OT: Viet Cong Backs Kerry.

Kerry continually focuses on what he did for four months in Vietanm over 35 years ago as proof that he would be a good commander-in-chief. He's been in politics at either the state or national level for almost all the 35 years since.

Why doesn't he focus on all his great accomplishments during those years as an example of his fitness to be President. Oh, that's right, what WAS I thinking; there were none. ;~)

-- -- " In walks the village idiot and his face is all aglow; he's been up all night listening to Mohammad's radio" W. Zevon

My home page:

formatting link

Reply to
Bill Woodier
Loading thread data ...

That's my point. Attitudes and ideology don't simply die with war's end...on either side. You have to approach each individual and/or group (generally by generation, I'd think) with some healthy scepticism until you know where and how things stand for certain.

Reply to
Rufus

Precisely!!

Bill Shuey

Reply to
William H. Shuey
Reply to
Digital_Cowboy

The more I see Kerry, the more I think of a local awards supplier that has a "Golden Horse's Ass Award" - it's the back half of a horse on a pedestal. Maybe something Kerry should have won. Sick of listening to a campaign strategy based on some scrapnel scratches 35 years ago. This guy has to have a IQ below 85.

Val Kraut

Reply to
Val Kraut

RANT ON

I was pretty ticked originally about the medals. But, if he stuck to the procedures then I guess I can't complain. For most guys I've come across, it was a matter of pride.

Most felt they didn't deserve what they did receive and never made a big deal out of it (either during the war or after). Please note that I said "most."

My biggest issue with the Senator is his post-war conduct. He sold out the people he served with on the Swift boats and the POWs in particular, and all of the rest of us in general when he got back to "the world." And he did it big time. Each action he took was calculated to achieve the most publicity for him and his "courageous" opposition to the war. He never considered the consequences of his actions on those who remained behind and those of us who returned.

For those of you who have not served in any branch of the armed forces, let me explain. It is a BIG deal when you can't trust your buddies. You depend on them day in and day out. It was a two way street. You dependeeed on them and they dependeeed on you. Back then some people -- especially the grunts, Marines, Green Berets, SEALS -- depended more on their buddies than those of us who flew over their heads. If somebody said they did something, you believed them.

The POWs were treated even worse after Kerry "testified" before Congress. His testimony (and his confession that he committed war crimes himself) was played for them over the camp loud speakers. (Isn't it perjury - maybe contempt of Congress if you lie under oath during sworn testimony to a congressional committee? Oh, yeah. I forgot. He's a Democrat and gets a free pass. He didn't really lie about anything important - just what he saw during the war. Lying about war crimes or about oral sex with interns in the Oval Office don't' count if your a Democrat.)

I had some personal experiences following his "testimony" but nothing to compare with what the POWs had. We couldn't leave the base in uniform. Guys wore their hair as long as possible so they didn't "stick out" when they went into town. Some of my buddies even went so far as to scrape the base stickers off their cars because guys in my unit had their tires slashed when local "protestors" saw the base sticker on their cars.

So, long story short. What we have here is a guy who can't be trusted. Not even a little. So, if you can't trust a guy, why in God's name would you even consider electing him President?????

RANT TO STANDBY

Ed

Not Fonda Kerry

Reply to
RobbelothE

Not at all! As some are starting to point out, this is all sound and fury signifying nothing, and takes the great unwashed masses attention off the fact that he has really accomplished very little other than marrying a rich wife in the 35 years since the war. What's the voting record in congress?? 87% missed votes! He's obviously been spending too much time at his various mansions or that Italian Estate he just recently sold to George Clooney.

Bill Shuey

Reply to
William H. Shuey

"> RANT ON

Somehow Kerry seems to think that by hanging his medals on the wall - all of a sudden he's legitimized veterans from the war as having done the good thing - like the world needed him to do this like some Messiah. This guys a looser and let's just hope in November he remains a looser. Hopefully the veterans see him for the looser he is. Can't help but wonder if he'll want a purple heart for each state he looses.

Val Kraut

Reply to
Val Kraut

Make that *two* rich wives. It's also interesting that there seems to be some confusion as to whether or not the Catholic church granted him an annulment of his first marriage of 18 years since the Church doesn't recognize civil divorce.

Reply to
Al Superczynski

Screw the medals and his Viet Nam service. I want him to start talking about his record in the Senate. If all he did was get pork for his state that's no big accomplishment - all Senators do that.

