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

[FishForLunch]

Everyone is entitled to his own truth.
--------------------------------------------------
In an interview published Friday in the LOS ANGELES TIMES, Dem presidential hopeful John Kerry claimed he "never ever implied" that he threw his own medals during a Hill protest in 1971 to appear as an antiwar hero.

But a new shock video shows John Kerry -- in his own voice -- saying he did!

ABC's GOOD MORNING AMERICA is set to rock the political world Monday morning with an airing of Kerry's specific 1971 boast, sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT.

The video was made by a local news station in 1971.

It directly contradicts Kerry's own website headline: "RIGHTWING FICTION: John Kerry threw away his medals during a Vietnam war protest."

Kerry's campaign refused comment Sunday afternoon, citing a policy not to respond to the DRUDGE REPORT.

[dude1394]

"I actually did throw away my medals before I said I did not throw them away."

[Mavdog]

Yawn.

[FishForLunch]

Yawn

Finally even MD is bored to death by Kerry

[Dooby]

Mavdog, it may not be interesting to you, but Kerry is consistently being knocked off message for some petty stuff. Kerry has to go on GMA this morning and explain himself fro 3 minutes. I just have to wonder if he knows what the hell he is doing.

[Chiwas]

Kerry's statement to the Senate:

We are asking Americans to think about that because how do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam? How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?....

I think he was right.


Edit: Vietnam Veterans Against the War Statement by John Kerry to the Senate Committee of Foreign Relations - April 23, 1971

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: Dooby
Mavdog, it may not be interesting to you, but Kerry is consistently being knocked off message for some petty stuff. Kerry has to go on GMA this morning and explain himself fro 3 minutes. I just have to wonder if he knows what the hell he is doing.

I agree that Kerry is not taking the reins as it were and putting forth a more focused campaign theme. It could very well be shown that Kerry is not ready for prime time, although I am not of that opinion yet. After all, we are still almost 90 days from the convention.

The seemingly never ending journeys by Kerry's opponents to the early 70's and Kerry's statements/positions/indescretions are in fact tiring as well as a bore. Their infatuation with this period of his life and their hope that it is meaningful today in 2004 is a waste of their time, it has no bearing on today. Should we look at GWBush's activities/statements of 1972 to understand where his mind is today? Absolutely not, in spite of the fact that it isn't very complimentary to GWBush. It's not important.

[Max Power]

It is important because Kerry is lying NOW. If he actually threw away the medals then tell the truth and move on. He'll take a few lumps but then it will be behind him.

Throwing away the medals is in the past - I don't care about that. Lying about it today - THAT I care about.

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: Max Power
It is important because Kerry is lying NOW. If he actually threw away the medals then tell the truth and move on. He'll take a few lumps but then it will be behind him.

Throwing away the medals is in the past - I don't care about that. Lying about it today - THAT I care about.

Exactly.

[Dooby]

Originally posted by: Mavdog

I agree that Kerry is not taking the reins as it were and putting forth a more focused campaign theme. It could very well be shown that Kerry is not ready for prime time, although I am not of that opinion yet. After all, we are still almost 90 days from the convention.

<u>The seemingly never ending journeys by Kerry's opponents to the early 70's and Kerry's statements/positions/indescretions are in fact tiring as well as a bore. Their infatuation with this period of his life and their hope that it is meaningful today in 2004 is a waste of their time, it has no bearing on today.</u> Should we look at GWBush's activities/statements of 1972 to understand where his mind is today? Absolutely not, in spite of the fact that it isn't very complimentary to GWBush. It's not important.

The whole planet knows this isn't true. Take names out of it. First, if Candidate A rises to prominance through an event, an examination of Candidate A's involvement and positions related to that even is relevant. Second, if Candidate A relies on or touts experience from a past event, an examination of Candidate A's involvement and positions related to that even is relevant.

