Kerry and Bush supporters. A question for y'all.

[peachgirl]

Disgusting...

I think we disagree on an important fundamental issue.

We certainly do. I think when you publicly call someone a war criminal and make claims that are not true, you should apologize in a civil manner.

You don't.

 

[faithinkarma]

duped by someone associated with FOX?? Why wvrevy, surely you cannot be insinuating one might get misinformation from such an honest and truthful source?





"FOX's Cameron doctored a Kerry quotation to cast him as flip-flopper



FOX News Channel chief political correspondent Carl Cameron doctored a quotation by Senator John Kerry (D-MA) to cast Kerry as a flip-flopper. On the August 18 edition of Special Report with Brit Hume, Cameron showed a clip of Kerry's recent speech at the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) annual National Convention, in which Kerry criticized President George W. Bush's proposal to pull back 70,000 U.S. troops currently stationed in Europe and Asia. Cameron then contrasted Kerry's criticism with a quotation from an August 1 appearance by Kerry on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos in which, Cameron claimed, Kerry had pledged to "reduce U.S. forces in precisely the way President Bush has proposed."

From the August 18 edition of FOX News Channel's Special Report with Brit Hume:

KERRY: [in a video clip] Why are we withdrawing unilaterally 12,000 troops from the Korean peninsula at the very time that we are negotiating with North Korea, a country that really has nuclear weapons? This is clearly the wrong signal to send at the wrong time.

CAMERON: But Kerry himself suggested, less than three weeks ago, that, if he were the president, he would reduce U.S. forces in precisely the way President Bush has proposed. Quote, "I will have significant, enormous reduction in the level of troops. In the Korean Peninsula perhaps, in Europe perhaps."

But the quotation Cameron read was doctored. Cameron read two sentences from Kerry's August 1 interview on This Week as though Kerry had spoken them consecutively, omitting two intervening sentences that would have indicated the context and meaning of Kerry's remark. The full transcript of the August 1 edition of This Week shows that Kerry's call for an "enormous reduction" in troops was actually a reference to troops in Iraq, not in Europe and the Korean peninsula. Here's the full quotation, along with some context:

STEPHANOPOULOS [voice-over]: After a rain-soaked rally in Greensburg, Pennsylvania, Kerry and [Senator John] Edwards came to our ABC bus to talk about the campaign ahead, President Bush, taxes, and Iraq.

[...]

STEPHANOPOULOS: Can you promise that American troops will be home [from Iraq] by the end of your first term?

KERRY: I will have significant, enormous reduction in the level of troops. We will probably have a continued presence of some kind, certainly in the [Middle East] region. If the diplomacy that I believe can be put in place can work, I think we can significantly change the deployment of troops, not just there [Iraq] but elsewhere in the world. In the Korean peninsula perhaps, in Europe perhaps. There are great possibilities open to us.

Had Cameron read the full quotation, it would have been clear that Kerry's promise of an "enormous reduction ... in the level of troops" was an answer to a question about troop levels in a specific region. The full quotation also reveals that Kerry's proposal to "change the deployment of troops ... elsewhere in the world," including South Korea, was contingent on successful diplomacy. Indeed, this emphasis on diplomacy as a precondition for troop redeployment is consistent with Kerry's recent criticism of the Bush's proposal to withdraw troops from South Korea unilaterally rather than using possible withdrawal as a bargaining chip in the Bush administration's ongoing negotiations with North Korea."
http://mediamatters.org/items/200408200002

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Kendra17
I think we disagree on an important fundamental issue.

Yeah, you're right about that...I believe in actually READING his testimony and later comments, you believe in spinning them into saying something they don't. You're right: Big difference there

 

[Saffron]

No, I think the Swiftboat Vets are against him because of the spin that the Right is putting on his words. He says, "in a sense" he is a criminal because of the orders he followed, the ones that want to question his records and actions after the war say, "he is" a criminal because he "says he is'. When you say he is a war criminal, you say all the other Swiftboat Vets and all the others Vietnam Vets are criminals, THAT'S why the Swiftboat Vets don't like him. In my opinion, anyway.

