1971 VIDEO: KERRY ADMITS THROWING OWN MEDALS; CONTRADICTS CURRENT CLAIMS

[Drbio]

sour grapes make the best whine reeds.

[dude1394]

Best encapsulation on this whole thing. He's just stupid to be so nutty about something so trivial.

kerry's nutty

The Kerry medals mystery

By Jeff Jacoby | April 29, 2004

IF JOHN KERRY hadn't already clinched the Democratic presidential nomination, his medals meltdown on "Good Morning America" this week would have sunk his campaign. Much as Howard Dean's crazed "I Have A Scream" speech jolted voters into wondering whether someone so hotheaded should be allowed anywhere near the nuclear trigger, Kerry's abusive tirade on ABC gave millions of viewers a foretaste of how far presidential discourse will sink if Kerry becomes president.

Not one voter in 100 would vote against Kerry for trashing his Vietnam War medals when he was 27 years old. What he did with his combat decorations in 1971 has no bearing on whether he is fit to be president today. That long-ago episode is an issue today only because Kerry's versions of it have changed so many times and because it so perfectly typifies his lifelong habit of saying one thing today and something else tomorrow -- and then denying having done so.

So what does Kerry say he did with those medals? As with so many of his shifts and flip-flops, it's all on the record.

Take 1:

Q. Did Kerry throw his combat decorations away in an antiwar protest 33 years ago?

A. Yes. As The Boston Globe reported on April 24, 1971, "John Kerry . . . said before he threw his medals over the fence: `I'm not doing this for any violent reasons, but for peace and justice, and to try to make this country wake up once and for all.' "

Take 2:

Q. Did Kerry throw his decorations away 33 years ago?

A. Yes. In a Nov. 6, 1971, interview with WRC-TV, he recalled that the protesters had decided to "renounce the symbols which this country gives . . . the medals themselves." When the interviewer asked, "How many did you give back, John?" he answered: "I gave back, I can't remember, six, seven, eight, nine." The interviewer noted that Kerry had won the Bronze and Silver Stars and three Purple Hearts. Kerry: "Well, and above that, I gave back my others."

Take 3:

Q. Did Kerry throw his decorations away 33 years ago?

A. No. In 1984, running for the Senate against a World War II Air Force veteran, he claimed he had refused to do so. "After showing a reporter his medals and ribbons on display in his Back Bay apartment," The Boston Globe reported on Oct. 15, 1984, Kerry "said he had disagreed with other protest leaders on throwing away medals." The medals he was seen tossing, Kerry added, were those of a "veteran from Lincoln [Mass.], at his request."

Take 4:

Q. Did Kerry throw his decorations away 33 years ago?

A. Medals, no; ribbons, yes. During his 1996 reelection campaign, he told the Globe that he only threw the ribbons pinned to his uniform. "Asked why he didn't bring his own medals to throw since it was planned weeks in advance," the Globe reported on Oct. 6, 1996, "Kerry said it was because he didn't have time to go home [to New York] and get them." The medals he was seen tossing, he claimed, belonged to two other veterans -- the one from Lincoln and one from New York. "Kerry says he can't remember their names."

The variations don't end there. For example, his explanation that he "didn't have time to go home and get" the medals -- i.e., he would have trashed them if he could have -- is sharply at odds with his earlier "explanation" to the Boston Herald: "They're my medals. I can do goddam what I want with them."

On Monday's TV show, after being shown the tape of his younger self claiming to have thrown "six, seven, eight, nine" medals onto the trash heap, Kerry heatedly insisted that he had pitched only his ribbons, not his medals. Then he insisted even more heatedly that "ribbons, medals were absolutely interchangeable. . . . there was no distinction . . . I think, to this day, there's no distinction between the two."

Well, if ribbons and medals are identical, then by his own admission he did throw away his medals. So why does he angrily maintain that he didn't?

Kerry could acknowledge that his various statements on the subject are inconsistent. He could apologize for his deception. He could even resort to the Bush Sidestep: "When I was young, I did a lot of foolish things." Instead he attacks the president over his National Guard service -- an assault he has now escalated on the campaign trail -- and accuses ABC of "doing the bidding of the Republican National Committee."

