|
You really should subscribe, but.... Here 'ya go: (shhhhhhh)
Re "Navy Records Show Positive Marks for Kerry" (news article, April 22):
So John Kerry works on a swift boat in Vietnam. He is wounded three times. He wins multiple medals. Then, decades later, somebody tries to trivialize his wounds, and that has credibility?
Working a swift boat was one of the most dangerous jobs going back then. We used to think guys deserved Silver Stars simply for getting on board. And Mr. Kerry did it repeatedly, and took hits that, if a few inches higher, could have blinded him or taken out his chest.
The Navy decides, on three occasions, to award Mr. Kerry a Purple Heart. And now it is discussed as if he had the audacity to accept them?
Purple Hearts, Bronze Stars and Silver Stars were not something we applied for in Vietnam. They were something somebody else gave to us. We had no voice in the matter. And when we received them, it was with a sense of relief — and often remorse — that we, unlike our brothers, were still alive.
To the Bush campaign: Pick a better fight.
BOB SICHTA
Miami, April 22, 2004
To the Editor:
The release of Senator John Kerry's military records (news article, April 22) brings an object lesson for President Bush's supporters: Be careful what you wish for. The nastiness and innuendo of the right-wing talk shows have resulted in a comparison that does not make Mr. Bush look good.
SARAH MEDVITZ
Orlando, Fla., April 22, 2004
snip...
To the Editor:
One of the great pastimes of American politics is the call for disclosures of one kind or another. They have become an obsession with us ("Disclosure by the Kerrys," editorial, April 22). Yet disclosures tell us very little and likely keep a lot of good people from running for office.
Senator John Kerry and every other candidate should abide by the law, but should not be required to go beyond it. Most Americans will not pore over the tax returns, medical records, school records and whatever else the disclosure-mongers want disclosed. In fact, the exercise is typically a distraction from the issues of the day.
Such disclosures rarely bring to light the real conflicts that a candidate may have or, more important, those that a candidate once in office will seek to exploit.
Mr. Kerry realizes what every candidate realizes: the call for disclosure is an invitation for the call for further disclosure and an opportunity for an opponent to distort what is disclosed. It is politics cloaked in a false ethical cloth.
BRUCE NEUMAN
East Hampton, N.Y., April 22, 2004
To the Editor:
You are wrong to insist that Teresa Heinz Kerry release her personal tax information (editorial, April 22). Mrs. Heinz Kerry has the right to her privacy because she is not a candidate. It has been decades since the feminist movement first brought forth the idea that husbands and wives are separate entities and entitled to rights and privileges of their own.
We know Mrs. Heinz Kerry is very, very rich — a lot of us use ketchup — so what would the actual figures concerning her wealth tell us about the candidacy of either Mr. Kerry or President Bush?
STEPHANIE NICHOLAS ACQUADRO
Westfield, N.J., April 22, 2004
To the Editor:
Although I believe that it was right that Senator John Kerry disclosed his exemplary military record to the public, I believe that Teresa Heinz Kerry is entitled to the same degree of confidentiality as other Americans, subject to certain legal disclosure requirements (editorial, April 22).
Mr. Kerry should insist that his wife's rights be protected. His opposition wants to use the details of Mrs. Heinz Kerry's wealth in its television attack ads, diverting the public's attention from bona fide issues. The senator is not obligated to assist the Republican attack machine at the expense of his wife's privacy rights.
ASHER FRIED
Croton-on-Hudson, N.Y., April 22, 2004
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
