QandO

Bush, on the other hand, volunteered for a dangerous duty...but in the United States, rather than Vietnam.

This is a joke, right? You really can't be serious on this, because if you are, you would be so ideologically blind that it borders on irrationality.

Posted by: John at July 28, 2004 08:58 AM

Did Bush sign up to fly an F-102, or did he not? (he did)

Is flying an fighter/interceptor jet a dangerous activity, or is it not? (it is)

So, which part of that is inaccurate?

Posted by: Jon Henke at July 28, 2004 09:01 AM

Flying one over Texas is probably almost certainly more dangerous as piloting a swift boat up the Mekong Delta.

After all - commercial airline pilots are taking their lives into their hands every day. It's the same reason that bus drivers receive such lucrative hazard pay.

Posted by: brendan at July 28, 2004 09:12 AM

The VC isn't in Texas or Alabama, they were on the Mekong Delta.

Check this out. No way to wiggle out of this via definitions. Bush checked the other box.

Hypothetical: Driving a car is a dangerous activity (40k killed per year in the US), did motorists in the late 60's/early 70's volunteer for "dangerous duty"?

Posted by: verplanck colvin at July 28, 2004 09:15 AM

Jon, I have to respectfully disagree with you on this one. Flying a fighter jet is dangerous, no doubt. But we're talking about friendly skies here, i.e. America. There is a wide margin between flying over home territory and flying over hostile forces. It doesn't matter where Kerry thought he would be stationed; he wanted to go to Vietname. It's not like there was a safe area in that whole region. Last time I checked, Vietnam was more hostile than Texas in 1968. (If Bush would have been stationed in Berkely, you might have a better point;) )

Posted by: sean at July 28, 2004 09:18 AM

Hey brendan....swift boat pilots had a casualty rate of 70%, what what the casualty rate of members of the TANG while doing circles over the heartland?

Posted by: verplanck colvin at July 28, 2004 09:18 AM

Yeah, man, he was on a highway to the danger zone — when he bothered to show up, that is.

Posted by: Andy Vance at July 28, 2004 09:18 AM

Sorry Jon, but this comparison is ridiculous. Flying a plane may be "dangerous." But flying one over America is nowhere near as dangerous as doing pretty much anything in Vietnam. Nobody was trying to kill Bush in America; people were trying to kill Kerry in Vietnam.

By your logic, if Bush did nothing during the Vietnam era but sit in an office building and play with a Rubik's cube, you could still say that he was doing a dangerous job. After all, the building could collapse at any moment, not to mention all the deadly perils of driving to work every day. And that cube could hurt you if you dropped it on your foot.

Posted by: Dave at July 28, 2004 09:26 AM

John, are you suggesting that it was dangerous to be in a plane with W at the controls? If not, then Bush was in no danger.

Posted by: exgop at July 28, 2004 09:26 AM

How awesome is it, that in a post decrying Kerry hagiographers, he writes "Bush, on the other hand, volunteered for a dangerous duty...but in the United States, rather than Vietnam"? Holy shit! That's classic! Irony doesn't get better than that folks.

Posted by: Anonymous Blogger at July 28, 2004 09:27 AM

Oops, that should have been addressed to Jon, not John.

In any event, flying an F-102 was not nearly as dangerous as going to Vietnam and you know it.

Posted by: exgop at July 28, 2004 09:28 AM

Lets note:

1) Kerry initially tried to get a deferment but couldn't, so he
2) volunteered for swift boat duty- which was actually "safe" duty when he did. They changed the nature of the swift boat mission shortly afterwards.

Just keeping the record straight.

Posted by: shark at July 28, 2004 09:34 AM

Verplanck: "The VC isn't in Texas or Alabama, they were on the Mekong Delta."

- - -When Kerry signed up, those swift boats were not on the MeKong delta and "they had very little to do with the war". It was after the fact that they were sent in.

"No way to wiggle out of this via definitions. Bush checked the other box"

- - -I thought I had made it clear, but perhaps not. Let me point you to the fact that I said Bush volunteered for duty in the United States. If I said otherwise, you feel free to point that out, ok?

Ex-GOP: No shit, Sherlock. Did I say otherwise?

I would note that nobody seems to be taking exception to the facts I wrote...
1: Flying a fighter/interceptor is a dangerous activity.
2: The duty for which John Kerry volunteered, at the time he volunteered for it, "had very little to do with the war", and he "didn't really want to get involved in the war".

Now, you may feel free to make strawman arguments about Bush not volunteering for Vietnam, or Kerry eventually being given duty unlike what he thought he was signing up for, but those arguments really don't have anything to do with my post.

You're welcome to take issue with the facts I've written, though.

Posted by: Jon Henke at July 28, 2004 09:39 AM

Jon, I said that flying a fighter jet is dangerous. I do not dispute that fact. But regardless of where Kerry thought we was being sent, it's not like there was a Texas part of Vietnam. The whole place was crazy. Volunteering for duty in the United States is not the same thing as volunteering to go to Vietnam.