But the questions won't go away just because Kerry snarls at the questioners. By itself, the medals incident matters hardly at all. But as a surrogate for all the issues on which Kerry has ducked and dissembled, it matters very much.

"The candidate who starts each morning by having to explain himself is a goner," the Village Voice remarked in an editorial this week. The Village Voice! If that's what they're saying on the far left, what must be going through the minds of the mainstream?

[dude1394]

self-serving kerry

Personal Reasons of Necessity”
The self-serving senator.

By Rich Lowry

Back in February 1992, John Kerry stood up on the Senate floor, "driven by personal reasons of necessity." He professed to be saddened by then-Democratic Sen. Bob Kerrey's criticism during the Democratic primaries of Bill Clinton's lack of service in Vietnam. "We do not need to divide America over who served and how," Kerry said. "I have personally always believed that many served in many different ways."

Kerry's "personal reasons of necessity" always have to do with what is personally necessary to serve his ambition at any given moment. And whenever he says, "I have personally always believed [fill in the blank]," it is likely: 1) he doesn't believe it; 2) he either didn't believe it at some time prior, or is about to stop believing in it. So it is with his deep, personal belief about making Vietnam service, or lack thereof, strictly off-limits.

When Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe attacked President Bush's National Guard service earlier this year, Kerry insisted: "I have asked surrogates not to. In fact, when I have heard of a surrogate doing that I have said please don't, it is not an issue to me, and I have never made an issue, in the course of my entire career, out of what choices anybody made about where they served or didn't serve."

This is what Al Franken would refer to as a "lie." In 1996, Kerry faced a stiff challenge for re-election from then-Massachusetts Gov. William Weld. In one debate Kerry made an issue out of Vietnam in precisely the way he says he never has. As a Massachusetts newspaper reported, "Kerry landed one of the harshest and most personal blows of the campaign when he pointedly referred to Weld's lack of service in Vietnam."

It is a pattern for Kerry. In March 2002, he "chastised two top Republicans who had not served in the military for their criticism of Democratic leaders," according to the Boston Globe. Kerry bellowed at a Democratic dinner: "Let me be clear tonight to Sen. Lott and to Tom DeLay: One of the lessons that I learned in Vietnam, a war they did not have to endure...was that if I ever reached a position of responsibility, I would never stop asking questions that make a democracy strong."

Another apparent Kerry lie was this line during the initial spat over Bush's Guard service: "I have suggested to some people who are my advocates, who've gone that line of attack, it's not one that I plan to do ... I don't plan to do that, and I've asked them not to."

But the Washington Post reported at the time: "Kerry aides were not upset about McAuliffe's negative tone, Democratic sources said. Instead, they were worried that the party chairman had raised the charge too early — preventing Kerry from making more effective use of a potent issue later this year if he is the Democratic nominee."

The Post's reporting has been borne out by events over the past week. When the Bush campaign aired an ad criticizing Kerry's defense votes, he immediately countered by questioning the non-service of Karl Rove and Dick Cheney. A few days later, when ABC News broke a story questioning the consistency of Kerry's account of whether he threw his medals or his ribbons away in a 1971 anti-war protest, Kerry took his Vietnam-baiting right to the top: "I think a lot of veterans are going to be very angry at a president who can't account for his own service in the National Guard ..."

Kerry mascot Max Cleland has gone further. "This country is now paying dearly for George Bush's lack of experience in war," said Cleland. So the Kerry team is practically arguing that only Vietnam veterans are capable of running the country's foreign-policy responsibly — on behalf of a candidate who said a lack of Vietnam service would never be an issue! Such are the dictates of John Kerry's "personal reasons of necessity."

[u2sarajevo]

Originally posted by: reeds
NO sore loser here- I just think its halarious that Bush lost the popular vote...very cool that more Amercians didnt want him than did want him...gotta luv it...

