April 25, 2006

Kerry Lied! So, What Else Is New?

Speech in Boston by Senator John "Do You Know Who I Am?" Kerry (D. Ma.) in which he delivered the following line:

No wonder Thomas Jefferson himself said: 'Dissent is the greatest form of patriotism.' " [emphasis added]
Website for Montecello, home of Thomas Jefferson, Third President of The United States Of America:
There are a number of quotes that we do not find in Thomas Jefferson's correspondence or other writings; in such cases, Jefferson should not be cited as the source. Among the most common of these spurious Jefferson quotes [emphasis added] are:

1. "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." [emphasis added]
2. "We should build an aristocracy of achievement based on a democracy of
3. "An informed citizenry is the bulwark of a democracy."
4. "Information is the currency of democracy."
5. "A nation is as good as its values."
6. "There is nothing more unequal than the equal treatment of unequal
7. "When the government fears the people, there is liberty; When the people
fear the government, there is tyranny."
8. "I have nothing but contempt for anyone who can spell a word only one
9. "I am a big believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I

Is there any wonder we didn't elect this guy President?

And a tip 'O the GM Derby to James Taranto

Posted by GM Roper at April 25, 2006 06:14 PM | TrackBack

I'm pretty sure that T.J. said, "Give peace a chance." That was after Paul Revere's ride with the raiders when they stated the immortal words "Kicks just keep gettin' harder to find."

However, I am sure of one quote:
John Kerry: "If you get that microscope over there, Doc, you can see this wound that I'm trying to show you to get my third purple heart."

Posted by Woody at April 25, 2006 06:40 PM

Thomas Jefferson would've shot John Kerry.

Posted by Ben USN (Ret) at April 25, 2006 09:07 PM

"It's not what he doesn't know that bothers me, it's what he knows for sure that just ain't so."

- Will Rogers

How do I define a good day? Well, we can start with one that doesn't feature one of my US Senators (MA) saying something foolish or stupid.

Posted by too many steves at April 26, 2006 05:19 AM

Guess we now truly know the meanin of "Even the Devil can quote Scripture!"..good research GM! :)

Posted by Angel at April 26, 2006 12:28 PM

Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again!

Posted by An Old Saying In Texas at April 26, 2006 01:14 PM

This quote is only a few years old and is by Howard Zinn.


So Kerry (or more accurately his speech writers) screwed up.

Posted by E. Nonee Moose at April 26, 2006 01:21 PM

Yeah, Kerry's too busy to read his speeches for accuracy before he speaks. So we shouldn't hold it against him when he's wrong. Oh wait ... he's wrong a lot.

On the other hand, I like #6. I don't care who said it.

Posted by Oyster at April 26, 2006 03:50 PM

The families of Adams, Washington, & Hamilton settled in the colonies before the family of Mark York.

Hey, South Park, as bad as it can be, is currently on and showing Al Gore with the latest scare--"Man Bear Pig." He ended his talk with "Excelsior!" Now, the parents of the kids don't want them hanging out with him. I have to go watch the rest of it.

Posted by Woody at April 26, 2006 08:07 PM

A little rebellion...
"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical."

This strikes me a "dissent."

Game, set, match.

Posted by Jake Elmore at April 26, 2006 08:12 PM

Jake, dissent is not necessarily a bad thing, I'm currently dissenting from the Republican leadership on spending and have told them so in no uncertain terms. Rebellion can take the form of armed rebellion, or a massive get out the vote and win rebellion as happened in '94.

You misscored.

Posted by GM Roper at April 26, 2006 08:57 PM

Why should Kerry worry about the truth? The Main Stream Media will never call him on it.

The organization I worked with in 2004 (Vietnam Veterans for the Truth, allied with the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and the POWs for something or other) found lots and lots of Kerry lies. Getting the MSM to pay heed to them was impossible. It is no accident that the Swift Boat Veterans had to write a book to get the word out - a book that was NY Times #1 for weeks before the MSM even mentioned it.

For those with military knowledge, take a look at Kerry's released Navy records (he never released them all to the public - too busy trying to find if Bush went to the National Guard dentist or somegthing). You will find an anomaly that the MSM never bothered to check. Kerry entered the Navy in 1966, just about the same day that I did. He should have gotten an honorable discharge in 1972 (although the Boston Globe reported he got an early one in 1970 - a lie which they refused to retract even when records showed Kerry remained in the Navy after that). The Navy records show that Kerry got his discharge in 1978.

There is only one explanation I am aware of for this, since he did not re-enlist in 1972: the Carter Amnesty (this was pointed out by JAG lawyers from that time).
Those who got less than honorable discharge for actions related to illegally dissenting against the war had their records expunged and new honorable discharges granted during the Carter administration.

Ever hear about that in the MSM?

Like I say, Kerry doesn't need to worry about the facts, because he will get away with any lie he wants to. He has been doing so for a very long time.