Posted by: sean at July 28, 2004 09:56 AM

Nor did I claim it was, Sean. I did not compare the relative dangers of flying fighters over Texas vs piloting swift boats well away from danger (which, per Kerry, is what he intended to volunteer for).

I merely stated that both signed up for a duty that was dangerous, and Kerry did not intend to sign up for what he eventually did.

Again, nobody is objecting to the facts.

Posted by: Jon Henke at July 28, 2004 10:00 AM

I still think that there's a world of difference between what each guy thought he was signing up for. Kerry still was in the "shit" and Bush was at home in his safety zone. Do you honestly think Kerry thought he was volunteering for something safe? If he really didn't want to get into trouble, he could have stayed at home with the rest of them.

Posted by: sean at July 28, 2004 10:10 AM

The comments over at Pandagon have already devolved into a debate over whether I'm an idiot or an asshole. I am overwhelmed by their intellectual arguments, and refuse to be baited further, so I'll do my defense here.

Sean: the relative dangers they faced are not relevant. If somebody else signed up for something *far* more dangerous that did Kerry, that doesn't make Kerry anything less than he is.

Both signed up for dangerous duty. Neither signed up intending to go near the fighting.

Posted by: Jon Henke at July 28, 2004 10:17 AM

verplanck - hint: re-read my post with an eye for irony.

I will reluctantly grant that flying an F-102 while loaded out of your mind is probably more dangerous than many wartime activities, but unfortunately, we have no documentation that posits that young Bush found himself in such a situation.

Henke - it's ridiculous to assert that flying in the national guard in the US is "dangerous". It's not appreciably more dangerous than any flight taking off from LaGuardia or Logan, thousands of which occur every day without incident. Perhaps you can dig up accidents/flight taken numbers that would help make your case, but then you'd be resorting to statistics.

Besides which, this whole screed of yours is intended to draw attention away from the real issue here: John Kerry served our nation with distinction in wartime. He volunteered for service in Vietnam. He earned three purple hearts and a bronze star. Bush explicitly joined the national guard to stay out of vietnam, didn't show up for assigned duty, and was granted an early leave to start his political career. And let's not even start with Cheney.

The hagiographers have it right: Kerry volunteered for Vietnam. Bush volunteered to stay out of Vietnam.

Posted by: brendan at July 28, 2004 10:20 AM

This has descended into parody, Henke. Of course it matters which occupation is more dangerous - the national guard was a safe haven for the Most Favored Sons of the nation. That's why bush got in.

He scored in the 25th percentile on the pilot aptitude test - the lowest possible passing grade.

He was at the tail end of a year and a half long waiting list. But miraculously was inducted into the guard in May of 1968, five months after taking his officers' test.

Posted by: brendan at July 28, 2004 10:28 AM

He scored in the 25th percentile on the pilot aptitude test - the lowest possible passing grade.

What do they call the guy who graduated last in his class from medical school? Doctor.

Frankly, NEITHER Bush or Kerry showed any particular bravery. I'd put their motivations on about equal footing to be honest. Kerry had the misfortune to have his mission profile changed, and you can see that he used whatever he had at his disposal to get out of there quickly (using cheap purple hearts to eventually get a transfer). Bush may have used stateside duty to avoid going overseas. Fair enough. Neither one of them really deserve any lionization for their actions

Posted by: shark at July 28, 2004 10:38 AM

So, if I fly in an plane over Texas, even something like a 737, I am as courageous as our President? (Which is also more courageous than John Kerry (who only took some enemy fire as he was chasing some aggressive VC down, and on another ocassion, pulling an american soldier out of a Vietnamese river, again while taking fire), except when he flies over Texas in a plane, like a 737). Or are you saying that the President was in greater danger because he wasn't that good of a pilot, and every flight was a dance with death? Please be clear in your response.

Posted by: ronald at July 28, 2004 10:40 AM

I guess I do owe 2 points to the Bush side of the equation: 1) He signed up with the TANG when (I believe) he knew elememnts of that unit were serving in VietNam and 2)Those were pretty crappy and ill-maintained jets!

Still, neither one comes off better...

Posted by: shark at July 28, 2004 10:42 AM

He was at the tail end of a year and a half long waiting list. But miraculously was inducted into the guard in May of 1968, five months after taking his officers' test.

That's been thoroughly debunked in the past, Brendan. There was no waiting list for pilots where Bush signed up.

But that's still a deflection from the point to Jon's post, so if you are trying to win an argument by throwing in the kitchen sink, we're on to you.

Posted by: Steverino at July 28, 2004 10:44 AM

Shark - you're as ridiculous as Henke. Kerry didn't attempt to dodge the draft like the chimperor - instead, he fulfilled his duty heroically (I won't even respond to your preposterous assertion that his purple hearts aren't earned).

