resurrectionsong

October 13, 2004

War Hero? (Updated)

A long time ago, I knew an old Special Forces type who drank too much and told the best war stories you could possibly imagine. Like most old soldiers who tell war stories, the best of the tales were based on more than a shred of truth, but grew a little tiny bit with every telling. The embellishments only made the stories better--and he happily acknowledged that there might be some inconsistencies.

"What's the difference between a fairy tale and a war story?" he once asked after a night of too much Jack Daniels (a splash of water and ice at the beginning of the night, straight shots by the end). "One starts with 'once upon a time' and the other starts with 'this ain't no bullshit.'"

John Kerry tells good war stories.

Normally, I don't consider that a bad thing. Surrounded by your best friends, having a few drinks, and telling tall tales doesn't really hurt anyone. But when you fabricate events (Christmas in Cambodia, for instance) to advance your political life and your political causes, it's not just a war story anymore: it's a lie.

I used to think of Kerry as a sort of harmless, prototypical liberal politician throughout his career. He didn't really do much, he voted as expected, and he never met a Republican President that he liked; no matter how much he name dropped Reagan in the last debate, the man was almost always opposed to Reagan's foreign and military policies in particular.

The more I've seen of him in this election, though, the more I dislike the guy. Not the mind-numbing hatred some conservatives feel when mentioning the name of the dreaded Clintons, but just an undercurrent of distrust and dislike that tell me that even in the worst of years I could never bring myself to vote for this guy.

I won't forget the fabrications that he told about Vietnam (how about the one where his boat was right there to pick up the man in the water when all the records show that his boat high-tailed it out of the area, returning and making the pickup much later?) and his self-serving attitude toward Purple Hearts (I won't argue whether he deserved them, but he did use them as a way to worm his way out of the country). I won't forget that he's embraced his hero status and glowered at President Bush because he was only in the Guard; meanwhile, it came to light that he did everything he could to avoid service, did everything he could to pull safe duty, and then served in combat zones because his efforts failed.

Kerry is, perhaps above all else, a world-class hypocrite.

Now we find out that he may not have been honorably discharged from his naval service. Of course, that can't be said to be definitive; while Kerry and his defenders have often called for Bush to release his military records, the Kerry record is woefully incomplete. His refusal to sign release forms is either (or both) damning evidence that he wants something buried or damning evidence that he's an opportunistic hypocrite.

It's hard to avoid the "hypocrite" tag when you loudly shout that your opponent should release his records while simultaneously refusing to release yours, and then run on your military record through the better part of two years of campaigning. Did he leave service with a less than honorable discharge? From this report, that seems a very strong possibility--a possibility that could be very easily checked if he would just release his records.

According to the secretary of the Navy's document, the "authority of reference" this board was using in considering Mr. Kerry's record was "Title 10, U.S. Code Section 1162 and 1163. "This section refers to the grounds for involuntary separation from the service. What was being reviewed, then, was Mr. Kerry's involuntary separation from the service. And it couldn't have been an honorable discharge, or there would have been no point in any review at all. The review was likely held to improve Mr. Kerry's status of discharge from a less than honorable discharge to an honorable discharge.

Thanks to Michelle Malkin for bringing us the story and thanks to Jerry for telling me to go read it this morning.

Update: Check this from Steve. And while you're there, be sure to check out this, too. It'll make you cranky.

Posted by zombyboy at October 13, 2004 09:31 AM

Comments

Not that I don't understand your gripe with Kerry, because I do, but there really is just as much to gripe about on Bush for very similar reasons.

If you aren't going to vote for Kerry based on this information alone, I can't see how you could vote for Bush if considering only similar information. Thus, in my opinion, this is completely irrelevant to the campaign discussion. And the fact that this keeps coming up (on both sides of the campaign) frustrates me to no end because the other side then feel compelled to reply and it has nothing to do with:

1) differentiating the candidates (they both stink on this issue)
2) informing me about the candidates currently (these similar events are ancient history)
3) helping me decide if Bush or Kerry is really able to lead the country. In fact, based on this information alone, I would say neither could.

Posted by: puppy at October 13, 2004 11:27 AM

Where I will disagree with you is in that Bush has been far more open with his military records than Kerry, and Bush isn't campaigning on his military service. Kerry has made this an issue which makes it fair game in my book. More than that, he's continued to use his Vietnam service as a shield of sort through his campaigns and through his political career. If it isn't what he told us it was, then I do think there is something significant to the story.

That said, I have to admit that like you I am far more interested in what they've done recently and how that reflects on their ability to be President of this country. Despite my areas of disagreement (and, sometimes, disappointment) with Bush, there are areas where I am in complete agreement with him.

With Kerry, my areas of disagreement are more, they occur in the most significant issues (to me), and the areas of agreement are far fewer. I'm guessing that for you the situation is reversed?

Posted by: zombyboy at October 13, 2004 11:38 AM

Zom's right. The important aspect isn't so much what happened as how does what happened measure up against what Kerry claims happened.

If he didn't get an honorable discharge when he left the Navy, he owes it to his supporters to be candid about that.

It also shakes up a lot of the Krry supporters' sniping at Bush, who did get an honorable discharge when he left the Texas Air National Guard.

I would have found this campaign far more engaging if Kerry's main focus throughout had been what's going on now, rather than what he did (or claims to have done) back in the 1960s and 1970s.

Posted by: McGehee at October 13, 2004 11:49 AM

"Bush has been far more open with his military records than Kerry..."

