While the Democrats have been busy running their abominable AWOL/deserter smear, a similar smear has been launched against John Kerry. While not quite as offensive as calling a veteran who has been honorably discharged a deserter, it is right up there. How many of you have seen this picture:
LINK REMOVED BY REQUEST OF IMAGE OWNER
For those blinded by partisan hatred, we need to review this one more time. John Kerry, regardless of his politics, his post-war antics, and his voting record, is a bona-fide national military hero, wounded numerous times in combat, and a recipient of the Silver Star and the Bronze Star, as well as several Purple Hearts and, btw, personally saving another man’s life. Period. End of story. While there are any number of Senators and Congressman who I wouldn’t spit on if they were on fire, John Kerry is a hero, and there is nothing you can do to change that fact.
If you want to criticize him for his anti-war stance after his service, fine. If you want to criticize his voting record and his numerous flip-flops, fine. But showing a picture trying to tar a legitimate national hero with guilt by association to the despicable Jane Fonda, that loathesome nd treasonous communist traitor bitch, is simply below the belt.
Maybe Kerry has brought this upon himself by helping to fuel the lunatic forces that are pushing the odious desertion charges, but I don’t care. John Kerry is a national hero, and there is nothing you can do to take that away from him- well, from us. If you can’t recognize that, you are in the same league as Michael Moore and Terry McAuliffe.
Jack Sparks (burn rate)
John,
You’re off base here. Regardless of his personal courage, Kerry’s post-war involvement with a movement that was objectively pro-North Vietnam (to borrow a phrase) is a legitimate issue to raise. And he didn’t just attend that meeting with Fonda, he (and she) were featured speakers. It’s not guilt be association, it’s guilt by participation.
It’s even debatable if Kerry truly is a “national hero.” Heroics on the battlefield do not necessarily trump post-war betrayal of your fellow soldiers (via making unsubstantiated allegations that war crimes were a matter of course and, more importantly, being a relatively major player in a movement that was not anti-war, just pro-Vietnamese communism).
This is a strained analogy (and I am NOT comparing Kerry to a Nazi) but I think it proves my larger point – is a German soldier who fought heroically in the invasion of Russia a “national hero”?
BTW, I’ve heard that picture’s a fake.
Jon H
Kerry should, of course, have had his picture taken with someone who really stands for American values. Like Rumsfeld’s picture with Saddam.
Jon H
Now that my knee is strapped to my chair to resist more jerks… Sorry.
The first poster’s comment about a fake picture actually refers to another photo.
This picture seems accurate. Kerry did sit several rows behind Fonda at an event a couple years before she went to Hanoi.
There’s another, which claims to depict Kerry and Fonda side-by-side on stage, viewed such that the audience would be to the right of the image beyond the frame.
In that picture, Fonda was photoshopped into a picture of Kerry.
caleb
Jack,
That is one heck of a strained analogy.
Jon H is correct.
Snopes is on the case.
addison
Just want to note the complete non sequitur in the second post. To associate Kerry’s involvement (whatever it may be) with Jane Fonda with Rumsfeld’s lesser-of-two-evils association with Saddam Hussein is, frankly, asinine. One is an individual’s choice about whom to associate with in anti-war activities; the other is a national defense choice made by, presumably, numerous governmental agencies.
Gary Utter
That picture is totally lame. The fact remains that Kerry and VVAW were closely associated with Fonda, and she provided funding for VVAW at one point (before she went to Hanoi).
There are a LOT of Viet Nam vets (myself included) who hate Kerry with a burning passion. I came back with medals of my own, and if I want to call that motherless fuck a traitor to his country, I’ve damned well got the right.
It’s your blog, if you want to delete this, feel free. But Kerry is still scum, medals or no medals.
Christopher J. Arndt
I believe you surrender certain rights to the title of “hero” when you willfully falsely accuse your comrades of commiting atrocities and re-shape their reception apreciation in their own homes, towns, cities, and country.
He took a large and active role in a smear campaign against our solidiers (he didn’t Support Our Troops, he kicked out the Support from beneath the Troops) fighting a war. That’s a historical fact, not a smear.
I won’t be calling him a hero for what he did. His total wartime experience included him betraying his comrades so he could start spooning with the political Left.
Remember: not smear. history.