HAHAHA that is really funny reeds. Look at this... (red indicates the counties that Bush won



And this... (red indicates the states Bush won)


My prediction: You will not care.

[MavKikiNYC]

Stupid satellite images.

Gore still won.

[dude1394]

Boy those founding fathers were some pretty bright dudes. Sometimes I truly believe they were divinely inspired. How to devise a system of government that can take all of the disparate communities, rural, urban and put them together without one or the other running roughshod over them, yet getting representation. Quite marvelous...

[dude1394]

Mark Steyn Greatness

....
Last week, watching John Kerry explain that he threw away his medals/his ribbons/some other guys' medals because ribbons are the same as medals/he didn't have his medals with him/his medals are personal to him/and anyway what about Bush's National Guard service, I began to resent the senator for miring this election campaign in a three-decade old quagmire. It's like an oldies station with only one record:

''Throw Some Feller's Ribbons O'er The Old Stone Wall

It's been 30 years

But I still can stall''

I don't care about his medals or about Vietnam. But I care about him trapping this new war in the prism of an old war America lost. Koppel's ''Nightline,'' after all, is in direct descent from the old Life magazine pictorials intended to demoralize. Kerry's spent so much time filtering his candidate persona through his Vietnam experience that he's given no serious thought to the war we're in the middle of. His current position is that we need to put the U.N. in charge -- presumably so they can get the oil-for-fraud program up and running again. It's barely credible even as boilerplate. In a testimony to Kerry's own peculiar psychology, he's not only the first Vietnam combat veteran but also the first prominent anti-Vietnam campaigner to run for president. And, even though the media don't care much for the senator, he's somehow seduced them into his weird preoccupation.

It's unbecoming to a great power, and very perilous. The cost of war is the cost of losing it measured against the cost of winning it. We can reach our own conclusions about which the coalition's dead would opt for.

[Chiwas]

Hey! I live in Alaska now!

A Bush State [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-disgusted.gif[/img].



[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

[sturm und drang]

As a faithful and enthusiastic Democrat, I will vote for Kerry. But I'm not that impressed with him, and have no real attachment to him as a person or a candidate. I will vote the party line, but he's the least impressive D candidate in quite a while.

Can I ask a question of the Republicans? It seems to me that you guys don't really have much of an attachment to or support for Bush Jr., either. It seems like many Repulicans will simply vote the party line, as I am doing for the Democrats. But the true and zealous support for the R-candidate seems to be lacking. Thoughts?

My theory is that both candidates have failed to inspire much true enthusiasm or trust from their partisan supporters.

?

[Drbio]

Originally posted by: sturm und drang
As a faithful and enthusiastic Democrat, I will vote for Kerry. But I'm not that impressed with him, and have no real attachment to him as a person or a candidate. I will vote the party line, but he's the least impressive D candidate in quite a while.

Can I ask a question of the Republicans? It seems to me that you guys don't really have much of an attachment to or support for Bush Jr., either. It seems like many Repulicans will simply vote the party line, as I am doing for the Democrats. But the true and zealous support for the R-candidate seems to be lacking. Thoughts?

My theory is that both candidates have failed to inspire much true enthusiasm or trust from their partisan supporters.

?

sturm - I appreciate your comments. I back Bush 100% and have since the days that I had the opportunity to work with him very briefly when he was the governor of Texas. I've met him several times and found him to be a fascinating individual. I've always felt that he was a morally solid, dedicated man.

I am active in the Republican party here in Texas. I have found that a significant majority of people who I talk to really do back Dubya wholeheartedly. I'm not sure what inspired your observation, but I have found that he is greatly supported by those who have met him, those in the party, and many others. Maybe because I am in Texas I am not the best person to respond to your question though.

Are their opportunities for improvement with W? Of course, but the thing I really like about W is that he knows that. To me, Kerry ignores his faults and I have yet to see him take a stand on anything. I really dislike the flip-flop tendencies. I swear, at this point I would be more afraid of Al Gore (and certainly Edwards et al from this year) than I am of Kerry.