Regarding quotes, one I see incorrectly used is B. Franklin's "Those who forfeit their freedoms for security will get neither." (or something like that).

This is normally dragged out by libertarian absolutists whenever someone advocates any law that might make it easier to catch terrorists. They don't bother to consider the old Ben was part of a, gasp, government which in fact reduced freedoms (it could, after all, hang people who misbehaved, and draft soldiers) in order to provide security.

Posted by John Moore at April 26, 2006 10:43 PM

Thanks John Moore, for your honorable service and the work you do to expose kerrys lies.
I always wondered how traitor kerry received an "honorable" discharge, after his cowardly treachery.

Posted by Ben USN (Ret) at April 26, 2006 11:18 PM

Ahh, Howard Zinn.

Well, lads and lasses, if the truly evil of the world are attempting to take you down, do not count on Zinn, Chomsky, and their ilk to do anything to help defend you or this country. These type folks have literally made a career of being naysayers. What, indeed, have they done to make the U.S. or the world any better?

If they were in charge of a business, a sports team, or national defense...they would not, could not, do it. They are "sidelines guys" that wish to carp and criticize without really moving forward.

As my old Sergeant Major would have said, "They couldn't lead a squad of Marines in silent prayer."

My opinion.

Posted by tad at April 27, 2006 07:54 AM

Nope no miscore here. Jefferson used it in other places too so he talked about it a lot. As for Kerry bashing, that would be the last refuge of scoundrels. Those who didn't like his majority dissent in 1972 or so. Tough. Dissent is real get over it, win or lose. Kerry has a slug od lead in his butt so no matter what John Moore says the ex-rays don't tell tall tales like his have. His service was real, the medals earned, and outrank anything you have so give it a rest.

Posted by Jake Elmore at April 27, 2006 09:38 AM

And you delted some good quotes. I suppose those wee the ones you didn't like? Yawn. Bias is so triesome.

Here's a last quote to consider before you roll the stone back over the mouth of your cave.

Thomas Jefferson to Joseph C. Cabell, 1816. ME 14:419
Danger of Taking Quotes Out of Context
"We know how often a few words withdrawn from their place may seem to bear a general meaning, when their context would show that their meaning must have been limited to the subject with respect to which they were used."

Posted by Jake Elmore at April 27, 2006 09:43 AM

In Kerrry's 1971 testimony before the Senate Fulbright hearing, Kerry spoke for nearly two hours. Here's how he described his fellow soldiers and the war:

The soldiers "personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads," of Vietnamese citizens and rampaging across Vietnam "[razing] villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan"


Posted by Woody at April 27, 2006 09:50 AM

Yes. Some of them did those things. Can't handle the truth? Tough ----. Reality is a ------.


Posted by Jake Elmore at April 27, 2006 10:52 AM

"..medals earned.." Right. Served four months in country. Earned THREE Purple Heart Medals in that period. What, EXACTLY, were his wounds again? 1. Self inflicted, minor, requiring a band aid. 2. Struck side of his own boat, bruised as a result 3. ? How many days in a hospital? How many hours in an aid station?

Please tell us again how he "earned" the Silver Star Medal and the Bronze Star Medal with "V"? Was anyone senior to Kerry (in rank) present during his "valorous" acts? Or did he submit his own reports? Shot one retreating VC in the back. Wow! I am impressed.

How about the minor detail that after receiving his third PHM, he asked to leave VN....and left his enlisted crew behind. Wow, what leadership! What moral committment to his troops. A regular Nelson at Trafalgar story.

Ah, Yes, John Kerry, in the forefront of true military heroes of our land.


Vietnam Veteran, F/2/26 and CAP H-3

Posted by tad at April 27, 2006 11:27 AM

Heard it all before buddy. Look at the x-rays? A grain of rice? Au contraire. And if you weren't there I suspect your views are more ideological than factual.

Posted by Jake Elmore at April 27, 2006 01:03 PM

I note my questions HAVEN'T been answered.

It is about: Ethis, Decency, Real Courage and Leadership.

Kerry's antics seems, both military and otherwise, to always be self-serving.

Posted by Tango Charlie at April 27, 2006 02:54 PM

Note: Tango Charlie = Tad.

Note 2: Was I there? In his unit? No. I did serve in the late RVN and never saw officers leave their troops to go home, unless they were in body bags or were severely wounded.

I believe that Kerry ought to appear in the book: STOLEN VALOR. One wonders why he has refused, though he said many times that he'd do so, to sign the forms that would release ALL his military records?

Posted by tad at April 27, 2006 04:44 PM

Shouldn't have left his troops? -------. And here comes the old records BS. Right: appeal to ignorance.


Posted by Jake Elmore at April 27, 2006 06:25 PM

Mr. Elmore, Not only are you rude, you are either ill/uninformed, or you cannot/will not provide your proofs that refute my allegations/observations.

