Let's see if we can carry Steyn's logic a bit further: Bush was AWOL from a commitment he made to avoid a war in which he didn't feel he should participate in.

Frankly, Steyn's charge against Kerry is odious. Many people served in Vietnam, quite often heroically, who did not believe the war was just.

And guess what? There are men and women in uniform today who question our involvement in Iraq. But they do their duty because they are professionals and patriots.

One of the things that people who have never served don't seem to realize is that when you put on the uniform, you don't get to make US policy--you are an instrument of that policy. As such, John Kerry acquitted himself with great honor.

The point is you can deride Kerry for opposing the war after he left the service--but you'd also be deriding a large number of vets who also felt the war was wrong.

Bush wasn't AWOL, and considering he joined a unit actively involved in combat duty, he wasn't "avoiding" combat either. Your arguments are tired and old, JG, and they fly even less now. All they display is that you haven't been paying any attention as more and more truth about the matter has been revealed.

As for the strips, you also have to give Trudeau a little credit for actually drawing famous characters back then.

Let's place things in perpective, Big Dog:

One (1) Silver Star, One (1) Bronze Star, Three (3) Purple Hearts.

versus

"I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to
get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to better
myself by learning how to fly airplanes."

Again, we don't know if Bush was AWOL or not. There's much more evidence suggesting he was than militating against it.

I'd also add that Bush's versions of events concerning his NG service have changed significantly over time--so you'll have to excuse me if I find his explanations to be somewhat suspect.

Jade, I told you in another comment thread that if you continued to post blatant lies in my comments I'd ban you. Bush was most definitely not AWOL. Repeat --> NOT

Please read the definition of AWOL in the UCMJ before you accuse the president of having been AWOL. He wasn't. And military records show he performed his military duties completely.

As for the cartoons, yes, there are soldiers who serve while not agreeing with the policy. But one of them - John Kerry, is now running for president and touting his "war hero" status, so it is fair to note that he opposed the war and his outspoken opposition helped defeat America in that war. Leading North Vietnamese officials including some of their top military officials have said they only "won" because of actions by groups like Vietnam Veterans Against the War lead to the U.S. quitting the fight. Militarily, we were winning that war. Politically, we lost the will to fight - and after we left, John Kerry's fellow travelers in Congress cut off funding to the South Vietnamese, and they were overrun by the Vietcong. And the communists subsequently killed millions all over Southeast Asia.

We were trying to stop that from happening, but thanks to John Kerry and his ilk, millions of people died.

Based on John F. Kerry's own statements about actions he took and witnessed in Vietnam, one could plausibly make the case under the UCMJ that he was a war criminal. Certainly no greater a stretch than the Bush/AWOL meme.

Jaded,
We DO know President Bush honorably served his entire commitment, the evidence is clear. The a.w.o.l. lie you keep making is based on conjecture.

Granted, he did not get scratched like Senator Kerry. But he volunteered to fly fighter jets, which are much more dangerous than the motor boats Kerry served in.

"So I chose to better
myself by learning how to fly airplanes."

Bush has continued to better himself. Kerry is a poser who lied about what happene during the war and consistently voted against the US military.

There is only more evidence saying that Bush was AWOL if you have been completely ignoring all the evidence against it, which is quite a bit. Evidently you have.

Whoa, Matt S!!!

Are you taking into account the fact that the boats were actually getting shot at as they went up and down the river?

Frankly, to most people, Kerry's having served in a war he came to oppose just looks honorable. It's to his credit in most people's eyes, not a detriment.

It's still wrong to continue this myth about Bush being AWOL though. It's dishonest, in fact. "We don't know for sure" is just weaselly gossip, every bit as bad as a flat-out lie.

John Kerry was one of the greatest traitors to America since Benedict Arnold. After a questionable 4 month stint in Vietnam, where he was most known for shooting up civilians, he returns home, and undermines the efforts of the men he left behind in Vietnam. He provides aid and comfort to the enemy. Even when he was in Vietnam, his decorations are for such "heroic" actions as shooting an enemy who had already been tagged with a .50 cal and was most likely dead to begin with. His purple hearts were for such minor injuries, that of the three incidents, he was only off duty for a day between them.

