Revealed: how 'war hero' Kerry tried to put off Vietnam military duty
By Charles Laurence in New York
(Filed: 07/03/2004)


Senator John Kerry, the presumed Democratic presidential candidate who is trading on his Vietnam war record to campaign against President George W Bush, tried to defer his military service for a year, according to a newly rediscovered article in a Harvard University newspaper.


Sen Kerry on the campaign trail in Iowa
He wrote to his local recruitment board seeking permission to spend a further 12 months studying in Paris, after completing his degree course at Yale University in the mid-1960s.

The rest here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/03/07/wkerr07.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/03/07/ixnewstop.html

Okay, I find this whole military record comparison complete and utter BS, but my first reaction when I read this was: So?

I would try to get out of it, too. No one WANTS to enter a war-zone.

At least, it appears, when he did, he did his share.

Okay, I find this whole military record comparison complete and utter BS, but my first reaction when I read this was: So?

His war record is what he's running on. He mentions it every day.
Oddly enough, he doesn't mention that he tried to avoid going.
I wonder why. Obviously it is more than "so".
My father in law didn't try to get out of it. I know several vets personally who didn't try to get out of it and NOT ONE of them braggs about their heroic service.


I would try to get out of it, too. No one WANTS to enter a war-zone.


Maybe thats how Europeans act, not a surprise, but not most Americans even though they may not want to enter a war zone.

At least, it appears, when he did, he did his share.

4 whole months worth, about 5 years 8 months less than my father in law. He then found some regulation that says if you got injured 3 times you could go home. Strangely enough he won't reveal his medical records so we can see the extent of these injuries.
Strangely enough the press isn't asking to see them but they felt compelled to banter and pressure Bush to release his regarding his ANG service.

Maybe thats how Europeans act, not a surprise, but not most Americans even though they may not want to enter a war zone.

Don't you ever get tired of yourself?

But, like I said, I think the whole issue is BS.

Like I asked in the other thread: what about the economy, national security, the unprecedented deficits, loss of international credibility, jobs going overseas - the important issues.

I'm 50/50 on this. They both served one way or another.

Ever American should be willing to fight for their country, whether or not the believe in the cause.. if Uncle Sam needs you, you should be willing.

Really? Even if you're absolutey convinced it's a bad reason?

Don't you ever get tired of yourself?

No, it only helps confirm what I believe to be true about European men.


Like I asked in the other thread: what about the economy, national security, the unprecedented deficits, loss of international credibility, jobs going overseas - the important issues.

What about them?

The economy is chugging along.

We are stronger now than we have been in a decade.
The deficits are a result of the past recession, 9/11, and poor spending habits.

We've only lost credibility to leaders/nations/people that don't like us, specifically anyone on the right who believes the US should be a soveirgn nation rather than a partner with france and do as they say.

Jobs have been going overseas for a long, long time. It's nothing new. Suddenly its an issue? Please.

Seems like we are headed in the right direction.

'chuggin' along indeed...

Jobs Created under Clinton: 20 million

Jobs Gained under Bush: -2 million

Conseratives following the Dow Jones and ignoring the deficit: Priceless

As for the actual topic, I don't really care if the man wanted to avoid conflict-he didn't. He served, and can certainly run on that.

LOLOL.

Now qualify your claims with the corresponding employment data.

Prove what you are saying.

3 Purple Hearts, huh? i wonder what 3 wounds he recieved by an instrument of war in the hands of the enemy...

Originally posted by Powerboss
LOLOL.

Now qualify your claims with the corresponding employment data.

Prove what you are saying.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=reutersEdge&storyID=4317144

http://edition.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/20/press.column/

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle....storyID=4317144

http://edition.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLI...0/press.column/

LOL You are going to parrot the mainstream media who are liberal to the core?

You've got to do better than that. I want raw data.

From the first article;

The NBER's Business Cycle Dating Committee has ruled the downturn began in March 2001 and ended in November that year. But it is considering rolling back the start because revised data now show the economy first contracted in the third quarter of 2000, rather than the first quarter of 2001.



If you do not believe that the recession began under Clintons watch, when do you believe it began?

What caused the recession?