My point with respect to bush's test scores was that the evidence suggests he wasn't the most qualified pilot candidate, and that he was still quickly assigned to that duty (ahead of many others) should give a clue as to the behind-the-scenes maneuvering that kept him safe in Texas.

Posted by: brendan at July 28, 2004 10:44 AM

Give me a credible citation or two, Steverino, and I'll happily concede that point. The low test scores are a matter of public record, as I'm sure you're aware.

Posted by: brendan at July 28, 2004 10:48 AM

What do they call the guy who graduated last in his class from medical school?

'The defendant'?

If Bush had volunteered to pick up litter by the side of the freeway, you'd be calling it 'dangerous duty', because there's a risk that a '68 Olds might career off the road. Pathetic, Henke. Pathetic.

Posted by: ahem at July 28, 2004 11:10 AM

Gladly

From the article:

However, the Dallas Morning News, which also looked into Bush's military record, reported that while Bush's unit in Texas had a waiting list for many spots, he was accepted because he was one of a handful of applicants willing and qualified to spend more than a year in active training flying F-102 jets.

You can check this link out, too.

The test scores are irrelevant. According to people who served with Bush and commanded him, he was a very good pilot, one of the best in his unit. And that's still not relevant to the point of Jon's post. Please stop deflecting, it's really getting tiresome.

Posted by: Steverino at July 28, 2004 11:21 AM

Flying a fighter/intercepter is a dangerous activity

Um, no it's not. Why is anyone conceding this point?

It's only dangerous if
1) you're being shot at
2) you criminally neglect your own training
3) .... it's just not fucking dangerous

Unless you're suggesting that U.S. military fighters had frequent and catastrophic meltdowns of their own accord, or got the bad end of confrontations with clouds or aviary?

Douche.

Posted by: trollbot at July 28, 2004 11:27 AM

sorry brendan, the sarcasm meter was deactivated there for a moment.

As for John, what's the point of your juxtaposition, then? You are putting two things together for comparison that aren't comparable. You even admit this. Then why bother with the excersize?

It doesn't matter HOW they got to their posts in vietnam, what matters is how they performed in wartime. John Kerry stepped up to the plate. Bush stayed in the dugout.

Posted by: verplanck colvin at July 28, 2004 11:33 AM

someone said:
"Flying a fighter/intercepter is a dangerous activity

Um, no it's not. Why is anyone conceding this point?

It's only dangerous if
1) you're being shot at
2) you criminally neglect your own training
3) .... it's just not fucking dangerous""

tell that to the two f18 reservists who died a few days ago http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_crash_072204,00.html
eat your words douchebag

Posted by: ron at July 28, 2004 11:54 AM

Looks like they got you on this one, Jon.
And ron, I don't think anyone was shooting at the pilot's jets.

Posted by: DannyBoy at July 28, 2004 11:58 AM

Shark - you're as ridiculous as Henke. Kerry didn't attempt to dodge the draft like the chimperor - instead, he fulfilled his duty heroically (I won't even respond to your preposterous assertion that his purple hearts aren't earned).

Wow, Chimperor.....well, I guess that about sums up the level of your side of the argument, doesn't it?

Posted by: shark at July 28, 2004 12:15 PM

It doesn't matter HOW they got to their posts in vietnam, what matters is how they performed in wartime. John Kerry stepped up to the plate. Bush stayed in the dugout.

So verplanck colvin....it logically follows that you voted for George H.W. Bush over Clinton, and Dole over Clinton....

I love the liberals sudden embrace of war, specifically Vietnam. Just hysterical

Posted by: shark at July 28, 2004 12:19 PM

Shark, it's obvious that Republicans have no regard for veterans of the Vietnam War, what with the classy way you allowed the Bush campaign to treat McCain and allowed the Chambliss campaign treat Cleland. A democratic veteran couldn't bleed enough, save enough fellow soldiers, walk on water far enough by your standard, but all a Republican veteran has to do is show up for weekend duty, sometimes, and you want to pin a Congressional Medal of Honor on him. You, sir, are a divider.

Posted by: ronald at July 28, 2004 12:48 PM

And ron, I don't think anyone was shooting at the pilot's jets.

DannyBoy, that was ron's point: flying jets is dangerous. Any number of things can go wrong, even when the pilots are fully capable and no one's shooting at them. To argue that flying jets isn't dangerous is just folly.

Posted by: Steverino at July 28, 2004 01:13 PM

Flying jets is dangerous cause they go way up high in the air!!!111

I think we've all heard the old saw about being more likely to die on your commute to work than in an airplane.

So I guess we should applaud brave brave brave brave Bush for even showing up to the airfield.

Oh, wait. He didn't. Dang.

Posted by: trollbot at July 28, 2004 01:22 PM

I've been away for a bit, so you'll pardon me if I don't address each argument.

