Hypocrites and American politics

[SlowwHand]

Just came to post this, but thanks anyway for your suggestion.

5:06 p.m. CT, Mon., June. 30, 2008

WASHINGTON - Democrat Barack Obama rejected a retired general's suggestion that Republican John McCain's military experience didn't necessarily qualify him to be president, as GOP surrogates lined up to label the remarks indecent and disrespectful.

A day after retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark, now an Obama supporter, discussed McCain's experience as a Navy pilot and prisoner of war in Vietnam on a Sunday talk show, his remarks set off the pattern that has become familiar from innumerable earlier flaps over surrogate remarks during the presidential election year: The candidates, Obama and McCain, took the high road while the bare-knuckled language was left to their surrogates.

At a news conference here Monday, McCain himself said of Clark's comment, "That kind of thing is unnecessary" and distracts from real pocketbook issues voters care about.

About the same time, Obama told an audience in Independence, Mo., that McCain had "endured physical torment in service to our country" and "no one should ever devalue that service, especially for the sake of a political campaign, and that goes for supporters on both sides."

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
Obama has spent the day rejecting Clark's comments.

Please. You can't believe he doesn't have a hand in all this. Especially since this isn't the first time something like this has happened. The best part is that he gets to "reject" the comments he likely encouraged and look good to rubes like yourself.

[DRoseDARs]

Oh come on Slowwy! I spent 30 whole seconds working in the Texas football angle. Say something back!

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Please. You can't believe he doesn't have a hand in all this. Especially since this isn't the first time something like this has happened. The best part is that he gets to "reject" the comments he likely encouraged.

I never said one way or another. And frankly, I could care less, though I wish Obama WOULD attack McCain, both by himself and through surrogates, Lord knows McCain has offered so many juicy ways of doing so.

[Patroklos]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080630/D91KN5800.html

Clark has said as much before, but drew little notice. CBS moderator Bob Schieffer cited Clark's earlier remarks and noted that Obama hadn't had those experiences either nor had he ridden in a fighter plane and been shot down. "Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president," Clark replied.

Oh God, talk about shooting yourself in the foot. Not only do you make yourself and Obama look like complete jackasses by attempting (and utterly failing) to impune the spotless record (unlike Kerry) of a military hero, but you also highlight and unintentionally add weight, substance and air time to the very attributes you were attempting to denegrate (when your opponent wasn't really waving them around anyway!) while at the same time making it painfully obvious your own candidate has none of them. Self pwnage at is its best

Whats next Clark, are you going to attack McCain for having his own son fight in the war?

In any event, this pretty much negates any value Clark had in lending Obama some military street credit. Sinks him as a VP candidate as well.

And btw, does Clark know McCain retired as an O-6? I guess the majority of US military personel who served from 91-01 that had no combat experiance are worthless to Clark too. Good to know, I wonder what Obama has to say about that? He can backpedal for Clark all he wants, but veteran's are cranky people and it will do him no good.

And Mr. Fun, there was absolutely nothing wrong with pointing out Kerry's war record was crap. Kerry had no qualms about do that himself in the front of the Senate, as well as talking trash about a good 3 million + Americans who served there. As Sloww pointed out, there is a reason the vast majority of veterans assosiations and individual veterans themselves turned thier backs on him.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Aside from the fact that Kerry's war record was not crap, you mean.

There is, after all, a reason that "swiftboating" is a political term meaning a nasty, unjustified smear.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs


I never said one way or another. And frankly, I could care less, though I wish Obama WOULD attack McCain, both by himself and through surrogates, Lord knows McCain has offered so many juicy ways of doing so.

That would be "couldn't care less". So much for your theories on Texas education.

[Patroklos]

Aside from the fact that Kerry's war record was not crap, you mean.

Do you know anyone in the military who put themselves up for an award, and meritless purple hearts no less? I do, and like any veteran can tell you that lets me know all I need to about Kerry. But hell, I guess every major veterans group in the US were just unwitting pawns, right?

And the Senate thing undoes anything he did in Vietnam, even if it had been model service.

There is, after all, a reason that "swiftboating" is a political term meaning a nasty, unjustified smear.

It means that because thats what the left considers it, regardless of fact. Which part of Kerry's service record were they wrong about? Remember, smears don't have to be false.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Here is an incredibly well cited wiki article which shows most of the swiftboating was a bunch of bull****:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerry_military_service_controversy

Do you know anyone in the military who put themselves up for an award, and meritless purple hearts no less? I do, and like any veteran can tell you that lets me know all I need to about Kerry. But hell, I guess every major veterans group in the US were just unwitting pawns, right?