CJA
Dave_Violence
Those who went to Viet Nam, like Al Gore, all came back fucked up in some way. Kerry’s a hero soldier. I am in awe of that – even though I’d not vote for him were he running against Lester Maddox. Hmmm, maybe I would.
shark
He’s a war hero? Fuck that. He wants to root around in the muck during this election, well here’s a heaping platefull right back in his face.
He shouldn’t have opened this line of politics up.
This is going to be the sleaziest, most bile inducing and stomach churning election in quite some time. Taking the “high road” will do you no good here.
logiccop
Interesting all, but maybe Kerry isn’t such a “Hero” after all if the op-ed piece by W.Scott Thompson in the Taipei Times is correct. Thompson reports that in one on one conversations with Admiral Elmo Zumwalt (Chief of Naval Operations) the Admiral said:
Kerry created great problems for him and the Navy brass, by killing so many non-combatant civillians and going after other non military targets. Zumwalt was repoted to have said “We had virtually to straight jacket him to keep him under control”. If true then the “They” Kerry refered to in his April 71 testimony to Congress may have actually been a “HE”. Got the heads up on this from The Command Post website.
rkb
Kerry took advantage of a rule to leave Vietnam after only 4 months there, because he got several Purple Hearts.
The problem is, the wounds for which he received those were pretty trivial.
He wrote up most of his own recommendation for the Silver Star too.
And as soon as he got home, he began making claims about the conduct of commanders and troops there which not only were generalized, they were untrue.
As the close relative of several officers and NCOs who did multiple tours in Nam, I’m offended by the suggestion he’s a war hero.
And as the niece of a genuine hero from WWII – a Silver Star with 3 oakleaf clusters, wounded very seriously twice doing things like taking out machinegun nests alone after his squad was decimated, and crawling wounded for 1/4 mile to warn of an ambush, who returned voluntarily to his unit both times to continue fighting — well, my contempt for Kerry goes beyond words.
Max M
she provided funding for VVAW at one point (before she went to Hanoi).
The picture was taken two years before Fonda went to Hanoi. Associating Kerry with the traiterous misdeeds of Jane Fonda is pretty scummy politics.
Kerry and McCain closed down the profitable POW-MIA racket, and some of these racketeers are going after Kerry – the main one I’m aware of also accused McCain of being brainwashed by the North Vietnamese. So don’t just go believing any lurid baby-killer allegations against Kerry without looking into it would be my suggestion because there are some pretty scummy characters trying to take him down.
Jack Sparks (burn rate)
More here.
rkb
I should add that I agree the doctored photo is a stupid thing to do or to float around.
But “hero”? Nope. Not then and not now.
Misanthropyst
“…But showing a picture trying to tar a legitimate national hero with guilt by association to the despicable Jane Fonda, that loathesome nd treasonous communist traitor bitch, is simply below the belt…”
Well, sign me up for the below-the-belt crowd, then. Kerry forfeited any claim to veteran sainthood by his anti-veteran actions after the war.
Charlie (Colorado)
I dno’t care about the speech, and until someone pointed out the fuzzy guy in the back, I thought they meant the guy right next to her with the beard. My two thoughts were “He sure looks better with the beard” and “She was damn cute.” (Forgive me, Barbarella was my first “dirty” move.)
But I was also one of the spat-upon “baby killers”. I don’t care about the rally, but I can’t forgive the “Winter Soldier” thing.
John Cole
I do not applaud Kerry’s actions once he returned from Vietnam, and I wish he had never done the things many in this thread are bitching about.
However, John Kerry answered the call, fought for hiscountry, and is, and always will be a hero in my eyes. No one came back from Vietnam the same as they went in, and that may serve as reason enough to not vote for him for President, as well as his voting record and numerous other actions.
That does not, however, nor will it, in my eyes, discount the fact that when his country called, he answered. NO matter what his willful associations were after the war, he is not on the same plane- not even in the same universe- as the despicable Jane Fonda.
Others may disagree, and others will point to his post-war behavior as disgraceful to many other vets. I don’t care. He earned the right to voice his opinion, and he will always have my respect for his service.
I will disagree and do disagree with many of the things he has said and done since his service, but nothing will change my opinion regarding his service. HE shed his blood for you and me, and by any objective measure that alone makes him more of man than most citizens in the United States.