[Drbio]

I found a photo of Kerrys discarded medals.....

[sturm und drang]

Doc,

It was simply an anecdotal observation, mainly from talking to friends of mine who are moderate Republicans with no party involvement. Even my parents, who have voted Republican their whole lives, are considering voting Democrat because of their lack of confidence in Bush. Ultimately, I don't think they will vote Dem – but they'll vote R despite of, not beacuse of, Bush. And I've heard this repeated by a number of people I know; the faith, confidence and excitement about Bush just doesn't seem to be there.

For what it's worth, I think both R and D candidates are the weakest they've been in a while. I've come to the conclusion that if Kerry can't beat Bush in 2004, the Democratic party needs a major overhaul.

Just wanted to hear what others had to say about my observation. Like I said, it's just anecdotal and based on talking to less-than-diehard Republicans...

[Drbio]

I need to believe in my choice for president. I need to be able to trust him. I can't with Kerry for many reasons, but I do feel that Bush is trustworthy. That probably lies at the heart of my feelings. I thought the Dems lost when they abandoned Dean and then let Edwards, who is very popular in the south, falter in favor of Kerry.

The election could very well have been decided by that decision. I can aname a few Dems that would worry me greatly, but Kerry is not one of them. Would it be unprecedented for the dems to abandon Kerry at this point or to convince him to back away? It would sure be an incredible point of strategy. A move like that would get me worried again because it would show me that the dem party is thinking and has a plan. I just don't see one right now.

Anyways...thanks for your reply. I enjoyed it. It is quite easy to immerse oneself into party blindness and your post made me think about it.

Edit: One question for you and anyone else. Do you think Kerry is the best choice with Dean and Edwards and others out there?

[sturm und drang]

I thought at the time and I still believe today that Kerry was a foolish and ignorant choice. He'll play decently well to the Democratic strongholds - New York, Massachusetts, etc. - but has no chance of garnering any swing vote in the South, Midwest or even (gasp!) West.

It was a suicidal decision, one that - in my opinion - exhibited true idiocy in thinking that a blue-blood Masachusetts Yankee could sway the moderate votes outside of New England and the Middle Atlantic states. Though not most representative of my personal views, I think Edwards would've been the wisest choice. Though inexperienced, he would have been able to attract the votes of Republicans, like my parents, who are distrustful of and unimpressed with Bush and his first term.

Choosing Kerry, however... sigh. Political hara-kiri.

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: sturm und drang
As a faithful and enthusiastic Democrat, I will vote for Kerry. But I'm not that impressed with him, and have no real attachment to him as a person or a candidate. I will vote the party line, but he's the least impressive D candidate in quite a while.

Can I ask a question of the Republicans? It seems to me that you guys don't really have much of an attachment to or support for Bush Jr., either. It seems like many Repulicans will simply vote the party line, as I am doing for the Democrats. But the true and zealous support for the R-candidate seems to be lacking. Thoughts?

My theory is that both candidates have failed to inspire much true enthusiasm or trust from their partisan supporters.

?

Well sturm I'm a huge backer of bush. I certainly was before 9/11 and am even more so now. First he was a tremendous breath of honest fresh air after the sleaze-ball that we had in there for the last eight years.

Also even though you wouldn't know it with all the virtirol he's actually been a pretty moderate republican. He's cut taxes, he's brought accountability into the schools, he was a straight-shooter on kyoto(killing the hypocrisy) and also was a straight shooter with russia and ballistic missile defense.

After 9/11 there has been no comparison. He's been deliberate and taken a very long-term strategic view of our situation. He knows that we can't stick our head back in the sand and just hope that terrorists don't get wmds. We know they want to and will basically never stop.

Since then he's overthrown two countries that supported international terrorism, freed about 50 million folks or so. Even though I'm not that much of an African Aids activist, he's thrown money that way too. But he would never really get credit for the negotiations that he's done with the dims since it's politics all of the time for that bunch.

He's an honest, straight-shooting, results oriented president. I honestly feel that he will be right up there with Reagan in the history books. A great man.