Make no mistake, if John McCain had gotten the nomination for President, there would be several of his POW "buddies" giving their opinions of who the "real" John McCain is in their mind. Nobody ever points this out but Congressman Sam Johnson and John McCain were in the same camp during Vietnam and you never see them together. There is a reason for that. Not saying who is right and who is wrong, but there is a reason for that. And a thorough examination of those events is just and proper.

Likewise, an examination of Ross Perot's business history, attendance at the Naval Academy and service in the Navy is appropriate when he touted that history as a reason for voting for him.

And there has been a thorough examination of Bush's 70's-era activities- his national guard duties and his drunk driving conviction. And I can't think of anything less specifically relevant to being POTUS than a drunk driving conviction of man that hadn't taken a sip of alcohol for 10 years. Unless you think it reflects on his decision making abilities or character.... In which case, everything is fair game.

[Chiwas]

Well, it seems there are two liars for the Presidency now.

No big deal. They all lie.

[madape]

Originally posted by: Chiwas
Well, it seems there are two liars for the Presidency now.

No big deal. They all lie.

Are you talking about Nader again?

I think one of the reasons Bush is so far ahead in the polls is that the majority of people think Bush beleives strongly in what he says. You may not agree with him, or you may think his ideology rules over common sense, but the polls show that voters think he's a man not inclined to lie for political gain.

Kerry is being defined as such a man.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: DoobyMavdog, it may not be interesting to you, but Kerry is consistently being knocked off message for some petty stuff. Kerry has to go on GMA this morning and explain himself fro 3 minutes. I just have to wonder if he knows what the hell he is doing.

I agree that Kerry is not taking the reins as it were and putting forth a more focused campaign theme. It could very well be shown that Kerry is not ready for prime time, although I am not of that opinion yet. After all, we are still almost 90 days from the convention.

The seemingly never ending journeys by Kerry's opponents to the early 70's and Kerry's statements/positions/indescretions are in fact tiring as well as a bore. Their infatuation with this period of his life and their hope that it is meaningful today in 2004 is a waste of their time, it has no bearing on today.[/b]</u> Should we look at GWBush's activities/statements of 1972 to understand where his mind is today? Absolutely not, in spite of the fact that it isn't very complimentary to GWBush. It's not important.

The whole planet knows this isn't true. Take names out of it. First, if Candidate A rises to prominance through an event, an examination of Candidate A's involvement and positions related to that even is relevant. Second, if Candidate A relies on or touts experience from a past event, an examination of Candidate A's involvement and positions related to that even is relevant.[/quote]

The activities in 1972 were germaine to his election campaigns of that era.

Kerry is not running based on his anti-war activities, nor his service in the military, He's running based on his years as a Senator.

These long ago events are not important in looking at the candidate today.

Make no mistake, if John McCain had gotten the nomination for President, there would be several of his POW "buddies" giving their opinions of who the "real" John McCain is in their mind. Nobody ever points this out but Congressman Sam Johnson and John McCain were in the same camp during Vietnam and you never see them together. There is a reason for that. Not saying who is right and who is wrong, but there is a reason for that. And a thorough examination of those events is just and proper.

Likewise, an examination of Ross Perot's business history, attendance at the Naval Academy and service in the Navy is appropriate when he touted that history as a reason for voting for him.

And there has been a thorough examination of Bush's 70's-era activities- his national guard duties and his drunk driving conviction. And I can't think of anything less specifically relevant to being POTUS than a drunk driving conviction of man that hadn't taken a sip of alcohol for 10 years. Unless you think it reflects on his decision making abilities or character.... In which case, everything is fair game.

It's amazing what those long ago friends do when they have their 15 minutes of fame.

As fas as Sam Johnson, I've heard him speak and (with all due respect to a vet and ex-POW) John McCain is certainly justified in not wanting to be around him [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

edit for operator error

[Dooby]

Apparently Mavdog agrees with me so much, he just quoted me without comment.[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img]

[kg_veteran]

Kerry Rejects GOP Questions About Medals - AP


WASHINGTON - Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (news - web sites) on Monday rejected as a Republican-driven controversy renewed questions over his claim to have thrown away his Navy medals during a 1971 Vietnam War protest.

