Navy Commanders to Cast Doubt on Kerry's War Record

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Discussions' started by AV8R, Apr 6, 2004.

Loading...
  1. AV8R

    AV8R Active Member

    Navy Commanders to Cast Doubt on Kerry's War Record

    Several Navy officers who supervised Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry when he commanded a swift boat in Vietnam are preparing to publicly question his war record - including the circumstances under which he was awarded three Purple Hearts - a noted Vietnam War historian revealed on Sunday.

    Burkett, whose 1999 book, "Stolen Valor," is considered to be the definitive history of of falsified Vietnam War claims, told WABC Radio's Steve Malzberg that Kerry's former commanders would allege that the top Democrat's Purple Hearts were awarded for "self-reported injuries that were virtually nonexistent."

    "He never got a day of treatment, he never spent a day in a medical facility," Burkett said. "These were all self-reported wounds, which you're going to hear from some swift boat guys in the future as to the nature of those wounds."

    Burkett said he had personally spoken to the Navy commanders who were preparing to go public about Kerry's decorations.

    "You're going to get quite a showing [of those speaking out]," Burkett told Malzberg. "I don't know [the number] yet. They're trying to get it to be unanimous of every swift boat guy who ever served."

    As to the timetable for the upcoming revelations, Burkett said that Kerry's superior officers "were still discussing that."

    "You've got some major rallys being planned against John Kerry by Vietnam veterans on the mall, at the convention - this type of thing," he said. "And we're going to make America aware of John Kerry's military record."

    Link to the article
     
  2. Tom57

    Tom57 Member

    Consider the source. The link to the "article" is really a link to a blogger's site. A view minutes of diligent searching on the Ny Times site turned up nothing. It's just a case of trying to stir the pot.
     
  3. GOP desperate

    This just shows how the folks in the Bush camp will try to find some dirt where there is none. John Kerry served his country by going to Vietnam. Can the same be said for 'ol Dubya? Bush is behind in the polls, has ruined the economy by exporting jobs and finds Iraq is out of control. His advisors need to redirect their energy by trying to fix the mess they got us in to and forget about making up stories.
     
  4. chris

    chris New Member

    Actually..

    Bush is not behind in the polls and your comments on the economy are not born out by basic economic theory nor the most recent economic statistics. More people talking out their.......
     
  5. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Let's understand a few things here.

    First, the President, regardless of party affiliation, has very little to do with the economy. Neither Carter nor Bush 41 could manipulate the economy to insure reelection. Nor could Hoover, for that matter.

    Second, jobs going overseas is a product of NAFTA and the WTO. Clinton is responsible for NAFTA, not Bush.

    Third, the economy is rebounding.

    Fourth, one million jobs were lost as a result of 9/11. It will take years to completely recover from that devastation on our economy.

    Fifth, BOTH parties, as well as the minor ones, dig up thrash and dirt on one another. This, unfortunately, is the sad nature of politics. Kerry is a brutal campaigner. Look at his race against William Weld for Senate in MA.

    Sixth, the Vietnam War is history. Many Americans, including me, did not support that war. Kerry should not be held in contempt for his opposition to that war upon his discharge from the military.

    He, however, should come forward with names of war criminals. He talks about honor. His coming forward would be the honorable course of action for him to take.

    Finally, let's focus on the issues and the records and stop the personal attacks.
     
  6. airtorn

    airtorn Moderator

    Re: Actually..

    Unforunately, it probably safe to say that the vast majority of eligible voters do not understand economic theory. What is even more disturbing is the impression that I am getting that a good number of our elected officials do not really have a solid grasp on it either.

    Focus on issues.
     
  7. Tom57

    Tom57 Member

    I respectfully disagree with this point. The president, and the people he appoints, have a lot to do with the economy. Every president has an economic platform on which he (presumably) bases his decisions (and appointees). Few would argue that Robert Rubin played a huge part in the economic recovery during the Clinton years. True, presidents can’t “manipulate” the economy, but their people have a lot to do with the direction the economy takes.
     