I do not see myself voting for Kerry ever, but I refuse to call him anything other than a decorated military hero. And that will not change.
James Longstreet
Kerry is pond scum and is war record is anything but heroic. His silver star was awarded for killing a wounded man who was incapable of resisting (just try it after being hit by .50 xaliber rounds). His numerous war wounds cost him two days in hospital, shit, I spent two weeks in a hospital for a practice jump that went wrong.
Photos linking him with Jane. How about the one showing him side by side with Fonda with a mike in his hand?
As a character reference, hows Gen. Giap who said North Vietnam would probably have surrendered if it wasn’t for organizations like Kerry’s that altered US public opinion.
After the war he used nut cases to smear American vets then he did everything in his power to buy MIA cases.
Smear job? I thought Clinton was as low as you could go. But Kerry demonstrates that there is no underestimating exactly how low the Dems can go. Just ask any intern.
DANEgerus
JFKerry is applying for a job… for ‘the’ job.
As he plans on being ‘Commander in Chief’ his attitudes and behaviour are part of that application process.
I’d leave hands off and respect him in spite of his tossing other people’s medals and childish protests… except that duplicity is part of the ‘background’ into whether he is qualified for the job.
So if he wants to bring up his Vietnam service as part his job application then his smearing of Veterans in front of Congress, his association with over-the-top anti-American grandstanding frauds, his anti-defense, anti-intelligence and biased voting records are fair game.
You want to give him a pass? Fine… but only if he drops the job application.
Random Numbers
There was once a great officer in the United Stated Army. Brilliant and daring in combat, he gained both promotion and acclaim. He will never be known for any of that.
What he will be known for was his betrayal of his superiors and the men under his command.
His name was Benedict Arnold.
With his activities in VVAW, his “testimony” before Congress, and the book “The New Soldier” (witch was used as propaganda in NV POW camps), Kerry made his actions as a citizen override his actions as an officer. He betrayed those he left behind and helped the US lose the will to even keep our own WORD in Vietnam.
UNFORGIVABLE!
Random Numbers
Let me add here that, had he protested the war in a truthful and responsible manner, rather than an irresponsible and, at best, dishonest manner, I would have a great deal more respect for him.
tom scott
Well, Ransom Numbers beat me to it. I was reading this while he was posting. A sample:
“These losses did not deter Arnold. Joined by General Richard Montgomery, who had arrived with 300 troops after capturing Montreal, Arnold’s forces attacked the strongly fortified city, only to have the assault end in disaster. A hundred Americans were killed, including Montgomery; 400 were captured; and many were wounded, including Arnold, who fell as he stormed over a barricade, a ball through his leg.
Quebec was only the beginning. For the next five years Arnold served the Patriot side with distinction in one battle after another, including a dangerous assault against the center of the British line at Saratoga, where he was again wounded in the leg. No general was more imaginative than Arnold, no field officer more daring, no soldier more courageous.
Yet Arnold has gone down in history not as a hero but as a villain, a military traitor who, as commander of the American fort at West Point, New York, in 1780, schemed to hand it over to the British.”
I am not equating Kerry to Arnold. Merely saying that subsequent actions can and should be part of the overall picture. I should “forgive” Arnold because he fought bravely and was wounded twice? You’ll note that Arnold’s flaws were his obsession with power, position, and prestrige. Sound familiar?
Slartibartfast
None of Kerry’s antics, real or purported, rise to any perceptible level of interest for me.
His ideas, on the other hand, say all I need to hear. Enough that I’m pretty convinced I don’t want him running the country.
caleb
Well,
I think this issue will only be in play with the undecided.
The people of this country who when they think of Kerry instantly associate with Hanoi Jane wouldn’t be voting democrat no matter who the nominee is.
It will affect those who either don’t remember/too young/not alive at the time.
Will they belive the dem spin using his words/actions to paint him an a true amercian standing up for his beliefs.
Or the rep spin using his words/actions to paint him as “pond scum”.
But, then there will be those who won’t have this even enter into the picture, and don’t care about GWB’s NG duty either.
They will grow tired of these attacks from both sides and want the canidates to actually talk about the events around 2004, not 1974.
space
While not quite as offensive as calling a veteran who has been honorably discharged a deserter, it is right up there.