How about the ones who were actually on the actual swift boat with Kerry instead of those who were on adjacent ones making the unjustified attacks?

And the Senate thing undoes anything he did in Vietnam, even if it had been model service.

What, you mean arguing against an unjustified and genocidal war?


As linked in the wiki article, the Navy IG's investigation disclosed:

In September 2004, Vice Admiral Ronald A. Route, the Navy Inspector General, completed a review of Kerry's combat medals, initiated at the request of Judicial Watch. In a memo to the Secretary of the Navy, Gordon England, Route stated [77]:

Our examination found that existing documentation regarding the Silver Star, Bronze Star and Purple Heart medals indicates the awards approval process was properly followed. In particular, the senior officers who awarded the medals were properly delegated authority to do so. In addition, we found that they correctly followed the procedures in place at the time for approving these awards.

Conducting any additional review regarding events that took place over 30 years ago would not be productive. The passage of time would make reconstruction of the facts and circumstances unreliable, and would not allow the information gathered to be considered in the context of the time in which the events took place.

Our review also considered the fact that Senator Kerry's post-active duty activities were public and that military and civilian officials were aware of his actions at the time. For these reasons, I have determined that Senator Kerry's awards were properly approved and will take no further action in this matter.

On September 23, 2004, Judicial Watch appealed on the basis that "no specific documentary examples ... were cited or offered as exhibits" in the Navy Inspector General's letter of reply to Judicial Watch. [78] Judicial Watch also filed a Freedom of Information Act request for documentation of the investigation. On October 4, 2004 the Navy Inspector General's office responded with documentation of the investigation. [79]

Included within the Navy Inspector General's documentation was a discussion of the duplicate medal citations Kerry had received in 1985:

.. .[I]t is apparent that duplicate citations issued under then-Secretary Lehman's and others' signatures in June 1985 were in response to a request from Senator Kerry or his office. . . . [T]here is considerable correspondence indicating efforts over the years to chase down various citations, etc. The citations under Secretary Lehman's name appear to have been signed by a machine, which would explain why he now doesn't recall any involvement. [80]

In an October 5, 2004 letter to Judicial Watch, Secretary England deferred to the Navy Inspector General's authority as the investigating officer, and declined to initiate a separate review. [81]

On October 12, 2004, Judicial Watch released comments on the Navy Inspector General's decision and response [82].

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by SlowwHand

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
I never said one way or another. And frankly, I could care less, though I wish Obama WOULD attack McCain, both by himself and through surrogates, Lord knows McCain has offered so many juicy ways of doing so.

That would be "couldn't care less". So much for your theories on Texas education.

Case in point on the failings of the Texas education as exhibited by Slowwy: I explicitly stated I could care less, meaning not having any opinion on the matter, and yet I immediately presented after that an opinion on the matter showing that I had at least some interest in the matter, all in the same sentence.

You, and the Texas education system, fail.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I believe that Kerry's Purple Heart was the main bone of contention ("meritless" as some right wing mouthbreathers hear have put it).

I'll link the wiki article here for those unwilling to go there:

Some SBVT members have questioned Kerry's first Purple Heart, received for a wound sustained on December 2, 1968. Kerry remained on duty after being wounded, and sought treatment at the following day's sick call. They assert that the injury was too minor to merit a citation because the only treatment Kerry received, after the removal of a piece of shrapnel from his arm, was bacitracin (an antibiotic) and a bandage, and he returned to service immediately; however, other division members, including at least one SBVT member, received Purple Hearts under similar circumstances (ReportsAwards). SBVT also claims that the wound was not from enemy fire but was from shrapnel of a grenade he fired himself [1], a claim unsupported by anyone actually there.

The criteria for the Purple Heart call for its award for any injury received during combat requiring treatment by a medical officer; the military makes no distinction regarding the severity of the injury. Under military regulations, the Purple Heart is awarded for "friendly fire" wounds in the "heat of battle", so long as the fire is targeted "under full intent of inflicting damage or destroying enemy troops or equipment."

