John Kerry and War Crimes in Vietnam
(He was in command of a Swift Boat
and ordered his men to do these things.)
Listen to this 1971 audio clip
I'm John Kerry and I approve
the desecration of the American Flag.
Posted on 08/03/2004 12:09:31 PM PDT by dead
Opening Statement
Dear FRiends:
I once suffered two great frustrations in being a freelance political writer. First, the loneliness: you put an article out there, and you might as well have thrown it down a black hole for all the response you get. Second, the ghettoization: when you do get response, it would be from folks you agree with. Not fun for folks like me who reliish--no, crave and need--political argument.
Then came the Internet, the blogs--and: problem solved.
I have especially enjoyed having my articles in the Village Voice posted on Free Republic by "dead," and arguing about them here. The only frustration is that I never have enough time--and sometimes no time--to respond as the threads are going on. That is why I arranged for an entire afternoon--this afternoon--to argue on Free Republic. Check out my articles and have at me.
A little background: I am a proud leftist who specializes in writing about conservatives. I have always admired conservatives for their political idealism, acumen, stalwartness, and devotion. I have also admired some of their ideas--especially the commitment to distrusting grand social schemes, and the deep sense of the inherent flaws in human nature. (To my mind the best minds in the liberal tradition have encompassed these ideals, while still maintaining that robust social reform is still possible and desirable. My favorite example is the Protestant theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, author of the Serenity Prayer and a great liberal Democrat.)
Lately, however, I've become mad at the right, and have written about it with an anger not been present in my previous writings. It began with the ascension of George Bush, when I detected many conservatives beginning to care more about power than principles. The right began to seem less interesting to me--more whiny, more shallow--and, what's more, in what I saw as an uncritical devotion to President Bush, often in retreat from its best insights about human nature.
I made my strongest such claim in a Village Voice article two weeks ago in which I, after much thought, chose to say conservatism was "verging on becoming an un-American creed" for the widespread way conservatives are ignoring the lessons of James Madison's great insights in Federalist 51 that in America we are supposed to place our ultimate trust in laws, not men.
Finally, in what I see as the errors of the Iraq campaign, I recognize the worst aspects of arrogant left-wing utopianism: the idea that you can remake a whole society and region through sheer force of will. I think Iraq is a tragic disaster (though for the time being the country is probably better off than it was when Saddam was around--but only, I fear, for the time being).
I am also, by the way, a pretty strong critic of my own side, as can be seen in my latest Village Voice piece.
So: I'm yours for the day--until 7:10 pm CST, when I'm off to compete in my weekly trivia contest at the University of Chicago Pub. Until then: Are you ready to rumble?
Respectfully,
Rick Perlstein
Lies, damn lies, and statistics, Rick. You know the old Twain quote, I'm sure. Middle-class real family income jumped 13% during the 1982-89 expansion years (or as you may know them, the greedy Reagan years.) And income needs to of course be measured agains such things as taxes and inflation (ex. for the years 1977 to 1981, taken as a whole, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that wages, on average, increased by 35 percent while prices jumped by 49.4 percent, producing an overall drop in excess of 14 percent in the real value of American paychecks.) We can debate numbers all day and into the night. But we're here for philosophy, really.
"A visionary party of opposition—you might even say a competent party of opposition—would place fixing inequality and stagnating incomes at the center of its political appeal."
A tempting statement, "fixing inequality." In what ways can we do this? I'm not as handsome as George Clooney; do you think you might be able to do something about this? How many inequalities are we willing to fix? Are we willing to do anything at all to fix these things?
Liberals are filled with good intentions. This I acknowledge. But we all know what the road to hell is paved with. I believe this to be an absolute truth: you cannot make equal that which is not the same.
