Kerry is a pilot?

Conduct Unbecoming
Kerry doesn't deserve Vietnam vets' support.

BY STEPHEN SHERMAN Guest to the Wall Street Journal
Monday, January 26, 2004

A turning point may have been reached in the Iowa caucuses when Special
Forces Lt. James Rassmann came forward to thank John Kerry for saving his life
in Vietnam. Although Mr. Rassmann, like most of my veteran friends, is a
Republican, he said that he'd vote for Mr. Kerry. I don't know if the incident
influenced the caucus results. But I took special interest in the story
because Jim served in my unit.

Service in Vietnam is an important credential to me. Many felt that such
service was beneath them, and removed themselves from the manpower pool. That
Mr. Kerry served at all is a reason for a bond with fellow veterans; that his
service earned him a Bronze Star for Valor ("for personal bravery") and a
Silver Star ("for gallantry") is even more compelling. Unfortunately, Mr.
Kerry came home to Massachusetts, the one state George McGovern carried in
1972. He joined the Vietnam Veterans Against the War and emceed the Winter
Soldier Investigation (both financed by Jane Fonda). Many veterans believe
these protests led to more American deaths, and to the enslavement of the
people on whose behalf the protests were ostensibly being undertaken. But
being a take-charge kind of guy, Mr. Kerry became a leader in the VVAW and
even testified before Congress on the findings of the Investigation, which he
accepted at face value.

In his book "Stolen Valor," B.G. Burkett points out that Mr. Kerry liberally
used phony veterans to testify to atrocities they could not possibly have
committed. Mr. Kerry later threw what he represented as his awards at the
Capitol in protest. But as the war diminished as a political issue, he left
the VVAW, which was a bit too radical for his political future, and was
ultimately elected to the Senate. After his awards were seen framed on his
office wall, he claimed to have thrown away someone else's medals--so now he
can reclaim his gallantry in Vietnam.

Mr. Kerry hasn't given me any reason to trust his judgment. As co-chairman
of the Senate investigating committee, he quashed a revealing inquiry into the
POW/MIA issue, and he supports trade initiatives with the Socialist Republic
of Vietnam while blocking any legislation requiring Hanoi to adhere to basic
human rights. I'm not surprised that there are veterans who support a VVAW
activist, if only because there are so few fellow veterans in politics.
Ideally, there'd be many more. If you are going to vote on military
appropriations, it would be nice if you didn't disrespect the soldiers.
Congress hasn't had the courage to declare war in more than 60 years, despite
numerous instances in which we have sent our military in harm's way. Of all
the "lessons of Vietnam," surely one is that America needs a leader capable of
demonstrating in himself, and encouraging in others, the resolve to finish
what they have collectively started.

But the bond between veterans has to be tempered in light of the
individual's record. Just as Mr. Kerry threw away medals only to claim them
back again, Sen. Kerry voted to take action against Iraq, but claims to take
that vote back by voting against funding the result. So I can understand my
former comrade-in-arms hugging the man who saved his life, but not the act of
choosing him for president out of gratitude. And I would hate to see anyone
giving Mr. Kerry a sympathy vote for president just because being a Vietnam
veteran is "back in style."
---
Mr. Sherman was a first lieutenant with the U.S. Army Fifth Special Forces
Group (Airborne) in Vietnam, 1967-68.

"Carrie Seddon" wrote in message
...
Conduct Unbecoming
Kerry doesn't deserve Vietnam vets' support.

BY STEPHEN SHERMAN Guest to the Wall Street Journal
Monday, January 26, 2004

A turning point may have been reached in the Iowa caucuses when Special
Forces Lt. James Rassmann came forward to thank John Kerry for saving his
life
in Vietnam. Although Mr. Rassmann, like most of my veteran friends, is a
Republican, he said that he'd vote for Mr. Kerry. I don't know if the
incident
influenced the caucus results. But I took special interest in the story
because Jim served in my unit.

I think it was the $6.5 million Kerry got from mortgaging Mrs. Heinz' house
that bought the Iowa cacuses for Kerry.

Service in Vietnam is an important credential to me. Many felt that such
service was beneath them, and removed themselves from the manpower pool.
That
Mr. Kerry served at all is a reason for a bond with fellow veterans; that
his
service earned him a Bronze Star for Valor ("for personal bravery") and a
Silver Star ("for gallantry") is even more compelling.

More impressive was Representative Ford saying Kerry has 2 siver stars and a
bronze star on Fox this morning.

Unfortunately, Mr.
Kerry came home to Massachusetts, the one state George McGovern carried in
1972. He joined the Vietnam Veterans Against the War and emceed the Winter
Soldier Investigation (both financed by Jane Fonda). Many veterans believe
these protests led to more American deaths, and to the enslavement of the
people on whose behalf the protests were ostensibly being undertaken. But
being a take-charge kind of guy, Mr. Kerry became a leader in the VVAW and
even testified before Congress on the findings of the Investigation, which
he
accepted at face value.

Some South Viet Namese were literally sold into slavery, to pay the Soviet
Union for their support.

"Doug Carter" wrote in message
...
In article SQ_Qb.116380$Rc4.910912@attbi_s54, Michael 182 says...


"Stuart King" wrote in message
.com...
...
Even my Republican friends complain that Bush's economic policies are
disasterous.

Rescuing the economy from the collapse of the Clinton bubble has not been
easy
but is well underway. We are in, I think, the third consecutive highest
growth
quarter in twenty years and the employment rate is over 94% and
increasing.


This head in the sand view is just astonishing. This isn't a
liberal/conservative thing. As much as you would like to blame Clinton for
the collapse (if you are a republican) or congratulate him for the boom (if
you are a democrat), the reality is no economic policy result is neatly
encapsulated within the political boundaries of a presidential term.

