QandO

I was a "volunteer" for Vietnam also. I was in the Army assigned to Ft McPherson GA in Alanta GA and newly married (6 months at the time)(home state North Dakota) when I was alerted for reassingment in Jan70 for Vietnam.

I was on a 2 year Active Duty tour at the time. I had moved my wife from ND to GA, and she had a contact with the Alanta Board of Education that carried to the summmer, and was newly pg.

If I went to Vietnam in Jan70, I would leave her in a foreign state (GA), PG, all alone and 1500 miles from our parent...so I called Branch. Made a deal....defer me from Vietnam and I would stay on Active Duty indifinately (make it a career). "Ma Brown" who was the assignment officer for 2LTs at the time took my offer. Once it was approved, and I was off Jan70 order for Vietnam, I turned around and "volunteered" for Vietnam... with a reporting date of July1970 which allowed my wife to complete her work contact, move back home, and time to organize my departure.

As it turned out, I spent my 13 months in Vietnam, made the Army a career, and we had a son born in November 1970... as I was informed by the Red Cross and confirmed via a MARS call (-- Thank you to amture radio operators everywhere)

Posted by: delta dave at April 22, 2004 08:30 PM

You are just too pathetic.

In February of 1968, John Kerry wrote to the Chief of Naval Personnel and said the following:

I request duty in Vietnam. My billet preference is "Swift" boats with a second choice of Patrol Officer in a PHR Squadron. ... I consider the opportunity to serve in Vietnam an extremely important part of being in the armed forces and believe that my request is in the best interests of the Navy.

(Readers can get the full text of the statement, as well as the rest of Kerry's military records here.)

By volunteering to serve in Vietnam, Kerry willingly and bravely put himself into a war zone. There was no place in Vietnam that was "well away from the action" and you do our veterans a grave injustice by suggesting otherwise. (Are soldiers in Iraq "well away from the action" if they are stationed somewhere other than Falluja?)

The contrast in leadership here couldn't possibly be more striking. John Kerry, Al Gore, and Max Cleland answered the call and showed the courage to serve their country in a war zone. Our current president used family connections to sneak away and hide from the war in Texas. And now he sends other young men and women to fight and die overseas without ever showing that level of courage himself.

Respect doesn't come from being born into wealth or from staging a photo op on an aircraft carrier. Respect is something you earn. John Kerry earned a Silver Star, a Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts in Vietnam. He also earned the respect of a nation.

Posted by: Oregonian at April 22, 2004 11:32 PM

"I didn't really want to get involved in the war. When I signed up for the swift boats, they had very little to do with the war. They were engaged in coastal patrolling and that's what I thought I was going to be doing." -- John Kerry

- - -You might also note that I don't criticize John Kerry for his service or performance. I'm just pointing out that it's a bit ridiculous to lionize this fellow for volunteering for Vietnam...when he was actively trying to be placed well away from the action. Conversely, Bush didn't make any effort to go to Vietnam, though he did sign up for very dangerous duty.

I respect what Kerry did in Vietnam, and I've been defending him on that, lately. However, I don't respect this double standard you seem to have, wherein it is "good" to attempt to get a cush, safe gig in Vietnam...but damnable to get a relatively dangerous military job in the US.

Posted by: Jon Henke at April 23, 2004 05:21 AM

From today's Washington Post:

"If given a choice, I didn't want particularly to be in a foxhole," Kerry said. "I preferred to be in war on a boat -- not in the day-to-day battle. There wasn't as much risk and constancy of battle at the time [in the boats]. Obviously, it didn't end up that way. But I had volunteered, so you do what you have to do." In his four months in country, he would command two swift boats.

"For anybody to say that anyone who commanded a swift boat went there to earn medals is just ludicrous. They were totally exposed. . . . If anything, they went there to get killed," said Jim Rassman, a Green Beret whom Kerry, wounded himself, pulled out of the water while under fire -- the act for which he received the Bronze Star. "John Kerry is lucky to be alive."