The only difference in my opinion between the Swiftboat Vets and Kerry is that Kerry feels regret for our country being involved in the first place, and for carrying out orders that he feels were wrong, the Swiftboats don't.

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Kendra, this is truly disgusting...His ACTUAL WORDS are right in front of you, why not try reading them. He said that those soldiers admitted to committing those acts, he didn't "accuse" them of doing anything at all.

Why can't you just admit that you're either wrong, or flat out lying ? Personally, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and think that you've just been duped by too much Sean Hannity But you are just plain WRONG in virtually everything you say. READ THE ACTUAL QUOTES, don't try to spin it...READ IT.

I did read it and am not wrong. He does indeed admit to participating in war crimes:

There are all kinds of atrocities and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free-fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50-caliber machine guns which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search-and-destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare. All of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free-fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals.

That this was Meet the Press doesn't change that admission! Maybe you'll admit you are incorrect--though I tend to doubt it!

During the Senate Committee hearings, he phrased things in a way that actually excluded his own participation in other illegal activity, and talked about others' deeds. However, this does not change the fact that he stated he participated in other atrocities on other programs.

I personally didn't see personal atrocities in the sense that I saw somebody cut a head off or something like that. However, I did take part in free fire zones and I did take part in harassment interdiction fire. I did take part in search-and-destroy missions in which the houses of noncombatants were burned to the ground. And all of these, I find out later on, these acts are contrary to the Hague and Geneva Conventions and to the laws of warfare. So in that sense, anybody who took part in those, if you carry out the applications of the Nuremberg principles, is in fact guilty.

Now, since as a conservative, I think in LAYERS, there are a couple of questions regarding the Senate COmmittee testimony.

He states

They told their stories. At times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

So, if this is true, he honestly believes that many many atrocities occured, and his fellow soldiers committed these crimes for fun. Most veterans deny and find offense at these stories that Kerry claims were so rampant. So, are most veterans, again, lying? Since Kerry doesn't claim to have participated in THESE atrocities--only lesser ones---was he incorrect? Why would he choose to testify with this information in front of the Senate if it's inaccurate? Is he a bit too gullible?

And, why, if it is accurate, does he talk of his time in Viet Nam NOW as if he behaved so honorably?

How can all these scenarios exist without calling into question either his service, his accusations of others, etc? How can he speak honorably NOW about his time in "'Nam" if all these horrors were occuring on a daily basis and were accepted as the norm? Why would he accept the medals if he committed these crimes and if the war was such a mistake, and then (pretend) to throw them out citing these mistakes and crimes, but now defend that he earned them bravely?

 

[BedKnobbery2]

Originally posted by Kendra17
When I asked you if you knew what events I was referring to, you obviously did NOT.

You are absolutely right, Kendra; not being a mind-reader there is absolutely no way on God's green earth I could have had any idea what events you were refering to, because up to that point, all you'd said was "Clinton hates Carter, and I know why...don't you?" And no, I didn't know why Clinton hated Carter, because I did not know that Clinton hated Carter (and neither, as we've finally agreed, do you--although I concede that you suspect it to be so). It doesn't mean I didn't know what Carter had done in Haiti. Insofaras I knew to that point, you were going to reveal some great big love affair between Hillary and Jimmy as the source of Clinton's hatred.

 

[jrydberg]

Nah, it was just "lust in his heart"

 

[BedKnobbery2]

LOL jr.....now THAT was funny.

 

[peachgirl]

Do they hand out instructions on how to never admit you're wrong when you register as a Republican??



And we haven't even touched on the NY Times article of today that gives even more detail on the sbvt's....

<center><IMG width="200" SRC="http://irregularradio.com/lovetoomuch.gif"></center>

 

[MikeB63]

When I made the statement that Kerry admitted to war crimes, I did not say it was from his testimony before the Seante Foriegn Relations committee. I too heard an audio clip. I do not know where the clip came from (Meet the Press, Dick Cavett?). Where he made the claim is irrelevant if he himself publicly made the statement. And if the printed "transcripts" for this show are accurate, at one point he says he did not personally witness any atrocities, but then goes on to say he participated in burning villages and free-fire. Is cutting someone's head off more of an atrocities than cutting them in half with 50 cal machine gun?

