SwiftVets.com

[Paul]

Franks Says Kerry Qualified for President
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040808/D84B9N8O0.html

General Franks is keying on the quibbling over Senator Kerry's service record only.

Personally, I disagree with the General that this year's Presidential election is clarifying the issues. No complaint with his dislike of mere hyperbole. So do I. But his ambiguous mention of it doesn't help to clarify either.

To be honest, I mentioned to friends that I believe the quibbling about his service record is a mistake. It's all debatable and only serves to detract from the matter of the young Mr. Kerry's concrete actions 1969 to 1972 with VVAW that are genuinely detestable and rightly condemned.

Quibbling over technicalities for his transfer I believe is a mistake also since the same is done for the young Mr. Bush's discharge from the ANG and his failure to meet his flight qual physical. The president's record while probably not bad isn't exactly impressive either.

It definately bothers me to see the Purple Heart Medals being derided.

I don't spit on those who served in the guard at the time or those who received band-aid wound purple hearts in Vietnam or elsewhere.

There's nothing new that there are wounds and then wounds for which individuals are awarded the PH medal. Purple Heart Medals abound among the men in my family, mostly for those who were awarded them, one each, thank God.

All of my late uncles and father were awarded Purple Heart Medals. All qualified for membership in VFW and The Order of the Purple Heart. Only my father further qualified for DAV (which I still support because I believe they're needed and do good work). He was the only one maimed for life in the reception of his purple heart medal. And even his loss of the normal use of and mangling of his right arm which ended the war for him, was not as disabling as the maiming of many other vets who received their one and only purple heart medal. . . That doesn't detract from those who were wounded and awarded the medal but whose wounds were less severe. One uncle was wounded in the butt. We laughed about it over the years but didn't deride it.

All in all, it's a bad argument that will only lead to bad results, including bad results for many veterans who were awarded the Purple Heart Medal, but whose wounds while perfectly valid were not disabling.

Anyway, I'm not surprised that this distraction from Senator Kerry's genuinely detestable actions '69 to '72 due to quibbling over his service record is a result.

That's my opinion and these are some of my reasons. Primarily, it's not needed. The young Mr. Kerry's detestable actions and lies '69 to '72 that gave concrete aid and support to our enemies are sufficient in themselves to focus on.
_________________
Paul

[air_vet]

"It definately bothers me to see the Purple Heart Medals being derided."

What's being said here is exactly the opposite! No one is "deriding"the medals - just the man and what he said and did to get them.

[Navy_Navy_Navy]

Yeah, GEN Franks is certainly entitled to his opinion.

But, it was Kerry who has made a mockery of those medals, not Swifts.

Threw them away, didn't throw them away, threw away the ribbons, threw someone else's medals...

Then brought them into his office for display when it was in vogue to be a veteran, again.

Pathetic.
_________________
~ Echo Juliet ~
Altering course to starboard - On Fire, Keep Clear
Navy woman, Navy wife, Navy mother

[Paul]

"Yeah, GEN Franks is certainly entitled to his opinion.

But, it was Kerry who has made a mockery of those medals, not Swifts.

Threw them away, didn't throw them away, threw away the ribbons, threw someone else's medals...

Then brought them into his office for display when it was in vogue to be a veteran, again.

Pathetic."

I agree with you completely. And these are precisely the concrete actions of Senator Kerry during his post-service years that are rightly condemned and that General Franks avoids addressing entirely.
_________________
Paul

[The bandit]

You could make a case that Manson is qualified to be president too, doesn't mean it is so!

[Paul]

"It definately bothers me to see the Purple Heart Medals being derided." {Paul}

"What's being said here is exactly the opposite! No one is "deriding"the medals - just the man and what he said and did to get them."

I understand and looking at this website, I agree that it's not being done here and General Frank's linking it to this web site is wrong. He has a right to his own opinion but not to his own facts.

It's perfectly valid for those such as the Swift Boat Vets who served with Kerry to come out against him based on their first-hand familiarity with the man.

Even his former XO on the USS Gridley has done so, although in his case focusing on Kerry's despicable activist actions that gave aid and comfort to our enemies following his service:

http://www.californiarepublic.org/archives/Columns/KellyJ/20040318KellyJAntiWar.html

What bothers me is what I'm seeing some doing with the Purple Heart issues, including cartoons of purple band aids with Kerry's picture on them. It's clever I suppose, but that sort of thing will lead to nothing good and is what's being used by such as General Franks who here only distracts from the valid issue of Senator Kerry's genuinely and unquestionably sorry and traitorous actions after leaving the service and his character-less behavior since. To be blunt, nothing good has ever come of Kerry’s actions and only more bad is coming become of them and the propagandists use of them now. . . . what a stinking mess.
_________________
Paul

[carpro]

[air_vet]

Paul,

>>including cartoons of purple band aids with Kerry's picture on them<<

You must have missed the comments of the doctor who treated Kerry for his first PH wound - he simple applied a band-aid - THAT'S what makes that cartoon funny. The purpose is NOT to make light of PH wounds.