That's the true story of Kerry's military service. He volunteered to go into a war zone where hundreds of Americans were dying every week and he thought, like most soldiers, that there would be a few battles interspersed with long periods of calm. When his assignment became much more dangerous, Kerry accepted his new role without complaint and served with distinction. John Kerry may be modest about his own courage, but his actions speak loud and clear.

In short, John Kerry specifically volunteered to join the war and serve in Vietnam. For some chickenhawk blogger to now, thirty-five years later, claim that Kerry was "actively trying to be placed well away from the action" is patently absurd.

You didn't answer my questions before, but I'll ask them again.

Can you show us any quote where Kerry has said he wanted to be "well away from the action"?

Can you point to any document in Kerry's military records where he requests to be placed "well away from the action"?

Can you produce any Vietnam veteran who says that service on a swift boat was equivalent to being "well away from the action"?

Are U.S. soldiers who are stationed in Iraq outside of Falluja "well away from the action"?

And, finally, if coastal Vietnam in 1968 is "well away from the action," what are the proper words to describe a safe hiding place for well-connected rich kids in Texas?

I do hope you'll keep writing on this topic. Americans need to be reminded of the contrast between the two candidates for president.

Posted by: Oregonian at April 23, 2004 11:47 AM

Oregonian ... if your standard of proof is a quote, why do you keep rejecting this one? He made it very clear he had no desire to get into the dangerous part of the war:

"Kerry initially hoped to continue his service at a relatively safe distance from most fighting, securing an assignment as "swift boat" skipper. While the 50-foot swift boats cruised the Vietnamese coast a little closer to the action than the Gridley had come, they were still considered relatively safe.

"I didn't really want to get involved in the war," Kerry said in a little-noticed contribution to a book of Vietnam reminiscences published in 1986. "When I signed up for the swift boats, they had very little to do with the war. They were engaged in coastal patrolling and that's what I thought I was going to be doing."

Now ... what part of that don't you understand?

HE DIDN'T WANT TO GET INVOLVED IN THE WAR. He thought he'd signed up for a safe billet.

That's Kerry speaking. He volunteered to take on relatively safe duty in a war zone ... much like his duty on the Gridley.

He took a calculated risk and it blew up on him. He ended up IN THE WAR (not in a safe job in the war zone for which he'd VOLUNTEERED) and he did his duty ... but don't try and peddle this nonsense that he actively sought to be in the shooting part of that war. He didn't and it doesn't wash. Even his own words don't support your contention.

You're also obviously not very conversant with the the danger inherent in flying the F-102 fighter/interceptor (or ANY high performance jet fighter).

It was the FIRST all-weather, supersonic fighter in the US inventory. Yeah, that's right, if flew day and night, rain, sleet, ice or snow. It was designed to intercept Russian bombers over the North Pole.

Could Bush have gone to Vietnam in that role?

At the time he joined: YES.

"Though essentially useless in the small-war role, F-102s were indeed deployed to South Vietnam. Aircraft from the 590th Fighter Interceptor Squadron were transferred to Tan Son Nhut AFB near Saigon in March 1962 to provide air defense against the unlikely event that North Vietnamese aircraft would attack the South. F-102As continued to be based there and in Thailand throughout much of the war. F-102As also stood alert at Bien Hoa and Da Nang in South Vietnam and at Udorn and Don Muang in Thailand. The F-102A was finally withdrawn from Southeast Asia in December of 1969."

F-102's had been in VN since '62.

Bush began flight school in 1968 for eventual assignment as an F-102 pilot. At the TIME HE JOINED, it was entirely possible he could end up in VN flying F-102s. Hardly the choice of military duty someone trying to duck it would choose, isn't it?

Are U.S. soldiers who are stationed in Iraq outside of Falluja "well away from the action"?