People are different. People have different skills, talents, abilities, and natures. Some will work harder than others, some will work smarter than others. that is a reality that no one on the left seems willing to even recognize. And those that work harder and smarter will usually earn more than those who don't. Is this always true? No. Plain hard work is not always the source of plenty (as PJ O'Rourke said, "The poorer the person, the plainer and harder the work that they do.") But what exactly are the inequalites you're speaking of? If one person earns $10/hr for doing the same job as someone else earning $15/hr, liberals may cry, "That's not fair!" But why not? What about cost of living where each person is? I employ people for a living...and the truth is, many people will take a lower raw salary if they are living in a lower cost area. And I haven't heard one person bitch at me because their salary is lower here. They know it's better overall.
You can no more "fix" inequality than you can "fix" a desert. It will exist as long as people exist. Even the Bible, while admonshing us to do right for others, says the poor will always be with us.
Both the right and the left want poeple to do better. But we, as conservatives, live by the old adage, "Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, he'll eat for a lifetime." If you want to advance and earn more money, improve yourself. Learn. Ask questions. The responsibility is yours and no one else's. How many of the union blue-collar workers standing in the rain holding their UAW and KERRY signs, bemoaning the fact that they don't earn as much as others, are actually high school dropouts? Education is the key and I say the responsibility is yours to acquire it. Libraries exist all over the nation. If you are in school, don't waste your time on what the latest clohting styles are. Listen and learn. That is what will advance you, not voting for someone who bitches about how much CEOs make and screaming, "No fair!"
That is the conservative philosophy. You are responsible for your life. I refuse to accept blame for your position in life and will not feel guilty about it. If you truly need help, I will help you (charitable donations existed greatly during the Reagan years--look it up.) but I will not support you forever. Your choices are yours and you will accept the consequences. Or as my Dad might say, "Life ain't fair. Get used to it."
Every single child that escapes the ghetto and poverty to make something of himself or herself gives lie to the liberal mantra "You can't do it! You need to vote for us and we'll give you everything you want!" The reality proves the possibility.
You are responsible for your own life.
That's it, I s'pose.
Oh, one more thing...are Britney Spears's boobs real? :-)
D'oh!!!
even without France's approval,
George W Bush's military record vs John Kerry's military record
Aerospaceweb.org was started in 2000 to provide information regarding a wide range
of aerospace-related fields, including aircraft design, spacecraft design, aerodynamics,
and aerospace history.
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/history/q0185.shtml
...Nevertheless, we have established that the F-102 was serving in combat in Vietnam at the time Bush
enlisted to become an F-102 pilot. In fact, pilots from the 147th FIG of the Texas ANG were
routinely rotated to Vietnam for combat duty under a program called "Palace Alert" from 1968 to 1970.
Palace Alert was an Air Force program that sent qualified F-102 pilots from the ANG to bases in Europe
or southeast Asia for periods of three to six months for frontline duty.
Fred Bradley, a friend of Bush's who was also serving in the Texas ANG, reported that he and Bush
inquired about participating in the Palace Alert program. However, the two were told by a superior,
MAJ Maurice Udell, that they were not yet qualified since they were still in training
and did not have the 500 hours of flight experience required. Furthermore, ANG veteran
COL William Campenni, who was a fellow pilot in the 111th FIS at the time,
told the Washington Times that Palace Alert was winding down and not accepting new applicants....
...
The point of this discussion is that the military record of George W. Bush deserves a fair treatment.
Bush has been criticized for avoiding service in Vietnam, though the evidence proves that
the Texas Air National Guard and its F-102 pilots where serving in Vietnam while Bush was in training.
Bush has been criticized for using his family influence to obtain his assignment,
but the evidence shows that he successfully completed every aspect of the more than
two years of training required of him.
Bush has been criticized for pursuing a safe and plush position as a fighter pilot,
but the evidence indicates the F-102 was a demanding aircraft whose pilots regularly risked their lives.
Bush has also been criticized for deserting the Guard before his enlistment was complete,
but the evidence shows he was honorably discharged eight months early because his position
was being phased out...
...
While it is not our goal to compare and contrast the records of the candidates on this subject,
the fact that the questioner cites John Kerry's military service makes us feel it necessary to comment.
It is interesting to note that there are just as many, if not more,
irregularities in Kerry's military record as there are in Bush's.