  8. Tom57

    Tom57 Member

    And as a follow up...I think it says a lot that Rubin has gone on to continued success after his years as TS. If we are to believe the press, Rubin and Clinton have a great deal of respect for each other.

    Bush's former TS, Paul O'Neill, had serious philosophical differences with Bush, and, it appears, has real doubts about...shall we say... Bush's economics acumen. (putting it as nicely as I can)
     
  9. Interesting perspective.

    I'd say that both Bush and Clinton are responsible for NAFTA - Bush for drafting, negotiating and signing the agreement and Clinton for implementing it after inheriting it.

    NAFTA was signed by all three parties on Dec 17, 1992, which was after the presidential election but before Clinton came into office. Therefore, all of the effort went into this agreement during Bush's presidency.

    However, NAFTA didn't go into force until Jan 1, 1994, so I suppose Clinton could have pulled out, but I'm not familiar with the specifics of how this could have been accomplished. Had Bush been re-elected I find it unbelievable that he would have rescinded this agreement.

    Also, NAFTA was an expansion in some ways of the original Canada/US Free Trade Agreement (FTA) which went into effect in 1989, also during Bush's presidency, so the groundwork for NAFTA was certainly laid then.

    Cheers,
    Mark
     
  10. Guest

    Guest Guest

    The President certainly has influence over the economy, but not so much as most assume and much less than presidents like to claim, especially in robust times.

    How often have we heard such as: "My administration has created x number of new jobs." Presidents don't create jobs. Real people taking risks and investing their own money are the ones who do.

    Remember too, that the Congress plays a pivotal role in the economy because the President cannot unilaterally raise or lower taxes and tariffs. The Congress controls the purse strings of the government. Thus, balanced budgets or not, is a congressional prerogative.

    Also, remember that the Federal Reserve has perhaps the greatest ability to influence the economy. Even if a President promotes enterprise and Congress wants to cut taxes and tariffs, the efforts will be thwarted if the Federal Reserve is pursuing monetary policy that is harmful.

    Finally, remember ours is a global economy.
     
  11. chris

    chris New Member

    Huh

    I will argue it. Bill Clinton lucked into one of the greatest economic booms in history. Every economist worth $.05 traces the start of that boom to before Bill Clinton took office. Bill Clinton and his economic advisors did not pass one significant piece of economic legislation during his term of office except for the one everyone blames on our current job losses (NAFTA). After his first 2 years of office, he acted solely at the mercy of Congress which was being run by a single party for the first time in years. He had to be drug kicking and screaming to a balanced budget and only got on board when he saw it was politically correct (which is pretty much how he ran everything). And neither he nor Congress should take credit for that as it was primarily the result of increased revenue rather than decreased spending. I am really curious as to what his library will showcase as his achievements; NAFTA and Monica Lewinsky? Again, the economy of the United States is so big that the President and to a greater extent Congress really have only limited positive effects on it. The can screw it up though and that is where Clinton showed some smarts. He got out of its way.
     
  12. After doing some more research I found Public Law 103-182, an act to implement NAFTA.

    Purpose and Summary

    On December 18, 1992, former President Bush and the heads of state of Canada and Mexico signed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), providing for the elimination or reduction in tariffs and other barriers to trade between the three NAFTA countries. If implemented by the Governments of the United States, Mexico and Canada, NAFTA would create the biggest consumer market in the world, with a combined economy of $6.5 trillion and 370 million people.

    President Clinton stated that he could not support the NAFTA negotiated by former President Bush without additional side agreements. Upon taking office, President Clinton, therefore, initiated negotiations with Mexico and Canada to add provisions to NAFTA that deal with the environment, worker rights, and import surges.

