 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ArmyWife
Lieutenant
Joined: 06 Aug 2004
Posts: 218
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
kaji
Seaman Recruit
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
Posts: 11
|
 Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2004 4:45 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Sorry, didn't see your post. But the article if true, makes it clear, at least to me, why he defends John Kerry. Having seen him denounce the ads on TV, and tell the swiftys F #$%@ ,I believe he may not be an enemy but he sure is not a friend. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ArmyWife
Lieutenant
Joined: 06 Aug 2004
Posts: 218
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 03, 2004 5:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kaji wrote: | | Sorry, didn't see your post. But the article if true, makes it clear, at least to me, why he defends John Kerry. Having seen him denounce the ads on TV, and tell the swiftys F #$%@ ,I believe he may not be an enemy but he sure is not a friend. |
Those articles came about while Bob was writing a memoir. I read the book a couple of weeks ago, and after hashing it out with my husband, I don't believe that Bob Kerrey committed a war crime...if that's what you are getting at. The guy was a SEAL LT. in Vietnam and women and children got caught in the crossfire in his first firefight. Then in his second firefight he lost a leg. It's a whole lot more understandable why he was against the Vietnam War when he got home than John Kerry.
You're right that Bob is not a friend to this cause in any way, but he is real in a way that John Kerry is not. I'm advocating taking the high ground here, even if he didn't. Besides, it looks like hell to be attacking a Medal of Honor recipient. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kaji
Seaman Recruit
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
Posts: 11
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 03, 2004 8:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I am indifferent to Bob Kerry, I don't believe any one here, including myself wants to attack him. I'm just saying, that because he is a democrat and especially because, he found himself in a similar situation ,he is taking up for John Kerry. Maybe he should cool it and his name won't come up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RiflemanDD730
Seaman Apprentice
Joined: 21 Aug 2004
Posts: 96
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 04, 2004 4:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bob Kerrey’s behavior might provide focus on a subtle but important issue; the difference between physical courage and moral courage. In fact this might be the overriding issue in the John Kerry case. The SBVT admit that John Kerry showed physical courage by being in combat, but failed in his moral duty by accepting medals he did not deserve. The public and media tend to give medal wearers absolution by declaring that if you face enemy fire your subsequent moral decisions cannot be questioned. The SBVT disagree. So do I.
In the material provided through thelink [http://www.mishalov.com/Kerrey.html], Bob Kerrey showed that he:
1) Falsified an action report claiming non-existent enemy kills.
2) Accepted a Bronze Star on the basis of the false information.
3) Refused to return the medal when faced with evidence.
With regard to his Medal of Honor he had the following to say: “When Kerrey learned that he would be awarded the Medal of Honor, he says he had severe doubts about accepting it. He didn't think he deserved it he says, and he felt like a pawn in Nixon's war. "The medal was given to me within days of the invasion of Cambodia. . . . I felt like I was being used, . . . flagged. You know, to take the edge off the horrible experiences." But he accepted it, he says, for the sake of all members of the Seals"
Bob Kerrey’s response to seeing evidence is also revealing:“The after-action reports provided the first concrete evidence of the terrible events, which Kerrey had hardly addressed even in private conversation, and he reacted testily when asked about it. "There's a part of me that wants to say to you all the memories that I've got are my memories, and I'm not going to talk about them he said. "We thought we were going over there to fight for the American people. We come back, we find out that the American people didn't want us to do it. And ever since that time we've been poked, prodded, bent, spindled, mutilated, and I don't like it. Part of living with the memory, some of those memories, is to forget them. I've got a right to say to you it's none of your business I carry memories of what I did, and I survive and live based upon lots of different mechanisms."
Bob Kerrey assumes a right to refuse to discuss valid issues apparently because he was in combat and therefore his subsequent decisions cannot be questioned. His acceptance of a medal for the seals is noble but in reality it’s Bob Kerrey that used it to further a career in politics almost to the presidency until the NYT article came out. Bob Kerrey showed great personal courage but I think it’s valid to question his moral courage. After all, he could have refused the Bronze Star and accepted a Navy Cross or Silver Star in lieu of the Medal of Honor. I suspect that if he did his agonies over the years would have been significantly reduced. That’s why I think his position on the SBVT issue is wrong and will only increase his moral conflicts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kaji
Seaman Recruit
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
Posts: 11
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 05, 2004 12:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rifleman, Well said. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rhv5862
PO2
Joined: 21 Aug 2004
Posts: 379
Location: Massachusetts
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 05, 2004 1:03 am Post subject: Bob Kerrey |
|
|
Bob Kerrey is first and foremost a Democrat and wants to see a Democrat in the White House. A perfect example of his following the party line rather than voting for what he belived in took place during Clintons 1st term. When Clinton presented his billon dollar tax increase Bob Kerrey had to cast the deciding vote. He said he was going to vote for the increase in taxes even though he disagreed with it because he did not want to be seen as the person that doomed the President. Thats not an exact quote. So his comment is not surprising.