Whether or not George Bush is technically a deserter, by Bush’s own account, during wartime and after being trained at great expense by the U.S. government, he took it upon himself to shirk his medical exam, get suspended, and not fly jets again.
In short, Bush swore an oath to perform his duty as a trained pilot and failed to fullfill that duty. I don’t really give f-ck if some guy remembers him hanging out in an office in Alabama in between campaigning. He wasn’t doing the job he promised to perform.
Blaming Democrats for pointing this out after Republicans called Clinton a “draft-dodger” for eight years is the height of idiocy.
Bird Dog
Kerry spent four months in Vietnam and served them honorably. Since Kerry keeps trotting out his Vietnam experience of 34 years ago, his military service, his subsequent anti-war activities and his views are all subject to scrutiny.
Beldar
The photoshopped photo of Kerry next to Jane Fonda (her holding a microphone, him with a notebook) is debunked at Snopes.com pretty convincingly. Whoever created this did a favor for Kerry, IMHO. The photo of Kerry a couple of rows behind Fonda that Mr. Cole reprinted in his original post above is genuine, but as some have pointed out, predated Fonda’s most extreme anti-Americanism in her visit to Hanoi.
Even if his wounds were comparatively minor, even if his decorated acts of heroism were exaggerated, even if he bailed out after only four months of combat under fire by relying on the “thrice-wounded” provision, even if he was “getting his ticket punched” in anticipation of his future political career — the fact remains that Kerry volunteered for the swift boat service that brought him under fire. I have no problem with Kerry opponents bringing into public knowledge the details that take some of the luster off his Vietnam service. But I would hope that they’d do so respectfully, and stick to the strict and objectively verifiable truth. (Speculating about whether Kerry committed a war crime by finishing off a wounded enemy soldier, for example, isn’t productive.)
Overaggressive disparaging of Kerry’s war record, in my humble opinion, actually detracts from the vastly more important points to be scored regarding his activities after he was discharged and ever since. That record is one of consistent opportunism, not principle. Reasonable people can and did and do disagree about the wisdom of the Vietnam war; there are many people who opposed the war, with whom I disagreed then and now, but who I nevertheless respect.
But Kerry isn’t among them. He’s a phony, and he has been at least since the moment when he permitted the assembled, adoring press to believe that he had thrown his own medals over a Capitol fence toward a trash bin. By his own version of events, Kerry told no one that he was holding back his own medals, while throwing only the ribbons that went along with them along with medals given to him by others.
He insists that this was a calculated, deliberate choice at the time, but that he told no one else about the tightrope he was trying to walk. In other words, while it was politically expedient for once- and future-candidate Kerry to take an extreme anti-war, anti-military stance, he engaged in a charade to do just that. Later, when it became expedient to be a “war hero,” his own medals reapppeared in a place of honor in his Senate office.
It’s this cynical opportunism — not while under enemy fire, but while under network news cameras — that speaks volumes about the man’s character, or lack thereof. I respectfully suggest that those, like me, who are heartsick about the prospect of this man becoming our Commander in Chief focus on this incident — as the symbolic starting point for a career filled with radically liberal positions on virtually every issue affecting our national defense — rather than on, for example, whether his Purple Hearts were for bandaid scratch wounds.
Jon H
Bird Dog writes: “Kerry spent four months in Vietnam and served them honorably. Since Kerry keeps trotting out his Vietnam experience of 34 years ago, his military service, his subsequent anti-war activities and his views are all subject to scrutiny”
Because nobody, not even a decorated, thrice-wounded combat veteran, should ever dare criticize the government.
I take it that, in 1776, you would have been a Royalist?
Eric Sivula
No, Jon H, because nobody should spread slander about men currently under fire for their country. Which, from 1970 to 1972, Kerry was doing, even in front of Congress. If Kerry does not want his actions that are related to Vietnam mentioned, he should not have started mentioning them.
And Kerry’s ‘critizism of the government’ went FAR further than slandering US soldiers and hanging out with Communist sympathizers. The man said that US troops should only see combat outside the US, if the UN gave its permission. And that the CIA should have its budget slashed.
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=357339
The man was calling on the US to abandon our NATO allies, and hope that the Soviets would play nice.
