Saturday, August 21, 2004

nyt is pravda? ok, then, how about this:

Some have dismissed the previous post because it came from the NYT. Ok. Then how about that bastion of leftist liberalism (NOT) the Boston Globe?

It says in part: A review by the Globe of Kerry's war record in preparation for a forthcoming book, "John F. Kerry: The Complete Biography," found that the young Navy officer acted heroically under fire, in one case saving the life of an Army lieutenant. But the examination also found that Kerry's commanding officer at the time questioned Kerry's first Purple Heart, which he earned for a wound received just two weeks after arriving in Vietnam.

"He had a little scratch on his forearm, and he was holding a piece of shrapnel," recalled Kerry's commanding officer, Lieutenant Commander Grant Hibbard. "People in the office were saying, `I don't think we got any fire,' and there is a guy holding a little piece of shrapnel in his palm." Hibbard said he couldn't be certain whether Kerry actually came under fire on Dec. 2, 1968, the date in question and that is why he said he asked Kerry questions about the matter.

The article continues:

Kerry went on to earn another two Purple Hearts and he led more than two dozen missions in which he often faced enemy fire. He won the Silver Star for an action in which he killed an enemy soldier who carried a loaded rocket launcher that could have destroyed Kerry's six-man patrol boat, and he won a Bronze Star for rescuing an Army lieutenant who was thrown overboard and under fire.

One reason that Kerry has long divided Vietnam veterans is because of the way he led a group called Vietnam Veterans Against the War after he returned to the United States. While in Vietnam, Kerry began to question the policy of "free-fire zones," which permitted sailors to open fire on rivers where Vietnamese were violating nighttime curfews. He said in a 1971 appearance on "Meet the Press": "There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed, in that I took part in shootings in free-fire zones."

Thirty-three years later, that statement still rankles some veterans, apparently including those who have formed a group called Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry, which has a website devoted to what it calls Kerry's association with the "radical pro-communist" antiwar movement.

The statements of that group have been circulated widely over the Internet and picked up on conservative radio talk shows.

But some historians said Kerry is being unfairly criticized over his antiwar effort, which is best remembered for his Senate testimony in which he asked why soldiers should be asked to die for a mistake. "Thirty-three years later, his testimony has really proved to be prescient," said historian Stanley Karnow, author of "Vietnam: A History." "The war was a mistake. Nobody knew better that the war was a mistake than the poor grunts out there fighting it."

Indeed, some of Kerry's crewmates who were aghast that Kerry had led them into battle and then came home to protest the war now say Kerry was ahead of his time in seeing the mistaken policy. Crewmate James Wasser, who originally felt "betrayed" by Kerry's antiwar leadership, said, "Knowing what I know now, I would have totally agreed with him."


vrangel said...

Kerry made his 4 1/2 service in Vietnam a centerpiece of his campaign. Of course it's under a microscope now, what else.

I'd rather see his 20+ service in the Senate closely examined.
He opposed fighting communists in Central America, deployment of missiles in Europe, first Gulf War and pretty much every major weapons program.

He also opposed death penalty for terrorists following first World Trade Center bombing in 1993.

He was dead wrong on each of these counts.

He came from Vietnam and became a war protester. He essentially remained that way ever since .
Now he is a candidate of a Party of protesters against the war on terror.

this we'll defend said...

Vrangel, I dispute one thing you wrote: "party of protestors against the war on terror." I don't see any. Where are these protestors? Where are those who parade in the streets screaming "no war against Osama?" Where was the big outcry over our deployment to Afghanistan and fight against the Taliban and AQ?

The war on terror is NOT the war in Iraq. At least not at first. If it is now it is because Bush managed to recruit new enemies and give old ones more opportunity to harm us.

If the war on terror is the war on Iraq then WWI and WWII were the same war. but, of course, they weren't.

vrangel said...

According to recent poll 51% of democrats think America did something that might have caused 9/11 attacks.

Only 17% of republicans think so.

this we'll defend said...

What fucking poll is that?

