[EdGreene]

There is a general wailing & knashing of teeth among Republicans with the release of Kerry's records. What will they have to carp about now?

Kerry Military Records -- High Praise, Combat Kills
Wed Apr 21, 6:37 PM ET Add Politics - Reuters to My Yahoo!

By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (news - web sites)'s military records, released on Wednesday after critics questioned one of his medals, show he was a highly praised commander credited with killing at least 20 enemy soldiers.

· Kerry Highly Praised in Military Records
AP - 1 hour, 51 minutes ago

The records, posted on the campaign's Web site, include effusive evaluations of Kerry's service and previously released citations for the Silver Star, Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts he earned in the Vietnam War.

Kerry, who served as a swiftboat commander in Vietnam's Mekong Delta in 1968 and 1969 during his second tour of duty, "frequently exhibited a high sense of imagination and judgment in planning operations against the enemy," according to a January 1969 evaluation by a supervisor.

The report noted Kerry "exhibited all of the traits desired of an officer in a combat environment" and was "unofficially credited with 20 enemy killed in action."

Other reports from command school and officer evaluations described him as "a highly talented, polished and professional naval officer" and "highly intelligent, well read and skilled.'

The more than 100 pages of records were released by the campaign under pressure from Republicans after one of Kerry's former commanders questioned his first Purple Heart and the severity of the shrapnel wound to Kerry's arm.

Regulations governing Purple Hearts, given for injuries caused by enemy action, do not specify a level of severity for the wounds. Navy records showed Kerry had shrapnel removed from his arm.

Kerry has made his military service during the Vietnam War a centerpiece of his campaign against President Bush (news - web sites). He said last week Republicans who never served in the military, like Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) and White House political adviser Karl Rove, should not question his patriotism by criticizing his defense record.

BUSH RECORD

Bush was forced in February to surrender his National Guard files from the Vietnam War period to try to stamp out election-year charges from Democrats that he shirked his duty.

Those documents offered no new evidence to place Bush in Alabama during the latter part of 1972, the period when Democrats claimed he was basically absent without leave.

Democrats said the release of Kerry's files should put an end to Republican charges against the Massachusetts senator.

"Kerry has a proud record of sacrifice and service, whereas Bush has a record of cashed-in connections and evasion," said Terry McAuliffe, head of the Democratic National Committee (news - web sites).

Republicans said they had simply questioned Kerry's initial refusal to make the records available because he claimed on "Meet the Press" on Sunday that all of his military records were open for inspection.

"We hope that he has now made good on his pledge and made all of his records available," said Christine Iverson, spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee (news - web sites).

The records include a variety of mundane forms and transfer papers along with evaluations. One officer, endorsing Kerry's request for release from active duty in November 1969, said he "has made an exemplary record while serving his country ashore and afloat."

One evaluation from a 10-week command course in California ranked Kerry, who eventually rose to lieutenant, 17th out of a class of 33. In another document, then Ensign Kerry asks for a transfer to swiftboat command after a stint on the USS Gridley.

"I consider the opportunity to serve in Vietnam an extremely important part of being in the armed forces and believe that my request is in the best interests of the Navy," Kerry wrote.

[Ciberblade]

[WarC]

Well, if he's elected president, here's hoping he leads countries like he fights wars.

And fights our war like he fought that one!

[Rep]

Yes, it is refreshing to know that Kerry served, served well, and with dignity.

[ComputerFix]

...and was so proud of his service that he......

[Infidel_Kastro]

Can anyone succinctly, wothout any type of partisan rhetoric, explain why these military records are important? the past is the past, and being former military does not necessarily make you a better President, it means you served in the armed forces of our country.
So, what is the relevance besides just to give petty ammo and something to disagree on?

[plschwartz]

from CF:

....forgot to have his teeth fixed at gov't expence (?)

[ComputerFix]

Originally Posted by infidel_kast

Can anyone succinctly, wothout any type of partisan rhetoric, explain why these military records are important? the past is the past, and being former military does not necessarily make you a better President, it means you served in the armed forces of our country.
So, what is the relevance besides just to give petty ammo and something to disagree on?

To try to be simple about it (it isn't a simple explanation)


Because the Commander in Chief is just that, only there is no provision for service. Traditionally, the ones who command you (as a "grunt") were so themselves at one time. One cannot join the armed forces as a general, so to speak, but they can, however, be made CiC without ever having served a day. Like anything else, psychologically speaking, there is a bit more....trust?...when you are told to do something by someone who has done it themselves. Practical experience is still highly regarded, and more so in this case.

As for the claims of AWOL against Bush, it is insulting if that is what he did. There is supposed to be a certain amount of altruism to government service, even President. For the good of the country and all that jazz. If you "jumped ship" from responsibility then, there is concern about where the loyalty lies now. This is further compounded by his holding to it, and I believe at one time he made a comment about actually being in Vietnam, which I also believe is not substantiated. For many, and I would bet particularly veterans like Ed, the thread starter, that is more than sneaky, it is darn insulting.

