Topic: Kerry's military records (Read 6030 times)

Demosthenes · « **on:** April 22, 2004, 08:40:56 AM »

I'm not that big on John Kerry, myself, but being strongly anti-Bush, I found this somewhat humorous.

The Bushies keep putting their feet in their mouths. Here they have been demanding that John Kerry release his service records, and what happens?

It makes Bush look like a spoiled dufus by comparison.

Linkage

Quote

Kerry, who served as a swiftboat commander in Vietnam's Mekong Delta in 1968 and 1969 during his second tour of duty, "frequently exhibited a high sense of imagination and judgment in planning operations against the enemy," according to a January 1969 evaluation by a supervisor.

The report noted Kerry "exhibited all of the traits desired of an officer in a combat environment" and was "unofficially credited with 20 enemy killed in action."

Other reports from command school and officer evaluations described him as "a highly talented, polished and professional naval officer" and "highly intelligent, well read and skilled.'

In my experience, when the Navy gives you an eval like that, you've earned it... they don't just toss around words like "polished" and "talented" and "highly intelligent" unless you've done substantial things to demonstrate that.

It sounds like Kerry was a young Naval officer who served with valor and integrity... and by comparison, young Mr. Bush sounded like someone who got cushy duty assignments because of Daddy's connections and avoided severe reprimands for incompetence and being AWOL because of the same.

Now, I don't like Kerry's positions on most issues, but based solely on this, I can tell you who I'd be more likely to trust in a tense, vital situation...

And it ain't this guy:

Anonymous · « **Reply #1 on:** April 22, 2004, 08:45:00 AM »

I'm confused. What is the relevance of these military records anyway? If you were a candidate to become president of the US in 20 years, what would be accomplished by pulling up a performance appraisal from your current job today?

Demosthenes · « **Reply #2 on:** April 22, 2004, 08:51:15 AM »

Because military records hold people to fairly high standards by comparison to most civilian jobs, Judge.

The reason for this is because of the level of hazardousness associated with most jobs in the active duty military.

In the US military, even what most would consider only to be "minor" screwups can get a person in pretty deep shit.

Good evals show strength of character, but not only that, they show a level of dedication and integrity that are difficult to find a civilian equivalency of. That's not the kind of thing one learns over time... it's something that makes up a person's core, and it's not the kind of thing that changes or lessens.

That's why it's relevent. I've served with people that had service records like Bush, and I've served with people that had similar records to Kerry.

I can say from knowing people like each of them personally that military evals are a pretty good window into what a person is capable of accomplishing and what kind of person they can be expected to be when the chips are down.

That's not to say that everybody who ever got a bad eval in the US military is a shitbag, or that everybody who ever got a good eval was a saint... but to consistently get the kinds of things in one's service record that Bush got shows how much of a sissy and an unreliable jerk he was. Back when I was active duty, we used to call people like him "buddy fuckers".

They'd screw people they were supposed to relieve by showing up late for duty all the time, they'd always be the guys that would make your unit look bad because they'd somehow always manage to get in trouble JUST when the brass was on the command, they'd not show up for things they would be required to and lie about it, and they'd blame everybody else but themselves for their own shortcomings.

And to consistently have the kinds of things in one's service record that Kerry got shows that it wasn't just a one or two eval fluke from being an ass-kisser. It demonstrates that there was something to his strength of character that can only be measured in difficult situations and leadership challenges that can only be properly met head-on.

And, like I said, I'm not a fan of Kerry's politics or his positions on the issues.

But this tells me far more about him than his Senate voting record, his public statements, and everything else I've heard or read of him combined.

And other veterans will know what I'm talking about and see the same thing. That's why it's relevent.

Anonymous · « **Reply #3 on:** April 22, 2004, 09:13:45 AM »

Well I think that's a little biased and unfair. I agree that the military record can demonstrate many strengths (and flaws) but not everyone has a record. Are you saying that a candidate with a good record would have a better chance than a candidate with no record?

Also, if the record is 20 years old, is it still valid? People change over time. The ones who had bad records could have been young kids on a joyride for example. heck, I was a rebel with little ambition for a few years. Had I been one of those "buddy fuckers" if I had served in the military, should that be used against me 20 years later when I'm a changed man? And what about the opposite? Suppose I did have a good record. I was honorable. But overtime, I got greedy and dishonorable. Would my military record really reflect reality? Seems to me like you have to look at the entire background in order to judge someone. And then, there's different things to measure. For example, who's better between the following two? (I know I'm straying from the topic. Sorry!)