Give me a break! I spent 357 days as a US Marine infantryman deployed against communists. So, Jade... do not act as if you are speaking to people who have never served, and assume an air of authority. I can sure as Hell critique what he did after returning from Vietnam, especially since it includes lying, and giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

My question for you is: When did the Libs suddenly decide that military service was "cool"? The fact of the matter is that those who actually served generally do not like Kerry. In fact, you may want to find out more about him from "Vietnam Vets against Kerry."

John Kerry was one of the greatest traitors to America since Benedict Arnold.

Wow. Right up there with Aldritch Ames and Alger Hiss, eh?

After a questionable 4 month stint in Vietnam, where he was most known for shooting up civilians...

Documentation, please?

...he returns home, and undermines the efforts of the men he left behind in Vietnam.

Many veterans spoke against the war. The right to free speech is what you guys were fighting for.

He provides aid and comfort to the enemy.

Now you're accusing him of treason. Can you back that up?

Even when he was in Vietnam, his decorations are for such "heroic" actions as shooting an enemy who had already been tagged with a .50 cal and was most likely dead to begin with. His purple hearts were for such minor injuries, that of the three incidents, he was only off duty for a day between them.

Can you document any of this?

Bill, accusing John Kerry of celebrating the loss of the war in Vietnam is a pretty substantial charge. I wouldn't want a president who celebrated in American defeat. But I'm sure you've got a quote or something of that nature which could be reasonably interpreted as 'celebrating' defeat. Don't you?

As for the slander you're throwing around, doc Russia, here's what John McCain had to say about Ted Sampley and 'Vietnam Vets Against Kerry'.

"I strongly caution reporters who may be contacted by or are interested in Mr. Ted Sampley and the various organizations he claims to represent, and his opinions on the subject of Senator Kerry, or any subject for that matter, to investigate thoroughly Mr. Sampley's background and history of spreading outrageous slander and other disreputable behavior before inadvertently lending him or his allegations any credibility.

"I am well familiar with Mr. Sampley, and I know him to be one of the most despicable people I have ever had the misfortune to encounter. I consider him a fraud who preys on the hopes of family members of missing servicemen for his own profit. He is dishonorable, an enemy of the truth, and despite his claims, he does not speak for or represent the views of all but a few veterans. The many veterans I know would think it a disgrace to be considered a comrade or supporter of Ted Sampley."

So, doc Russia, are you a supporter of Ted Sampley?

I will concede, simply to forward the debate, that the President's decision to serve in the Texas Air National Guard was a conscious choice to avoid immediate deployment to Vietnam. That said, it is indisputable that flying high-powered jet fighters is a dangerous occupation and that the AIR national guard was much more likely to be deployed to Vietnam than the Army NG. If the President was truly a shirker and wanted to avoid serving his country he could have relied on a "bad back" and gone skiing in Aspen or finagle an out of an ROTC scholarship and skip over to Oxford and denouce his country from that safe haven. He didn't. He served and he he served honorably.

Jade Gold sez:
>Let's place things in perpective, Big Dog:
>
>One (1) Silver Star, One (1) Bronze >Star, Three (3) Purple Hearts.

Ah yes...you mean the medals he threw back? Whoopsee! Those were "someone elses" medals he threw back! Funny how the story gets adjusted based on the circumstances, isn't it?

LOL..Maybe you should read some of what Kerry's shipmates off the boat have to say about his VVAW activities. Believe me, it ain't pretty.

A couple of points here, if I may.

Is Doc Russia referring to Benedict Arnold the American traitor, or to Benedict Arnold the British hero? Just kidding.

I would be disappointed with Mr. Kerry if I knew for sure he tossed someone else's medals over the fence as if they were his own. It would seem foolish indeed to then, as a highly visible public figure, display them in his office for all to see. If he did so, I would like to be first in line to criticize him.

I would like to know the truth in this matter as much as anyone. My brother would not have his Vietnam service medals today if our mother had not fished them out of the garbage can, cleaned them, and saved them for him. He served, came home, and then voluntarily went back. He was wounded by mortar shrapnel and was exposed to agent orange. Today, he is an ardent Democrat and will support Kerry.

