Warning Political stuff again

[dkstories]

Actual Story

 

 

 

I was reading this online today and couldn't help but chuckle. What I really liked is that in 1987 John Kerry requested his FBI files and none of this stuff was provided (the FBI either didn't find it or chose not to give it for whatever reason). It's a prime example of why the rules were changed to prevent stuff like this from happening, and with the Patriot Act they can do these things again. A news show had some of the audio tapes of Nixon and his advisors talking about Kerry and it was quite interesting to hear on a television report.

 

Part of Kerry's platform is to amend the Patriot act to prevent stuff like this from happening and he's being attacked for wanting to go 'soft' on terrorists. I chuckle at stuff like this, but when you think about it, it can really get scary. Imagine having the FBI follow you and keep so much information on you just because you vocally oppose what the government is doing. It makes me wonder if twenty years from now we'll start finding out about files that are being kept now on people who speak out against the administration.

 

Another interesting fact that I picked up from the story was that he was awarded the Silver Star and THREE purple hearts in Vietnam. He was a small boat commander in the Navy. These shallow-draft boats were armed with machine guns and grenade launchers and were often used to not only patrol deltas, rivers, and bays within Vietnam but the insertion (and extraction) of special forces troops on infiltration missions.

 

I had an instructor at my Gunner's Mate "C" school that was assigned to one of these units in Vietnam. Some of the stories he had to tell were frightening, even if you took them with a big grain of salt. None of these units ever went a significant amount of time without facing combat, and with three Purple Hearts and a Silver Star, it looks like Kerry wasn't shirking and lazing about with his unit out of harms way either.

 

I'd love to see the citations he got for those awards.

 

It also provides a contrast between Bush and Kerry as well. During the most violent conflict our nation faced when these two men were young adults, Bush signed up in the National Guard and went flying every couple of weekends. Kerry, a man from an affluent background perhaps more blue blooded than Bush himself, spent that same time sweating it out in the Vietnam waterways, fighting the enemy and earning himself at least three combat-related injuries and showing valor enough to earn both the Silver Star and Bronze Star.

 

That has got to scare Bush's camp. Even with his later actions against the war.

 

Not only did he fight in that conflict, but he came home and was a major figure in the protests meant to end it as well. He was significant in that effort that he was watched around the clock by the FBI, and reports of his activities went directly to the director of the FBI and the President of the United States. There's at least one recorded conversation where the President and his advisors discussed Kerry directly.

 

When you look at more elements of his 1971 speech to Congress besides the first few lines, you see that his speech was a very direct attack at the leaders of the country who he believed had let down the country and their soldiers. Republicans try to stress his relating stories of war atrocities (something I heard plenty of long before I ever joined the military. I had two uncles who fought over there and there gave me some very long lectures when I said I was going to join the Navy. They wanted to make sure I knew how bad it could get before I joined. It's a family tradition that those of us in the military always happen to end up in the thick of things somehow. I blame it on Papa...he survived four islands including Guadalcanal and Okinawa - in the first wave of troops to hit those beaches, most of whom didn't make it out alive). We know that those atrocities did happen, and they were more commonplace than government will ever admit.

 

Admitting that they happened though doesn't disgrace all the soldiers who fought in that conflict as Bush's campaign likes to assert. Of course the Bush Administration is doing its best to deny the high incidents of rape, mistreatment of civilians and prisoners, and reprehensible hospital conditions for injured troops in the current conflict. From what I've seen and heard from people, a lot of the problems that caused the horror stories in Vietnam are re-occuring in Iraq and I believe history will show that as well. Fortunately, we don't have a Soviet Union arming and training the enemy. Compared to the resources of the Soviet Union in the 1960's and 1970's, al-Quaeda (who are helping the Iraqi insurgents now) is grossly inneffective.