As for my insinuation, despite PL's attempt at humor, Kerry was quite upset at being a part of Vietnam, tossed his (or someone elses) medals away, wrote a book, and all in all distanced himself from his involvement, using it only in the sense that "he was there" and therefore qualified to say what he did (and I agree with such a stance, to this point). That is, until it was time to run for Pres, particularly against Bush and the public's concern over his service. Now he embraces "his experience" (see his quote). On this side of the fence there is very real concern about Kerry's sincerity. Now that his service is beneficial (see remark about being "centerpiece of campaign") he hugs it like an old friend. No one likes a fair weather fan, in sports or otherwise. In the same fashion as the thread title, from here it seems that Kerry is "putting on a flight suit" as well.


So why would any of that matter? Back to the beginning, you now command our entire military arsenal. If you couldn't cut it (or respect it) at the bottom, why should you be at the top?

[Infidel_Kastro]

Originally Posted by ComputerFix

To try to be simple about it (it isn't a simple explanation)


Because the Commander in Chief is just that, only there is no provision for service. Traditionally, the ones who command you (as a "grunt") were so themselves at one time. One cannot join the armed forces as a general, so to speak, but they can, however, be made CiC without ever having served a day. Like anything else, psychologically speaking, there is a bit more....trust?...when you are told to do something by someone who has done it themselves. Practical experience is still highly regarded, and more so in this case.

As for the claims of AWOL against Bush, it is insulting if that is what he did. There is supposed to be a certain amount of altruism to government service, even President. For the good of the country and all that jazz. If you "jumped ship" from responsibility then, there is concern about where the loyalty lies now. This is further compounded by his holding to it, and I believe at one time he made a comment about actually being in Vietnam, which I also believe is not substantiated. For many, and I would bet particularly veterans like Ed, the thread starter, that is more than sneaky, it is darn insulting.

As for my insinuation, despite PL's attempt at humor, Kerry was quite upset at being a part of Vietnam, tossed his (or someone elses) medals away, wrote a book, and all in all distanced himself from his involvement, using it only in the sense that "he was there" and therefore qualified to say what he did (and I agree with such a stance, to this point). That is, until it was time to run for Pres, particularly against Bush and the public's concern over his service. Now he embraces "his experience" (see his quote). On this side of the fence there is very real concern about Kerry's sincerity. Now that his service is beneficial (see remark about being "centerpiece of campaign") he hugs it like an old friend. No one likes a fair weather fan, in sports or otherwise. In the same fashion as the thread title, from here it seems that Kerry is "putting on a flight suit" as well.


So why would any of that matter? Back to the beginning, you now command our entire military arsenal. If you couldn't cut it (or respect it) at the bottom, why should you be at the top?

OK, we're getting there. you made some really good points, however, and with me, we know there is usually a however, the CiC is supposed to be a civilian. Being the CiC is just ONE of the responsibilites of being President, and lets be honest, he is there to green light plans, but I doubt he would actually be involved in anything more than just an administrator, I think the Presidents would be more likely to listen to their attaches and the Joint Chiefs.
We are going to run into this problem less and less in the years ahead because the draft ended. Every President that has a military background in the last few years was drafted, the only one I can think off of the top of my head that wasn't was Ike, but he was required to go into the military because he graduated from West Point.
So what will we do in my generation, a generation that was alive during the Viet Nam war, although I was born in '72, but never had to face the draft, not that I would have shirked my duty. When I run for office, is this going to affect my qualifications? Will I get trumped by someone who served four years, or is it really only relevant during war time? What if I served 10 years and never saw combat or served during a time of conflict?
I think this attitude, not necessarily calling you out CF, that our Presidents military history is relevant. Even I will say it was alot different then, the climate has changed dramitically since Viet NAm, and I think we need to take that into consideration before we delve into the relevance of records.
As far as Kerry being a fair weather friend, he honestly sounds like a politician, tahst all, they'll say what needs to be said when it needs to be said, I am more afraid of his plans and how much they are going to cost me.

[ComputerFix]

Well, you only have me by a couple/few years, so we are one in the same. My personal feeling, I see difference between not having served and "serving without serving". There are, I know, even veterans of Vietnam who simply were not deployed into combat. No one harbors ill will, because it is assumed they did not influence their not being there. Some end up on the jungle floor, others at a supply station in a guard house. Ultimately, the bottom line there is that there is a difference between not serving and ducking service. Would you run into a problem? You may, because while but a part of the job, it is quite a significant part. No soldier fires a bullet or is put in front of one without the order to be there, and that comes from the top. If you ducked (the bad form), is it not hypocritical to ask another to do what you deliberately avoided doing? (as opposed to simply not being asked to) For some it is a non issue. Like my Senator here in AZ. McCain served, there is no question or doubt upon his service, how he viewed it (despite the war it was in) and what he went thru. Really it was and remains a non-issue. Issue only comes out of contraversy in facts.