[carpro]

I believe he knows that , air vet. But that wouldn't help him make his point.

Paul wants everyone to get off Kerry's war record so the media can go back to ignoring veterans 30 year old grievance against Kerry. Too many of the electorate don't care about the damage Kerry did to his comrades in arms.

On the other hand, being a liar about his war record and constantly bringing it up as his ticket to the presidency, is happening TODAY. the electorate can understand Kerry being a liar today about what happened 30 years ago as opposed to being a liar 30 years ago about something that happened then.

That's why a lot of Kerry supporters are starting to say "Hey, his post war record is fair game but it's not fair to talk about his war record."
_________________
"If he believes his 1971 indictment of his country and his fellow veterans was true, then he couldn't possibly be proud of his Vietnam service."

[Sgt-Keeper]

It's ok to make fun of JFKs PHs because the way he "earned them" is the topic of discussion, not the medal itself. I really enjoy some of the pix & comments. One of my best friends is in a wheelchair for the rest of his life directly related to his PH award 32 years ago, my partner at work left a leg over there & has a PH, & I go to PT at the VA Hospital every Monday AM, 38 years after I received mine. Three crippled old farts. We are not bitter about the war, just sick about the way JFK conducted himself during his service time, and during the Congressional Hearings, and his service in the Senate, missing votes re: veteran issues, or voting against us. Outside of that, he's an ok guy. Well, not really.
Annoy a liberal; smile & go to work!
_________________
Fix the problem, not the blame.
USMC E5 Nam vet 65-66

[Paul]

“Paul wants everyone to get off Kerry's war record so the media can go back to ignoring veterans 30 year old grievance against Kerry. Too many of the electorate don't care about the damage Kerry did to his comrades in arms.” {carpro}

Hi Carpro:

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said this at all.

I point out that harping on a service record that is debatable is being used to detract from his most egregious actions which he committed precisely during his post-service years--one prominent example being General Franks' public statements here.

It’s not me who’s helping John Kerry to obscure the most aggregious actions with this or the grievance against his public lies in 1971 (Post Service).

Further, harping on Kerry taking advantage of technicalities during his time in the former Republic of Vietnam invites the distraction of whining about Bush taking advantage of technicalities in the Guard.

It's all minor next to Kerry's miserable post-service actions 1969 through the ‘70s and then his turn about in the late '80s throughout the ‘90s and most blatantly at present. And Kerry’s lousy behavior in his post-service is both the worst and the clearest to demonstrate. It should be focused on.

As your own little line puts it so well:

"If he believes his 1971 indictment of his country and his fellow veterans was true, then he couldn't possibly be proud of his Vietnam service."

With this signature statement of yours (a very good one) that follows your posts, then you do precisely what I’ve advocated here. Do you accuse yourself of “wants everyone to get off Kerry's war record so the media can go back to ignoring veterans 30 year old grievance against Kerry.” Personally, I’d say that would be a very stupid interpretation of this by anyone!

Again, don’t put words in my mouth.
_________________
Paul

[Paul]

"Just an observation, but there seems to be a concentrated effort by you and a few others to forget about Kerry's war record and go back to hammering a post war record that wasn't getting any traction at all. "

First. There's no "concentrated effort" being made me whatsoever.

Second. As I've stated, Kerry's lies and aid to an enemy of this nation in an undeclared war and his mercenary use of his awards in whatever manner was expedient and that are mutually contradictory were made during his post-service years.

Third, What the hell does "traction" mean and how does it come into play in the truth about John Kerry? And the kind of "Traction" that harping on Kerry's service record is getting is demonstrated by General Franks' statements (which I only post as demonstration).

I'm distracting nothing from Kerry's lousy actions. The quibbling on his service record is precisely what General Franks used to distract from them.
_________________
Paul

[Paul]

"You must have missed the comments of the doctor who treated Kerry for his first PH wound - he simple applied a band-aid - THAT'S what makes that cartoon funny. The purpose is NOT to make light of PH wounds."

No. I didn't miss them. And I've seen some of the use of them made by the pro-Kerry camp as well, which it's getting "traction" with (to borrow the term above).

Harping on those are also being used by others to detract from Kerry's traitorous and self-serving behavior over the course of his post-service years. It's too easy for them to do and for obvious reasons.

Hey, let's get a grip here. I'm a peon, and only pointing it out on a small closed discussion forum. I've disagreed with General Franks' statements, but so what? The press won’t be quoting me. But Franks and others are getting and will get substantial coverage in the press and continue to use these to detract from Senator Kerry's most easily demonstrable and genuinely miserable acts.
_________________
Paul

[Paul]

"Purple hearts are only cheapened by those like Kerry that actively seek any justification to enhance their resume."

I couldn't agree more.

And as you rightly point out he's used them in blatanly contradictory ways: first in the so-called "anti-war" (more accurately, pro-Hanoi) VVAW in the '70s and now as a some kind of 'super patriort' hero in the late '80s through to today.

He's a self-serving mercenary piece of work who has has done harm and doesn't care what harm he commits or who he harms by his actions. . .
_________________
Paul

[RStauch]