RHV |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ArmyWife
Lieutenant
Joined: 06 Aug 2004
Posts: 218
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 05, 2004 3:49 am Post subject: Re: Bob Kerrey |
|
|
| rhv5862 wrote: | Bob Kerrey is first and foremost a Democrat and wants to see a Democrat in the White House. A perfect example of his following the party line rather than voting for what he belived in took place during Clintons 1st term. When Clinton presented his billon dollar tax increase Bob Kerrey had to cast the deciding vote. He said he was going to vote for the increase in taxes even though he disagreed with it because he did not want to be seen as the person that doomed the President. Thats not an exact quote. So his comment is not surprising.
RHV |
Now, you've got it right! Bob does show loyalty to his party - the Democrats. That's pretty much the extent of his involvement here.
Before this expletive episode, (which is just personality, no substance), Bob wrote an op-ed that did NOT go after the SBVfT, but tried instead to argue for Kerry's support of veterans. I'd bet money that McAuliffe or somebody was begging him to use his MOH status to go against the Swiftees in much more substantive way, and he didn't do it.
What troubles me about discussions like this is that you never know who could read our comments, or take excerpts from our comments, and we could create enemies for this cause that were not enemies before. It does not make good sense to attack anyone but John Kerry here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ArmyWife
Lieutenant
Joined: 06 Aug 2004
Posts: 218
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 05, 2004 4:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RiflemanDD730 wrote: | Bob Kerrey’s behavior might provide focus on a subtle but important issue; the difference between physical courage and moral courage. In fact this might be the overriding issue in the John Kerry case. The SBVT admit that John Kerry showed physical courage by being in combat, but failed in his moral duty by accepting medals he did not deserve. The public and media tend to give medal wearers absolution by declaring that if you face enemy fire your subsequent moral decisions cannot be questioned. The SBVT disagree. So do I.
In the material provided through thelink [http://www.mishalov.com/Kerrey.html], Bob Kerrey showed that he:
1) Falsified an action report claiming non-existent enemy kills.
2) Accepted a Bronze Star on the basis of the false information.
3) Refused to return the medal when faced with evidence.
With regard to his Medal of Honor he had the following to say: “When Kerrey learned that he would be awarded the Medal of Honor, he says he had severe doubts about accepting it. He didn't think he deserved it he says, and he felt like a pawn in Nixon's war. "The medal was given to me within days of the invasion of Cambodia. . . . I felt like I was being used, . . . flagged. You know, to take the edge off the horrible experiences." But he accepted it, he says, for the sake of all members of the Seals"
Bob Kerrey’s response to seeing evidence is also revealing:“The after-action reports provided the first concrete evidence of the terrible events, which Kerrey had hardly addressed even in private conversation, and he reacted testily when asked about it. "There's a part of me that wants to say to you all the memories that I've got are my memories, and I'm not going to talk about them he said. "We thought we were going over there to fight for the American people. We come back, we find out that the American people didn't want us to do it. And ever since that time we've been poked, prodded, bent, spindled, mutilated, and I don't like it. Part of living with the memory, some of those memories, is to forget them. I've got a right to say to you it's none of your business I carry memories of what I did, and I survive and live based upon lots of different mechanisms."
Bob Kerrey assumes a right to refuse to discuss valid issues apparently because he was in combat and therefore his subsequent decisions cannot be questioned. His acceptance of a medal for the seals is noble but in reality it’s Bob Kerrey that used it to further a career in politics almost to the presidency until the NYT article came out. Bob Kerrey showed great personal courage but I think it’s valid to question his moral courage. After all, he could have refused the Bronze Star and accepted a Navy Cross or Silver Star in lieu of the Medal of Honor. I suspect that if he did his agonies over the years would have been significantly reduced. That’s why I think his position on the SBVT issue is wrong and will only increase his moral conflicts. |
Item 1: I agree with paragraph 1 regarding the difference between physical courage and moral courage.