He saw no problem with Carter sending aid to Communist Nicaragua, and blamed Vietnam on Nixon. So the 8 years of US troops in Vietnam before 1969 was a mass hallucination of the world?
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040127-084854-4468r.htm
I used to be against Kerry because he was a Massachusetts Democrat. Now I am against him because the man is detached from reality.
Andrew Lazarus
This may sound like a stupid question, but is it so obvious that the facts alleged in the Winter Soldier are false?
Eric Sivula
Andrew, Kerry said he ‘heard’ about Americans raping women, poisoning food, and killing random animals. He never said who told him, or when, or where and when these crimes happened. And if these things did happen, why did he not report the criminals when he got back to the States, where they could not possibly hurt him?
Why should I believe Kerry, when he would not tell Congress, UNDER OATH, anything more than vague accusations against the soldiers serving in Vietnam collectively?
capt joe
It is not just his statements, it is the fact that he used fake vets to make these claims. Unless you look at this as performance art.
here are Kerry’s fake vets
http://www.vnsfvetakerry.com/kerrys_fake_warriors.htm#KERRYS%20FAKE%20WARRIORS
Bird Dog
JonH, you wrote: “Because nobody, not even a decorated, thrice-wounded combat veteran, should ever dare criticize the government.”
Or maybe I should call you Carnak for your feeble attempts at mindreading. That is not what I implied. If Kerry touts his three-decade old Vietnam experience, it seems reasonable that his other war-related experiences should also be on the table. After all, he brought it up.
Kerry accused the U.S. military committing war crimes on a day-to-day basis, and that it was known at all levels of command. He can’t tout one experience and hide from the other. Fair’s fair.
caleb
Well,
If Kerry does become the nominee, which is all but a forgone conclusion at this point, it looks like we are guaranteed 4 more years of hate no matter which one is elected.
Andrew J. Lazarus
I suppose I’ll have to read up on what Kerry said.
You know, the Israeli historian Benny Morris got a lot of air time last year when he said it was too bad that David Ben-Gurion hadn’t ethnic-cleansed more Arabs, and that he thought for better or worse there was more such coming up.
What didn’t get reported so much was his determination (or at least allegation) that the Jewish forces had committed far more massacres in the War of Independence (1947-48) than previously acknowledged, and that several mass rapes had occurred, none of which had ever been disclosed.
My point is: an army that had been thought to have fought a pretty clean war was maybe not so clean. (Or maybe Morris’s facts are as ill-grounded as his new politics?!)
I suspect that the US Army’s record in Vietnam is a more than a little worse than we’d like to admit. Was Kerry factually off base, or just saying the truth in an inconvenient moment?
capt joe
No matter what the real record of these things, whether mass rapes, stealing you MacDonald’s coupons, whatever.
It is important that if you make accusations you must present the best evidence you can to prove them.
If youknowingly bring false witnesses to make false accusations then you have no honor whatsoever.
That is what Kerry did. The so called witnesses to the congressional committee were not even vets of any war. They told ginned up stories of who knows what lurid novel they read.
That, my friend, is the real issue.
It is not whether these stories are true or false, it is that he committed a massive scam ion a congressional commmittee seeking the truth. He disgraced the honor of those other vets who fought their war with truth duty and honor.
So stop avoiding the real issue Andrew.
Bruce
No one here has mentioned Kerry’s voting records;
Against the B-1 Bomber, against the Patriot missle system, Against the Bradley tanks, Against the Apache helcopters, voted repeatedly to massively reduce the size of our intellegence services, voted to massively reduce the size of our military… If anyone can be blamed for intellegence failures it would be Senators like John Kerry who vote against US Security EVERY TIME A VOTE COMES UP.
Say what you want about his vocal anti-war positions on Viet Nam and his hearty, loud, and constant support of the communist north Viet Cong and his opposition to allow the US to win that war, his voting record in the last 20 years tells me all I need to know; he will surrender to Sadddam as soon as he gets in office. He will not allow our military to win any conflict. He will send in our troops and then refuse to send money to support the operations… And then he will lie about his positions on both sides of the fence.
And Kerry thinks he has us all fooled; sorry he only has fooled the dims.