I want Kerry to clear up some of these questions as the campaign gets underway. I also want to hear Mr. Bush tell us why he chose the National Guard over all of the other services.

Semi-

From the mouth of Brian Wilson who was/is a long time Kerry friend and supporter (and who was present at the "medal throwing")- http://www.brianwillson.com/awolkerry.html An open letter to John Kerry, paragraph 5.

More Kerry flip-floppery history was listed in a 12 Feb op-ed piece in, of all things, the Boston Globe.

Semi:

It's none of your business why he chose it. There's nothing wrong with him having made this decision, unless you're going to be foolish enough to say that the National Guard, especially the Air National Guard, is somehow not a worthwhile pursuit.

Jade, I told you in another comment thread that if you continued to post blatant lies in my comments I'd ban you. Bush was most definitely not AWOL. Repeat --> NOT

Riiiiiight. And OJ Simpson is not a murderer. And if we all clap louder for Tinkerbell....

Look, the fact is Bush's NG service was far from exemplary. At the very least, Bush used family connections to secure a position in the Guard to avoid VietNam. When Bush lost interest, he took a walk.

BTW, WRT medals--you can't lose them or give them back. You can toss 'em into a live volcano but you still have that award on your record. In effect, you can never actually 'lose' or destroy your medals.

Look, the real issue here isn't that Kerry opposed the Vietnam War. You can argue with that, but by fighting in the war, he more than earned that right. The real issue is the way he slandered his comrades-in-arms as barbaric war criminals in sworn testimony to Congress, testimony that was false but that was given massive nationwide publicity. That's just despicable, and it was the moment that shot Kerry to national prominence.

Looking to get banned everywhere, Guy? Who will you be able to insult when you're out of places to go?

Dave:

I think Jade is right.

I think Jade's right, too.

The real issue is the way he slandered his comrades-in-arms as barbaric war criminals in sworn testimony to Congress, testimony that was false but that was given massive nationwide publicity

That's the meme. But it's untrue.

Let's look at what Kerry did say and not as you creatively mischaracterize it.

I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command....

Honorably discharaged? highly decorated? Not exactly disparaging descriptions.

Also note that these vets testified to atrocities, not Kerry.

Full testimony here:

http://www.richmond.edu/~ebolt/history398/JohnKerryTestimony.html

Seems Kerry isn't disparaging the troops--far from it. However, he is taking the leadership conducting the war to task.

"However, he is taking the leadership conducting the war to task."

Yeah -- by saying they covered up the atrocities committed by the soldiers. Who do you think he was accusing of committing those crimes? Officers in the HQs or soldiers in the field?

Did not Lt. John F. Kerry personally execute a grievously wounded enemy combatant who no longer posed any conceivable threat to him or his unit? Would that not be a war crime?

You mean these vets?

http://www.vnsfvetakerry.com/kerrys_fake_warriors.htm#KERRYS%20FAKE%20WARRIORS

You mean JadeGold is still lying and baiting and switching on other peoples' blogs instead of his own?

What a surprise.

Bill, join many others in just banning him. He's got his own blog, no one reads it because it sucked, but he has his own none the less.

Enjoy his semi-lucid moments.

Corey:

I'm afraid an anonymous site doesn't offer much in the way of credibility. I'm also pretty certain the site you point us to is part of Ted Sampley's outfit.

You may wish to do a search on Ted Sampley.

I'm afraid an anonymous site doesn't offer much in the way of credibility.

Interesting that you should make that point, given your claims to authority in military matters.

And your military experience is what, Slart?

Ohhhh, that's right. Nothing.

Ah, but I never claimed to be either, have I? Non-point, Jade.

Jade Gold sez:
>BTW, WRT medals--you can't lose them or
>give them back. You can toss 'em into a
>live volcano but you still have that
>award on your record. In effect, you can
>never actually 'lose' or destroy your
>medals.

BWHAHAHA! Jade...veterans for generations have returned medals to the government be it to protest the Vietnam War, health issues with Gulf War Syndrome or the use of the Vieques range in PR.
There's a word to describe someone who takes an action to make a moral statement and then turns around and denies he meant or did that. It's called "hypocrite". Look that one up in your Websters dictionary.

