Newsflash: Kerry Sought to Avoid Duty in Vietnam

I was suprised that some readers were surprised that John Forbes Kerry -- he who "volunteered" and said "send me" -- actually attempted to avoid service in Vietnam altogether, and, failing that, signed up with an outfit which was at the time not engaged in combat and promised to be a safe billeting.

It's true, and it's utterly uncontrovertible, which is why the media never mentions it. They can't argue against the facts, so they simply don't report the facts, and allow the suggestions of the Kerry campaign to carry the day unchecked.

DelphiGuy provides this link.

A sample:

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.

The Harvard Crimson newspaper followed a youthful Mr Kerry in Boston as he campaigned for Congress for the first time in 1970. In the course of a lengthy article, "John Kerry: A Navy Dove Runs for Congress", published on February 18, the paper reported: "When he approached his draft board for permission to study for a year in Paris, the draft board refused and Kerry decided to enlist in the Navy."

But don't expect to read about this is Douglas Brinkley's haigiography:

A newly-published biography of Sen Kerry by Douglas Brinkley, A Tour of Duty, makes no mention of the requested deferment or planned year in Paris. At the time, it was still unclear just how long America would remain in Vietnam, and it might have seemed that a year's deferral of service could render enlistment unnecessary.

And don't expect a mention from Chris Matthews, Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw, the other alte kacher on CBS (accursed be his name always), or any of the other libdweeb newstwits populating our airwaves.

Kerry's own diary and previously-published remarks admit that, in choosing the Swift Boats, he did not intend to go to war. He did not expect to go to war. He expected to be safely off the coasts of Vietnam. (The Cong & NV were not known at the time for their blue-water navy capabilities.) Like other men at the time, he chose to "volunteer" under the gun, choosing a safer area of military service than the likely assignment should he be drafted (i.e., Army infantry or Marines).

Not unlike, actually, George W. Bush of the Texas Air National Guard (or Al "Scoop" Gore, for that matter).

It turned out that the Swift Boats were then deployed into more-hazardous river patrol duties, but Kerry himself admits he wasn't expecting that when he signed up.

Again, all of this is uncontroverted. No one disputes this. But once again, the media uses its power to supress inconvenient facts to avoid any need of disputing them at all.

The hell of it is, of course, that even with all of this obvious-reluctance to go to Vietnam, John Forbes Kerry could still have had a decent story to tell-- had he told the truth. If he had forthrightly admitted he sought to avoid service, but served honorably nevertheless when he could not avoid doing so, he'd still get credit for someone who did his duty, albeit reluctantly.

The same as a million other men who did their duty-- reluctantly.

But Kerry has never wanted to actually be seen as just like "a million other men." He's never accepted the mere status as "veteran;" he's always insisted on being a war hero. Not one among a Band of Brothers, but the Noble Class among them.

He could have simply told the truth. But he lied, and he continues to lie, claiming again and again to have "volunteered" out of sheer guts and principle to defend our nation. He doesn't think the mundane truth is sexy enough, so he's concocted a Bright Shining Lie.

I'll let DelphiGuy conclude for me:

I can't blame people for not wanting to go to war, nor could I blame them for joining up so they could pick a relatively safe assignment.

I'll grant any human being that right whether it be Bush, Kerry or Clinton.
However, don't come out with self-aggrandizing speeches on the issue which belie your recorded stances and feelings on the matter.