A thought from a veteran: Service or Self-service?

[Drbio]

I had to take a late lunch today and went alone to eat. While in line, I struck up a conversation with an older man who ended up having lunch with me. It was a very interesting conversation which started out on the Rangers, shifted to the Cowboys (He hates Q-caine too so I was hooked) and then turned to politics. The man served in Vietnam and was a 26 year veteran of the US Army, now employed in a sales field.

As we talked politics, I listened intently to this gentleman who had many very thoughtful opinions and seemed to me to be fairly middle of the road politically. When the conversation turned to Kerry and his claims of being in Cambodia, my new friend's face quickly turned to a grimace. He and I talked about all the inaccuracies of Kerry's claims and that conversation was going well, but I continued to notice his grimace. I asked him what he thought about Kerry. After asking me if I were a dimocrap and being assured that I was not subject to any such affliction, he told me that Kerry was unfit for command in his opinion.

He spoke of many of the concerns that dude, LRB and others here talk about (as well as the national blogs). At one point he asked me how a soldier could fight for a commander-in-chief who sold out on the men that he fought wiht by throwing his medals away and protesting against his fellow soldier when he returned home. He regurgitated some canned points that would have made Rush Limbaugh proud. But then he hit me with a point that has had me thinking all day since. This man questioned how a man could serve for less than four months and be awarded three purple hearts, a bronze star and other accolades. He spoke of men that he served with for years who did heroic things and were never recognized. He spoke of those men fondly and by name and city of origin. At one point I thought a tear swelled in his eye.

This U.S. veteran, himself a purple heart winner himself (for the obvious long healed wound in his neck), questioned how Kerry could "earn" those kinds of medals when men he fought with who lost arms, legs, eyes, even their lives, failed to collect even a letter of appreciation. It made me think. The question is not whether Kerry lied about his service in Vietnam...we know he has done that. It is well established. The new question should be:

Did Kerry or some supporter set Kerry up for success and medals for future accolades?

It is an interesting thought. This man asked me if I thought a man who would reenact war events on tape was there for service or for self service (great quote huh?). He stated that the only cameras he ever saw were those held by military reporters. Not video cameras, but regular cameras. He stated that he couldn't even remember seeing a video camera back then and questioned if many were ever even brought into Vietnam and other areas. Was Kerry set up to be a medal winning hero? It sounds like a possibility.

This veteran for the record, voted for Bush senior, Clintoon (the first time - didn't state the second time) and dubya the last election. He will vote for dubya this time around too for his (dubya) "commitment to taking care of this country".

Before leaving, I thanked this man for his service to his country, thanked him for a wonderfully enjoyable conversation, swapped cards and then excused myself from the table. Before leaving the restaraunt, I paid for his lunch and hoped he would enjoy the surprise when he went to pay. Small pieces of goodness like a free lunch are a small price to pay for the opportunity to spend time with a man who truly served his country for honor and duty. I know that our children are safer today because of men like this.....true heros who unfortunately will likely never recieve more than an occassional free lunch from an appreciative American.

[LRB]

Nice post Doc, and nice point. One of the major criticism's laid upon Kerry was that he was extremely oportunistic. It certainly seems that he was medal hungry.

I also like the point about soldiers and other servicemen wondering if Kerry will sacrifice them without a single look back if that's what it seems is best for Kerry's political career. It would appear that it wouldn't be the 1st time that Kerry has done this.

BTW mention Jane Fonda's name around a Vietnam vet sometime and see what kind of reaction you get. The vast majority of times you'll hear "damn" or "traiterous" closely followed by "bitch". And she was a damn traiterous bitch. However Kerry was just as bad in his actions as witnessed by his picture in the North Vietnam (now just Vietnam) musem for military heros. It's not there for what he did for the US.

[knowitall]

No doubt that at least one of these candidates was "set up for success and future accolades".

[chumdawg]

Thanks for posting, Doc. Great story. I've been saying for some time, to anyone who will listen, that if some young investigative journalist wants to earn his spurs, then all he needs to do is dig into all the records he can find and see if there is anyone else who can match Kerry's amazing record of accolades in such a brief span.

I don't profess to know the answer, but my guess is that you would find very, very few people who did in four months what Kerry did. Especially if you take the same four months, with people posted in similar roles as Kerry, in a similar place. If you narrow it like that, I'd be willing to wager that no one comes close to Johnny Boy.

But of course, the letter he wrote to request early release stated that he felt he could do his country a lot more good in politics than he could in the service. Nonsense! The man had the makings of a four-star general--the way his supporters interpret his record.

