Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

IceBreaker · Mar 7, 2004, 12:15 AM

Revealed: how 'war hero' Kerry tried to put off Vietnam military duty
By Charles Laurence in New York
(Filed: 07/03/2004)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ixnewstop.html

Senator John Kerry, the presumed Democratic presidential candidate who is trading on his Vietnam war record to campaign against President George W Bush, tried to defer his military service for a year, according to a newly rediscovered article in a Harvard University newspaper.

He wrote to his local recruitment board seeking permission to spend a further 12 months studying in Paris, after completing his degree course at Yale University in the mid-1960s.

The revelation appears to undercut Sen Kerry's carefully-cultivated image as a man who willingly served his country in a dangerous war - in supposed contrast to President Bush, who served in the Texas National Guard and thus avoided being sent to Vietnam.

The Harvard Crimson newspaper followed a youthful Mr Kerry in Boston as he campaigned for Congress for the first time in 1970. In the course of a lengthy article, "John Kerry: A Navy Dove Runs for Congress", published on February 18, the paper reported: "When he approached his draft board for permission to study for a year in Paris, the draft board refused and Kerry decided to enlist in the Navy."

Samuel Goldhaber, the article's author who is now a cardiologist attached to the Harvard School of Medicine, spent 11 hours trailing Mr Kerry and still remembers that the subject of the Paris deferment came up during long conversations about Vietnam.

"I stand by my story," he told The Telegraph. "It was a long time ago, and I was 19 at the time, so it is hard to remember every detail. But I do know this: at no point did Kerry contact either me or the Crimson to dispute anything I had written."

Sen Kerry's campaign headquarters in Washington refused an opportunity to deny the report. Despite repeated telephone calls from The Telegraph, a spokesman refused to comment. Another Democrat official said merely: "In Vietnam, John Kerry proved his patriotism beyond question. Everyone knows that."

A senior Republican strategist, who asked not to be named, said: "I've not heard this before. This undercuts Kerry's complaints about Bush and it continues to pose questions as to his credibility among ordinary Vietnam veterans."

He said it would fuel concerns over the way Sen Kerry made a name for himself by leading anti-war protests in Washington and Boston in the late 1960s and early 1970s after he had completed his service in the US Navy, even while his former comrades continued to fight and die.

A newly-published biography of Sen Kerry by Douglas Brinkley, A Tour of Duty, makes no mention of the requested deferment or planned year in Paris. At the time, it was still unclear just how long America would remain in Vietnam, and it might have seemed that a year's deferral of service could render enlistment unnecessary.

According to the Democratic Party's version of Sen Kerry's military history, he joined the Reserve Officer Training Corps at Harvard through eagerness to do his duty, and sailed with the Navy for combat as soon as he graduated in 1966.

Sen Kerry won a gallantry medal for his service as a gunboat captain on the Mekong Delta, and was honorably discharged with three "purple heart" medals after sustaining three wounds. He has consistently presented himself as a leader who argued against the war only after fulfilling his duty in the field. Supporters argue that his war record makes him a more trustworthy leader than President Bush, who served sporadically in the National Guard at home.

"This means that Kerry didn't jump into all that heroic service until he was pushed, and it is a very nice piece of information," said Lucianne Goldberg, a prominent Republican campaigner.

Republican strategists for President Bush were already investigating Sen Kerry's record of three wounds sustained in Vietnam. "We find that he had only one day off sick - with three wounds? What exactly were these wounds?" she asked.

Mr Goldhaber recalled that, during a day spent with Sen Kerry and one assistant during his congressional campaign, he had described his involvement, service and decision to oppose the war in great detail.

"I am not at all surprised that he wants to be president, because he exuded ambition from the word go," said Dr Goldhaber. "At the time, the idea that he tried to persuade the draft board to let him spend a year in Paris was just a detail."

A spokesman for the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign declined to comment.

Lerkfish · Mar 7, 2004, 12:52 AM

not sure republicans really want to go down this road. Stop and think about it.