 

That leads me to a closing point: In the early 1970's, John Kerry raised issues, concerns, and criticisms of how the government was handling the Vietnam conflict. Now he's saying very similar things about our Iraq conflict. Both Administrations waging those wars did their best to marginalize him and ridicule his criticisms. History shows that he was pretty much right and accurate about Vietnam. If he was right about Vietnam, shouldn't his comments now be given serious consideration?

[EricCase]

If he was right about Vietnam, shouldn't his comments now be given serious consideration?

True to a poooint but he's running for president now, so the way you run for president whether you're a D or an R is to point at the other guy and say "wrong wrong wrong!!" LMBO

 

As for people speaking out about the government now being recorded - you mentioned the word terrorism, therefore this message board thread'll probly be flagged lol Monitoring today is 85,000 times easier to do so it happens on a much larger scale with the FBI's programs like Carnivore and such, but yeah - yayyyy government don't spy on me FBI man, I'm a 5'6'' caucasian gay male from Boca Raton FL - what harm can I do!! Even the French could beat me up! LMBO

[dkstories]

France..blech. You know I went to France...met a really nice german boy that I had fun with. Got drunk with a Russian businessman and his boyfriend. We sang the old Soviet national anthem in Russian and the US anthem in English before heading off to their hotel room.

 

I'd say the French suck...but as far as I know...they don't.

 

A little off topic, but I'm having to run the air conditioner again all night and it's pissing me off.

[Pyro]

I agree. It is scarey at what the government is allowed to do. I don't like bush and I never will, but then again I want to live in Scotland and get out of the USA. I am a scottsman at heart.

 

Pyro :-)

[dkstories]

I visited the Iraq Coalition casualty lists site again today. I try to stay away from there because it is so depressing, but just had to look again.

 

583 American dead since the invasion began. 684 total dead including troops from our 'coalition' partners (mostly UK).

 

Wounded though is 2,910 in hostile action, 433 from non-hostile action for a total of 3,343 troops wounded.

 

Now we're getting to rotate the first troops sent into Iraq (they were actually shipped to Kuwait about 3-4 months before we invaded, participated in the invasion, and then finally came back to the US about 3 months ago) back to that country in 2 months. That means out of 1 year, six months of active duty service they spent 2 months in the US and the rest in a combat zone.

 

How long do we think that will keep up before people stop reenlisting and instead of a well-trained force over there we get boots with barely enough training or we use all of our National Guard and reserve folks, ripping them out of their civilian lives and then have them also fail to reenlist?

 

During the 1970's, our military forces were deployed in rotation cycles like this and nearly collapsed when a super-majority of the officers and enlisted refused to reenlist. Drug use became rampant as did disciplinary problems throughout the military forces because people were being overworked. However we get to hear Rumsfeld saying there's nothing wrong with troop morale.

 

I've got a buddy who I keep in contact with, and his wife just divorced him. Since he got sent to Afghanistan in 2001 (don't forget we have thousands of troops there right now as well), he's been home for 8 non-continuous months, and one of them was only because his mother died and he got hardship leave. Another buddy of mine that I was in classes with got called up on National Guard duty and had to drop out of college because he's being deployed for 12 months to Iraq. I did some checking, and ships are being super-rotated like the were in the time between the Panama Invasion and Gulf War I. That means crews are deploying for 6-8 months, coming back to port for three weeks, and then beginning work-ups for miscellaneous deployments that average 2-3 months in local operations (work ups usually last about 6-8 weeks of which you spend half your time at sea). Once the minor ops are done, they do Battle Group work-ups (about 2 months prep time, half of which is at sea doing extended battle drills), and then back to sea for another 6 month deployment.

 

Now, dedication is high to complete the job at hand, but refusal to acknowledge force depletion and burn outs are going to come home to roost on the administration. Reports of rapes, fighting, and non-judicial punishments are on the rise, as are drug use ratios of troops deployed and coming back from deployment. The only good news is that recruitment levels remain high. The bad news is that if they can't keep those new recruits in uniform, the overall proficiency and professionalism of the troops decline. It takes from 6 months to a year to train a person before they are truly mission capable. It's not a good thing for any of us when the trained people leave.