I will always believe that politics was the ambition from day one, and he saw Vietnam as his "horse to ride."

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: Drbio
Before leaving, I thanked this man for his service to his country, thanked him for a wonderfully enjoyable conversation, swapped cards and then excused myself from the table. Before leaving the restaraunt, I paid for his lunch and hoped he would enjoy the surprise when he went to pay.

What a beautiful gesture. As a father-in-law to a current soldier I hope someone will show him such a heart-felt gesture. Thank you.

[Drbio]

I was honored to have the opportunity.

[Drbio]

I can't believe we aren't getting discussion on the point that Kerry was only in 'Nam for self service. I guess we all agree.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: Drbio
I can't believe we aren't getting discussion on the point that Kerry was only in 'Nam for self service. I guess we all agree.

It is such a ridiculous assertion, that a person would place themselves clearly in danger and in harm's way as an attempt to pump their resume for the future, that "discussion" is meaningless.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: Mavdog

It is such a ridiculous assertion, that a person would place themselves clearly in danger and in harm's way as an attempt to pump their resume for the future, that "discussion" is meaningless.

1st of all why is this meaningless? Where's the proof. There is a long history in the world of glory hogs and people who have greatly exaggerated their military exploits for political gain. And as for putting oneself in harms way for resume building, that is a long standing tradition for the men of the British Royal family among others. Tons of young people join the armed forces, putting themselves in harms way by doing so, to build their resumes and to better increase their chances and opportunities at future employment. However few if any are as oportunistic to garner unearned glory as it appears that John Forbes was.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: LRB

1st of all why is this meaningless? Where's the proof.

Yes, where's the proof? By being in danger of mortal wounds, there is in itself "proof" that it was not staged.

It's comical that attacks on Kerry are given credibility without any substantiation, while those who attack ask for proof otherwise. Welcome to the new America of guilty until proven innocent...

There is a long history in the world of glory hogs and people who have greatly exaggerated their military exploits for political gain.

"Eggagerated..for political gain" wasn't the assertion, it was a statement that the whole volunteering and serving was a farce.

And as for putting oneself in harms way for resume building, that is a long standing tradition for the men of the British Royal family among others. Tons of young people join the armed forces, putting themselves in harms way by doing so, to build their resumes and to better increase their chances and opportunities at future employment. However few if any are as oportunistic to garner unearned glory as it appears that John Forbes was.

You're confusing a person who volunteers for personal training and education and the suggestion above that the Kerry service was a sham.
It is a ridiculous assertion.

[LRB]

Yes, where's the proof? By being in danger of mortal wounds, there is in itself "proof" that it was not staged.

Actually that is no proof at all. "Danger of mortal wounds" is not proof. Did Kerry face real danger of mortal wounds in his time served in Vietnam? Yes. Does a bank robber face danger of mortal wounds when committing an armed robbery? Yes, he does. Does the armed robber rob the bank to serve his country? Only a complete and utter idiot would say so. While Kerry certainly wasn't robbing a bank, to say that he was not trying to achieve personal gain simply because he placed himself in a situation where recieving "mortal wounds" was more likely than had he not volunteered is ridiculous. Clearly there are thousands of people who have in the past placed themselves in positions more likely to be mortally wounded to achieve personal gain. If you doubt me, watch NASCAR sometime. Of course maybe you think car racing is patriotic service. [img]i/expressions/anim_roller.gif[/img]

It's comical that attacks on Kerry are given credibility without any substantiation, while those who attack ask for proof otherwise. Welcome to the new America of guilty until proven innocent...

1st of all the detail on Kerry's imbellishments is excruiciatingly detailed, only a pompous fool or a complete idiot would insinuate otherwise. Records, hundreds of eyewitness testimonies, maps, etc. have been produced to debunk Kerry's lies. While Kerry has produced only his own word, the word of a handful of men, and a partial release of his military records. And the innocent until proven guility applies to our criminal justice system where the accused is given a fair trial and has the right of presumed innocence. That right does not apply to Presidential elections nor to determing if someone has told a nonprosecutionable lie. There will be no criminal trial for Kerry over his lies. The only trial will be in the court of public opinion. Still if you wish to carry forth with your contexual inaccurate "presumed to be innocent" should the Swiftvets be given the same right? I guess you feel only liberal should have this right.

None the less I'm all for John Forbes having a fair chance to clear his name. Produce hard factual evidence, ie his full set of military records, which could possibly clear this up. Kerry is definitely hiding something. The only question is why?