However, I see nobody has disagreed with the fundamental facts, which are:
1: Bush signed up to fly a fighter jet...a duty which is dangerous, but safer when compared to combat duty.
2: Kerry thought he was volunteering for a duty which was dangerous, but safer when compared to combat duty.
3: There is no dishonor in either duty.
4: Kerry acquitted himself well, and was allowed out early.
5: Bush acquitted himself well, and was allowed out early. (I don't really care how you think he did...he was given an honorable discharge. case closed)

So, unless somebody wants to argue that Kerry thought he was signing up for combat duty, or that flying a plane is not a dangerous activity--relative to duty he could have signed up for...say, desk duty, mechanic, etc--I think you guys are just being partisan.

Funny, though, that I'm the one accused of partisanship, in a post in which I largely defend John Kerry against many of the charges levied against him.

Posted by: Jon Henke at July 28, 2004 01:33 PM

Shark, it's obvious that Republicans have no regard for veterans of the Vietnam War, what with the classy way you allowed the Bush campaign to treat McCain and allowed the Chambliss campaign treat Cleland. A democratic veteran couldn't bleed enough, save enough fellow soldiers, walk on water far enough by your standard, but all a Republican veteran has to do is show up for weekend duty, sometimes, and you want to pin a Congressional Medal of Honor on him. You, sir, are a divider

Micheal Moore? Is that you??

Posted by: shark at July 28, 2004 01:52 PM

I think we've all heard the old saw about being more likely to die on your commute to work than in an airplane.

You do understand there's a difference between flying a commercial jet in a straight line at 400 mph and flying a fighter all over the place at supermach speeds, right?

Putz.

Posted by: Steverino at July 28, 2004 02:00 PM

You guys are still up to your old tricks, lol.

Posted by: DannyBoy at July 28, 2004 02:08 PM

love you shark

Posted by: ronald at July 28, 2004 02:19 PM

Wow we have brendan "b@b.com", ronald "r@r.com", ahem "ahem@ahem.com", exgop "exgop@exgop.com", Andy Vance "andy@andy.com", and Dave "obvious home row address.com". So is there anyone here other than Jon Henke and myself who isn't a troll? Anybody?

Posted by: Jeff the Baptist at July 28, 2004 02:40 PM

Jeff, I'm not a troll, but some of my girlfriends compared me unfavorably to trolls.

Posted by: Steverino at July 28, 2004 02:50 PM

What does it matter that we give out our correct email address?

Posted by: DannyBoy at July 28, 2004 02:53 PM

Here's the real point of the argument:

Republicans rightly fear the inevitable comparison between Kerry turning his boat into the teeth of a VietCong ambush to pull a wounded comrade out of the water and Dubya sitting stunned, paralyzed with fear for seven minutes after being told the country was being attacked.

I know who I want in charge...

Posted by: A Hermit at July 28, 2004 03:52 PM

Steverino, sorry about that. I didn't mean to include you with neanderthals. You post good stuff. Hope I didn't miss any other regular commenters and I apologize if I did.

Posted by: Jeff the Baptist at July 28, 2004 04:03 PM

Now that Henke has scurried back to his corner of the blogosphere, we see him trying to recover some sense of dignity with further elaborations on his idiotic point.

He now says, "Is piloting a swift boat well away from any fighting dangerous? Yeah, but not as dangerous as combat.
Did Kerry think he was signing up for duty that would see combat? No."

And he bases this on the Boston Globe quote. Now, for the sake of argument, let's grant Henke that this one quote successfully encapsulates Kerry's state of mind when he volunteered to go to Vietnam.

But of course, Henke is either a disingenuous asshole or someone with terrible reading comprehension and fails to note what the rest of the article says.

Indeed, he relies on this to once again try and show that Kerry and Bush are similar types. Not only were both engaged in "dangerous" activities, but both of them, basically, were attempting to hide out away from combat. Moreover, Henke wants you to believe that not only did this one quote represent Kerry's state of mind when he volunteered to go to Vietnam, but that this was his continued state of mind in Vietnam.

Or he has terrible reading comprehension and missed the following:

"To his crew, Kerry was one of the most daring skippers in the US Navy, relentlessly and courageously engaging the enemy. ...

In an intense three months of combat following that Christmas Eve battle, Kerry often would go beyond his Navy orders and beach his boat, in one case chasing and killing a teenage Viet Cong enemy who wore only a loin cloth and carried a rocket launcher. Kerry's aggressiveness in combat caused a commanding officer to wonder whether he should be given a medal or court-martialed. ...
Kerry experienced his first intense combat action on Dec. 2, 1968, when he "semi-volunteered for, was semi-drafted" for a risky covert mission in which he essentially was supposed to "flush out" the enemy, using a little Boston Whaler named "Batman." A larger backup craft was called "Robin." ...

"I laid in fire with the twin .50s, and he got behind a hootch," recalled Short. "I laid 50 rounds in there, and Mr. Kerry went in. Rounds were coming everywhere. We were getting fire from both sides of the river. It was a canal. We were receiving fire from the opposite bank, also, and there was no way I could bring my guns to bear on that."