Posted by tad at April 27, 2006 06:40 PM

Not only is the quote not by Jefferson, it's not an accurate sentiment. What was new about the American experiment is not that people dissented, but that dissent was tolerated. It is an odd inversion to think of mere dissent as an act of patriotism, as if dissent were in itself a good thing. If dissent were always a good thing, then agreement would be a bad one.

But toleration of dissent - for the people to allow the harangues, the wise men and the fools, the sermons and the bawdy songs - that is indeed patriotism.

Of course, just because I tolerate dissent doesn't mean I can't call it dam' foolishness.

Posted by Assistant Village Idiot at April 27, 2006 07:34 PM

Jake, who did "those things" in Viet Nam? I'm aware of William Calley committing unauthorized crimes in Viet Nam and being convicted by our military court. Give us the rest of the list. How many of these atrocities did Kerry personally witness or verify? How about none. It sure hurts our men in combat to have someone go back home and spread lies about their actions and smearing all of our military men in the process--all for the sake of publicity for one ambitious man who didn't care who he hurt or got killed to advance. Reality must be a bitch, because you refuse to admit it.

Posted by Woody at April 27, 2006 08:50 PM

Elmore appears to be a troll or an idiot - or perhaps both.

Mr. Elmore... on Jan 20, 2005, there was a party at the National Press Club in DC. It was called the Unaugural Party - celebrating the fact that John Kerry was not the person inauguratred that day. I was there, enjoying the celebration. Present were many former POWs, some Swift Boat guys, members of our Vietnam Veterans for the Truth group, and a few authors and producers of anti-Kerry works.

Not only were we celebrating Kerry's defeat - we were enjoying schadenfreude, for people like yourself.

Posted by John Moore at April 27, 2006 09:41 PM

Moore. Who gives a ---- what an ---- like you thinks. Personally I'd celebrate your --- roasting on a funeral pyre.


Posted by Jake Elmore at April 27, 2006 09:56 PM

Viet Nam veterans for bald-faced liars club is more like it.

Posted by Jake Elmore at April 27, 2006 09:58 PM

How is that a lie? It may or may not be a misattribution, and you can't assume it was deliberate if it was a misattribution - but to call it a lie is a long bow you are drawing.

Posted by Wadard at April 27, 2006 10:12 PM

Please tell us again how he "earned" the Silver Star Medal and the Bronze Star Medal with "V"? Was anyone senior to Kerry (in rank) present during his "valorous" acts? Or did he submit his own reports? Shot one retreating VC in the back. Wow! I am impressed.
As I am an Aussie, this debate really has nothing to do with me personally, so I offer an unbiased response:

What kind of people will glorify a coward who has never fired a shot in anger and villify someone who actually got out amongst it when is country needed him?

This astonishes me - you guys have your values screwed on 100% backwards, or are a bunch of cowards and armchair warriors in your heart, and so support the cowardly behaviour of cowboy CIC to make yourselves feel better. There is no other explanation.

Posted by Wadard at April 27, 2006 10:26 PM

Who are you to call Guard service cowardly?
For an Australian who is a self-described "unbiased" observer, you are neither unbiased nor honorable.
To call anyone who served in the Guard (and volunteered to go to 'Nam but was refused) cowardly, only shows how incredibly stupid and uneducated you really are.
Flying combat aircraft is risky in any environment, as is all military training.
GWB also wasn't a traitor, like Kerry was, which is the worst kind of coward there is!
Do you call people in your military who don't see combat cowards?
Not to their faces, I'm bettin'.

Posted by Ben USN (Ret) at April 27, 2006 11:06 PM


Posted by GM Roper at April 28, 2006 02:28 AM

Jake Elmore, Kerry turned on his own men. He presented as fact selected "stories" that he had heard. Then, he got his fast exit with dubious wounds that they properly witnesed as nothing that others would report to qualify.

By helping to extend the war rather than end it (which is what happens when an enemy is defeated militarily but only has to hold on until the conqueror is defeated from within by the likes of Kerry and Fonda--yeah, Kerry caused men to die) and by attacing the men who fought with him, Kerry got his payback--something that he knows something about himself.

Kerry could have ended discussion of his Purple Heart controversy by opening up his medical records from the Navy. He refused and does to this day, adding credence that the wounds were not qualifying. He was a coward to create the fast exit and a coward to shoot his own men in the back--like he did the Vietnamese man running from him. At least the Vietnamese had it coming. Our men didn't.

Continuing to attack the men that Kerry tried to disgrace over thirty years ago is to put yourself in his class--and, around decent people, that isn't good.

