"The New Soldier" by John Kerry et al

In article ,
Scott MacEachern wrote:

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 16:08:30 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:

He wants to be considered a Vietnam war hero, yet he condemned the
US soldiers, airmen, and sailors who fought there as being war criminals

Yup, he's said that some were war criminals. That wasn 't the case?

He's gone a bit further than that, depending on when and to whom he has
been speaking.

He's gone so far as to say that such behavior was widespread, that it
was a matter of policy, and that it was known to officers at all levels,
implying that it was condoned as a normal matter.

"S. Sampson" wrote in message
news:9byXb.20765$Q_4.19607@okepread03...
"Admin" wrote

[snip]

BTW, Ike took time to pin medals on his own Men in
those days. Now you see where the PR came from.

General Patton Jr., did it with the most class. He set it up so he
was always seen going to the front, never returning from the front.
He did this by having his scout plane land ahead of him. He would
present all the awards, and then travel to the landing strip afterwards.

Asked why he was handing out so many medals, he replied "I've
determined that each piece of cloth I put on their chests, gets me another
kilometer. Most of the men honored will die in these battles. I find
it increases moral, and the soldiers love to honor these hero's."

Now, there was a Man with Style that most have forgotten to emulate.
Patton, Ike, Bradley and, yes, even Monty. Without these people, the war
may have been a bit different, I suppose. Or a lot less fun.

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 17:33:11 -0600, "S. Sampson"
wrote:

"Jack Linthicum" wrote

It's 30 years, as I have said elsewhere would you like what you did 30
years ago laid out today in terms of today's standards?

I wouldn't have a problem with that. I never marched in an anti-government
rally, with the leadership of the Communist Party.


If you have today the same opinions you had thirty years ago, you
haven't learned much.

Peter Skelton

"Scott MacEachern" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 00:37:52 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:

His indictment went well beyond "some". ...

? Well, no. It didn't, even given what you said yourself. But your
words were "....he condemned the US soldiers, airmen, and sailors who
fought there as being war criminals..." So, all of them?

A darned lot more than "some". How many US troops engaged in search and
destroy operations? He said they were war criminals. How many were involved
in conducting H&I fires? He said they were war criminals. How many fired .50
cal weapons at personnel targets? He said they were war criminals. How many
were in positions of greater leadership responsibility than he was, and
directed troops during the above kinfd of activities? he said they were war
criminals. Lots of categories, lots of "war criminals". In his view, that
is.


No, but you ought to be able to show where you voted for aq goodly
portion
of them.

How many? What's the proportion that shows that a vet _really_
supports the armed forces? He said in retrospect that he was wrong
about some of this, others -- MX and Star Wars for example, hardly
itty bitty systems -- he stands by.

I don't want a president who thought that the (F-15, Patriot, B-1B, cruise
missiles, etc. ad nauseum) were *all* wastes of taxpayers' money to develop
and field. Can you name any defense programs he actually *supported*?


- Kerry Voted Against At Least Eleven Military Pay Increases.

Given George II's record on hazardous duty pay for troops in
Afghanistan and Iraq, I don't think that you want to go there....

What utter tripe. A year ago Bush rejected the military pay raise cap
recommended by his own OMB (at 2%) and supported the concept of targeted
increases to get the enlisted pay rates increased even more than what the
more senior personnel are receiving this year. The hazardous duty pay
blather has no legs; revising the limits of areas that are considered worthy
of meriting hazardous duty pay is something that will always change as the
situation changes. Bush has been a big supporter of military pay raises, and
the fact of the matter is that Kerry has not.


Tell me, how do you think a Guardsmen walks into a military clinic and
gets
a dental exam without being in a duty status?

And, it appears, that was about all that he did.

Answer the question!

Strangely enough, the
dates that guy remembers him being in Alabama don't square with the
Guard's pay records there.

Were the dates in the records regarding the dates that pay was authorized,
or the days that he drilled?

Actually, I don't worry too much that Bush
ducked a little during that period: lots of people did it. It does,
however, rather grate to see him being set up as a paragon of
patriotism next to John Kerry during the period.

Compared to Kerry, he *is* a paragon of patriotism.

Kerry went to a
dumb-ass war,

So you say...no surpise in your choice of descriptive terms, given your
bent.

then opposed it when he got back...

