SwiftVets.com

[Craig]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2001914095_dionne28.html

A shameful attack on Kerry's service



E-mail this article
Print this article
Search archive

WASHINGTON — "Have you no sense of decency, sir?"

It was the classic question posed by Joseph Welch to Sen. Joseph McCarthy 50 years ago during the red-hunter's hearings investigating the Army for alleged communist influence. With his query, Welch, the Army's special counsel, began the undoing of McCarthy.

Unfortunately, the question needs to be asked again. It needs to be posed to shamelessly partisan Republicans who can't stand the fact that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are facing off against a Democrat who fought and was wounded in Vietnam.

Dick Cheney said in 1989 that he (in contrast to John Kerry) didn't go to Vietnam because "I had other priorities in the '60s than military service." While Kerry risked his life, Bush got himself into the National Guard.

Funny, isn't it? When Bill Clinton was running against Republican war veterans in 1992 and 1996, the most important thing to GOP propagandists and politicians was that Clinton didn't fight in Vietnam. Now that Republican candidates who didn't fight in Vietnam face a Democrat who did — and won the Silver Star, the Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts while he was there — the Republican machine wants to change the subject.

Thus the shameful display on the floor of the House of Representatives last week as one Republican after another declared that what mattered was not Kerry's service, but that he decided afterward that the Vietnam War was a terrible mistake for our country.

The decorated combat veteran was transformed from a hero to "Hanoi John" in the phrase of Rep. Sam Johnson, a Texas Republican. Johnson deserves our gratitude for his seven years as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam. But his agenda last week had election-year politics stamped all over it.

Johnson declared that in speaking out against the war, Kerry showed "his true colors, and they are not red, white and blue." Kerry, Johnson said, was engaged in "nothing short of aiding and abetting the enemy."

Rep. John Kline, a Minnesota Republican who served as a helicopter pilot in Vietnam, argued that Kerry's service "does not excuse his joining ranks with Jane Fonda and others in speaking ill of our troops or their service, then or now."

Thanks for your service, Mr. Kline, but that "then or now" part is demagogic: Yes, Kerry three decades ago criticized what our troops were asked to do in Vietnam. But have you ever heard Kerry speak ill of our men and women under arms in Iraq?

The Republican agenda is obvious: to distract attention from the contrast between Kerry's service in a war theater while Bush and Cheney stayed home.

It seems to be a habit. When Bush faces a Vietnam War hero in an election, a Vietnam veteran perfectly happy to trash his opponent always turns up. In the case of Ted Sampley, the same guy who did Bush's dirty work in going after Sen. John McCain in the 2000 Republican primaries is doing the job against Kerry this year.

Sampley dared compare McCain, who spent five years as a Vietnam POW, with "the Manchurian Candidate." Now, Sampley says that Kerry "is not truthful and is not worthy of the support of U.S. veterans. ... To us, he is 'Hanoi John.' " Is that where Sam Johnson got his line?

One person who is outraged by the attacks on Kerry is McCain. When I reached the Arizona Republican, I found him deeply troubled over the reopening of wounds from the Vietnam era, "the most divisive time since our civil war." He called Sampley "one of the most despicable characters I've ever met."

McCain said he hoped that in the midst of a war in Iraq, politicians "will confront the challenges facing us now, including the conflict we're presently engaged in, rather than refighting the one we were engaged in more than 30 years ago."

McCain recalled that he had worked with Kerry on "POW/MIA issues and the normalization of relations with Vietnam" and wanted to stand up for his war comrade because "you have to do what's right." Speaking of Kerry, McCain said: "He's my friend. He'll continue to be my friend. I know his service was honorable. If that hurts me politically or with my party, that's a very small price to pay."

Now that McCain has spoken, will Bush have the guts either to endorse or condemn the attacks on Kerry's service? Or will he just sit by silently, hoping the assaults do their work while he evades responsibility? Once more, Welch's words call out for an answer: "Have you no sense of decency, sir?"

[sparky]

I love this paragraph:

Funny, isn't it? When Bill Clinton was running against Republican war veterans in 1992 and 1996, the most important thing to GOP propagandists and politicians was that Clinton didn't fight in Vietnam. Now that Republican candidates who didn't fight in Vietnam face a Democrat who did — and won the Silver Star, the Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts while he was there — the Republican machine wants to change the subject.

[hist/student]

unabashed comprehensive retraction

[Craig]

[Carl Bowman]

Craig, you call it a shameful attack on Kerry's service. What do you call Kerrys attack on all who served in Vietnam? We were accused of all sorts of war crimes and atrocities. We all know it was a big lie to further his political career. Even the people who were supporting the VVAW cut all of Kerrys funding because they saw he was an opportunist.

John Kerry has never admitted that he lied or has he made any sort of apology.

As for Kerrys service it was and is very shameful to himself and all the American People.
CWB

[waltjones]

craig:
Just what does that have to do with the fact that he's a traitor, lied about his comrades and did them irreparable harm? What does that have to do with his grievous insult to the Iwo Jima memorial? What does it have to do with the fact that Kerry has no honor? Go to the Vets Only forum, and even though you're not qualified to post there, you can read through and see how many vets support Kerry; why don't you take a count for us? Oh, wait, I'm sorry - we can't trust you. The more I hang out here and at other similar vet gathering places, the more I find that even I have underestimated the antipathy for Kerry by vets - and especially Vietnam vets. "It says something about the man who defends a man with no honor." Right back at you. Thatisall ....
_________________
Walt Jones (USMC, '65 - '69) It says much about the person who defends a man with no honor.

[waltjones]

craig and sparky:
Forgot to tell you, in case you didn't hear: 12 of 19 of Kerry's so-called Band of Brothers have disowned him , and don't want to be in his smarmy ads anymore. There's actually only 3 left who support him, and they've been getting "their expenses paid". Questions? I'll get you the info if you can't find it. Thatisall ....
_________________
Walt Jones (USMC, '65 - '69) It says much about the person who defends a man with no honor.

[LewWaters]

What's more shameful, questioning someone's 4 months in country, or their abandoning their crew due to minor scratches and coming back and denigrating all others who actually did serve there honorably?

Since we are reminded on an almost daily basis what a hero Kerry was for his 4 months and it has been he and his supporters who once again tried to slander President Bush's National Guard service (as they also did in 1988 over Dan Quayles service and in 2000), does not his own record bear looking into?

[Craig]

[95 bxl]

[Craig]

[Carl Bowman]

Craig , On 23 April, 1971, John Kerry testified under oath before Congress that Americans in Vietnam had ''personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam.” Before his testimony was over, he said, ''We all did it.''

You rattled on for about a page trying to defend Kerry and tell what you thought he meant. I'm from the midwest I guess they speak a different language in Massachusetts. Also testifying under oath doesn't seem to mean the same thing, here you swear to tell the truth. If you are from Mass. you can lie under oath.

I have always wondered why he wasn't arrested on the spot for the crimes he admitted committing under oath he had comitted. CWB

[Carl Bowman]

Craig , On 23 April, 1971, John Kerry testified under oath before Congress that Americans in Vietnam had ''personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam.” Before his testimony was over, he said, ''We all did it.''

You rattled on for about a page trying to defend Kerry and tell what you thought he meant. I'm from the midwest I guess they speak a different language in Massachusetts. Also testifying under oath doesn't seem to mean the same thing, here you swear to tell the truth. If you are from Mass. you can lie under oath.

I have always wondered why he wasn't arrested on the spot for the crimes he admitted committing under oath . CWB

[Craig]

[Greenhat]