Is the pentagon investigating Kerry's medals?

[Funkyzeit mit Bruno]

I saw this on a far right news site (newsmax.com) but I can't believe it's true because I haven't seen it anywhere else. Does anybody know?

 

[trampslady]

I understand that the Navy Department is investigating. What needs to be investigated is his interest in keeping his military record (of which he boasts about anytime his mouth is open) closed and the fact that he has prohibited the publisher of his book, The New Soldier (yeah, the one with the American flag upside down poking fun at the Iwa Jima (sp?) memorial) from being reissued.

For someone so proud of his four months in Vietnam (of which many homeless souls under the various bridges across our land can also recall and has no real bearing on who can best lead this country) he certainly doesn't want any information about same made available to the public--except that that he speaks---constantly.

 

[missypie]

The medals are immaterial to me. The fact is that he went to Vietnam and Bush didn't. I'd feel the same way even if Kerry had been drafted instead of volunteering. The crucial thing is having been in war, with people shooting at you...that gives you a more realistic approach to war.

A friend (a fellow Democrat) told me that WWII and Korea were such well supported wars that it was considered an honor just to have served, so medals really really needed to be earned. Vietnam was so unpopular that the standards for receiving medals were lowered, and some were given like "prizes" for the folks who did serve. (Although I'm sure that some were well deserved by any standards.) So, it would not surprise me if a guy in WWII did not get a medal for doing what Kerry did in Vietnam. But he did show up and serve, which Bush didn't.

 

[trampslady]

Yes, he did indeed serve our military and I commend anyone that does that. But that alone does not make someone suitable for the office of presidency. Also, many a National Guard member who is serving in Iraq right now might take offense to those that imply because George Bush served in the Guard, he did not serve in the military. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't former President Bill Clinton also take a National Guard post...but then not serve because he got a Rhodes scholarship and studied overseas instead.

My point is, military service is not enough. Let's take a look at the last nineteen years. Oh, and please, Senator Kerry, if you will, explain to me why you have been absent 76 percent of the time that you have been on the Senate Intelligence Committee, since terror is so important to you and our country. Also, please enlighten me on how you could possibly find more important things to do on every single occason that the Senate Intelligence Committee met the 12 months following the first Trade Center attack?

And.......why is does my Heinz ketchup bottle say "product of Canada" when you report to be so concerned about outsourcing of American jobs.

Pollution....oh yeah, you don't drive an SUV....you're "family" does....except when you are talking to the UAW........

 

[Laurajean1014]

Please note:

In 1966, many young men were going into the military, for obvious reasons.

However, in 1968, most college educated men were not signing up or entering into the military because the perception of the occupation or war was changing in America. Many men went aboard (like Clinton did). Many served in the National Guard (like Bush did) - which I think is more commendable than dodging it.

However, it is not the past military records we should be asking ourselves, rather we should be asking our politians what they plan on doing on the real and big issues.

This to me is smoke and mirrors.

 

[gottaluvPluto]

Kerry's medals are being investigated because he has a medal that does not exist. He has or had a medal on his web page that has a V on it. That medal is not suppose to have a V on it.


Kerry himself stated back when Clinton was running for office that a person should not be judged if he went to Vietnam or whether he didn't go to Vietnam.

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by trampslady
I understand that the Navy Department is investigating. What needs to be investigated is his interest in keeping his military record (of which he boasts about anytime his mouth is open) closed and the fact that he has prohibited the publisher of his book, The New Soldier (yeah, the one with the American flag upside down poking fun at the Iwa Jima (sp?) memorial) from being reissued.

For someone so proud of his four months in Vietnam (of which many homeless souls under the various bridges across our land can also recall and has no real bearing on who can best lead this country) he certainly doesn't want any information about same made available to the public--except that that he speaks---constantly.

WOW!! Right on, trampslady!!!!

 

[DawnCt1]

No branch of the military service issues a silver star with a V, so it is very curious as to why he would have one. I do hope they look at his lack of attendance records for the two years he was required to attend the Ready Reserve meetings after coming back to the USA. That is indeed curious; particularly from a campaign that is so concerned about President Bush missing a couple of meetings.

 

[Disney Doll]

I would like to speak to a couple of issues:

1. Senator Kerry wants his Vietnam service to be considered under his terms. He wants us to know he served, he wants us to know he received medals. We all clearly know this at this point. However, there are aspects of his record he wants kept private, or secret, or whatever you want to call it. That is worrisome to me. If he wishes to make his Vietnam service part of his platform, and clearly he does, then I think that all the information about that service should be provided.

2. That being said, I don't really think that something a person did 30-35 years ago has a lot of bearing on today. I would be more interested in how he voted in many of the Senate votes, what his beliefs are, and what his plans for the country would be if he were elected President. I have heard none of this. I have heard a lot of rhetoric, I have heard a lot of telling us what the current administration is doing wrong.

I have often said, in any election year, don't tell me what the other guy is doing wrong. Tell me what you have done and will do right.

 

[DisMN]

It's only fair that if they investigate Kerry for this issue then they should be investigating GW on his former drug use/abuse issues.

It's only fair.

 

[captJack88]

Very well said Disney doll. ITA

 

[we3luvdisney]

Originally posted by DisMN
It's only fair that if they investigate Kerry for this issue then they should be investigating GW on his former drug use/abuse issues.

It's only fair.

While they're at it, they may also want to investigate John Edwards former drug use.

He had a little fun in college, drinking beer with buddies and, according to campaign spokeswoman Jennifer Palmieri, smoking marijuana a few times. His campaign would not provide more specifics other than to say Edwards' occasional marijuana use continued through law school but stopped after that.

The Charlotte Observer

 

[julia & nicks mom]

Well said Disney Doll!

it seems to me that kerry's platform is as follows:

1.George Bush is a bad president

2. I served in Vietnam and got these medals.

He spent most of his acceptance speech talking about why he would be a great commander in chief - so it is only fair that his record be fully investigated.

I saw a poll that said on most issues Republicans are 75 percent in agreement and that Democrats are split evenly on their issues -this means the only thing all Democrats seem to agree on is their hate for Bush - leaving Kerry very few issues to rally his party around.

No one has ever successfully run a presidential campaign by running on a negative campaign against the other candidate-

as a Republican I say - keep on your message Kerry - b/c it is only good for Bush

but as a student of politics - I would like to see a good old fashioned debate on the issues!