According to my recent poll (of all members of my household currently typing) Americans believe 100% of republicans make shit up to sway voters.

Imagine a leading question like "If Muslims felt America's foreign policy caused them hardship and deprivation could that explain one of the reasons why the 9/11 hijackers attacked us?" That wording leads to only one answer, "Yes." Probaby followed by "It could. Not that it did, but it could. If they felt like that - which they shouldn't." Ask the questions only to Democrats, and then publish a report that says "75% of Democrats say US foreign policy to blame for 9/11." And most people will believe that this is true - you've done a poll after all, so it must be true.

In one famous poll people were asked if they approved or disapproved of the Family Protection Act of 1988 (or something like that). Most approved, a few disapproved, and almost nobody answered "no opinion." The fact that the act didn't exist didn't stop people from having opinions on it.

So show me that poll, and I'll investigate the questions and the methodology behind it.

redleg said...

The Boston Globe is not a bastion of the liberal left? In near socialist Massachusets?

Not by my recollection but perhaps a little to the right of the NYT. I will grant you that. I do like the comparison of the NYT to Pravda. It is a little over the top, but I still like it. With Maureen Dowd on your editorial page, you cannot be considered partisan in any way shape or form.

I don't doubt some of the shadowy connections to the right by SBVT, but you can point to the same for the liberal 527s. I have not said the NYT lied. I just think they write about one side of the story.

I have never and will never question the validity of Kerry's medals. They were awarded in wartime as mine were. This is fact. Examining why and how they were given 36 years ago is an exercise in futility, except to honor the actions. I can't say if the medal system was inflated at the time as I have heard both that is was fair and inflated from numerous veterans. I wasn't there. I don't know. I am content to know he was courageous enough in battle to earn them. The only ones who can debate the utility of this and the facts at hand are those who were there. SBVT believes one thing, Kerry's camp believes another. All were there. I do have issue with what he did after he came home, what he told Congress and what he did while in the Senate. He effectively sold his medals and his record to the VVAW and eventually to the DNC. He sold his fellow veterans down the river while he did so. That is what they are mad at, and with their latest ad they are really getting into some substance. Kerry said these things and he believed them and has stood behind these words. Fine. He has to explain that to the voters. Kerry has painted himself as a moderate liberal and his words and actions are bringing out the real John Kerry, the one he does not want us to see. The John Kerry who is slightly left of Stalin. Have both camps decended into slimyness at this point? indubitably. But to have issue with this now, after the dems tried it first is what I hate most about this campaign. Smear the right all you wish and and call it free speech, but don't let the other side have their say. 254 vets (and more) say one thing and they discredit their service and are "so called" veterans. Kerry and his band trot out their actions and they are heroes. Who is right? This deserves debate, and Kerry, bringing this into the fray, will not debate it. Instead he tells Bush to make the pain go away. Tell Kerry to make Michael Moore to go away and denounce then both sides will have committed an illegal act. Perhaps Nader will then have a chance after all. Kerry should engage the ads and let his record stand, but he hasn't and probably won't.

artbyruth said...


Kerry brought this all upon himself and all he has to do is release his medical records....BUT the facts that he turned against his brothers after he came home will never be erased.

The fact that he stood with Hanoi Jane Fonda and fake vets spewing out lies to further their cause in the Winter Soldier Investigation will never be erased either.

At least Fonda once exclaimed that going to North Vietnam was a big mistake.....why won't John Kerry admit that going to sit down with the enemy while he was still a Naval reserve OFFICER during war was a mistake?

Because he doesn't think that it was. The North Vietnamese used Kerry's own words against the POW's. That cannot be erased.

The Swiftboat Veterans have been around long before President Bush ran for office and if they were funded by only Republicans then, that has greatly changed now. NOW they are funded by people all over the country.

You only have John Kerry to blame.

this we'll defend said...

Vrangel, what poll?

Redleg - yes, that one. Socialism charges again? You can do better.