Posted by Woody at April 28, 2006 06:06 AM

Come on Ben, stick to the facts and save me your faux outrage and yourself a heart attack. Bush had a chance to go and fight for his country. Kerry had a chance to go and fight for his country during a time of conscription. Bush had a chance to go and fight for his country during a time of conscription. Kerry came from an influential family. Kerry opted for active combat and declined to use his family's influence. Bush opted for the Home Guard, away from the action and used his family's influence to do this. Those are the plain facts. Conclusion: He is a wussy. Plain and simple. Kerry gets a purple heart. Conclusion: He is a hero.

To see it any other way is self delusional and sad.

That is the view from down under and I don't care who I tell face to face big fella because, unlike your Commander In Chief, I am no coward.

Posted by Wadard at April 28, 2006 06:16 AM

By helping to extend the war rather than end it (which is what happens when an enemy is defeated militarily but only has to hold on until the conqueror is defeated from within by the likes of Kerry and Fonda--yeah, Kerry caused men to die)

Mate - you lost the war. Plain and simple. The VC won. Vietnam is a communist republic. You were defeated. It was a victory for the other side. The US fled the country. The US evacuated. Expelled. You lost! You are the vanquished. I don't know many more ways to say it. It's in all the history books. We have all seen the newsreel footage. No one normal is saying the US won Vietnam. A loss is a loss is a loss.

The score so far:

WW1 - Won
WW2 - Lost
Korea - Drew
Vietnam - Lost
Somalia - Lost
Iraq1 - Won or drew - it's arguable depending in whether you consider leaving Saddam in power a win.
WTC1 - Won or drew - it's arguable depending in whether you consider letting Osama Bin Laden off the hook a win.
Iraq2 - Jury is still out. Some will say it is a win because Saddam is on trial. Some say the fall of Baghdad was a win but the government is dominated by Shiite Islamicists and there is a civil war going on that the media is starting to catch up with. Me? I think it is Vietnam all over again.

Posted by Wadard at April 28, 2006 06:42 AM

Excuse me ... I meant to say you won WW2. Forgive me.

Posted by Wadard at April 28, 2006 06:45 AM

Wadard: "...That is the view from down under...."

Which goes to illustrate that people from other countries obtain a distorted view of the U.S. from liberal media and have no understanding of the American mind set--which definitely is not that of Europeans. We came here to get away from that and to gain freedoms (in contrast to being expelled to a penal colony.)

Wadard, the U.S. was not "expelled" from Vietnam. History is what it is, and your rephrasing of it doesn't fool anyone. The loser was not America, but the millions of Asians killed by the North Vietnamese and the Kemer Rouge--thanks to liberals who undermined our mission in SE Asia. Why don't you gloat in their deaths, which were caused by your heroes?

Posted by Woody at April 28, 2006 08:14 AM

My dad helped win WWII. Viet Nam was a mistake as any expert will tell you. Woody here is, like the rest so ideologically driven he's blind to facts for the swiftboat lies. And they are out and out lies. FACT.

Kerry carries the slug in his leg. It's not a grain of rice as claimed. Why is it the men with him verify what the records say? Why dioes the NAVY verify it?He and Jane Fonda did not lose the war for the US. That would be a false cause fallacy. The winter soldiers for the mostpart confessed to atrocities they committed. War is ugly: men sent to their slaughter by parasites in government who were too cowardly to go themselves. People like George W. Bush and Richard Cheney. Those are the flippin facts of the matter.

Posted by Jake Elmore at April 28, 2006 09:30 AM

We came here to get away from that and to gain freedoms


Well, goodness me you rolled over and gave them away so easily at the first sign of trouble Woody.

And I am afraid the loser was America and if you can't accept that then you are completely deluded. The North Vietnamese beat them at it by bleeding America of the will to win. It is as simple as that.

Posted by Wadard at April 28, 2006 09:57 AM

no understanding of the American mind set


You are absolutely correct. I can't understand how you value your war heros so little that you will allow a bunch of idiots like Swift Boat Vets to run down a war hero FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES????? That is just sickening. And instead you vote in a man who dodged Vietnam and then went awol. No wonder America can't win Iraq - look at the stooges you got running the war.

Posted by Wadard at April 28, 2006 10:02 AM

OK. Here goes, yet again:

1. Kerry is NO war hero. Ah, but he has medals and wounds to prove he is. What, I would ask, do you personally know about the military awards system of the U.S. Armed Forces? What do you know about how awards were given during the Vietnam War? One general (GENERAL) was awarded a Silver Star Medal....accepted it....and later it was proven that he was in Hawaii on R&R with his wife during the stated period of his "valor".

2. What "slug" in Kerry's leg? Please tell where EXACTLY you got that information. Further, it WAS common knowledge among combat troops in Vietnam that if you were wounded three times, you could leave. How do I know? I was a combat troop in Vietnam.