An article in the Boston Globe described the circumstances in which Purple Hearts were given to wounded soldiers in Vietnam:

"'There were an awful lot of Purple Hearts — from shrapnel; some of those might have been M-40 grenades,' said George Elliott, Kerry's commanding officer. 'The Purple Hearts were coming down in boxes. Kerry, he had three Purple Hearts. None of them took him off duty. Not to belittle it, that was more the rule than the exception." [2]

In Douglas Brinkley's book Tour of Duty: John Kerry and the Vietnam War, Brinkley notes that Purple Hearts were given out frequently:

"As generally understood, the Purple Heart is given to any U.S. citizen wounded in wartime service to the nation. Giving out Purple Hearts increased as the United States started sending Swifts up rivers. Sailors — no longer safe on aircraft carriers or battleships in the Gulf of Tonkin — were starting to bleed, a lot."

And according to the Los Angeles Times:

"Navy rules during the Vietnam War governing Purple Hearts did not take into account a wound's severity — and specified only that injuries had to be suffered 'in action against an enemy.'"

"Self-inflicted wounds were awarded if incurred 'in the heat of battle, and not involving gross negligence.' Kerry's critics insist his wound would not have qualified, but former Navy officials who worked in the service's awards branch at the time said such awards were routine."

"A Times review of Navy injury reports and awards from that period in Kerry's Swift boat unit shows that many other Swift boat personnel won Purple Hearts for slight wounds of uncertain origin." [La Granga and Braun, Los Angeles Times, Aug. 17, 2004]

In an SBVT television ad, Dr. Lewis Letson asserted, "I know John Kerry is lying about his first Purple Heart because I treated him for that injury," but did not specify the alleged lie. Kerry's medical records list a medic, J. C. Carreon, as the "person administering treatment" for this wound. Dr. Letson's name does not appear on the record, but Letson claimed it was common for medics to sign the paperwork even though Letson would treat the patient. That claim cannot be verified as Carreon died in 1992.

On the night in question, Kerry was not on a Swift boat, but on a 15-foot skimmer. Kerry opened fire on suspected guerrillas on the shore. During this encounter, Kerry suffered a shrapnel wound in the left arm above the elbow. Accounts differ over the crew aboard the skimmer, the source of Kerry's injury - Kerry has stated that he does not know where the shrapnel came from [3] — and several other major details.

James Wasser, who later became Kerry's radarman on PCF 44, was serving as an interpreter on board-and-search missions at the time; on the night of December 2 he was on the Swift boat accompanying the skimmer, interrogating fishermen picked up by the skimmer (Tour of Duty, pp. 156-158).

SBVT's claims about the incident are primarily based on an account by retired Rear Admiral William Schachte, then a Lieutenant. Schachte has stated that he regularly led training missions for recently arrived officers such as Kerry. One tactic described by Schachte was for a Swift boat to tow the skimmer to the target area and wait nearby. The skimmer, manned by three people, "would go in, draw fire and get out immediately." The waiting Swift boats or air support would attack the enemies thus detected. Schachte stated that he had participated in all previous skimmer missions up to and including the night Kerry was injured, although the latter claim could not be substantiated. [4][5]

In an interview in 2003, Schachte made no mention of being on the skimmer with Kerry that night; in addition, he described the action as a "firefight" and said of Kerry, "He got hit." [6] In August 2004, however, Schachte stated that he was the senior officer on Kerry's skimmer that night, with one enlisted man also on board, that he popped a flare after detecting movement, and opened fire. He stated that there was no return fire, and that Kerry was "nicked" by a fragment from an M-79 grenade launcher he fired himself. [7] Moreover, while Schacte has described Kerry as, at the time, a "rookie [who] would never be put in command" of a skimmer mission [8], Kerry was actually given command of a Swift boat and crew just three days after the skimmer mission and sent into a combat area[9].

Kerry crewmates Bill Zaladonis and Patrick Runyon dispute Schachte's 2004 account. Zaladonis stated that "Myself, Pat Runyon, and John Kerry, we were the only ones in the skimmer." [10] Runyon added, "Me and Bill aren't the smartest, but we can count to three." They recounted that the skimmer opened fire on suspected guerrillas attempting to evade the patrol, as they ran from sampan boats onto the shore. Both Runyon and Zaladonis believe, but are not completely certain, that the skimmer received return hostile fire; Runyon commented, "It was the scariest night of my life." Runyon also stated that he is "100 percent certain" that no one on the boat fired a grenade launcher. [11] [12] Zaladonis has noted that Schachte went on "a bunch of" other skimmer missions and speculated that Schachte might have inadvertently mixed up his dates. [13]

SBVT member Grant Hibbard, who was Kerry's commander at the time, has claimed that Kerry came to him the morning after the incident, after he had been to sick bay, stating that he was eligible for a Purple Heart [14] . No one has claimed to have witnessed this conversation. Hibbard has also claimed that he denied Kerry’s request and does not know how the award eventually came to be granted, although he had initially stated that he acquiesced on the matter of the award [15]. The presentation letter for the award was dated February 28, 1969 [16].

