Skip to comments.What's the Fuss about events 35 years ago?
Posted on 08/28/2004 3:59:34 PM PDT by Maigrey
Talking heads of the television news media are espousing, Why is a 35 year old war important in todays time? Editorials within print media pages are asking, John Kerrys a patriot, and served honorably. Why discuss his past? So, lets ask the important question. Why is a 35 year old war important in todays political election season? Why all the time and ink for discussing what Sen. Kerry did or did not do while he was serving in Vietnam? Can't we just move on and discuss other issues, such as the economy and social spending?
First of all, Sen. Kerry did volunteer to go into the Navy. He did such because he had run out of deferments from being drafted and by enlisting, he was able to choose his mission specialty and course of his career. He chose to go, whether by hook or crook. Many political opponents bring up the fact that Kerry and not President Bush spent time in Vietnam. President Bush was a member of the Texas Air National guard, as a pilot flying F-102s. He did not serve in Vietnam because his National Guard unit was not called up for duty.
For some people, serving in the reserves or the National Guard is not considered full service, since they are not in the active military, and they only serve part time. Now, due to the ongoing war in Afghanistan and Iraq, this is far from the case. National guard units in addition to reserves are serving alongside the active duty members of the military. So, now, can segregating the active duty members from the reserves and National Guard units distill the question of military service? Hardly. Most of the weekend warriors are doing as much if not more than some active duty units still on assignment in other parts of the country.
So should the media print and television harp on this one aspect of the candidates? Normally, they wouldnt, but since one particular candidate has built his entire presidential campaign on his four months of service participating in the war in Vietnam, he has left his statements, war record, and actions open for scrutiny. The scrutiny of his record is in the book, Unfit for Command and scrutiny of his actions and statements are evident in the advertisements as well as the time the veterans are spending getting their message out with the American people.
Obviously, the advertisements are making some impact. Just yesterday, retired Senator John Glenn (D-Ohio) has jumped into the political fray by appealing to the President to condemn the advertisements being sponsored by the SBVfT. Unfortunately for Mr. Glenn and Mr. Cleland, the President is not able to do this, thanks to Sen. McCain and newly enacted legislation the McClain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2004.
If the President were to speak out, and condemn this group and their advertising, then he would be in violation of CFR laws. He would also be going against what he wants to do, which is allowing this group of people their free speech, and not hinder their rights to speak out in the political process. So, the President has taken the high road, condemning all 527 groups which are soft money political groups, in that they are not subject to the same scrutiny actual political groups are. With 527 groups, they do not have to divulge their donors, nor have them identified, if they do not wish. Other groups do that for them, such as Open Secrets.
Unfortunately, for Kerry, his record this week has come under considerable fire. Part of Kerrys service record documents that he earned a Silver Star, a Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts, which allowed him an early leave from Vietnam. This week, Rear Admiral William Schachte (USN, ret.) interviewed with Lisa Myers (of NBC) John Kerry for President he lists two different citations for his Silver Star the third highest award a serviceman can receive. In reality, he has three. Vice Adm. Elmo Zumwalt, who was the Commander of the 7th Naval District, Vietnam, issued the first one. The second citation for the same medal was from Adm. John Hyland, who was the commander of Pacific Naval Forces (CINCPAC) and the third was by the Secretary of the Navy, Jim Lehman. There is just one little problem with this: Lehman was the Secretary of the Navy from 1981 to 1987 under President Reagan. So why would the SecNav reissue a citation at least 10 years later if there was already one? Why would John Chafee, who was the SecNav during Kerrys time of service, not sign it?
What does all this mean to the average, run of the mill voter with minimal political interest? Well, it could mean that the person who is running for President has some unresolved issues that the press is beginning to inquire about. Are those issues from 35 years ago important during this election? Well, it depends on how much integrity and character you want the candidate to have.
So, the ultimate question is, Who is more qualified, a senator with 4 months combat service, and a total of 3 ½ years naval service, or the incumbent, who has been the Commander in Chief of all the armed forces for the last 3 ½ years, 2 ½ of which weve been in a war?