3. Isn't it interesting that Kerry, the only officer on a smallish craft received high awards AND was wounded three times....all in just four months, while none of his crew members (enlisted folks, not an officer....and a very priviledged lad from Mass.) did NOT receive high awards NOR were wounded thrice...in four months. Why is that? This is like being in a small room with 6 people and I throw in a hand grenade and one person only gets wounded.

If someone has some actually proveable facts that fly in the face of what I've said, or implied, please put them forward.

Kerry went to the Brown Water Navy by design. He quickly racked up a handful of medals...by working the system....and he "bailed out" on his own crew. Got it? He left his crew behind after just four months and went home. His crew stayed behind. Got it? No, "hero", he.

Once home, he saw the way the political winds were blowing and jumped on that band wagon. Gad, he droned on about all sorts of atrocities, but
in FOUR months, just how much of the war did he see? Years later, he's running for President and the mood of the country has changed. Now, he re-re-invents himself. Once again, he paints himself as a "war hero".

This is pretty clear, folks. The guy is a political opportunist to the max. He holds no ideals. Is there something solid he stands for? Nope. The political winds blow and he bends with them. How much has he actually done as a Senator? Look at his record. How many days has he gone missing from the Senate so he could go skiing (water or snow, depending on the wx)? This guy is a light-weight liar. If he'd gone into the Marines, Marines wouldn't have followed him...even out of idle curiousity. Heck, he would have gone home in disgrace.

Finally, just exactly WHY has he NOT signed Form 180 so the Navy COULD put his ENTIRE record in the public domain? He promised a number of times to do it, but he failed...and failed...and failed to do it. Why?

OK. If I am all wet on the above, please trot out proveable facts and set me straight.

Semper Fidelis,

Posted by tad at April 28, 2006 10:56 AM

Opportunism is not a crime. Since one of Kerry's compatriots got a Bronze Star with him I would call that a high award. The xrays are well known and published. Why is it the Navy disagrees with you? Because you're blatantly wrong and a liar to boot. Try arguing without the appeal to ignorance fallacy. I doubt you can.

Posted by Jake Elmore at April 28, 2006 02:51 PM

What, I would ask, do you personally know about the military awards system of the U.S. Armed Forces?


Nothing - except its people allow the running down of the heros that went to Vietnam, and they elevate first class awol cowards to president.

You cannot ask for more conclusive proof that something is rotten in the State of Fear that nowadays passes for what was once a great country.

Posted by Wadard at April 28, 2006 05:01 PM

And it is clear from the festering stain on the US military that Iraq represent that when a coward is the commander in chief the whole forces is denigraded and the world loses respect.

From declaring 'Mission Completed' after 3 weeks (hey it's 4 years later soon) to not providing body armour to replicating Saddam's torture atrocities in Abu Ghraib to killing of 10s of 1000s of innocent civilianrs and bombing weddings to using chemical weapons in Fallujah to "American democracy" causing Islamacist governments in Palestine, Iraq, Syria and soon Egypt and pushing Iran into a nuclear corner to outsourcing the military to the private sphere you guys have been putting on show that is emboldening the US's enemies and making its allies lose respect. The Brits think that your soldiers are poor. Aussies are not impressed either. I met a couple of South African mercenaries though friends who laughed at how 'stupid' or uneducated some of your military are. I understand they are recruiting from the bottom of the barrell now 'cos your CIC has run down the military.

If you can't see that Tad, I just don't know about you.

Posted by Wadard at April 28, 2006 05:28 PM

He doesn't want to see it. These folks have blinders on.

Posted by Jake Elmore at April 28, 2006 05:42 PM

Which "compatriot" got a Bronze Star with Kerry? Are you speaking of the other OFFICER on the OTHER boat? What X-rays? Please cite source.

1. First wound....self-inflicted by foolishly firing an M-79 (do you know what that is? I do. Single shot 40mm grenade launcher) close aboard the craft he was on. This occured at night and there was no, repeat, no enemy action. Corpsmen, not doctors, treated (later) Kerry for a VERY minor wound that, frankly, would have been the issue of a strong verbal reprimand in a more disciplined unit.

2. Second wound...self-inflicted by foolishly attempting to destroy a cache of rice with a M-26 fragmentation grenade. This guy never learns. Doubtless, walking away, BOOM, and Kerry is hit in the ass by his own grenade. Excellent. What a hero and what a example to his sailors. By the way, fragmentation grenades are not a good way to destroy crops, rice, corn, etc.

3. Third wound...enemy mine explodes underwater and violently rocks his craft. Kerry is thrown against the side of of the interior of his craft and is bruised. "Bruised". My, my.

Question. Does ANY record indicate that Kerry was wounded so badly that he had to spend ANY time in a Navy medical facility?

Question. Is there any indication that Kerry was incapacitated and could not perform his duties?