You're confusing a person who volunteers for personal training and education and the suggestion above that the Kerry service was a sham.

Kerry did serve in Vietnam. That's undisputed. The question here is his motives. Was it to serve his country? Or was it more to serve his political career?

That's a legitimate question. If it was to serve his country, then why did Kerry bug out almost 8 months early in his service in Vietnam to serve in a political capacity?

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: LRB

Actually that is no proof at all. "Danger of mortal wounds" is not proof. Did Kerry face real danger of mortal wounds in his time served in Vietnam? Yes. Does a bank robber face danger of mortal wounds when committing an armed robbery? Yes, he does. Does the armed robber rob the bank to serve his country? Only a complete and utter idiot would say so. While Kerry certainly wasn't robbing a bank, to say that he was not trying to achieve personal gain simply because he placed himself in a situation where recieving "mortal wounds" was more likely than had he not volunteered is ridiculous. Clearly there are thousands of people who have in the past placed themselves in positions more likely to be mortally wounded to achieve personal gain. If you doubt me, watch NASCAR sometime. Of course maybe you think car racing is patriotic service. [img]i/expressions/anim_roller.gif[/img]

Very obtuse analogy. NASCAR racing (and the $ involved) and military service? odd to say the least.
The accuation was that the Kerry sevice was staged for his future pursuits of elected office. The risk of death makes that a ridiculous assertion.

It's comical that attacks on Kerry are given credibility without any substantiation, while those who attack ask for proof otherwise. Welcome to the new America of guilty until proven innocent...

1st of all the detail on Kerry's imbellishments is excruiciatingly detailed, only a pompous fool or a complete idiot would insinuate otherwise. Records, hundreds of eyewitness testimonies, maps, etc. have been produced to debunk Kerry's lies. [/quote]

Actually your reference is only to a specific day contained in a speech, not of the complete service record during his four months which is the subject. "eyewitness" like his crewmates who back him? "testimony" by those who were under his command? All support Kerry.

While Kerry has produced only his own word, the word of a handful of men, and a partial release of his military records. And the innocent until proven guility applies to our criminal justice system where the accused is given a fair trial and has the right of presumed innocence. That right does not apply to Presidential elections nor to determing if someone has told a nonprosecutionable lie. There will be no criminal trial for Kerry over his lies. The only trial will be in the court of public opinion. Still if you wish to carry forth with your contexual inaccurate "presumed to be innocent" should the Swiftvets be given the same right? I guess you feel only liberal should have this right.

Actuallu "innocent until proven guilty" is more than just a legal concept, it is a moral concept as well.
The swiftvets have not been accused of anything (but perhaps bitterness and deception) so what should they be presumed innocent of?

None the less I'm all for John Forbes having a fair chance to clear his name. Produce hard factual evidence, ie his full set of military records, which could possibly clear this up. Kerry is definitely hiding something. The only question is why?

What records are you referring to? The records which were requested from the DofD were released.

You're confusing a person who volunteers for personal training and education and the suggestion above that the Kerry service was a sham.

Kerry did serve in Vietnam. That's undisputed. The question here is his motives. Was it to serve his country? Or was it more to serve his political career?[/quote]

As he did not have a political career at that time it must be the former.

That's a legitimate question. If it was to serve his country, then why did Kerry bug out almost 8 months early in his service in Vietnam to serve in a political capacity?

I don't agree that it is a "legitimate question" but rather another attempt to demean his character.
An intelligent answer to that question is he didn't a) believe in the pursuit of the War, a belief that was shared by millions of Americans, and b) was smart enough to see that by continuing he could very easily be killed, giving his life for in effect for nothing.

[Drbio]

I figured Mavdog would attempt to ruin this thread. When soldiers, especially one with a purple heart, ask how Kerry garnered such awards when men that served for years and had much more severe injuries received none, it is a valid question. Sorry to bash your boy Kerry, but it is clearly ethical and approriate to ask if kerry was set up to be a medal winner. Did he serve his country or did he serve himself? A very fair question that apparently many veterans are asking.

[LRB]

Very obtuse analogy. NASCAR racing (and the $ involved) and military service? odd to say the least.
The accuation was that the Kerry sevice was staged for his future pursuits of elected office. The risk of death makes that a ridiculous assertion.