Spliffdaddy · Mar 7, 2004, 01:32 AM

lol.

what's wrong?

you spent a month spouting off crap about Dubya's military service.

sure seemed important to you then.

ghost_flash · Mar 7, 2004, 05:12 AM

When Clinton was running, didn't Kerry defend him saying something to the effect that inserting references to the Vietnam War have no place in a campaign? Now he is referencing his service in Vietnam?

For shame.

saranwarp · Mar 7, 2004, 06:48 AM

Key phrase:

Kerry decided to enlist in the Navy.

Just by enlisting, he went far beyond anything Bush was willing to do. I don't think this is something the GOP will want to focus on.

chris v · Mar 7, 2004, 08:49 AM

There wasn't much of anybody with any sense at all in the late sixties who wasn't trying to find some way out of Vietnam. It was pretty well accepted by 65 or 66 that it was an ill-advised meat grinder. People fled to Canada. People shot their eardrums out. People shot their toes and fingers off. People paid crooked psychiatrists to declare them unfit. People joined the national guard. People joined the air Force in the hopes that they wouldn't get put in harms' way if they were just a lowly mechanic. The people who didn't do any of these things stood a pretty good chance of dying, and they knew that.

The hypocrisy with Bush is that he used his privilege as a rich person to have strings pulled unfairly so that he could get in to the National Guard ahead of other people on a long waiting list who didn't have the same connections as he did, then proceeded to do the bare minimum he could be bothered to do in order to be discharged. Then he loudly proclaimed how he proudly served his country, and dressed up and played flyboy while real soldiers were dying real deaths in Iraq.

I say we can go down that road all day long, but it might not be in Bush's interest for us to do so.

CV

hyteckit · Mar 7, 2004, 08:56 AM

Okay, so Kerry wasn't thrill with the war. We all knew that. But he proudly served when he had to.

Zimphire · Mar 7, 2004, 09:03 AM

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
lol.

what's wrong?

you spent a month spouting off crap about Dubya's military service.

sure seemed important to you then.

It's the can give but not take rational.

theolein · Mar 7, 2004, 10:42 AM

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
<snip>

Location: your ignore list if you're a liberal

Translation: I get pissed because no one takes me seriously.

OreoCookie · Mar 7, 2004, 01:05 PM

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
lol.

what's wrong?

you spent a month spouting off crap about Dubya's military service.

sure seemed important to you then.

Just strategically, I am not sure if that was a wise decision by the 2004 campaign strategists. It keeps Bush's past in the National Guard in the news.

Which is bad news for him. Kerry didn't get the permission, and I can't blame him for not being eager to go. (As I can't blame Bush for not wanting to do it.) But he had to go and he did go. No "Champagne unit", he went to Vietnam in the end.

And in the end, one of them is a decorated war veteran and the other one is not. It isn't a point I would put in the spot light if I were Bush.

ghost_flash · Mar 7, 2004, 01:14 PM

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
Just strategically, I am not sure if that was a wise decision by the 2004 campaign strategists. It keeps Bush's past in the National Guard in the news.

Which is bad news for him. Kerry didn't get the permission, and I can't blame him for not being eager to go. (As I can't blame Bush for not wanting to do it.) But he had to go and he did go. No "Champagne unit", he went to Vietnam in the end.

And in the end, one of them is a decorated war veteran and the other one is not. It isn't a point I would put in the spot light if I were Bush.

Yeah, he went to Nam ok....

http://www.streamload.com/jmstein77/Kerry2.mp3

zigzag · Mar 7, 2004, 02:13 PM

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
Yeah, he went to Nam ok....

http://www.streamload.com/jmstein77/Kerry2.mp3

So you're suddenly concerned about war crimes?

Kerry's point was that these practices were widespread in Vietnam and that it was an additional reason to believe that the war was immoral. These are the things they were ordered to do. Therefore, if you want to indict Kerry, be my guest - you'd also have to indict most of the armed forces and political leaders of the time, including the Republican ones. Kerry was just willing to talk about it.

Kerry stuck his neck out both in combat and politically. Whatever his other failings, I'd say that it reflects well on him.

ghost_flash · Mar 7, 2004, 02:29 PM

Originally posted by zigzag:
So you're suddenly concerned about war crimes?

