Bush Says Kerry 'More Heroic' for Going to Vietnam
 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush on Saturday described John Kerry's tour of duty in Vietnam as more heroic than his own service in the Air National Guard, saying his Democratic rival had been "in harm's way."
But the president told NBC's "Today" show that both sides should drop the debate over their wartime service, saying, "I think that we ought to move beyond the past. ... The real question is who best to lead us forward."

Asked if he believed that he and Kerry "served on the same level of heroism," Bush replied, "No, I don't. I think him going to Vietnam was more heroic than my flying fighter jets. He was in harm's way and I wasn't."

Excerpts of the interview, conducted on Saturday for broadcast on Monday, were released by NBC.

The president continued to defend his own service in the Air National Guard, saying, "On the other hand, I served my country. Had my unit been called up, I would have gone."

Kerry's war record in Vietnam has dominated the 2004 presidential campaign in recent weeks, after advertisements by a group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth accused him of lying about the events that led to his decoration for bravery.

The White House on Thursday said it would file a lawsuit to try to force the Federal Election Commission to crack down on the ads. Bush says he does not believe Kerry lied about his record, but he has refused to condemn the ads directly.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=6095318

My question is, was there ever a time Bush thought his duty was as heroic as Kerry's?

Re: Bush Says Kerry 'More Heroic' for Going to Vietnam
 

I don't think I'm going to spend my day searching for a quote that doesn't exist.

I am very pleased with The President's reply.

Those 4 months were heroic, but the question is was what happened even considered honorable?

-Rudey

I'm confused. What does that mean?

Re: Bush Says Kerry 'More Heroic' for Going to Vietnam
 

haha I hope not.:D

What's confusing you about it? I would like to help you understand.

-Rudey

OK. Then please do. Was what considered honorable? Kerry's service? Bush's Service? Kerry's Veterans Against the War? Bush's comments? The Swift boat ads.

What?

Kerry's acts following Vietnam.

Let's be honest here. Both are men of privilege. To me Kerry's service is great, but does he compare to men whose family had no clout? No that 4 months can't compare. If comparing to Bush, yes of course those 4 months in Vietnam mean more than whatever amount of time Bush spent in the National Guard.

But it's what Kerry did after the war that upsets me. It's not him wishing that our country would leave Vietnam. I fully believe he has every right to share those sentiments - especially after being there.

-Rudey

How was Bush "heroic" after 9/11?

So, this is personal with you. You believe Senator Kerry had the right to do what he did, but it upsets you. That's somewhat conflicted isn't it? You respect his right to do it, but hold it against him. OK, that's not uncommon.

Vietnam Veterans Against the War were a big presence on our and many other campuses. Kerry, because of his rank (and, of course his social position) was simply in a place where he could become a leader of, and spokesperson for, many.

Very much like the present war, there were many who questioned our reasons for being there in the first place. That was their right -- especially since they heeded the call and did their time as required by law. There were a lot more who didn't join the organization, but still questioned the war.

There are a lot of us today who went through those conflicts who question the present situation.

President Bush says that if his unit had been called, he would have gone. I believe that. But it wasn't and he didn't. Senator Kerry volunteered to go, although he didn't believe in the cause. To me, that's patriotic in itself -- to put yourself in harms way for something you don't fully believe in, but your country asks for. That happened to many of my generation. A few more, who had political pull, were able to snag Reserve and Guard positions that many of the rest of us couldn't. Unlike this war, not many Reserve and Guard units were called up -- probably due to the Draft.

By the way, the founders of our country -- our first patriots -- were considered traitors by their mother country. But they spoke out against what they believed was wrong. They participated in civil disobedience, and finally a full scale rebellion.

Thank God for that.

So, here's the way I look at it. Kerry went. Bush didn't. Kerry then elected to use his Constitutional rights to speak out against something he felt was wrong. His right. That's important. It's a large part of the beliefs on which our country was founded.

It doesn't say anywhere in the Constitution that if you choose to use those rights that it will be held against you in your future. That's called Free Speech. I think that the way it's supposed to work is that people on both sides of an issue debate respectfully, and may the right side prevail.