President Bush's current policy (combined with Congress) of creating massive
spending increases combined with tax cuts may, in some way, be linked to the
results of Clinton's policies. The question is does the deficit growth
policy make any sense? Sure, everyone knows it makes sense to borrow for a
good investment - but foreclosures and bankruptcies occur becasue the
investment doesn't always pan out.

I don't know macro economics very well, so I'll concede that there are many
parts to this I don't understand. The part I do understand, and that I was
taught from a young age, is pay your own way. Don't expect anyone to bail
you out. I don't see the current administration living that basic principle.

Michael

Michael 182 wrote:
This head in the sand view is just astonishing. This isn't a
liberal/conservative thing. As much as you would like to blame Clinton for
the collapse (if you are a republican) or congratulate him for the boom (if
you are a democrat), the reality is no economic policy result is neatly
encapsulated within the political boundaries of a presidential term.

Not sure what you mean by "This head in the sand view..." I agree that
economic cycles are not contained within any given presidential term but
the president does have some influence. Clinton could have encouraged
the SEC to enforce the existing securities laws and perhaps diminished
the enormous amount of money fleeced from individual stockholders by
investment banks; Bush could use his veto to dampen the drunken
spending compulsions of congress.

Anyway, I was simply quoting the current economic picture from WSJ to
counter the previous posters allusions to "disaster."

Geoffrey Barnes wrote:

Maybe he threw them right into the window of what would one day become his
very own office! Pure coincidence! It could happen!

I was at that demonstration (have the photos to prove it). None of those medals
got near the building. I'm sure you could still find some in the lawn with a metal
detector, though.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

in article , Tarver Engineering at
wrote on 1/25/04 7:54 PM:


"Philip Sondericker" wrote in message
...
in article , Tarver Engineering at
wrote on 1/25/04 6:59 PM:
Whoa, are you telling me that becoming President costs a lot of money?
Dude,
get the heck out of Dodge!

Mrs. Heinz wants to buy the Whitehouse.

I got news for you-- ALL the candidates want to do that, and whoever wins,
whether it's Bush, Kerry or someone else, will have done exactly that.

Kerry is the only one with $6.5 million of his own money on the table.
(wife's money) The rest of the pack has enough doner support to avoid that.

It's not necessarily all his wife's money. Kerry was born wealthy, and was
pretty well-off before he met his current wife, though I'll grant you, she
is far wealthier than he ever was on his own.

in article , Tom Sixkiller at
wrote on 1/25/04 8:43 PM:


"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Philip Sondericker" wrote in message
...
in article , Jim Fisher at
wrote on 1/25/04 11:02 AM:

Well, there's at least one redeeming quality.

To go along with the Silver Star, the Bronze Star and three Purple
Hearts.
And all in a war he was opposed to. I find that somewhat redeeming.

Except ther is no silver star.

???

No, Kerry was awarded the Silver Star, and a Bronze Star with "V" device.

All that said does not equal credibility.

Hell, Hitler had the Iron Cross something or other equivalent to our
Distinguished Service Cross.

Big Whoop!!

I agree with you that distinguished military service is not necessarily a
reason to vote for someone. On the other hand, in a time when so much is
often made about who's patriotic and who's not, who's a "real American" and
who isn't, I certainly think it's appropriate to point out that John Kerry
served his country (voluntarily, I might add) and served it well.

"Philip Sondericker" wrote in message
...
in article , Tarver Engineering at
wrote on 1/25/04 7:54 PM:


"Philip Sondericker" wrote in message
...
in article , Tarver Engineering at
wrote on 1/25/04 6:59 PM:
Whoa, are you telling me that becoming President costs a lot of
money?
Dude,
get the heck out of Dodge!

Mrs. Heinz wants to buy the Whitehouse.

I got news for you-- ALL the candidates want to do that, and whoever
wins,
whether it's Bush, Kerry or someone else, will have done exactly that.

Kerry is the only one with $6.5 million of his own money on the table.
(wife's money) The rest of the pack has enough doner support to avoid
that.

It's not necessarily all his wife's money.

Kerry has $2 million, it is wifey's money that bought the house.

Kerry was born wealthy, and was
pretty well-off before he met his current wife, though I'll grant you, she
is far wealthier than he ever was on his own.

Mrs. Heinz is about 250 times as wealthy as Kerry.

"Philip Sondericker" wrote in message
...

snip
I agree with you that distinguished military service is not necessarily a
reason to vote for someone. On the other hand, in a time when so much is
often made about who's patriotic and who's not, who's a "real American"
and
who isn't, I certainly think it's appropriate to point out that John Kerry
served his country (voluntarily, I might add) and served it well.

More so than most children of millionaires.

"Doug Carter" wrote in message
...
Michael 182 wrote:
This head in the sand view is just astonishing. This isn't a
liberal/conservative thing. As much as you would like to blame Clinton
for
the collapse (if you are a republican) or congratulate him for the boom
(if
you are a democrat), the reality is no economic policy result is neatly
encapsulated within the political boundaries of a presidential term.

Not sure what you mean by "This head in the sand view..." I agree that
economic cycles are not contained within any given presidential term but
the president does have some influence. Clinton could have encouraged
the SEC to enforce the existing securities laws and perhaps diminished
the enormous amount of money fleeced from individual stockholders by
investment banks; Bush could use his veto to dampen the drunken
spending compulsions of congress.

If Clinton had done that the recession would have been apearant sooner.
When Rubin split in '98 the gamming of the system began in earnest. I don't
believe Rubin is all that ethical, but he is not a criminal; so he bailed.