John Forbes Kerry Refuses to Release Military Records

It's more disrespectful to lie about reasons for a war, and not supplying soldiers with all the equipment they need to fight that war, so that we have casualties that are unnecessary.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4825948/
Human Cost
They were sent to fight for their country. But some GIs didn't have all they needed to protect themselves

U.S. Air Force-thememoryhole.org
Resting place: A soldier prepares coffins of U.S. military personnel returning home at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware
By Melinda Liu, John Barry and Michael Hirsh
NewsweekMay 3 issue - The inaugural mission of the 1st Cavalry's 2d Battalion, 5th Cavalry Regiment was, in its humble way, a bid for hearts and minds. It was to safely dispose of Iraqi sewage. Having arrived in Iraq in late March, a 19-man patrol from the battalion, traveling in four Humvees, had just finished escorting three Iraqi "honey wagons" on their rounds in the grim slum of Sadr City, where vendors stash eggs and chickens in bamboo crates next to puddles of viscous black mud. ("You're lucky if it's mud," joked one U.S. officer.) Suddenly the street became "a 300-meter-long kill zone," recalls platoon leader Sgt. Shane Aguero, courtesy of gunmen from the Mahdi militia of Shiite rebel Moqtada al-Sadr. The Humvees swerved and ran onto sidewalks, rolling on the rims of flat tires, as gunmen kept up the barrage of bullets. Sgt. Yihjyh (Eddie) Chen, gunner in the lead vehicle, was shot dead. Another soldier was hit and began bleeding from the mouth.

And their trouble was just beginning. Two of the Humvees became disabled. Aguero yelled at one driver to gun the engine to get his Humvee moving. The engine fell out. As they'd been drilled to do, the soldiers set out to strip the disabled vehicles of sensitive items and to "zee off the radio"—to see that codes and equipment don't fall into enemy hands. When another group got ambushed nearby, an enemy round came through the Humvee's right rear door—through retrofitted panels that the soldiers had been told would repel AK-47 rounds. Miraculously, none of the three people inside were hit. Then a third Humvee sputtered to a halt: debris had pierced the fuel tank. "It just wouldn't start; we coasted the last 50 yards out of the kill zone," said its driver, Spc. Dee Foster. At last an armored Bradley fighting vehicle arrived, and its steel ramp opened to scoop him and his buddies to safety.



For the Bush administration it has been a mantra, one the president intones repeatedly: America's troops will get whatever they need to do the job. But as Iraq's liberation has turned into a daily grind of low-intensity combat—and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld grudgingly raises troop levels—many soldiers who are there say the Pentagon is failing to protect them with the best technology America has to offer. Especially tanks, Bradleys and other heavy vehicles, even in some cases body armor. That has been the tragic lesson of April, a month in which a record 115 U.S. soldiers have died so far and 879 others have been wounded, 560 of them fairly seriously. Those numbers greatly exceed the tallies in the combat-heavy weeks of the invasion last spring. And the impact of those deaths was felt more fully last week when blogger Russ Kick, after filing a Freedom of Information Act request, won the release of photos showing coffins returning to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware.

Soldiers in Iraq complain that Washington has been too slow to acknowledge that the Iraqi insurgency consists of more than "dead-enders." And even at the Pentagon many officers say Rumsfeld and his brass have been too reluctant to modify their long-term plans for a lighter military. On the battlefield, that has translated into a lack of armor. Perhaps the most telling example: a year ago the Pentagon had more than 400 main battle tanks in Iraq; as of recently, a senior Defense official told NEWSWEEK, there was barely a brigade's worth of operational tanks still there. (A brigade usually has about 70 tanks.)

In continuing adherence to the Army's "light is better" doctrine, even units recently rotated to Iraq have left most of their armor behind. These include the I Marine Expeditionary Force, which has paid dearly for that decision with an astonishing 30 percent-plus casualties (45 killed, more than 300 wounded) in Fallujah and Ar Ramadi. The Army's 1st Cavalry Division—which includes the unit in Sadr City—left five of every six of its tanks at home, and five of every six Bradleys.

A breakdown of the casualty figures suggests that many U.S. deaths and wounds in Iraq simply did not need to occur. According to an unofficial study by a defense consultant that is now circulating through the Army, of a total of 789 Coalition deaths as of April 15 (686 of them Americans), 142 were killed by land mines or improvised explosive devices, while 48 others died in rocket-propelled-grenade attacks. Almost all those soldiers were killed while in unprotected vehicles, which means that perhaps one in four of those killed in combat in Iraq might be alive if they had had stronger armor around them, the study suggested. Thousands more who were unprotected have suffered grievous wounds, such as the loss of limbs.

.
.
.

 

Prince Hal vs. King Henry


By Harold Meyerson

Wednesday, April 28, 2004; Page A21


In the course of the past week an odd double standard has emerged in the presidential campaign. Every sentence and gesture of the young John Kerry has been scrutinized -- and often deliberately misinterpreted -- for signs of insincerity, self-promotion, lack of patriotism and fledgling Francophilia.