Question. Is it not noted, time and again, that all those higher than Kerry in grade, rank and position, relied on others (chiefly, Kerry) in writing up citations. Thus, they relied on the veracity, honor, a flawless honesty of those. Sadly, they were let down.

Question. Has anyone noticed that there is lots of "boilerplate" in the citations? What does that indicate?

Question. Under the Awards Manual, would Kerry receive the awards that he did, if the letter and spirit of the Awards Manual were carried out?

Question. What is the purpose of awards? Was that purpose met?

Question. Why, EXACTLY, did Kerry leave his enlisted crew members after only four months in country? Was, in fact, he so physically/mentally impaired by his "wounds" to be unable to carry out his duties?

I would guess those are enough questions. Many served in Vietnam. Many suffered serious wounds and pressed on. I submit that the Brown Water Navy was the only (Surface Navy) element in country. To say that some gilding of the lily was down, I would say, would be a gross understatement. While some may have deserved awards for valor, and some rated the highest respect, not all did.

Finally, while on a very long combat operation in I (pronounced "Eye") Corps, one of my Marines threw a grenade into a dry stand of bamboo. All others hit the deck. The Marine stood there and WHACK, one small piece of shrapnel hit him next to one of his eyes. No major damage. Once we got back to the "rear", he asked me when he would receive his Purple Heart Medal. I escorted him some distance from the GP tents that were our "home" in the rear. I had him dig latrines (as the Army calls them) for some hours. That was followed by a serious ass-rip. It was a stupid and dangerous thing for a Marine Lance Corporal to do. He endangered himself and his fellow Marines...but it was somehow heroic and.....ahhh. I am disgusted by defense of someone who uses and abuses his postion. Folks, Kerry doesn't deserve your admiration or defense. All wrapped up in smoke and mirrors, and others who wanted their units to appear heroic in, frankly, a mostly backwater part of the war...many errors of commission and omission were made. Kerry, a bright lad in a devious manner, quickly figured out how to use the system to his advantage.

I wrote up on Marine for a Bronze Star Medal with "V". We actually took heavy automatic weapons fire during an early morning raid on a village well north of Hue. One Marine was hit in both legs. The hero, immediately jumped up and ran out and picked up a heavy lad. And in the Fireman's Carry, brought him back. Lead was flying in both directions. I am happy to report the WIA was put on a Medevac w/i 20 minutes and survived. The Marine who without thought for his own safety and at great risk to his life, received no formal awards. I shared coffee and some kind words with him. He was a real hero. I was much too junior in grade to force the issue...besides, we continued to fight on for more days. He was truly a hero. The like of Kerry wouldn't be fit to clean that Marine's boots.

Find a real hero, that really deserves your passionate support and respect.

Posted by tad at April 28, 2006 05:46 PM

I hate to muckrake things up with evidence but:


The Washington Post and the Associated Press devoted entire articles to investigating the Bronze Star incident and concluded that documents uniformly contradict Swift Boat Veterans for Truth's allegations against Kerry and support Kerry's own account. According to The Washington Post: "On the core issue of whether Kerry was wounded under enemy fire, thereby qualifying for a third Purple Heart, the Navy records clearly favor Kerry." The Associated Press reported: "Kerry's version is supported by others present at the time as well as by Navy documents."

Tony Snow lied. Oh the horror!

Kerry Facts

Posted by Jake Elmore at April 28, 2006 05:53 PM

The military routinuely uses CS gas. It is used by police as well for riot control. If one has a situation in which there might be innocents OR enemy in a building, bunker, etc. What more humane thing to use a non-toxic CS grenade to flush people out. We don't want to kill innocents. We take great risks to assure that they are not harmed. Do mistakes occur? Yes.

I have been doing this for over three decades and can assure all and sundry, that if you were an innocent, you'd rather have the American military approaching your town that any other military. No?

Name the one you'd prefer.

To my naysayers, what expertise, either military service or extensive historical research is your base for your assertions?

Posted by tad at April 28, 2006 05:54 PM

I don't know this sopunds like bravery to me. And my dad has one of these silver stars so I have knowledge of what it takes.

"The official citations show Kerry was not awarded the Silver Star "for simply pursuing and dispatching" the Viet Cong. In fact, the killing is not even mentioned in two of the three versions of the official citation (see "supporting documents" at right.) The citations - based on what Elliott wrote up at the time - dwell mostly on Kerry's decision to attack rather than flee from two ambushes, including one in which he led a landing party.

The longest of the citations, signed by Vice Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, commander of U.S. naval forces in Vietnam, describes Kerry as killing a fleeing Viet Cong with a loaded rocket launcher. It says that as Kerry beached his boat to attack his second set of ambushers, "an enemy soldier sprang up from his position not ten feet from Patrol Craft Fast 94 and fled. Without hesitation, Lieutenant (junior grade) KERRY leaped ashore, pursued the man behind a hooch, and killed him, capturing a B-40 rocket launcher with a round in the chamber."