Item 2: I could not find concrete evidence of your assertion that Bob Kerrey falsified an action report. The story left room to believe that there could have been a mix up somewhere else. As for accepting and giving back an undeserved Bronze Star, I don't know what to say. If you know of someone that has actually done either of those things, go ahead and post the details.
Let us please not confuse Bob Kerrey with John Kerry here. Bob is not accused of PUTTING HIMSELF IN for any of his medals, or for that matter, making up stories before Congress, or meeting with the enemy in Paris. There is a big difference. You could pick apart the records of lots of vets, and some of them would have incidents like Bob's in them....but there is only ONE John Kerry with the pattern of abuse to warrant the creation of SBVfT.
Item 3: Bob Kerrey never ran on his medals in the way that John Kerry does, so I think you've taken an unfair swipe at him. I lived in Nebraska while Kerrey was Governor there, and I disliked his politics intensly, but I never heard him give speeches refering to Vietnam all the time like John Kerry does. I don't recall that the timing of the NY Times story had to do with Bob's getting beat by Al Gore in the primaries, anyway, but I could be wrong there.
Item 4: Many combat vets cannot bring themselves to discuss their combat memories with their own families, and yet you seem to think that Bob Kerrey should just be able to lay it all out for some reporter? Come on! You seem to believe that moral courage should somehow be able to flush away all emotions.
Item 5: Remember, Bob Kerrey is not the enemy here. John Kerry has probably benefitted greatly by confusion with Bob Kerrey over the years. I have posted that before, and I couldn't help but notice that Paul Galanti, one of the former POW's in the Swift Boat ad, said in a radio interview late in the week that he was confused about who was who for years.
Rather than go after Bob in these forums, it would be better to keep pointing out to the uninformed that Bob and John are different people.
Item 6: I can't believe, that as Republican who grew up in Nebraska, I am here defending Bob Kerrey again! I think I need to take a shower. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RiflemanDD730
Seaman Apprentice
Joined: 21 Aug 2004
Posts: 96
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 05, 2004 5:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Army Wife wrote: | Item 1: I agree with paragraph 1 regarding the difference between physical courage and moral courage.
Item 2: I could not find concrete evidence of your assertion that Bob Kerrey falsified an action report. The story left room to believe that there could have been a mix up somewhere else. As for accepting and giving back an undeserved Bronze Star, I don't know what to say. If you know of someone that has actually done either of those things, go ahead and post the details.
Let us please not confuse Bob Kerrey with John Kerry here. Bob is not accused of PUTTING HIMSELF IN for any of his medals, or for that matter, making up stories before Congress, or meeting with the enemy in Paris. There is a big difference. You could pick apart the records of lots of vets, and some of them would have incidents like Bob's in them....but there is only ONE John Kerry with the pattern of abuse to warrant the creation of SBVfT.
Item 3: Bob Kerrey never ran on his medals in the way that John Kerry does, so I think you've taken an unfair swipe at him. I lived in Nebraska while Kerrey was Governor there, and I disliked his politics intensly, but I never heard him give speeches refering to Vietnam all the time like John Kerry does. I don't recall that the timing of the NY Times story had to do with Bob's getting beat by Al Gore in the primaries, anyway, but I could be wrong there.
Item 4: Many combat vets cannot bring themselves to discuss their combat memories with their own families, and yet you seem to think that Bob Kerrey should just be able to lay it all out for some reporter? Come on! You seem to believe that moral courage should somehow be able to flush away all emotions.
Item 5: Remember, Bob Kerrey is not the enemy here. John Kerry has probably benefitted greatly by confusion with Bob Kerrey over the years. I have posted that before, and I couldn't help but notice that Paul Galanti, one of the former POW's in the Swift Boat ad, said in a radio interview late in the week that he was confused about who was who for years.
Rather than go after Bob in these forums, it would be better to keep pointing out to the uninformed that Bob and John are different people.
Item 6: I can't believe, that as Republican who grew up in Nebraska, I am here defending Bob Kerrey again! I think I need to take a shower. |
ArmyWife
Thanks for your critique. I don't necessarily disagree with your points but I'll try to provide references and rational for my conclusions. The main source is the article by Gregory Vistica which ran in the NYT Magazine 4/29/01. His story was the result of a two year investigation that included a review of all the action reports and communications available.
