Senator Contradiction: Kerry's medal story is a mess.

National Review Online ^ | April 28, 2004 | Jonah Goldberg

[xsysmgr]

"Medalgate" — the inevitable name for the flap over Kerry's flip-floppery about what he did and what he said about his medals — is an amusing spectacle to behold and a story worth investigating.

It's amusing because Kerry has forced himself to offer explanations that make pretzels look straight. It's worth investigating because Kerry has made his service in Vietnam a central qualification for his presidency.

The superficial details of "Medalgate" are fairly easy to explain for anybody not determined to make Kerry sound consistent. From 1971 until about a decade later, Kerry wanted people to think he threw his medals away in protest of Vietnam.

In a 1971 interview, Kerry insisted that he "gave back, I can't remember, six, seven, eight, nine" of his medals. Around 1984, when Kerry ran for the Senate, the times changed and he wanted people to believe he kept the medals and "only" threw away the ribbons. Why? Because his union supporters in particular and voters in general were no longer enamored with the excesses of the antiwar movement.

"It's such a personal thing," he told the Washington Post in 1985. "They're my medals. I'll do what I want with them. And there shouldn't be any expectations about them. It shouldn't be a measurement of anything. People say, 'You didn't throw your medals away.' Who said I had to? And why should I? It's my business. I did not want to throw my medals away."

A decade later, he told the Boston Globe that the only reason he didn't chuck the medals was that he didn't have time to go home and get them.

And this month Kerry told the Los Angeles Times, "I never ever implied that I" threw away the medals.

Because Kerry "flooded the zone" with every possible version of events, it's impossible for him not to contradict himself. His only defense is a screaming offense.

So, he claims that anyone who questions any aspect of his Vietnam service or his anti-Vietnam service either is questioning his patriotism or is part of the "Republican attack machine," including the dyed-in-the-wool liberal producers and hosts of Good Morning America. Indeed, the first time Kerry felt the heat, he dropped his promise not to criticize Bush's National Guard service like a bag of dirt.

But the problem goes much deeper for Kerry because this mini-scandal illustrates the more fundamental contradiction at the core of Kerry's candidacy.

The "argument" (quotation marks are necessary since often it's really a sputter) from Kerry's supporters and the Democratic National Committee is that his service in Vietnam proves that he's strong on defense and qualified to be commander-in-chief. (They also suggest his service proves he is patriotic, manly, cool, sexy, and impregnable from criticism.)

The response from his critics (which in fairness often takes the form of a growl) is that whatever Kerry did in Vietnam is vitiated by his antiwar behavior and his long and detailed record of peacenickery in the Senate.

But if signing up for Vietnam proves Kerry's got the right judgment to be commander-in-chief, how come Kerry believes Vietnam was a huge mistake for America?

Think about it. Kerry and DNC chairman Terry McAuliffe have mocked Dick Cheney and other members of the Bush administration for not serving in Vietnam. But Kerry made his political career by saying that Vietnam was a moral and national-security disaster. He claims that going to fight for "a mistake" (Kerry's words) was his defining moment. Well, if Vietnam was a mistake, how does it demonstrate Kerry's good judgment?

You might fairly respond that Kerry's decision to fight was an indication not so much of his judgment as of his patriotism. O.K., though that's not always Kerry's position. Then again nothing is always Kerry's position.

Plenty of politicians in both parties want to have it both ways on Vietnam. The problem for Kerry is that he's taken such diametrically opposed and ultimately irreconcilable positions on the war.

He wants credit for fighting in what he insists was a criminal war. He even confessed that he and his comrades committed "atrocities," though he hasn't run any commercials bragging about calling his comrades war criminals.

Kerry's position is a mess. He wants credit for throwing away the symbols of his service (the ribbons) and for the service he rendered to earn those medals (which he kept, but claimed until recently he didn't). If that sounds like a contradiction, it should. Because that's what Kerry is: a walking contradiction.

[gipper81]

Medalgate bump!!!

[So Cal Rocket]

I'm waiting for him to try to explain this one:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1125665/posts

[NormsRevenge]

[OldFriend]

Well, it's no wonder he wanted to throw away that purple heart. It had bacitracin smeared all over it! Just couldn't get the stain out!!!