Ricky Vandal
His Hanoi Jane act after the war doesn’t take away from Kerry being a war hero? I read an article about a book written by the military leader of the Viet Kong where he states that anti-war demonstrators, especially ex-soldiers like Kerry were the reason they won the war. They won the war on the political front using Kerry and Hanoi Jane to stab the soldiers in the back and make the politicians go hobly in the knees. The article also talks about Vietnam veterans calling Kerry’s actions aiding and giving comfort to the ennemy. They even go as far as saying he’s responsible for the death of the soldiers who died as a result of his anti-war actions.
Andrew J. Lazarus
Ricky, your “stab in the back” theory has a long and honored [sarcasm alert] history. Unfortunately, it’s in Weimar Germany.
JPS
Right on the money, John; couldn’t agree more. Every time I criticize this kind of smear directed against a political ally, someone on the left retorts, “Oh yeah? I’ll bet you’re just fine with it when it’s directed against [whoever I’m assumed to dislike]!”
Well, no, I’m not. And I’m always glad to find someone else who can get outraged about a cheap shot, even one directed against his opponents.
Eric Sivula
So, JPS, Kerry using fake soldiers to falsely accuse US servicemen in Vietnam of war crimes is ok, but people mentioning that fact is ‘smearing Kerry’?
Rrrriiiiiggggghhhhhhhtttttt
DANEgerus
It isn’t a ‘smear’ to report the facts and to quote the speakers.
It is most certainly reasonable to speculate on the motivations behind such well documented misrepresentations.
To defend Kerry’s post-Vietnam frauds with
‘well it coulda happened’
speaks for itself.
M. Scott Eiland
“Ricky, your “stab in the back” theory has a long and honored [sarcasm alert] history. Unfortunately, it’s in Weimar Germany.”
Why, you’re right, Andrew–*that’s* why all those old newsreels show German veterans of WWI presenting false testimony of German soldiers committing atrocities (and some other Germans who never got near the front lines claiming to be veterans), and why German movie stars went to England and called German POWs war criminals and accused them of making up stories of being tortured by the enemy. . .I don’t know how I could have forgotten that!
[closed captioned for the sarcasm impaired]
JPS
Eric S.,
Is that what I said? Not what I meant, anyway.
[By the way, did he know that many of the soldiers and many of the accusations were fake when he lent his image to support those chages? I’m asking, non-rhetorically. If he knew, and did so anyway, then that’s irredeemably vile. If he didn’t, he damned well should have made sure it was true, and deserves criticism for not doing so, but it’s a quantum step lower on the loathsomeness index.]
Kerry is plenty objectionable enough without people trying to disqualify him as a war hero. “Oh, well, they were only little wounds, and he used them to get out early.” “He wasn’t THAT heroic when he got his Silver Star.”
I think Kerry was wrong in his activities after the war. I think he can and should come in for legitimate criticism for them. I don’t at all blame those veterans who are furious at him.
But he was still a hero, and that’s why I’m grateful to John for pointing it out.
Eric Sivula
JPS, I have not said word one denying that Kerry earned any of his medals. I have merely pointed out that actions since those days are not nullified by his heroics.
As for the fake testimony, that became apparant when the NCIS tried to investigate the allegations and witnesses from Kerry’s book. It appears that Kerry *at least* took the words the witnesses at face value. He did not even try to verify that they served in Vietnam. Kerry did not have the respect for our soldiers to even bother to see if the accusations he was printing were even plausible.
JPS
Eric:
“I have not said word one denying that Kerry earned any of his medals.”
Didn’t mean to imply that you had. My first line was a response to you, the stuff in brackets was a question to you, and the rest was general. (Others, here and elsewhere, certainly have questioned whether he truly earned his medals.) Sorry I wasn’t clearer.
“I have merely pointed out that actions since those days are not nullified by his heroics.”
Damn right.
Eric Sivula
JPS,
No harm, no foul.
Bravo Romeo Delta
So, lemme get this straight, it looks like now of the folks who won the the nomination of the Democratic party for 3 of the last 4 elections have perjury problems?
George Turner
I don’t consider Kerry at all a hero. He’s just a war criminal. Is this a slanderous charge? No. John Kerry clearly explained that John Kerry is a war criminal. I take him at his word. I had a cousin executed at Nuremberg for war crimes, and I don’t hold with that kind of behavior.