No but the one's in Kuwait are ... and the role of patrolling the Persian Gulf would be analogous to the role John Kerry volunteered for in Vietnam. The fact that he ended up on the equivalent of the Euphrates river doesn't mean he actively sought that assignment.

And you're right ... we'll keep writing on this for although I can't speak for Jon, I think it is indeed important to show Kerry for the poseur he is.

Posted by: McQ at April 23, 2004 12:29 PM

So service in 'nam in '68 was equivalent to serving in Kuwait in 2004???

Nice try, but not even close.

John Kerry didn't volunteer to serve in Cambodia or Thailand or some other neighboring country. He volunteered directly to serve in the country where the conflict was being fought. And, as conservatives keep reminding us, the conflict in Vietnam was far more deadly, far more dangerous, and was being fought against a far more determined and organized enemy.

So, if no soldier in Iraq is "well away from the action," are you really going to tell us that Vietnam was a less dangerous place to be? I didn't think so.

And as for your other bit of humor...

Could Bush have gone to Vietnam in that role? At the time he joined: YES.

Hogwash. Tell us exactly how many pilots in the Texas Air National Guard were sent to Vietnam if they didn't volunteer to go. (Hint: the answer you're looking for is a single digit number and it's the shape of Bush's mouth when he's asked a tough question.)

Keep on banging this drum. Americans need to hear it.

Posted by: Oregonian at April 23, 2004 01:50 PM

Obviously you choose to miss the point, Oregonian.

The fact that he volunteered for swift boats which were, at the time he volunteered, patrolling the coast of Viet Nam is equivalent to a swift boat patrolling the Persian Gulf. IOW he'd have been in the war zone but not very far in ... about like being on the Gridley.

That's how DANGEROUS it was ... and Kerry knew that.

Instead he ended up on the equivalent to the Euphrates river ... a completely different level of danger ... but not one for which he VOLUNTEERED.

So, while both the Persian Gulf and the Eurphrates river are in the WAR ZONE, one is much more dangerous than the other. John Kerry tried his best to get assigned to the Persian Gulf equivalent in VN.

Now you can choose to continue to bang your broken drum or you can face facts ... facts even Kerry admits too.

As for the F-102, tell how safe it was again? That there was no inherent danger in just strapping the thing on and flying it?

As for VN NG pilots they, just like now, were there. It depended on the aircraft you were qualified to fly ... and the F-102 was in VN so any qualified F-102 pilot was subject to showing up on orders ESPECIALLY when on Active Duty for Training as Bush was during his flight training.

Not all danger and not all courage is to be found in combat, pal.

Keep on banging this drum. Americans need to hear it.

Not to worry ... with straight men like you its a breeze.

Posted by: McQ at April 23, 2004 02:12 PM

This is really quite fascinating.

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that Vietnam was a much more dangerous conflict than Iraq, but that being in Iraq is much more dangerous than being in Vietnam.

Furthermore, if I follow your argument, the words "I request duty in Vietnam" mean that the writer is requesting duty someplace other than Vietnam, while the words "I do not volunteer for overseas" mean that the writer is lining up to ship out of the country.

Yes. Indeed. Quite fascinating.

And you tell us you are attacking the military service of John Kerry because you consider him a "poseur," and so, to bring some balance to the otherwise exemplary military record of that poseur John Kerry, you rely entirely on the much more humble perspective of... John Kerry.

So, in other words, John Kerry is a poseur who is trying to impress us with his military record and we should all ignore the military record and listen instead to John Kerry, whose modest, trustworthy words will convince us that John Kerry is a lying poseur for volunteering to serve in Vietnam (which is not Vietnam) and earning all those medals (which Bush would have earned had the Mexicans chosen that moment to invade).

Yes, this is all very interesting and I thank you for posting it here on the web. If you have any more thoughts along those same lines, please don't hesitate to post them.

Posted by: Oregonian at April 23, 2004 04:24 PM

Incredible. Surely, sir, or madam, you're not as dense as you play yourself to be here.

