Kerry credited with 20 unofficial kills

[RamboLiberal]

Dems need to put these records side by side with AWOL's sorry-assed TANG record!

APRIL 21--John Kerry was "unofficially credited" with killing 20 enemy fighters during his five months in Vietnam, according to military records just released by the Democratic presidential candidate's campaign. The body count reference is included in a glowing 1969 Navy report that noted Kerry, a 25-year-old junior grade lieutenant, exhibited "all of the traits desired of an officer in a combat environment." The Navy document, a copy of which you'll find below, was among hundreds of pages released today by the Kerry camp in response to requests from reporters and criticism from Republicans demanding full disclosure of the U.S. Senator's military record. (2 pages)

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0421041kerry1.html

[sniffa]

1. why wouLd drudge tout this though?

[Demonaut]

3. probably wants to implie he killed civilians, bush has has a much

higher count though

[Devils Advocate NZ]

5. Maybe he's trying to drive away the peaceniks?

Maybe he thinks that by highlighting Kerry's "kills" he can get pacifists to vote Nader instead of a "killer"?

Does that sound like the kind of pathetic right-wing tactic Drudge would try for?

[ConservativeDemocrat]

11. Judging by many posts in the D.U....

...some which outright hope for U.S. casualties in Iraq, that strategy will work too.

- C.D.

[Sandpiper]

2. So now we know the "truth" about Kerry's service record

a glowing 1969 Navy report that noted Kerry, a 25-year-old junior grade lieutenant, exhibited"all of the traits desired of an officer in a combat environment."

And add to that, 3 Purple Hearts, 1 Silver Star and 1 Bronze Star.

I wonder when the wingnuts are going to give up on trying to smear John Kerry's impeccable service record.

What will their next complaint be? That Kerry didn't win the Medal of Honor?

[BOSSHOG]

4. Wow, a NAVPERS 1611/1

I'm having flashbacks.

[Dogmudgeon]

6. Not bad for a (Republican-branded) "traitor"

I'd say he's earned the right to say any damned thing he wants to about military policy, doctrine, and politics.

Now, as an American, I have the very same right. But Kerry (and his comrades in arms) paid my way and asked for not a single drop of my blood in return. And that's the difference between men like Kerry and -- (cough, cough) -- men like Bush.

--bkl

[Bandit]

7. This is nothing against Kerry but I know all about inflated "body counts"

I'm sure Senator Kerry performed his duties in an exemplary manner but I truly doubt the "official" body count numbers.

[Sandpiper]

8. The body count is beside the point

The point is that the wingnuts keep trying to smear John Kerry's service record. But their efforts keep failing because all the evidence shows that Kerry served honorably and was courageous and competent under fire.

As to how many men he actually killed, who knows? I doubt that the Senator counts it among his greatest accomplishments.

[Bandit]

10. I agree

I was only trying to sooth a few who will attack Kerry now for being a war monger and killer. I am without doubt that Senator Kerry did everything he could to protect himself and his men and accomplish his missions with the least amount of loss of life. Kerry is a true Hero by any definition and that can not be said about any in the current Administration.

[AussieInCA]

9. poor freepers heads are spinning...

here is one of their posts:

I am disappointed in the record freep. Aren't there any smoking guns? I thought for sure freepers would have the records completely digested and chopped up by now. I would try it but being nonmilitary, I would not know what I am looking for. And, am I missing something, or are the "medical records" not yet posted (if indeed they ever will be) and if they are posted, what would be the link to them on the Kerry website military link list.

72 posted on 04/21/2004 10:22:22 AM PDT by hankbrown


What a pack of idiots.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

12. One freeper gets it, and sees the downfall ahead:

In all the carping about the records of JK and whether or not he 'earned' his medals - has anyone thought that this whole line of questioning will re-open a very detailed review of GWB's records. Is this really a good strategy, or a game of 'gotcha'? I was under the impression that service during this time was beyond questioning - just as long as it was service.
Go back over 30 years and pulling apart one man's record, in my opinion puts into question the service rendered by all. If JK did not 'deserve' his medals from Vietnam, I think all medals awarded there come into questions - is that some place we want to go? I really don't think it is.
I'm sure there are many who will dwell on these issues - but you are re-opening a huge can of worms & will have no leg to stand on when others question the service record of GWB. Dengrating the service & medals of one - brings into question the service & medals of all. If the system was so awful that medals were awarded to one when they were not earned, taints all the medals awarded. I really don't want to start down the road of selective honor for service given.

78 posted on 04/20/2004 6:32:15 PM PDT by familyofman
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1121438/posts?page=78#78