After reading the transcript that Saffron provided, my hope that he will never be elected President is only intensified. The fact that I have a different take on the content is just seeing things from a different point of view. His assessment of what would happen if we removed our troops was completely wrong as history has shown.

With respect to the FOX news interview and the Kerry statements, I don't see much difference. The diplomacy he speaks of was with respect to Iraq, not Europe or Korea. The withdrawals Bush has announced have been planned for years and will not directly affect the deployment in Iraq.

 

[MikeB63]

Yeah, the NY Times with their neutral slant on life! I wouldn't expect any other type of story from them. How come they weren't right on the issue when the news of this book first came out? Could it be that they didn't want people reading it? I am still at a loss for why Kerry is not taking legal action against the authors and contributors, but is instead trying to censor the release.

 

[raider93]

Bush all the way.

Kerry =

 

[Saffron]

I personally didn't see personal atrocities in the sense that I saw somebody cut a head off or something like that. However, I did take part in free fire zones and I did take part in harassment interdiction fire. I did take part in search-and-destroy missions in which the houses of noncombatants were burned to the ground. And all of these, I find out later on, these acts are contrary to the Hague and Geneva Conventions and to the laws of warfare. So in that sense, anybody who took part in those, if you carry out the applications of the Nuremberg principles, is in fact guilty...

Mike ... Kerry said he "personally didn't see any personal atrocities", not that "he did not personally witness any atrocities". What you posted and what he said are two different things.

You made Kerry's point for him very eloquently by asking your question, "Is cutting someone's head off more of an atrocities than cutting them in half with 50 cal machine gun?" According to Kerry, if you do it against the Hague and Geneva conventions, he feels it's not.

 

[faithinkarma]

Originally posted by MikeB63
Yeah, the NY Times with their neutral slant on life! I wouldn't expect any other type of story from them. How come they weren't right on the issue when the news of this book first came out? Could it be that they didn't want people reading it? I am still at a loss for why Kerry is not taking legal action against the authors and contributors, but is instead trying to censor the release.

Perhaps.....just a suggestion here.....you might want to read the article and check its sources, before dismissing it?

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/politics/campaign/20swift.html?th

Have you heard any of the parties involved accuse the NYT of lying? No, because they don't have to. They can rely on sheeple to just dismiss it out of hand without bothering to read it. Heaven forbis anyone allow facts to get in the way of the things they "know".

 

[Laz]

Here is one of the sources I found for Kerry's interview on Meet the Press. It gives quotes from the candidates on the issues and their source. Again, take it for what it is worth and draw your own conclusions:

US soldiers committed atrocities in Vietnam, including me

Q: You've said that our policies in Vietnam are tantamount to genocide. Do you consider that you personally as a Naval officer committed atrocities in Vietnam or crimes punishable by law in this country?

A: There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search-and-destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, contrary to the Geneva Conventions, and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the US. And I believe that the men who designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, are war criminals.

Source: Interview on Meet the Press prior to Senate testimony Apr 18, 1971


On the Issues

 

[peachgirl]

he did not personally witness any atrocities, but then goes on to say he participated in burning villages and free-fire. Is cutting someone's head off more of an atrocities than cutting them in half with 50 cal machine gun?

A concept that seems to be hard to grasp here is that all atrocities are not war crimes. I don't know, but I think setting a vilage on fire is pretty atrocious, but under the right circumstances, it's not a war crime.

Simply because Kerry came to believe that certain actions were atrocities, does not make them war crimes. Even if he believed they were war crimes, it doesn't mean they are. Some people believe that abortion is murder, that doesn't mean it is.

How come they weren't right on the issue when the news of this book first came out?

This stuff has only been out for a very short time and the swifties refused to release any of their records so it takes some time to get them the hard way. They've been reporting on this all along.
And they are not the only ones reporting this.


Btw, the newest commercial is a perfect example of spreading lies and misinformation. They give clips of his testimony and conveniently leave out the part where he says that he is relating the stories told to him. They claim he is accusing them of these actions when he is simple relaying what he was told.

If what they say is true, why do they feel the need to be so deceptive?

<center><IMG width="200" SRC="http://irregularradio.com/lovetoomuch.gif"></center>

 

[faithinkarma]

speaking of sheeple:

"A Clackamas County prosecutor and decorated Vietnam veteran who appears in an ad attacking Democratic presidential contender John F. Kerry's war record said he did not witness the events in question and is relying on the accounts of his friends who served with the senator.

The 60-second ad, which aired for seven days this month in Ohio, West Virginia and Wisconsin, features 13 Vietnam veterans, including Alfred French, 58, a senior deputy district attorney in Clackamas County.

In the ad, French says: "I served with John Kerry. . . . He is lying about his record."


http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/front_page/109300303292321.xml

 

[peachgirl]

And I believe that the men who designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, are war criminals.

These are not his fellow soldiers he's talking about and it's his OPINION...not a legal fact. And, it in no way says that he believes himself to be a war criminal. As I said, even if he did, his BELIEF, his OPINION, doesn't make it a fact.

He was giving his opinons on a tv show, that's a far cry from sworn testimony in front of a congressional committee.

No matter, some on the right will never admit they're wrong no matter how many facts are sitting right in front of their faces.

<center><IMG width="200" SRC="http://irregularradio.com/lovetoomuch.gif"></center>

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by BedKnobbery2
You are absolutely right, Kendra; not being a mind-reader there is absolutely no way on God's green earth I could have had any idea what events you were refering to, because up to that point, all you'd said was "Clinton hates Carter, and I know why...don't you?" And no, I didn't know why Clinton hated Carter, because I did not know that Clinton hated Carter (and neither, as we've finally agreed, do you--although I concede that you suspect it to be so). It doesn't mean I didn't know what Carter had done in Haiti. Insofaras I knew to that point, you were going to reveal some great big love affair between Hillary and Jimmy as the source of Clinton's hatred.

You can spin this absolutely any way you see fit.

In my opinion, though, you are being deceitful and I will share my interpretation of the events that occurred which lead me to draw this conclusion.

After I was asked to explain why I had (now regrettably) stated Clinton hated Carter, I posted information regarding Carter's actions in Haiti with Cedras and Aristide, as well as some other facts regarding Bush and Bosnia. There were no conclusions at the end of these descriptions. It was only factual information regarding the parameters Clinton gave Carter concerning the "modalities of departure", what Carter did that was outside those parameters, and that he called and gave an International press conference without Clinton's prior knowledge--giving credit to the Carter Center.

In this thread, you haven't disputed these basic facts regarding Carter's ACTIONS. However, at the time--on that thread, I was asked to source THIS particular information over and over again--since none of you chose to accept the sources and accused me of using sources that were considered too conservative (although they were reputable--Frank Gaffney, Washington Post, National Review, etc., etc). You did NOT accuse them of not addressing Carter's feelings towards Clinton until VERY late in the exchange. I was OBVIOUSLY not sending you information that quoted Clinton stating his feelings, I was sending you articles (and yes, a couple of op-ed pieces that also listed DEEDS), because I was answering your challenge to source the information regarding the ACTIONS of Carter--not Clinton's feelings.

However, agaiin, in the articles I linked and sourced, not one of those sources addressed personal issues between Clinton and Carter (with the exception of a Larry King transcript that I submitted later-- very very late in the thread AFTER you mentioned you were looking for data regarding FEELINgS). You took issue with the validity of my sources, not that I hadn't proven my regrettable assertion I had made regarding Clinton's feelings.

Had you known about Carter's actual deeds regarding Haiti, I believe you would not have disputed the sources--since you are not refuting the facts in them now. I believe you would have immediately--being the logical person you are, of course--told me you wanted a quote regarding Clinton's feelings towards Carter. You did not. . .you challenged my sources regarding Carter's DEEDS.

Of course, this is my opinion based on my interpretation of events that occured. You may have an entirely different opinion based on those events. That is okay. I understand.

 

[MikeB63]

I'll admit not all atrocities are considered war crimes and I'll admit that I cannot tell you that murdering a civilian with indiscriminate gunfire is considered one. With that in mind I won't debate that issue.

As for the difference between "see" and "witness" in the above post, I cannot see the difference in the intent of the message. Is this the same as what the definition of "is" is? Besides, If you read my post, I did not quote him.