Apparently you haven't been able to grasp the fact that Kerry attempted to avoid the shooting war by volunteering for swift boats, because he knew that the swift boats were away from any real danger (they were coastal patrol boats ... coast guard).

Now that's not just me claiming that ... that came out of Kerry's mouth.

He wanted the record of being "in" Vietnam without facing the danger of REALLY being "in" Vietnam.

Unfortunately, for him, it didn't work out that way.

I don't recall saying a thing about his record in VN. I've not attacked his military service a single time.

However, I do recall answering your questions about him supposedly SEEKING combat.

He didn't.

Its that simple.

He wanted no part of it.

The fact he ended up in it wasn't by design or desire, but by happenstance. By his own words he was AVOIDING it. And when it happened, he found the fastest "honorable" way out, invoking a Navy only (the USMC had by then recinded it) "3 Purple Hearts and you can leave" regulation with "wounds" which required Bacitracin, a band aid and no loss of duty.

What's facinating is you keep coming back for more when every question you've asked has been answered and your points have been refuted one by one.

But then, maybe its just you.

Posted by: McQ at April 23, 2004 05:04 PM

Postscript: On a more solemn note, I have been reminded that Oregon lost one of its own this month. Spc. Philip G. Rogers, of Gresham, Oregon, was killed in Mosul when a roadside bomb blew up the truck he was driving. He was 23 years old.

Some commentators will undoubtedly say that it makes a difference that Rogers was a cook. Some will say that he was "avoiding combat" in some cushy position or that he was "well away from the action" because he was in Mosul. Some will even say that he was less of a hero because he wasn't toting a rifle in Falluja.

Screw 'em all.

The U.S. military will remember Rogers as a hero, his family will remember him as a hero, and the people of Oregon will remember him as a hero. Because that's exactly what he was. When the chips were down, he made the deliberate choice to accept greater danger for the chance to serve his country. He put his life on the line.

Nattering fools can talk all they want about supposed safe spots in the middle of a war zone, but our soldiers know all too well that by putting on the uniform and shipping out overseas they are making themselves into targets. Iraq, Vietnam, Afghanistan - it doesn't matter. There are no safe zones.

Most of our young people will make the safe choice to stay within the confines of the United States. Many will find other ways to honorably serve their country. But their safety will be always be made possible by the small handful of people who shoulder the greater risk of serving overseas in a war zone.

I thank John Kerry, Wesley Clark, John McCain, Max Cleland, Philip Rogers, and all the other men and women who have gone into war zones on our behalf. By their actions we shall know their characters.

Posted by: Oregonian at April 23, 2004 08:35 PM

And I accept your thanks on behalf of the men I served with in C/1/327th Infantry, 101st Airborne Div, Republic of Vietnam, 1969-1970.

As usual though you missed the point ... again.

Posted by: McQ at April 23, 2004 11:15 PM

"I didn't really want to get involved in the war. When I signed up for the swift boats, they had very little to do with the war. They were engaged in coastal patrolling and that's what I thought I was going to be doing." -- John Kerry

I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes.
George W. Bush (February, 1990)

So they both wished to avoid heavy combat. John Kerry VOLUNTEERED to take his chances IN VIETNAM, and Bush chose to stay in Texas, and DID NOT volunteer to go anywhere near Southeast Asia.

It is pretty clear to me (and anyone with a brain) who the braver (and more honorable) man is.

Posted by: Matt at July 23, 2004 05:07 AM

Another take on Mr Bush's attitude to his service. Let's take flying that F102 for example.

George Bush applying for the TANG: "I have applied for pilot training with the goal of making flying my lifetime pursuit..." http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc24.gif

I suppose he needed to sound enthusiastic since he only scored 25% on the pilot's aptitude test.

On the 1st of August 1972, shortly after the introduction of drug and alcohol testing for pilots, GWB was grounded from flying the F102
"Reason for suspension: Failure to accomplish annual medical examination" - Francis S. Greenlief, Major General
http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/grounded.gif

Boy George took his dangerous assignment seriously, didn't he?