Kerry has said for years that he threw away his ribbons, not his three Purple Hearts, Bronze Star and Silver Star during the April 1971 protest. On Monday, however, a tape of a television interview Kerry gave shortly after the protest suggested he was talking about more than his ribbons when discussing the anti-war demonstration.


In an exchange, aired by ABC and published in The New York Times, an interviewer asks Kerry, "How many did you give back, John?" Kerry responds, "I gave back, I can't remember, six, seven, eight, nine." The host then notes that Kerry had won the Purple Hearts and Bronze and Silver stars. Kerry says, "Well, and above that, I gave back my others."


Nearly 800 veterans "gave back" their medals by throwing them over a fence near the Capitol. Kerry has said he also threw over the fence the medals of two other veterans who had asked him to give them back.


Kerry denied Monday that his statements have been inconsistent. He said ribbons were often referred to as medals.


"Back then ribbons, medals were absolutely interchangeable," Kerry told "Good Morning America" on ABC. "The U.S. Navy (news - web sites) pamphlet calls them medals. We all referred to them as the symbols they were representing. Medals, ribbons ... countless veterans threw the ribbons back."


The protest took place the same week Kerry testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on behalf of the anti-war group Vietnam Veterans Against the War.


"The fact is I have been accurate precisely about what took place, and I am the one who later made clear exactly what happened," Kerry told ABC. "This is a controversy the Republicans are pushing."


The anti-Bush political group MoveOn PAC released a 60-second television ad Monday comparing Kerry's service in Vietnam to President Bush (news - web sites)'s record with the Texas Air National Guard. Bush has been criticized for being unable to account for some periods of his Guard service.


"This election is about character," the ad concludes. "It's between John Kerry, who left no man behind ... and George W. Bush, who simply left."


The group is spending a small amount — $115,000 — to run the ad nationally on Fox News Channel and on CNN in Washington, D.C., and New York City media markets.

There he goes again, trying to split hairs. What's the definition of "is", John?

[Chiwas]

Are you talking about Nader again?

All politicians.

I think one of the reasons Bush is so far ahead in the polls is that the majority of people think Bush beleives strongly in what he says. You may not agree with him, or you may think his ideology rules over common sense, but the polls show that voters think he's a man not inclined to lie for political gain.

I think Bush has lied for what he strongly believes, which in some extent is not too bad if what he believes in is good for his country, as the war against terrorism, which is not the same, after the fall of the dictator, that the war against Iraq.

And of course, a leader has to be congruent and stable, also adaptable to new circumstances, without losing his principles. Bush seems to be of this kind; I'm still waiting to know if Kerry is of this kind too; there is too much information and we still have to filter it and discern what in reality Kerry is. But I agree, he seems to be losing the media war.

[Mavdog]

[quote]
Originally posted by: madape

Originally posted by: Chiwas
Well, it seems there are two liars for the Presidency now.

No big deal. They all lie.


Are you talking about Nader again?

If there is one positive thing that can be said for Nader it is in regard to his integrity and honesty. There is noone in the Presidential race that comes close to Nader's dedication and commitment to his principles, You may disagre with the positions of Nader, but it is ridiculous to suggest that he is anything but honest.

I think one of the reasons Bush is so far ahead in the polls is that the majority of people think Bush beleives strongly in what he says. You may not agree with him, or you may think his ideology rules over common sense, but the polls show that voters think he's a man not inclined to lie for political gain.

Kerry is being defined as such a man.

"So far ahead"??? it's like 3 points or so...take a gander at the job approval ratings to see how the public sees GWBush.

"Lie"? No, but manipulate the facts, yes. And that's true for both the Republican nominee and the probable Democratic nominee as well.