Short said there is "no doubt" that Kerry saved the boat and crew."

Henke can't have it both ways. He can't use the Globe article to try and portray Kerry as someone who had as much intention to avoid combat as Bush, and ignore all the information that once he was involved in combat, not only did he not hide from it, but fought bravely and beyond the call of duty.

Everything about Kerry's service flies in the face of the implication of Henke's one quote. But he doesn't want you to know that because he knows his point is without merit and he knows that comparing the service of Bush and Kerry in terms of "danger" is fucking ludicrous.

Posted by: Anonymous Blogger at July 28, 2004 04:03 PM

ubya sitting stunned, paralyzed with fear for seven minutes after being told the country was being attacked.

[Rolling eyes] According to Michael Moore, he was reading a book to schoolchildren for those seven minutes. Can't you loonies get your smears straight?

Posted by: Steverino at July 28, 2004 04:24 PM

AB: You dolt, I praised Kerry's service.

I merely pointed out--in response to Clinton's assertion that Kerry said "send me" up the Mekong to draw fire--that neither Kerry, nor Bush, volunteered for duty in an area they appeared likely to see combat.

And there's NOTHING DISHONORABLE ABOUT THAT.

Further, I respect Kerry's service.

Meanwhile, despite the pretty constant ad hominem, you guys have yet to refute the point that, at the time he signed up, Kerry--per a pretty good source--intended to sign up for duty well away from combat.

So, a great many insults, and not a single challenge to the facts presented. Well done, guys. You've become the GOP, circa-1998.

Posted by: Jon Henke at July 28, 2004 04:38 PM

"According to Michael Moore, he was reading a book to schoolchildren for those seven minutes."

Have you seen the video of those seven minutes? Bush is stunned. He sits there looking confused and frightened instead of doing his job.

The contrast between that failure to act and the documented stories of Kerry's almost reckless, aggressive tactics in actual combat is quite compelling.

I really don't know where this image of Dubya as a tough guy comes from. He never struck me as anything but a spoiled frat boy with an overgrown sense of entitlement and a mean streak. A wimp at best, a bully at his worst.

He got daddy to pull strings to keep him out of `nam, daddy and friends (and the taxpayers of Texas) bailed him out of his failed business ventures, and he hides from the press and the public.

Four more months...I can hardly wait!

Posted by: A Hermit at July 28, 2004 04:48 PM

maybe if you state "what John Kerry signed up for is quite a bit more dangerous than what Bush signed up for" (while noting that both activities have some inherent danger, and that neither volunteered for combat directly), we'd all be happy. Going to Vietnam in 1969 is a lot more dangerous than staying in America in 1969, and I don't think you've acknowledged that crucial fact.

Posted by: sym at July 28, 2004 04:51 PM

'Going to Vietnam in 1969 is a lot more dangerous than staying in America in 1969, and I don't think you've acknowledged that crucial fact."

And of course there's that pesky question of actually showing up for the duty for which you signed up...on the one hand, Kerry returning for a second tour to pilot a boat, on the other Dubya blowing off his flight physical and getting grounded...

It's no wonder the right is so eager to pour cold water on this issue; the more you look at it the worse Bush looks!

Posted by: A Hermit at July 28, 2004 05:03 PM

Sym: Actually going to Vietnam in '69 wasn't that dangerous at all, depending on where you were. It would be quite possible to spend your entire tour in a place where you never saw a shot fired in anger.

Certainly a swift boat off the coast of Vietnam is not a very dangerous billet. Its essentially playing coast guard. That's what Kerry signed up for. Mission changed and to his credit he did his duty ... at least until he could find a way out of there. All the while the 8mm was rolling and now we hear he reenacted some of his glory days while there for posterity or his political career ... which ever came first. Fairly calculating if true.

BTW I was in Vietnam in 1969. I'd have loved to have been a swifboat commander. Talk about easy duty. But I get seasick easily so I settled for being an infantry platoon leader with the 101st.

Its all relative, isn't it?

Posted by: McQ at July 28, 2004 05:03 PM

Wow so much talking so little listening. I have never heard anyone involved with flying military aircraft call piloting them cakewalks. There is a reason that flight pay is the same amount as hazardous duty pay. Is it as dangerous as what Kerry went through? Nope, but describing it as a high society wine tasting is no more correct.

Posted by: Jeff the Baptist at July 28, 2004 05:09 PM

Oh please ... his "second tour", for heaven sake. His "first tour" was in the area, at best. Hell he never even saw the coast of Vietnam.

For a relatively uneventful six months, from December 1967 to June 1968, he served in the electrical department aboard the USS Gridley, a guided-missile frigate that supported aircraft carriers in the Gulf of Tonkin and was far removed from combat.