John Kerry: "I consider the opportunity to serve in Vietnam an extremely important part of being in the armed forces and believe that my request is in the best interests of the Navy" 10-Feb-1968
http://www.awolbush.com/kerry-vs-bush.asp

Let's propose (bear with me here) equivalence between John Kerry's request to be sent to a war zone with Dubya's request to fly F102s. It says a lot about character that Dubya refuses to complete his assignment despite it being his 'lifelong pursuit' and Kerry elects to return home after months of combat and two awards for bravery. Here's my source - original documents:
http://www.awolbush.com/kerry-vs-bush.asp

If you don't have time for the whole site, here's a quick summary: http://www.ericblumrich.com/topgun.html

George Bush, born on third base, thought he hit a triple.

Posted by: Dave at August 19, 2004 11:24 AM

George W. Bush, "I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes."

John Kerry stayed with Swift Boat duty, even after it became the most dangerous placement. He also served TWO tours in Vietnam.

Posted by: Raven Cecil at August 25, 2004 12:29 PM

I have three close friends who were pilots in the 111th FIW when Bush was there. One was next in line for a slot in pilot training for which he had been waiting two years. "People forget," he said, "that by 1968 getting out of being a Lt. in the infantry to avoid getting killed in Vietnam was a national pasttime for American males. I don't say it was moral or immoral. It just was. And Lloyd Bentson's son got in the unit too. It was simply a matter we accepted that sons of the rich and powerful had influence and they used it to get in interceptor squadrons to fly sexy airplanes and never have to go to VN."
The few F-102s based in Vietnam and Thailand were flown by voluteer ANG pilots. They were used primarily for ceremonial flyovers, escort of VIP planes and other relatively tame duty out of harm's way. It was obsolete by the 1960s because it had such a long, misguided development program. No F-102 ever flew north of the DMZ. The statement that the F-102s "escorted B-52 raids" is absurd when used to show the fighter flew into harm's way. It flew where there was no opposition from enemy planes, no anti-aircraft defenses, and at seven miles up.
The pilots of the Palace Alert F-102 deployments included a great many career ANG officers, including several from the 111th FIS, who wanted "combat zone" time on their records for promotion purposes. No F-102 ever engaged the enemy, nor were any shot down by enemy aircraft.

I am a qualified aviation writer and historian. I am not politically aligned. The facts I quote you are in the historical record; those that are opinion come from Bush's contemporaries in his own squadron. I make no claim as to who is a coward or a war wimp, because I believe that to be a non-issue that has destroyed the dialogue of this election and has badly served this country.
One more footnote: the person who tries to make Bush a hero because it takes guts to fly fighters fails to realize, or fails to accept what the record shows and his squadron mates attest to (remember, these are my close friends and associates, not people whose quotes I take out of context from some obscure journalistic source) the fact that "George," as they call him, appeared to have bitten off more than he could chew, and in the end wound up flying the quite tame (I've flown it myself. I am not a military pilot but a private one with some jet time. Very little jet time.) T-33 trainer, a WW II and Korean War relic, though quite rightly a beloved airplane. Bush's own crew chief told me in an interview when Bush was still just the vice-president's son: "I couldn't teach that idiot to taxi the T-Bird so he could get it to the damned runway. He was just not meant to be a pilot. Nice guy, but just not a pilot." In 1986, the time I wrote that quote down in my notebook for a story in the Houston Chronicle about the crew chief, not about Bush, it meant nothing to me. Little did I know....

Posted by: T.E. Bell at September 15, 2004 07:41 PM

And of course your final assessment flies in the face of his primary instructor pilot on the 102 who rated Bush in the top 5% if 102 pilots. Guess who's assessment I'm more inclined to accept?

Posted by: McQ at September 15, 2004 07:57 PM