[kg_veteran]

I think Dooby said it best when he said:

Kerry is consistently being knocked off message for some petty stuff. Kerry has to go on GMA this morning and explain himself fro 3 minutes. I just have to wonder if he knows what the hell he is doing.

[Chiwas]

"Lie"? No, but manipulate the facts, yes. And that's true for both the Republican nominee and the probable Democratic nominee as well.

This is what I mean when I say that all politicans "lie". And some of them actually lie.

[Max Power]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
Kerry is not running based on his anti-war activities, nor his service in the military, He's running based on his years as a Senator.

These long ago events are not important in looking at the candidate today.

As I said earlier, I don't care if Kerry threw away his medals. I care about is whether he is an honest man RIGHT NOW.

[madape]

I thought this was funny.

[madape]

Transcript from this morning's Good Morning America interview with Kerry
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ABC NEWS GOOD MORNING AMERICA'S CHARLIE GIBSON: Now joining us from West Virginia is himself senator John Kerry. He's in the town of Glen Easton, West Virginia, today. Good to have you with us.

SEN. JOHN KERRY: i'm glad to be with you. i really am.

GIBSON: 1984, senator, to the present. you have said a number of times, as brian pointed out as recently as friday with the ""los angeles times,"" have you said a number of times that you did not throw away the vietnam medals themselves. but now this interview from 1971 shows up the in which you say that was the medals themselves that were thrown away.

KERRY: no, i don't.

GIBSON: can you explain?

KERRY: absolutely. that's absolutely incorrect. charlie, i stood up in front of the nation. there were dozens of cameras there, television cameras, there were -- i don't know. 20, 30 still photographers. thousands of people and i stood up in front of the country, reached into my shirt, visibly for the nation to see, and took the ribbons off my chest, said a few words and threw them over the fence. the file footage, the reporter there from the ""boston globe,"" everybody got it correctly. and i never asserted otherwise. what i said was and back then, you know, ribbons, medals were absolutely interchangeable . senator simmington asking me questions in the committee hearing, look ad at the ribbons and said what are those medals? the u.s. navy pam let calls the medals, we referred to them it is a symbols, representing medals, ribbons, countless veterans through the ribbon -- threw the ribbons back. everybody did. veterans threw back dog tags. they threw back photographs, they th rew back their 14's. there are photographs of a pile of all of those things collected on the steps of the capitol. so the fact is that i have -- i have been accurate precisely about what took place. and i am the one who later made clear exactly what happened. i mean, this is a controversy that the republicans are pushing , the republicans have spent $60 million in the last few weeks trying to attack me. and this comes from a president and a republican party that can't even answer whether or not he showed up for duty in the national guard. i'm not going to stand for it.

GIBSON: senator, i was there 33 years ago and i saw you throw medals over the fence and we didn't find out until later -

KERRY: no, you didn't see me throw th. charlie, charlie, you are wrong. that's not what happened. i threw my ribbons across. all you have to do -

GIBSON: someone else's medals, correct in?

KERRY: after -- excuse me. excuse me, charlie. after the ceremony was over, i had a bronze star and a purple heart given to me, one purple heart by a veteran in the v.a. in new york and the bronze star by an older veteran of world war ii in massachusetts. i threw them over because they asked me to. i never --

GIBSON: let me come back to the thing just said which is the military --

KERRY: this is a phony -- charlie, this is a phony controversy.

GIBSON: the military makes no distinction between ribbons and medals but you are the one who made the distinction. in 1984 --

KERRY: no . we made no distinction back then, charlie. we made no distinction.

GIBSON: senator, i don't want -- i just want to ask the question. in 1984 when you were running for the senate, that was the first time that you called someone in from labor because they were upset that you had thrown ribbons away.

KERRY: no.

GIBSON: you called them and you made the distinction and said i didn't throw my medals away. i just threw the ribbons away. you made the distinction.