The x-ray shows shrapnel that was backfire from blowing the rice cache but even this is enough to qualify for the PH on its own, since it's friendly fire in the course of destrying enemy territory. No you just have no argument that isn't just biased opinion. The facts don't support you assertions even slightly no matter how much you believe them.

Posted by Jake Elmore at April 28, 2006 06:06 PM

Who mentioned gas?

Posted by Jake Elmore at April 28, 2006 06:07 PM

Here's not-so-swift critic Larry Thurlow, who got a Bronze in the same incident according to his own citation which refutes his no enemny fire lie courtesy of a FOIA request.


I think you people have had enough. The history of lies here doesn't show John kerry to be the liar.

Posted by Jake Elmore at April 28, 2006 07:37 PM

Corpsmen (called Medics in the Army) frequently sign for the doctors in combat situations. Thus, the Kerry "chain of custody", so to speak, is flawed...or so it would seem to those who don't know the intracacies of just how things work.

There are LOTS of "moving parts", both formal and informal in the American military. Added to that, things are always changing. Further still, the crisis of the moment may cause people to NOT go by the SOPs. One must know very much to be able to accurately determine what the real facts are in some contested issues.


Meanwhile, why exactly did Kerry bail on his crew?

Posted by tad at April 28, 2006 07:50 PM


You know when you go to court and you're asked to tell "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth"? OK, very much of today's journalists have NOT ever served in the military. So, even if they are really good journalists, they do not know all the questions to ask.

Kerry, and others, may well have told the truth...and even nothing but the truth. However, as I have attempted to demonstrate, Kerry and others did not tell the "whole truth."

I shan't go over all I have presented before. But, doesn't it strike you as odd that Kerry wounded himself twice. Yes, this technical qualifies for a "friendly fire" wound. It is still damn stupid.

Did he actually receive the citations and medals? Yes, however, every step the chain of command was farther and farther from the scene of the action described. Who, indeed, provided the description of the actions of valor? Captain Elliot? No. He was there. Admiral Zumwalt? No. He wasn't there. CinCPacFlt and CincPac? Not there.

Finally, again, why did Kerry bail on his crew members?

Posted by tad at April 28, 2006 08:00 PM

Gas was implied in the mention of "..chemical weapons in Fallujah..".

See, I am a dolt in many things. I unaware and unknowing in lots and lots. However, things military are what I did for a long time and past the doing, I did/do study and read very many books and go to very many battlefields, cemetaries, museums...in lots of countries. I don't think I am an expert, too much hubris in that title. I just believe I do know a fair amount more than most of the people on the planet. Having said that, there are plenty who know lots more than me. Additionally, having served in the enlisted ranks and officer ranks and in combat, I've a bit more of wider perspective than many. Not horn tooting. Just informing.

Posted by tad at April 28, 2006 08:36 PM

Error: Captain Elliot WASN'T there.

Posted by tad at April 28, 2006 08:39 PM

Elliot filed the report and rescinded it under pressure from the swiftnuts. You aren't reading the material. I say it's deliberate.

Posted by Jake Elmore at April 28, 2006 09:37 PM

No, not the report, the recommendation for awards.

Posted by tad at April 28, 2006 10:08 PM

Pull old Hanoi John some slack. He wasn't a very bright man in college and just scraped by because his family was rich. The only way he could be expected to remember history would be for it to 'seared' in his mind. Na, that won't work either. The memory of being ordered by Nixon (not yet president) to spend Christmas 1968 in Cambodia was seared, seared into his mind. I marvel at a woman spending years with him knowing that he has lied his way through life and lied to you about his heroic's in Vietnam. As a fact i've never heard him tell the truth about anything and he still hasn't signed the SF-180 he vowed to sign on national TV. A dishonorable discharge in his records would be adequate reason to keep his records a secret.

Posted by Scrapiron at April 28, 2006 10:14 PM

Gas was implied in the mention of "..chemical weapons in Fallujah..".

I was talking about phospherous shells used to burning the skin off victiums (as opposed to lighting the battlefield).

Hey Tad, you can squirm, and lie and spin as much as you like but I'll pin you everytime you try to lie to me.

If you really are who you say you are you will know that phospherous bombs were used in Fallujah, utterly undermining the honour of US military and bringing it down to the scumbag level of Saddam's worst atrocity making death squads.

And for you to defend that... what kind of excuse for a man are you? To defend the running down of a war hero and the elevation of an awol ahole to CIC tells me all I need to know about you.

As for evidence about the white phospherous shells, anyone who believes it is non toxic like Tad tried to suggest with his obfuscation should look at this - warning - there are shots of burned babies

Posted by Wadard at April 29, 2006 01:21 AM

Well okay then the recommendation 30 years after the fact. Like that's valid and not blatantly obvious. The paperwork just doesn't support any of the ad hominem here. Of course Bush's is the really testy record but that's OK for some. Keep digging and burning straw men. It's all you have.