I would also argue that, in the end, Kerry's position in this particular matter won. The majority of my generation -- and the rest of the American public -- finally questioned that conflict and our reasons for being part of it -- and we pulled out. Although I don't like the way we finally did it.

It struck me this morning as I listened to news broadcasts that one of the organizers of yesterdays large protest march in New York was Vietnam Veterans Against the War.

Finally, while I am as aghast at the happenings on 9/11 as any American, there really isn't any real comparison politically between the two, except ones that have been manufactured. One was an act of terrorism by a relatively small group in which about three thousand people were killed. One was a military action between countries, in which over 50,000 (on our side alone) died.

They are simply not the same.

No it's not that he was against the war. I am against the lies and how he made many of his fellow soldiers look. I am against things like the winter soldier investigation. I was against his abandoning of Vietnam after 4 months but claiming he was a heroic fighter - sure again his comparison of Bush is different.

And you're right. People are trying to make Vietnam similar to any war of recent memory and it's not. There simply is nothing similar that is distint to the two. But Kerry's 4 months in Vietnam are what is being used to mold his character based on this artifical comparison as opposed to his 20 years of service.

-Rudey

How soon you forgot what a tragic time our President lead us through. If there were a democrat in office (IE Gore or if you can imagine Kerry), we'd maybe have tossed a few cruise missles into Afghanistan and called it a day, and the Taliban and even the 'old' Iraq would still be wreaking havok on the world today. For example, see the Clinton administration.

He led our country. That is how he was heroic. He did what he could. How was Kerry heroic after 9/11?

-Rudey

Here is how Kerry was heroic: He voted against the funding of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan - the same people he so called "brethren" back in his Vietnam era.

God help the world, not just us, if Kerry gets into office. I can't believe that people think that terrorism is directed at the US because of Bush - wake up people, its not, its because we are the US, not because Bush is our leader. If someone else becomes president, the attacks will continue.

We must be thankful we have a President with a backbone.

Nobody knows how Gore, Clinton, G. H. W. Bush, Reagan or any other President would have reacted, because they weren't in that office when it happened. That's also true with Kerry.

As for shooting a "few missles," that's what the military (and politicians) call a "measured" response. We have never had a situation like 9/11 before, so there is nothing to "measure" it against. The Cole incident and embassy bombings were nowhere close to the same scope.

In terms of "heros" of 9/11, they were the people of New York, including the members of FDNY, NYPD, the Mayor and even the Governor.

To me, President Bush did his job which was to support local efforts and get things moving in terms of Federal assistance and aid -- and also to add moral support to the people of The City and others. I think he did it very well.

I'm not sure that makes him a "hero." Those of you who know me will also know that I would feel the same way about anyone who was President on that day.

Regarding Senator Kerry's four month term in Vietnam, I doubt that he "abandoned" the war effort. When you're in the military, you pretty much go where the service sends you. You may request certain assignments, but you have little or no influence on whether you get them or not. (Unless you're an Annapolis graduate with an admiral for a father.) It would not, however, surprize me if the Navy hierarchy took a close look at his record, and given his family background, decided to get him out of the line of fire. Had President Bush been in the same situation, he would probably have gotten the same treatment -- if, in fact that happened. That's just the way it is. Some pigs are more equal than others.

I have a very good friend who is the head of a major bankers organization. He had the opportunity to go to Vietnam as a member of Combat Camera, Pacific (the folks who go ashore first and take pictures of the Marines head on as they storm the beach -- expected combat lifetime slightly better than a Medic, which wasn't good) OR become an aide to an Admiral. Guess which one he took. The same one I would have given the opportunity. Let me get that door for you, Admiral.

After being wounded in action three times, I probably would have figured that sooner or later my luck was going to run out. If Senator Kerry won two rather prestegious medals in only four months, he was doing something right. To echo comments I've made before, the Navy doesn't just hand out Bronze and Silver Stars. The argument(s) that Kerry didn't or dosen't deserve the decorations -- and lied to get them doesn't hold water. Again, you don't put yourself in for medals -- someone else does. That means that you are not calling Kerry a liar, but rather the men who served with and under him -- as well as those who commanded him.