He hung out in a frigate charged with air defense at Yankee Station as an electrical officer. They never saw any combat nor fired a shot in anger. Its a bit like saying the aircraft mechanic (one who stays at the airbase) of a B52 flying out of Udorn, Thailand and into North Vietnam had a tour in Vietnam.

Posted by: McQ at July 28, 2004 05:11 PM

Have you seen the video of those seven minutes? Bush is stunned. He sits there looking confused and frightened instead of doing his job.

The contrast between that failure to act ...

I've seen the video. He doesn't look frightened to me, he looks saddened. And just what would his job have been for those seven minutes???? Exactly what was he supposed to do, spring out of the classroom , fly into the air like Superman and go find the bad guys?

Nobody knew exactly what was going on at that time, not one person. And yet, you claim to know what the president should have been doing at that exact moment? Talk about hubris!

Posted by: Steverino at July 28, 2004 06:09 PM

Look, I saw a guy on MSNBC last night who (in a different incident) John Kerry pulled out of the water in the midst of enemy fire, and the man said it was amazing that neither one of them were hit while he was doing that. He also said that he still remembers the look on Kerry's face, that he saw that Kerry knew the danger, feared the danger, and yet pulled him out anyway.

I have heard no man tell a story like that about George W. Bush. So far, I've seen at least three veterans who sailed with John F. Kerry at one time or another speak --- whether onstage or to pundits --- of the man's heroism and sense of duty.

That's about as cut and dry as it gets in my book. Kerry is a war hero -- not because I say so, not because he says so, not because he has medals; but because the men he served with say so and respect him.

As far as the President's "service" -- what exactly did he accomplish in his time in the National Guard? What? Name one thing.

I don't care about medals, but we're not even sure he showed up for work for three of those months. He may have been discharged honorably, but he had no actual achievements during those years. His scores, etc, were mediocre at best, and that's EVEN considering he knew the "right" people.

Ally

Posted by: Ally at July 28, 2004 10:00 PM

Hey steverino, how bout this scenario?

"I'm sorry children, but there's a problem I have to take care of. Please excuse me, we'll finish the book later. Talk to your mommies and daddies tonight, they'll want to see you."

Why is it always 'read the book' vs. 'running out with your hair on fire'?

Posted by: verplanck colvin at July 28, 2004 11:23 PM

Ally: "Kerry is a war hero"

- - -And you will note that I repeatedly said I respect his service, his purple hearts, and that I did not discount any of it in the least.

What I was specifically focusing on--and what most of you seem incapable of addressing--is what John Kerry thought he was volunteering for when he "said send me".

And, again, there's nothing dishonorable about that. Nothing at all. But he was most definitively NOT saying "send me" up the river to take fire when he volunteered for swift boat duty.

Posted by: Jon Henke at July 29, 2004 06:31 AM

You've defined your 'actual argument' so narrowly that it doesn't really make much of a splash in the general Bush-v.-Kerry war-record-debate - and meanwhile when people argue against everything you're insinuating you call it attacking strawmen. I guess Clinton's 'send me' rhetoric doesn't apply perfectly to Kerry's intent when volunteering and the deep shit in Vietnam. But there's no doubt that Kerry ended up in said shit, and fought hard, and was shot at, etc. If the GOP wants to spend an hour at their convention questioning the medals, by all means. I'm sure that will play well.

And of course, we need to hear about the gallantry of Bush's choice to 'serve.' What do we think he thought he was getting into when he volunteered for a National Guard outfit that was known as the Champagne Unit?

Posted by: sic semper at July 29, 2004 09:31 AM

I'm sorry, Jon, I didn't realize you were not only there, but you were reading John Kerry's mind at that time.

First of all, you're basing that all on the above quote (which somebody already mentioned you pulled out of context, from an article, but even if you hadn't...). So, okay, "very little to do with the war" does not neccesarily mean there was no enemy fire. Perhaps, it meant "very little" in terms of the ideaology of the war (which Kerry opposed before he shipped off, and yet he still served his country).

I'm sorry I seriously doubt that anyone thought patrolling the coast of Vietnam was a safe job. Now, if he had signed up to patrol the coast of California and ACCIDENTALLY got sent to Vietnam, that'd be a valid point, but he signed up to be essentially the Coast Guard of Vietnam. And, actually, before he was on a swift boat, he was assigned (without asking for it according to any source I can find) on a Navy boat which was several hundred miles away. He asked to be moved *closer* to the war, in a more dangerous job, than was originally assigned.

George W. Bush asked for three months off from the considerably not-dangerous job he was already assigned, and he probably only "asked for it" retroactively after he stopped showing up. Comparing the two is downright ridiculous.

Ally

P.S. There's also the idea that those quotes could have come from a little thing called MODESTY that some people have where they don't like to personally talk about their own achievements. I know you haven't noticed much of it in the Bush administration, so maybe you forgot that it could still exist (even in politicians).

Posted by: Ally at July 29, 2004 09:31 AM

Sic Semper: But there's no doubt that Kerry ended up in said shit, and fought hard, and was shot at, etc.