[SZonian]

What I find interesting is that no one has really picked up on the statement he made to Charlie Gibson about "...reaching into his shirt and taking the ribbons off his chest." One who has served knows that your ribbons are just above the left breast pocket. I can only guess that he had a shirt or jacket on over the other "shirt". Who knows.

Also, when you are awarded medals, you get a ribbon to wear on your uniform that denotes the medal you were awarded. So claiming ribbons are not medals is incorrect, some ribbons are equivelant to medals. Medals are the decorative part of the award. So Charlie was not wrong as John F'in Kerry claimed on the show, he was more than correct if the ribbons Kerry threw were the ones that denoted his medals. I still believe he threw medals, they're more symbolic. Either way, Kerry loses.

Irregardless, this guy still shamed the military with his post Vietnam conduct and slandering the countless troops who served much more honorably than he could ever dream. Not forgetting the fact that his actions endangered or even cost the lives of untold numbers who were still in Vietnam as either POW's or fighters.

Knowing that he wore the uniform and then turns it into a political tool makes me ill.

Rant off

Cheers!

[just me]

Kerry is a MESS

[BushisTheMan]

I prefer to use the term "medal toss"

[Pearls Before Swine]

My initial take on Kerry was that he was stiff and serious, but sincere and honest, if in a misguided liberal sort of way. Now that its clear he isn't honest, I sincerely believe he is a serious stiff.

[I_be_tc]

I find it interesting that none of the other VVAW members are ticked off that their brave leader chose not to toss his medals. I am waiting for some of them to complain that he lead them on and then kept his. Don't lefties hate hypocrits....oh wait, they loved the clintons.

TC

[meenie]

If Carry wasn't proud of the honor the US bestowed on him, why should we protest? Sometimes you have to recognize failure when you see it and accept it.

[SZonian]

So true!

The hypocrisy of this clown is astounding when compared to he Klintoons though, maybe that's why you always see them hanging around with Skerry and his mouthpieces! LOL!

Cheers!

[FairOpinion]

"that's what Kerry is: a walking contradiction"

That about sums it up.

The only thing Kerry is consistent is voting for tax increases and against US defense and intelligence funding.

[Octar]

What a clown. I love it.
I wonder who the Dems will nominate, a la Lautenberg.
And he folded before the first bell.
Jerk.

[Smartass]

[lainde]

BTTT

[Mike Fieschko]

What I find interesting is that no one has really picked up on the statement he made to Charlie Gibson about "...reaching into his shirt and taking the ribbons off his chest." One who has served knows that your ribbons are just above the left breast pocket. I can only guess that he had a shirt or jacket on over the other "shirt". Who knows.

I've wondered about this also: did he throw away the service and combat ribbons (which I believe you have to reach inside to remove), the ribbons to which the medals were attached, both, or what? It'd help if 'journalists' were familiar with the differences.

Next we'll hear that [whatever he threw] were his boyfriends' medals (as an emailer to Rush Wednesday wrote).

[boxerblues]

< snip >In an interview, he said that he had previously met two veterans, one from the Vietnam War and another from World War II, who had asked Kerry to return their medals to the military. Kerry said he stuffed them into his jacket.

He said that when he prepared to throw his ribbons over the fence, he reached into his jacket and pulled out the medals from those two veterans. He said his own medals remained in safekeeping.

The week's events had unquestionable impact. At the beginning of the week, a band of 800 or so Vietnam veterans gathered to protest the war, followed by Kerry's April 22 testimony, then the medal-tossing ceremony on April 23. By the following day, the publicity helped draw at least 250,000 people to the Mall in a massive protest.

PART 3 With antiwar role, high visibility By Michael Kranish, Globe Staff, 6/17/2003

[lainde]

I'm sick of them all. Gephardts "miserable failure" really rubbed me the wrong way. It seemed like Democrats created a new historical low in ugly, gutter politics. And I fear it's going to get much worse...

[Nam Vet]

I'm thinking about writing my very first vanity to address what I think of Kerry from a Vet's viewpoint. To make it short, I despise him for reopening decades old wounds that we all had to bear for years after we returned.

Nam Vet