Uhm no I didn't talk about his being deserving of medals or not. In my last post I talked about what he did after his service that upset me.

-Rudey

I hope we can agree on this then. Clinton didn't take out Osama and Crew, even when he had a dozen chances, even after they bombed the basement of the WTC in attempts to pummle the towers - well, George II at least is trying to rid the world of Osama and his gang.

George I didn't finish Iraq the first time around - George II is.

Learn from your mistakes, right? Well, George II did learn from Clintons and George I's mistakes - the world is a better and safer place now than it was 5 years ago.

Okay I have to take issue with your statements... as in Clinton didn't take out Osama and his crew after the WTC bombing... well other than launching a couple of cruise missles at him... but the missiles didn't eliminate Osama or his "Crew"... as unfortunately G.W's actions in Afghanistan as well; while admirable for eliminating the extremism of the Taliban, they failed in the primary mission of capturing or eliminating Osama. Both Clinton and Bush tried to rid the world of Osama using different methods, and both failed.

Finally the claim that the world is a safer place than it was five years ago is so ludicrous it defy's belief.... there are more armed conflicts now that five years ago, there are more terrorist actions per annum than five years ago, more Americans are targeted for attacks or killed than five years ago, there has been a marked increase in racially or religously motivated attacks than five years ago, and finally (my own opinion here) I believe that Iraq has now become a focal point for anti-American, anti-"Western" terrorists - were recruits, funding, and equipment are now plentiful.

Clinton fired some missles and that was it. George II is still going after Osama, and he'll be caught - so don't mark that up as a loss for George II just yet. Yes, its true, two different methods, but one tried and failed, the other one tried and continues to try, he hasn't failed yet.

The world is a safer place now. We are now educated on the terrorists, we know their faces, we know their tactics, we know their financers, the caves they live in, the types of bombs they use, how they train, where they train, which regimes support them and which ones oppose them...etc. 10 years ago, the same hate for the US was there, it was just undiscovered - we never knew (as citizens, me and you) until they came into the US and kicked us right in the nads. We now have the best security at our borders, in our airports, on our planes, in our ports, on our universities and on our streets - we didn't have this pre-9/11. Yes, there are flaws, we catch them every day, but are we still better of now than pre-9/11? Hell yes we are. Does that make the terrorists that are all over the world mad? Yep, but we have to roll with the punches. Its now or later....lets take them now, so that our children can live safe lives.....So, in my opinion, we are safer today than we were pre-9/11.

As for Iraq being a breeding ground for terrorism - you are right, thats why we are there, liberating them from the corruption that has ruled that country for decades. When we are finished there, which may be decades, I hope we go to the next country and do the same thing to them.

Let freedom prevail, and for this to happen - Bush in '04.

You're right. I was responding to multiple posts. There was no single quote or anything at the top of that reply.

DeltAlum your comment about "being an Annapolis grad w/ an admiral for a father" made me think of McCain. I'm not sure of his father's rank, but I know he was quite 'up there'. McCain sure didn't have an easy time during Vietnam(gross understatement of the year). If he and Kerry were to duke it out McCain would win hands down (and be classy doing it).

italics added

You've summed it up quite well!



Edited because the elaboration was much too personal.

Swissmiss,

You don't have to sell McCain to me. He's pretty damned impressive.

And, there are some "Trade School" (Annapolis, West Point, AFA) legacies who choose to make it on their own.

But there are also those who don't mind riding someone else's coat tails.

I wasn't trying to sell him! :) I just really liked your comment (as I do in general). Sorry if I caused a misunderstanding. Here's a cup of hot chocolate :)

I bet one day Kerry will say he is heroic and the next day say his service didn't amount to much. He is good at straddling the issue.

-Rudey

On the other hand, there is at least battlefield service to discuss, and they can find his service records.