[dude1394]

I also think edwards was a better choice. I've been pretty dissappointed in the democratic party the last 10 years or so, it seems to honestly be devoid of honor and integrity. I voted for perot twice, once because I couldn't vote for bush I after he caved on taxes. The second because I had come to loathe clinton so. I can actually understand some republicans not being that happy with dubya because he is honestly pretty moderate. I think in general the rebublican party had gone a little too far right around gingrich. So I think dubya is actually a great moderate republican. He's conservative about the right things but willing to compromise on others.

[sturm und drang]

See, I disagree that he's a moderate Republican. I had high hopes after the election – maybe I was trying to mollify myself after the frustrating election debacle – that he might be so.

However, his stance on everything from Iraq to affirmative action to gay marriage to abortion point to him being a pretty classic conservative. Which is why, I think, that the Dems had the glittering opportunity to convert a chunk of the moderate Republican vote this election year.

Kerry, however, is not the man to do it. Moderate Republicans who are considering voting against Bush might've crossed over with Edwards or even Dean (before his totally out-of-proportion and mishandled post-caucus meltdown) at the helm, but not Kerry. Anyone but Kerry.

Sigh. It was the chance of the century, I think, to dislodge the Republicans. But Kerry? Nope. Even I can't get that excited about him. And that's saying something.

I'll still vote for him, of course; I'll happily admit that I'm as partisan as they come. But I don't think we have any chance of winning the election. Which is sad for the Democratic party, because the groundswell of anti-Bush fervor is strong. That said, if the Dems can't win this one – which looks, from my vantage point, quite likely – then it really is time to re-evaluate the party, its processes, leaders and stances on critical issues.

[dude1394]

I'm not sure how much further he would have to go for you to call him a moderate. His stance on gay marriage is pretty moderate considering a majority of the nation agrees with him.

Abortion as well he's pretty much decided that it is established law. 48% are pro-choice, 45% pro-life. 68% feel that partial-birth should be illegal which is what he signed.

I would humbly submit that you may be on the far-left and not moderate at all. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

[sturm und drang]

Originally posted by: dude1394
I'm not sure how much further he would have to go for you to call him a moderate. His stance on gay marriage is pretty moderate considering a majority of the nation agrees with him.

Abortion as well he's pretty much decided that it is established law. 48% are pro-choice, 45% pro-life. 68% feel that partial-birth should be illegal which is what he signed.

I would humbly submit that you may be on the far-left and not moderate at all. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

I am far-left. I would never, ever claim to be anything but!

However, that doesn't invalidate my opinion that Bush isn't a moderate. First of all, he has gone beyond not supporting or condoning gay marriage to proactively seeking a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit it. As a Republican, I would never expect him to support the idea; as a "Moderate," however, I wouldn't expect him to hotly pursue an addition to the Constitution to preclude it.

And as far as the abortion issue goes: Bush is bound and determined to overturn Roe v. Wade. That would NOT be keeping with the majority opinion in this country, and is indeed a very conservative aim. I have many moderate Republican female friends for whom this is an incredibly frustrating issue - and some of these friends may swing over just because of it.

Moderate may be in the eye of the beholder, indeed. But I've heard others far more conservative than me postulate that he has not been as moderate as they had hoped on a number of issues...

[madape]

I agree with about 90% of the actions Bush has taken while in office. The other 10% I can live with. Low taxes, strong defense, and a pro-active foreign policy are much more important to me than domestic issues like gay marriage and abortion. Bush is a person I can trust to do the things I think need to be done in this country. He's not a perfect president. He's not particulalrly inspiring one, like say Ronald Reagan. He's certianly not a great orator. What he is, is a man that is true to his values. He's a guy we know will do everything he can to protect us and make us a stonger and greater nation.

In times like these, that may be exactly what this country needs.

It would have been easy for him to take the Clinton way out and cower to domestic pressue. But Bush is able to make the tough decisions.. to do what he thinks is right for this country, even if those things may not be popular at home. That's what a war-time president needs to be. He's the anti-Clinton. The Anti-Kerry. The world will be a better place if we are gifted with another four years of Bush.