There aren't any "shadowy" 527 connections on the right since Bush already made such charges and all the investigations concluded otherwise. But assume they are right and that the 527's on the left are totally under the control of the democrats in as blatant a campaign violation as the republican party appears to be guilty of. As I said, apologized for the 30-second web-only spot they didn't make which compared Bush to Hitler, pulled it from their website, and Kerry condemned it. The Bush camp's ploy of "well, they started it" is total bullshit.

You say Kerry sold his veterans down the river. Many (including those who served under his command) disagree but that is fair game for debate, and probably more relevant too. But wait: the Swiftvets are going to say Kerry "lied" in his 1971 testimony and won't show that he told the Senate where his information on atrocities came from - instead they will do the same trick TOM the TYAAPA did on ALa71's blog. If his 35 years since Vietnam is relevant why continue to lie about it? I support Kerry and encourage people to watch the entire speech or read the transcript (it isn't that long). Swiftvets wants people to only see portions taken out of context just as Tom insisted on paraphrasing and selective quoting. Sounds fishy to me.

Kerry's 1971 speech is one of the finest ever in the Senate, but taken out of context it will be portrayed as lying and anti-veteran. Over 14,000 more US soldiers died in Vietnam after Kerry called for them to come home. And South Vietnam still fell. And you blame Kerry for turning his back. You are entitled to your opinion, but debating who was right and who was wrong about Vietnam won't get us anywhere.

Especially when you trot out "left of Stalin" in describing Kerry, but claim Kerry did the same thing to Bush that Swiftvets are doing now - by comparing Bush to Hitler. Can't you see you just did what you attack for doing - and they apologized for it?

ArtbyRuth - Hanoi Jane hadn't committed treason when she was active in the anti-war movement with Kerry. But if guilt by association is enough, then Michael Moore's blatantly false insinuations about Saudi connections and the Bush family must be just as valid to you. They aren't to me, though. I think Moore's insinuations are wrong - and so are the Hanoi Jane references. For the same reason too.

And I appreciate that Kerry stood up - I think he was right and that it took moral courage to do so. You don't - you think he "stabbed veterans in the back." Fine. But that doesn't mean that he wasn't a hero in Vietnam. Defending the Swiftvet's false charges about Kerry's actions in Vietnam by pointing to what Kerry did AFTER Vietnam doesn't show you are concerned about whether the Swiftvets are telling the truth, but only that you are concerned about hurting the Kerry campaign and the truth be damned.

If the truth is on your side why isn't your side using it?

this we'll defend said...

Oh yeah - I forgot. His MEDICAL RECORDS. First it was that he wouldn't release ANY of his fitness reports (all glowing, by the way), and then at the same time by the same people he was attacked for releasing only SOME, and in fact he released ALL.

He chooses to keep his medical records private, and they won't show whether he earned a bronze star, silver star, and 3 purple hearts anyway. But see how the insinuations work? "Kerry won't release something that has nothing to do with the debate, so he must be lying and the Swiftvets are right, even though they wanted all his fitness reports first, and then his entire 221 file, and only now his medical records."

If he releases them it will look like he has been hiding them and some will conclude the Swiftvets were telling the truth. If he doesn't same thing. And if he does release them and they support the truth about Kerry's heroism - as ALL other documents do - then they will either ask for something else ("give us your medical records from 1971") or they will simply make more scurrilous charges.

Remember the brouhaha over Teresa's tax records and how that was such a big story? How quickly we forget.

vrangel said...

They mentioned that poll on FOX yesterday.
Numbers were on screen (it's SEARED in my memory ;)
but I missed the source.

I think it was on Brit Hume.

this we'll defend said...

Well, I'll just assume it isn't accurate then.

vrangel said...

It may be inaccurate... but it's seared in my memory nonetheless :P

zkam said...

Echoing what redleg said, the Globe is about an inch to the right of the NYT.

Of course, you realize they are the same company, right? (or at least have the same parent)?

Go to the Globe's front page
and check the copyright notice at the bottom.

this we'll defend said...

I will now do what George W. Bush is incapable of: I was wrong. The Boston Globe is lefty, not righty. My bad.