Kerry can certainly be praised for some of the actions he performed while in the line of duty,
but his record does contain some troubling portions as well.
Not the least of these is his involvement in the controversial group
Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) while he was still an active-duty member of the US Navy.
Kerry's testimony before Congress as VVAW spokesman in 1971,
during which he accused soldiers serving in Vietnam of being war criminals,
was found to be based on largely falsifed information as documented by Wikipedia.
The Boston Globe has also reported on troubling accusations regarding the circumstances
surrounding Kerry's medals, particularly his first two purple hearts awarded for
minor injuries that may even have been self-inflicted.
John Kerry's record
http://www.scaryjohnkerry.com/vietnam.htm
DD 214 shows 17 Feb 72 terminal date of Reserve Obligation for John Kerry
http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/DD214.pdf
Kerry's anti war activities were doing this period!
What is Senator John Kerry's relationship to VVAW?
http://www.vvaw.org/faq/#4
Since Vietnam Veterans Against the War's inception in 1967, tens of thousands of vets, GIs and supporters have participated in and supported the actions of VVAW. One of those members in the early 1970s was John Kerry. Kerry was appointed to the VVAW Executive Committee to assist in preparing Dewey Canyon III, VVAW's limited incursion into the land of Congress in 1971 (Nicosia, 98-99). Kerry made his greatest contribution to the anti-war movement and to VVAW in his speech to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on April 23, 1971 (Brinkley, 371-373: Hunt, 109-110; Nicosia, 136-138; Wells, 495).
Content of the speech is found at:
http://lists.village.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Resources/Primary/Manifestos/VVAW_Kerry_Senate.html.
By 1972, John Kerry had moved on from VVAW (Brinkley, 406: Hunt, 127-128; Nicosia, 211).
John Kerry's service in Vietnam lasted 4 months and 12 days, beginning in November 1968 when he reported to Cam Rahn Bay for a month of training. His abbreviated combat tour ended shortly after he requested a transfer out of Vietnam on March 17, 1969, citing Navy instruction 1300.39 permitting personnel with three Purple Hearts to request reassignment. So far as we are able to determine, Kerry was the only Swift sailor ever to leave Vietnam without completing the standard one-year tour of duty, other than those who were seriously wounded or killed.
The instruction, titled 1300.39, says that a Naval officer who requires hospitalization on two separate occasions, or who receives three wounds "regardless of the nature of the wounds," can ask a superior officer to request a reassignment. The instruction makes clear the reassignment is not automatic.
It says that the reassignment "will be determined after consideration of his physical classification for duty and on an individual basis." Because Kerry's wounds were not considered serious, his reassignment appears to have been made on an individual basis. Moreover, the instruction makes clear that Kerry could have asked that any reassignment be waived.
The bottom line is that Kerry could have remained but he chose to seek an early transfer. He met with Horne, who agreed to forward the request, which Horne said probably ensured final approval. The Navy could not say how many other officers or sailors got a similar early release from combat, but it was unusual for anyone to have three Purple Hearts.
http://www.swiftvets.com/index.php?topic=KerryinVietnam
"So far as we are able to determine, Kerry was the only Swift sailor
ever to leave Vietnam without completing the standard one-year tour of duty,
other than those who were seriously wounded or killed."
Please respond to #182.
Thanks.
And I guess an extra question is this...
How would liberals fix the mess that is the Middle East?? (And don't tell me it's all about oil.)
We are all oppressed by gays, when gays try to sexualize the society according to their agenda. I don't really care what people do behind closed doors, but don't tell my kid that Heather Has Two Mommies. It's my job to decide what moral compass my kid follows.
Great point...
reporter lightweight Sam Donaldson was recently confronted on abortion, by freepers I believe.
When asked to tell the truth about abortion Sam yelled back "NEVER"
So he admitted he lies
Sad
78.9% increase in VA spending from 1995 to 2004. $2,443 per veteran in 2004. $1368 in 1995
Oh, honestly. You found one conservative who whines about being called names, and you use this as evidence that conservatives are generally like this?
