«

Varifrank Channels the Ghost of Andy Rooney

| Main |

The Grand Unified Theory Of Vietnam

»

John F. Kerry: "Just Another Goofy Ensign"

From Navy Captain Kelly, former Executive Officer of the USS Gridley comes this view into the three paragraph naval career of John F. Kerry, prior to his time in the Swift Boats.

In this testimonial, you'll find several refutations of the story given about Kerry by Douglas Brinkley in the book TOUR OF DUTY.

My favorite bit:

"That is not to say that Kerry was not a good officer. He was and to my recollection was well liked. Did he stalk the passageways showing his future presidential timber? Absolutely not. A reporter from the Chicago Tribune actually asked me that. When I told him that he was just another goofy Ensign, he was horrified and did not use that quote."

My guess is that this assessment, is probably the most accurate to use in the assessment of the true nature of the future Junior Senator of Massachusetts. I don't consider it that negative or an outright indictment of the man, its just a simple straightforward way to describe an average man in average circumstances. Let's remember, its not whether or not he served that is at issue, its the way he seems to have inflated a rather average experience into that of a modern day Sea-going Audie Murphy.

It is incredible to me that we are talking about the Vietnam war today, a full 6 wars ago.

Vietnam was

A war fought when Color Television was still a novelty.

When aircraft crossing the Pacific did not have wide range navigation aids and still relied on sextants.

When the words "via satellite" appeared at the bottom of your TV screen, you said "wow".

When TV news was restricted to 30 minutes per day, and presented as simply being read by the likes of Douglas Edwards or Walter Cronkite with just a simple picture displayed behind them.

When most cities had atleast two newspapers, each of a different political stripe, delivered in the morning and afternoon allowing the average citizen to get a wide variety of opinion on the news.

Computers filled entire buildings, and "terminals" were teletype devices with rolls of paper for displays.

40% of Americans didn't even own a clothes dryer, but used "clothes lines" instead.

Long distance phone calls were so expensive, that it was a major breach in manners to use someones phone for a long distance call.

It was - a war fought a very long time ago, in a world that hardly even exists anymore. So why are we talking about it today? We are talking about it today because to talk about anything else is to begin examine the record of the man the Democrats have nominated to run the worlds preeminent superpower in the midst of mankinds most recent, most desparate struggle for survival.

The Democrats have nominated a man who since Vietnam has remained consistently on the wrong side of history. That nomination is an indictment of everything that is wrong with the Democrat party.

They have chosen at this crucial turning point in history:

A man who slandered the men whom he fought with, who were still fighting,even imprisoned in Vietnam on his return to the US.

A man who supported the cause of the Sandinistas in Nicaragua.

A man who after the invasion and subjugation of Kuwait, perferred that we do nothing in their defense.

If Senator Kerry is lucky, we will talk about Vietnam until election day. Kerrys "semester in Vietnam" is acting as a shield for the Senators horrific record in the past 35 years. It is his only grappling hook on the cliff of legitimacy. If we begin to talk about anything else, Kerry will be exposed as the weak candidate who was getting his patrician ass handed to him by Howard Dean, not 9 months ago. If the election were about anything else but the existance of a military record, no matter how wafer thin it may be, Howard Dean would be in this fight, and if I may add, He would have done a lot better the how John F. Kerry will do.

John F. Kerrys military record appears to me to resemble that of LBJ and not the other JFK as he would imply.

As I said on Vodkapundit theres really only one more question to answer in this election "When Bush wins, Will the NY Times bother to cover the story"?

August 20, 2004 at 10:16 PM in Kerry File | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345681df69e200d834568a0d69e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference

John F. Kerry: "Just Another Goofy Ensign"

:

» I remember clothes lines... from Random Jottings
Walter Cronkite, probably in 1993 Frank Martin writes: ...It is incredible to me that we are talking about the Vietnam war today, a full 6 wars ago. Vietnam was A war fought when Color Television was still a novelty.... [Read More]

Tracked on Aug 21, 2004 11:03:09 AM

Comments

When Bush wins, will any of the mainstream media cover the story? Not just the NYT, but any of it? Or will there be a rash of suicides among journalists and celebrities?

Alex Baldwin said he would leave the US if Bush won in 2000. We should try to get similar declarations for this election from Streisand, Moore, Rather, and the rest of the crew.

Posted by: Fleming | Aug 21, 2004 12:03:06 PM

Of course the Times will cover Bush's victory, snidely and crassly.

Posted by: Jeff Medcalf | Aug 23, 2004 1:10:09 PM

"John F. Kerrys military record appears to me to resemble that of LBJ and not the other JFK as he would imply."

That's over the top. The man was probably at least an average battle commander of a Swift boat. It's the making himself out to be Audie Murphy that's bogus, not the (4 months of) combat itself.

Posted by: akmdave | Aug 26, 2004 12:08:21 PM

Well as I said at the beginning of the piece, I felt that Kerry was an average competent sailor, and I honestly say " good for him" for it. If he had left it at that my admiration for him would be much higher than it is. It does seems to me however , in my opinion only, that Kerry can also be said to be a "medal hound" who took every opportunity to improve his record. He was within the letter of the law but I think on the face of it, he stretched the system to his advantage.

Where he gets in trouble now is play this as stunning career, when it was, in my opinion, just an average time in Vietnam.

What is not average is to have left after just 6 months. I think he should answer for that much more than for the medals. Even if I give him the benefit of the doubt on the medals, I have to ask how he could leave his men behind? It takes a long time to build up a good crew and to get enough time under your belt to be able to be effective, he seems to have left before anything effect could have been made out of his training.

Posted by: Frank Martin | Aug 26, 2004 12:31:31 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.