Kerry's point was that these practices were widespread in Vietnam and that it was an additional reason to believe that the war was immoral. These are the things they were ordered to do. Therefore, if you want to indict Kerry, be my guest - you'd also have to indict most of the armed forces and political leaders of the time, including the Republican ones. Kerry was just willing to talk about it.

Kerry stuck his neck out both in combat and politically. Whatever his other failings, I'd say that it reflects well on him.

"Suddenly"? You don't know me! I was concerned with the Nuremburg trials when they were cleaning up what was left of the cowards that didn't off themselves from WWII. America took a leadership role in taking these scum down. Isn't that what all those indicted there said? "I was ordered to do these things, and in the German army one follows those orders without question!" So, he was following orders? Ok.

Either he is lying and he didn't do these things, but used this happenstance to make him look more justified in his going against the war, or he actually did these things, in which case he is a criminal. Either way, he is manipulative, and unworthy of holding any office, especailly the Commander and Chief.

Spheric Harlot · Mar 7, 2004, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
Yeah, he went to Nam ok....

http://www.streamload.com/jmstein77/Kerry2.mp3

And people criticize him for having turned into an anti-Vietnam-War activist after actually having seen what it meant?

-s*

Lerkfish · Mar 7, 2004, 05:25 PM

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
lol.

what's wrong?

you spent a month spouting off crap about Dubya's military service.

sure seemed important to you then.

1. I think you have me confused with someone else. I only said I found it interesting how they were spinning the missing time in the Guard service. I even defended his getting out of active duty, since all all sons of privelege were doing the same. It really helps if you actually read posts once in a while.
2. my point was I don't think republicans strategically want to keep bringing up military service, since their man does not compare favorably in terms of actual duty.
3. I honestly DON"T think its important actually. I think its only interesting in terms of how they spin the missing time, but its not a make or break deal for me for either candidate...hence the yawn smiley.

Zimphire · Mar 7, 2004, 05:27 PM

Eh, you were using it as a reason not to vote for Bush. Now daddy Kerry's dirt comes out.. that's ok you'll vote for HIM anyhow.

ghost_flash · Mar 7, 2004, 06:33 PM

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...0/131219.shtml

See Kerry for what he is.

Lerkfish · Mar 7, 2004, 07:12 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Eh, you were using it as a reason not to vote for Bush. Now daddy Kerry's dirt comes out.. that's ok you'll vote for HIM anyhow.

I stated that as a reason not to vote for Bush? how so? provide details.
As I've stated, the issue of the national guard AWOL episode is not that high on my list of concerns. I'm much more concerned about how Bush lied and people died.
THAT is on the top of my list of concerns.

I suppose if you're willing to vote for Bush, even though he lied to you, expanded government, increased spending, etc.
Then I can vote for whomever I wish to vote for.

Zimphire · Mar 7, 2004, 08:06 PM

You posted it as reasons why Bush wasn't president material Lerk.. you know it I know it.

Lerkfish · Mar 7, 2004, 08:14 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
You posted it as reasons why Bush wasn't president material Lerk.. you know it I know it.

gee, wasn't I glad when you weren't around here. back to the ignore list for you.
If you want to put up or shut up, go back to the thread and read what exactly I said instead of your twisted innuendos.

Yes, I think he's not president material, he never has been, and I"ve made no bones that he's not....but NOT for the guard duty thing. I've stated that clearly in the previous thread.

read it, learn it, know it.

tie · Mar 7, 2004, 08:20 PM

Sorry, I don't see what's wrong here? He wanted to study in Paris, is that the big story? I.e., in the land of the Saddam sympathizers and just about practically terrorists: France. Did his father pull strings so he was placed in front of 500 people on the waiting list to get to study in Paris? Did he abandon his unit to go study in France? No? Oh.

zigzag · Mar 7, 2004, 08:23 PM

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
"Suddenly"? You don't know me! I was concerned with the Nuremburg trials when they were cleaning up what was left of the cowards that didn't off themselves from WWII. America took a leadership role in taking these scum down. Isn't that what all those indicted there said? "I was ordered to do these things, and in the German army one follows those orders without question!" So, he was following orders? Ok.