In addition, Hibbard stated in "Unfit for Command" (Chapter 3) that he had been told that "our units had fired on some VC units running on the beach," which if true would meet the criteria for the Purple Heart.

SBVT also points to the narration of a subsequent event in Tour of Duty (pp. 188-189). Brinkley opens the account of a four-day cruise by telling us how "Kerry — who had just turned 25 on December 11, 1968 — was a fine leader of his men". He goes on to quote Kerry's reflections in his notebook: "A cocky feeling of invincibility accompanied us up the Long Tau shipping channel because we hadn't been shot at yet, and Americans at war who haven't been shot at are allowed to be cocky." SBVT argues that this journal entry shows that the incident could not have involved enemy fire. [17] Others argue that Kerry was referring to ambushes, a common misfortune for Swift boats which Kerry had not yet suffered, or to the crew collectively, as he used the term "we" instead of "I," and most of his crewmembers clearly had been "shot at" before.

[Patroklos]

Here is an incredibly well cited wiki article which shows the swiftboating was a bunch of bull****:

Knowing that was where you would go first, I just read that article and it acutally clearly shows that it was not BS, and rather quite the opposite.

The Christmas Eve incident is an excellent point of the swiftboat incidents being factually true, with Kerry pretending his own biographer is proof

How about the ones who were actually on the actual swift boat with Kerry instead of those who were on adjacent ones making the unjustified attacks?

Again using the Christmas Eve example, the swiftboat person who refuted that was proven to be on Kerry's crew, and all the official Navy documents support him.

What, you mean arguing against an unjustified and genocidal war?

Obviously you don't know exactly what was said, and more importantly who he had to brown nose to get the opportunity to do so. Luckly for you the Amercan Legion and others were more thourough, and they are not exaclty Republican owned.

I believe that Kerry's Purple Heart was the main bone of contention

It is, and that article doens't exonerate Kerry, it actually highlights how easy it was to abuse the system back then. Which of course was not uncommon in all sorts of spheres those days, but then again all those people were not trying to bouy a presidential campaign on that abuse (some would say inoccent abuse) either.

I want you to find a US infantrymen in Iraq with three purple hearts. Of those with even one, ask them if they got it for an aid station sickcall flesh wound. You Imran, as a civilain, might find Kerry's feats impressive but veterans don't/didn't. Thats just because relative to what they know it isn't, it would be something to jokingly laugh at him about at the VA over friendly conversation.

And thats what happened. Personally, I have no problem with him getting purple hearts per say, but not all Purple Hearts were created equal. Niether is service. I am proud of my personal service, but I know damn well it isn't anything to hang a presidential candacy on, and Kerry's wasn't either.

[Agathon]

I explicitly stated I could care less, meaning not having any opinion on the matter

You bastard!!

You, and your entire barbarous nation, are murderers and rapists of the English language. In English it is "could not care less", which means "I could not care less than I currently do". In other words, I have the lowest possible interest. "I could care less" means just the opposite.

By saying "could care less" you make yourself look like a cretin. Words have meanings... use them.

/rant over

[Wiglaf]

It's called sarcasm, go jizz off. I hope that you are arrested on some trumped up charge and spend the rest of your life behind bars insisting you are innocent but like cassandra are ignored because of physical uglyness.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Knowing that was where you would go first, I just read that article and it acutally clearly shows that it was not BS, and rather quite the opposite.

The Christmas Eve incident is an excellent point of the swiftboat incidents being factually true, with Kerry pretending his own biographer is proof

Wait a second... so you take the least hyped upon (by the SBVT) Swift Boat incident and use that to show the SBVT were correct?! What about how they were ripped apart in criticizing Kerry's Purple Heart, or Silver Star, or Bronze Star?

I see you also ignore:

In the book, O'Neill argued that a Swift boat commander would have been "seriously disciplined or court-martialed" for crossing the Cambodian border. Critics point out the inconsistency between this description and O'Neill's own claims documented in a conversation with President Nixon in 1971:

O'Neill: I was in Cambodia, sir. I worked along the border on the water.
Nixon : In a Swift boat?
O'Neill: Yes, sir. [68]