Item 1) Moral courage to tell the truth is the point. The confusion between physical and moral courage is the issue. That's why people say "don't question John Kerry, he faced the enemy." It's the "aura of the medals" that allows this to happen. It doesn't matter to most people how he got the medals only that he has them. Your point about not going after Bob Kerry in these forums(item 5) is most revealing. Think about it. Two people having a rational discussion are afraid to post in public because their words are likely to be misused. That's what the SBVT is all about. To get past the "aura of the medals" and get the truth even if it supports John Kerry.
Item 2)You're right. The article states that "Kerrey's squad" radioed the false information about the VC kills after they had been extracted. I guess you could make a case for a mix up in communications where Bob Kerrey had no knowledge of substituting VC for civilians , but as the OIC he was responsible for its content. If BobKerrey gets a pass here then John Kerry should get one too. Any incorrect document that John Kerry was respsonsible for should be subject to the clerk did it defense.
As for others who gave back non-deserved medals I have no knowledge. However if the standard is nobody else does it then why should John Kerry? Or if all polititians lie then why shoud we worry about Cambodia?
Item 3) Yes, there is a big difference between Bob Kerrey and John Kerry and it should not be forgotten or minimized. Using a four month stint in Vietnam as a centerpiece of a presidential election campaign is stunning. I'm sure Bob Kerrey never used his status as an MOH winner in this way.
Item 4) What happened in front of reporters 30 years after the events is not important. What happened when the action reports were written and the medal citations were accepted is important. Moral courage is doing the right thing at the right time. Then you don't have to worry about reporters 30 years later. And moral courage is precisely about overcoming emotions, facing abuse, and enduring hardships. If it were easy we'd all do it! But we're all not running for president.
Bob should have displayed moral courage in this dispute by saying I support all veterans; since John Kerry has chosen to use Vietnam as his main running point and theSBVT has challenged him on that basis, let's let all the facts come out and let the people decide". Or he could have just remaind neutral and low key. He did neither.
Even though I made the earlier comment about being "afraid" to criticize I do realize that one has to use some common sense here and we do need to recognize that our comments can be misused.
Thanks again for your well intentioned and reasoned criticism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rhv5862
PO2
Joined: 21 Aug 2004
Posts: 379
Location: Massachusetts
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 05, 2004 10:55 pm Post subject: Bob Kerrey |
|
|
ArmyWife thanks and you are right. Although I did not mean my comments as an attack on Bob Kerrey I can see how they could be used in that context. Will be more careful in future posts.
Thanks again.
RHV |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ArmyWife
Lieutenant
Joined: 06 Aug 2004
Posts: 218
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2004 5:55 am Post subject: Re: Bob Kerrey |
|
|
| rhv5862 wrote: | ArmyWife thanks and you are right. Although I did not mean my comments as an attack on Bob Kerrey I can see how they could be used in that context. Will be more careful in future posts.
Thanks again.
RHV |
Thanks for the reply.
I didn't mean your comments, but the discussion in its totality. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ArmyWife
Lieutenant
Joined: 06 Aug 2004
Posts: 218
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2004 6:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RiflemanDD730 wrote: |
ArmyWife
Thanks for your critique. I don't necessarily disagree with your points but I'll try to provide references and rational for my conclusions. The main source is the article by Gregory Vistica which ran in the NYT Magazine 4/29/01. His story was the result of a two year investigation that included a review of all the action reports and communications available.
Item 1) Moral courage to tell the truth is the point. The confusion between physical and moral courage is the issue. That's why people say "don't question John Kerry, he faced the enemy." It's the "aura of the medals" that allows this to happen. It doesn't matter to most people how he got the medals only that he has them. Your point about not going after Bob Kerry in these forums(item 5) is most revealing. Think about it. Two people having a rational discussion are afraid to post in public because their words are likely to be misused. That's what the SBVT is all about. To get past the "aura of the medals" and get the truth even if it supports John Kerry.
Item 2)You're right. The article states that "Kerrey's squad" radioed the false information about the VC kills after they had been extracted. I guess you could make a case for a mix up in communications where Bob Kerrey had no knowledge of substituting VC for civilians , but as the OIC he was responsible for its content. If BobKerrey gets a pass here then John Kerry should get one too. Any incorrect document that John Kerry was respsonsible for should be subject to the clerk did it defense.