- - -As I wrote: "I respect his service...as well as his purple hearts." So, what exactly is your point? Oh.

Sic Semper: "I guess Clinton's 'send me' rhetoric doesn't apply perfectly to Kerry's intent when volunteering and the deep shit in Vietnam."

- - -I guess your point is that you agree with me on the point I made, but disagree with a variety of positions I have not taken.

Well, thanks. If I take those positions, you be sure to bring it up.

ALLY: "I didn't realize you were not only there, but you were reading John Kerry's mind at that time"

- - -Are you suggesting that we cannot trust John Kerry, who provided the quote I cited? That's a strange position to take.

If it is out of context, please provide additional context for me. As it stands, I think "I didn't really want to get involved in the war" is pretty clear. (and I find nothing objectionable about that position)

"I seriously doubt that anyone thought patrolling the coast of Vietnam was a safe job"

- - -Nobody said it was "safe". The claim is that it was "relatively safe", and nothing at all like the danger of combat. It was patrolling off the coast, and there was not a strong enemy naval presence attacking us at the time.

Again, everybody is arguing a completely difference argument from that which I made. 10 out of 10 for abuse, but minus a few thousand for relevance.

Posted by: Jon Henke at July 29, 2004 09:53 AM

Jon, what is your argument? What was the point of the blog?
Dude, even though you and I got into it a while back on one of your blogs, I would still come here and read because you, regardless of political party affiliation, would bring about good points from time to time. Can't say I agree w/ you on everything but some of the things you would touch on would be common sense.
But then there are moments like this where for the life of you, you wouldn't concede. So, again, I ask, what is your argument on this blog? From reading the initial blog, it looks like you're comparing bush's service to kerry's service in that they DIDN'T sign up for said dangerous duty.
Going to Vietnam and going to Alabama can both have their share of danger level but on totally different spectrums, totally different. And I know you know that. And I believe you're a bright dude which is why I keep coming here despite our differences. McQ and Dale are straight up partisan, no ifs, ands, or buts. But out of the three, you seem to be the only one with common sense on some issues...except for moments like this.

Posted by: DannyBoy at July 29, 2004 12:04 PM

You completely skipped over my point that getting involved in the war and getting involved in the fighting are two different things. The "little to do with the war" comment did not neccesarily mean it had little to do with combat; it may have been an ideological difference, for instance. Kerry was ideologically opposed to the war in Vietnam BEFORE he went. You're interchanging the word "combat" for "war" which is not neccesarily true, rhetoric-wise.

The point of it not being safe or relatively safe has to then be applied to both men. John Kerry's assignment was much less safe (in actuality afterwards as well as obviously less safe from his deployment and his volunteering for it) than George Bush's. George W. Bush risked his life no more than I do when I get in my car.

As far as the context thing, scroll up -- somebody else said that, and that is what I was referring to. They provided more from the same article. I have not gone through everything John Kerry has ever said to attempt to twist it as the GOP has and apparently as you have too, so I don't know the context firsthand.

Ally

Posted by: Ally at July 29, 2004 12:46 PM

Danny: "what is your argument?"

- - -Clinton is/was incorrect when he said that John Kerry said "send me" up the Delta to take fire when he volunteered. What he volunteered for, and what that mission became, are two different things.

It is no discredit to Kerry, by any means, but let's also not pretend the guy was saying "send me into combat" when he signed up.

And, just as there is no dishonor whatsoever in signing up for (what seemed at the time) less dangerous than combat-duty off the coast of Vietnam, there is no dishonor in signing up to fly fighters, regardless of where one signs up to do it.

Point being, both men signed up for duty, and both men signed up for duty that was (apparently, at the time they signed up) well away from combat. I am not trying to assert an equivalence in the relativele levels of danger....just pointing out that neither intended their tour to be a combat tour.

And, again, not one jot or tittle of this detracts from Kerry's actual service, so it's hard to assign to me partisan motivations to tear down Kerry's record.

Ally: "You completely skipped over my point that getting involved in the war and getting involved in the fighting are two different things."

- - -It seems to me that Kerry's statement is a prima facie rebuttal. "When I signed up for the swift boats, they had very little to do with the war. They were engaged in coastal patrolling".

Do you think he meant the location of the swift boats had some ideological significance? Seems fairly clear that, by indicating their location, he was referring to a more geographic significance.

"John Kerry's assignment was much less safe (in actuality afterwards as well as obviously less safe from his deployment and his volunteering for it) than George Bush's."

- - -I'm not sure how many times I can repeat this. I am not trying to draw an equivalence between the relative levels of danger in piloting a boat off the coast of Vietnam and piloting a fighter jet over the Gulf of Mexico. I am trying to draw an equivalence between signing up for a (apparently) non-combat duty, and signing up for a (apparently) non-combat duty, in order to point out that there is no dishonor in doing either.....and that Clinton's statement was incorrect.