    Negotiations on supplemental agreements covering these three topics were concluded on August 13, 1993. The supplemental agreements were signed at Mexico City, Washington, and Ottawa on September 8, 9, 12 and 14, 1993.

    On November 4, 1993, President Clinton submitted to the Congress H.R. 3450, a bill to implement the North American Free Trade Agreement. H.R. 3450 would approve only the basic agreement and the accompanying Statement of Administrative Action. The supplemental agreements on the environment and on labor, together with side letters having to do with sugar and other agricultural products, are not approved by the legislation.


    So I'll step back from my earlier posture that Bush signed it and Clinton implemented it - I'd conclude from the above passage that there was an opportunity for the Clinton administration to not move forward with this.

    For those of you looking for a NAFTA quiz, here's a link

    Cheers,
    Mark
     
  13. AV8R

    AV8R Active Member

    Boston Globe article....

    Yesterday's Boston Globe came out with a story about a growing controversy over one of Kerry's Purple Hearts. Lt. Commander Grant Hibbard, Kerry's commanding officer, is questioning one Purple Heart. He says that Kerry was standing there with a scratch on his forearm. He was holding a piece of shrapnel. Hibbard is saying that Kerry's fellow soldiers told him that they didn't think that they had received any enemy fire. Hibbard says that he questioned John Kerry about the incident, but that Kerry was so adamant about receiving a Purple Heart for that scratch that Hibbard reluctantly dropped the matter. Kerry got his Purple Heart for a scratch on his arm, one of the three he needed to get out of any further service in Vietnam.

    You do know, don't you, that John Kerry refuses to release his medical records from his Vietnam service? Those medical records would have details on all three combat injuries that Kerry reportedly suffered. We now learn that one was a scratch. What of the other two?

    Are we going to learn the true story of Kerry's Purple Hearts? Are we going to find out whether or not he anxiously demanded Purple Hearts for scratches and minor scrapes ... just to take care of the "three and you're out" rule? The answer is NO, not if John Kerry has anything to say about it.

    Read the Boston Globe article.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 15, 2004
  14. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

    Perhaps the Navy wasn't very selective on how injured someone had to be to get a Purple Heart? Is anyone arguing that Bronze and Silver medals weren't earned? If a man earned a Bronze and Silver medal doesn't that mean that he served in Vietnam with distinction? I don't see how giving out a Purple Heart for "a scratch" casts doubt on a war record that has a Bronze and Silver medal in it??? :rolleyes:
     
  15. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator

    I saw a few Purple Hearts & Bronze Stars awarded in the first Gulf War that were not even close to being earned. It does happen.

    Of course I don't know for sure, but knowing what I do about Kerry, it wouldn't surprise me at all if he fudged a couple of Purple Hearts in order to get an early stateside rotation, and also start a good political resume.

    Kerry lost a total of 3 days duty for his 3 Purple Hearts. My uncle, a Vietnam Vet, was hospitalized for 6 months for his first Purple Heart (it was another 6 months before he could return to duty), and his second Purple Heart took him out of action for another month.
     
  16. timothyrph

    timothyrph New Member

    I have no problem and certainly respect Kerry for being in Vietnam at all. I am not going to vote for him as I believe the nation won't. In the end he will run as a liberal. He is a liberal. America will not elect a liberal. This vote won't be a landslide, but we are not going to be counting votes four days later either. Bush will be president for another term. Take a big "L" Start at Canada almost anywhere in the midwest, and draw down to Texas and go over to Florida. That starts the nation's Republican base. Kerry won't get Florida no matter how many times we count. Rudy is starting to campaign in NY which could put it in play for the Republicans. That leaves California who will go Democrat, though they have baffled me lately with their choices (Arnold, Really?).

    I understand Florida may be close. If Kerry is considering John McCain, how about Pat Buchanan? He is a proven vote getter in Miami-Dade county.

    More important than changing presidents for the economy is getting rid of Alan Greenspan.
     

Share This Page