Bush Says Kerry 'More Heroic' for Going to Vietnam

The1calledTKE · #1 08-29-2004, 11:05 AM

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?

Kevin · #2 08-29-2004, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The1calledTKE

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

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

DeltAlum · #3 08-29-2004, 01:13 PM

I am very pleased with The President's reply.

Rudey · #4 08-29-2004, 01:38 PM

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

-Rudey

DeltAlum · #5 08-29-2004, 02:25 PM

I'm confused. What does that mean?

DELTAQTE · #6 08-29-2004, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The1calledTKE
My question is, was there ever a time Bush thought his duty was as heroic as Kerry's?

haha I hope not.

Rudey · #7 08-29-2004, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DeltAlum
I'm confused. What does that mean?

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

-Rudey

DeltAlum · #8 08-29-2004, 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rudey
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?

Rudey · #9 08-30-2004, 01:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DeltAlum
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

swissmiss04 · #10 08-30-2004, 09:40 AM

How was Bush "heroic" after 9/11?

DeltAlum · #11 08-30-2004, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rudey
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

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.

Rudey · #12 08-30-2004, 11:02 AM

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

Quote:

Originally posted by DeltAlum
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.

SigmaChiGuy · #13 08-30-2004, 11:21 AM

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.

Quote:

Originally posted by swissmiss04
How was Bush "heroic" after 9/11?

Rudey · #14 08-30-2004, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by swissmiss04
How was Bush "heroic" after 9/11?

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

-Rudey

SigmaChiGuy · #15 08-30-2004, 11:27 AM

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.