I'll agree to say "more open," but I can't agree to "far more open."

Bush did apparently authorize the release of all documents to settle this, except that the records that do exists are far from clear. And then there was supposedly some new document that was recently released. And documents that were claimed to be discarded suddenly appear.

That said, everyone who is saying anything "negative" about Kerry's service wasn't actually there. Kerry got his medals, and he can do whatever he wants with them, as far as I'm concerned. And if he didn't deserve them, this potentially calls into question any number of medals handed out to any number of other soldiers in any number of wars. I'm not ready to deal with that. The military can take care of their own.

I'm not saying that these allegations about Kerry aren't ture, but that information has to be taken with a grain of salt. If there's anything that I've learned recently about politics, is that supporters/detractors can be rather evangelical, truth be damned.

That said, the circumstances of a "less than honorable discharge" could be palatable. If he was given anything less than an honorable discharge because of anti-war activies, I'm okay with that. I mean, this country was founded on a principle of free speech, and punishing someone for expressing views not held by the government seems to go against the grain....

That said, I'm not really a Kerry supporter. I may vote for him, but that has yet to be decided. In fact, I doubt that I will, since I don't really have much in agreement with Kerry. But I am definitly not voting for Bush. He and I don't see eye-to-eye on many subjects.

Posted by: puppy at October 13, 2004 12:20 PM

What do you mean by this phrase,'drank to much?'

I'm unfamiliar with it.

Posted by: Walter at October 13, 2004 01:20 PM

Well, there is that...

Posted by: zombyboy at October 13, 2004 02:13 PM

George W. Bush may have 'only' served in the Guard. He never surrounded himself with fake 'veterans' and said that, as a matter of policy, I went around raping, murdering and chopping off arms and legs. John Kerry did that.
George W. Bush has a track record, coming up on four years as CinC, that record is of honoring the sacrifices and achievments of our Armed Forces. The Hee-row has a track record, also. This track record shows no trace of such honor.
I have my suspicions as to why The Hee-row had to have a Board of Officers upgrade his discharge, probably at the orders of the Carter Administration. It's that he was held beyond his normal discharge date while the Navy considered their options and possible charges for a General Court Martial. Once Watergate hit the News Media and became the only important story in the nation, the civilian leadership of the Navy Department decided to simply let him go with an administrative discharge. I would think we would have heard about a Court Martial.
Still, I was an enlisted man, my only concern with the Uniform Code of Military Justice was to try not to run afoul of TOO many of it's provisions.
The Administrative Discharge would not have stripped The Hee-row of his decorations, thus there would have been no reason for them to be re-issued during the Reagan Administration.
This story raises more question than it answers.
We need a military lawyer, were there any provisions for secret courts martial during that time frame?
What is NOT a question is that George W. Bush and the people he surrounds himself with never called me a baby killer.

Posted by: Peter at October 13, 2004 02:17 PM

Peter, with all due respect, as I don't know your personal history, many of the atrocities cited by Kerry, or generally related to Kerry's testimony to Congress are well documented. They happened. That's what happens in war: atrocities.

Kerry later admitted that some of his testimony was "over the top," but according to the testimony that I've read, he never stated that it was "a matter of policy."

G.W. Bush brought us to war. And brought us the atrocities of war that go with it. Which is worse? Kerry calling out that there's some bad things happening, perhaps calling other soldiers baby killers, or Bush putting more soldiers in a situation where they will inevitably kill civilians and have things like Abu Ghraib go down?

I have my own feelings, and I think that's something each person has to figure out for themselves. And I respect that you can have your own opinion about this. However, to think that Bush is "clean" and Kerry is "dirty" on this topic is very subjective.

Posted by: puppy at October 13, 2004 04:04 PM

My step-father was SF 5th Group retired. My ex-husband's father was ALSO SF. Both did three tours (that would be the entire YEAR) in Vietnam. I briefly dated a SF medic. I partied with 5th Group at Ft. Bliss on numerous occasions. (It was like the WildfreakinWest out at the Rod N' Gun club.)

I would hazard an educated guess that NONE -- N.O.N.E. -- of any of those men I knew would cross the street to piss on John Kerry even if he were on fire.

But that's just how I see it.

Posted by: Margi at October 13, 2004 04:06 PM

If you want to talk about hypocrites, maybe you should mention Bush and Cheney - who constantly attack Kerry's war record. This despite the fact Bush's shady national guard service was full of absenses, and indeed he pulled out of the guard during wartime by failing to attend a medical. Cheney is an even worse hypocrite, making unbelievably low attacks on Kerry's COMBAT service, when he got a grand total of FIVE deferals from Vietnam, and quite possibly got his partner pregnant in an effort to avoid service.

'a possibility that could be very easily checked if he would just release his records.'

Bush wont release all of his either. Its a common Presidential ploy.

'and then served in combat zones because his efforts failed.'

Yeah - and he served with distinction. I think if any Republicans, or just military service smearers in general have any problems with Kerry's decorations - they should take it up with the US navy. Kerry didnt just award himself 3 purple hearts and a bronze and silver star. He had every right to go back home.

Kerry isnt campaigning on his military service. As the debates have proven, he has detailed and specific plans - although people still ignore this.

Posted by: FilthyCommie at October 13, 2004 05:42 PM

"Kerry isnt campaigning on his military service."

Hey, FilthyCommie, did you know he served in Vietnam? I'm surprised Kerry doesn't mention it.

Posted by: dorkafork at October 13, 2004 07:41 PM