As for others who gave back non-deserved medals I have no knowledge. However if the standard is nobody else does it then why should John Kerry? Or if all polititians lie then why shoud we worry about Cambodia?
Item 3) Yes, there is a big difference between Bob Kerrey and John Kerry and it should not be forgotten or minimized. Using a four month stint in Vietnam as a centerpiece of a presidential election campaign is stunning. I'm sure Bob Kerrey never used his status as an MOH winner in this way.
Item 4) What happened in front of reporters 30 years after the events is not important. What happened when the action reports were written and the medal citations were accepted is important. Moral courage is doing the right thing at the right time. Then you don't have to worry about reporters 30 years later. And moral courage is precisely about overcoming emotions, facing abuse, and enduring hardships. If it were easy we'd all do it! But we're all not running for president.
Bob should have displayed moral courage in this dispute by saying I support all veterans; since John Kerry has chosen to use Vietnam as his main running point and theSBVT has challenged him on that basis, let's let all the facts come out and let the people decide". Or he could have just remaind neutral and low key. He did neither.
Even though I made the earlier comment about being "afraid" to criticize I do realize that one has to use some common sense here and we do need to recognize that our comments can be misused.
Thanks again for your well intentioned and reasoned criticism. |
Rifleman, my friend, now that I know which article at http://www.mishalov.com/Kerrey.html you were going on, please allow me to offer some information for perspective.
The New York Times is the paper that had the famous Jason Blair scandal, and the story itself has some prominent errors. The guy that wrote this piece on Bob Kerrey for them, Gregory Vistica, has written a lot more than just this. Type his name into amazon.com and you'll get a bigger picture on this author. He's written 2 books, one highly critical of Bob Kerrey and another entitled, "Fall from Glory: The Men Who Sank the U.S. Navy", which bashes the Navy during the Reagan years. Vistica appears to just dislike the Navy, period.
The captions to the pictures in this story should be enough to raise eyebrows. First off, there's a picture of 3 Swift Boats with the caption, "Kerrey's Swift-Boat". Did the NYT think they were writing about Bob Kerrey or John Kerry here? SEALs may have caught a ride on a Swift Boat a couple of times in Vietnam, but that would hardly make it Bob's boat. Then there's the picture of Bob Kerrey with Roy Hoffman...likely the same Admiral Roy Hoffman that leads the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth...where the caption calls him "the classic body-count guy". The article leads the reader to believe that Hoffman commanded Bob Kerrey's SEALS, but if you read Kerrey's book, Kerrey makes it clear that he had a different chain of command...that because he was Special Ops, he got his orders from back in the States, but that he coordinated with and got information from Hoffman. The article smears Hoffman, and attempts to make him out to be responsible for the tragedy. Another crazy error in the story in the part where the author claims that after losing his leg in his second firefight in Vietnam, Kerrey wakes up and the first thing he sees are his parents sitting there. Not only does this not jibe with Kerrey's memoir, but it doesn't pass the common sense test because it would take weeks to move a patient back to the US and few people remain unconscious for so long and recover well enough to become a US Senator.
Now, for your items:
Item 1: I think the moral courage that you seek is in Bob Kerrey's speeches about these matters, and in acknowledging how a mission can go so wrong and be so costly to our miltary folks in guilt. That speech to the ROTC cadets is an example of where Kerrey has tried to thoughfully bring up the moral issues of war to the right audience at the right time. The press has taken this story and used it for it's own sensationalist and ratings purposes, and in the process has used and abused Bob Kerrey, Gerhard Klann, Roy Hoffman, and others. I refuse to buy in without more information, and I refuse to take a man's own humility, in saying that he doesn't think he deserves his medals, to justify buying into a call for him to return them. Heroes can be human and you didn't have all the facts.
Item 2: If Bob Kerrey's book is correct, and he was under a different command and more complex reporting structure than John Kerry, then giving a pass to Bob doesn't give one to John. Again, John Kerry is the problem that necessitated the Swift Boat Vets for Truth. If John should have to give medals back, it's partly because he put himself in for them or filed self-serving reoprts. Bob's not accused of that.
Item3: We agree.
