Moveon.org? :unsure: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigermike 3,053 Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 Thanks for the Gore analogy. Gore never said he invented the internet, but your convinced he did, aren't you? "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system." Al Gore He might not claim to have invented the internet, but he sure wanted all to think it would never have happened with his great leadership didn't he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaGrad03 0 Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 Hey how bout this? As soon as Kerry starts talking about his political record and STOPS campaigning on 4 months of vietnam service...we drop the swift boat thing. He brought it on himself. Nice tactic. He brought lies and smears apon himself. Rethuglican rationalization. No but when your campagin platform (4 months of service 30 years ago) is weak at best...you open yourself up to scrutiny. This would be similar to me, a software developer, interviewing for an IT manager job 20 years from now...and when they ask me about my technical skills...I spend the whole time talking about a sales job I had in college. And yeah...i didnt hear any libs crying foul when MM made a movie...thats right...a MOVIE slamming bush. Yet again an example of libs/kerry saying do as we say not as we do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,440 Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 The Demoncrats started this whole issue with their ranting against GWB's National Guard service and holding up Kerry as the reincarnation of Audie Murphy. If you're going to make claims to further your political ambitions, you need to have your facts straight!!!!All that the SBVT group and many others are doing is examining Kerrys exaggerated claims and exposing them for what they are. I don't think that anyone is denying him what should be his honor for serving in Vietnam, but like Gore who invented the internet, Kerry is trying to invent the war hero and the American people aren't buying it. Thanks for the Gore analogy. Gore never said he invented the internet, but your convinced he did, aren't you? Gore never said he invented the internet The Left is about to take away your right to free speech if you dont get back in line and say that we owe the entire internet and all the wealth and freedom in it to Al Gore. Sheesh, hope you e-mail in box doesnt blow up soon... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,440 Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 Business WeekCOMMENTARY By Thane Peterson Flinging the Foul Mud of Vietnam John Kerry returned a hero. The smears his political enemies are now flinging mark them -- not him -- as beneath contempt. The smears Kerry flung at every vet in Vietnam are the truly contemptuous things here today. His attacks are just overlooked by the LEft and never responded to. The Left sees political gain for themselves so they could not care less. The next time the nation gets into a war, why would any American with an interest in national service show up to fight? When did the U.S. come to blithely accept the tarring for political gain of honorably discharged combat veterans? Obviously, I'm talking about the attacks on John Kerry by a bunch of angry, Bush-backing Vietnam-war vets who claim the Democratic candidate doesn't deserve all of the medals, which include Bronze and Silver Stars and three Purple Hearts, that he won in combat in Vietnam. When did the U.S. come to blithely accept the tarring for political gain of honorably discharged combat veterans? Obviously, they are not talking about the attacks BY John Kerry ON the Vietnam-war vets. But I'm also talking about the attacks on Republican Senator and former prisoner of war John McCain -- a genuine hero by anyone's definition -- during his South Carolina primary battle against George W. Bush for the 2000 Presidential nomination. And the relentless assaults on the patriotism of Democrat Max Cleland by Republican Saxby Chambliss, who defeated Cleland for one of Georgia's Senate seats in 2002. If you want proof of Cleland's patriotism, all you need to know is that he lost three limbs in Vietnam. In an accident, it had absolutely nothing to do with the war. He mishandled a grenade or was fragged by his troops. It's time for Bush in particular -- and Americans in general -- to get on the right(OUR) side of this issue once and for all. No moral equivalency exists between Kerry and Bush on the issue of service in Vietnam. Kerry served in combat. He was shot at. Not Bush. If you don't think it's important for a President to have served in combat, fine, make your choice on other grounds. But if you do, Kerry is your man, at least on this one issue. Then your man in 1996 would have had to have been Dole. Your man in 1992 would have had to have been GHWB. REPUBLICAN RECOMMENDATION. All of the Swift-boat comrades who served on Kerry's boat have showed up at his side to campaign for him and defend him. Not all. They're the ones with the most direct knowledge of what happened and they confirm that Kerry deserved the Bronze Star for his leadership during a skirmish on March 13, 1969. Why are none of them awarded any medals for that date? They were there too. So does Jim Rassmann, the retired Los Angeles County cop who introduced Kerry at the Democratic Convention. Rassmann is a Republican, for gosh sakes. O'Neill is a Lifetime Democrat for Gosh Sakes! He came forward on his own and offered to campaign for Kerry, whom he credits with saving his life that day. Rassman also recommended Kerry for the Silver Star, one of the nation's highest honors for bravery under fire and the highest medal Kerry won. Crewmen on the three Swift boats involved in an attack Kerry led on Feb. 28, 1969, also support Kerry's version of events. Funny, almost no one has come forward. The SBVT all say it is a crock and they were