BWHAHAHA! Jade...veterans for generations have returned medals to the government be it to protest the Vietnam War, health issues with Gulf War Syndrome or the use of the Vieques range in PR.

Of course they have. But one can never 'lose' a medal or an award.

You see, Jaalinta, the medal or ribbon is only a symbol. When you are awarded such an honor--what is actually awarded is the right to wear that particular medal or ribbon. So if you lose, discard or even have the medal stolen--you are entitled to head to the uniform shop and purchase another.

Think of it this way: suppose your house burns down and your HS diploma is destroyed in the fire. Does this mean you didn't go to HS? Of course not. You're still a HS grad and the fact you don't have a diploma anymore doesn't change that fact.

But, JadeGold, don't you see the inherent dishonesty in someone claiming to throw away their medals out of disgust for what they did to earn them, and then later displaying those medals?

Was Kerry disgusted by what he did in Vietnam? Why? What changed his mind?

Robert-

You hit the nail right on the head. Thank you.

Robert: Kerry was protesting the war as conducted by the Govt. I doubt he threw them away because he was disgusted at what he did but rather disgusted at the deceit and betrayal of the Govt.

Again, Kerry earned the right to wear (or not to wear) those medals. As I noted previously, that right can't be lost.

Actually that right can be lost...it's called "revocation". So you're wrong on that account.

Never mind that there isn't a vet around who would agree with your assessment which is based purely on a technicality. I bet George Wilson isn't running around wearing or displaying the Jubilee of Liberty medal he returned to the French Embassy in March 2003. You can be assured that Kerry's compariots who were at Dewey Canyon III don't agree with you either. A quote from an open letter to John Kerry from one of the DC III folks says it all:

"The first hint of a bit of disconnect in your style was when during your first Senate campaign you denied returning your war medals, with a thousand other veterans, in protest of the war during Dewey Canyon III. That was a bit of a shock, since for most veterans who returned their medals in that emotional ceremony on Friday, April 23, 1971, it was a very proud and healing moment. Your 1984 campaign response: You had returned the medals of a WWII acquaintance at his direction. All those 13 years everyone thought you had had the courage and leadership to return medals that to veterans who returned them represented medals of dishonor drenched in the blood of innocent Vietnamese who did not deserve to die for a lie, any more than our fellow US Americans. I guess you knew then that you were to be running for office."

I said it earlier..but I'll repeat it again: H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E

BTW Jade- if you think Kerry trotting out his war record and awards is gonna win over Vets, Vietnam or otherwise, you got another thing coming.

Actually that right can be lost...it's called "revocation". So you're wrong on that account.

Nope. I'm still correct. Revocation occurs, albeit rarely, when the Govt. decides it has made a mistake or error in awarding the decoration.

The authority to wear an award may be suspended by the award approval authority or higher authority. An award will be suspended when an investigation has been initiated by proper authority to determine the validity of the award. The authority directing the suspension will
notify, in writing, the individual concerned, etc.

Again, people can disagree with whether the war in VietNam was right or wrong. Kerry served. And he served with distinction.

For every vet you find that think Kerry was a louse for exercising his 1A rights in opposition to the war, you can bet there are several more vets who know he was right.

Jade sez:
>Nope. I'm still correct. Revocation
>occurs, albeit rarely, when the Govt.
>decides it has made a mistake or error
>in awarding the decoration.

Afraid not. Revocation has occured due to misconduct on the part of recipients as far back as the Civil War. MOH's have been revoked in cases where the recipient was convicted of desertion. Revocation can also occur if it is decided that the circumstances regarding the citation were incorrect, untruthful or the cited action did not reach the level to merit the award given. One example: revocation's have been asked for in the case of John McCain's medals that he received as a result of his POW stint in North Vietnam.

There are more benign cases of revocation, such as in the case of General Wesley Clark where his Bronze Star was revoked so it could be upgraded to a Silver Star.

Based on the citations and the facts publicly available, I would not be surprised if a revocation request went into SECNAV Gordon England concerning John Kerry's Silver Star.