"I have not gone through everything John Kerry has ever said to attempt to twist it as the GOP has and apparently as you have too"

- - -Odd. I took a very literal reading of both the article, and his statement. My statements--including my praise for his service--are exactly in accordance with them.

Posted by: Jon Henke at July 29, 2004 01:16 PM

I am not trying to draw an equivalence between the relative levels of danger in piloting a boat off the coast of Vietnam and piloting a fighter jet over the Gulf of Mexico.

Ok, so which one of these two activities do you believe was MORE dangerous? Straight answer, please.

Posted by: sym at July 29, 2004 03:00 PM

Frankly, I don't know what the dangers involved in patrolling off the coast of Vietnam were, but I would assume it was the more dangerous of the two.

Posted by: Jon Henke at July 29, 2004 03:15 PM

Well, actually, since the TANG was Flying F-102 Delta Darts out of Ellington AFB outside of Houston in those days, (A couple of years after W left the TANG I was in the Civil Air Patrol at Ellington and the TANG was flying the F-101 Voodoo.) I think that it's indisputable--and I mean hands down--that flying an F-102 was far more dangerous than crewing a swift boat.

All of the "century-series" fighters of the time were, for one reason or another, mechanical death traps, with the possible exception of the F-105 Thunderchief. (It wasn't a deathtrap mechanically, like many of the other F-1XX series. It was, however, a deathtrap in air-to-air, since, although it was fast as hell, it steered like a cow.) The century series fighters were actually fighter bombers, with huge frickin' internal bomb bays, natch. They weighed soemthing like 40 tons, and if you lost power, they had a glide ratio of less than 1:1. In other words, they dropped like rocks. especially the 104, with its tiny, stubby little wings.

When I was stationed at Holloman AFB, we had a whole squadron of 102s that were used as test drones. They were twice as big as an F-15, which is a pretty big aircraft itself.

I believe that over the course of a career, a pilot flying one of the century-series fighters had about a 20% chance of dying in a flying mishap, due to their brick-like flying qualities unless under full power.

I am unaware that the swift boats had anything like that kind of danger factor. At the time Kerry volunteered, the swift boat mission was quite safe, and it was a non-combat mission. Peacetime military aviation, however, was at that time, one of the most hazardous forms of duty available. Indeed, it's still probably the most hazardous type of peacetime duty, even though our safety record has vastly improved.

Posted by: Dale Franks at July 29, 2004 03:20 PM

"I think that it's indisputable--and I mean hands down--that flying an F-102 was far more dangerous than crewing a swift boat."
Wow, man, I can't believe you said that. But is is more dangerous when that F-102 is in the U.S. and the swiftboat is in the Mekong River?
I can't believe this debate is still going. Did you guys even read the whole article? I just read it for the first time and I'm like, "damn"!

Posted by: DannyBoy at July 29, 2004 03:43 PM

Uh, Danny Boy, if you'll remember, the swift boats weren't patrolling the Mekong delta when Kerry volunteered. They were only doing coatsal patrols offshore.

It was only after Kerry transferred to swift boats that they began brown-water patrols.

When I signed up for the swift boats, they had very little to do with the war. They were engaged in coastal patrolling".

I think the last thing Kerry expected was having to do brown-water riverine work when he signed up, at least by his own account.

What matters is not what the mission actually became, but what each person thought they were getting into when they made the decisions they made. Neither one of them thought they were going into combat.

One of them was right.

Posted by: Dale Franks at July 29, 2004 04:23 PM

Dale makes good points, and I'm just going to add a "yeah, me too".

And the fact that it was not operating in the Mekong Delta at the time he volunteered is exactly the point.

Posted by: Jon Henke at July 29, 2004 05:29 PM

Look, I suppose neither one of us will ever know what John Kerry was thinking at the time. You choose to think the least possible of him (which still means you hold his service in regards) while I choose to think better of him. I choose to think better because I am watching a man whose life he saved saying how wonderful he is and saying that he was never even asked to say these things --- but volunteered and ASKED to be able to speak for Kerry. Wow.

As far as him not saying "Send Me" -- he volunteered to GO to Vietnam. He volunteered to be moved closer to the fighting (from a Naval ship to his swift boat). He did say "Send Me."

George W. Bush also said "Send Me" --- he said "Send Me to Alambama to work on a Senate campaign." Only a fool would try to compare the two... even the GOP is keeping away from that one.

With that, I'm leaving your site, so if I don't respond in the future, it's not because I have no points, but because I know this could go on and on forever and don't have the energy.

Ally

Posted by: Ally at July 29, 2004 09:02 PM

I haven't heard anyone mention that Bush was in the ANG during the cold war: the Cuban Missile Crisis was in 1962.
Flying is always a hazardous duty, fighter jets even more so.

I think it is possible, as Henke said, to honor Kerry's service without disparaging Bush's.

Posted by: Bleeding heart conservative at August 2, 2004 12:53 AM