Conversation with a Veteran regarding the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, President Bush, and Senator Kerry, continued

Good morning, Tom,

First, let me apologize for not believing your Viet Nam service. At first your email smelled a little like a canned Democrat mass mailing sent automatically to any Swift Boats blogger. Thanks you for your thoughtful response. I thought the best way to answer you would be to sprinkle my comments over the text of tour email below.
Here goes...

Pedro,

A couple of comments that I hope will lead to thought: As far as "seared in his mind", I imagine many things were. As for dates re: Christmas, I don't remember what or where I was Christmas, '68. It's a long time ago. I can tell you things that happened and areas where we were. That's about it.

Of course. However, Senator Kerry has been repeating this story for years. He started telling it shortly after he got back. It's not like he was suddenly asked to account for his whereabouts on a date 30 years ago.

Records show that Kerry's boat was approx 12 miles from Cambodia the morning of the 24. He engaged an enemy sampan -- which is why there is a record -- then sailed upriver for approx three hrs. At normal cruising speed, two hours would've put him in Cambodia. Was he? Who knows? It's impossible to prove one way or the other, but my guess is he was there.

One way to disprove it would be to read the Lt's diary. He said to himself that he wasn't there. And it does matter, because he claimed to have been ordered there, to have been fired upon by Buddhists who for some strange reason were drunkenly celebrating Christmas. OK, that was a dig, but it's serious to make the claim he was illegally ordered into Cambodia. Not true -- he has retracted the story, so it makes no sense to keep defending it -- and it smears his peers. Creepy.

As for GWB and the TX Air Nat'l Guard: Has it ever occurred to you that the reason he was in a unit that was phasing out it's jets (F-102s) was to keep from going to VN? At very least, if Bush had wanted to go he could have joined another branch of the service (less than 100 Guardsmen were killed out of 58K plus dead). Bush joined the Guard to avoid VN as most if not all in that era did. I have no problem with him doing so. I do have an enormous problem with him not owning up to why he did so.

Why does President Bush's not owning up to his motives give you such an enormous problem? He never talks about his Air National Guard Days. He doesn't drag a band of Guard brothers around with him everywhere he goes. It was just part of his growing up, before he found God, quit drinking, got married, and got serious. I don't care about young GWB's motives any more than I care about young JFK's. Senator Kerry's war service should have been summed up as "I was there, had my good days, had my bad days, Let's talk about the future..." but he didn't & doesn't.

As for Kerry "gaming the system", he would've had to have been a helluva gamesman. You don't go into combat expecting to get three wounds, no matter how slight. And as you know, any wound received in combat, no matter how slight, entitles the individual to a purple heart. Once the wound has been treated, the "docs" send the paper work upstream and the heart comes back down.

This is the part of the Swift Boat story where my eyes start to glaze over. I did, however, actually read the SBVT's chapter about one of Lt. (jg) Kerry's Purple Hearts. And again, his personal diary contradicts his official reports. Of course no one would go in counting on using the three PH's-and-out rule, but it seems fair to say that Lt. (jg) Kerry made the most of the wounds he got, maybe even stretched the truth about them. Which I really wouldn't hold against him except for the fact he's using them as the basis for the Presidency of The United States. That being the case, I want the truth from him.

Kerry has denounced the moveon.org ad. Bush refuses to denounce the swiftie ad.

I don't think the candidates should be denouncing anybody's ads. It's a free country, and the Navy Veterans that make up the Swift Boat Veterans for truth have the same 1st Amendment right to free speech you have. They've also backed up their claims with sworn affidavits in the sure & certain knowledge they'd be counter-attacked by the Left. But, Democrats, if you place Michael Moore next to President Carter at your convention, expect the Republicans to be pissed. And we are.

Kerry has released all records relevant to his heroism and wounds.

How do you know until you've seen them all? Compare & contrast: The Press' scrutiny of the President's Guard records to its scrutiny of the Senator's.

Kerry's actions re: the anti war statements were in the best tradition of the obligations of every citizen in a democracy.

No. Not if they were lies. Not if they gave aid & comfort to the enemy. Not if they were used to taunt and torture our POW's. Not if they were for personal political gain at the expense of the country.

Bush is the one who refers to himself as a "war president" and out best bet for keeping us safe. Kerry's service is a way for him to confront bush on war and security.

President Bush is in the President during a time of war. That makes him a "war president." It's a simple fact, and the fact that he recognizes it should be comforting -- he has his priorities straight. You could argue that President Clinton was a war president too, but WJC didn't want to admit it and we're still paying for that.

As for your uncle, I am truly sorry. Jets are dangerous (The FMs were my heroes), but bush flew very few hours and stopped flying shortly after earning his wings. He gets no points from me.