Either he is lying and he didn't do these things, but used this happenstance to make him look more justified in his going against the war, or he actually did these things, in which case he is a criminal. Either way, he is manipulative, and unworthy of holding any office, especailly the Commander and Chief.

That's a judgment for you to make. I just find it odd that many of the people who were gung-ho for the Vietnam War and think we didn't fight it hard enough are suddenly concerned about the war crimes of a guy who was actually in Vietnam risking his life and doing what they asked him to do while their candidate was safe at home. This suggests to me that their concern is not really with war crimes, but with politics.

Now, if your real concern is that Kerry lied or exaggerated in order to manipulate Congress, that would seem to me to be a more legitimate complaint. Many vets understandably resent him for his anti-war activities, although many other vets respect him for same. I can understand both points of view.

I would also add that if we're concerned about manipulative rhetoric in and of itself, neither candidate would be worthy of holding any office.

[FWIW, I believe the correct term is "Commander in Chief."]

MacGorilla · Mar 7, 2004, 09:09 PM

You know if I was 18 in the Vietnam era, I would have done everything I could to avoid millitary service. I don't have the sense of duty I do now.

Krusty · Mar 7, 2004, 09:41 PM

Wow ... you guys are Nucking Futz if you actually want to see Bush and Kerry go head to head on their service records. Kerry's no saint, but his record is practically solid gold compared to Dubya's (or Clinton's, for that matter). The only allegation that can be brought up is that he requested a 12 month extension for school before enlisting ? And, when the request was denied, he enlisted. As Oreo mentioned, this is a bad idea for the Bush camp to try and highlight .. one guy actually served in combat and received medals for bravery. The other guy got strings pulled so he never had to see combat at all. Kerry's from a background that he probably could have gotten similar strings pulled so that he wouldn't have to see actual, life-endangering combat if he had really wanted to get out of serving.

Zimphire · Mar 7, 2004, 11:29 PM

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
gee, wasn't I glad when you weren't around here. back to the ignore list for you.
If you want to put up or shut up, go back to the thread and read what exactly I said instead of your twisted innuendos.

Yes, I think he's not president material, he never has been, and I"ve made no bones that he's not....but NOT for the guard duty thing. I've stated that clearly in the previous thread.

read it, learn it, know it.

So Lerk, is what Kerry did a good move for a President wanna be, or a bad one?

Spliffdaddy · Mar 7, 2004, 11:52 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
So Lerk, is what Kerry did a good move for a President wanna be, or a bad one?

He won't answer that.

Zimphire · Mar 7, 2004, 11:53 PM

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

theolein · Mar 8, 2004, 12:23 AM

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
"Suddenly"? You don't know me! I was concerned with the Nuremburg trials when they were cleaning up what was left of the cowards that didn't off themselves from WWII. America took a leadership role in taking these scum down. Isn't that what all those indicted there said? "I was ordered to do these things, and in the German army one follows those orders without question!" So, he was following orders? Ok.

Either he is lying and he didn't do these things, but used this happenstance to make him look more justified in his going against the war, or he actually did these things, in which case he is a criminal. Either way, he is manipulative, and unworthy of holding any office, especailly the Commander and Chief.

If you're spouting stuff like this now, I wonder what will happen to you if Kerry actually wins.

Zimphire · Mar 8, 2004, 12:26 AM

Originally posted by theolein:
if Kerry actually wins.

At least you are being realistic.

phoenixboy · Mar 8, 2004, 12:39 AM

i would love to see hillary become vp, - and i can't stand her! it would be worth it just to lean back and watch the american right go into a daily sh*tfit

ghost_flash · Mar 8, 2004, 07:42 AM

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
i would love to see hillary become vp, - and i can't stand her! it would be worth it just to lean back and watch the american right go into a daily sh*tfit

I think it would be highly entertaining.