While he was still a commissioned officer. When he came out with the crap he
offered up during his congressional testimony and made his later claims on
Meet the Press, they *should* have ordered his sorry butt back to active
duty and told him that, IAW the laws of warfare and the UCMJ, he had to
provide specifics in regards to his allegations of war crimes so that we
could investigate an prosecute any actual criminals, then prosecuted his
sorry ass for making false and unsubstantiated claims and lying under oath.

both admirable
things

You and I have differing views of what makes someone "admirable". I find the
Army aviators who landed at My Lai and placed themselves in between the
perpetrators and some of the soon-to-be victims as being "admirable"; they
dealt with a *real* war crime and took action to stop it. Kerry came home
and started spouting pure horse manure. Big difference.

and fulfilling the duties of a citizen, I'd say. Bush went into
a Guard very different than that today, and then became the Invisible
Man. Not much different than a lot of other folks, but not especially
commendable, either.

Huh? Your point would be...?

My point would be that you -- and a bunch of other people who should
know better -- are making politically-motivated attacks on a combat
veteran

No, my attacks would be conducted against Kerry if he was with *any* party.
I am an independent--I sometimes vote for democrats as well as republicans.
I refuse to give money to either party, and have never worked in any kind of
campaign support role. I *do* find Kerry's actions detestable, and for that
reason I am willing to argue the point. Had you been discussing the Ollie
North senatorial bid with me a few years back, you would have found my
opinion of North not far from the one I hold regarding Kerry. Stop acting as
if everyone who does not approve of Kerry has some kind of political baggage
affecting his/her views. FYI, I have been a bit uneasy with a few of GWB's
policy decisions, and my overall feeling for him has suffered over the last
couple of years. But if Kerry is the best the democrats can offer up to
oppose him, my vote will go to Bush.


because you're scared that he might win the election this
year.

Actually, I am not too afraid of that eventuality; I don't think he can win.
In the end, what may be the decding factor for a lot of folks may be those
images of him defaming the troops who served in Vietnam on one hand, while
puffing his chest out and bragging about those decorations he earlier tossed
over the fence on the other.

Brooks

One set of opinion polls and you morph into a Republiflunky. It
ain't pretty.

Scott

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 14:29:59 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:

but Kerry's paper trail is much too long for him to be a
credable centrist.

I heard that the most interesting Democrat candidate debate would be
between Kerry and Kerry. Pro war, anti-war. Pro gay marriage, anti
gay marriage. The list goes on.

"Peter Skelton" wrote
"S. Sampson" wrote:
"Jack Linthicum" wrote

It's 30 years, as I have said elsewhere would you like what you did 30
years ago laid out today in terms of today's standards?

I wouldn't have a problem with that. I never marched in an anti-government
rally, with the leadership of the Communist Party.


If you have today the same opinions you had thirty years ago, you
haven't learned much.

I have the same opinions I had 30 years ago. While I've learned much, my
basic sense of decency, honest work, and charity have not changed. I've never
once stood on another human to win press coverage.

Zippy the Pinhead wrote:

I heard that the most interesting Democrat candidate debate would be
between Kerry and Kerry. Pro war, anti-war. Pro gay marriage, anti
gay marriage. The list goes on.

Exactly right. We are currently in an epic, life and death struggle
against global terrorism and this is NO time for a spineless, wishy
washy left winger in the highest office in the land.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

ean is a moderate Governor from Vermont and John Kerry is just to the left
f Ted Kennedy. Dean could have moved to the center after running left for
:the primaries, but Kerry's paper trail is much too long for him to be a
:credable centrist. I don't see how Kerry is more "electable" than Dean.

Sorry, but Dean isn't making 'moderate' noises. He's only electable
if you're one of the "I hate Bush" brigade.

"Fred J. McCall" wrote

Sorry, but Dean isn't making 'moderate' noises. He's only electable
if you're one of the "I hate Bush" brigade.

Sorry, Fred, but even those of us who hate Bush don't like Dean...

Loki

"Jack Linthicum" wrote in message
m...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...


Now it's time for you to answer a question I didn't ask or make some
gratuitous comment about the 'cheapness' of Kerry's Purple Hearts.

Not gratuitous--the comment about the PH's is valid; can you name any
other
troops who got three of those without missing any duty days?



Technically he missed two days. Next time you've taken shrapnel in the
thigh remember those little scratches. Kerry didn't make the rules but
he played them.

Well, in the same spirit as the Kerry camp's "release Bush's records now"
chants of a few days back, I am sure a full release of any medical records
listing the severity of said wounds would be welcomed with open arms by
Kerry, right?

It's 30 years, as I have said elsewhere would you like what you did 30
years ago laid out today in terms of today's standards?

There is a wee bit of a difference when what the guy is saying is that the
majority of the grunts and their leaders were guilty of war crimes. That is
what Mr. Kerry was saying thirty years ago.

Brooks