Posted by Jake Elmore at April 29, 2006 08:36 AM

In regard to the use of WP rounds in Fallujah. Whence your source? WP rounds (like all ammo) is heavy. Units do not carry many WP rounds. Most mortar, artillery rounds are HE (high explosive). Normally, WP is only used to mark targets for CAS (Close Air Support) or other Supporting Arms (mortars, artillery).

All Readers please note: War IS awful. Armed forces carry weapons. They are designed to kill and maim. The irony, as I mentioned before is that to stop really awful people, sometimes society has to resort to really awful things to stop them. That is why police carry firearms and truncheons (night sticks).

American military forces are trained to NOT attack innocents. It is illegal, immoral and just flat non-productive. The very people you're attempting to assist and to win over, are not likely to be happy if you harm the children, old folks, etc.

Now, if a bunch of really bad guys occupy a building and then fire at Americans near by, what would be the likely result? Right. The Americans (or anyone else for that matter) would fire back. What if the building actually was the abode of innocents? Who bears the moral responsibility to assure their safety. THE PEOPLE OCCUPING THE BUILDING. Can it be demonstrated, by anyone, that the Amercans knew of that children were in the area. Right. The American forces said..."Look, defenseless children! Quick, get the WP rounds and we'll burn their skin off." Right. That is what happened.

1. All sorts of awful stuff happens in war.

2. Sometimes mistakes are made. Hell, we shoot our own troops on occasion.

3. A very few people in all military are either amoral, or mentally deranged. All large groups have a few of those. The minute they're discovered, they're culled out.

4. Very often journalists, and others, get part of the story and not the whole deal.

5. Finally, the enemy ALWAYS will attempt to sway the local people and the world at large that THEY are the really good guys and the others are the really bad guys. This is called Disinformation. People of low IQs fall for this.

OK. For all the Bush and/or American haters. You are right. Bush and/or America is hell-bent on turning the whole world into a vast colonial empire that we can run. You bet. That is why we send money to other countries. We are so devious. Ultimately, we'll prevail and the Stars and Stripes will fly over every part of the earth. Not only will everyone have read and write English, they will have to do it the American way. No more honour...nope, it is honor.

One wonders if some folks really do serious research. One wonders if all they can do is just react and are so stuck in their rigid hatreds that they will not be persuaded by actual facts. You know, provable facts. Not hearsay. Not spin. Not cleverly done propaganda.

In conclusion. I would ask all to NOT believe any of my comments. Go out and really do serious research and dig deep. Discover, for yourselves, what the facts are. Do not be led by people with political axes to grind. If you continue with unproven facts and your citations are just newspaper articles from some Lefty (or Righty) paper, you are just proving that you haven't done your research and do not really know of what you write. Further, you are demonstrating that you are being led by others.

As for me. I choose to be led by myself. Sometimes I come to false conclusions...but, as soon as new information is out there, I am free to change my mind. Freedom.

For some of you: Go give a terrorist a hug. Right. For others: Fix Bayonets.

Posted by tad at April 29, 2006 10:53 AM

People with low IQs buy fake news; smearing of legitimate experts, and belief in imaginary weapons. It happens every day.

Posted by Jake Elmore at April 29, 2006 08:20 PM

Fear not Tad, for as Gustave Flaubert once told us, "Earth has it boundaries, but human stupidity is limitless." The evidence that this is true is amply demonstrated by your distractors. Suffer them not.

Posted by Mustang at April 29, 2006 09:01 PM

And a Darwin Award awaits.

Posted by Jake Elmore at May 4, 2006 09:39 AM

Oppose Harry Reid

Christians Against Leftist Heresy


I Stand With Piglet, How About You?

Reject The UN
Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting


101st Fighting Keyboardists

Prev | List | Random | Next
Powered by RingSurf!

Naked Bloggers

Improper Blogs

Milblogs I Read

The Texas Connection
Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

American Conservative

The Wide Awakes


< TR>
AgainstTerrorism 1.jpg
[ Prev || Next || Prev 5 || Next 5]
[Rand || List || Stats || Join]

Open Tracback Providers

No PC Blogroll

Blogs For Bush

My Technorati Profile
Major Media Links

Grab A Button
If you would like to link to GM's Corner, feel free to grab one of the following buttons. (Remember to save the image to your own website).

Whimsical Creations by GM Roper
My Store

Technorati search

Fight Spam! Click Here!
YCOP Blogs

The Alliance
"GM's Corner is a Blogger's
Blog, and then some!"
-----Glenn Reynolds

Coalition Against Illegal Immigration

Southern Blog Federation

Kim Komando, America's Digital Goddess
Powered by:
Movable Type 2.64

Template by:

Design by:

Hosted by: