Letter from Afghanistan
I received an e-mail yesterday from a captain in the U.S. Army, currently stationed in Afghanistan. I will not reveal his unit or his name, but based on the content of the letter and the e-mail address, I believe it to be authentic. He included the usual disclaimer that these are his personal views, and in no way represent the thinking of the DoD, although his thoughts are widely shared within his organization. Inadequate as it is, Captain, I would like to thank you and your men for your service to this country. I will reproduce the letter in full.
Reference Senator Kerry's latest speech in front of National Guardsmen and women; "Right now, too many in the Guard still don't have the body armor, night vision goggles, and radios they need to do their jobs. Too many are using outdated equipment and hand-me-downs from regular forces - and they're wondering if today will be the unlucky day when something just doesn't work. That's wrong, and we have to change it."Senator Kerry is right. "Right now, too many in the Guard still don't have the body armor, night vision goggles, and radios they need to do their jobs. Too many are using outdated equipment and hand-me-downs from regular forces -- and they're wondering if today will be the unlucky day when something just doesn't work." There are too many Active Duty Units "regular forces" that don't have the right equipment either. This did not just happen over the past 4 years. If anything the past 4 years have proven the most prosperous for the military. We have finally started getting better equipment. Senator Kerry may want to reexamine his voting record before he tries to blast the President, my Commander-in-Chief.
The bill Kerry opposed did contain $300 million requested by the Pentagon to buy best-grade body armor for all troops in Iraq, and also contained additional combat pay and health benefits for reservists called to active duty.
And to think Senator Kerry had the audacity to use National Guardsmen and women as a backdrop for his own political gain. Again Senator Kerry, I do agree with your statements, "That's wrong, and we have to change it." Senator Kerry. If you are going to gain the support of our Nation's military you have to make a decision. You are either with us or against us. You can't have it both ways. Your rhetoric may be serving you well back home, but those of us serving our country, and not ourselves, see though
your smoke and mirrors.
Comments
I eagerly await seeing this show up on Snopes.com.
Posted by: No one | September 21, 2004 12:06 PM
Won't happen. Unlike CBS, I actually vet my sources. They should try it. ;-)
Posted by: Barry N. Johnson | September 21, 2004 12:10 PM
But you did forward the letter to the RNC, right? I mean, just in case the electronic voting machine scheme falls through. ;)
Posted by: Some one | September 21, 2004 08:25 PM
If you have any further questions please email me at beardd@baf.afgn.army.mil. I can not get involved in partisan politics, as it is prohibited by Army Regulation, however I will give my viewpoint if asked. Thanks.
Posted by: CPT Daniel R. Beard | September 23, 2004 12:35 AM
George Bush gave many speeches when he was running for President in 2000 where he spoke of a "military in decline." He did so before audiences of veterans and of active military. Why is it wrong for Kerry to do the same, to use those audiences as a backdrop for his own political gain? I am a little unclear here regarding a line that Kerry crossed that Bush didn't.
Posted by: PE | September 24, 2004 03:14 PM
PE. Stick to the issue. The issue is Senator Kerry voted no on a defense-spending bill for critically needed equipment. Who is he to get up in front of soldiers and tell them they don't have the right equipment and that is wrong when he voted against a bill that would authorize the spending to get this equipment into their hands? Senator Kerry is confused if he thinks the majority of the military support a man who has made it clear by his voting record that he does not support spending to purchase the equipment we need. In response to you’re off the topic remarks: In 2000 when President Bush spoke of military decline he was absolutely correct. The previous administration had gutted the military for 8 years! The President’s position was he would improve the military and he has. What not a better audience then those who he pledged to support? I personally support our President and chose to remain in service because he was elected President. I have seen it both ways. I have proudly served our Great Nation for over 10 years. The last four years have been much better than the previous eight. You can’t tell me you think it’s wrong that we don’t have the equipment we need to execute our mission if you are one of the few who have voted against the bill that has made it possible to purchase that equipment. In the same light, Senator Kerry shouldn’t use the military as a backdrop as if we support him. The majority of us don’t. Senator Kerry should quit trying to kid himself. He might want to go find some anti-war protesters. He may have better luck.
Posted by: CPT Daniel R. Beard | September 25, 2004 12:38 AM
I thank the captain for taking the time to email me directly regarding my post. I have already responded directly to his email. I now see that the same response has been posted here so I will respond here as well.
In regards to the Senator's voting record, I believe that the Republicans have grossly overstated Kerry's votes regarding defense spending over the years. A good place to check the differences is the non-partisan factcheck.org where they address the accuracy of those claims. In regards to the $87 billion vote which both Edwards and Kerry opposed, the protest was in regards to the lack of oversight regarding the reconstruction contracts, as well as a desire that at least some of the tax cut be postponed so the costs of this war not be born entirely by future generations. Now there are some Senators, such as Biden and McCain, who supported both the bill that Kerry supported, who desired more transparancy in the contract process as well as forgoing some of the tax cuts, but who also voted for the Bush Administration bill, despite its flaws, once the Republican Senate shot down the compromise. Nonetheless, I see the Kerry/Edwards protest vote (which it is what it was, given that it not impede the outcome) as honorable given the reconstruction problems that, in my view, continue today.
Whether the captain agrees with me on that point or not (and I doubt that he does), I do, however, feel that Kerry has both a right and an obligation to speak before groups of veterans and active military. While the Captain may personally believe that the criticisms of Bush in 2000 were just and that the criticisms of Kerry in 2004 are not, I still don't see the problem with Kerry speaking his views in front of active personnel. Even if 90% believe him to be full of malarkey, those who might favor him and those who are undecided need to hear him address important issues. Furthermore, he is running for commander-in-chief, therefore it is important for him to speak to these audiences even if he may not win their vote, because he may be leading them in the future. I think most Americans understand that his speaking before the military does not mean those in the audience are endorsing him in any way.
I thank the captain for his service. I don't doubt for a second that his comments are heartfelt and reflect the sentiments of many with whom he serves. However, his view is one of many that is going to influence my decision in how I am going to vote.
Posted by: PE | September 26, 2004 01:36 PM