You HONESTLY think that liberals are not the majority of people whining in our society about being "oppressed"? You HONESTLY don't see that liberals are the majority of those who want to make laws so that no-one is ever called a name? Isn't it the liberals on campus who are writing the speech codes to punish the name-callers?
You know, he's really shy.....
To: Perlstein
Who'll have the opening shot?
1 - John Kerry said in his acceptance speech that we will only go to war because we have to - how would you interpret that against prior military actions in Kosovo, Bosnia, Somalia, Iraq and even Korea and WWI? How profound a change is that policy? To what extent do you agree with it?
2 - On Fox News Sunday, John Kerry continued to insist that the president misled the nation about Iraq trying to get uranium ore from Niger, despite American and British findings to the contrary. Do you agree with Kerry? Or is he now lying himself?
----
1. Easy. It was a stupid thing to say. Why do Freepers assume that every liberal reflexively defends every other liberal.
2. y'all is nuts if you STILL BELIEVE Iraq managed to ship tons of RADIOACTIVE ORE halfway across the Eastern hemisphere without anyone noticing. I certainly have my criticisms of Joe Wilson, but he does at least a adequate job of debunking that nonsense here:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/07/16/wilson_letter/
I wish I could go faster. FR is SLOWWWW today!
It is true that Bush is not seeking as big an increase for next year as the Secretary of Veterans Affairs wanted. It is also true that the administration has tried to slow the growth of spending for veterans by not giving new benefits to some middle-income vets.
Yet even so, funding for veterans is going up twice as fast under Bush as it did under Clinton. And the number of veterans getting health benefits is going up 25% under Bush's budgets. That's hardly a cut.
In Bush’s first three years funding for the Veterans Administration increased 27%. And if Bush's 2005 budget is approved, funding for his full four-year term will amount to an increase of 37.6%. In the eight years of the Clinton administration the increase was 31.7%
Those figures include mandatory spending for such things as payments to veterans for service-connected disabilities, over which Congress and presidents have little control. But Bush has increased the discretionary portion of veterans funding even more than the mandatory portion has increased. Discretionary funding under Bush is up 30.2%.By any measure, veterans funding is going up faster under Bush than under Clinton.
In January, 2003 the Veterans Administration announced that -- because the increase in funds couldn't meet the rising demand -- it would start turning away many middle-income applicants applying for new medical benefits.
That led to accusations that Bush was denying benefits to veterans. " We have 400,000 veterans in this country who have been denied access in a whole category to the VA," Kerry declared during a debate Oct. 9, 2003. The VA's estimates of the number who might be denied benefits is much lower, and in fact nobody can say with certainty how many middle-income veterans might have signed up for medical benefits if they had been allowed.
Meanwhile the VA continues to add hundreds of thousands of disabled and lower-income veterans to those already receiving benefits, and has kept paying benefits to all veterans who were already receiving them.
The middle-income veterans who currently aren't being allowed to sign up are those generally with incomes above 80% of the mid-point for their locality. The means test cut-off for benefits ranges up to $40,000 a year in many cities. And any veteran with income less than $25,162 still qualifies no matter where they live. Those figures are for single veterans. The income cut-off is higher for those with a spouse or children.
The administration also has proposed to make the VA's prescription drug benefit less generous. Currently many veterans pay $7 for each one-month supply of medication. The administration proposes to increase that to $15, and require a $250 annual fee as well. Congress rejected a similar proposal last year. The proposal wouldn't affect those -- such as veterans with a disability rated at 50% or more -- who currently aren't required to make any co-payments.
And it should be noted that the administration is proposing to increase some benefits, including ending pharmacy co-payments for some very low-income veterans, and paying for emergency-room care for veterans in non-VA hospitals.
All this means Bush can fairly be accused of trying to hold down the rapid growth in spending for veterans benefits -- particularly those sought by middle-income vets with no service-connected disability. But saying he cut the budget is contrary to fact.
Barryallen, I promise this is off the record.
So Ann Coulter single handedly shifted the entire right to a place where they are "whining and shallow"?
You are more paranoid than Eric Alterman if you believe this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.