Reply to
Al Superczynski

I can't resist....he got porked for his state? That's state patriotism..........

Reply to
Ron

That was exactly the point of my previous post. His short 4-month "Vietnam experience" has been covered and re-covered ad nauseum. It is an interesting information bit but certainly not the sum total of the reason one should or should not vote for him for President. Actually, he married two rich wives. Apparently the first one wasn't rich enough and he dumped her for his current wife who was substantially richer than the first.

Yes indeed! His performance in the jobs that actually DO indicate a potential for governing the country is absolutely abysmal! He didn't even show up for work mosst of the time (though he did collect a paycheck). Why is the good Sentor not touting his sterling record as a leader and valuable contributing member of the Senate? Why? Because he can't.

-- -- " In walks the village idiot and his face is all aglow; he's been up all night listening to Mohammad's radio" W. Zevon

My home page:

formatting link

Reply to
Bill Woodier

In regards to his medals, and him claiming not to have thrown them away, but rather his ribbons. I read recently (can't recall whethe it was the Wash Post or WSJ) that the department tasked with re-issuing medals to vets who had "misplaced" or "lost" them, actually had paper work from Kerry on file from several years back, where he apparently applied to have new medals issued due to his "losing" them in a move..lol yeah, he lost them when he threw them away in protest! This moron has shown he's not only a flip flopper but a bold faced liar as well, which if it weren't an election year I'd say he'd make a great politician..lol

Reply to
P8ntGuns4Sale

Actually he did NOT throw his medals, but other peoples. What happened to his, I don't know..........................

But his Silver Star with V devices is funny. The Navy dose not issue, or authorize such devices on it's awarding of Silver Star's

I'm glad the Navy is finally going after him for it !! (serves him right for lying !!)

Reply to
AM

Once again. Google "kerry bcci" and then google "bush bcci" You'll get something like this:

formatting link
the Money How John Kerry busted the terrorists' favorite bank. By David Sirota and Jonathan Baskin Two decades ago, the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) was a highly respected financial titan. In 1987, when its subsidiary helped finance a deal involving Texas oilman George W. Bush, the bank appeared to be a reputable institution, with attractive branch offices, a traveler's check business, and a solid reputation for financing international trade. It had high-powered allies in Washington and boasted relationships with respected figures around the world. All that changed in early 1988, when John Kerry, then a young senator from Massachusetts, decided to probe the finances of Latin American drug cartels. Over the next three years, Kerry fought against intense opposition from vested interests at home and abroad, from senior members of his own party; and from the Reagan and Bush administrations, none of whom were eager to see him succeed. By the end, Kerry had helped dismantle a massive criminal enterprise and exposed the infrastructure of BCCI and its affiliated institutions, a web that law enforcement officials today acknowledge would become a model for international terrorist financing. As Kerry's investigation revealed in the late 1980s and early 1990s, BCCI was interested in more than just enriching its clients--it had a fundamentally anti-Western mission. Among the stated goals of its Pakistani founder were to "fight the evil influence of the West," and finance Muslim terrorist organizations. In retrospect, Kerry's investigation had uncovered an institution at the fulcrum of America's first great post-Cold War security challenge. More than a decade later, Kerry is his party's nominee for president, and terrorist financing is anything but a back-burner issue. The Bush campaign has settled on a new strategy for attacking Kerry: Portray him as a do-nothing senator who's weak on fighting terrorism. "After 19 years in the Senate, he's had thousands of votes, but few signature achievements," President Bush charged recently at a campaign rally in Pittsburgh; spin that's been echoed by Bush's surrogates, conservative pundits, and mainstream reporters alike, and by a steady barrage of campaign ads suggesting that the one thing Kerry did do in Congress was prove he knew nothing about terrorism. Ridiculing the senator for not mentioning al Qaeda in his 1997 book on terrorism, one ad asks: "How can John Kerry win a war [on terror] if he doesn't know the enemy?" If that line of attack has been effective, it's partly because Kerry does not have a record like the chamber's dealmakers such as Sens. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) or Orrin Hatch (R-Utah). Though Kerry has been a key backer of bills on housing reform, immigration, and the environment, there are indeed few pieces of landmark legislation that owe their passage to Kerry. But legislation is only one facet of a senator's record. As the BCCI investigation shows, Kerry developed a very different record of accomplishment--one often as vital, if not more so, than passage of bills. Kerry's probe didn't create any popular new governmental programs, reform the tax code, or eliminate bureaucratic waste and fraud. Instead, he shrewdly used the Senate's oversight powers to address the threat of terrorism well before it was in vogue, and dismantled a key terrorist weapon. In the process, observers saw a senator with tremendous fortitude, and a willingness to put the public good ahead of his own career. Those qualities might be hard to communicate to voters via one-line sound bites, but they would surely aid Kerry as president in his attempts to battle the threat of terrorism. From drug lords to lobbyists Despite having helmed the initial probe which led to the Iran-Contra investigation, Kerry was left off the elite Iran-Contra committee in 1987. As a consolation prize, the Democratic leadership in Congress made Kerry the chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics, and International Operations and told him to dig into the Contra-drug connection. Kerry turned to BCCI early in the second year of the probe when his investigators learned that Panamanian strongman Manuel Noriega was laundering drug profits through the bank on behalf of the Medellin cartel. By March 1988, Kerry's subcommittee had obtained permission from the Foreign Relations Committee to seek subpoenas for both BCCI and individuals at the bank involved in handling Noriega's assets, as well as those handling the accounts of others in Panama and Colombia. Very quickly, though, Kerry faced a roadblock. Citing concerns that the senator's requests would interfere with an ongoing sting operation in Tampa, the Justice Department delayed the subpoenas until 1988, at which point the subcommittee's mandate was running out. BCCI, meanwhile, had its own connections. Prominent figures with ties to the bank included former president Jimmy Carter's budget director, Bert Lance, and a bevy of powerful Washington lobbyists with close ties to President George H.W. Bush, a web of influence that may have helped the bank evade previous investigations. In 1985 and 1986, for instance, the Reagan administration launched no investigation even after the CIA had sent reports to the Treasury, Commerce, and State Departments bluntly describing the bank's role in drug-money laundering and other illegal activities. In the spring of 1989, Kerry hit another obstacle. Foreign Relations Committee chairman Claiborne Pell (D-R.I.), under pressure from both parties, formally asked Kerry to end his probe. Worried the information he had collected would languish, Kerry quickly dispatched investigator Jack Blum to present the information his committee had found about BCCI's money-laundering operations to the Justice Department. But according to Blum, the Justice Department failed to follow up. The young senator from Massachusetts, thus, faced a difficult choice. Kerry could play ball with the establishment and back away from BCCI, or he could stay focused on the public interest and gamble his political reputation by pushing forward. BCCI and the bluebloods Kerry opted in 1989 to take the same information that had been coldly received at the Justice Department and bring it to New York District Attorney Robert Morgenthau, who agreed to begin a criminal investigation of BCCI, based on Kerry's leads. Kerry also continued to keep up the public pressure. In 1990, when the Bush administration gave the bank a minor slap on the wrist for its money laundering practices, Kerry went on national television to slam the decision. "We send drug people to jail for the rest of their life," he said, "and these guys who are bankers in the corporate world seem to just walk away, and it's business as usual?When banks engage knowingly in the laundering of money, they should be shut down. It's that simple, it really is." He would soon have a chance to turn his declarations into action. In early

