Kerry saw war and spoke out against it

[Sharky]

Interesting letter to the editor in today's Panama City News Herald :

Quoted verbatim

I served in Viet Nam. I was there from 1966 to 1967. It was dangerous, dirty, and had all the unpleasant things you can possibly imagine.

But I survived and was shipped home, not to the hero's welcome that our Iraq and Afghanistan soldiers are getting, but to a time of turmoil in the United States. During Viet Nam the American public did not separate the soldier from the war, as we are now smart enough to do. In the 1960s, the soldier was the war, and we paid a high price for our service to America in Viet Nam.

We also now know that the war, as our elected leaders were fighting it, was unwinnable. We were killing and being killed for a failed policy.

Many who came back from Viet Nam saw what was going on in the United States and realized that we were not going to make the world safe for democracy by killing people in Viet Nam. Remember the movie Born on the Fourth of July ? With all the protest against the war, who had a better right to speak out against the war than someone who had served in it?

Thirty years later, there still are Viet Nam veterans who are bitter about Viet Nam - bitter about the way they were used, envious - yes, envious - of the affection and attention that the returning veterans are getting now, and maybe still unable to justify to their own consciences what they did in Viet Nam.

For a lot of us, including myself, it took years of help to understand that Viet Nam was not my fault; that there was nothing I could have done that would have changed history. For some of our veterans, that guilt has been festering for 30 years or more and now with this presidential election has been brought to the surface.

In that case, I have to say don't hate Sen. John Kerry because he spoke out about possible atrocities that may have been committed during Viet Nam. There were; and we who served know that. It happens in every war and it has happened in Iraq, in Abu Ghraib prison.

And I don't blame President George W. Bush for being in the National Guard. One of my very oldest friends went to Canada rather than be drafted. Twenty years after Viet Nam, I thought he might have been right.

We veterans understand how important it is to vote. But we vote for whom we believe is the best person for the presidential job of taking care of our citizens, not because some disgruntled veterans are hurt about what another veteran said upon his return from Viet Nam, or because someone served in the National Guard and did not go overseas.

Robert-Ian Salit,
Panama City Beach

 

[Gonz]

Had Kerry not opened his DNC acceptance speech with "Reporting for Duty" nor harped about winning the triple crown for Purple Hearts along with Silver & Bronze Stars, it wouldn't have been the issue it became. He hasn't spoken of anything else.

After listening to these swift boat guys & learning about why and how he won his medals, I have less respect for him now than I did a month ago. Bush took the comparatively easy way out. Kerry did two tours of duty in Nam. As soon as he actually saw combat he became a medal hound.

Next week is the RNC. Maybe Kerry will want to talk about his post Vietnam record & where & how he'll lead us....nah, that'll lose it for sure.

 

[HomeLAN]

Had Kerry not opened his DNC acceptance speech with "Reporting for Duty" nor harped about winning the triple crown for Purple Hearts along with Silver & Bronze Stars, it wouldn't have been the issue it became. He hasn't spoken of anything else.

Bingo.

It is correc that, in general, a man's service to his country should be unquestioned. The moment that Kerry portrayed it as his single major qualification for office, it became fair game.

Notice this:

A 527 group (Swift vets) questions Kerry's military records. No credible demand is made that Kerry open his service record. The backers of this 527 group (a Texas buisinessman) are investigated by the press.

A 527 group (moveon. org) questions Bush's military records. There is an immediate outcry for full disclosure from Bush. The press hounds him on it for months. No mention is made of this organization's backers (mainly George Soros, a Hungarian businessman).

See the contrast?

 

[Sharky]

I agree with both of you guys.

But I think Mr. Salit's point was that the issue of military service is a wash between these two candidates, and it's time to move on to other issues - such as their records of service in the Presidency and the Senate. Which kinda leaves Kerry out in the cold.

 

[Gonz]

Well, given the new light placed on Kerry by the SwiftBoat Veterans & now Retired Rear Adm. William L. Schachte Jr., this is even more enlightening wouldn't you say?

"In a sense, there's nothing that says more about your career than when you fought, where you fought and how you fought," Kerry told the Boston Herald.

"If you wind up being less than what you're pretending to be, there is a major confrontation with value and self-esteem and your sense of how others view you."

"Is it wrong? Yes, it is very wrong. Sufficient to question his leadership position? The answer is yes, which he clearly understood," Kerry told the Herald.

At that time, a left-leaning news service had raised questions about Boorda's combat "V" clip, which is awarded for valor under fire. The doubt was over whether Boorda's two tours in Vietnam aboard combat ships qualified him for the awards. The Washington Post reported Boorda's right to wear the clips apparently was supported by a Navy manual, but hours before he was scheduled to address the issue with Newsweek reporters, he shot himself.

WND