When you hear the name Bendict Arnold, what do you think of?
And that occurred over 200 years ago.
I believe that was 35 year old issue, too, but they sure didn't mind dragging that through the media for weeks. And based solely on spurious allegations, no less. Yet there must be proof in advance if you're going to attack a Dim.
Bump. Good article.
Why is a 35 year old war important in todays time?
Why because you have a generation of men & women who were harmed by the actions of John Fraud Kerry when he returned from Vietnam and have been waiting 35 years to speak out and tell the truth.
The war never ended. The war against communism is still raging on. Kerry was a commie lover then and he still is today. Those who offer aid and comfort to the enemy should never be considered for high office (I believe there is language to that effect in the Constitution).
BTW, my father is a Vietnam vet, and still has trouble talking about his service. He's gotten better once he got past some issues, but some things he won't talk about, even in private, to this day.
Because we are electing a Commander in Cheif!!! America is ignorant led by the ignorant press.
Because the past is prognosis. The Viet Nam war was used to drive a Republican President from office then, and the opposition wishes to use the Iraq war to drive a Republican President from office now. Never mind the obvious incongruities of the two situations. Viet Nam was the only way Democrats knew how to fight a war, and the Iraq war is not being fought that way. The US and coalition forces succeed in winning and holding objectives, and turning despotism into a path to liberation. There never was any motivation by the Democrats to build a viable local government in South Viet Nam, or to reunite North and South Viet Nam into one country with a freely elected government. Instead, they allowed it to slip by default into a unified country under Communist 'democratic' domination, by interfering in every way they could in achieving self-government for all Vietnamese.
John F. Kerry is very much a hero of that "unification" of Viet Nam. And the Iraqis, like the Vietnamese, ain't READY for self-government. At least in the estimation of the Democrats. After all, in their lexicon, 'democratic' means something altogether different from a representative republic, in which the elected government is subject to the whim of the people, and an active opposition exists to the excesses of fools who from time to time manage to win popularity contests.
The "fuss" is not about events 35 years ago. It is about lies told today about events 35 years ago by one John F. Kerry .
Even worse, Kerry offers those lies about his past as evidence that we should consider him fit to be Commander in Chief for the next four years!
The only thing wrong with concentrating on Kerry's present lies about a brief part of his past is that it allows him to dodge discussions of his recent past -- when was on our (taxpayers') payroll.
Kerry is asking us to elect a Lieutenant (JG) as C-in-C, when we should be asking if America should elect our most left-wing senator (who has been AWOL and ineffective for over half the time we have been paying him) as President.
Great point about The President's unit not being called up. The other thing I've seen the lefties trying to spin is his "being grounded" as a Fighter pilot. As an F-16 pilot myself, I've been grounded scores of times for various reasons. Medical conditions, late flight physicals, etc. They try to suggest that, somehow, he was grounded in some kind of punative action. More lies from the new thought police!!
Gonzo:> "John Kerrys a patriot, ..."
Depending on how one defines "define"/
> "... and served honorably."
That's becoming less clear every day.
g522:> Great point about The President's unit not
> being called up.
Other things everyone needs to know:
When Bush enrolled in the Guard, the F-102A was already
being used in combat in Vietnam. See:
By the time Bush was qualified, the '102 was standing down,
and it was too late to re-train.
Kerry's enlistment in the USNR was intended to avoid
combat. When he transferred to Swifts, they were being
used for "safe" coastal patrols. They only started
going up-river after it was too late for him to back out.
Numerous Kerry quotes support this.
The F-102A was inherently dangerous, with an accident
rate higher than the later Harrier. Class A losses were
probably higher than combat losses for other a/c types.
So who expected to go "in harm's way"?
He volunteered for the Navy RESERVE.
He did the same as GW, except GW chose the ANG.
The only difference is Kerry got Sent to Vietnam, and Bush didn't