Tom, he's not asking you to vote for his reelection to the Presidency because he was such a hot pilot. Judge him by his service as commander in chief. On that score, he gets huge points from me. Likewise, the best information about a possible President Kerry is his Senate career; a career we never hear much about.

As for my service in VN, you may believe what you wish. It might help you to understand that one of the biggest reasons for my anger is that I did serve and that the swiftie's campaign has pitted brother against brother.

I would say John Kerry's actions immediately after he came back from the war are what pitted brother against brother. Unless and until he repudiates those words, it is proper to hold him accountable for them.

Drafted in 67, basic at Knox, Infantry AIT at Ord, APCs back at Knox. NAM: 11B2U (APCs), Ban Me Thuot, Camp Enari, LZ Mile High, etc, etc; Sgt E-5

Thanks again for your service. And why the hell couldn't the Democrats have nominated Lieberman? This stinks!

Thank you for your time.

Yours,

Tom

Obviously Tom & I interpret things differently. I think it shows that we have different news sources. Like most Lefties, Tom cares more about motivations than I – I consider motivations unknowable and mostly irrelevant, caring more about results and values. But it’s clear Tom & I both care about our country, and we can talk about it civilly and honestly.

Isn’t that refreshing?

Comments

[AMac]

Pedro, came here via your WoC comment.

Your exchange with Tom somewhat mirrored my conversation last night with John, a friend of my S.O. who's helping us out. He related the anguish of graduating high school in 1966--does he let himself get drafted despite what returning-older-brother and older-brothers-of-friends are telling him... volunteer... look for a way to parlay what slender insight and connections an 18-y.o. has into a way of not-getting-shot-at...

...Compared to me, H.S. class of '74, the draft lottery and selective service were real, but not the draft itself; stories from our older brothers only.

John feels passionately that
1. Kerry served.
2. Bush dodged. The waiting lists for the "safe" military options were such that you just didn't get picked, without having and using some pull.
3. Clinton, Cheney, etc. "dodged" too, by this standard.
4. Judging from the experiences of his friends who went, Kerry wasn't blowing smoke in talking about widespread US atrocitites in VN.
5. Kerry is admirable for coming back home and leading opposition to the war, ending it sooner. Hyperbole by a young man should be understood in this context.

I can agree with John about 1, 2, and 3. Point four is a question of "how much" and "compared to what." Kerry's on-the-record remarks were extreme accusations, on pretty shaky grounds. As for 5, I just don't know. My personal experience is with knowing a few boat-people refugees-turned-Americans...when we talked about it, even Vinh couldn't say what would have been "right".

As with you and Tom, there's no "eureka" moment to be had where one person says the thing that persuades the other. The gulf in perspective is too great.

I do judge Kerry more kindly after my discussion with John, but not as kindly as Kerry judges himself. It seems "plain" to me that:

--Kerry served honorably in Viet Nam.

--He was, numerous times, aggressive, displaying initiative and taking risks in combat.

--In a largely-draftee military, the citations system was open to being gamed. Kerry recognized this and played things to his advantage. After the hue-and-cry he raised about Bush signing the Form 180 release re. the AWOL scandal, Kerry's refusal to do the same is more than just suggestive.

--Kerry had transformed into an America-bad-VC-okay leftist by 1971. In his passion to end American involvment, he exaggerated and made false accusations in his public appearances and in his on-the-record testimony.

--Kerry's arrogance and his insulated lifestyle accounts for the fact that he never took the trouble to apologize for his 1971 behavior. Traveling in rich-and-privileged-Leftwing circles, he hasn't appreciated that his conduct has earned him enemies-for-life (O'Neill et al.). Kerry and the Democratic power elite have failed to take into account that these enemies would--and have--and will continue to--make Kerry's life as difficult as possible, once he ventured outside the liberal bubble of Massachusetts politics.

Anyway. Thanks to you and to Tom for the civil exchange. I suspect civility is about as good as it's gonna get on this issue.

[pedro]

Great comments, AMac. Stop by any time.
I would really, really love to see both sides take a deep breath and stop assaulting the other side over their service/lack thereof 30 +/- years ago. I'd also like to see the Democrats stop using it as a reason to vote for Kerry, because it isn't.
Release ALL the records.
Talk about the FUTURE.

And though it may sound contradictory, stop trying to muzzle American citizens and veterans. They have a right to say whatever the hell they want. The rest of us have a duty to inform ourselves and make sober judgements before we vote.
We also have a duty to get behind the winner, be it Kerry or Bush.
100%.

[AMac]

Yesterday, John O'Neill was given a forum by the Washington Post online (registration req'd).
Link http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12893-2004Aug18.html
In my opinion, he comes across as direct and level-headed. Worth reading; there's a similar forum for a Veterans for Kerry spokesman.