Yes, he (Kerry) does sound like a politician, but if this is our forshadowing as to how he behaves, than you should be more than just afraid of what his plans may "cost" you, money or otherwise.

Think of it like a resume, a lack of certain experiences, while maybe not benificial, may also not be detremental, but a "questionable entry" will burn you every time. IMO, both of them do appear to have questionable entries. (one about being genuine, the other about how it is being presented)

[Infidel_Kastro]

Originally Posted by ComputerFix

Well, you only have me by a couple/few years, so we are one in the same. My personal feeling, I see difference between not having served and "serving without serving". There are, I know, even veterans of Vietnam who simply were not deployed into combat. No one harbors ill will, because it is assumed they did not influence their not being there. Some end up on the jungle floor, others at a supply station in a guard house. Ultimately, the bottom line there is that there is a difference between not serving and ducking service. Would you run into a problem? You may, because while but a part of the job, it is quite a significant part. No soldier fires a bullet or is put in front of one without the order to be there, and that comes from the top. If you ducked (the bad form), is it not hypocritical to ask another to do what you deliberately avoided doing? (as opposed to simply not being asked to) For some it is a non issue. Like my Senator here in AZ. McCain served, there is no question or doubt upon his service, how he viewed it (despite the war it was in) and what he went thru. Really it was and remains a non-issue. Issue only comes out of contraversy in facts.

Yes, he (Kerry) does sound like a politician, but if this is our forshadowing as to how he behaves, than you should be more than just afraid of what his plans may "cost" you, money or otherwise.

Think of it like a resume, a lack of certain experiences, while maybe not benificial, may also not be detremental, but a "questionable entry" will burn you every time. IMO, both of them do appear to have questionable entries. (one about being genuine, the other about how it is being presented)

[Ciberblade]

WoW...looks like the issue is on the other foot, I remember when Clinton was running for office there were similar discussions -- only then it was a party reversal

[pyritechips]

Thanks for the clearly written explanation CF!

infidel_kast anticipated my own question. For some time now I have been meaning to ask the American members here about the apparently large amount of ex-military members that join, and are sucessful in, politics. That is contrary to the Canadian system, where hardly any ex-military personnel enter politics.

I was just curious.

* Back to topic. *

[EdGreene]

Computerfix says:

No soldier fires a bullet or is put in front of one without the order to be there,

Not quite correct. Some of us are three, some four times volunteers.
First time for the Service of choice.
Second, our combat arm of choice
Third, Airborne School, which only takes volunteers
Fourth, Special Ops Training: Army Special Forces, Army Ranger, Air Force Air Commando, SEALS, Recondo and the like.

We join to serve and fight if necessary. We expect to advance to the rank of Non-Commissioned Officer (E-5 Sergeant) at least and very quickly.
Officer volunteers expect to rise to combat commander.
Officers without combat experience (Infantry) or a successful combat command, never make General/Admiral.

Army volunteers train for and expect combat and all expect to earn the cherished CIB (Combat Infantry Badge) (The big blue and silver rifle badge surrounded by a silver wreath) you see most Army Generals wear.
That man holds high esteem among his peers, officer or enlisted (The ultimate "Good ole boys club")

Perhaps in some distant future, when we combat veterans no longer hold so much sway over the politics of this country, it might not matter one whit who served and who didn't. Right now it does; matter that is.

Kerry matters: Dubya doesn't

[slickoe]

As a disabled Marine vet of Desert Storm, I am most impressed with Kerrey's decision to VOLUNTEER for his second tour in Nam, which gave him swiftboat duty. That says all I need to know about the mans dedication and character, which is the real issue here regarding military service. That he headed an antiwar faction after coming home knowing full well the wrath he would incur says even more about his character and his idealism as well, and his willingness to make sacrifice. Any digs at his subsequent political career are irrelevant as serving in political office requires compromise and extreme pragmatism. Funny how mulder has steered clear of this thread so far; must be because this is such a cut and dried case of the GOP coming up short by a country mile, so we don't have to listen to one of his his smug, superior and snotty "of course I am always correct" diatribes. Kerrey is a politician and as such is no means perfect, and is a product of his class and the current DC environment, but will be a man of his word as much as the GOP controlled congress will allow, provided they don't engage in an 8 year campaign of merciless character assassination and phony "scandals" (travelgate, filegate, vince foster, tarmac haircuts, and decades old land deals) beginning within mere days of his inauguration. In november I am going to leave my house and WHEEL myself to the pools to vote for this brave fighting man.