1991, the Justice Department concluded its Tampa probe with a plea deal allowing BCCI officials to stay out of court. At the same time, news reports indicated that Washington elder statesman Clark Clifford might be indicted for defrauding bank regulators and helping BCCI maintain a shell in the United States. Kerry pounced, demanding (and winning) authorization from the Foreign Relations Committee to open a broad investigation into the bank in May 1991. Almost immediately, the senator faced a new round of pressure to relent. Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis and Democratic doyenne Pamela Harriman personally called Kerry to object, as did his fellow senators. "What are you doing to my friend Clark Clifford?," staffers recalled them asking, according to The Washington Post. BCCI itself hired an army of lawyers, PR specialists, and lobbyists, including former members of Congress, to thwart the investigation. But Kerry refused to back off, and his hearings began to expose the ways in which international terrorism was financed. As Kerry's subcommittee discovered, BCCI catered to many of the most notorious tyrants and thugs of the late 20th century, including Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, the heads of the Medellin cocaine cartel, and Abu Nidal, the notorious Palestinian terrorist. According to the CIA, it also did business with those who went on to lead al Qaeda. And BCCI went beyond merely offering financial assistance to dictators and terrorists: According to Time, the operation itself was an elaborate fraud, replete with a "global intelligence operation and a Mafia-like enforcement squad." By July 1991, Kerry's work paid off. That month, British and U.S. regulators finally responded to the evidence provided by Kerry, Morgenthau, and a concurrent investigation by the Federal Reserve. BCCI was shut down in seven countries, restricted in dozens more, and served indictments for grand larceny, bribery, and money laundering. The actions effectively put it out of business what Morgenthau called, "one of the biggest criminal enterprises in world history." Bin Laden's bankers Kerry's record in the BCCI affair, of course, contrasts sharply with Bush's. The current president's career as an oilman was always marked by the kind of insider cronyism that Kerry resisted. Even more startling, as a director of Texas-based Harken Energy, Bush himself did business with BCCI-connected institutions almost at the same time Kerry was fighting the bank. As The Wall Street Journal reported in 1991, there was a "mosaic of BCCI connections surrounding [Harken] since George W. Bush came on board." In 1987, Bush secured a critical $25 million-loan from a bank the Kerry Commission would later reveal to be a BCCI joint venture. Certainly, Bush did not suspect BCCI had such questionable connections at the time. But still, the president's history suggests his attacks on Kerry's national-security credentials come from a position of little authority. As the presidential campaign enters its final stretch, Kerry's BCCI experience is important for two reasons. First, it reveals Kerry's foresight in fighting terrorism that is critical for any president in this age of asymmetrical threats. As The Washington Post noted, "years before money laundering became a centerpiece of antiterrorist efforts...Kerry crusaded for controls on global money laundering in the name of national security." Make no mistake about it, BCCI would have been a player. A decade after Kerry helped shut the bank down, the CIA discovered Osama bin Laden was among those with accounts at the bank. A French intelligence report obtained by The Washington Post in 2002 identified dozens of companies and individuals who were involved with BCCI and were found to be dealing with bin Laden after the bank collapsed, and that the financial network operated by bin Laden today "is similar to the network put in place in the 1980s by BCCI." As one senior U.S. investigator said in 2002, "BCCI was the mother and father of terrorist financing operations." Second, the BCCI affair showed Kerry to be a politician driven by a sense of mission, rather than expediency--even when it meant ruffling feathers. Perhaps Sen. Hank Brown, the ranking Republican on Kerry's subcommittee, put it best. "John Kerry was willing to spearhead this difficult investigation," Brown said. "Because many important members of his own party were involved in this scandal, it was a distasteful subject for other committee and subcommittee chairmen to investigate. They did not. John Kerry did." David Sirota and Jonathan Baskin work for the American Progress Action Fund, an advocacy organization in Washington, D.C. < C$>
Reply to
Tom Cervo

Reply to
David

Nice story - but I tend to see this as a "side show" to the main events going on in the Senate - side shows don't make main stream presdential material. Sounds to me that he might make a good research aid for some Congressman.

Val Kraut

Reply to
Val Kraut

I don't really want to go 'round and 'round on this again and I feel that what he has done (or hasn't done) in elective government service since the war is much more important to hid qualification (or not) to be President that what he did in the 4 months of Vietnam. However, regarding throwing his medals away, my feelings have been documented here (and in other forums previously but here it is one more time. I don't know what happened to his medals either, nor do I care. To me, it matters not whether he threw his medals or his ribbons or someone else's medals or ribbons away. It was a symbolic act, performed by Mr Kerry to underline his anti-war stancs. In doing so, he also divested himself of any and all benefit of those same awards and honors. To turn around and reclaim them is, well, dishonorable.

I'd call it more sad than typical (and stupid). Anyone who was in the military should know that the "V" device was only used to signify an award fro valor on decorations that could be awarded for both meritorious service or valor. The Silver Star, Navy Cross, and MoH are all awards awarded ONLY for valor, hence no need for a "V"device.

I won't even go into detail about the anti-war activities he engaged and now is predictably mum about; acts that directly caused aid and comfort to the enemy. acts that caused direct emotional and bodily harm to several American servicemen then in captivity.

-- -- " In walks the village idiot and his face is all aglow; he's been up all night listening to Mohammad's radio" W. Zevon

My home page:

formatting link

Reply to
Bill Woodier

With 66 years behind me on this earth, I can tell you that the Catholic Church will recognize just about anything if the "contribution" is large enough.

Bill Shuey

Reply to
William H. Shuey

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.