Lerkfish · Mar 8, 2004, 01:15 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
So Lerk, is what Kerry did a good move for a President wanna be, or a bad one?

nice duck. I see you can't put up to what I asked you...

regardless:

to this present question I say "reading comprehension much?" -- I already answered that earlier up in the thread:

1. I think you have me confused with someone else. I only said I found it interesting how they were spinning the missing time in the Guard service. I even defended his getting out of active duty, since all all sons of privelege were doing the same. It really helps if you actually read posts once in a while.
2. my point was I don't think republicans strategically want to keep bringing up military service, since their man does not compare favorably in terms of actual duty.
3. I honestly DON"T think its important actually. I think its only interesting in terms of how they spin the missing time, but its not a make or break deal for me for either candidate...hence the yawn smiley.

Lerkfish · Mar 8, 2004, 01:30 PM

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
He won't answer that.

already had, and did again.

I"ll expand, though....

1-- I was alive during vietnam...not many of you whippersnappers were. I completely understand ANYONE wanting to avoid getting shipped out...for any reason. Many of you have no idea of what it was like at the time. I am able to understand and can empathize with the individual decision to avoid the draft, as well as the individual decision to have your dad pull strings and get you in the national guard to avoid actual combat duty. Those who COULD avail themselves of "get out of vietnam free" cards DID. end of story. I don't blame them.
2-- I also completely support anyone who was anti-war demonstrating then or now.
In case you guys are ultra dense and haven't figured it out by now: I'm personally anti-war. As a christian, I think war is not the direction God wants us to go. period. Therefore, I am pro-diplomacy when possible, and it should be seriously attempted and worked at. War should be a last resort, when all other avenues have failed, and even THEN I'm against war.
I've stated this clearly and repeatedly.
3 -- My interest in the Bush national guard case was only in the missing time/records and the spin surrounding it-- I was interested in the present day alleged attempts to coverup the whatever it was back then. I am not so interested in back then. I've stated so previously. And, I've also stated I don't consider it that big a deal in isolation. Similarly, I don't find whether Kerry served, protested afterwards or tried to avoid service beforehand that big a deal. I think its wrong to apply current thinking to a completely different time, culturally.

I also don't think Vietnam, on either side should be determining who picks what candidate. I've stated this before and repeatedly.

This, to me, is an issue that has little relevance to present day concerns. I also think right wing flagwavers like to play this little game of "who's the patriot"...which is fine, but they're playing a game only they are interested in, as far as their own parameters go.
Me, I am MORE impressed by Kerry's antiwar activism after vietnam than I could ever be by his war record while in Nam.

I have a differing perspective than zim and you, I presume. For that reason, this whole avenue does not make much difference to me either way.

As far as my POV is concerned, a true christian is interested in peace, not war.

ghost_flash · Mar 8, 2004, 01:37 PM

Originally posted by Lerkfish:

As far as my POV is concerned, a true christian is interested in peace, not war.

That is a great point of view. What about all those non-true christians that went and died in WWII and Vietnam in order to save lives and fight tyrany? I guess you have a funny point of view, when it is a disgrace when compared to those who went and fought to save the Jewish people from the gas chambers and mass graves of the Nazis.

What have you to say in response to that? They weren't "true" christians?
That it is what you just wrote isn't it?

What about a true Muslim, Jews.....?

Lerkfish · Mar 8, 2004, 02:00 PM

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
That is a great point of view. What about all those non-true christians that went and died in WWII and Vietnam in order to save lives and fight tyrany? I guess you have a funny point of view, when it is a disgrace when compared to those who went and fought to save the Jewish people from the gas chambers and mass graves of the Nazis.

What have you to say in response to that? They weren't "true" christians?
That it is what you just wrote isn't it?

What about a true Muslim, Jews.....?

do you even read a post before you reply to it? read the entire post.

2-- I also completely support anyone who was anti-war demonstrating then or now.
In case you guys are ultra dense and haven't figured it out by now: I'm personally anti-war. As a christian, I think war is not the direction God wants us to go. period. Therefore, I am pro-diplomacy when possible, and it should be seriously attempted and worked at. War should be a last resort, when all other avenues have failed, and even THEN I'm against war.
I've stated this clearly and repeatedly.

If you want to hold me responsible for the holocaust because I think God wants us to pursue peace rather than war, *shrugs* you're entitled to your opinion. I don't recall Christ saying "blessed are the warmongers, for they shall be called the children of God"....do you?