[Usually Lurkin]

I and the majority of republicans I know do back Bush, for pretty much the reasons madape stated. His honesty, integrety, and values allow you to evaluate both him and the actions he will take. Not all republicans I know are unilaterally right on all issues across the board. I think most agree with Bush on a majority of issues that are important to them, and almost all really enjoy his "get it done" attitude that seems to place the issues (and the voters) above his own political image.

[reeds]

"As a faithful and enthusiastic Democrat, I will vote for Kerry. But I'm not that impressed with him, and have no real attachment to him as a person or a candidate. I will vote the party line, but he's the least impressive D candidate in quite a while"......Id have to admit to that myself....Kerry is far from my favorite- but he is a Democrat- I will always vote democrat..unless Ms. Clinton runs..then im screwed.......

[reeds]

U2- what is your point? He won more freaking counties? U lost me somewhere??? Some of the "counties" Gore won are more populated the the whole freaking state of Wyoming, Idaho..etc...i just said TOTAL VOTES...counties? who cares???

[FishForLunch]

The only reason I support Bush, is he is the one I trust to handle the National security of this country, and I like his economic policy. The rest of the stuff (abortion, medicare, schools, gay marriage ) at the present time seems insignificant to me.

[sturm und drang]

Madape wrote:

He's not a particulalrly inspiring one, like say Ronald Reagan.

That's what I was trying to get at - many people obviously support his policies and maybe his personal attributes, but he doesn't seem to inspire great devotion.

Nor, of course, does Kerry. From an "inspirational leader" point of view, it seems like this is the weakest field in quite a while.

Was just curious. I've yet to meet someone who gets fired up or truly passionate about either candidate - not the issues, not the stances, but the candidate. Just an observation.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally posted by: sturm und drang

That's what I was trying to get at - many people obviously support his policies and maybe his personal attributes, but he doesn't seem to inspire great devotion.
. . .
Was just curious. I've yet to meet someone who gets fired up or truly passionate about either candidate - not the issues, not the stances, but the candidate. Just an observation.

maybe because you're just talking to "moderate republicans"?
The people that have posted here of their confidence in Bush have listed personal qualities, and confidence in his political position as reasons for their stance. What else are you looking for? What is "the candidate" other than that?

You said your friends and parents "are considering voting Democrat because of their lack of confidence in Bush." and will "vote R despite of, not beacuse of, Bush.", and that "the faith, confidence and excitement about Bush just doesn't seem to be there."

Are you saying that these people would base their choice for president on something other than issues and stances? Upon what do they base great devotion, and if it's not policies, personal attributes, issues, and stances, should it be the basis for a presidential vote?

[MavKikiNYC]

That's what I was trying to get at - many people obviously support his [Bush's] policies and maybe his personal attributes, but he doesn't seem to inspire great devotion.

It may depend on WHEN you ask, as well as WHOM. I remember that one of the revealing poll results from 2000 was that Republicans were much stronger supporters of Bush than were Dems of Gore, and this finding bore itself out in the post-election goings-on.

As for inspiring great devotion, I think that Bush gets pretty intense support from the further-right, harder-core fundamentalists, but that they themselves are not entirely trusting of his support for their issues. The danger with this constituency for Bush is that they won't come out and vote, not that they would vote for Kerry or Nader.

And it's odd--sort of the self-fulfilling prophecy syndrome. If slightly left-of-center moderates would not allow themselves to be so utterly consumed with anti-Bush sentiment, he could afford to be more moderate. Their disdain for Bush and refusal to consider voting for him means that he has to preserve his all-important far right support. The irony, of course, is that Kerry is the ultimate pragmatist whose support can't be counted on for many of the issues the more moderate liberals support.

[dude1394]

I think that bush's support is rock solid. Of course there are some things that folks have issues with but he stands for all of the important stuff. Integrity, bravery and the dog-stubborness needed at this time when the leftist democrats are trying to re-live vietnam.