[Tomas]

Another interesting fact that I picked up from the story was that he was awarded the Silver Star and THREE purple hearts in Vietnam.

Kerry spent four months in Vietnam and received 3 minor injuries, none of which were serious enough to keep him from duty. He used those 3 injuries as a basis for a request (which was granted) to leave Vietnam. He then requested an early discharge from the military so he could run for political office.

 

You also have to consider the source of the story. The LA Times is as much biased to the left of the political spectrum as the NY Times and most of the other major (elite) news publication so it's not very likely that you'll find any criticism of Kerry in their reporting.

[dkstories]

Here's perspective on that point, Tomas. Kerry was opposed to the war before he got sent over. He went, he fought, he got wounded (although all minor wounds, they did qualify by the standards set by the US Armed Forces), and once he had met the qualifications for getting out of the combat area early, he did.

 

I don't like that he took the early out, but frankly he at least went over there and fought, risking his life just like most people. He didn't use his connections or his money to get out, he used the same system that was available to every other service member in the combat theater. Did Bush even go over there?

 

No, Bush didn't go. He used every connection he had to get out of it, something most Americans couldn't do.

 

Kerry was, and has never denied being, opposed to the Vietnam conflict. He did not support our involvement in that conflict actively sought to bring our troops home. However, unlike the thousands that fled to Canada or burned their draft cards, he went over there when told to by the government. Instead of using his money and political connections like George W. Bush, he didn't get himself sent to a National Guard unit to sit safely at home in the U.S. Instead, he went over there, did his duty and took advantage of military regulations (open and available to other service members who received the same type of injuries) to go back home where he continued to campaign against the war.

 

I remember guys who used several methods to keep from being deployed to the first Gulf War for various reasons. There's a difference in serving honorably and leaving when the opportunity arises. I know four guys on my ship who had the opportunity to go home in the middle of Desert Storm (1991). Two chose to go, two chose to stay. The guys who went home, went home. It's a choice each person can make on their own. Some people are the type who'll stay no matter what, and others leave the first chance they get.

 

Neither type is a coward. A coward refuses to go at all (Bush). A coward hunkers down into the least dangerous job he can find (I do believe Kerry was Navy wasn't he? Swift Boats and PBRs were some of the most dangerous assignments in the Navy during that war). When Kerry got home, he didn't disappear immediately into his political career, but continued arguing against the war in front of congress and across the country.

 

You better believe Kerry was thinking about a Presidential run back in high school, and considered that future campaign in his life actions. I wouldn't be surprised if George W. Bush did too. A major difference between the two is that Kerry went and did serve in a combat zone, he has fought in combat, and he has killed the enemy in a close engagement (something that none of the pundits dispute from his service award).

 

Kerry has a far better idea of what our service members face than George W. Bush ever will, and he has shown more personal courage in the face of personal challenges than Bush has ever had the opportunity to show. Bush took the easy way out, Kerry did a hell of a lot better.

[EricCase]

Bush is better than Kerrryyyyy Bush is better than Kerryyyyy

 

[boy on a string]

Just a FYI ...

 

In a Newsweek story I read, Bush did enlist with the Texsas Air National Guard. During his time there, he went to his commander and volunteered to go to Vietnam. His commander told him no, for two reasons. First, Bush didn't have enough flight time, and second, the plane he was trained to fly was considered obsolete for combat missions.

 

A lot of folks don't know that Bush did volunteer, so that means that he didn't use his political connections to advoid the war.

 

Boy on a String

 

PS, One thing I really liked, and it really surprised me, about the Newsweek article (it was either an issue in Feb or March ... if I find the mag again at work, I will let you know the date) was that it approached both candidates fairly, without negitivity, about their college years, they both went to Yale, the effect that the two years seperating them had on public opinion about the war, and how the war affected them. It was one of the best written and unbiased articles I have ever read ... and that is so rear in this day and age.