Person 1 has always done average or better in all the jobs he/she held

Person 2 strugled but worked at improving himself/herself and in the end managed to reach a similar level as person 1 who was always doing well.

So in that case, which of the two would be a better candidate? Number 1 is a sureshot. Always did good in everything he/she did. But has never been exceptional. Essentially, the level remained the same. Number 2 however did progress over time. Perhaps number 2 has more potential of doing exceptional things than number one since number 2 seems to get better and better over time.

So depending on who you ask, candidate 1 could be the better choice or the worse choice.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #4 on:** April 22, 2004, 09:23:03 AM »

Quote from: TheJudge

Well I think that's a little biased and unfair. I agree that the military record can demonstrate many strengths (and flaws) but not everyone has a record. Are you saying that a candidate with a good record would have a better chance than a candidate with no record?

In the public's fickle eye, yes. Almost every time.

Quote

Also, if the record is 20 years old, is it still valid? People change over time. The ones who had bad records could have been young kids on a joyride for example. heck, I was a rebel with little ambition for a few years. Had I been one of those "buddy fuckers" if I had served in the military, should that be used against me 20 years later when I'm a changed man? And what about the opposite? Suppose I did have a good record. I was honorable. But overtime, I got greedy and dishonorable. Would my military record really reflect reality? Seems to me like you have to look at the entire background in order to judge someone.

True, but I'm speaking in generalities here, and generally speaking, people don't change much on that level in my experience. Seriously. Military service often places people under pressures that are extremely stressful... far more intense than anything most people experience in civilian day-to-day life.

Under those kinds of conditions, a person's true character becomes clear, and in almost every case, an unreliable coward remains unreliable and cowardly, and someone who faces challenges well and conquers his fear will continue to do so in the future.

That's not to say that people can't or don't change. They do. I've known people who have.

But I've known far more people that never have. And actions speak pretty loudly for that; just in Bush's public dealings since he became president, it is pretty clear to me that he's not much different from how his military record portrays him.

Quote

And then, there's different things to measure. For example, who's better between the following two? (I know I'm straying from the topic. Sorry!)

Person 1 has always done average or better in all the jobs he/she held

Person 2 strugled but worked at improving himself/herself and in the end managed to reach a similar level as person 1 who was always doing well.

So in that case, which of the two would be a better candidate? Number 1 is a sureshot. Always did good in everything he/she did. But has never been exceptional. Essentially, the level remained the same. Number 2 however did progress over time. Perhaps number 2 has more potential of doing exceptional things than number one since number 2 seems to get better and better over time.

Not necessarily. Struggling to do even "average" still shows effort, still shows integrity, and still shows that a person is willing to face their weaknesses and try anyway. That shows character.

The person I'd be questioning is person 1. How much character does it really take to just slide by, doing just "average"?

bobo · « **Reply #5 on:** April 22, 2004, 09:39:49 AM »

It was never a question on what Kerry did while in the service. It was what he supposedly did after he got. That's when Kerry's record gets shakey not when he was in the military

Anonymous · « **Reply #6 on:** April 22, 2004, 09:40:24 AM »

Those are good points. Thanks!

There's this military cultrue in the US that I don't quite grasp. Like when I see people in uniform on the price is right, or when they get married. I understand that they are proud. On the other hand, I'm proud of the work I do. I doubt I'll be carying a laptopt at my wedding.

I'm starting to understand a that whole culture a bit more, but sometimes I think it's overdone.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #7 on:** April 22, 2004, 09:43:49 AM »

I can see that... I didn't understand it completely until I became a part of it, myself.

Serving in the US Navy is the most difficult thing I've ever done in my entire life, and it's probably the most difficult thing I'll ever have to go through.

And I didn't even serve during war time. I served on two training commands, then after I was licensed and certified and edumacated, I served on two submarines and an aircraft carrier during peacetime.

But because I not only got through it, but I did well, that makes me proud. Other people who have served will know that distinction... I put my military service on my resume because prospective employers often know that as well.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #8 on:** April 22, 2004, 09:47:37 AM »

Quote from: bobo

It was never a question on what Kerry did while in the service. It was what he supposedly did after he got. That's when Kerry's record gets shakey not when he was in the military

What now?

bobo · « **Reply #9 on:** April 22, 2004, 09:58:26 AM »

Thejudge, I am in the military and I can see where people who are not familiar with the military culture would be confused as to how people in the military act. However wearing the uniform is a privilege that is earned. People are proud that they have earned that right wear it and wear it they should. However people do abuse that right. I mean , I don't even get why people wear a uniform to be on a game show. I think that's cheesy. For marriages I can see, a military wedding is something special. It's also some that has a long history and a special meaning to military members. Hence why I choose to wear my uniform at my wedding

Demosthenes · « **Reply #10 on:** April 22, 2004, 10:00:17 AM »

Quote from: bobo

I mean , I don't even get why people wear a uniform to be on a game show. I think that's cheesy.