The sentences and gestures of the young George W. Bush, on the other hand, remain shrouded in obscurity. You don't build a record if you don't show up, and that's exactly what Bush did during the Vietnam War.

The Republicans have subjected Kerry's time in Vietnam to the kind of going-over normally accorded war criminals. Did he really deserve that third Purple Heart? How big, exactly, was that piece of shrapnel that had to be removed from his left arm?

We could, I suppose, ask an equivalent question of Bush, but only if they awarded Purple Hearts for paper cuts incurred in the campaign headquarters of the Republican Senate candidate for whom Bush worked during the year he was supposed to be serving with the Air National Guard in Alabama.

Kerry's leadership of Vietnam veterans who opposed the war has also come under attack. Last week a gang of Republican congressmen took to the House floor to charge that Kerry had undermined the war effort and betrayed his comrades in arms. "What he did was nothing short of aiding and abetting the enemy," said Texas Rep. Sam Johnson, who then took to calling Kerry "Hanoi John."

What Kerry did, in actuality, was provide a forceful voice and prudent guidance to a movement of angry men who had sacrificed for their country in a war that, by 1971, no longer had a plausible purpose but nonetheless continued to rage. By the time Kerry appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and posed his memorable question -- "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" -- it was plain that no one in the Nixon administration really believed that the war could be won.

The war not only dragged on, however, but Nixon expanded it to Cambodia (a decision that predictably destabilized the regime of Prince Norodom Sihanouk and in turn helped bring the Khmer Rouge to power). A number of antiwar activists, veterans among them, responded with a kind of crazed desperation, proposing increasingly confrontational actions. Like many antiwar leaders of the time, Kerry was fighting a two-front war: against the administration in the court of public opinion but also against those of his comrades who wanted to direct the movement into self-destructive spasms of rage.

It was precisely because Kerry's impulses were so mainstream that the Nixon White House feared him. Nixon didn't sit around with his goon squad of Bob Haldeman and Chuck Colson plotting against Kerry because they thought Kerry was Hanoi John. On the contrary, Kerry had to be taken down because his patriotism was so glaringly obvious.

He had, after all, joined the service despite the grave doubts -- to which he gave voice in his Yale class oration in the spring of 1966 -- he harbored about the war. He had thrown himself in harm's way repeatedly while skippering "swift boats" in the Mekong Delta. He had worked to build an effective, law-abiding antiwar movement. Such men were dangerous.

There are days in this campaign when Kerry must think he's still up against Nixon and his thugs. The same slanders that Dick and his boys cooked up then -- Kerry as dangerous radical, Kerry as inauthentic liberal -- are being served up now by Nixon's ethical heirs.

Did Kerry make mistakes during his years in the antiwar movement? Sure he did, beginning with his studied (but clumsy) ambiguity about the fate of his medals and ribbons. But what is the standard we judge him by? When Kerry was fighting in Vietnam, and then fighting to change a disastrous policy at home, Bush had become the invisible man to his fellow aviators in the National Guard; Dick Cheney had, by his own admission, "other priorities" than the war and picked up four separate draft deferments, and junior exterminator Tom DeLay was risking life and limb in a daily battle against termites. Bush, in his own words, was "young and irresponsible," and Kerry all but reeked of responsibility. Bush was Prince Hal and Kerry King Henry and, when it comes to maturity of judgment, they remain so to this day.

 

Such as questioning how many wounds a brave man sustained for your nation in battle, while other sons of privelege put their feet on desks?

Such as someone who avoided service by noting "other priorities" during the Vietnam War attacking the service of a multiply decorated war veteran?

Indeed. The disrespect is at unbelievable levels, and it is disgusting. The disrespect comes directly and abundantly from the soulless Bush/Cheney campaign machine.

 

What he threw were ribbons. A witness who was five feet way was interviewed last night on MSBNC. Kerry and others said that they could all be considered part of the medal.

I can't believe that people are really trying to say he's a liar because uses ribbons and medals meaning the same thing. That's hilarious.

I personally don't think it's an insult to throw back his medals or ribbons, or both, in protest.

 

Here's the key graph from the Meyerson article above...

It was precisely because Kerry's impulses were so mainstream that the Nixon White House feared him. Nixon didn't sit around with his goon squad of Bob Haldeman and Chuck Colson plotting against Kerry because they thought Kerry was Hanoi John. On the contrary, Kerry had to be taken down because his patriotism was so glaringly obvious.

and Clark on Kerry...
__________

Medals of Honor
By WESLEY K. CLARK

LITTLE ROCK, Ark.

When John Kerry released his military records to the public last week, Americans learned a lot about Mr. Kerry's exceptional service in Vietnam. They also learned a lot about the Republican attack machine.

The evaluations were uniformly glowing. One commander wrote that Mr. Kerry ranked among "the top few" in three categories: initiative, cooperation and personal behavior. Another commander wrote, "In a combat environment often requiring independent, decisive action, Lt. j.g. Kerry was unsurpassed." The citation for Mr. Kerry's Bronze Star praises his "calmness, professionalism and great personal courage under fire."