there too and outnumber the pro-Kerry crowd. That's the day Kerry won the Silver Star, one of the nation's highest honors for bravery under fire and the highest medal Kerry was awarded. The latest to come forward is Willam R. Rood, a Chicago Tribune editor who commanded one of the other boats, broke a 35-year silence when he published a first-person account on Aug. 22 supporting Kerry's version. "What matters most to me," Rood wrote, "is that this is hurting crewmen who are not public figures and who deserved to be honored for what they did." Shame Rood has never stood up for the 2.5M Vietnam vets Kerry smeared for 33 years. "FOG OF WAR"? Contrast that with George Bush, who few witnesses can recall having seen during a long stretch of his National Guard duty during the Vietnam War. News organizatiosn have done plenty of digging into the past to determine whether Bush used personal influence to get himself into that National Guard assignment. It's hard to say for certain. But no poor people were in that unit. The only ones in it were people with pull. Great, I get to inform my Bro-in-law he was wealthy back in the 60s. Bush certainly served more days than Clinton and that never bothered one Democrat. Why the so-called called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth -- none of whom served on the same vessel with Kerry:bs: -- have decided to attack their fellow vet is a bit hard to decipher, too. I suppose it could partly be an honest difference of opinion. Maybe the "fog of war" led vets to have different memories of the same events. But the critics' main motivation is clear from statements they themselves have repeatedly made: They remain angry that Kerry protested the war when he returned the U.S. and, specifically, that he accused his fellow soldiers of having committed atrocities in Vietnam. Texas Tiger says this never happened, this guy must be drinking the wrong color of kool-aid. MUDDYING THE WATER. Unfortunately, soldiers -- including American soldiers -- commit atrocities in all wars. That was true even of the so-called Greatest Generation in World War II, it was true in Korea and Vietnam, and it's undoubtedly true in the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Denying that is to deny the reality of war. And failing to face the harsh realities of war is what makes it so easy for the U.S. to slide into nasty, unnecessary conflicts -- like Vietnam and the Iraq War now. :bs: Americans should never go to war except in the full knowledge that it's going to wreak terrible pain on the enemy, the civilian populations involved, and our own troops. That doesn't make the service of those who served honorably any less honorable. Unless you are smeared by a man that isnt even mature enough to apologize for the 33 year smear. But anyone who denies that some (very, very, few and they were sent to prison) American soldiers committed atrocities in Vietnam is kidding themselves. You can quibble over the exact words Kerry used and whether he should have said them when he did, but in broad terms he spoke the truth. This is the real thrust of this piece anyway is to further smear all veterans in Vietnam. The purpose of the attacks against Kerry, however, isn't to get at the truth. It's a media campaign, with TV ads intended to create a vague, negative impression where none existed. The people behind the ads know that by any realistic assessment of the facts, Kerry has a major advantage over Bush when it comes to their respective military records. They want to muddy the waters to reduce Kerry's advantage. It's amazing that such bald-faced tactics can gain any traction with voters. It's amazing that some on the Left will grasp at any straw to smear a vet still. NO EQUIVALENCY. The critics know that if they can just manufacture the appearance of controversy, most reporters -- in the name of "balancing" their stories -- will play along. Attacks on Bush, such as an ad funded by the liberal advocacy group MoveOn.org that questioned Bush's military record, have been given equal weight with the vets' attack ads in some stories. As they should. BTW, why did you not mention in this piece that they compare Bush to Hitler and have for months. That they have smeared Bush wit 700% more funding and that KErry is in full support of the ads untill this AM? The Bush campaign and editorial writers are calling on Kerry to distance himself from the MoveOn ads in the same breath that the Kerry campaign and editorialists are asking Bush to renounce the Swift-boat vets' ads. Kerry has repudiated the MoveOn ad (that started today) (after some prodding (12 months of prodding) from McCain). But sorry, my fellow journalists, there's no equivalency here. MoveOn is an avowedly partisan group that openly opposes Bush. The Swift-boat vets tried to cover their political tracks while claiming inside knowledge about Kerry most of them clearly don't have. They know far more than a Lefty reporter ever will. And several of them have flip-flopped from publicly praising Kerry to attacking him. Well, maybe they caught the Kerry disease. A nation has to honor its war veterans whatever their political party, (unless Kerry needs to smear for some political reason.) while remaining realistic about the horrors of war. If some Americans do otherwise, all Americans are shamed. McCain has also called on Bush to denounce the attacks on Kerry and condemn that kind of low-life negative campaigning. (He has already and has been calling for the ban of ALL 527 ads for months.) It's time the President complied in no uncertain terms, and it's time he meant it. Very late to the game and very wrong too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDM4AU 336 Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 Watch out DKW, you are treading oh-so-close to that TO MANY EMOTICONS line and they will get on you for it if you don't watch it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.