I agree. I don't think that's necessary, nor does it even really reflect well on the service, in my opinion.

Anonymous · « **Reply #11 on:** April 22, 2004, 10:55:14 AM »

Think the guys who wear the uniforms on the price is right are all the "buddy fuckers"? lol

Demosthenes · « **Reply #12 on:** April 22, 2004, 11:05:13 AM »

Quote from: TheJudge

Think the guys who wear the uniforms on the price is right are all the "buddy fuckers"? lol

Probably not. Most of the guys you see on teh Price Is Right have their uniforms looking pretty sharp. Most of the shitbags I knew in the military looked like they slept in their uniforms half the time.

But I think wearing your dress uniform everywhere you go is kinda pushing it.

There's a difference between serving with honor, distinction, and integrity and walking around with a stick up your ass yelling 'GO MARINES!' everywhere you go.

We had names for those kinds of people as well. I'm sure Bobo knows more than a few. L4wy3r served in the military as well, if I recall correctly... he can probably elaborate on this too.

bobo · « **Reply #13 on:** April 22, 2004, 11:14:23 AM »

we just usually used the phrase " ate up from the neck up" which meant they didn't have a lot going on up stairs.

pbsaurus · « **Reply #14 on:** April 22, 2004, 02:08:58 PM »

If I was the deciding vote in the election and it was a tie between Shubya and Eyore, I mean Kerry. I would cast my vote for Kerry because he's the lesser of two weavils. However Kerry should win CA by a considerable margin so I will vote Libertarian as I usually do.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #15 on:** April 22, 2004, 02:33:07 PM »

Ditto that. I vote for who I think will be the best el Presidente, and neither of them fits the bill in my book.

bobo · « **Reply #16 on:** April 22, 2004, 03:56:42 PM »

I really wish you would vote none of the above on the ballot. So that way you still vote but you don't have to decide between

Quote

the lesser of two weavils

Demosthenes · « **Reply #17 on:** April 22, 2004, 04:03:02 PM »

That's what third parties are for.

Binoboy · « **Reply #18 on:** April 22, 2004, 04:41:57 PM »

Quote from: Demosthenes

That's what third parties are for.

That and creating a huge debacle that leaves everyone pissed off after election time... on the off chance the votes they receive make a dent in anything at all.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #19 on:** April 22, 2004, 04:48:45 PM »

Hey, I won't be held responsible for any incompetent asshole that ends up in office.

I vote for who I think will do the best job... not for the "lesser of two evils".

It's that kind of thinking that got us into this mess to begin with.

I think it was Harry Browne who basically put (paraphrasing) that "If Republicans don't like the fact that Libertarians are 'stealing votes' from their candidates, perhaps they should consider behaving more libertarian in their positions on the issues".

The fact of the matter is, if a Libertarian candidate isn't available, most people who vote Libertarian won't pick a Republicrat or a Demoblican anyway, so it isn't really "vote stealing" at all when it comes down to it.

pbsaurus · « **Reply #20 on:** April 22, 2004, 06:12:29 PM »

Bingo

xolik · « **Reply #21 on:** April 22, 2004, 06:50:43 PM »

Quote from: Demosthenes

Demoblican

You've got your own political party?

"Screw these guys, I'm voting Demo-blican this year!"

Law · « **Reply #22 on:** April 22, 2004, 08:54:22 PM »

I'll be writing in Peter J. Shepherd.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #23 on:** April 23, 2004, 08:13:53 AM »

Quote from: xolik

Quote from: Demosthenes
Demoblican

You've got your own political party?

"Screw these guys, I'm voting Demo-blican this year!"

Heh. Yeah. It consists of one member....

Binoboy · « **Reply #24 on:** April 23, 2004, 02:15:28 PM »

Quote from: Demosthenes

I think it was Harry Browne who basically put (paraphrasing) that "If Republicans don't like the fact that Libertarians are 'stealing votes' from their candidates, perhaps they should consider behaving more libertarian in their positions on the issues".

To which the rest of us would turn towards eachother with a confused look on our face and say "This guy's a politician?"

News:

Recent Forum Posts

Shout Box

Author Topic: Kerry's military records (Read 6030 times)

Anonymous

Anonymous

Anonymous

Anonymous