Well, I'm not too keen on any investigation into Kerry's service history. If such a thing were not motivated solely by a desire to smear him as unfit for presidency, it would have happened long ago. Ditto, BTW, for the whole Bush/AWOL non-investigation.

He won't have my vote, regardless.

Afraid not. Revocation has occured due to misconduct on the part of recipients as far back as the Civil War. MOH's have been revoked in cases where the recipient was convicted of desertion. Revocation can also occur if it is decided that the circumstances regarding the citation were incorrect, untruthful or the cited action did not reach the level to merit the award given.

Nope, you're still wrong. Again, the decorations can be revoked by the award approval authority or some higher up, such as the President, if the award was made by error or mistake. The best known example of this was the Purge of 1917 where a large number of MoHs were revoked because they had been given as a reward for reenlistment. Several other awards were revoked (some later reinstated) because they were given to civilians.

As to attempting to revoke John Kerry's decorations--I think the GOP should try it. Sounds like a winning strategy to me.

While they're at it, they could award Bush the MoH for keeping Montgomery AL free of VC (and Bush) activity in 1972.

BTW, Jaalinta, Bush still has not fully disclosed his NG service record.

Kerry has.

Do you wonder why?

wow
One (1) Silver Star, One (1) Bronze Star, Three (3) Purple Hearts in just 4 months and no limp. Think if he would have stayed for the full tour. Enlisted man to boat commandeer in two months! What a guy!

Also Jade,
Since Kerry's release everything. What did he do for his Naval Reserve years again?

Kerry has released his NG records? Who knew?

One (1) Silver Star, One (1) Bronze Star, Three (3) Purple Hearts in just 4 months and no limp.

You've got us, Andy. I think you should make this a GOP campaign issue. It's a sure winner.

BTW, I served with a MoH-winner who didn't limp either.

An Open letter to Senator John Kerry: Fair and Balanced

Stanley J. Cwiklinski III
Whitesville,N.Y.
Vietnam, 199th LIB. 4th Bn. 12th Inf. 1967-68

Senator John Kerry, Many men have served in the armed services of this country. I think that anyone who slanders their sacrifices should be held accountable for their actions. I don't understand why your political career should be placed above those that served us so well. John Kerry's Silver Star exploit looks to me something form out of the John Wayne movies starring John Wayne, Audie Murphy and Rambo. Doing something showy. As far as pulling the Special forces troop out of the water; that seems like he was just doing his job. you can argue both ways on beaching the boat. Whether the boat commander should have done that is arguable, PBR Rules of Engagement say that, No one should get off the boat for any reason. the story is just too sparse to truly judge. That doesn't sound like Silver Star action. Army procedures vice Navy procedures for awards. procedures vary from unit to unit, month to month, commander to commander, much less service to service. There was a "3 Hearts and you can go home" policy -- but I couldn't tell you when it was instituted or if all services subscribed to it. I also know that it generally only applied to enlisted. no officer worth would use that as an excuse to go home. But, in the end, we've found out what Kerry thought of that. Kerry spent about 3 or 4 months in Nam about as much time as Gore. Why is it that Democrats who did such short tour of duties, think they are experts on Nam? Why is it after only spending a few months in Nam, does Kerry think so many Americans committed atrocities? Even Doughnut Dollies did longer Nam tours. Every description I have read of Kerry's action resulting in the Silver Star leave me wondering, Where is the rest of it? I've have not read his citation, and I've not heard a description of his actions from someone who is both supportive of Kerry and a combat vet. So, my position is: he has the Silver Star - and I hope that there was more to it than we're hearing. I have no information at all on how the award was generated. I especially like to see whose signature is recorded on the citation. Senior officers and other high-ranking politicians have been known to help each other's reputations by recommending each other for awards such as the Navy Cross, Silver Star and other recognition's. What is most important is what he did after he got home and since? His Silver Star and his Purple Hearts Throwing his medals and the other radical protest was insulting to any soldier who earned similar decorations. It went far beyond just being apposer to the war. His voting record in the Senate have been consistently antimilitary. He voted against all key weapons in the current war effort. Our media should be demanding that Senator Kerry open his service records in the same way they demanded that of President Bush regarding his NAG. service. - Stan