There is every bit as much money that can be made in political service as in NASCAR. If elected President, Kerry will be under constant threat of death for the rest of his life. People risk their lifes dailey much more than they need to for any number of reasons. Perhaps it is impossible for your mind to comprehend this concept. Actually I wouldn't be surprised if this was the case from your statements. If you want to believe that fine, but it's hardly a given that people won't risk their lives for personal gain whether it be fame, money, power, or even thrill. The only ridiculous thing is you totally ignoring the many people who do risk life for personal gain.

Actually your reference is only to a specific day contained in a speech, not of the complete service record during his four months which is the subject. "eyewitness" like his crewmates who back him? "testimony" by those who were under his command? All support Kerry.

The evidence plainly covers many days of Kerry's service. Sure it doesn't cover every time he wiped his ass after taking a crap or turned over in his cot while sleeping. However those and many other incidents are immaterial to whether Kerry lied or not or whether Kerry rightfully deserved some of the medals he recieved. His crew weren't the only eyewitnesses to Kerrys actions. He was almost at all times opperating with one or more swift boats. Kerry's 1st Purple Heart wasn't even on a boat that he was in command of. And even even some his "band of brothers" deny ever being in Cambodia. Kerry didn't just mention Cambodia in "a" speach as in one speach. He mentioned it in serveral speaches, in testimony before Congressional committes, in interview with reporters, and probably many other instances.

Actuallu "innocent until proven guilty" is more than just a legal concept, it is a moral concept as well.

And Kerry has been properly accused, evidence has been presented to show his guilt, and Kerry has been unable to respond with any but the weakest of factual rebuttals. The body of evidence is overwhelmingly against Kerry. So in essence he's been proven guilty.

The swiftvets have not been accused of anything (but perhaps bitterness and deception) so what should they be presumed innocent of?

WTF??? They've been accused of lying. Even you can't be so stupid as not to see that. Either Kerry is lying or the Swiftvets or lying. Each accuse the other of lying. Swiftvets have more proof. I believe them.

What records are you referring to? The records which were requested from the DofD were released.

A partial set of Kerry military records were released, but not all. Yes those that Kerry requested were released. However Kerry has yet to request that ALL RECORDS be released.

As he did not have a political career at that time it must be the former.

What kind of mornic logic is that??? This is one of the most inane comments I've ever heard from you, and that's saying a lot. That's like asking if someone went to school to enhance their career as a computer programmer. But since they need school to help them get a job as a computer programmer they don't have one. So the proof is that they didn't go to school to enhance their career becaue they didn't have a job in that career at the time they went to school. Do you even read the dumbass things that you write? I've seen stupid before but this is beyond pathetic. Hell I don't even like Kerry and I could argue his case tens times better even if I was trying to sabotage him.

don't agree that it is a "legitimate question" but rather another attempt to demean his character.
An intelligent answer to that question is he didn't a) believe in the pursuit of the War, a belief that was shared by millions of Americans, and b) was smart enough to see that by continuing he could very easily be killed, giving his life for in effect for nothing.

This is by far the most intelligent of your responses. However when and where did he have the change of heart. And why has he had another change of heart where now he's proud of what he did in the war that he couldn't in good conscience keep fighting And what about the highly questionable circumstances that he recieved his purple hearts? Why not release his full military records and clear that up?

[LRB]

Originally posted by: Drbio
I figured Mavdog would attempt to ruin this thread. When soldiers, especially one with a purple heart, ask how Kerry garnered such awards when men that served for years and had much more severe injuries received none, it is a valid question. Sorry to bash your boy Kerry, but it is clearly ethical and approriate to ask if kerry was set up to be a medal winner. Did he serve his country or did he serve himself? A very fair question that apparently many veterans are asking.

Yes doc it is. Kerry could go a long way to answering his critics and putting this behind him by releasing his full military records, that is if he's innocent. Of course if Kerry is guilty, his military records might very well be the final nail in his political coffin.

[Usually Lurkin]

Kerry's motivation for service does not concern me. If he served honorably and protected the otherwise unprotectable in the name of John F. Kerry instead of the USA, I don't care. I'd say good for him, and thanks. If he lied about his service, or cheated his way into medals and honors and an early return home that others deserved more, or if he crapped on his fellow servicemen once he got home, all in the name of John F. Kerry, then I expect we could expect pretty much the same from him as president.

[Drbio]

It is well established that he has crapped on his fellow servicemen.....and they are not happy about it at all.

[LRB]

UL I'll agree with that statement 100%. His motivation is only relevant if it led to actual misdeeds. It's the misdeeds, not the motivation that we can most accurately judge.