[Mikey]

I have been going over the whole Kerry thing, and I don't like what I'm thinking about.

As the C.O. of the swift boat, Kerry is THE GUY. Among the services there is no greater responsibility than the naval commander to his craft.

Everything that happens is his responsibility, and his main priority is to get his boat, his men through the mission in one piece.

This ISN'T Star Trek. The CO of a US Navy Vessel DOESN'T just decide to go walkabout in a hostile fire zone.

So in these home movies where Kerry is walking the perimeter, who is watching the store? Where were his thoughts of safeguarding the ship, the men, while he was trying to be JFK lite. To be the CO of a boat is to have an awesome responsibility. To go around making home movies is the height of narcissistic abrogation of duty.

So he is strolling around, shooting teenagers in the back (why the hell he's doing this for is anyone's guess - no shore security?)and the boat is sitting on the shore waiting to be holed by an RPG, and then all the crew is in real pretty shit, aren't they? He's a freakin' glory hound that not only risked his own hide, but foolishly risked his vessel and his crew for - a few movies?

From a tactical perspective what he was doing didn't make sense. This kind of weirdness doesn't need to be propogated into national policy.

No, I was never in combat, but while I was on active duty, I saw plenty of assholes willing to do ANYTHING to make themselves look good. No wonder his fellow officers don't like him.

[pedro]

What you say is true, except some might think you're implying he took the movies while under fire. I know you're talking about his motives for his actions being getting footage for future campaigning.
To me, it's not that he was a poor Lt (JG), but his conduct after he got back, and the lies he has continued to this very day.

[AMac]

Mikey,

"Shooting a teenager in the back" sounds pretty bad. I think the SVFT would have been wiser and more honest to have laid off Kerry on this. In a war zone, in a fight, with things moving fast, confusion, poor information. It seems to me that--WW2, VietNam, Iraq--people are going to get shot. Bad guys are going to get killed, and so are people who aren't in the fight, but who are in the wrong place and the wrong time. That's our cross to bear as citizen/voters, when we send citizen/soldiers to fight.

I don't know of any reason to think that that individual Kerry shot wasn't VC, or that Kerry had reason to suppose that he was a noncombatant. I suspect many soldiers in combat have faced similar situations, including many Swifties. Or consider Kerrey. Absent evidence that Kerry done wrong, he gets the benefit of the doubt on this.

[Mikey]

The point of the 'teenager shooting' incident is this. The CO of a USN vessel has no business engaging in small arms combat ON SHORE, AWAY FROM HIS BOAT, endangering himself. He is the command nexus. He doesn't have the luxury of personal combat. If he was injured or killed, it puts everyone in the command at risk.

He walked away from his command to shoot home movies in a hostile fire zone. What a bunch of mickey mouse crapola.

What does it mean if he is the prez? I think it means the same thing, just a bigger bunch to put at risk. His command wasn't real to him, and neither would the country. We would exist only to provide color and atmosphere for lord Kerry.

[pedro]

How 'bout this, Mikey: If Kerry's mission to spread Yule Tide Cheer in Cambodia was secret, WHEN WAS IT DECLASSIFIED?

Since his Cambodia mission was so super-duper secret that it has never been declassified (hmmmm, maybe it never happened?) what the hell is the Democrat wannabe doing talking about it all the time?

He is either lying or breaking security laws, take your pick.

[AMac]

Mikey,

Okay I see what you're saying. But there's two parts.

>So he is strolling around, shooting teenagers in the back...

I am not going to call a soldier in a combat zone a baby-murderer (etc.) for an incident like this, without evidence that he _is_. Not you, not my nephew headed for Iraq, not Kerry in Viet Nam. Your language is pointing in that direction ("shooting teenagers in the back"). In other words, this phrasing takes the same kind of liberty that Kerry himself took before Congress in 1971.

Wrong then, wrong now.

>why ... he's doing this ... is anyone's guess ... the boat is sitting on the shore waiting to be holed by an RPG...

Different issue, not snuffing teens but command judgement. Legitimate question, though we all know that definitive answers are going to be hard to come by after 30+ years.

[Mikey]

Hey,

In a world full of child soldiers, I don't have a problem with someone in combat shooting combatants at any age. No one describes the person Kerry killed in term other than a teenager who was 'probably NVA'. Ok, he's a combatant. Kerry shot him with an M16, not one of the mounted machineguns from the boat. He's the CO, why is he off the boat in a free fire zone?

My point was that Kerry's job is to command his vessel, not to go gallivanting off on a personal mission. His job is to get the mission done, keep his men safe, and protect the boat.

So I still don't get why he's in a firefight on the beach, unless he's being derelict in his duties.....