Iem 4: Sure, I would like for Bob Kerrey to have given the press a neutral statement on the Swiftees. He's still a Democrat, albeit a maverick one, and is doing what he can for his party this election. So far, that's been a mild op-ed piece and an expletive. Whoop-dee-do! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RiflemanDD730
Seaman Apprentice
Joined: 21 Aug 2004
Posts: 96
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2004 12:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ArmyWife wrote: | Rifleman, my friend, now that I know which article at http://www.mishalov.com/Kerrey.html you were going on, please allow me to offer some information for perspective.
The New York Times is the paper that had the famous Jason Blair scandal, and the story itself has some prominent errors. The guy that wrote this piece on Bob Kerrey for them, Gregory Vistica, has written a lot more than just this. Type his name into amazon.com and you'll get a bigger picture on this author. He's written 2 books, one highly critical of Bob Kerrey and another entitled, "Fall from Glory: The Men Who Sank the U.S. Navy", which bashes the Navy during the Reagan years. Vistica appears to just dislike the Navy, period.
The captions to the pictures in this story should be enough to raise eyebrows. First off, there's a picture of 3 Swift Boats with the caption, "Kerrey's Swift-Boat". Did the NYT think they were writing about Bob Kerrey or John Kerry here? SEALs may have caught a ride on a Swift Boat a couple of times in Vietnam, but that would hardly make it Bob's boat. Then there's the picture of Bob Kerrey with Roy Hoffman...likely the same Admiral Roy Hoffman that leads the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth...where the caption calls him "the classic body-count guy". The article leads the reader to believe that Hoffman commanded Bob Kerrey's SEALS, but if you read Kerrey's book, Kerrey makes it clear that he had a different chain of command...that because he was Special Ops, he got his orders from back in the States, but that he coordinated with and got information from Hoffman. The article smears Hoffman, and attempts to make him out to be responsible for the tragedy. Another crazy error in the story in the part where the author claims that after losing his leg in his second firefight in Vietnam, Kerrey wakes up and the first thing he sees are his parents sitting there. Not only does this not jibe with Kerrey's memoir, but it doesn't pass the common sense test because it would take weeks to move a patient back to the US and few people remain unconscious for so long and recover well enough to become a US Senator.
Now, for your items:
Item 1: I think the moral courage that you seek is in Bob Kerrey's speeches about these matters, and in acknowledging how a mission can go so wrong and be so costly to our miltary folks in guilt. That speech to the ROTC cadets is an example of where Kerrey has tried to thoughfully bring up the moral issues of war to the right audience at the right time. The press has taken this story and used it for it's own sensationalist and ratings purposes, and in the process has used and abused Bob Kerrey, Gerhard Klann, Roy Hoffman, and others. I refuse to buy in without more information, and I refuse to take a man's own humility, in saying that he doesn't think he deserves his medals, to justify buying into a call for him to return them. Heroes can be human and you didn't have all the facts.
Item 2: If Bob Kerrey's book is correct, and he was under a different command and more complex reporting structure than John Kerry, then giving a pass to Bob doesn't give one to John. Again, John Kerry is the problem that necessitated the Swift Boat Vets for Truth. If John should have to give medals back, it's partly because he put himself in for them or filed self-serving reoprts. Bob's not accused of that.
Item3: We agree.
Iem 4: Sure, I would like for Bob Kerrey to have given the press a neutral statement on the Swiftees. He's still a Democrat, albeit a maverick one, and is doing what he can for his party this election. So far, that's been a mild op-ed piece and an expletive. Whoop-dee-do! |
ArmyWife
Thanks for your added perspective. My post focuses on action reports and quotes. The bottom line is that an action report says VC were killed and they were not. If Vistica lied about the action reports then his story is bogus. If not, the main point stands. My guess is that Kerrey would have challenged a bogus report. He did not. He said the medal was” inappropriately awarded".
The issue with John Kerry is essentially the same. Were all of John Kerry's medals awarded appropriately? The SBVT think not. I agree.
Vistica's motives are unknown to me. If his essential facts are correct concerning the action reports his case is made as far as the John Kerry issue is concerned.
In my opinion moral courage is not about giving speeches. It's about doing the right thing at the right time particularly under severe duress or when conventional wisdom can cause undeserved criticism or loss of prestige. Acting like a typical democrat as if this were a minor party hassle does not seem like moral courage to me.
I appreciate you comments. I suspect we will "agree to disagree" on this matter and I'm content to leave it at that. Thanks again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