KERRY: i was asked specifically in greater detail about what took place. i answered the question truthfully. which is consistent with what happened in 1971. i mean, charlie, go back and get the file footage. there are were millions of people watching. i took my ribbons off my chest just as other veterans did. this is a phony controversy. this is being pushed yesterday by karen hughes of the white house on fox. it shows up at a several different stations at the same time. the republicans are running $10 million this week to attack my credentials on defense. this comes from a president who can't even show or prove that he showed up for duty in the national guard.

GIBSON: senator --

KERRY: i'm not going to stand for it. i'm in the going to stand for it.

GIBSON: i-understand you are feeling politics is behind this. but i ask you, is it not --

KERRY: i know politics is behind this.

GIBSON: when trying to appeal to the anti-war people in 1971, you said as in that interview, it was the medals and then when the people who supported the war were giving you political problems, you then said i didn't throw the medals away 13 years later.

KERRY: that's the most -- with all due respect, that's the most ridiculous thing i have ever heard. because i stood up in front of the country, in front of cameras, a reporter of the ""boston globe"" got it correct . he wrote about the medals but knew they were my ribbons. everybody understood what we were doing. i even said in that interview we threw away the symbols of what our country gave us for what we had gone through. and if i was -- you know, back then, trying to appeal to somebody, i stood up against richard nixon, stood up against the withar, took a position, and it wasn't popular, and it was polarizing. i didn't have to do it. if i was trying to hide something, i would have never stood there in floment of everybody and thrown them over the fence. i threw my ribbons over. i threw the medals of two veterans who asked me to throw them over, after the ceremony, completely separate, and i'm the one -- if hi something to hide, i'm the one who made it known exactly what happened. to me, it is one in the same. and i'm proud of it.

GIBSON: let me ask you, too, about two other things that you have said. subsequent to that. 1985, you said to ""the washington post,"" it is such a personal thing i did no want to throw my medals away. then 1996, you said to the ""boston globe,"" i didn't bring my own medals to throw because i didn't have time to go home and get them. which one was it?

KERRY: i expressed there was great sense of wrench being the whole thing. many of us -- we had a long argument the night before, charlie. it is a matter of record. as to how we were going to do it. and the vote was taken. i was not in favor of throwing them over the fence. i thought we ought to lay them on a table and put them in front of people in a way that, you know, wouldn't be as challenging to many americans. other veterans felt otherwise. they took a vote. the vote was made, they voted to throw. i threw my ribbons. i didn't have my medals. it is very simple . what the republicans are trying to do is make this into an issue because they have no record to run on and they can't go out and talk about jobs or health care or environment. they are going to attack 35 years ago. last week in an unprecedented attack, they sent congressmen to the floor of the senate of the house to attack me on the anniversary of my speech. george bush has yet to explain to america whether or no t to tell the truth about whether he showed up for duty. i'm not going to get attack order something i did that's a matter of record that the press saw, that i did in front of the entire nation and everyone then understood there was no distinction. we threw away the symbols of the war. i'm proud i stood up and fought stood up and fought against it. proud i took on richard nixon. and i think to this day, there's no distinction between the two.

GIBSON: all right. senator, i appreciate your being with us this morning. i'm glad to have you here. thank you. all the best. diane?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OUCH!

[kg_veteran]

That's pathetic. He made an ass of himself.

[kg_veteran]

I notice a strange resemblance here...






John Kerry is sad. Sad that they caught him lying....again.

[jacktruth]

I'm actually quite shocked that ABC news wasn't kissing democrat butt like they usually do.

[Dooby]

I am struggling for a funny caption here. How about "Sen. John Forbes Kerry (D) seen here with a search party, continues to search for medals he did not throw away." Or "Sen. John Forbes Kerry (D) talks with supporters after yet another failed attempt to find out what his positions truly are."

[reeds]

Well- at least Kerry can prove he fought for his country- can BUSH??? Is there proof BUSH even showed up for duty in the big bad "National Guard"....