In the United States military, there's no ideology — there are no labels, Republican or Democrat — when superiors evaluate a man or woman's service to country. Mr. Kerry's commander for a brief time, Grant Hibbard, now a Republican, gave Mr. Kerry top marks 36 years ago.

Now the standards are those of politics, not the military. Despite his positive evaluations, Mr. Hibbard recently questioned whether Mr. Kerry deserved one of his three Purple Hearts.

In the heat of a political campaign, attacks come from all directions. That's why John Kerry's military records are so compelling; they measure the man before his critics or his supporters saw him through a political lens. These military records show that John Kerry served his country with valor, and that those who served with him and above him held him in high regard. That's honor enough for any veteran.

Yet the Republican attack machine follows a pattern we've seen before, whether the target is Senator John McCain in South Carolina in 2000 or Senator Max Cleland in Georgia in 2002. The latest manifestation of these tactics is the controversy over Mr. Kerry's medals.

John Kerry was awarded three Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star and a Silver Star for his service in Vietnam. In April 1971, as part of a protest against the war, he threw some ribbons over the fence of the United States Capitol.

Republicans have tried to use this event to question his patriotism and his truthfulness, claiming he has been inconsistent in saying whether he threw away his medals or ribbons. This is no more than a political smear. After risking his life in Vietnam to save others, John Kerry earned the right to speak out against a war he believed was wrong. Make no mistake: it is that bravery these Republicans are now attacking.

Although President Bush has not engaged personally in such accusations, he has done nothing to stop others from making them. I believe those who didn't serve, or didn't show up for service, should have the decency to respect those who did serve — often under the most dangerous conditions, with bravery and, yes, with undeniable patriotism.

 

Long after Kerry released all of his military records for the press to view, George W. Bush has only released a *selection* of his military records. There are curious gaps in the what the White House has released. Put up or shut up.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/03/politics/main615317.shtml?cmp=EM8705

Gaps Remain In Bush Guard Service

WASHINGTON, May 4, 200
As the back and forth over military service continues, the Bush and Kerry campaigns are engaged in an increasingly personal battle over who served and how. The continuing questions have prompted a new CBS News investigation into the first military records shakedown of this presidential campaign: the drawn-out battle for the records of President George W. Bush.

The missing military records include a bevy of forms, logs, pay stubs and evaluations from Mr. Bush's time in the Texas Air National Guard. CBS News' evaluation of all the documents released by the White House confirms that the records have several holes.

One important question concerns a required physical that President Bush missed in 1972. Because of his absence, Mr. Bush lost his flying wings. Air National Guard regulations require that "the local commander who has authority to convene a Flying Evaluation Board will direct an investigation as to why the individual failed to accomplish the medical examination." But there are no records of an investigation or of any requests to complete one.
.
.
.

 

He had a sore liver.

 

Or a severely bloody nose.

 

Fantastic points. Well said.

 

Does anyone have any doubt that this attack on Kerry wasn't o much to try and make Kerry look bad , per se, than it was to try and get him on the defensive about military records, thus making it seem like less of a relative good when compared to Bush's request to not go to Vietnam.

It's simple pre-emptive undermining, with the Rove touch, and if people ever consider that that is being done at the behest of the War President at a time when other soldiers are being asked to make the same sacrifice Kerry was willing to make, but Bush wasn't, it could well blow up in their faces.

The thing about Rove's tactics is that they all, bar none, appeal to the lowest common denominator, and depend on knee jerk reactions and very short actual attention spans. It says a lot about us that they're so effective.

 

I'm beginning to think that this whole military records thing is a deliberate rope-a-dope by the Bush team. Quite obviously, Kerry's military service was superior to that of Bush. But the American people already know that. And they've accepted Bush's record (or what they know of it). Most have already assumed the worse about George's attendance -- so whatever political fallout is to be had from further revelations is minimal.

By making military service a key issue in the campaign (either because they originally overplayed it per Basso's reports, or by reacting to the criticism of it, as has happened recently) Kerry has allowed much of the scrutiny to centre on an issue that has little downside for George -- as that laundry has already been aired -- yet potentially raises questions about Kerry's motives, or patriotism. Not necessarily legitimate questions, but questions, none the less.

As Bush is the incumbent, his past has less impact with the voters. Kerry has to shift the debate to the job Bush is doing today. If Bush wants to challenge Kerry's military service, Kerry should just allow it. Release his records; let the people judge them as they might -- but focus the debate on the present and the future.

 

It's not a who, it's a what.

 

Nice try.

Lowest common denominator, ie element common to all of us, at the lowest level, and to which we could all respond to an extent.

But you can keep trying to paint everyone who opposes Bush as an arrogant elitist, or as here, try and get them to paint themselves that way. Were you Rove, it might even work sometimes.

 

I knew it was only a matter of time before _Jorge had his own humor column. That is outstanding. A true masterpiece of self-mockery.

 

LOL! Best line in a hilarious post.