You guys crack me up... Bashing Kerry over something like this..when he was in real combat in VIETNAM- unlike your whimpy leader who was in the National Guard...what do Marines call national guard people anyway? I know the answer.....hahahahaha

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: reeds
Well- at least Kerry can prove he fought for his country- can BUSH??? Is there proof BUSH even showed up for duty in the big bad "National Guard"....

Wow, great retort. That really makes us feel silly for mocking Kerry after he was caught in a lie.

You guys crack me up... Bashing Kerry over something like this..

Figures you'd minimize it. The guy is an opportunist who takes whatever position he thinks will benefit him at the moment. Too bad he can't keep his stories straight.

[reeds]

it should make u feel silly..it wont, but it should....i would rather be accused of throwing my medals I recieved than being in the big bad national guard where I never even earned any medals....thats my point

[MavKikiNYC]

My mom had that hairstyle in 1971. Still does.

[u2sarajevo]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran
The guy(Kerry) is an opportunist who takes whatever position he thinks will benefit him at the moment.

That sound eerily similar to a US President that served in that role from 92-2000.

Just say no to crack.

[MavKikiNYC]

That was a really dirty trick, too, Ape to post the transcript of Kerry's own words. He's incomprehensible, although you can tell that he wants to talk about Bush's serivce record, and that he (Kerry) is not going to stand for something or other.

The liberal Dim press thought they were so clever back with Bush41, mocking his syntax and often pointing to transcripts of his interviews or press conferences. Anyone knows that extemporaenous speech does not translate well to the written word, but it's nice to see this being used against a Democrat instead of against a Bush.

Kerry is, in a different way, as bad a speaker as Bush43 is. Kerry delivers his speeches like a straining graduate of the Lieberman Institute for Constipated Elocution (LICE). When he finally evacuates his message, the stench of incomprehensibility soon follows.

[reeds]

"Kerry delivers his speeches like a straining graduate of the Lieberman Institute for Constipated Elocution (LICE). When he finally evacuates his message, the stench of incomprehensibility soon follows."

Did you happen to watch the last press conference with BUSH??? He is equally as bad trying to think of answers that he has no clue about..I was even embarrassed for him...terrible..he may be able to give a good speech, but he chokes big time when he has to think for himself...we shall see in a debate...Kerry will dominate

[FishForLunch]

Yes it will be interesting to watch the debate, where Kerry goes on and on, while Bush answers the questions put to him and is to the point.

What did you think during the 2000 election when you liberals went on and on how Gore was so smart and he will wipe the floor with Bush. All Gore did was look like a fool.

I am waiting for the debates too, to watch the pompus A-hole lecture us on how Bush is wrong and evil, and how the country is collapsing because of bush.

[madape]

Originally posted by: reeds
"Kerry delivers his speeches like a straining graduate of the Lieberman Institute for Constipated Elocution (LICE). When he finally evacuates his message, the stench of incomprehensibility soon follows."

Did you happen to watch the last press conference with BUSH??? He is equally as bad trying to think of answers that he has no clue about..I was even embarrassed for him...terrible..he may be able to give a good speech, but he chokes big time when he has to think for himself...we shall see in a debate...Kerry will dominate

Kerry can't even win a debate with himself. His opponents don't even need to come up with counter-points to any of his arguments. Kerry has already done them the service!

[reeds]

"All Gore did was look like a fool."...All Gore did was win the popular vote....hahahahahahaha....Bush cant even do that right

[dude1394]

Well there is no accounting for the intelligence of the voter. Even snl knew he was a fool. Bush didn't win the popular vote but what he would say is ......SCOREBOARD dude.

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: reeds
"All Gore did was look like a fool."...All Gore did was win the popular vote....hahahahahahaha....Bush cant even do that right

I'm glad you are able to console yourself with this sad and hollow 'moral victory'.

What a patheticly sore loser you are.

[Drbio]

Originally posted by: madape


I thought this was funny.

Yep. I got an email today asking me who I would rather have as the nations quarterback. Then these two pics come up.

classic.

[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...